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)

Monday, May 5, 2014

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 11, Number 9

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

MONDAY, MAY 5, 2014

The House met at 1:35 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Hon. T. Lake: I'd like to rise in the House today to introduce a group of students from the University of British Columbia Medical Undergraduate Society. These are the future physicians of British Columbia. Their organization represents over 1,100 medical students in the province who receive direct exposure to our medical system. They spend thousands of hours in the health care field all across the provinces. It's really great to have them here with us today, and I hope they enjoy their visit. Will the House please make these future physicians very welcome.

J. Darcy: I'd like to join the Minister of Health in welcoming the young doctors, or the doctors of tomorrow, who are here today. Several members of the opposition caucus also had the opportunity to meet with them, and they are brimming with knowledge and enthusiasm and hope for the future. They have lots of ideas for how to improve our health care system. I just want to join with the minister in saying what a wonderful opportunity it was to meet with them.

Their message was: "We want to be heard. We want to contribute to discussions about health care in British Columbia."

Welcome, also, to the undergraduate student society of young doctors, wherever they are sitting.

An Hon. Member: They're over there.

J. Darcy: There they are. Wonderful.

I would also like to take the opportunity to welcome one of my constituents from New Westminster, Jason Yelmarsen, a wonderful young man and exceptional volunteer who makes a great contribution to politics and our community. Please join me in welcoming Jason Yelmarsen to the Legislature today.

D. Horne: On behalf of the Clerk, I would like to introduce a good friend of his and colleagues: Niall Johnston, of the World Bank, and his friends Claire and Nicholas Cann, who are residents of the U.K. and visiting various parts of Canada over the next couple of weeks. May the House make them truly welcome.

L. Popham: I've got some friends visiting from Saanich South today. I have Claire Yoo, Byung Lee, Hak Sik Choi, In Sook Kim, Sang Kon Shim, Kyung Ja Kim, Woo Sik Hwang, Eun Ho Lee, Chang Ju Mun, Yeong Ho Byeon, Hyung Wook Kang and Jin Hee Lee. Welcome to the House, and thanks for having lunch with us today.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I hope the House will join me in welcoming a delegation from the B.C. Technology Industry Association, a body that is responsible for $23 billion of economic activity in this province. I'd ask the House to welcome Paul Lindahl, Michael Delage, Malcolm Mann, Arnold Leung, Warren Wall, Greg Malpass and the president of the BCTIA, Mr. Bill Tam.

M. Karagianis: I have several introductions to make today, if you'll bear with me. First of all, I'd like to welcome, from my constituency, part of our Korean delegation here today. From my own constituency, Byung Choon Lee, Chong Tong Lee, Bong Gun Park, Heon Woong Kim and Jae Im Kim.

I'd like to give them a very warm welcome.

There are so many personal close friends here in the gallery. I feel a bit giddy today, seeing them all up here. I think others will be introduced by my colleagues, but I'm going to introduce a couple of my good friends that are here who work in my office. Please give a very welcome to Jayne Ducker and Lawrence Herzog.

I'm sure all the rest of you are going to get introductions from somebody. If not, I'll stand up again.

E. Foster: I'd like to introduce a constituent of mine who's visiting in the House today: Susan Plato from Vernon. Susan has lived in Vernon for about 11 years, after visiting there on vacation for over 40 years. Susan is the grandmother of a B.C. Leg. intern, Ethan Plato. I'd have the House make her welcome.

[1340]

Madame Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition.

J. Horgan: Well, thank you, hon. Speaker. That must be me. [Applause.]

Thank you. Joining us in the gallery today as part of the Korean delegation is a constituent of mine, Myung Chung Kim. I want to welcome her to the precinct.

I have an inventory of other folks who've come today from parts west of here, in the great state of Juan de Fuca. I'd like to introduce my sister Kathy Palmer; Cate Jones; the already aforementioned Lawrence Herzog; Jayne Ducker; Kim "Irrepressible" Manton; Shannon Russell, my constituency assistant; Ravi Parmar, who helped get Belmont high school built, thanks to the good work of the Minister of Education; Lucy Mears, my part-time CA, Hans Frederiksen and his better half, Rosemary — Hans is also a part-time CA; Larry Fofonoff, the Friday volunteer guy; Sharon Wilkinson; Sheldon Kitzul; Grant McLachlan; Vikki Sweeney; a guy named — it says here — Nate Horgan, who would be my good son.
[ Page 3452 ]

Not joining us today are my gooder son Evan, who is travelling in Ontario, and the love of my life, the delightful and always overwhelming Ellie Horgan. Would the House please make them all very, very welcome.

G. Heyman: It's my pleasure to join the Minister of Technology, Innovation and Citizens' Services in welcoming Bill Tam and the other representatives of the B.C. Technology Industry Association.

The association does tremendous work assisting entrepreneurs and new businesses to get going with mentoring and coaching. They have great programs and for over 20 years have been making a tremendous impact on B.C.'s economy.

It also gives me great pleasure to introduce my constituency assistant, who's joining the member for New Westminster's constituent up in the gallery today. Jarrett Hagglund has done a tremendous job helping to get my office up and running — and, in fact, me up and running. He's a great member of the community, very active, has a great sense of humour. I notice when I return to the constituency on Fridays and talk to the constituents who come in for meetings that they never fail to be extremely complimentary about the assistance they receive from him. Will the House please join me in making all of these people very welcome.

A. Weaver: As we all know, community associations and action groups are absolutely vital in ensuring residents in our regions have their voices heard. Today in the gallery I'd like to introduce five residents from around greater Victoria who are very active in their communities.

First is Dr. Fred Haynes, who's the chair of the Saanich Community Association Network and past president of the Prospect Lake Community Association. There's also John Schmuck, president of the Quadra Cedar Hill Community Association and vice-president of the Saanich Community Association Network; Marsha Henderson, former member of Royal Oak Community Association and a member of the Sewage Treatment Action Group; Russ Smith, member of the Sewage Treatment Action Group; Shellie MacDonald, member of the Prospect Lake Community Association and member of the Sewage Treatment Action Group; and finally, Richard Atwell, director of the Sewage Treatment Action Group. I will have the honour of presenting a number of petitions on their behalf later today.

I would also like to welcome the members from the Korean community who are from my riding. It was unfortunate that I was not allowed to know the names of these people, but I do want to wish you the very best. Welcome to this House, and please come and visit my office any time.

M. Elmore: I'm very pleased that my good friend, Annette Beech, is here. Annette is a real stalwart, well known in Victoria, a leader. She's the president of the caregiver, temporary foreign workers and immigrants association.

She's joined also by Laila Pires, one of the founding members of the Bayanihan Centre here in Victoria, vice-president, currently, of the Victoria Filipino-Canadian Association; and board members Helen Schaefer, adviser of the caregivers, and Sarah Atud, board of directors of the caregiver association; joined by Jim Stanley, a supporter, and also joined by a number of temporary foreign workers working here in the Lower Mainland, joining us here. I ask everybody to please make them welcome.

[1345]

Hon. D. McRae: Across British Columbia, in communities large and small, there are volunteer firefighters who dedicate themselves to making our communities safer. They give up birthdays, holidays. They are often called out late at night. I want to say thank to them.

Today in the House I am very fortunate to have a resident from the Comox Valley. A friend of mine, John Ward has served with the Comox Valley volunteer fire department for 25 years. He is here, joined by his wife, Krista, and his daughters Stephanie and Lindsay. I would like this House to please wish John a thank-you and a welcome to this Legislature but, also, to celebrate all volunteer firefighters for the work they do in our communities.

R. Fleming: I want to join with my colleagues in welcoming some members of the Korean community of greater Victoria who are with us here in the House and who live in the constituency of Victoria–Swan Lake, my constituency. With us today we have Shin Dong Soo, Jang Eun Jin and Han Hyo Lim. I would ask the House to please make these folks most welcome here in the House this afternoon.

J. Shin: I have a series of very special introductions to make today. Firstly, we are joined in the gallery by my very good friend and a constituent, Lil Cameron. She's an election veteran, and she helped me survive my first. From women's rights to co-op housing issues, she's my favourite splash-maker in the community, standing up for us. Would the House please make her feel very welcome.

Also in the gallery are two of my biggest supporters from the Metro Vancouver Korean-Canadian community, Piwon Suk, the new president, and Sung Hwan Kim, the new vice-president of the Korean cultural society. They are organizing the 13th annual Korean Heritage Festival that will take place in Burnaby's Swangard Stadium on August 16. With the generous support of Burnaby city, I think we are expecting a great event. Would the House please make the two of them feel very welcome as well.

Lastly but not least, I do have the distinct honour today
[ Page 3453 ]
of welcoming my friends from the Victoria and Saanich area, all 34 of them joining us. In particular, I would like to introduce Rev. Raphael Hong and, Father Byung-suk Park of the Victoria Korean Catholic church. I didn't know there was a Korean Catholic church. It certainly reminded me of my catholic roots.

It is estimated there are 2,000-strong Korean-Canadians on Vancouver Island, and I won't soon forget the support that I received from the community last year.

Would the House please make my extended family feel very welcome. Of course, I'll make sure that everybody has a chance to meet our wonderful Korean delegation. We've had members from the other side, all across the floor, visiting us as well.

Hon. J. Rustad: I've just had an opportunity. My executive assistant, who just joined our ministry in August, is up in the gallery — Mark Knudsen. I wanted to have the House recognize him and to thank him for all the great work he does.

C. James: I have two constituents who are visiting the gallery today, part of the south Island Korean delegation and very active in the Korean community here: Jeong Hae Kim and Jong Hee Kim. Would the House please make them very welcome.

B. Ralston: I want to introduce a few further guests of the official opposition this afternoon. Kyung Soon Park, Hyun Ji Lee, Jae Wook Lee, Hyung Ae Kim, Sea Hyuk Hong, Jay Yoon, Mal Yong Park and Sor Ryang Jackson.

S. Simpson: I'd like the House to make welcome my partner, Cate Jones, who is here today to watch the proceedings. Please make her welcome.

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

PATHWAYS CLUBHOUSE IN RICHMOND

J. Yap: This is Mental Health Week, and I'm pleased to rise today to speak about Pathways Clubhouse, the Canadian Mental Health Association's operation in Richmond. Pathways Clubhouse offers support to people who live with mental illness. Pathways provides both youth and adults dealing with mental health issues with a stable housing environment, physical fitness, education support, employment support, social activities and a sense of community and belonging.

[1350]

It's open every day of the year. Pathways celebrates the person's strengths. Recently, Pathways participated in an independent review of the value created by the dollars received from their funders and donors. Once the review was completed, Pathways Clubhouse learned that they produced a total of $14 in societal value to their members and the larger community from every $1 that they receive.

The staff at Pathways Clubhouse understand that individuals are unique. The programs that they have created reflect that members come from various walks of life and, as a result, should have access to programs that suit their needs.

Some of the programs include the social program, the young adult program, the public education program and the Bounce Back: Reclaim Your Health program.

By creating a warm, communal and inclusive environment that embraces and celebrates members for their talents and strengths, Pathways Clubhouse gives members encouragement and the opportunity to rebuild their lives. They make a positive impact on the community of Richmond.

Madame Speaker, I know you will join me in congratulating and thanking Dave MacDonald, executive director of Pathways Clubhouse, and his team for making a positive difference in the lives of people living with mental illness.

ASIAN HERITAGE

J. Shin: For many of us British Columbians, working our chopsticks; knowing the basic readings in a few Asian languages, from ni hao to sat sri akal; drinking bubble tea; bobbing along to bhangra; and watching the latest Korean shows have become our way of life. It turns out that in 2001 Canada made the month of May Asian Heritage Month for us to indulge in doing more of exactly that and to also celebrate the long and rich history of Asian Canadians dating back to the 1700s — and also honour their incredible contributions to our country.

In British Columbia the Vancouver Asian Heritage Month Society has developed a broad and inclusive definition of Asians — from Sri Lankans to Singaporeans — to promote public understanding of Asian arts, culture and history and also create synergy and collaboration with our communities.

Just this past weekend I had the pleasure of attending their annual explorASIAN Festival with several members of this House. Now, I thought I knew my Vietnamese and Filipino culture very well, but I was blown away by their beautiful music and dance performances that I've never seen before. There I was, reminded once again: where else but in beautiful British Columbia?

This summer, on August 16, British Columbians will be able to enjoy the biggest Korean festival yet, led by Mr. Suk and Mr. Kim, who are in the House today. We expect to draw more than 50,000 people from all over B.C. to Burnaby's Swangard Stadium for the festivities. My friends in the gallery and I will certainly be there, and I hope that you will join us as well.

I would like to finish with just one last thought. Despite the difficulties and challenges that all of us as members of the House and as public servants face, I want to take this opportunity to personally express that every time I
[ Page 3454 ]
do rise in this House, I am reminded of all of the work and sacrifice paid for by generations and generations of people for me to be even able to take a seat in this House as a young Asian immigrant woman.

We still have a lot more work to do, but I'm so profoundly proud of the mosaic landscape that we see in this chamber today to represent the people of British Columbia and to be able to call such respectful people that are in this chamber my colleagues. It's an incredible privilege. On behalf of Burnaby-Lougheed, thank you.

COMMUNITY SERVICE ORGANIZATIONS
IN BRENTWOOD AREA

R. Lee: I rise in the House today to recognize four wonderful community service organizations that have moved into the Brentwood area in my riding of Burnaby North, one of the fastest-developing areas in British Columbia.

Every one of us has had times in our lives when we have needed support. These services provide the Brentwood community with interconnected services and resources that help to better support so many people's lives. Burnaby Meals on Wheels, YMCA of Greater Vancouver, MOSAIC and Burnaby Community Services are just a few of these services that I would like to recognize today.

Burnaby Meals on Wheels was formed in 1968 to promote health and independence by providing nutritious local and affordable food to people who, for physical, mental health, social or economic reasons, are unable to meet their dietary needs.

[1355]

The YMCA of Greater Vancouver also has a long history of supporting active living for families. They provide a safe space for children and youth to be engaged in and have fun.

MOSAIC has assisted new immigrants and refugees through its numerous multilingual services since 1976.

Lastly, Burnaby Community Services, founded in 1971, is known as an information centre that breaks down barriers and inspires community-building and also compassion. It is responsible for a variety of programs, including everything from Burnaby Camping to the Christmas bureau. Whether it's a toy drive, providing transportation to a senior, sending a child to a summer camp or helping people find community resources, it creates opportunities for those in need.

I would ask the House to please join me in recognizing the efforts of these four diverse and valuable community organizations.

COURAGE TO COME BACK AWARD
RECIPIENT KRIS STANBRA

K. Conroy: Thursday, May 8, the Coast Mental Health Foundation will be hosting the Courage to Come Back Awards in Vancouver. I'm looking forward to attending and watching Castlegar resident and good friend Kris Stanbra receive the award in the physical rehabilitation category.

Her story is an amazing one of courage and determination. Growing up in Castlegar, Kris was an active, athletic young girl involved in all kinds of sports. Even after graduation she continued to participate in team sports wherever she lived.

In 1978 Kris met and married Larry, the love of her life. They bought their first house and started thinking about having a family. In 1980, though, a tragic car accident changed their lives forever. Kris broke her back in two places. She was told she would never walk again, never have children and that 92 percent of marriages fail after an injury like hers.

She persevered, though, and with her family's help began the painful journey of healing. It took five years, but she went from her wheelchair to forearm crutches to a cane. She was also able to carry two children to full term. Clarke was born in May 1982 and Cole in January 1985.

She often says that she feels fortunate to have survived an accident like hers, that she was lucky enough to become strong enough to be able to pursue her dream of trying to make a difference in other people's lives — in the lives of people that may not have been as lucky as Kris.

She became a determined advocate and volunteer, active in her sons' lives and also giving back to the community, region and province in so many ways. I urge you to go to the Global website and see her detailed story and the many ways she has contributed.

Kris is not only an inspiration but an extremely positive influence on all who know her. She keeps her own mobility struggles quiet, never complaining, as she has truly accepted the things she can't change. Instead, she uses her brilliant vision and boundless energy when she takes on an advocacy role, serves on disability organization boards or volunteers on yet another project.

Kris Stanbra, married for 36 years, mother of two, walking with a cane, proving the doctors wrong — an incredible, giving, courageous woman who so deserves the Courage to Come Back Award.

ANIMAL ABUSE PREVENTION

J. Thornthwaite: April 23 was Animal Abuse Prevention Day in B.C. But as animal lovers across the province were observing the day, a troubling news story was quietly making the rounds. Three cases of animal abuse were being investigated in the southern Interior. A four-month-old German shepherd was found in a provincial park suffering from multiple pellet-gun wounds, a cat required extensive facial surgery after a pellet-gun shot to the face, and a small dog was found dead after being locked in a crate and abandoned at the end of a
[ Page 3455 ]
mountain road.

We're all familiar with images of abuse. We've seen them in print, on the web and on TV. We've seen dogs and cats crammed into tiny cages with inadequate food and water, pets beaten so badly they require surgery and animals neglected to the point of being near death.

We may not want to admit it, but animal abuse happens every day in this province. The BCSPCA investigates more than 8,000 cases of animal abuse each year, and this year they're asking for our help. On Animal Abuse Prevention Day they announced a Thunderclap social media campaign to educate British Columbians on how anyone can take action and help prevent animal abuse.

How can you help? Don't be a bystander. If you see signs of an animal in distress, report it immediately. Recognizing signs of abuse is not just important for the welfare of animals. More often than not, they aren't the only family members being abused.

I encourage every British Columbian to take a look at the "Take action for animals!" Thunderclap campaign. Learn how you can help.

[1400]

Spread the word and prevent animal abuse in our province. Perhaps one day we may earn the right to say that we truly treat them like man's best friend.

NELSON FOOD CUPBOARD AND
ACCESS TO HEALTHY FOOD

M. Mungall: People living in poverty cannot afford sufficient nutritious food. Many turn to food banks to help them meet this most basic need. This week people across Canada are increasing awareness of hunger in our communities, because many people still believe that lack of food just isn't a problem for Canadian families.

The truth is that poverty lives here too. It isn't just a problem happening somewhere else. Rather, people in our own communities, people we know, don't have enough nutritious food to eat.

The Nelson Food Cupboard has been serving the West Kootenay region for over ten years. I was one of the first managers of the little food bank that could. Back then we saw about 800 visits per month; 25 percent were children. Parents would come in, many of them single moms.

Although we kept food like cereal and granola bars aside for their kids, there was never a day in my two years there that I knew I was sending parents home with enough food for their children. Demand always outstripped supply, despite raising over $80,000 in food each year.

Today not much has changed at the Nelson Food Cupboard. People still come looking for bread and hoping for protein, fresh fruits and veggies. However, one thing has most certainly changed. This past March the little food bank that could saw 1,400 visits, up 20 percent from last year.

Food Banks Canada also reminds us that child clients at food banks are up, now at 30 percent. Families in Canada are going hungry — not by choice, not by neglect, but because poverty lives here too. Awareness of this is the beginning for making change, the beginning to making sure that everyone has enough healthy food to eat.

Oral Questions

TEMPORARY FOREIGN WORKER PROGRAM
AND EMPLOYMENT OF B.C. WORKERS

Madame Speaker: Leader of the Official Opposition. [Applause.]

J. Horgan: My colleagues and I want the record to show that the member for Kootenay East led the applause on the government side. I appreciate that very, very much.

My question is to the Minister of Jobs. Today in British Columbia 142,000 people are looking for work, and thousands more are living hand to mouth in part-time jobs. Youth unemployment is at 12 percent, and we're going into the summer season where students are going to be looking for work. Yet we've learned here in Victoria that 50 applicants for entry-level jobs at McDonald's were turned down and ignored, and instead, temporary foreign worker applications were applied for and granted.

My question to the minister responsible for jobs is: does she agree with me that that's a slap in the face to 142,000 British Columbians looking for work today?

Hon. S. Bond: First of all, I appreciate the fact that all of us in British Columbia want to be sure that British Columbians are first in line for jobs in this province. One of the things I do know is that we currently have single-digit unemployment rates across our province.

There is more work to be done, and certainly over the last number of months we've seen that the trend goes up some months and down other months. But I can assure you of this. The most important thing we can do for British Columbians is continue to look for ways to grow the economy, to make sure that people are choosing to invest in British Columbia so that we can provide the kinds of jobs that British Columbians want, need and deserve.

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

J. Horgan: Again my question is to the Minister of Jobs. Fully 50 percent of the applications for temporary foreign workers have happened on the watch of this Premier. Unemployment is higher in British Columbia than in any of the western provinces — 12 percent youth unemployment. Entry-level jobs are how young people get into the workforce. They're being denied, and those
[ Page 3456 ]
positions that are available to them are being given to temporary foreign workers.

[1405]

Fully one-quarter of the temporary foreign workers in Canada are in British Columbia. That's absolutely disproportionate to our population. If, in fact, there is a jobs plan in British Columbia, which I believe I've heard a bit about, why is it that British Columbians aren't at the front of the line getting jobs that they need to grow their families and grow their communities? Why is that, Minister?

Hon. S. Bond: As I said in my first answer to the Leader of the Opposition, obviously we want to make sure that employment rates continue to grow in the province. That's why on this side of the House we've been very clear about our agenda from day one.

We're going to make sure that we're supporting economic investment in this province, that we're looking at how we create jobs. And I have not been shy, to be very clear, about the fact that employers absolutely must pay attention to the rules, be rigorous and make sure that there are appropriate supports and measures in place.

British Columbians should come first, and not one of us on this side of the House — or anyone in this House — wants to see an employer that abuses a worker, either temporary or those who live and work here in British Columbia.

We're going to continue to focus on a plan that actually builds the economy, trains workers in this province and ensures that British Columbians come first.

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

TEMPORARY FOREIGN WORKER PROGRAM
AND SKILLS TRAINING FOR JOBS AT
SMELTER PROJECT IN KITIMAT

J. Horgan: I'm sure that the 142,000 unemployed workers in British Columbia are grateful for the minister's good wishes, but perhaps something more practical and substantial might be in order.

I would ask if the minister has taken any tangible steps. Can she table any letters, any correspondence, any indication at all that she has been in touch with the federal government and advised them of the concerns of British Columbians about how this program has gone so very much off the rails?

I also want to ask the minister…. We've known about modernization in Kitimat at the Rio Tinto smelter project for 20 years. The B.C. Liberals have been in power for 14 of those 20 years, yet now we're just revitalizing our training programs so that we can meet the needs of a growing economy. So 20 years we've known about the project in Kitimat, and just now, after 13 years in power, the government is going to do something about training.

Can the minister tell us what steps she's going to take to ensure that all of the jobs that are ready for us in the future go to British Columbians? Not just rhetoric, Minister. Show me some substance.

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, we've laid out a clear strategy since May of last year that made it very clear to British Columbians that we were going to concentrate on growing the economy by saying yes, when appropriate — not a matter of either-or when it comes to the environment or the economy.

So I am delighted. I am anxiously waiting, as is every member on this side of the House, to find out how the new Leader of the Opposition is going to stand up and tell British Columbians how they are going to learn to say yes, just once. We know this: previous to this it was no, maybe so, the Kinder surprise moment. We have seen absolutely no demonstration that the Leader of the Opposition…. I'm looking forward to it. I can hardly wait for the discussion to see if there is a plan somewhere to say yes.

We're going to say yes, and we're going to make sure that we grow the economy and bring new jobs to British Columbia.

[1410]

TEMPORARY FOREIGN WORKER PROGRAM
AND PROTECTION FOR WORKERS

M. Elmore: It's clear that this government obviously has said yes to the exponential expansion of the temporary foreign worker program, for the highest ratio in the province. As well, there is no oversight of this program, and the Labour Minister wagging her finger at employers doesn't actually deliver in terms of ensuring workers are protected.

The number of temporary foreign workers in B.C. has increased dramatically in the last ten years. During the same time the government has cut their employment standards enforcement staff by 50 percent and closed half their offices.

We've heard stories of people being abused on the job and threatened when they complain. That seems to be the only recourse for workers, to come forward with this complaint-driven process, and yet the province seems unable to take steps to protect them.

Even federal minister Jason Kenney commented on the low penalties for employers in B.C. who abuse the program. These workers are vulnerable. Their ability to stay in the country is tied to their work. If they lose their job, they have to leave the country, so they are reluctant and frightened to complain about any workplace abuses.

What has the minister done to ensure that the 70,000 temporary workers in British Columbia are not abused in the workplace because of their vulnerable position?
[ Page 3457 ]

Hon. S. Bond: Well, as I said previously, there is not a person in this House that suggests or supports the fact that when a temporary foreign worker comes to British Columbia in good faith, expecting to be cared for and treated with respect and dignity…. When they're not, of course, there need to be sanctions against employers.

We do need to remind the member opposite that while it is a federal program, we have been very supportive of the changes that Minister Kenney has made and is planning to make. In fact, we have had numerous discussions about this. On our recent trip to Ottawa, where we took investors and also First Nations and others to meet with the federal government, we made it clear that in British Columbia we expect that British Columbian workers will come first.

We also asked Minister Kenney clearly to take rigorous enforcement action when that does not occur with employers. There is a role for the province through employment standards, through support with immigrant settlement services agencies. We do provide support to temporary foreign workers, and we have made our views known very clearly to the federal government.

Madame Speaker: Vancouver-Kensington on a supplemental.

M. Elmore: I wouldn't say I'm heartened to hear that the government has had conversations with our federal counterparts. It is incumbent on this government to take action, to take responsibility. In this province there are steps that can be taken, and there are expectations for the government to deliver.

Whenever questions are asked about this program, the minister gestures to the east and says it's a federal responsibility, implying that the province is powerless to take any action. Other provinces take a different approach.

When faced with a similar crisis a few years ago, the government of Alberta thought that this was important enough to go to 12 communities in the province and talk to everybody from employers to the workers themselves in order to really understand what was going on. Of course, this government is uncomfortable talking to British Columbians, unless it's through a TV ad, a staged event or the Internet.

What is the minister doing to actually understand the economic and human problems caused by this government's laissez faire attitude towards temporary foreign workers?

Hon. S. Bond: As I've said numerous times in this House and in public, we are looking at a number of ways, including, as I've said earlier, the Alberta model, the Manitoba model. We've worked very closely with the federal government to look at how…. If an employer abuses the program, there need to be sanctions — and very serious ones.

[1415]

There does need to be some context. The member opposite uses the number 74,000 temporary foreign workers. I would respectfully ask the member opposite and her colleagues, perhaps the new Leader of the Opposition, to answer whether or not, with a rigorous program, proper protocols, there is ever a need for a temporary foreign worker to be in British Columbia.

We have worked very closely with industry, with the federal government, with First Nations and have determined that there will be periods of time in our province with economic development where they are necessary. We want to ensure that the program is rigorous, that it is appropriate and that any abuses are clamped down on immediately.

CONTRACTS FOR
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SERVICES

G. Heyman: This Liberal government entered into a 15-year contract with Hewlett-Packard Advanced Solutions for web-hosting services as well as a ten-year workstation support contract with IBM. Yet the 2013 official government price book for these services indicates that based on a typical four-year lifespan, this government is paying $158 a month or the equivalent of $7,600 for a computer we could buy at Future Shop for $800.

Taxpayers are also being billed $180 a month for web-hosting services that could be provided for $40 on a Victoria-based company's professional plan. Hon. Speaker, $9 million of the overall workstations budget each year and $21 million of the web-hosting budget could have been saved and used to offset cuts by this government to important health and education services, social assistance clawbacks and clinic closures. As programs and staff are being repeatedly cut, can the Minister of Technology, Innovation and Citizens' Services explain why $30 million is being wasted on bloated contracts with multinationals?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: It's a pleasure to have the members of the B.C. Technology Industry Association in the room for this question, because they, of course, understand that it's not a matter of going to the corner store and buying a personal computer when you're servicing 300,000 employees. There are a few other factors involved, like web-hosting, security, installation, maintenance and training, which the member opposite seems to think are unnecessary. I compliment the tech sector in this province for making this a leading-edge organization that relies on well-balanced, outsourced contracts to manage our IT services.
[ Page 3458 ]

Madame Speaker: Vancouver-Fairview on a supplemental.

G. Heyman: I understand full well that there's a range of services provided. But while he might not like my comparative-shopping skills, a 2011 Deloitte spending review conducted for his own ministry noted that the industry standard length for these contracts is three to five years. Yet these rich contracts with IBM and Hewlett-Packard are for ten and 15 years.

Deloitte said that these abnormally lengthy contracts mean taxpayers are stuck with workstation support payments that are 17 percent above the industry standard. In addition, we're on the hook for bloated web- and data-hosting contracts 59 percent higher than the industry standard. That's $30 million wasted every year.

The government certainly didn't enter into these lengthy contracts that were offered as a great deal to taxpayers. That's not the reason at all. Will the minister admit that his government has bungled its IT procurement contracts and take action to save taxpayer dollars that are needed to support families and communities throughout British Columbia?

[1420]

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The member opposite talks about his comparative shopping skills, and he does indeed need to do some homework on them. We have 99.9 percent uptime of our systems. We have robust, reliable systems that face up to 100 million viral attacks a year, which are rebuffed at a 100 percent rate.

We have a data-hosting centre in Kamloops, B.C., Canada, that we're very proud of, where our data are protected and safe and the services available to British Columbia are on 100 percent of the time. We intend to continue this enviable record of deployment of top-end IT.

M. Farnworth: Well, the Minister of Technology likes to stand in this House, and he is praising just how great everything is, so one would think that the government would have no reluctance in sharing the details of this wonderful contract. But instead, the reality is somewhat different. According to a posted freedom-of-information document, this government has wasted almost $125,000 in legal fees to fight the release of the IBM contract to the B.C. Freedom of Information and Privacy Association.

Can the minister please tell this House about this contract of which he is so proud — why the government wasted so much taxpayers' money in trying to keep it hidden?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Since the members opposite make such active use of the freedom-of-information legislation — and that is their role, their duty in our society — one would expect them to be better familiar with the rules related to FOI. When commercially sensitive information is involved in a freedom-of-information request, it is severed by professional, trained staff in the ministry who are subject to no political oversight. Their task is to administer the legislation in accordance with the act, and that's exactly what happened here.

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

M. Farnworth: The minister talks about a timely release of information? It's been a decade, trying to get that out of them.

Let's face it. The real reason it took a decade for the details of this contract to come out, a decade and $125,000 wasted, is because the deal is a bad deal, and Deloitte says so, to the tune of $30 million. Will the minister just admit that?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: There are few things more pleasurable in politics than responding to an empty question.

Interjections.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: In spite of the protests from the other side about empty questions and empty answers, what this government is working on is reaching full employment in this province through engaging this economy, building the private sector and encouraging investment. Of course, all of these are concepts that are relatively foreign to the members opposite. So we'll look forward to some leadership from the other side in making sure that there are questions posed during question period.

S. Simpson: My question is to the Minister Responsible for Core Review.

[1425]

Does the Minister Responsible for Core Review agree with the Minister of Technology that $30 million in overspending is okay? Or is he concerned about the findings of Deloitte, and will he call on the minister to do his work around the core review? Or is it okay to let this have a pass but to attack the agricultural land reserve?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I'm glad to hear that the members opposite recognize that our agricultural sector is, in fact, technologically sophisticated, moving to the future, using land to the maximum possible benefit. And it's ironic that the member opposite has decided to attack an outsourcing contract which allows this government to balance its budget, which allows this government to deploy better service throughout the public service and allows the member opposite to ask interesting questions about agriculture.
[ Page 3459 ]

CLOSING OF YOUTH CUSTODY
CENTRE IN VICTORIA

C. James: The closing of the Youth Detention Centre in Victoria is just one more example of this government making a major decision without looking at the impact. It's a mess.

The Justice Minister wants to wash her hands of the whole ordeal, despite the fact that it's her ministry that is responsible for consulting with police — specifically the part of this plan that will lead to youth being placed in adult jails. The Children and Families Minister says that they didn't want to consult with anyone — families, employers, the centre or the police — until the decision was final. Well, that's the opposite of how wise decisions are made.

To the Justice Minister, will the government put a halt to this backward decision and begin a real consultation process before determining what to do with the centre, if anything?

Hon. S. Cadieux: We have consistently had one of the lowest rates of youth custody in the country. That means that we are, as a province, operating at less than 56 percent capacity.

The closure of the Victoria Youth Custody Centre is an operational decision. It is not in the best interests of youth to have them in facilities where there are not enough youth that we can continue to provide important programming like education, vocational services, substance abuse, aboriginal liaisons and such, with such declining numbers.

It is a decision that I understand, for many on the lower Island, is troubling. Certainly, I appreciate the police chief's concern, because we certainly don't want our youth in custody in police cells for any longer than is absolutely possible. Consultation will continue with our partners before the closure.

Madame Speaker: Victoria–Beacon Hill on a supplemental.

C. James: I can tell you what's troubling. What's troubling is this minister and this government's response to troubled youth who need support. That's what's troubling.

The youth in this facility are receiving educational counselling, vocational supports. They have their family and friends close by, and the minister's solution is to send them off to Burnaby? It shows how out of touch this minister and this government are with programs for children and youth.

Despite opposition from police, from lawyers, from advocates, this government's solution to the mess is to put youth into adult jails. The Victoria police chief says: "The police department is adamant this is not an appropriate place to house young offenders." The Victoria mayor says: "It's not appropriate for youth to be in these cells."

Can the Justice Minister, who is responsible for this, explain why she thinks it's appropriate to put vulnerable kids into adult jails and why her ministry didn't consult with the police?

[1430]

Hon. S. Cadieux: The reality that British Columbia has seen a 65 percent decline in the number of youth in custody is a success. We have had that success because of our outstanding restorative justice programs and alternatives to custody programs in the province of British Columbia.

It is not sustainable or responsible to continue to fund overresourced facilities for a continually declining number of youth when we can provide better services and programming when we have adequate numbers of youth in a facility.

M. Karagianis: I hear that the Minister of Children and Families is admitting that youth are going to have to go in with adults. My question is specifically to the Justice Minister.

Sgt. Steve Eassie of the Saanich police department says: "If an adult offender was banging or yelling a young person would hear them if they were housed in the Saanich department's cells." That is in fact in contravention of the Youth Criminal Justice Act, which makes it very clear that youth must be kept separate and apart from any adult. The courts have repeatedly ruled that that means out of sight and out of sound.

Now, this decision to close this facility was made at the cabinet table. I'd like the Justice Minister to tell us: did she ensure that this decision complies with the current law?

Hon. S. Cadieux: As I have stated repeatedly, we don't want our youth in police custody any longer than is absolutely possible. The declining numbers in youth custody are not unique to British Columbia, although we tend to lead. These are challenges that are faced across the country.

We, at the current time, have three youth justice facilities in the province, which means that if a youth is in conflict with the law in Burnaby or in Prince George or in Victoria, there is an immediate location for them to be housed. If that youth is in conflict with the law in Terrace or Kamloops or Kelowna or Fort Nelson, it is the practice and has been for some time that they will be held temporarily in police custody until arrangements can be made to transfer them to the youth facilities, which is done successfully around the province.

We are continuing to have discussions with our partners in the justice system in the Victoria area. I expect we will be able to find a solution.
[ Page 3460 ]

[End of question period.]

N. Simons: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

N. Simons: In the House today there are a number of youngsters with their parent teachers from school district 46, the SPIDER home school program. They're a lovely bunch of kids and lovely parents as well. I would ask the House to join me in welcoming them here.

Petitions

A. Weaver: I rise today to table three petitions, the first from the Sewage Treatment Action Group, the second from the sewage coalition and the third from the Prospect Lake District Community Association. All of them are residents of the capital regional district, calling for a pause and review of the proposed sewage treatment plant here in the CRD.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members will come to order.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply — for the information of members, the Ministry of Social Development continues. In this chamber, committee stage of Bill 10, to be followed thereafter by committee stage of Bill 27.

[1435]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 10 — PENSION BENEFITS
STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT, 2014

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 10; R. Chouhan in the chair.

The committee met at 2:38 p.m.

On section 1.

M. Farnworth: In section 1 we're talking about actuarial excess, commuted value and defined contribution provisions. Also, the definition of a "designated beneficiary" now includes a person that's designated by the surviving spouse of the member in the pension plan. This enables the spouse of a deceased pension plan member to designate a beneficiary for the surviving spouse's benefit.

As I understand this, this would be if, for example, the individual receiving the pension passes away. There's a surviving spouse who gets the pension rights associated with the plan, and when that individual passes away, there may well be the opportunity to designate another beneficiary.

Does the secondary beneficiary have to be approved by the person who had the original plan? For example, the original individual — can you give pension survivor benefits to somebody that they don't approve of?

Hon. M. de Jong: I'm advised the answer is no.

M. Farnworth: So the surviving…. They would have to have, ahead of time, any agreement with the original pension plan receiver?

[1440]

Hon. M. de Jong: I was just confirming with our learned staff, because these are always very technical issues around pensions.

In the case of the secondary designation that I believe the member was referring to, it would not be necessary for the person making that designation to have received the prior approval for someone who, in that circumstance, is probably deceased.

Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

On section 4.

M. Farnworth: This section is pretty straightforward. It does make a correction, and it means the superintendent can refuse or may refuse to register an amendment to the planned text if the amendment "does not comply with this Act or the regulations" rather than the act and the regulations.

My question to the minister: are there circumstances where this has happened? If so, does it happen very often? Do you have a number on the number of times it may have happened?

Hon. M. de Jong: I think the short answer is that the amendment purports to fix a problem that has been identified but has never been acted upon.

I am further advised that in 20 years there has only been one instance where the superintendent declined to register, but it wasn't for the reasons dealt with here. The amendment wants to make it clear that a plan must comply with both the act and the regulations.

Sections 4 to 11 inclusive approved.

On section 12.

M. Farnworth: This section allows for "prescribed
[ Page 3461 ]
surplus in a solvency reserve account to be withdrawn in circumstances set out in regulation." Can the minister explain how these solvency reserve accounts are intended to work, what the current situation is in the province of British Columbia and how this particular section has come into being — what has triggered it?

[1445]

Hon. M. de Jong: The concept of the solvency reserve account derives from legislation tabled a couple of years ago. There are as yet no solvency reserve accounts in operation. The expectation is that through the passage of this legislation and its proclamation, that will occur.

The account allows…. The notion behind a solvency reserve account is to permit employers — and this is specifically employers — in plans that are fully funded with respect to a hypothetical windup or solvency basis to access a solvency surplus.

The idea, the motivation for this is to encourage employers to build up excesses in plans. Again, the concept is that they will be more likely or prepared to do that if there is a mechanism to withdraw that and if the capital doesn't become trapped there. That is the notion behind the concept. As yet there are none. I am advised there are none operating in B.C.

M. Farnworth: Given that there may not be any operating in B.C., clearly, with this section there is an expectation that there will be SRAs operating in the province, and the regulations need to be in place. Can the minister give an example of the kinds of plans that would be covered by the changes anticipated in this particular section?

Hon. M. de Jong: I am advised that it would likely impact…. It's more or less restricted to a traditional single-employer defined benefit plan.

M. Farnworth: That would be the traditional defined benefit plan in either the public or the private sector.

If that's correct, my next question would be in terms of how this was developed. It was developed, I guess, in concert with or following on what's taken place in Alberta. There was the pension standards committee that did the original report. What was the makeup of the committee? Who was involved in that exercise?

Hon. M. de Jong: The first thing — I don't want to gloss over it. The member began by asking about the distinction between public and private. I am advised that the relevance of these provisions is restricted to private sector plans.

[1450]

With respect to the committee that was undertaking the work, both British Columbia and Alberta had a group of three — a lawyer familiar with pension statutes, a plan administrator and a labour representative. There were three from B.C. and three from Alberta, from those areas.

M. Farnworth: I expect, given that the private sector defined-benefit pension plans are, in fact, administered by a union, they would also be.... It strikes me, then, that this section has got the support of both labour and the employer side for putting into the pension plan?

Hon. M. de Jong: We are not aware of any concerns on the part of labour, and the consensus seems to be that because it encourages additional investment into the plan, it's actually something that would be welcomed.

M. Farnworth: That's my understanding as well. In terms of the regulations that are required, when is it expected that the regulations will be in place once this piece of legislation is in fact passed?

Hon. M. de Jong: The target is for the regs to be in place before the end of the calendar year.

M. Farnworth: Is the minister anticipating any sort of discussion or consultation involving the formation of the regulations, or is it primarily going to be based on the report that was done by the pension standards expert committee?

Hon. M. de Jong: As the member correctly surmises, the work between now and its completion is ongoing. There is an advisory group that has been in place, remains in place — lawyers, plan administrators, actuaries, an exciting group of experts in the technical matters of pensions.

These are very, very important matters for the long-term health of families and employees. That group is in place from both B.C. and Alberta.

The question I thought I might anticipate from the member is: does that continue to include representation from organized labour? I'm advised that it does.

Sections 12 to 26 inclusive approved.

On section 27.

M. Farnworth: In this section, section 80, these changes make it easier for a member's spouse to receive their pension after the member's death. Obviously, there are some improvements here. Can the minister explain how, with the passage of this, it would be different from what is in place now?

[1455]

Hon. M. de Jong: Here in, hopefully, accurate language and language most of us can understand is what's trying to be achieved. There are circumstances, depending on the nature of a plan, where a plan member can make de-
[ Page 3462 ]
cisions about what they are going to receive as a pension. Sometimes that involves spousal entitlements.

A spouse can consent to certain things happening which may result in the member receiving a larger pension, but the trade-off for receiving the larger pension is a surrender of some survivor benefits or spousal benefits. That obviously engages the rights of the spouse.

The section in its entirety talks about how to obtain the consent of that spouse, and most particularly the change relates to the time and the timing around which the spouse provides that consent. Whereas it was previously not more than 90 days before the member's pension commencement date — and I'd better make sure I get this right — the new requirement is that the consent was signed by the spouse not more than 90 days before the member's pension commencement date. That's the significant change there.

Then the second change relates to a waiver of death benefits, which in the new construct must be signed before the member's death, the principle being that rights can only be waived while they still exist. After the member's death, the death benefits will have been transferred to the person entitled to them.

[1500]

The other feature to this is delivery of that waiver to the administrator can occur after the member's death. But the signing must take place prior to death.

M. Farnworth: I have a question for the minister. This may be the wrong section, in fact, to ask it, and if it is, that's fine.

I'd like to use an example. One of the contentious issues when a relationship breaks down is the issue of division of assets and, in particular, the division of the pension assets. Yet we know in many cases…. There are numerous examples of the relationship breaking down and, particularly if it has been an abusive relationship where the one party, invariably a woman, wants out of the relationship under any circumstances and is not thinking, you know, ten years down the road that the pension asset is…. They have been together, let's say, 20 years. They have a stake in that, but they want out, and quite often the agreement is not a fair agreement.

Would this section impact that spouse's rights to actually get what, in reality, really is hers by virtue of a relationship, of having been together for, let's say, 20 years, for example?

Hon. M. de Jong: First of all, I agree absolutely with the member about where these issues tend to arrive in terms of the breakdown in a relationship. What I wanted to also, though, provide a candid and hopefully accurate response to is: to what extent does this statutory instrument provide additional protection, or protection, where there is a desire to dissolve the relationship or there might be intimidation, abuse even?

I think it is, though, to be as fair and accurate as I can…. While this legislation governs the operation of plans and the circumstances in which entitlements might arise or change depending on consensus, it's probably the Family Law Act, and dealing specifically with the division of assets and division of pensions, where those protections exist.

M. Farnworth: I appreciate the minister's answer. As I said, I wasn't sure this was appropriate, but I just wanted to make sure whether or not this section had an impact on the Family Law Act. I appreciate the minister's response, and we can move on to the next section.

Section 27 approved.

On section 28.

M. Farnworth: This particular section, section 28, is, I guess, one of the more important changes in this particular piece of legislation, in that it allows for the transfer of pension plan assets to purchase an annuity from an insurance company and thereby move some of the risk from the plan to an insurance company. It's not something that's been done, as a rule, here in B.C., but it is done in other jurisdictions in the U.S. and the U.K.

[1505]

Can the minister explain how this is going to work, the impact that they expect that it will have, if any, and how this particular section has come about?

Hon. M. de Jong: A couple things. First of all, the option that this creates is one that the plan by the trustees would decide whether or not to exercise. I'm advised by the very capable staff joining us that, in fact, recently this was done in British Columbia. It has certainly not been overly common, but there was a significant bulk annuity purchase, so it seems plans are identifying this as an option.

I'm advised that for members of some plans, particularly smaller, single-employer plans, receiving annuity payments may actually be less risky than receiving pensions. That diminishment of risk derives from the fact that insurance companies must comply, for example, with minimum capital requirements.

Their annuities are guaranteed by the Canadian Life and Health Insurance Compensation Corporation so that, with respect to the annuities and the operation of the insurance companies, there's a whole host of built-in safeguards that will provide some additional securities.

The trade-off, of course — and the rationale for the section — is pension plans by their trustees are far more likely to explore that option on behalf of members if the plan's liability to those members is removed after the purchase, subject to all of the appropriate requirements having been met.
[ Page 3463 ]

M. Farnworth: In terms of an annuity and the plan, if it's under a defined-benefit pension plan…. Let's say the defined benefit is that you're going to get $1,000 a month, and it's inflation-protected, so it changes each year. Under most annuities, though, you give, let's say, $100,000, and you get, for the sake of argument, 500 bucks a month until age 92 or whatever the term of the annuity is.

Will they be required to have an annuity that is, in fact, inflation-protected? If you're to have the same benefits, then one would think that if the plan is purchasing an annuity, it means obligations that that annuity would also have to be inflation-protected. Is that the case?

[1510]

Hon. M. de Jong: I am advised the answer is yes, the term being the same form and manner as the pension plan.

M. Farnworth: This proposed change is not, then, a change that is going to be intended or can be used in a way to say: "Okay, we have a pension plan. We're not particularly happy with the pension plan, so we're going to go to an annuity." Yes, it deals with the risk issue, but it's also not an opportunity to get out of obligations or to lessen or decrease benefits that are already existing in the plan.

Hon. M. de Jong: I and those who advise me would all agree with that statement.

M. Farnworth: In terms of how this has developed, did it come out of the experts' report on pension plan standards that was done a few years ago, which the other changes have come out of? Where did this change originate from?

Hon. M. de Jong: I am advised that this particular issue came up in the course of discussions between B.C. and Alberta and really emerged in response to discussions that focused on some of the practical challenges facing plans and ensuring practical challenges that relate to ensuring the ongoing operation viability in minimizing the risk to plan members in developing some options that plans could avail themselves of.

M. Farnworth: Will this particular section require additional regulations to bring it into force, or is it going to come into force as is, when the piece of legislation is passed?

The second question to that would be: if so, what is the anticipated timeline for the development of the regulations, and is there work that has been underway?

The third part of that will be: who's involved with the regulations from employers and from labour's side?

Hon. M. de Jong: It's the same group as I mentioned earlier.

Yes, certainly, additional regulations are required.

Secondly, work is being undertaken by the same group, with the addition of at least one major insurance company in Canada.

Thirdly, the same timeline — by the end of the calendar year.

Section 28 approved.

On section 29.

M. Farnworth: Just on this particular section…. This removes the time limit on records that may be required of the administrator by the superintendent after the termination of a pension plan. I take it, then, that with this section the time limit required on the records is indefinite or for as long, I guess, as the pension plan members are receiving benefits. What is the current time limit?

Hon. M. de Jong: I think it's fair to say that this amendment represents a change of thought on the part, ultimately, I suppose, of the government.

[1515]

There is presently no prescribed time frame. It never operationalized to that extent. But the idea is that when there is a termination of a pension plan, the superintendent will, perhaps, likely require certain documentation.

In its present form, the act contemplates, as the member pointed out, that following termination of a plan, the superintendent would have X number of days, weeks or months to gather the information necessary. Upon reflection, the government believes a preferred approach is that there be no limitation on the ability of the superintendent, following termination of a plan, to gather that information. He or she should have the right to do so and not be restricted by a limitation period.

Sections 29 to 37 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. M. de Jong: First, may I thank Marcus Gill, Michael Peters and Cynthia Callahan-Maureen for their assistance to us during these debates — and the hon. member, of course.

I move that the committee rise to report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 3:17 p.m.

The House resumed; Madame Speaker in the chair.
[ Page 3464 ]

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

BILL 10 — PENSION BENEFITS
STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT, 2014

Bill 10, Pension Benefits Standards Amendment Act, 2014, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. M. de Jong: I call committee stage debate on Bill 27, The Cultus Lake Park Amendment Act, 2014.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 27 — THE CULTUS LAKE PARK
AMENDMENT ACT, 2014

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 27; R. Chouhan in the chair.

The committee met at 3:19 p.m.

On section 1.

S. Robinson: I have a question for the minister. I'm very interested to just note for the record: who or what body initiated this change and for what purpose?

[1520]

Hon. C. Oakes: We received a letter from the city of Chilliwack requesting we look at that. As well, a petition was tabled in the House by the MLA, with over 900 area residents requesting this.

S. Robinson: Can the minister provide us with the timeline about when this letter was received and when the petition was tabled?

Hon. C. Oakes: The petition was tabled in the House in July of 2013, and the letter coming from the city of Chilliwack came in March.

S. Robinson: I just want to clarify — March of 2013 or March of 2014?

Hon. C. Oakes: In 2014.

Sections 1 to 6 inclusive approved.

On section 7.

S. Robinson: I just wanted to make note of when this will come into force. If the minister could tell us, that would be great.

Hon. C. Oakes: This act will come into force by regulation of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council and will be in effect for local government elections of 2014.

L. Throness: I just want to make a few remarks to the bill as the MLA who's principally concerned with the bill. If the minister has comments, she can make them.

First of all, I simply want to point out that the bill is already doing its work of accountability. Last year in July I tabled a petition of some 926 names. The Cultus Lake Park Board passed a resolution opposing the petition, but this year, when Bill 27 was tabled in the House, the board saw the writing on the wall, and they passed a resolution supporting the bill, which had supported the petition. So they reversed their former position.

I think that's the beauty of accountability. It shows that the bill is already doing its work even before it's passed. I want to thank the members of the Cultus Lake Park Board for doing that. It shows that the democratic incentives are now in place for them to do that, so I very much appreciate what they've done.

I also want to report to the House that I attended and spoke to a spring general meeting of the Cultus Lake Community Association about two weeks ago, and they expressed their appreciation to the government and to the minister for this bill, so I want to pass along their thanks as well. I want to thank the minister and her staff in her office, as well as the ministry staff who've been so accommodating and worked so hard to bring this forward. I also want to thank the official opposition.

The Chair: Member, on section 7 of the bill. Are you speaking on section 7 of the bill?

L. Throness: I asked if the minister would like to comment. I'm just finishing my comments now. Is that all right?

The Chair: You can ask the question. If she would accept it or not…. That's up to you.

L. Throness: Okay. Perhaps, then, I could just say that I would be happy to cooperate on future governance improvements in my riding with the minister and ask if she has any further comments on this section.

Hon. C. Oakes: It's always encouraging when we can look at governance and help communities with that. I would like to thank the member for bringing this forward. It's great to see a petition that comes forward actually get implemented into a bill.

Sections 7 and 8 approved.

Title approved.
[ Page 3465 ]

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

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 3:25 p.m.

The House resumed; Madame Speaker in the chair.

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

BILL 27 — THE CULTUS LAKE PARK
AMENDMENT ACT, 2014

Bill 27, The Cultus Lake Park Amendment Act, 2014, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. M. de Jong: I call continued second reading debate on Bill 2, the Electoral Boundaries Commission Amendment Act, 2014.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 2 — ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES
COMMISSION AMENDMENT ACT, 2014

(continued)

S. Hammell: I'm pleased to again rise and join the debate on Bill 2, the Electoral Boundaries Commission Amendment Act. I was speaking on this bill the last time it came to this House, and I'm pleased to be able to conclude my remarks.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

As I said prior, I have two major concerns about this bill. One is the need to preserve the independence of the Electoral Boundaries Commission and, in fact, avoid a conflict of interest by all of us who think that it is our place to direct the Electoral Boundaries Commission.

The second is to support the principle of representation by population unless special circumstances can justify a discrepancy. And then the rule of thumb: if it goes over plus or minus 25, there must be some very special circumstances.

This is a position that has been supported by the Supreme Court of Canada. I can quote their last judgment on this, and I'll do so. "Notwithstanding the challenges posed by our province's unique geography, demography and transportation circumstances, we believe we should exceed that limit and resort to the 'very special circumstances' legislation provision only in truly exceptional or extraordinary circumstances." We think that doing anything else or to do otherwise would debase the meaning of "very special."

I'll move to my concerns around the first issue that I'd like to speak about. As I mentioned prior, but it can bear repeating, in this House we are very, very aware of the need to avoid being in or being perceived as being in a conflict of interest. To protect us, we have a conflict-of-interest act that itemizes clearly what we can and can't do, and we have a Conflict of Interest Commissioner.

[1530]

The taxpayers pay that commissioner to ensure that there is someone who is always backstopping decisions made by members in this House so that we can have a second set of eyes looking over decisions we make to ensure that we are not only accountable to ourselves and our caucuses but accountable to the people of British Columbia and that we are truly outside of a conflict of interest.

In that spirit, we disclose our assets yearly. We not only understand that we must tell people we're not in a conflict but we also must show it. We go to this lengthy process of disclosing our assets. We put that disclosure with the Conflict of Interest Commissioner, and then he proceeds to make that disclosure public.

When it comes to a conflict of interest, as I said before in this House, I don't see any decision in this place that has more direct effect on the interests of every single member of this House than the electoral boundary decisions. Every one of those decisions either directly affects us personally or our members personally.

I understand that we need and want to be part of a decision-making process that affects us directly. But that is why we have selected an independent boundary commission. Every eight years an independent boundary commission reviews the constituency boundaries and names in B.C. This ensures that the constituency boundaries keep pace with population change.

Every eight years we are engaged in this process, and every eight years there is the possibility of having those boundaries gerrymandered. In the past we have managed to get through this process with an independent commissioner and commission overseeing the process and reporting to us directly. Never before have we had the restrictions that we've seen fall before this House that have come with this bill.

The Legislative Assembly reviews the commission's proposals. So an independent commission puts a proposal in front of this House, and before it is passed into law, it is reviewed and we vote on it. We vote to approve or reject the recommendations made by the independent boundary commission process. If the commission's proposals are approved or approved with alterations, the government is then required to bring those recommendations in through a bill.

We are this time putting the cart in front of the horse. What we are doing is amazing. We are directing the boundaries commission to freeze portions of our prov-
[ Page 3466 ]
ince and say that these boundaries can be changed within but not without.

This year an electoral boundary commission will be appointed by May 14, so I understand why this bill is back in front of the House — because the clock is ticking. Once that commission is in place — and, as I understand it, there has to be consultation with the Leader of the Opposition — then the commission will have 12 months to produce a report. Then that report becomes public.

Then it has six months to produce a final report, which may amend the proposals of the first report. Then the recommendations that come to the House and are voted on in this House will take effect before the 2017 election.

The commission will consist of the three appointments — a judge or a retired judge of the B.C. Supreme Court or the B.C. Court of Appeal nominated by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council; a person who is not a member of the Legislative Assembly or an employee of the government nominated by the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly after consultation with the Premier and the Leader of the Official Opposition; and the Chief Electoral Officer appointed under the Election Act.

[1535]

There is a great deal of protection for us from getting into the middle of a conflict of interest. As soon as we poke our fingers into this situation, then we will more than likely create a mess, because we have a very clear interest in exactly where the boundaries are that affect us. As I said last time, nobody in the province cares more about your constituency than you do.

I would go as far as suggesting that most people don't even know where the boundaries of the constituency they live in lie. Most people, really, have more to do with their day. They're busy looking after their families. They're looking after their children. They really, much as it may be a surprise to all of us, don't even think about us. In fact, if they think about us, often they think about us in the wrong place. I remember one of our members said a very strong supporter of his saw him on the street and asked him how everything was going in Ottawa. He had just been voted in, not too long ago, as the MLA for one of our constituencies.

As much as it moves us and is good in terms of our ego — I know that some of the ministers on the other side had a lot of trouble with me when I said this last time — most of them don't even know our names. I remember very clearly doing a bit of a poll one time after I was elected, in the beginning, and the very strong response was: "Sue who?" People didn't know who their MLA….

Interjection.

S. Hammell: Oh yeah, I'm sure they know now. In fact, more people move in and out of our constituencies than we even tend to believe. Not only do they not know who they voted for or don't really remember or what level of government they voted for, often they voted somewhere else in the last election and only have made the move to a new constituency and haven't got a clue who their MLA is.

But we sure know. If anyone says to me, "I live in Surrey," I say: "Where do you live?" I know precisely where my boundaries are. I know whether that person lives in or out of my constituency. It's just in my best interest to know who is inside my constituency and who isn't. I would suggest that most of us take this kind of fond approach to those people who do live within our constituencies. We may do that to our constituents, but I'm not sure that the love and care is quite as reciprocal when it comes to them caring a lot about what we do and what we do every minute of the day.

I think most constituents — and it certainly is my experience — if they do know who you are and that you might be their constituency, certainty don't know where your office is. Most of the time they will be quite sort of pleasantly surprised that it may be within range of where they live and that if they ever might need it under some circumstances would be able to approach you.

The point I'm making is that our interest in our constituents and our boundaries and our poll boundaries are much more intense than our constituents and their interest in us. Of course, they are quite interested if we do something they don't approve of, but I don't really think they are that concerned about the boundary and whether it moves here or there. I do think we could get those constituents interested in the principle of fairness when it comes to redistribution.

[1540]

But going back to the conflict, I think we as MLAs, people who are elected by our constituents to this place, really have no business determining where the boundaries sit.

I think it's fair enough that we can discuss principles. Like, there is the principle of plus or minus 25 percent in terms of representation. But we have a very, very clear interest in being re-elected, if we are choosing to run. It is, therefore, much more of an interest for us where those boundaries lie. My suspicion is that if you move the boundary here or there, most people would know whether that was a progressive move in terms of your position or some other move.

I think there's a basic, fundamental conflict of interest when we as legislators get involved in determining the boundaries through which the electoral map is drawn. There's no way that this pursuit should continue, because it's a political decision by a House full of politicians who are being driven by their own self-interest — especially when we have, very clearly, the makings of an independent commission and highly skilled and qualified people who can make a decision based on principles that would, in fact, guide the development and the redistribution of the boundaries within our province.
[ Page 3467 ]

I don't think the commission needs our interference. They are just not consumed by the self-interest that we have. They, if left alone, will produce a map through consultation with the people who, in essence, own the democracy of their own province. This bill, on principle alone, should be defeated.

Every government has, I think, struggled with the whole issue of representation by population. The second thing I think we need to support in this House is the principle of representation by population unless under very, very special circumstances, and only under those special circumstances can we justify a discrepancy. This position is supported by the Supreme Court of Canada.

Every single government, I think, in this country has struggled with this principle when they come to the point in their term or cycle where there needs to be redistribution. Obviously, there is a huge discrepancy in our country when it comes to population. When the urban population settles down, to a large extent, along a long strip.... It used to be about 100 miles from the U.S. border. Most of the population sort of snuggles down in that area, across the country. The resulting consequence of that is hugely sparse areas — sparse in terms of population and large in terms of wilderness. These are our northern regions.

It is clearly a challenge to make sure that the representation in the south of the province is full and robust as well as the representation in the north. Maintaining representation in regions with small, diverse populations is difficult because of the underlying principle of representation by population — the recommendation that it can't move between plus or minus 25 percent.

[1545]

Redistribution has always been fraught. It's always a difficult task fraught by conflict, emotion. Sometimes people are quite traumatized by the redistribution or the adjustment of boundary. Again, that trauma comes from our personal interest.

Where I take exception to the legislation that's in front of us is that the government has chosen to freeze 20 percent of the constituencies in three clusters. I think probably that's unprecedented. These protected constituencies will have an average population of 35,000 plus — those are the protected areas, the protected constituencies — where unprotected areas will have a population of 55,000 plus.

Now, I have one of the unprotected areas. I do imagine those numbers will increase. The numbers of population will increase in size in terms of those unprotected areas. If you compare the power of the vote or the power of the person in voting, the person in the protected area…. Their vote will be 1.5 times more powerful than the unprotected regions. I think you try to avoid that unless absolutely forced into that.

Moving away that dramatically — taking 17 seats out of 85 and saying that they can deviate from the plus or minus 25 percent rule — is actually outrageous. There is no justification of very special circumstances that would allow for this kind of deviation.

It takes a reasonable idea, an idea that says that under very special circumstances and under difficult ways of finding another solution, we will, when forced to or when there's a good compelling reason, deviate from the plus or minus 25. But we don't do that. We take 20 percent of our seats and just throw them into this area and say: "That's great. That's okay." So 20 percent or 17 seats will be allowed to move up and down this continuum.

I've listened very carefully to the Attorney General. Her reason was because these seats are sparsely populated. "Sparsely populated" is a very interesting way of talking about them, because it's hard to believe that Kamloops, sitting as the 11th-highest populated city, can be considered sparse in terms of population. Kamloops has 85,000-plus people — Kamloops south — and somehow it's lumped into a sparsely populated region that can then be moved around in terms of boundaries.

I just think this is poorly thought through. For one thing, we shouldn't be doing it. For the second reason, what we're doing is completely ignoring or moving away from a fundamental principle that's been tried and tested throughout this province — not only in British Columbia but in Saskatchewan, in Alberta, in the Maritimes, in Quebec.

[1550]

There is a kind of convention, supported by the Supreme Court, that deviations are allowed, but there's a limit. There's an absolute limit unless there's some outstanding and very special circumstance that drives you to this place.

Not that I think this is a particularly important point, but it is remarkable that all these….

Deputy Speaker: Member, are you designated speaker?

S. Hammell: No, I'm not, Hon. Speaker.

Am I finished?

Deputy Speaker: Not yet. One more minute.

S. Hammell: Okay. Well, I'll just wrap up then.

I think what I've said is that there are two principles through which I'm opposing this bill. One of them is I just don't think we should be doing this. This is not our job. That's why we have an independent commissioner and commission that will look at this and do it without us getting involved in our own particular conflict of interest. I think it also flies in the face of a well-founded principle of plus or minus 25 percent.

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, there is something the previous speaker said that I can certainly agree with. These
[ Page 3468 ]
processes of redistribution that come along from time to time certainly do engage the attention, at a minimum, of the politicians who are involved. I suppose that's natural, and that's something that we have seen repeatedly in the past.

To place the discussion the House has been having in some kind of context, in a few days a commission will be appointed. There's a process in the legislation for doing that that actually engages the government, the official opposition's speaker and the Chief Electoral Officer. I think that it has proven, over a few rounds of this, to work reasonably well — the notion being to depoliticize to the greatest extent possible the process of analyzing where political boundaries are.

I would say the journey that this bill has followed through this session has been a little bit unusual. It's Bill 2. It was introduced very early in the session. We began the debate. With apologies to the member for Surrey–Green Timbers, I think she started her comments about a month-and-a-half ago and was interrupted and picked them up today.

It probably bears discussing with the House for a moment the reason for the delay. The reason, very candidly, relates to the fact that I and the government, and the Attorney, believe that it is far preferable on matters such as this to try to arrive at a consensus and have before the House a legislative instrument that all members or the vast majority of members are comfortable with and that the House does not divide along party lines with respect to this sort of matter.

Discussions took place — I say both for the government and, I really have no hesitation saying, for the opposition — in good faith to see whether or not the philosophical differences that have emerged about the approach that Bill 2 purports to take could be bridged and we could arrive at something that would attract a greater measure of bipartisan support.

In some instances in the past we have been successful at achieving that kind of consensus. Regrettably, in this instance, we have not. I emphasize that is not meant to be a criticism of the representatives who engaged in the discussions. I think there was a good, candid exchange that revealed where some of the differences lay, and they have proven to be insurmountable in the present context.

[1555]

Better, though, in my view to have attempted and to have tried. I'm obliged to the Opposition House Leader and his colleague, the Attorney General's critic, and even the now Leader of the Opposition for having invested the time to try and arrive at that consensus.

I feel obliged to convey to the House the belief, which the government continues to hold, that northern and rural areas of British Columbia not lose representation in any appreciable way. That has given rise to the identification of the three regions that, history teaches us, are vulnerable to losing districts. The bill, in its present form, would ensure that districts in those regions would not be reduced, although the boundaries within those regions and the individual districts can be adjusted.

It's probably also a good time to highlight and remind anyone observing these debates that what the House is purporting to do is to create a mandate and instructions for the commission that will come to life here very shortly. In the past, to be fair, they have sought clarity around their mandates. It's a difficult task they'll have. I understand that there is a difference of opinion about the nature of the mandate and the instructions that the House purports to give to the commission via this legislative instrument.

We, certainly, on the government side — and I think, in fairness, some members of the opposition have articulated this as well — have been hesitant, resistant to the notion of increasing the size of the Legislature. I think that is a reflection of the belief we hold that growing the size and, by implication, the cost of government isn't necessarily the recipe for success, particularly in these difficult economic times.

Whilst it would be our preference, therefore, to hold to an electoral map of 85 electoral districts, we have actually heard some of the concerns that have been expressed, sometimes by members of the opposition, about the deviation that results from lower-populated areas to higher-populated areas and the challenges that the commission will be confronted with in trying to resolve that conundrum, as it has presented itself in the past and will undoubtedly present itself in this round of deliberations that the commission will undertake.

Members in the House, I think, particularly the opposition critic and others, have talked about the constitutional vulnerabilities that exist when enshrining notions of special or very special circumstances into a bill of this sort. No one, least of all me or the Attorney, is going to deny the challenges that exist there and the need to be alive to those potential arguments and challenges — that being a rather long-winded way of saying: if the discussions did not lead us to an ultimate consensus, I hope members of the opposition will take some consolation or some solace from the fact that in the time it took to conduct those discussions it did provoke some review and some reconsideration on the part of government with respect to at least one dimension of the bill.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

That reconsideration reveals itself in a document that I'll table now, on behalf of the Attorney General, which will be the subject of discussion in committee stage.

[1600]

It's a proposed amendment to Bill 2. I'm happy to read out the text, but in effect, and in fact, it would provide the commission with the option, the authority and the mandate, if it chose to exercise it, to increase the size of
[ Page 3469 ]
the Legislative Assembly by two additional seats, up to 87. It does not require the commission to do so. It gives them that option within the context of the parameters they are operating within.

The specific section that will be of interest…. Subsection 3(2) of the Electoral Boundaries Commission Act would, under the proposed amendment — which, again, will be discussed at the appropriate time…. Instead of what would presently be there — "The commission must make proposals to the Legislative Assembly for 85 electoral districts" — that wording would be replaced if the amendment were adopted.

"If, in carrying out its functions under subsection (1), the commission considers that the number of electoral districts in B.C. should be increased, the commission may make proposals to the Legislative Assembly to increase the number of electoral districts up to a maximum of 87."

That, as I said, is the product of the discussions, the review — the reconsideration, if you will — that the government has undertaken. Some may ask: "Why 87 and not some other number?" We're attempting to balance some competing goals here. Restraining the growth and cost of government is one of them. We clearly assign importance to the question of rural and northern representation, which is why the three regions remain a feature of the bill.

We think that with the opportunity or the option of creating two additional districts, we can help the commission find the tools to define an appropriate balance and deal with the questions of population deviation that have arisen and been addressed by members during the course of this debate.

I'm not sure there's a magic number. In fact, I think the previous boundaries commission said as much, explicitly. All jurisdictions grapple with the question of finding the right balance, and, in British Columbia, some of those challenges are even greater and have revealed themselves over the past number of years and the past rounds of this process.

However, again, I am grateful to the representatives of the official opposition who did, I think in good faith, try to work with the government to arrive at a solution that was satisfactory to them. I do regret that we weren't able to get there in a way that I would find preferable with a piece of legislation like this.

I do, on behalf of the Attorney General, commend this proposed amendment to the House, and I also hope that by making the government intention clear at this stage, that that will be of assistance to members through the balance of the second reading debate and into the committee debate that will follow.

Those are my remarks, and I thank the House for the opportunity.

M. Farnworth: It's my pleasure to rise and speak to Bill 2, the Electoral Boundaries Commission Amendment Act, 2014. I don't think there's any piece of legislation that members tend to take quite so much interest in as an election redistribution bill.

[1605]

As arcane as it may seem to people outside this chamber — and people look and go, "Ridings are ridings, and boundaries are boundaries," — the fact of the matter is that boundaries matter a great deal to individual members and to their ability to in fact retain, hold or win a seat.

Shift a particular electoral riding boundary one block east, one block west, two blocks north, two blocks south — it doesn't matter — and the results can be significant, particularly if you are in a riding where you have a narrow or thin margin of a couple of hundred votes, say, for example. A boundary shift brings in a poll that is favourable to your opponent or removes a poll that is favourable for you, and you may end up with a completely different electoral outcome.

It has implications for an individual member. It has implications for political parties, so there is considerable interest in the process and how it takes place.

What's just as important, when we're talking about boundaries and boundary redistribution, is the system under which we operate, which is a parliamentary system. We are different than the United States. The United States, that democracy to the south of us, has taken the art of boundary redistribution to a fine art.

In fact, the term "gerrymandering," which most people understand, originated in the United States. In a nutshell, it is where political parties get together — sometimes in the form of majority, sometimes on a bipartisan basis — and collude to draw boundaries that are favourable to one side or another.

It is a part of the U.S. political system which, over time, is causing them great problems as their boundaries become more and more concentrated in terms of supporters of one party in one riding and one party in another riding. The result is that you have fewer and fewer seats that are classed as competitive, which each party has a chance at winning. That's not what was intended to happen during boundary redistribution. That's what takes place in the United States in too many cases.

Up here in Canada, both at the federal and the provincial level, we have what is supposed to be a non-partisan approach to drawing boundaries, an independent approach to drawing boundaries that draws boundaries on a fair and equitable basis that takes into account the unique geographic, social and settlement aspects, regional aspects, the balance between urban and rural parts of the province, remote and urban, in terms of coming up with boundaries that are fair and equitable.

It wasn't always that way in this province. We have a history in British Columbia of boundary redistribution committees which were anything but fair and impartial. We had a situation in this province where, for a long
[ Page 3470 ]
time, you had what were known as dual-member ridings, where a riding which would….

My own example is a classic example of this. In the Tri-Cities, for example, we had 50,000 people. We would elect one MLA. Yet across the way in Burnaby they would have a riding of 50,000 where they would elect two MLAs, the government knowing full well that the reality was that if you got one seat, nine times out of ten you got the other seat.

It was a practice that served the government of the day well, but at one point they weren't even content with that. At one point the government of the day put in place a commission, the Warren commission, that actually contemplated putting three seats in the Peace River country.

It is an important part of the province. It has two seats today, two seats that are significantly below the average population level in the province and are there because of the importance attached to rural representation, but that was even stretched. That stretched it, to try and put a third seat. That is an example of a boundaries commission redistribution hearing that is not fair, that is not impartial, that is not independent.

[1610]

In the '80s there was an infamous example of government interference in a boundaries redistribution in the riding of Vancouver–Little Mountain, which was held at that time by a longtime member of this House and well-known political figure in British Columbia, Grace McCarthy. The boundary was redrawn after the minister did not like the original set of boundaries that came out, and she would not be the first member of this House to look at a boundary map and go: "Over my dead body is that going to happen."

But the reality was, as an important....

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: My colleague across the way is absolutely right. It was called Gracie's finger. What it did was it took a poll of probably 70 percent-plus Social Credit voters out of one riding and added them into the Vancouver–Little Mountain riding where Grace was running, and the result was a much more comfortable margin than she might otherwise have had at the subsequent election. It caused considerable outrage and considerable debate and I think was one of the most important examples in the modern era of the need for an independent commission.

One of the achievements of one of our Premiers here in British Columbia, Bill Vander Zalm, was that in the election campaign of 1986 he said that it was time to do away with dual-member ridings. There were a lot of people in his own caucus, party, who disagreed with that because it had served the Social Credit Party of this province very well. But he said no, that members should be elected from individual, single constituencies. It was a very positive step forward.

He put in place the Thomas Fisher Commission, and that commission was charged with going out and doing a redistribution. As it turned out, that was the first truly independent commission in British Columbia in a very long time. It gave us an electoral map that we had not seen in this province for decades, and that was single-member ridings, electing single members to the Legislature. That was a significant improvement in the electoral process in British Columbia.

That was in place for the '91 election. That's the first one that I have been involved in, in terms of watching how it was proceeding. I have seen a number of others since then. Each time the same issues and questions come up in terms of ensuring the balance between rural and urban, because one of the challenges in a democracy such as ours is the concept of one member, one vote.

You can take it to the extreme, in the United States, where the balance is such that you end up with the gerrymandering that takes place in the United States, where ridings really bear no relationship either to the geography or the population demographics of the areas in which they're being drawn.

In Canada and British Columbia there's a long list now of court rulings in terms of what is an acceptable deviation from the average vote in a riding. In British Columbia we have operated on the principle of plus or minus 25 percent as being an acceptable deviation. So with, let's say, an average population of 50 percent, you could be 25 percent over or you could be under 25 percent, as would be acceptable. But we have in this province some ridings that....

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: I notice my colleague is expecting me to be speaking to an amendment, and I can inform them that we will be speaking to that amendment, but in committee stage, and we're still on second reading of the bill. The amendment that was tabled by the government minister was an amendment for committee stage and not an amendment to the bill, and that's why we're not debating the amendment at the current time. We are still on second reading of the bill.

So, hon. Speaker, back to what I was talking about, which was the average size of a riding. Normally, you would think that you would take the population of the province and divide it by the number of electoral districts, and that comes out with an average. By and large that does work, but there are some remote parts of British Columbia with very small populations where it doesn't work.

[1615]

If we're to protect rural representation, we have to ensure that that representation is there. You have ridings — such as North Coast, for example, or Peace River North or Nechako Lakes — that have much smaller popula-
[ Page 3471 ]
tions, but they exist because we recognize the importance of rural representation. The challenge, though, is that over time what has been happening…. It's not just here in British Columbia but in other jurisdictions as well. You are seeing the depopulation of many rural areas and many small towns.

There are many reasons for that, and one could go into discussions around the removal of government services, offices, schools — all those things — as one of the reasons. But the bottom line is this: censuses over the last few decades have shown a depopulation taking place in many small communities — populations declining or remaining stable — and significant growth in urban areas and suburban areas.

The result becomes that if you are to stick with the average of population and maintain a fixed number of seats in the Legislature — in our case, 85 for example — then the only way to address that imbalance is by removing seats from rural areas. That causes a challenge to ensure proper rural representation. That is why, over the years, commissions have added seats to ensure that that balance has been maintained.

In the last go-round the government's initial bill was one that sought to add a number of seats to address the issue of maintaining rural representation and the balance between rural representation and urban representation.

The trouble with that particular approach — I don't lay the blame entirely at the government's feet in that particular one; it was a challenge for the House as a whole — was that the commission came back and said that the number of seats the government was prepared to allocate would not allow the commission to do its job and would not enable the commission to address what the government wanted to take place, which was to maintain that balance between urban and rural without removing seats from rural British Columbia.

The result was what I think most observers would admit — a botched redistribution, in the sense that we had to come back to this House to add even more seats, and a commission that was jammed up against an electoral timetable in terms of, one, when an election is going to be held but, two, when Elections B.C. needs a lead time to be able to put those changes into place.

Constituency associations need time to dissolve, their finances to be redistributed amongst the new constituencies, the executives to be put in place — all the administrative functions. The result was a very run thing — in having the legislation pressed up against the timeline of an election and the result potentially being significant chaos. It was a very difficult period. It was an example of how not to do an electoral redistribution in the way that it was done because of the significant challenges and differences that were in place.

The problem is simple. That basically left in place what was there already and said: "Deal with it by adding some additional seats."

The bill we have before us now does something far greater. What it does is, instead of under the old way of saying that we have some seats in the north, a few of them, that are protected and that will be there regardless of how the redistribution goes — seats such as North Peace, South Peace, Skeena, for example…. What the government has done is put in a piece of legislation that literally red-circles 17 seats that the commission is not allowed to touch. Those are seats that the government says are rural and are special and need to be protected.

[1620]

Now, it's very interesting when the government says that, for a number of reasons. Look at the map and see: "Okay, what seats are they protecting, and what seats are they not protecting?" I'm not going to get into it on the basis of which party won which seat and which party didn't win a seat. I actually think that's immaterial in the discussion on this particular bill.

What is material, though, is what their definition of "rural" is as opposed to what they consider to be urban. For example, my colleague from North Island, who represents the top third of Vancouver Island — hundreds of small islands and coastal communities that take days to visit, many of which have to be reached by boat and are only accessible by boat — is not one of the protected areas. For some reason, it is not deemed remote. It is not deemed rural.

But one of the five largest — depending on who you talk to — cities in the province, what is decidedly an urban area, Kamloops, is a protected seat. Somehow Kamloops is so remote that the ability to get around Kamloops is so difficult. I don't know. I mean, when they were looking at this, did they look at pictures of Kamloops from the 1860s and go: "Oh my god, they don't have paved streets up here. They only have horse and buggy. It must be rural, so that's why it has to be protected"?

All of us know how ludicrous that is because Kamloops is a modern, thriving centre, a major city in British Columbia that certainly is capable of standing on its own two feet electorally and is not under-represented by any stretch of the imagination when it comes to its population. To somehow say that that needs protection just flies in the face of court rulings in the past.

The same can be said for British Columbia's northern capital. This is not like Nechako Lakes or Skeena or North Coast, where you have small communities with vast differences between them. I mean, Prince George has a university, University of Northern British Columbia. It's a thriving major centre of over 80,000 people.

It is British Columbia's northern capital, and yet somehow this government has so little confidence in that, that it feels: "You know what? It needs to be protected. It needs to be coddled." It needs to be carved out and made sure that an independent panel, which would consist of at least one judge and people who have been involved in electoral
[ Page 3472 ]
redistribution process….

Experts would fully understand the difference between North Island and a major urban centre in the province of British Columbia. Likewise Powell River–Sunshine Coast, a riding which is primarily accessible by ferry — our island highway, as many on this side of the House like to call it. And Premiers in the past have always referred to the ferry system as being the marine highway of the province of British Columbia. Yet that is no longer the case today, as the government somehow does not consider it to be a marine highway.

Likewise, they don't even consider it to be a rural area with population challenges. Nothing illustrates that to me more, the government's failure to think this through, than looking at that particular riding.

[1625]

Strong communities depend on good transportation links and good services. Remove those transportation links, and population doesn't want to go there, and you have a declining population. Well, that's exactly what's happening in other parts of rural British Columbia.

How that does not meet the test for a rural riding in British Columbia I don't know — unless maybe the government has something up its sleeve that we don't know about, a massive expansion of the ferry service that we know is going to be so attractive to people that it's going to cause communities to grow. Powell River–Sunshine Coast will become such a major urban centre that it does not need to be classed as remote and rural in the electoral system of the province and therefore does not need protection.

I am waiting to see if that is this case. Somehow I don't think so. I think, in fact, what is happening is that this is a piece of legislation that was drawn up in a back room — as somebody once said famously, on the back of a napkin — without it having been thought through.

I would be really interested to hear the Attorney General stand and answer some questions. In particular, did they receive or did they even seek a legal opinion, a constitutional legal opinion that this particular piece of legislation will stand up to a court challenge? The answer, I suspect, is no. Or if it is yes, it is why this government is very worried about this particular bill and has been wanting to talk about amendments.

The reality is that the bill as it is structured right now does not meet the test of giving an independent commission the ability to determine the boundaries on the basis as they exist right now — which is to take into account the rural interest, which is to take into account the unique geographic constraints and realities of this province.

That's already there. If you have confidence in the panel to do its job independently, which is how these things should be done, then you should let them do that. Instead, on what I think is in recognition of the problems that the government is going to face, they're saying: "Well, maybe what we should do is add more seats."

Well, the problem is that — from what the government has been saying and the indication of what they want to do — we are going to be right back at the same problem we had last time, which is a commission coming back and saying: "You know what? We're not able to do it in the mandate which we have."

That's why, on this particular piece of legislation, what is important is that we get back to the fundamental principles of how electoral redistribution should take place — that is, a panel should be independent; and it should be given its instructions based on what's there and on the ability to produce an electoral map that takes into consideration rural versus urban, the geographical realities that this province faces.

I mean, I will be the first to admit that we are not Saskatchewan, where it's very easy to draw, to say that the top one-third of the province will be divided into two ridings and that south of that you will do a redistribution, because that part of Saskatchewan is so lightly populated.

But in British Columbia we should have the confidence in an independent commission shared by people who understand the issue, who can operate in a non-partisan and non-political way to put together boundaries that meet the needs of the province.

Unfortunately, what we have here is a government that has embarked on a course of action — a course of action that I suspect has been put in place. I have already heard that the minister of the core review was involved in it. The government has set itself on a path that it now realizes is going to bring it nothing but grief when this piece of legislation is challenged in the courts, which it most likely will be. Given the rulings that have taken place to date in this province and in this country, it will be on the short end of the stick again.

[1630]

In fact, the one thing that this particular piece of legislation might just do when it goes to court…. It might, in fact, move this government's record on court challenges ahead of Stephen Harper's record on court challenges and show that — guess what — it's not just the federal government that doesn't seem to understand the law or the constitution of the country, but the provincial government of British Columbia is more than happy to try and give it a run for its money as well. That's not a record that I think the provincial government really wants.

I think what the provincial government should do is be upfront with people.

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: My colleague says that's something that is foreign to them. And you know what? He may well be right.

I think one of the things that the government could start by doing, if it wanted to give some confidence in
[ Page 3473 ]
the legislation or its position, would be to release the legal opinions, if it has them. Table them in this House. It would be useful for the House to see what legal opinions the government's legislation is based on.

If they are so sure that they are right in the measures contained in this bill, release the legal opinions so that not just members of this House but the public can see them, as well, and it can stand up to scrutiny. It can stand up to the scrutiny of the light of day — that, in fact, taking 17 seats in the province of British Columbia and red-circling them and telling the commission that they have to keep their hands off is somehow acceptable.

The challenge is, I think, that they will fail. An issue that is as fundamental to our democracy as the drawing of boundaries will once again revert from the improvements that were made by former Premier Vander Zalm. I notice a look on the face of the member there. I'll remind him that it was Bill Vander Zalm who brought in the first modern independent, outside of any political interference, boundary-redistribution model in the province of British Columbia. That has gone through the Fisher report. It has gone through, I think, two others since that time.

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: Ah, after a court challenge.

This particular piece of legislation takes us back to the bad old days in this province. It gets us away from the principle of fair representation. It undermines the principle of an independent panel, and that is not something that we on this side of the House can support.

We have seen the outrage at the federal level over their election bill. I think the government needs to take notice of that. What they need to do is understand that this is a bad piece of legislation, and all the patchworks in the world are not going to make it a good piece of legislation.

What we need is a fair, independent Boundaries Commission drawing the boundaries based on what's already there, that has worked as well. That is why I cannot support this particular piece of legislation.

G. Holman: I will be opposing this bill as well. I've listened to members from both sides of the House, and I'll be voting against it because it's unfair and because it's likely unconstitutional.

The point has been made that the criteria for selecting the three protected regions and the 17 ridings is not clear at all. I'm sure the fact that 11 of the 17 constituencies are currently held by government MLAs was not one of the considerations. I'm not a suspicious type. But one could easily argue, using criteria such as population dispersion and transportation accessibility, that a number of different constituencies from those identified in the bill could have been selected for protection from redistribution.

[1635]

We should be clear. Bill 2 doesn't guarantee against the loss of rural seats in B.C. This is not about government standing up for rural areas, because as my colleague pointed out just previously, there are a number of rural areas in British Columbia that don't have the so-called protection of this bill — just those in the three identified regions.

For example, as has been stated earlier, the constituencies of Skeena, north Vancouver Island and Sunshine Coast all, it could be argued, deserve some kind of protection using the same principles that government has put forward, on the basis of population dispersion and transportation access, and they won't be protected. Again, I'm sure the fact that all of those unprotected ridings that I've just mentioned are held by NDP MLAs is purely a coincidence. I'm sure of that.

The more important point here is not the choice of decision criteria or the individual constituencies to be protected. The more fundamental concern is that the choice of decision criteria and the important and difficult job of balancing factors such as per-capita representation and accessibility is not a job for politicians but for an independent commission. The job of politicians and other citizens is to make their case for appropriate decision criteria and the needs of their constituencies in front of an independent Electoral Boundaries Commission.

As the MLA for Saanich North and the Islands, which has its own transportation challenges that are being exacerbated by ferry service cuts and fare increases, I'll be making those representations to the commission, and I'll be encouraging my constituents to do likewise.

The other fundamental problem with the bill is that it protects not just a few constituencies to reflect exceptional circumstances — which, as has been pointed out by my colleague just previously, our existing legislation already allows and the courts have upheld — but fully 20 percent of the seats in British Columbia.

My question to the government would be: why would we waste the time and the resources of the Electoral Boundaries Commission and, even more importantly, the time of citizens of British Columbia to engage and participate in a process with underlying legislation that may very well be unconstitutional? Why would we go through that? Why would we do that? Wouldn't it be much more prudent, a much better use of resources and fairer to all concerned, for government to withdraw this bill, to not give prescriptive direction to an independent commission?

Let them do their work. Let them do the work that the commission was intended to do, the work that governments and opposition parties of all stripes in B.C. have historically agreed it should do. Let the commission do its work and come back to government with its recommendations. Government at that point — as, my understanding, with the previous commission — makes the final decision.
[ Page 3474 ]

Government at that point has an opportunity to make changes, recommend changes, work with the opposition, with the other side of the House, to make changes that they see fit, rather than prescribe a set of directions to an independent commission — which may be unconstitutional. That makes no sense to me whatsoever. It's a waste of time and resources, and it's a waste of the time and resources of the citizens of this province, who expect that an independent commission will be sitting impartially listening to their views rather than being directed by government.

There are very few things that are more fundamental to the democratic process in British Columbia than ensuring that electoral boundaries are chosen by an independent body. This legislation flies in the face of that, so I'll be voting against this bill.

B. Routley: The Electoral Boundaries Commission Act has only been around a short period of time, and we've got the commission that has already made changes. In fact, the Cowichan Valley, for which I'm the MLA, is one of the new areas that became an MLA-represented area in the election in 2009.

[1640]

Prior to that, there were 79 MLAs in British Columbia, and they've had to go about making extra room for us. In fact, one of the seats that I'm sitting in now is probably new, as a result of growing from 79 MLAs to 85.

This bill that's before the House is actually very brief. It's only a couple of pages. I don't know that "gerrymandering" quite fits the language that I would use. I think I would call this a classic case of more and more jiggery-pokery. This is clearly the kind of Liberal boondoggle that you might expect from this government, who are off on yet again another jiggery-pokery kind of boondoggle.

They must have worked real hard at this one. They were down there working away on — what? — a new balance. "Let's call this fair and special. It's going to be fair, and it's going to be special." In any case, they were talking about the Boundaries Commission essentially having a new set of tools in the toolkit to protect rather a large number of Liberal MLAs. Again, I don't know what you can call that but clearly a kind of jiggery-pokery. Some people would use the term gerrymandering.

When you're talking about this Boundaries Commission proposal in the legislation, it would easily constrain the commission in a way that 20 percent, or 17 of 85 ridings in the area they represent, would somehow be protected in this special area. It certainly makes one question what the appropriate language is to use, and I think I've made it clear what my preference is.

What the proposed act does do is it amends section 9 by adding the following subsections, setting up three districts. We would have the Kootenay-Cariboo-Thompson region, which includes Cariboo North, Cariboo-Chilcotin, Fraser-Nicola, Kamloops–North Thompson, Kamloops–South Thompson; Columbia-Kootenay region, including Columbia River, another one of the regions.

By the way, I want to just camp here for a minute and comment that you'll notice that the folks on this side of the House that could also benefit from this kind of jiggery-pokery attempt to draft a way to somehow muzzle or constrain the commission….

Far be it for the Legislature of the province of British Columbia to allow the commission to do its work. "Oh, no. We've got to get in there with our hand in the cookie jar and pick out just the right ones to benefit our side of the House." That's what the Liberals are thinking.

Carrying on here. We have spoken, on this side of the House, in opposition to this kind of jiggery-pokery and claiming certain areas as somehow special or unique.

I would mention that Columbia River–Revelstoke, the partner that I have in the forestry area, who's our Forestry critic, said it very well. He talked about all of the facts that exist when it comes to this government and following even the law in the province of British Columbia, never mind some commission.

Far be it for these Liberals to worry about laws, like the laws of the Minister of Health in following the proper actions in British Columbia. Oh, no. They go ahead and fire thousands of health care workers. It took the courts to straighten them out.

Deputy Speaker: I'm not certain the relevance of….

B. Routley: The same kind of behaviour, hon. Speaker, when it came to teachers — violating the rules. They're no strangers to violating the rules. In fact, I'm sure they just can't wait to get at it most days. They're working overtime on thinking up these plans.

Anyway, they carried on with region 3 of the special zones, and this is the north region, including Nechako Lakes, North Coast, Peace River North, Peace River South, Prince George–Mackenzie, Prince George–Valemount, and Skeena and Stikine.

[1645]

Now, wait a minute. Whoa. Did I just read Prince George? There's another little rural community. Now, what do you think the folks in Caycuse in the Cowichan Valley would think? Would they be able to stop laughing in their rocking chairs if they heard that their little town of Caycuse doesn't qualify? Oh no. These rules gotta apply to you folks here in this remote wilderness logging camp that's been there for 60 years. But no. Prince George, with two MLAs, is some kind of little rural community, and we need to have special protection.

Now, which one of the bright lights in the set of bulbs on the other side thought this one up and thought: "My goodness. This is a wonderful plan"? It really is just so shocking. I look at this stuff, and I say: "Certainly, this can't be true. They can't be trying to pull this one by us."
[ Page 3475 ]
But sure enough, there it is in black and white that they're trying to wing this one by us.

The first thing that comes to my mind is you look at places…. What about Powell River and the Sunshine Coast? My friend right here in front of me that's from Powell River–Sunshine Coast. He has to get on a ferry or he has to get in a boat and row himself over to some remote community. He has to sprout wings and fly. How does he get over there? He's got all these tough areas to go to. Apparently….

I'm sorry. I hate to tell you this, but you don't qualify. You're not rural enough. It's just a sad story, and that's the way it is.

Then we have Kamloops. Oh my goodness. Yeah, I drove by the road, and it had a sign to Kamloops. That's almost where the Premier lives, isn't it? Like, the Premier lives down the road on the other side, but Kamloops is some kind of rural community.

When you're up on the hill there looking over all of the malls and the huge expanse of all that population, you've got to think rural communities. You've got to think small. You've got to put on your little glasses and look around and go: "Oh boy, this is such a rural community." It's such a sad story, on a major highway.

Hey, I grew up in rural B.C. My kids grew up in Youbou and Lake Cowichan. You want rural British Columbia? I'll show you around, and we'll come and have a look. Go up to Caycuse. Go to Mesachie Lake. Try a little run. We'll take you to the Honeymoon Bay Community Hall. You know who cleans up the hall? The folks that live there in Honeymoon Bay.

You think you see that in Prince George? You think it's the folks that work downtown that are cleaning up the community hall? No, not on your life. It's just not going to happen.

You look at the premise of these rural communities. What about all of the ones that aren't worthy of protection? How do they…? No one has satisfactorily explained exactly how this Liberal group and their minds work exactly. I see my friend across there that knows all about the sheep trying to get me to….

They put me in just the right spot here in the Legislature so that I could speak up just an extra notch so that you could hear me over there. Apparently, they're having trouble hearing me over in the far reaches, so this is a better place for me to be so maybe somebody can hear me.

Anyway, the great cities of Prince George and Kamloops need to be protected. It is such a sad story. It is really sad. Seventeen out of the 85 seats, but these constituencies that I've mentioned are not included. They're not included at all, so you ask yourself: "Who is making these rules?" It just doesn't make sense.

Then when you look at the subsection in the bill — and it's rather important — it says: "With respect to the Cariboo-Thompson Region, the Columbia-Kootenay Region and the North Region, the commission must be governed by the following" — oh, I love this one — "additional principles…."

[1650]

Jiggery-pokery, here we go again. It isn't good enough we have a whole new numbering system. Now we've got additional principles. I'm not sure what those additional principles were. We'd have to get out my magnifying glass to find any principles involved whatsoever in this whole document. A couple of pages — really hard to find any definition of principles.

So we are giving the commission direction. Oh, there's no jiggery-pokery there. They would have you believe it's all good clean fun they're having, and they're not giving exact directions to the commission. Oh, except for, well, there are these 17 special ones, and then there's these special instructions — additional principles.

We're going to give the commission this direction, and here it is: "(a) for the purpose of effective representation" — oh, I love these languages — "in the Legislative Assembly, each of these regions must not have the number of their electoral districts reduced" — it can't be reduced — "from the number of electoral districts that currently exist for the region." Now, there's a rule, eh?

Let's make sure that they don't change this at all. Clear direction given to the commission: you can't change anything that currently exists for the purposes of these special directed commission additional principles, so-called. And "(b) for the purposes of complying with paragraph (a) of this subsection, the commission may exceed" — oh, I love this one — "the 25% deviation principle established by subsection (1) (b)."

That has been in legislation for a fair time. Everyone understands that a deviation of the 25 percent, plus or minus, is not unreasonable. That's what the law is now. The commission allows that you can have 25 percent more, and they can have 25 percent less.

That's a commission rule. They're trying to accommodate the principles of reasonableness and of actually having a commission with a group of people sitting around being thoughtful, coming up with a set of rules — not to protect their friends and insiders. No, it was all done by a constitutionally put-in-place group of commissioners who came up with a supportable and sensible group of principles.

Anyway, these good constitutional principles are further supported by court decisions. And it goes further: "(3) For certainty, for the purpose of making proposals under section 3 (2), the commission may propose (a) changing the names of electoral districts in the Cariboo-Thompson Region, the Columbia-Kootenay Region and the North Region, and (b) adjusting or changing boundaries of electoral districts in the Cariboo-Thompson Region, the Columbia-Kootenay region and the North Region…."

What are we going to do — change the names to protect the innocent? Is that how I read this? Is that what I'm
[ Page 3476 ]
to take away? We're going to change the names. Oh, we've got a few limitations here, but changing names isn't one of them. You go ahead. You fill your boots. Have a wonderful time changing the names, but don't — whatever you do — touch our special areas here.

The jiggery-pokery and the gerrymandering, whichever you prefer, continues. Also, they're going to limit it, and I've heard…. I've been watching the debate, so I understand that they were going to limit it to 85 seats. That was another rule — 85 seats. We've got to have 85 seats. But now, well, not so much.

"We've been thinking about it, you know. We've been hearing from a fair number of people, and that's one of our principles that maybe we could let down our guard on just a little bit." Just one or two, mind you — just two.

[1655]

I was waiting for the reasoned discussion or the thought-provoking answer as to how that came about. Did he look out the window and there were two clouds going by? And he said: "Hey, two's a good number. What about two? Let's say let's go from 85 to 87."

Deputy Speaker: The member appears to be speaking….

B. Routley: Well, might as well use the cloud policy as any other policy.

Deputy Speaker: Member.

B. Routley: The computer system uses clouds, so what's wrong with the minister looking out the window and using clouds?

Deputy Speaker: Member, for clarity, you appear to be currently speaking to the amendment, which actually has yet to be tabled, so it would not be in order.

B. Routley: Well, thank you for that correction, hon. Speaker. That's timely and appropriate, and I want to correct myself right away.

I do understand that some of the opposition like the idea of 85. This place is a little crowded as it is, after all. But I for one actually have the novel idea that if you're going to have a commission, you might as well let them do some work without all these rules and jiggery-pokery. Why don't you just turn them loose?

You might want to add to them that it's quite crowded in here, and you might want to add to them that places like the Cowichan Valley, while we might be growing in numbers, are busy shutting down schools. There are all kinds of other factors that maybe we should be taking a look at, compared to…. Well, I don't know: how are the goats and the cattle doing there in the Cariboo? Okay, back to….

The Attorney General has argued that somehow this commission was being given unfettered direction when it said: "Well, it can change the boundaries of every constituency." That was somehow reasonable. Well, that is a true statement on its face, but when you are protecting the existence of 17 constituencies, it's pretty hard to argue that, in fact, that is some kind of fair proposal at all.

The reality of this legislation is that it implicitly says that in pursuit of the government's goal — and it is government's goal, clearly — to preserve 17 rural seats, including the great cities of Prince George and Kamloops…. Again, I'm sure that maybe I've made that point, but to just to drive it home again. It's a lot bigger than the Cowichan Valley, I might add. When I go into Prince George and Kamloops, it kind of dwarfs Duncan and the Cowichan Valley region in the size of the community, I would think.

We're going to see an even greater deviation between the numbers of voters in the so-called rural constituencies versus urban or suburban constituencies if this is allowed to continue.

I don't think that British Columbians who live in rural areas of this province or, indeed, those who live in urban or suburban areas would disagree with the concept of the preservation and the recognition of the fact that rural representation is important. You know, that's absolutely true. There's no question that somehow there has to be some recognition of rural deviation, and that's what I think the commission did. They had to be very thoughtful in coming up with 25 percent — plus or minus 25 percent.

I've had to explain that to grade 4 classes that are studying politics. One of the questions that the children often asked is: "How do they go about creating MLAs?" I said: "Well, they do have a formula, and 85 came about as a result of having MLAs represent roughly 50,000 people, plus or minus 25 percent. In some cases we don't make that because it's awfully tight anyway, but there is some of that recognition."

I think you'd be hard pressed to find anybody on the streets of Victoria or in the Cowichan Valley or anywhere else that would say: "You know what? We want absolutely 85 MLAs with perfectly equal constituencies in terms of population. We don't care about anything at all, just it's got to be equal numbers." I don't think that would happen.

[1700]

I had a lot of other stuff to say that I'm starting to think is kind of repetitive, so maybe I'll let the other folks take their turns. But I do want to conclude by reminding everybody that the great cities of Prince George and Kamloops, some may feel, are rural and need to be protected, but so, too, do Tofino and Ucluelet, Powell River and Gibsons and places like Campbell River. All of them are entitled to that kind of recognition.

The commission is going to have to look at fairness principles in establishing this. I would be a lot more per-
[ Page 3477 ]
suaded if the Liberal government would have come with an argument that the status quo, for now, is something that we should do, that we should join hands in saying to the commission that while there's a timely requirement, they're supposed to — after a period of five years, I think it is, from back in 2009 — again sit down and look at electoral boundaries.

There are various ways of coming at the problem, and this is not the right one. So I would be voting against this. I don't think that we should have the jiggery-pokery continue, and with that I'll take my place.

C. James: I want to say thank you to my colleague before me but also say that I think it's cruel and unusual punishment to have to speak after him, because I will guarantee that I will not be as exciting to listen to as the previous member. So apologies now to the listening audience out there that it will not be nearly as exciting as you heard previously.

I am glad to be able to have my opportunity to speak to Bill 2, the Electoral Boundaries Commission Amendment Act. I want to use my time today to speak to what I see as unnecessary, certainly unwanted and problematic amendments to the Electoral Boundaries Commission Act that are contained in this bill.

To do that, I just want to take a moment to take a look at the Electoral Boundaries Commission and the electoral process here in British Columbia. I think it's an important context to take a look at when you look at these amendments and what's coming forward and what I believe the government is attempting to do in bringing these issues forward.

Like Britain, like the U.S.A., here in British Columbia we have a first-past-the-post electoral system. We've had many discussions over many years — certainly, in my time in politics — about looking at other kinds of electoral systems, whether it's proportional representation, whether it's looking at mixed-member proportional representation. As we all know, there was a commission put together to take a look at that. That vote didn't pass, so we are in a first-past-the-post process here in British Columbia.

Just as an aside, I certainly continue to believe that looking at things like mixed-member proportional representation is a good discussion and a discussion that I believe British Columbians are still interested in and still would like to take a look at in the future. I'll talk a little more about cynicism in politics as we go on, but I think for the public to engage in their voting process is an important thing for us to do right here in British Columbia.

Given all of that and given all the discussion that's happened in the past, here in British Columbia we do, as we know, have first-past-the-post, where the province is divided up into electoral districts that elect a representative and that representative goes to the Legislature. And as we know, the party that has the most seats in the Legislature then forms government.

Given that context, given the reality of our electoral system here in British Columbia, I think the public can certainly see and all of us in this Legislature can see that the boundaries of electoral districts can have a very great impact on the election outcome. What those boundaries look like, where those boundaries are set, how those boundaries are set, whether you have a large population or a small population in particular areas and whether you try and concentrate the vote in particular areas can make a big difference in electoral outcomes.

[1705]

We've certainly seen some of that in the past. We've had colleagues speak about that in the Legislature as part of our history in British Columbia, where people did not feel it was a fair process, where people felt that there was some involvement by political leaders, political parties, to try and set the boundaries in a way that was going to impact the electoral outcome.

We also know in this province that a political party could win a majority of votes in the province but a minority of seats in the Legislature. That certainly has happened too, and again, different political parties have had different outcomes in that.

I think it's really important to remember that the electoral boundaries do have an impact on the outcome of voting. That's why it's so critical — and it's why I feel so strongly in speaking against this bill — that we have a very clear process in place for setting those electoral boundaries. It is so important to ensure that there is a neutral process to go through in making sure that, as much as possible, electoral ridings have approximately the same number of voters in each of those ridings.

I hear the members on the other side talking about rural ridings and the importance of protecting rural representation, and I certainly support that. I support the need for us to be able to make sure that rural ridings are able to be supported.

I think all of us who have either spent time in rural ridings, lived in rural ridings or talked with our colleagues about the differences in our jobs as MLAs know the challenges of rural constituencies, know the difficulty of huge travel time, of small population bases and very big geographical areas. That can be a great challenge.

I think it's important to note that, in fact, electoral boundary commissions over the years have recognized that. They've understood that there are exceptional circumstances, and they've recognized in various districts that there have been special circumstances. It's not as though that has not been acknowledged by boundary commissions.

I hear some of the members on the other side talking as though it's critical to put these restrictions in place and put these requirements in place because boundary commissions may not take a look and understand and support rural ridings. Well, the facts don't spell that out.
[ Page 3478 ]

The facts show that independent boundary commissions have, in fact, taken that into consideration. They have, in fact, looked at rural and remote ridings. They have, in fact, acknowledged how important it is to be able to recognize that, for the most part, you try and ensure that districts have roughly the same number of voters. But then, in exceptional circumstances, it's quite reasonable to take a look at exceptional circumstances. This has happened, as I said, with a non-partisan electoral boundary commission.

I take a look at the riding of Stikine, my colleague in the Legislature's riding. I think everyone would acknowledge that it's not possible to take that district and be able, in a huge geographic area, to find another number of voters without making that district even larger than it is now. And that's been recognized by an independent boundaries commission.

We have a boundary commission. We have an independent boundary commission. We have a commission that will look at exceptional circumstances, whose main purpose is to make sure that districts are as equal as possible and whose primary principle is one person, one vote, which is key to our democracy.

So what do the amendments in Bill 2 do to that process, to that fundamental history in British Columbia of one person, one vote; of equality; of trying to find representation? Well, Bill 2 changes the guidelines that the Electoral Boundaries Commission must operate under.

It says that there's a restriction to their independence. I would say that if you restrict their independence, you've taken away their independence. If you put in place restrictions for what they're able to look at, you've basically taken away their ability to do their job, and I think that's wrong.

[1710]

This bill and the amendments in this bill require the Boundaries Commission to maintain an existing number of ridings in the North, Cariboo-Thompson and Columbia-Kootenay regions. Those ridings total 17 seats.

As I said, I've heard the government say that the rationale for singling out these 17 ridings is that they're the "most sparsely populated or geographically remote." Well, let's take a look at that argument for a moment.

If you take a look at that argument and look at which ridings are left out, it instantly puts holes into that argument. The North Island isn't included. Powell River–Sunshine Coast isn't included. If you're looking at that criteria and if you're saying that, based on fact, you're going to put together certain ridings that have to be protected, why would you not include two of those geographically remote ridings? Why would they not be included?

Then you take a look at some of the ridings that have been included, like Kamloops–South Thompson or Prince George. I think, again, the public would take a look and say: "How do they fit the criteria" — just to go back and quote again — "of 'sparsely populated or geographically remote'?"

I certainly heard the members, having spent some time in Prince George, from those ridings stand up and talk about the urban nature of their communities, talk about the growing population in those communities and talk about the expansion of economic activity in those communities — just the opposite, in fact, of what this talks about: sparsely populated or geographically remote.

I don't believe that the member from Prince George, who is the Jobs Minister, would stand up in this House and say that her riding was sparsely populated. In fact, she talks about her riding growing. She talks about her riding expanding. She talks about economic activity and other growth in her riding.

I think, again, when government's bringing forward an argument and bringing forward a rationale in a bill like this, I certainly would expect — and I think the public, of all people, who look to their government to bring forward sound policy would expect — that the government would have some rationale for why they were bringing this forward, would have some explanation or some analysis around these 17 ridings, would have given us a study or some kind of research to point out why these 17 ridings are sparsely populated or geographically remote and why they should be included and some of the other ridings aren't included.

I don't see that. In fact, that's not in this bill or any of the background information or any of the rationale or argument that has come forward from this government.

I've not seen a research paper. I've not seen an analysis. I think I may disagree with the government when they bring something forward that has that research and analysis, but at least I've got some facts to be able to argue against, to be able to present and to be able to have a discussion with the public or others who may agree or disagree.

In this case, there isn't that background or research or discussion, which certainly leads people to believe that the government of the day is simply using this opportunity to tie the hands of an independent, non-partisan boundaries commission.

Why would a government want to do that? Why would a government want to take away the independence of a boundary commission — the fairness, the very premise of having an independent boundary commission, to basically take that away?

Well, that leads the public to become even more cynical about politics. At a time when we see low voter turnout, at a time when we don't see the public engaging with their elected members, at a time when we see people not interested in what's going on, why on earth would a government decide to bring forward a bill that basically leads the people to believe that political games are being played with their ridings and with their vote? That is not going to build support for democracy. That is not going
[ Page 3479 ]
to build support for our elected officials.

[1715]

I'm a firm believer that democracy needs people to be engaged in the process, regardless of their politics. This is not about party politics. This is about democracy. This is about the people's Legislature. Well, it's pretty tough for the people to look at this Legislature and say it's theirs if they see that the boundaries that they're allowed to vote within have been set and determined by one political party. That doesn't build the kind of support that we need for our democracy.

We need people to engage in this process. We need people to know that when the independent Boundaries Commission is coming to their community and they want to have a say about where their neighbourhood may sit or what community they connect with….

I've attended some of those previous commission hearings, and it's wonderful to see people engaging in that process, to have a chance to say: "This isn't the community we connect with. We look south" or "We look north or west. When we do our shopping, when we engage, that's a community that we connect with. That's the reason that we'd like to be part of that boundary, because that's the community that we work with."

All of that will be taken away if the public sees the Boundaries Commission as fixed, if they see the Boundaries Commission as not giving them an opportunity to have their say. Why would they take the time to line up and go to a hearing for the Boundaries Commission if they think it's already decided, if they think that certain ridings are already protected? That completely takes away, as I said, any kind of independence.

You know, when government breaks the rules or ties the hands and takes away those rules, often those things end up in court. I'm afraid we've had a history of that with this government. We've had a history of this government flouting the rules, making their own decisions, breaking contracts, having to be taken to court and being found in court to be wrong.

Well, surely, when the government knows that these amendments are likely to be challenged in court, when they haven't presented any analysis or any research or any background — no rationale to why these 17 ridings are protected — government will, or should, see the wisdom of saying that it doesn't make sense to tie the hands of a commission.

It doesn't make sense to put ourselves in a position where we may be taken to court and have to spend more public money defending the indefensible, supporting something that if they'd done the right thing in the beginning and said to the Boundaries Commission, "You go out there and you deal with all of the challenges that are there," we wouldn't be facing that kind of situation.

As I said, it's not as though the Boundaries Commission hasn't dealt with the unique circumstances in British Columbia. We do have a unique geography. There's no question. There's no question that compared to some of the other provinces, setting the boundaries in British Columbia is a challenge. We have large, vast geographic areas that have a smaller population base. But that should be the job of the electoral commission, not the job of politicians from a political party. I think it's critical that government take a look at that and the situation that they're putting themselves in.

You know, if you take a look at the public submissions that were received on this bill, the majority of them were opposed to these amendments. People understand.

The member before me spoke about speaking to school groups and how important it was and the wonderful part of our jobs where we get to go into schools and have the opportunity to be able to speak to elementary schools, high schools, and to talk about the importance of voting and the importance of democracy — before the cynicism sets in, later in life, for people.

Having done many of those school visits and having talked to many of those classes, I would be certain that if we took in this discussion and used it as a case study for young people in our schools, they would get it. They would understand that this just isn't fair, that it just isn't fair for a political party to pick certain ridings and say, "These ones can't be touched," without any kind of argument about why.

[1720]

I think that's a pretty good benchmark for the government to listen to. If young kids are going to get it and understand the premise of fairness, then surely the government should be able to take a look and understand the premise of fairness.

I think in some ways this side of the House, in speaking to this bill and speaking to say no to interference and to say no to political games and yes to fairness and independence, is giving the government the opportunity to be able to recognize that and to pull this bill back.

That doesn't stall off the Boundaries Commission process. That process will go as it should — as it did eight years ago and as it had done eight years before that — to put together that independent panel and to give the panel the opportunity to go out and have exactly these conversations with the public — to have the opportunity to go into rural communities and to listen to the challenges that are faced by those MLAs and by the public in being able to access their MLA.

We all agree in this House that those are big challenges to face, and yes, there are some communities that have rural and urban and let those communities come forward and have their opportunity to be able to have their say. But what kind of say is it?

What kind of say is it when the hands of the commission are tied, when they don't have the opportunity to listen to the public and say: "Perhaps this riding needs to be adjusted. Perhaps if we adjust this one riding that's
[ Page 3480 ]
within the 17, we'll be able to support another riding in a more fair process for voting"? That's taken away with this bill. That opportunity is taken away.

We've seen this government before, when it comes to consultation, decide that consultation is great after they've made decisions. We've seen this government previously say, "Oh yes, yes, we're going to consult," yet we know the decision is already made.

Whether we're talking about the agricultural land reserve or whether we're talking about the youth custody centre here on Vancouver Island…. Those are just recent examples where the government, in fact, has said: "We didn't consult. We thought we'd make the decision and then go out and talk to people afterwards." Well, that's no kind of consultation process.

Here we are, once again, with Bill 2, setting up exactly the same kind of process. This isn't a consultation. It's not a real opportunity for the public to have a say when you already have the hands tied behind the back of the commission, without an opportunity to be able to really speak to what the public is asking for.

I would ask the government to rethink. I would ask the government to take a look at what they have to fear by letting the independent Boundaries Commission do its job. What is there to fear by a government? Why would a political party be worried about that?

We are here to represent our public. All of us in this Legislature are here to represent our public. If an independent commission determines that that should be different boundaries for us to represent our public, then it's our job to go out and represent our public, determined by what that independent commission set in place.

It's not our job to make a determination about who we'll represent and who we won't. It's not our job to say, "This riding should be protected and shall never be changed," without any rationale, without any kind of research, without any kind of background.

I will turn the floor over to my colleagues, who I know also have something to say on this bill.

I would close by urging the government to really take a look at what they're doing with this bill — to think about how important it is for us to build back support for democracy in our province, to think about the principle of fairness and independence and how important that is when it comes to our democracy — and to withdraw this bill and recognize that an independent boundaries commission, as it has done before, should have the opportunity to go out and determine, based on the community voice, what those boundaries should look like and what they should look like before the next election.

[1725]

M. Karagianis: I'm quite happy to take my place and debate here on Bill 2, the Electoral Boundaries Commission Amendment Act.

I'd like to make a comment about my colleague from Cowichan Valley, who had a great deal of fun here in the Legislature. It's always great to hear the passion and enthusiasm and the colloquialism with which he debates these issues, but he does talk in very real ways about the way people in his community and many communities feel. It's terrific to listen to him, and it helps get your energy up on this, especially when we're having a frustrating debate around this.

If you look at the issue of the Electoral Boundaries Commission and the historic work that it has done, I think it has been guided by a couple of very clear, basic premises.

One, the Electoral Boundaries Commission itself needs to be independent. That has been a benchmark of the commission as it's done its work — in fact, not just provincially but federally. We've just gone through the process of changing electoral boundaries federally as well. The premise upon which these commissions are built is independence — that an independent body goes out and does an evaluation of the changing criteria and needs and populations of electoral areas around the province or around the country.

The second piece of that has always been the directive to have equal representation as the companion piece to independence. Now, I think that this has been an ongoing challenge and will continue to be an ongoing challenge. I'm going to talk a little bit about that.

With regard to these boundary commission processes that have gone on historically and will continue into the future, I think the actions of sitting governments, whether they're federal or provincial or directly in British Columbia or not, need to be seen to be fair — in fact, be fair and to be seen as being fair and treating this as a fair process — and to be seen to do the right thing around this fairness and to be seen to allow this independence to take its course and, in fact, continue to be the cornerstone of an electoral commission.

When I look at the bill, it's only a couple of pages long, but immediately the very first two sections of this begin to already interfere with the basic premise that this commission should be independent and that it should have the ability to consider the idea of representation, where and how, without interference.

The first two sections of this immediately lay out some parameters: one, by defining for the commission, before they've even begun to do their work, the number of electoral districts here in British Columbia; and secondly, to put in place directions on how they might consider the distribution of populations or the current existing boundaries.

Now, we will continue to have ongoing challenges around this. Every single time these considerations come around, on a cyclical basis, we have the same challenge around how you address the issues right across this country — certainly, here in British Columbia we are no different than any other province — in trying to find the
[ Page 3481 ]
balance and the representational equality that should be assured to every community while we see a huge change in the distribution of the population.

Every single province is grappling with the same issue. We're grappling with this issue in that we are seeing — and we have seen for a number of years, a number of decades — this migration towards huge urban and metropolitan areas. Now, whether that's big cities like Vancouver or small cities like Prince George and other centres like the growing populations around the Kamloops-Kelowna area, we are seeing people leaving more remote and rural areas and gravitating towards urban settings and urban centres. So this will continue to be a growing problem.

I mean, I also anticipate that the resource industry and the current speculation about what could happen in communities like Kitimat, like Prince Rupert will also begin to change those centres and will begin to create more urbanization there because of the kind of resource-extraction focus that's going to go on there. The populations will move there to work.

You saw that with Fort McMurray — right? — a small town that nobody really was paying a lot of attention to. Suddenly the tar sands exist, and now you have a huge population that's burgeoned into that area and has changed the scope of the urbanization of that area. We're going to see some of that occur as well.

[1730]

How do you then think about representation for citizens across this province in the electoral system in a fair way? How do you take into consideration just the changing reality around where people live and where they work? I would say that this concept here in Bill 2, of somehow dictating some premise around how the commission undertakes its work, is counterintuitive to everything you want to do here — everything that you want to establish around independence, around representation, around the respect for democracy. And making sure that the democratic process…. That is really what it's all about. It's basically making sure that the democratic process works, that representation is fair.

I would have to say that maybe one of the things that has to be discussed — maybe now, certainly into the future — is how we look at this distribution of representation, given the fact that we will continue to see an erosion of population in more remote areas and more of this migration into urban areas.

We, I believe, have always thought that fairness meant that if you live in a more remote community, you shouldn't have less representation than people who live in urban areas. You only have to go up….

I just recently drove the Highway of Tears with my colleague from the North Coast. When you listen to her talk about her ability to get around and represent all of her constituents in her constituency and make sure she's contacted them on a regular basis, you realize the challenges are so significantly different than for those of us who live in urban areas, where we can, in a very short time, travel around and see every corner of our constituency and make contact with every stakeholder. If you live in an area where your communities are outlying, you can drive there in a fairly reasonable amount of time.

But those people who live in the north, who live in these more remote areas like the North Coast…. I mean, just getting around to many of the areas like Bella Bella, Bella Coola, Haida Gwaii — all of those present huge challenges for this member.

Of course, you immediately and logically understand that it is not physically possible to balance off the size of a representative area that those members have, versus someone who has an urban area, a settled town — whether it's Prince George, Kelowna, Kamloops, Victoria, Vancouver — where you can easily get around and see all your constituents.

Maybe one of the discussions, maybe one of the challenges that we need to put out to electoral boundaries commissions in the future is: how do we make sure that the representation is not just strictly about population but, in fact, is about the ability for your representative to have access to you and you to have access to your representative?

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

That might mean we think about some of these larger rural areas in a different way. Maybe this is not just strictly about population. We've certainly seen that there has been…. We've been forced to a deviation of at least 25 percent. Certainly, we know that some constituencies are pushing themselves far past that boundary.

Maybe the more intelligent discussion to have, and maybe the thing that this government can generate, is the discussion on what happens as we move forward another decade. Eight years from now what will the province look like? Where will the centres of population be? What kind of further erosion of population will we have in some of the remote areas of the province? How do we ensure that they have fair representation, access to their representative, in a reasonable way? That certainly isn't by making those constituencies larger in order to reach some population threshold.

I would say that that's one of the first challenges I see ahead of us. I think it's coming quite fast, because we are going to see areas in this province change in the next decade that will again skew where the urban settings are. If we see the kind of boom times in the north that we have been promised, then we're going to see large growth in areas where we currently don't recognize them as an urban setting. I think that this idea of changing distribution of population is something that we seriously need to consider.

[1735]

When I look at Bill 2, it seems to me that this concept of somehow directing the commission to constrain itself in any way or directing them around the kinds of parameters under which they will be expected to do their job is, in fact, counterintuitive to everything about the independence of the commission. This bill severely constrains the work of the commission when it automatically freezes a number of seats in these regions that have been designated under Bill 2.

The first section in this bill immediately says that the Electoral Boundaries Commission is to propose 85 electoral districts. There's the first constraint: 85, which we currently have. Now, I believe we've seen a foreshadowing that maybe a proposal of amendment is going to come forward on that bill. We'll address that when it comes. The second constraint here: "establishes the principles by which the Electoral Boundaries Commission is to be guided when proposing boundaries of electoral districts, including with respect to three newly defined regions."

So again, we're saying to the commission: "We want you to have independence. We want you to go out and do your job, as you have done historically many times over, but we're now going to constrain your ability. First and foremost, we're going to say to you 85 seats" — or whatever this new amendment that's going to come forward is — "and, secondly, we want to create these three regional districts, and we want some form of protection for those seats." Well, that in itself says here that the government wants to tamper with the independence of the directive towards the boundaries commission right off the bat.

Now, simple math will tell you a couple of things. The areas that are being protected under the guise of being remote and rural, first of all, aren't. In each of these areas there are urban settings that are growing, some of them at quite a pace, and are going to continue to grow over the next number of years as the resource industry changes and begins to force more growth into areas like Prince George.

This idea of constraining these three districts and a number of constituencies under the guise that they are more sparsely populated or geographically remote doesn't bear up under any scrutiny right off the bat. In fact, these areas are not all sparsely populated, and they're not all geographically remote. So how is the commission supposed to go about doing a fair evaluation, perhaps beginning to lead us into that conversation about how we ensure good, equal, fair representation as populations are redistributed in the patterns that we have seen?

How, in fact, can that kind of thought process and open and independent process occur if we have already constrained them — under very questionable circumstances, I'll say, because these areas are not all remote and not all sparsely populated? You cannot say that urban centres like Prince George and Kamloops are sparsely populated because they're not, and they're growing. Everyone knows that these areas are growing and will continue to do so as the resource industry expands, as we expect it will. No logical-thinking person will see that as being fair. But that is a constraint that the government has put down.

It is interesting, of course, for those who are skeptical about government's intentions, that many of these constituencies that are being singled out and protected belong to the members of the government. Certainly, there has been a longstanding debate in this province around the idea of gerrymandering each of these processes every single time they come out.

Here we are again, going down the same path that has been rejected by the public numerous times. But we're going to try it again, albeit this time under a slightly different guise, which is this idea of capping the number of constituencies we can have and protecting a whole number of them that don't actually fit the criteria that the government itself has laid out. In any case, this results in every single part of this bill constraining the independence of the boundaries commission.

[1740]

The government, I think, can be fairly criticized on this, because in fact what this does is it changes the weight of voting around the entire province.

If these proposals are enacted, then the average population of the protected ridings will be about 35,000, right? The unprotected ridings, constituencies, will have a population of about 55,000. Immediately, that skews the weight of these votes. Now, I'll tell you, that's a touchy subject here in the regional district, in the capital, because we are constantly at pressure around the CRD about the weighted distribution of voting here in the region.

Again, it doesn't take very much scrutiny to say to yourself: "Now, why are we allowing this?" Why would government itself constrain the ability of the independent Boundaries Commission to make judgment calls on this? They have successfully, over many redistributions, come to terms with this.

It may be that at the end of the day the discussion will be, as I said earlier, not necessarily and strictly about population. There may be other considerations. Maybe we move past the 25 percent threshold in order to guarantee access to your representative — fair and equal representation to areas that cover large geographical areas or difficult geographical areas like the north coast.

We've talked about the constituency of Powell River–Sunshine Coast. The fact that that bridges a body of water and requires that particular member who serves there to not just drive a couple of hours to another part of the constituency but to take the B.C. ferries…. And we've seen those services diminished, so much more difficult. I don't know if he owns a powerboat. I suspect not, but that's one way to get around.

Certainly, though, if you take that idea and move up to North Coast, where our colleague has that constituency, that is much more difficult — getting up and down the
[ Page 3483 ]
coast to Haida Gwaii, to Bella Bella, Bella Coola and all of those areas. You only have to talk with that member and other members who have served in areas like that to know that it is very challenging to make sure that you touch base with your constituents, that they have access to you, that they feel they have fair representation and that their voices are heard here in the Legislature.

Why would the government, again, try and constrain the ability of the Boundaries Commission? Do we not trust the Boundaries Commission and their ability to have these kinds of wide-ranging, intelligent conversations with constituencies to understand the nature of the province, to think ahead about what the province looks like now and how that might change?

Certainly, we talk now about representation in places like the north coast, but if there's a huge boom along that particular route — Prince Rupert and Kitimat — that, again, in a few years could completely change the distribution of the population in that area. Maybe then we're talking about huge movement inward, migration into those areas, that will completely change the population distribution in those constituencies.

One other kind of salient point on this Bill 2 is that there has already been really strong indication that these amendments proposed by government, these constraints placed upon the independent Boundaries Commission by this government, are unlikely to withstand a court challenge. Now, I will tell you, Madame Speaker, and I'll tell the House that in my time in municipal government the first primer you get in municipal government is that you can't enact laws that you know will not stand up in court, right?

It's one of the first things you learn, and then you bring that kind of ethic into the Legislature here. As lawmakers, it is inappropriate for us to pass laws that we know will be subject to constitutional changes. Why would we as lawmakers put ourselves in the position where we would enact any kind of legislation that is automatically going to be constitutionally challenged by a court case?

[1745]

It seems to me the ultimate irresponsible act is to put in place something that you know is not going to stand a constitutional challenge and will be tied up in the courts.

Now, the Boundaries Commission can go about their business, as they should, but I don't understand why the government would, willingly and with their eyes open, walk into a constitutional challenge on this at a time when we need to be striving for better representation, for more faith in the democratic process. It has been eroded dramatically over the last number of years, and this further erodes people's confidence in government.

To actually set yourself up for a constitutional challenge in court is folly, and the government should not wilfully be ignorant of their own actions in this.

There have been lots of people writing in to government on this. They are beginning to hear from people, long before the consultations take place with communities, around the opposition to this. So once again you wonder why the government is undertaking something…. Even before the debate started, government was hearing from far and wide across the province.

It's not just from citizens who are paying attention but from organizations like IntegrityBC coming out and saying: "This process is not an acceptable part of a government's actions around an independent boundary redistribution examination."

If this was something brand-new — if we had not been doing this for so many years and if we weren't doing it in provinces across the country and, in fact, federally — you might expect the government to, if it was a brand-new process, maybe make some mistakes, make some blunders, perhaps be incompetent enough not to understand that they are countermanding everything that the Boundaries Commission was set up to achieve and the very basic premise of that.

I would hope that at this point in time the government will have some sober second thought. In some ways, that's a bit of a faint hope, because we have seen a repeated pattern here, especially under the current Premier, of actions first, consultation second — or, as the old saying goes, marry in haste, repent in leisure. The government gets itself into a situation and then has to try and backpedal out of it because of public outcry, because of the likelihood of legal challenges and all of those things. This is an opportunity on this particular bill for the government to have some….

I know that there's been some talk about amendments. Well, the government could even save themselves that particular argument and simply pull this bill back and have real consultation with British Columbians rather than this after-the-fact consultation. It does not improve our electoral process and it does not improve people's lack of confidence in the current government to constantly be having to go out and explain why you are refusing to consult with the very people who elected you and put you here.

In this case, the real twist is that this is all about representation. This is all about ensuring that people have good, equal, fair representation so that their voices can be heard here, so that their representatives can come here and stand up for the communities and enact their democratic right to be heard.

The government is going to deny all of that, because they're going to say: "Well, you can consult, but on this it's much more narrowed. We don't want to hear your opinion on anything outside of this narrow criteria." You know, even now, with the potential amendment around the number of seats, that seems to be a moving target.

The government wrote this bill and is already amending it. Before it even gets to the point of passing it and being tested, they're already having to amend it. Why is that? Well, it's because the government can clearly see
[ Page 3484 ]
that the opposition to this — not just here, on this side of the House, but around British Columbia — is enormous.

[1750]

It's strong, and it continues to undermine and demoralize the whole democratic process, feeds into the skepticism that voters have about their ability to have their representatives listen to them and represent them.

I would think that at this point if the government really wants to do the right thing and to be seen to do the right thing, then they should take this opportunity to pull this bill back and, in fact, let the boundaries commission do its job. It hasn't failed us so far — well, except for that thing about Gracie's finger.

But in the last few boundary redistribution rounds, we've had faith. We've allowed the commission to do its job. We've believed that it was intelligent enough to go out and listen to British Columbians and that they were engaged and intelligent enough to know their communities and to be able to have their say — and, at the end of the day, for the commission to make some decisions based on that.

I would also hope — certainly, if I have an opportunity to participate in this — to begin to have this larger discussion about what we do around the changing distribution of populations in our country so that it is not impossible for our representatives to get out and connect with their constituents or for constituents to feel that connectivity to their representatives.

This is yet one more call to the government to please reconsider Bill 2. If you're going to amend it…. I wouldn't even go that far unless you want to amend this bill to say: "We are not going to constrain the Electoral Boundaries Commission in its work. We are going to trust that they will go out and do a good job. They'll consult with British Columbians."

Everybody in this House certainly has an opportunity to go and have their say. It's not like government doesn't have any ability to have their own views heard on this or to have their influence at those tables. No one is constraining them from going in and pushing the idea of capping the number of ridings and protecting, mostly, B.C. Liberal seats.

I'm not sure the commission would really buy into that as thoroughly. If it's allowed to do its independent job, I suspect that they're not going to protect anybody's seats in that way but that they are going to listen to the public about their rights to and ability to and access to fair boundaries, fair constituency sizes and access to their elected members.

I will be voting against this bill. I'm certainly going to be fascinated to see, with the government already amending the bill before the bill is even in place, what is the first mistake or reconsideration that they're going to table here. But at the end of the day, it's a bad bill. I can't support it. I know my constituents will not be supporting it. I would hope that the government has a second thought on this.

G. Heyman: I'm pleased to rise in my spot today to add my voice to those of my colleagues who have been speaking about all the flaws represented in this bill. I wish, frankly, I didn't have to, but I feel compelled to do so because of the continued problem with initiatives and bills from this government that just appear to not respect the independence of independent commissions or officers of the Legislature and substitute the perceived wisdom of government in their place.

I spoke earlier today about some of the cynicism of people with the political process in general and how that drives people away from belief or faith in government. It drives people away from voting. Yet here we are again today dealing with another example of intervention in a process that should be left to an independent commission.

It may well be that an independent commission could reach the same conclusion that the government has done, but the government has done so with a vested interest. An independent commission does so after reviewing the submissions of all interested parties and considering in its totality what the wisest course of action may be.

[1755]

I think the whole nature of the way we elect representatives to this House is of concern to British Columbians. I think it's not with great pride that we find ourselves in a position where the general public of British Columbia doesn't understand what goes on in the Legislature and doesn't believe it has a direct impact on their lives too often.

Frankly, anything whatsoever that smacks of self-interest or intervention or excessive control or advantaging one region of the province over another is not a good thing for enhancing participation in democracy. It's not a good thing, frankly, for the way in which people are brought together to represent the many regions and the many diverse communities within British Columbia in this chamber.

What we have is essentially an arbitrary establishment of three regions totalling 17 ridings that are effectively being frozen. There is some ability of the commission under the guidance — or it's not really guidance; it's direction — contained in this bill to perhaps amend boundaries within the region but maintain the same number of seats.

Now, I understand the difficulty of representing far-flung regions of this province in the north and in the Interior. I lived in Skeena for many years. I worked with two MLAs in that region. I travelled with them on occasion.

I understood how difficult it was for them to reach all of the constituents, how much time it took and how there's a natural tendency of people in the north and in the Interior to feel that their representation is undervalued compared to those people west of Hope, those people in the Metro Vancouver region, those people on Vancouver Island.
[ Page 3485 ]

Whether it's a feeling of being disadvantaged or the fierce independence that people throughout the province feel in the north and in the Interior, this feeling that other people just don't get them, I never quite figured that out. But I do understand that people react badly to any sense that they're being disenfranchised or disentitled or having their vote diminished or their representation diminished.

So I do understand how important it is to ensure that people in different regions of the province remain well represented, that they have representation and that the people who are elected to represent them aren't required to travel such vast regions or more vast than currently exist and attempt to maintain contact.

I also worked with the federal MP for Skeena for many years, and I know how difficult it was for him to come back from Ottawa at a time where he had a few days to attend to business in the constituency, get to Vancouver, get to the constituency and then get to the far-flung regions of it. It is a difficult job. It is a difficult task of representation, whether somebody is a provincial Member of the Legislative Assembly or a Member of Parliament.

I understand why a boundaries commission would look at that and would consider it carefully. But the flaw here is that there is, in fact, a formula that has been devised by the Supreme Court, an understanding that in order to maintain the principle of representation by population, a particular recommendation shouldn't deviate from the provincial average by more or less than 25 percent with rare exception that justifies the discrepancy.

Unfortunately, it's hard to say that 17 seats is a rare exception, especially when there is no clear justification for how those 17 seats were targeted. For example, it's unclear why certain ridings are included. Kamloops–South Thompson — I'm not sure I would consider this…. It's certainly not an urban riding in the sense of Metro Vancouver or the capital regional district, but it's not a vast distance away from Victoria. It's not a huge constituency compared to others.

[1800]

At the same time, others were not included in the 17 seats. North Island, Powell River–Sunshine Coast — these are at least equally difficult constituencies to represent, if not more difficult, and yet they are not in one of the regions that were designated. They are not among the 17 seats that have been designated.

One has to ask — the people of British Columbia will ask, and it's quite possible that the courts may ask: where is the rationale for this extensive deviation from the principle of plus or minus 25 percent?

Fair enough. Maybe the Boundaries Commission would have reached that conclusion on their own, but the point is that the Boundaries Commission is an independent body. The Boundaries Commission would reach a conclusion after hearing from not just these 17 constituencies but others, and the Boundaries Commission could make a recommendation that might well stand the test in court.

But to simply have a majority government come in with a set of recommendations for 17 protected ridings, 11 of which are currently held by Liberal members, seems to me to be asking for a court challenge, which will delay the process and delay the amendment of electoral boundaries for the next election and the whole processing of democracy in British Columbia unnecessarily.

It calls into question the goodwill not just of the government but this House, which is why so many of us are rising to speak against this bill. It raises for British Columbians once again the whole question about whether the electoral process and the conditions under which the boundaries are set, the conditions under which their vote is valued, the conditions under which the whole question of representation by population is apportioned, with some attention being paid to hard-to-represent regions, travel issues, etc., etc…. It raises the question for British Columbians whether they are justifiably cynical and alienated about the political process that is happening in this province and the various processes by which decisions are made that affect their vote, the weight of their vote as well as the weight of the vote of other citizens and other regions in this province.

The government, through this bill, is telling the Electoral Boundaries Commission that they must not recommend that the total number of ridings in B.C. go beyond the existing 85. I understand why the government would do that. I understand that the idea of populating this House, besides the obvious growing space limitations here and the crowding at some of the corners that exists…. I understand why British Columbians, who are already cynical about politicians and are already cynical about what they get for what they pay for, don't want to see more politicians in this chamber — notwithstanding the fact that the population keeps growing and, therefore, the task of representing people grows exponentially.

We don't know, in fact, what amendment the government may be thinking of bringing in, but currently the direction from the government in this bill was to restrict the number of seats to the existing number, to protect 17 seats within three regions — although there might be some boundary distribution — and by doing so, have huge deviation from the principle, the court principle, the legal principle, that there should not be, except in very extraordinary circumstances, a deviation of more than plus or minus 25 percent from the provincial average. That's a problem.

What is the point of having an Electoral Boundaries Commission if they're operating within such tight strictures? What is the point of using the term "independent" if, in fact, they're not independent? I mean, the government could easily have come in with a bill that just said: "Here are the new boundaries. We'll appoint the commission to rubber-stamp them. We'll laugh at the opposition
[ Page 3486 ]
because they have no ability to impact the vote." Well, they haven't done that, but they have placed tight constraints on the independence of the commission.

[1805]

When we're dealing with something as fundamental as the proceedings of democracy, the mechanisms by which people exercise their democratic franchise, it is exceedingly important to respect the principles of representation by population with minimum deviation, except where it's clearly called for and demonstrated as necessary — to respect the independence of those bodies that are charged with both making decisions with respect to electoral boundaries and carrying out and implementing the entire process of elections.

Since this bill was introduced in this House, we have seen considerable outcry about something ineptly titled the Fair Elections Act that was introduced in the federal parliament. We have seen virtually every media commentator question why a government would bring in a bill about elections, say it's fair, expect people to think that it's fair, when it so clearly was an imposition on the democratic process that favoured the government in power.

We have seen the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada, former Chief Electoral Officers rise to speak against this kind of manipulation of the democratic and electoral process in Canada that has increased the cynicism of electors. It has increased the alienation of electors, and maybe that was the purpose of that bill.

Surely, people on both sides of this House should not want that to be the result of legislation introduced into this House to deal with the electoral process, legislation that will determine the fairness of elections in British Columbia, the fairness and the application of the principles of representation by population as well as the very important principle of ensuring that we do not disadvantage people in hard-to-reach and hard-to-travel areas of the province.

I understand clearly, because I've lived there, that that is a factor that has to be taken into account, but that is precisely why we have the deviation rules that are currently in place. That is precisely why even with that court-established principle of a maximum deviation from the average size of a constituency, there is allowance in special circumstances to go beyond that.

Without demonstrating why these 17 seats were chosen and without demonstrating why these three geographic regions were established and why certain constituencies were included in them and certain others were not and without demonstrating why it is so important, in the government's view, to have 17 of the 85 seats treated as special cases that could potentially significantly exceed the plus or minus 25 percent deviation while at the same time effectively weakening the vote and the value of the votes of people in more populated areas that are growing and continue to grow, continue to contain significant portions of British Columbia's population as well as significant portions of British Columbia's immigrant population....

Without demonstrating why those moves were made, I don't think we can expect the courts to uphold the final decision when faced with the almost inevitable challenge. I don't believe we can expect British Columbians themselves to believe that there is good cause for this bill, that this bill is founded on wise decision-making, wise consideration.

It's just here before us. It says to the independent Electoral Boundaries Commission: "We don't really value your independence. We don't trust you to make good decisions on behalf of British Columbians. We don't think that you're going to do the right thing for people in all regions of the province while respecting the principles of representation by population and at the same time respecting the needs for representation by people in the north, by people in the Interior, by people in the far-eastern reaches of the province, in the Kootenays."

[1810]

We should, in fact, trust the Electoral Boundaries Commission to take all of those factors into account and find a way to do this, within the constraints that British Columbians themselves would expect of us and of the commission to be cost-conscious, to be conscious of exactly how much representation we need, to find a way to do this.

If the commission in its wisdom — after hearing submissions from British Columbians, after considering the law, after hearing the views and wishes of people in this chamber — believed that something like Bill 2 or something close to Bill 2 was justified and necessary, I'm sure they would put their reasons and their rationale and their decision-making process down in a way that likely could stand up — at least, be a good argument against a court challenge or anyone who might wish to advance a court challenge, but this bill does not do that.

Certainly, the Electoral Boundaries Commission won't do it, because they don't have the leeway or the discretion to make that decision on their own. They have a tight box within which to operate. They certainly can do some adjustments within that box, and they will do some adjustments outside of the boxes of those three regions in order to find some way to make some sense out of what's left with the remaining ridings in British Columbia. It's not the best way to make independent decisions in which both the courts and British Columbians can have confidence, and it is not the best way to adjust electoral boundaries in British Columbia for the next election.

It will create all kinds of consequences that will be, in the end, unfair to certain regions of British Columbia, unfair to certain British Columbians, will skew the whole nature of the decisions that are made in this chamber. It's not a good idea, unless we know why that decision is being made and why that direction was given — beyond the
[ Page 3487 ]
only thing that is obvious to us, which is that the Liberal government currently holds 11 of the 17 protected ridings, and the only thing that's left is to rearrange the deck chairs for the remaining 68 urban ridings.

I have no problem, and my colleagues have no problem, with the commission exercising discretion in order to ensure effective representation, but that discretion should not be overridden before the fact by the government. As I've said, that breeds cynicism. It invites court challenges.

I don't know what amendment is being considered, but we urge the government — and I urge the government — to give the commission the tools it needs to make recommendations that are both consistent with the law and consistent with the principles of representation by population, with the ability to amend in certain circumstances for extraordinary situations of large and widespread constituencies where, perhaps, travel is difficult even though population may be low.

I don't think it's appropriate for the government to try to so carefully micromanage the outcome of any decision-making process that must be independent in considering our democratic electoral processes. As I've said, it's likely that the constitutionality of the amendments will be challenged in court, and it won't be the first time that this government has plowed ahead with legislation or with actions with no regard or little regard for the actual constitutionality of those bills.

Just recently we have seen the government lose a Supreme Court challenge a second time and then, in fact, have their subsequent actions, which were supposed to abide by the direction of the Supreme Court and remedy the very result of the bill they passed whose constitutionality had been found lacking…. They were found by another court to have, in fact, not done that and to have once again attempted to reach, by a roundabout process, the same result they got in the original constitutionally challenged act.

Here once again we have the government ignoring the findings of the court and plowing on, regardless of the fact that the constitutionality of these changes may well, hon. Speaker, be challenged successfully in court.

[1815]

We've seen that the vast majority of the 63 public submissions with respect to this bill were opposed to the bill's contents. British Columbians who have chosen to speak on this bill, as well as members on this side of the House, have said: "Let the commission be independent. Let the commission do its work."

If you have strong reason to protect these 17 seats within three regions, if you have strong reason to radically change the nature of the value and weighting of the vote of people in urban regions, then lay that out for the independent commission. Let them weigh the various submissions, including the government's, and let the commission make a decision.

Let the independent commission make a decision. Let us not have decisions about something that should be so fundamentally free from self-interest and partisan interest as the electoral process and how riding boundaries are distributed be made by the very politicians who will either benefit or not benefit from such decisions.

In closing, as my colleagues have said, this bill is flawed. This bill is quite possibly unconstitutional. This bill will be challenged, not only in the courts but in the court of public opinion. This bill is ill advised. I urge the government to go back to the drawing board. In the interim, certainly we will wait to see what amendments are introduced, but on its face, as it now stands, I will be opposing this bill.

R. Fleming: I would like to speak for a little while on Bill 2, because it's a sweeping piece of legislation and a departure from past legislative reforms that have put B.C. on a better course around deciding how electoral boundaries should be made in British Columbia, in terms of the independence from the Legislative Assembly of doing that.

I certainly came of age, politically speaking, in the 1980s, when electoral boundaries issues were front-page headlines in newspapers. The term "Gracie's finger" was something that was understood by voters throughout British Columbia. There was, rightfully so, a backlash to the idea that legislators would intrude, so much so, on what the election map of B.C. looks like, that they would literally determine the shape of their ridings without any regard to the lay of the land or the natural geographic divisions of a city or rural parts of British Columbia.

Yet that happened here in British Columbia, and because British Columbians responded and told government that that was an affront to democracy, and because there was such a backlash at that time in that decade, government had to assert the independence of drawing those boundaries. It was a correction that was made.

B.C. was not, I'm afraid to say, at the head of the curve on having an independent electoral boundaries process in Canada. It was in a position where it had to catch up with best practices in other provinces, but we did make some giant leaps at the close of that decade in the 1980s and going into the 1990s. We empowered the Chief Electoral Officer of Elections British Columbia. We appointed a member of the judiciary to be one of the three panelists, and by mutual agreement, the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition agreed on the third panelist — who was appointed, of course, by your office, Madame Speaker.

That was the fundamental clean-up that had to occur in order to restore public confidence, that it was no longer okay to decide where the boundaries in British Columbia politically were placed in darkened committee rooms of the Legislative Assembly. It had to be done here, on the floor of the assembly, setting free a completely independ-
[ Page 3488 ]
ent commission to do that, in consultation with British Columbians all around the province. Final approval, obviously, comes back to this place.

[1820]

Here we are, at this stage of debate — Bill 2 has been introduced; we're on second reading debate — and we see a fundamental subversion of those reform efforts that took place over the last 20 and 30 years in British Columbia. It's fundamental because the intrusion is great into how the independent commission will function. Its terms of reference, if you will, have been stacked in terms of government's agenda around where it wishes to see seats preserved and, I think equally important, where it doesn't wish to see representation preserved. This is a template that is being put down on top of the independent election commission in our province to skew how the map is drawn in B.C. in time for the 2017 general election.

The House of Commons right now is having a glorious debate about changes to the Elections Act there that rages back and forth. I don't even know where it is at this week, because it doesn't seem that a month can go by when the same minister is in charge of the piece of legislation that is before the House of Commons that would fundamentally change how voters are enfranchised in Canada. But here in B.C. this is an important bill. There are important principles at stake.

I think people at home understand that it's always a good idea to beware when the subject of electoral boundary changes comes up in a place like this. They should always beware when boundaries and constituencies or ridings — what people commonly refer to them as — are being decided by partisan actors in the election process. That's the first warning sign that people ought to tread carefully and that scrutiny is required, and that's what Bill 2 needs.

On this side of the House we've taken a close look at this legislation. Many of my colleagues have talked about the flaws of this bill. I think this bill is an affront to the principle of independence of our elections officer, of the panel that is required under the act.

It's also a second affront to another body within our democracy whose independence has been asserted over centuries, and that is the judiciary. There has been direction in Canada over many, many decades about what is and what is not reasonable in terms of how proportional a democracy should be — about how much one person's vote should count in one part of Canada versus another, about how much that can be stretched or, if you want to use the word, distorted.

Most provinces have taken direction from the courts and have asked their independent agencies to respect the principle of, in most cases, plus or minus 25 percent of the population. This bill, Bill 2, will torque that in British Columbia to such a degree that we will have, potentially, constituencies in this province where the vote of one person in an urban area is cancelled out by the relative weight of 1½ votes in a different constituency.

That is way outside the guidelines that have been used and given direction by the courts and are, in fact, the principle in other provinces. That is really at the crux of this debate.

Madame Speaker, I would like to talk specifically about how Bill 2 might play out in different parts of the province, but I do note the hour, and I do see the chair of the committee debate that we've been having in the other chamber. If I may reserve my place in this debate at the next sitting of the House to debate Bill 2.

R. Fleming moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

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

Hon. T. Lake moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 6:25 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); M. Dalton in the chair.

The committee met at 2:42 p.m.

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

C. Trevena: While we get things sorted, I just have one question for the minister. A constituent of mine, who is 75 years old…. Her son is on permanent disability. Part of it's CPP, and part of it is a disability payment. She says that he's been on about $906 for the last ten years. The minister is very well aware of the increasing cost of living, the need for buying clothes and supplies and everything else.

This constituent is concerned about two things. One is
[ Page 3489 ]
that this has been stuck at $906 for ten years, and she feels that her son deserves an increase to match the cost of living. Second is the fact that he's going to have to cope on his own when she passes away. She is 75 years old and in good health at the moment, but there is that whole concern about what is going happen to her son in a few years' time, particularly on this limited amount.

I wonder if the minister could answer whether there is any plan to increase the level for a permanent disability.

[1445]

Hon. D. McRae: Obviously, there are two pieces here. There's the talk about the rates. I think you were away last week when the critic — both critics, I think — touched on this issue. While it's not something we're planning in the near future, one of the things that I'm looking forward to is, as the economy continues to grow and there's an opportunity for new revenues coming into government, that we have a chance to look at the rates and see if there are opportunities there.

That being said, I was looking through the correspondence we have received from yourself, and I'm not overly familiar with this particular case. You mentioned, I believe, that the parent is 75 years old. So, quite conceivably, the individual could be maybe 55 or in that range or younger.

That being said, if there are issues that the individual has, whether it's about rates or the person has a developmental disability…. I'm not sure whether they are a CLBC client. But if there are concerns and they're not getting the services perhaps they think they're aware of, by all means, like many members on both sides of the House, please — especially in writing; it makes it a little easier — contact my office, and we can look into it to make sure that the said individual is in receipt of what they're entitled to. If there are some questions or concerns they have, we'd be more than happy to see those addressed.

M. Mungall: I know that there were some people on Thursday who were hoping to be tuning in on line for some of the questions or tuning in to their television sets for some questions on the persons-with-disabilities part of the ministry. We didn't get to those unfortunately. So I'm going to start with that today, and then later on we'll go to some other issues within income assistance, and then we'll move on to other portions of the ministry.

My first question is: what measures of basic costs of living does the government use to determine income assistance rates for people with disabilities? For example, last Thursday we did talk about the Canadian market basket measure, LICO and the Sarlo measure. I'm just wondering if you're using any of those. Is it the same for what they determine for all income assistance rates, or are there any special considerations for persons with disabilities?

[1450]

Hon. D. McRae: A good question from the member opposite. Definitely, when we were doing the white paper consultations across the province, we heard many good suggestions and concerns being raised. Concerns about rates were raised by many individuals. I don't think we're going to hide from that at all.

In answer to the question from the member opposite, the ministry takes into account basic costs of nutritious food. We listen to groups like the Dietitians of Canada, LICO, the market basket report, the Fraser Institute and estimates of housing costs, clothing, hygiene and other goods reported by StatsCan. Changes in the consumer price index of basic goods and services are also monitored.

As well, to the member opposite, though I know she has probably heard me say this before, in this ministry alone there are 70 other programs that persons with disabilities may have access to, plus other ministries as well. So it's not just about the rates. I know that's an important conversation and one we'll probably be having for a while, but the reality is that many ministries provide supports for persons with disabilities and persons on income assistance in the province.

M. Mungall: I'm just wondering if the minister is aware that the current rates for PWD are not even at the Sarlo measure, which as I pointed out on Thursday, is actually the most conservative measure that exists for determining poverty levels. In B.C. the rate for PWD is below the Sarlo measure of poverty. I'm just wondering if the minister is aware of that and if they are monitoring to that level.

Hon. D. McRae: Yes, we are definitely aware of the Sarlo reports. But as well, again, we talked about the 70 different supplements for individuals, persons with disabilities. Obviously, there is a basic disability assistance rate. Also, we enhance health services, health supplies, transportation needs, rent, deposits, moving costs and some unexpected expenses, which probably cover between 5 and 10 percent of the base support, plus shelter rates for persons with disabilities.

By all means, we're well aware of that report, and we constantly try to make sure that our system of supports evolves to best meet the needs of persons with disabilities in the province of British Columbia.

M. Mungall: I'll just let the minister know that other provinces have similar programs to what he's listing off, above and beyond the basic rates. Other provinces don't fall below the Sarlo measure in terms of where their rates are in reference to a poverty line. Most of them are actually in line with the market basket measure and LICO. I just wanted to highlight that for the minister — something for him to consider.

I do want to ask some questions about PWD and its
[ Page 3490 ]
relationship with CPP. For the people at home who are wondering, "Great, another wonderful afternoon spent in the Legislature and acronym soup," PWD is persons with disabilities, and CPP is the Canada Pension Plan. Presently the government here in B.C. demands that seniors receiving PWD apply for CPP once they reach the age of 60.

[1455]

I'm just wondering if the minister knows that in 2012 Newfoundland and Labrador ended this practice and that Ontario and Alberta and the Northwest Territories give seniors with disabilities the choice of applying for CPP retirement before age 65.

Hon. D. McRae: Yes, we are aware of those other provinces.

M. Mungall: That being the case, then, I just want the minister to hear about Philip Nichols. He's a resident here in south Island and was forced to take early CPP retirement by this government. At 65 years old he will receive 33 percent less due to the forced early application.

He, of course, is not the only senior with this story. Why does the ministry financially penalize seniors with disabilities by forcing them to take early-retirement CPP?

Hon. D. McRae: I'm not overly familiar with the individual, though I'm sure he — I think it was a he — has concerns. Obviously, at age 65, and the member opposite knows this, the individual becomes eligible for CPP, guaranteed income supplement, old age security from the federal government — other programs, as well, like bus pass and MSP premium assistance, of course.

That being said, without knowing the full scenario of the individual…. I haven't seen any correspondence about this said person. If either the member opposite or the individual himself, I think it was, wishes to contact our office, we can always look into it some more to make sure that those numbers are correct. But there are those other federal programs and other ministry programs to assist individuals at this stage of their life.

[1500]

M. Mungall: I'm sorry if I wasn't making myself clear. Mr. Philip Nichols's story…. The reason why I was sharing it was to highlight, actually, what many seniors are going through when they hit 60 years old and have been receiving PWD income supports up until then.

At 60 years old people are eligible to apply for CPP retirement at that time. What this ministry does is say to their clients who are receiving PWD that at 60 years old they must apply for CPP early retirement. What that does over the long term of their life as a senior is reduce their overall CPP benefits.

For Mr. Philip Nichols specifically, he receives 33 percent less. His story is just an example, right? I'm not asking the minister to specifically comment on Mr. Nichols's story. It's just highlighting that people are receiving a considerable amount less through this early retirement than they would if they got to apply at 65.

Other provinces have seen that this is actually age discrimination. They don't think this is okay. Therefore, they are changing this policy.

What I've learned — not just from Mr. Nichols but from seniors all over the province who have been contacting me on this — is that the way in which the ministry staff are handling their particular cases isn't very respectful either, unfortunately. I do have some copies of the form letters that they receive. They're quite curt and to the point. Let me just pull this one up.

They're quite curt. They're quite to the point that people must apply for their CPP retirement. Until they do apply for their early CPP retirement, their benefits will be withheld. That's another part of this whole thing. Not only will seniors be receiving less income, as a result of early retirement, over the course of their lives, but the ministry further penalizes them by saying: "You won't get anything to live off next month unless you make that application." It's quite undignified, to be frank, Minister.

I'm just asking the ministry some questions around that. Namely, I want to know, and the minister answered, if they are aware that this is being changed in other provinces. And if they are aware that it's being changed in other provinces, as the minister said, is there any indication that this ministry is looking at making similar changes here in British Columbia so that we don't see the same type of age discrimination take place here for our seniors?

[1505]

Hon. D. McRae: We try to give individuals who are transitioning from PWD to CPP a four-month transition window. I know that's not part of the question, but the reality is we try to work with the individual in question here as much as possible to make sure they're aware of the changes. But as well, income assistance is, basically, income of last resort, and we're not looking at changing this policy any time in the near future.

M. Mungall: That is unfortunate. The concern from seniors out around the province is that this is age discrimination, and if they don't apply within that four-month period, they are being told — I won't use the word "threatened," but that is the word that they use to me when they are talking about how this leaves them feeling — that they will be cut off all income supports unless they do apply, under the guise that they must seek out all other financial sources before they are able to receive persons with disability.

These are people with disabilities, and to further penalize them financially by taking away a monthly income, on top of then saying, "You're going to be getting less for the course of your life" because you have had to apply
[ Page 3491 ]
and receive early CPP, is truly unfair. I would say it goes beyond age discrimination. I do hope that the ministry will reconsider and take the point that they do need to be looking into this.

My next question is that the ministry, as the minister mentioned, is presently conducting a white paper consultation to make B.C. "the most progressive jurisdiction for people with disabilities." I understand, and the minister did allude to this, that they have heard from many British Columbians that PWD is much too low. So will the minister, then, be reviewing PWD income assistance rates in relationship to the market basket measure for poverty or some other measure that determines what we commonly refer to as the poverty line?

Hon. D. McRae: Just to read into the record. When we started the whole white paper conversation and consultation, we also provided everybody who participated with a terms of reference so they were clear as to where we were coming from. And though I'm sure some individuals were able to read this, just for the record, if I can, I'll just read the fifth paragraph under the background under the terms of reference:

"It is important to recognize that British Columbia is committed to balancing its budget and reducing debt for future generations. The white paper and summit must include an honest conversation on how the fiscal commitment can be met while at the same time reduce barriers and improve accessibility. Discussion of how well existing resources are being used and ways we can leverage our shared resources will be a very important part of the conversation."

I must say I was very impressed with the dialogue and the input that we received across the province of British Columbia during the white paper consultation. I thought it was very thoughtful. It was very mindful of the situation people are in now, situations that people may find themselves in going forward. I look forward…. As we come out in the next several months, you will see several recommendations, and from that we'll start crafting a workplan going forward.

[1510]

Both the Premier and myself have said, as well, for the record, that looking at rates is something we would like to do with when the fiscal situation is improving. But at this stage I can't make any commitments as to when that will be.

M. Mungall: If, then, the fiscal situation doesn't allow for rates to be increased, according to this government, have they done the analysis of how much it would cost if rates were increased by $50 or by $100 per month for people with disabilities, noting that even increasing it by that much still puts people well below the poverty line?

Hon. D. McRae: I'd say it's a rough calculation, but it's fairly accurate. For every dollar the rates were to go up, it would cost $1 million per year. So a $50 increase per month would be equivalent to $50 million, approximately, and $100, obviously, to $100 million per year.

M. Mungall: I'm just wondering if the ministry, then, as part of the white paper process will be reviewing the ways in which other provinces deliver income supports to people with disabilities. For example, Alberta, we know, has a rate for AISH that is considerably higher, about $600 higher per month than what is available here in B.C.

I'm wondering if the government is looking at what's happening in other jurisdictions as perhaps some good, out-of-the-box thinking that perhaps we should be doing here in British Columbia so that rates can be raised so that we can actually address some of the very common — and I will be asking later on if it's the number one — comments coming out of the white paper process, which is that the rates are too low.

Hon. D. McRae: Yes, we are aware of what's going on in Alberta. The member is correct. It is about $600 a month more in Alberta, I believe, as well. However, that being said, it's never apples to apples when we talk about these cross-province comparisons. You know, they have a range of services that will be different than ours to some degree.

I think it's fairly well known, you know, if you compare the provinces, that to be eligible for that income in Alberta, it is far more restrictive and harder to get on in Alberta. In some ways you could argue that perhaps they are able to pay more because they are having less people actually go on to their PWD system.

But by all means, we do pay attention to what's going on across the country. And it's very seldom…. I've learned this in many different ministries as I've spent my time in government — that it's never apples-to-apples comparables as we look across this nation.

M. Mungall: Well, the minister is right to say that it's never apples to apples, but one place where I would argue that it is apples to apples is the asset allowances for people with disabilities. In Alberta, for example, they allow people with disabilities to retain up to $100,000 of their assets. In B.C. it's only $5,000. I'm wondering if the ministry is looking to increase the allowable asset retention for people with disabilities.

[1515]

Hon. D. McRae: Once again, as we use these farming analogies, it's never apples to apples. The member opposite, to some degree, is correct. In Alberta you are allowed to retain assets of up to $100,000 worth. In B.C. it's $5,000. However, in British Columbia we did do a policy shift that allows assets to be placed in trust, which can be up to $200,000. So with trust and the asset retention piece, that could be up to $205,000; Alberta is $100,000. However, again, it's not exactly the same jurisdiction.
[ Page 3492 ]

M. Mungall: However, I would point out, though, that once assets are in trusts, they're not necessarily easily liquidated. People might need to have easier access to their assets rather than just putting them in a trust.

I'm wondering if the ministry is going to allow a greater level — for asset exemptions of greater than $5,000 to not have to be in a trust. I'm sure the minister understood my intention there.

Hon. D. McRae: The member opposite is aware of the recent phase of policy reforms that did things like the $800 earning exemption, the pilot for the annualized early exemption piece. We did at that time double the asset retention from $2,500 to $5,000 and also brought in the $200,000 trust exemption or retention piece.

Like I said last week, as well, in regards to some of these policy changes, we continually look at opportunities to see further reforms going forward. That being said, we're still in the compilation phase of the white paper —information that came in — so nothing is imminent. I don't want to lead anybody down the path that it's happening in the very near future. But it's an idea that definitely has merit and that we are considering.

M. Mungall: My next question is about the community volunteer supplement. The program was put on hold or…. I can't say cancelled, because there are still people who are part of this program, but no new applications were accepted starting in August 2011. The government at that time said that they would be coming up with a new program. Of course, we haven't heard any announcement of the sort around this.

We know that this program has been very, very successful in communities. I remember when I was managing a non-profit that many of our volunteers were part of the community volunteer supplement. Some of them even went on to have the experience necessary for paid work — at part time, of course, but they got their first foot in the door because of the community volunteer supplement.

[1520]

I'm just wondering what's going on with this program. We know it's successful. People in the disability community and throughout the non-profit sector would like to see it come back, restored and new applications being taken. Or those people who are currently doing the community volunteer supplement program whose volunteer position, for whatever reason, was no longer able to continue, who then lost the opportunity to stay in that program as they seek volunteer opportunities elsewhere.

My basic question is: what's going on with this program?

Hon. D. McRae: In regards to the member's question, I think the paraphrase at the very end was: what's up with that? I'll give you as much as I can on the what's-up-with-that piece, but if you want more, I'm sure we could find more of that later on.

I think the member opposite said it was sort of capped in 2011. Everybody on the wait-list at the time wanting to get onto the community volunteer supplement was allowed on. From that point on, people, if they choose so voluntarily, can leave the community volunteer supplement program, and every month some people do.

[1525]

The employment program of British Columbia. We talked about some employment opportunities, because that's something we heard as we went around the province, especially on the white paper consultations but also beyond. Though not everybody with a disability or persons with disability is able to work, and I don't pretend it to be the solution, there was a desire to see more employment opportunities for persons with disability.

The employment program of British Columbia does help link individuals to employment opportunities. That being said, it's not like the community volunteer supplement program.

As well, the member opposite may not be aware, but one of the suggestions that came out of the Minister's Council on Employment and Accessibility was the creation of a presidents group of, basically, business leaders across the province of British Columbia to provide recommendations about what government can do or what barriers exist in society to provide employment for persons with disabilities. We just last week had our first meeting, which was chaired by Tamara Vrooman.

It was a very wide-ranging cross-section of business leaders in British Columbia. I look forward to some suggestions as to some of the issues that they raised as well in that conversation, because I think there's definitely a partnership. We have a large number of persons with disabilities who desire to work more or find their first job. There is also a real desire and a need by employers to make sure that they have access to a skilled workforce, one that is going to be beneficial to all involved. I look forward to seeing more employment opportunities for persons with disabilities going forward in the near future.

M. Mungall: Pardon me, but I didn't really hear an answer to my question of: what's up with that? I heard about looking into employment opportunities and how we can increase employment opportunities for people with disabilities, which, of course, every member of this House agrees with and is glad that that is being looked into.

The minister did note that not everybody would be able to find a suitable employment opportunity or that they have the ability to work. One of the things that was so great about the community volunteer supplement is that it wasn't always about leading on to employment. It was also about giving people an opportunity to be a part of their community, to not experience the isolation that is often a result of having a disability.
[ Page 3493 ]

It allowed them to get out into the community, help with the finances, the costs associated with taking a bus or finding appropriate attire for the volunteer opportunity or having a lunch, for example, if their shift was around lunchtime, or whatever it is. It provided some limited financial supports so that they could get out into the community, not be isolated, be a part of their community, give back and volunteer. That, at the core of the CVS, was what made it so successful — not necessarily about the employment side of things.

I didn't hear the minister say what is happening with that program and doing something. We were promised a new program would be coming out. We haven't seen anything.

[D. Plecas in the chair.]

We're wondering — and I'll say it again, just because it's probably the most lively thing going on right now and the closest thing to Saturday Night Live — what's up with that?

The Chair: Minister.

Hon. D. McRae: Thank you very much, hon. Chair. Good to see that the hon. Chair has morphed into a new chair.

By the way, that Saturday Night Live skit is one of my favourites.

That being said, one of the things with the community volunteer supplement, and the member opposite did say this, is it allows individuals…. It gives them some money for transportation, perhaps some specialized clothes to do the volunteer work — those kinds of pieces. The community volunteer supplement at this stage is situation status quo. It's not changing. It hasn't morphed into a new program. It may morph into a new program in the future but, like many policy reforms, nothing is in the immediate future.

[1530]

When it comes to things like transportation, clothing and communication, which is often what the community volunteer supplement was used for.... Through the employment program of British Columbia, as well, there are opportunities to be compensated for things like transportation, clothing and communications that are necessary to assist a person in searching for a form of work. Of course, persons with disabilities are also eligible for the bus pass, which is, I believe, $4 a month or $48 a year.

While the CVS was a cheque in hand to allow a person to volunteer, EPBC — the employment program of British Columbia — provides resources for individuals to do many of the same things.

M. Mungall: I just want to be clear. Somebody, for example, might have been participating in the CVS program and volunteering at their local Salvation Army. For whatever reason, they had to leave that volunteer position. Of course, they cannot reapply for the CVS program because all new applications have been cut off. Can they then go to EPBC centres — so if they're in Creston, for example, the Kootenay employment services centre — and say: "Can I get financial supplements so I can start this new volunteer position?"

Hon. D. McRae: In the case I think the member opposite used — was it Creston as your example? — the individual would go into the employment….

Interjection.

Hon. D. McRae: I like Creston. It's a beautiful place.

If they were to go into the Creston office, they were to work with the individual in the office and talk about their goals — whether it was employment or community attachment, which could be volunteerism as well, right? — the employment program of British Columbia would then cover their individualized supports. Whereas the community volunteer supplement…. Again, that was designed to support the individual in his or her volunteer endeavour.

If it turned out that an individual needed support X working with the employment program of British Columbia, it's very likely — I don't want to be so broad as to say that it's absolutely going to be covered — that the supports necessary for allowing the individual to volunteer or to gain some work experience or employment opportunity would be covered by the employment program of British Columbia, but it wouldn't be the $100 cheque every month in the mail.

[1535]

M. Mungall: Okay. Well, then next time somebody comes into my office and tells me about no longer being able to get the community volunteer supplement because of the program change since 2011, I'll let them know to go to Kootenay Employment Services or to KCDS in Nelson and see if they can get any financial supplements there. If not, the minister will definitely be hearing from me.

I also want to know…. The minister pointed out that people have been leaving the community volunteer supplement program. As we know, we've highlighted a couple of examples already here. I'm just wondering: as people drop off from the program, how much is the government saving? They're no longer having to pay out that $100 a month. There's no replacement, specifically, as targeted for that program, unless that money is now going over to EPBC. So how much is the government saving?

Hon. D. McRae: In regards to the community volunteer supplement, basically, it's forecast to go down by $200,000 next year. You asked where the money goes.
[ Page 3494 ]
Well, the money goes back to support other PWD programs. I'll give an example, if I may.

In 2012-13 the very popular bus pass program cost the ministry $45.4 million. The following year, '13-14, the cost of the bus pass program…. Remember, too, that people who are eligible come forward. If they apply to the bus pass program and they meet the eligibility, they are eligible and they get the dollars. It has gone up by approximately $2.1 million to $47.5 million.

Again, when there are savings in one program, they help supplement programs that are going up in other areas.

M. Mungall: I'm going to move on to questions about the shelter allowance of income assistance. When did the government determine, and how did they determine, that $375 a month was all that was needed to cover shelter costs for income assistance recipients?

[1540]

Hon. D. McRae: The two questions were when and how. In 2007 the rates were increased by $50 to $375 a month, obviously from $325. And how: a number of factors are looked at, including StatsCan, CMHC, and then it's balanced with what the government of the day — back then, I'm sure, though also if we were to go forward — can afford. It's a combination of information available and affordability to the taxpayer.

M. Mungall: The minister referenced CMHC. Now, CMHC provides some very interesting information showing that nothing is available at $375 in B.C. The lowest is in Quesnel at $436 a month for a bachelor suite. What other studies is the government using to determine this level, and what year were they published in?

[1545]

Hon. D. McRae: We're talking about CMHC. Just to members opposite, the CMHC survey — they probably know this, but just to read it into the record — covers only purpose-built, legal rental housing of three or more units — otherwise known as apartment buildings. So if a five-storey apartment building is built in a community, large or small, that was captured by the CMHC stats. However, opportunities like hotel rooms, basement suites, shared accommodations, secondary suites, rented houses, rented condos, rooming houses — these do not get captured by CMHC.

I know the member opposite is also aware that B.C. Housing works with clients to help find stable housing, especially those with special housing needs, within the $375 housing allowance. And the main stat — 50 percent of the rental stock in Vancouver and Victoria is this non-conventional, non-apartment rental stock.

M. Mungall: Clearly, the minister is getting that information from some kind of studies. I'm wondering what studies they are and when they were published.

Hon. D. McRae: We based the non-conventional housing information on Stats Canada 2006.

I know the member opposite is aware that the world of Stats Canada has changed in the last little while. This province and other provinces are working with the federal government to replicate the census data that once StatsCan did gather but no longer does. We are looking for an alternate source of data.

M. Mungall: Well, when the ministry does find an alternative source of data, they might find exactly what the Carnegie Community Action Project in their annual housing report found.

[1550]

Here's what that report had to say for 2013. "We found that at least 236 more rooms were lost to low-income people this year because their lowest rents increased to $425 a month or higher. There were no vacancies at the welfare shelter rate of $375 per month. We also found that 14 hotels with 614 rooms were renting all their rooms for $500 a month or more, which is completely out of the reach of people on welfare, disability or basic pension."

As the minister pointed out, the CMHC report does not look at things like hotel rooms, but here we have the Carnegie Community Action Project doing just that in their community. What they're finding is that nothing is available at $375, yet that is what this ministry is saying to people — all they can get for shelter.

I'm wondering if the minister can comment on that. Will they be looking to organizations like the Carnegie Community Action Project to fill in their missing data? Clearly, they don't have that right now.

Hon. D. McRae: Like I did earlier with the monthly rate issue with PWD, it is a pressure, and the $375-a-month housing allowance for a single person is a pressure as well, one that we acknowledge. We look at all the studies by community groups that we're aware of.

Just to read into the record, obviously a single in British Columbia is eligible for a housing supplement of $375. A couple is eligible for $570. Two parents with two children — for example, ages 10 and 13 — would be eligible for $700 a month in shelter rates. But I don't want to pretend otherwise. It is a challenge, and government has to look at the supports that are available with what government can afford.

I look forward to a scenario in the future when we have more dollars in the general revenue of British Columbia as the economy grows and employment grows, and we could have discussions about how those dollars could be spent for the benefit of all British Columbians, especially vulnerable British Columbians.
[ Page 3495 ]

M. Mungall: I'm just wondering if the ministry has done an investigation into the quality of market housing available at $375 a month or any of the rates available to single parents with a disability.

[1555]

I'll just point out, for example, that the highest amount that a single parent with a disability or on income assistance can get for rent is $820 a month. However, the average rent for a two-bedroom apartment in B.C. is at $1,069. Of course, if a single parent is going to be able to get that $820 a month, they have to have six kids. That would be a total of seven people in a two-bedroom apartment only getting $820 a month. But the average rent in B.C. is $1,069.

I'm just wondering: for all the totals that are available to people on income assistance for the shelter portion of their monthly supports, has the ministry done any analysis of the quality available in the market housing stock in this province?

Hon. D. McRae: I apologize, but we don't have that data. That question is best asked of the Minister Responsible for Housing, as that ministry is responsible for the residential tenancy branch, which would do that analysis.

M. Mungall: Well, then my next question is just why the government has not decided to…. Whether it was in 2007 or any time since then, it's been seven years since the shelter allowance has been increased. Meanwhile we know that the average housing costs have been increasing quite substantially. Why is the government not looking at that increase and just doing something as basic as making sure that the increases are done on an annual basis tied to inflation?

[1600]

Hon. D. McRae: Every time you raise rates, it comes at a cost. It would be an approximation. I don't want to say it's exactly this, but earlier we talked about the idea of raising rates. For every $1 the rates were to go up a month, it would be $1. It would be a subset or close to that, I believe. If you were to raise rates by another $40 or $50 a month, it would cost the government in the range of probably $40 to $50.

Obviously, you'll remember, back to 2007 and 2008, the economic situation, the economy, was far more robust back in those days. I was fortunate enough to come into the provincial government in 2009, just in time for the Great Recession. The economic situation has not been overly brilliant for the world economy as we go forward, but I look forward to the days when we can again have this conversation.

Not only in this ministry but other pressures in government…. You know, as we go forward, there is only one taxpayer. There are limited budgets within government. I would love to see the economy grow so we could have these conversations about how we can support more vulnerable people.

I know it's a challenge to live on $375, talking to individuals myself, like the member opposite does, I'm certain. It is very difficult to live in Vancouver in certain scenarios under $375, especially if you're not supported through B.C. Housing. I look forward to having this conversation in the future. It's just not something that's going to be able to happen in the near future.

M. Mungall: However, there's a very strong argument that if we know that we're increasing shelter allowance each year by inflation, we can actually better plan and better budget for it. It reduces the reactionary approach that this government has had to income assistance rates.

That's my first question: wouldn't this ministry find it to be a better budgetary process if we actually planned and increased shelter allowance — at the very least, tied it to inflation so that it was increasing every year at inflationary costs?

The second thing is that the minister talked about: "When the economy allows, when the economy allows." Well, to be honest, the public, British Columbians, have been hearing that from this government since 2002, whether the economy was good or the economy was bad. It's always "when the economy allows, when the economy allows."

That is a really old thing to say, and it's worn out. It's just worn out. I don't want to hear that anymore from the minister. I want to hear a real reason other than these excuses of "when the economy allows." This government has come up with a jobs plan that promised British Columbians it was going to fix all these problems. Clearly, it hasn't.

We have all the data to show that it hasn't. It hasn't delivered at all. I'm just asking the minister to not just go with "when the economy allows." It's worn out. There are too many holes in that, tired of hearing it, and just want to know if it would be better to plan for our budgets, to tie shelter allowance to inflation.

[1605]

Hon. D. McRae: Just to read into the record, the rates in 2007 were moved from $325 to $375 — a $50-a-month increase. I'm sure the member opposite is also very well aware that prior to that, the last increase for shelter supplement was in 1992, so they'd gone, basically, 15 years, through many successive governments, without raising them whatsoever. It's not like there has been a scenario in the last — I'll say — 22 years where we've actually tied to it.

However, as well, I think it's really important. I think it's irresponsible. If you're going to plan for expenses in government — in any ministry, in any program — you sure as heck better have a plan to help pay for those. If
[ Page 3496 ]
you don't have a plan about how you pay for that, the next thing you know is you're going to find yourself in a deficit that is unsustainable, and you'll find yourself in have-not status. That is just something that is not appropriate.

We want to make sure we are responsible to the people today. We also want to make sure we're not burdening children — our children and the generations to come — with debt because of irresponsible financial planning. If you're going to have something go up in cost, sure as heck you better have a way to pay for it, I believe.

M. Mungall: I agree that there needs to be a way to pay for it. I would pay for it by stopping corporate welfare. That's what I would do.

Anyhow, my next questions are about income assistance investigations. The ministry spends quite a lot of money investigating people who they are concerned about, who are possibly defrauding the system. I'm wondering how much the ministry spends per year on investigating cases where they suspect someone is defrauding the system.

[1610]

Hon. D. McRae: My apologies. It took a little longer than I thought, but thank you to staff.

I believe the question was: what does it cost to run the investigations branch? It was $10 million, approximately, per year. This allows government to recover $12 million, approximately. Those are rough numbers, but we were sort of on the fly. If they change substantially…. If the member opposite wants exact numbers, it'll take us longer.

M. Mungall: How many cases were investigated last year, and how does this compare to previous years?

Hon. D. McRae: If I were to give you the 2013-2014 stats, they're not complete, so it would be a partial year. If I can, I'll give you the last full year we have.

In 2012-2013 we had a number of investigation files opened — 382. That same year we closed 435. But the previous year, in 2011-2012, we opened 355 files and we closed 332. It depends, perhaps, what time of year the file is opened. Some, obviously, are more complex than others.

Just in case the member opposite is going to ask it as the next question — a little pre-emptive on my part — basically, we talk about criminal prosecutions concluded, which includes convictions, acquittals and stays of proceedings.

[1615]

In 2012-2013 it was 85 in number, and the year before it was 41 in number. The year currently is still ongoing in count.

M. Mungall: I'm wondering if the minister can share with us what the average amount in dispute in these cases is. For example, I've gotten a call in my office where somebody was being taken to task over $200. An exceptional amount of money, through the court system and so on, was being spent over $200.

My concern is that we're spending a lot of money for investigations that would only yield the province $200. But when I see that the ministry is spending $10 million on the investigations branch and recovering $12 million, that leads me to believe that we're actually dealing with a much higher amount than, for example, one person's $200 mistake. I'm wondering if the ministry can share with the public some of the average types of cases that we would see in the investigations branch.

Hon. D. McRae: Like the member opposite said, it could be an amount of $200, or it could be many, many thousands of dollars, but we just don't seem to have the average with us today. We'll get back to you on that average amount.

M. Mungall: My next question is about the Ombudsperson report Time Matters. It came out in the news in January. I'm sure the minister saw that, and the ministry did respond to some of the press inquiries about the issue. There are several recommendations in that report. I won't go through all of them because time just does not allow us to do that.

I'm wondering if the minister can tell the public where they are at in meeting the recommendations of that report to ensure that the reconsideration branch and complaints about the ministry are being dealt with in a timely manner.

[1620]

Hon. D. McRae: First of all, I'd like to thank the Ombudsperson, as well, for her hard work on behalf of the citizens of British Columbia. If I may just read into the record from the actual Time Matters publication that she released earlier this year — the title page, with her comments. I was very pleased to see two paragraphs in there. I'll read them into the record, if I may.

"I am pleased that the Ministry of Social Development and Social Innovation has accepted and agreed to implement the four recommendations in this report.

"The ministry has agreed to accurately track reconsideration requests and compliance with statutory time limits based on the date the reconsideration request was submitted. Doing so will enable the ministry to respond in a timely manner to any lapses in meeting the time limits."

In regards to the Ombudsperson, she made four recommendations. Three of the four have been implemented. The fourth is currently undergoing a Lean review of the PWD process over the next 12 to 18 months. Based on both staff conversations with the Ombudsperson and my conversations with the Ombudsperson, she is satisfied with that.
[ Page 3497 ]

That being said, one of the other issues I'd like to just read into the record as well…. Compliance with the legislated timelines for reconsideration decisions was previously low due to increased caseloads and staffing shortages, especially, if my memory serves me, in the 2010-2011 time. Staffing shortages have been addressed, and compliance with the legislated timelines has increased significantly.

I'm pleased to say that since January 2013 compliance rates have averaged 97 percent. So that's a big, I think, testament to the hard-working staff at the Ministry of Social Development and Social Innovation and their ability to deal with these issues in a timely manner. I want to thank them publicly.

M. Mungall: I want to move on to some questions around the white paper process. I don't know if that requires a staffing change or if you have everybody there that you need.

Hon. D. McRae: We'll give it a shot.

M. Mungall: Okay. I'm just wondering how people who are receiving PWD were notified about the white paper consultations.

[1625]

Hon. D. McRae: We did our very best. As the member opposite knows, I was fortunate enough to be selected to become Minister of Social Development and Social Innovation in June of 2013. The support started fairly soon after. I know the member opposite has seen the mandate letter.

To make sure individuals were aware, we did a number of things. For example, we had a number of media releases. All offices, in regards to Social Development and Social Innovation, had posters. There was notice on every cheque stub that went out. The B.C. Coalition of People with Disabilities was asked to help inform disability advocacy organizations as well as CLBC. We had an active social media campaign, as well, three months prior to consultations starting in December.

I don't take this in a negative light, but I was tricked by my staff into believing that CLBC Community Living Month was actually a month. Instead, they tricked me, and it turned out to be seven weeks. That being said, we started in late September and ended in November. It was something that when I went to a community or talked to an organization or to groups or families or parents, I made sure they were aware that this consultation was going to be starting in December as well. It was talked up in lots of different ways.

In the end, I must say, we had 23 sites for community consultations across the province of British Columbia — as far north as Fort St. John and as far, probably, east as Cranbrook and, obviously, west to Vancouver Island. Almost every single venue was at capacity. No one was turned away. If there were more than we expected, we found a way to get them in. I was impressed that communities large and small showed up to participate in this process. I was also, again, very thankful to staff for their assistance in helping organize this, for the time and effort they took away from their families to make sure that this process was successful.

M. Mungall: How many submissions did the government receive, both on line and in writing?

Hon. D. McRae: If the member opposite is ready, here are some stats from the white paper consultation. The total number of in-person community consultations: there were 23, in 15 different communities. In certain communities, whether it was Vancouver, Surrey, I know Prince George.... We had multiple sessions in some communities. Sometimes it was based on just total number of people who were interested in attending. Sometimes it was based on room availability. If we couldn't get a large room…. For example, in Prince George there was another event going on. We had a hard time getting a room, so we had a smaller room, but we were able to fill it to capacity twice.

Total attendance at the in-person consultations sessions: there were 1,149 individuals, with 116 community champions.

[S. Sullivan in the chair.]

Just from my experience, I think Quesnel had, say, in the low dozens, and then several in Vancouver and the Lower Mainland were in the high 90s to the 100s. There were 4,500 suggestions received from in-person sessions. There were 1,650 solution-wall comments.

[1630]

In regards to on-line comments, there were 1,103 on-line comments, though some people were very keen, and they commented more than once. If we break it down into unique commentators, it's 392 unique commentators.

In this day and age, Twitter is popular for some, and 1,281 tweets were used, with the hashtag #disabilitybc.

Total site visits to the consultation site were 27,965. The last time I saw stats, to my memory, the average person would spend about seven minutes on the site, which I think is a testament to the importance of this consultation and the value of this consultation. If we were talking about on-line retailers and people were giving a seven-minute visit to a website, they'd be ecstatic. The seven minutes means it wasn't a walk-through or a breezy visit. Someone actually stayed and read something of importance or was looking at things they felt were important, so I was very impressed with that.

Total downloads of conversation tool kit were 696.
[ Page 3498 ]
We also received, in terms of written e-mail and phone, which we sort of lumped into one category, 405 submissions from 65 different organizations.

I would also just like to say that several MLAs from the Legislature, on both sides of the House, participated in the community consultation piece. I thought it was great. I know the member opposite attended at least one, maybe two.

Oh, hello, Chair. Chair, you had the opportunity to attend.

There were several people, and I was very impressed that people did take the time and effort to come to these. It was an opportunity as MLAs, I thought, to engage with constituents who may not have had a practice of talking to their MLA, although I have a feeling the…. When I visited the one in Vancouver, with the current Chair of this committee we're in now, he seemed to actually know everybody in the room, which was kind of intimidating to me. I was impressed for all their support.

I hope I wasn't too quick on those, but you've got some stats now to work with.

M. Mungall: Just really quickly, there was one that I missed — the number of suggestions that were received from the in-person consultation. There were about 4,000. Then I….

Hon. D. McRae: So 4,500 suggestions received from in-person sessions, and 1,650 solution-wall comments.

You may remember, if I may…. There was an opportunity for people to put Post-it stickers at the consultations. Some were long-winded sentences, which were great, and some were one or two words, which was fine. The solution wall was the Post-it notes, as well, that came up.

That being said, hon. Chair, I was wondering if it was possible to call a five-minute recess to allow us to stretch our legs.

The Chair: Okay. We'll have a five-minute recess for leg stretching.

The committee recessed from 4:33 p.m. to 4:39 p.m.

[S. Sullivan in the chair.]

[1640]

M. Mungall: My next question is…. I know, just in my reading of several of the posts on line as well as attending some of the in-person consultations, that the issue of income assistance rates came up quite a bit. We already talked about what the rates are and so on, so I'm not going to get into that. But I am wondering how often that issue did come up, if the ministry has begun its analysis. You have the total numbers of how many submissions were made, so looking at your analysis of those submissions, how often is the issue of income assistance rates coming up?

Hon. D. McRae: There were many themes that came up. I would say, on the issue of the rates, it came up, as far as I can think of, at every community forum we were at, so it was not uncommon. There were many themes that were not uncommon to hear. For example, housing was often an opportunity — visitability. RDSP was another issue that was mentioned. Inclusiveness and employment — these are all themes that came up a lot.

As for the actual data analysis, we haven't finished the compilation yet to get a solid number, but we're hoping to have that information done by the end of this month.

M. Mungall: I'm wondering if the minister can comment on something he did say early on in the consultation process. I believe it was a report out of Prince George that I was reading, where the minister said that the conversation around income assistance rates was not on the table and that he was asking people to not make commentary on that.

Unfortunately, I don't have the quote specifically for the minister right now, but that was said. I'm just wondering if the minister can explain to the public why that direction was given. Of course, the public clearly ignored it, so with the public ignoring that direction, is the ministry taking into consideration that this is a priority for the public and that it will need to be addressed?

Hon. D. McRae: Just from my recollection, I don't remember ever making such a statement. I just checked with staff. Again, we're going from recollection of an event that would've occurred, I believe, in late January, probably around January 20. It is three months ago, and there doesn't seem to be any recollection as such.

I think I did acknowledge at many of the sessions I was at that we knew rates were going to be an issue, and we wanted to talk about lots of different things that were going to affect the quality of life for persons and to become the most progressive jurisdiction in British Columbia.

Far be it from me to accuse the media of misrepresenting a story. I don't know the exact quote, and I have no recollection of that. No one has actually ever mentioned that to me until just now. If it was something that was said, it boomeranged and got back to me 3½ months after the initial statement. If it had come back to me far earlier, I probably would have been able to address it and, if there was a concern, maybe even make sure the individual who either perceived that I said that or thought I said that or if there was a media representation….

I remember the media from the Prince George event actually being very positive. I was very pleased with the media that I saw. I was also very pleased in Prince George about the quality afterwards. I stuck around and actually talked to individuals — not just at that event, but I've
[ Page 3499 ]
seen them since. Not once has that been raised to me as something that I said. Again, how people perceive statements….

[1645]

I have been accused, believe it or not, of sometimes speaking rather quickly, so it might've been something that someone perceived me to say. If that's the case, I apologize.

That being said, I can honestly say that the conversation in all the community consultations is always free-flowing, not directed by the minister, and I encourage individuals to think outside the box and appreciate a wide range of thoughts going forward.

M. Mungall: Well, for the minister's information, I will track down that quote so that he can see it. I definitely am not pulling this out of thin air. I was quite shocked when I saw that this conversation, which was — it was my understanding — intended to be quite wide open, would be limited, especially on such an important issue as the economic well-being of people with disabilities.

Just moving on to that very issue…. Actually, it's more of an issue around isolation. I was reading in the Vernon Morning Star on April 20. A young…. Well, I think he's young because we're about the same age. Luc Maclean shared his story. He relies on his wheelchair to get around and lives on $824 a month, with rent at $630 a month. This $824 a month is from his federal disability pension, and of course, not surprisingly, he does struggle to make ends meet.

He was hoping to get some help with transportation costs, so he applied for the ministry's subsidized bus pass program and then was denied. The reason that he was given for being denied is that he is not receiving provincial assistance but instead is receiving federal assistance.

So he went to his local government MLA's office and asked for some help and was there told that there was nothing that his MLA could do because the ministry was following policy that limits eligibility for the bus pass program to seniors and people in receipt of provincial disability assistance. Furthermore, the ministry said that there was no review of these eligibility requirements and that they were not going to consider reviewing them at any time in the near future.

Surely, policies like this ensure that B.C. will not be the most progressive jurisdiction in Canada for people with disabilities. Of course, that has been the repeated, stated goal of the white paper process.

That said, I'm just wondering if the minister is looking into this issue as part of the white paper process, not only to help Mr. Maclean but to help all people with disabilities whose income is from the federal government and not the provincial government yet cannot access something as important as a bus pass to help them with volunteer opportunities, potential employment opportunities or just to get out into the community.

[1650]

Hon. D. McRae: I don't think we have a release, so I can't speak about the actual individual case in question. That being said, if an individual makes more than $906 a month anywhere in British Columbia, they are no longer eligible for the bus pass program.

Looking at a bigger perspective, if we were to expand the bus pass program to all 60,000 CPPD recipients, it would cost an additional $40 million per year. I think that the member opposite may remember, earlier on in our conversation, we spent about $47 million last year. Using that math, the bus pass would be $87 million a year in regards to expanding that service beyond.

That being said, as well, we continually look at policy reforms and a way we can deliver service in a different way and a better way, to make sure as many people are getting the services as we can possibly afford within the ministry budget.

M. Mungall: Surely, finding ways to help people with disabilities get out into their communities is integral to being the most progressive jurisdiction in Canada for people with disabilities. I don't take that statement lightly. I'm sure the minister doesn't as well.

We have to be very cognizant of what it is to be more progressive than other provinces, and reducing isolationism that can result by having a disability is, I think, critical in this. I'm just wondering, then…. If the ministry is concerned about the overall price tag for including people who are receiving CPPD in the bus pass program, is there some other way that the ministry is looking at to increase transportation opportunities for people with disabilities?

[1655]

Hon. D. McRae: Transit was an issue, as we did hear at the consultations. Oftentimes it was an issue in rural communities. But to the member opposite, I'm pleased to say that B.C. is one of only two provinces in Canada which actually has a bus pass system. We're the only province-run transit system in Canada, and the province is committed under B.C. Transit and, I guess, TransLink, as well, to providing an accessible fleet and services through handyDART.

I think most people would argue that while the system could always be a little bit better and we're constantly looking to make reforms and working with local governments, the bus pass and the special transportation supplement outweigh any other supports by provinces across the nation. In this particular area I think we are considered by many to be a leader. That being said, even if you are a leader, there's always room to refine and improve. We look forward to doing that going forward.

M. Mungall: Much of the public's input involves a variety of ministries, so I anticipate there's going to be some need for a cross-ministerial plan in terms of imple-
[ Page 3500 ]
menting the recommendations that come forward from the white paper. I'm just wondering what the ministry's plan is for that — a cross-ministerial plan. What is your plan to work with other ministries?

Hon. D. McRae: For the last three or four years, before my time, obviously, there has been an active ADMs committee on disability. The committee is made up of ADMs from the following ministries. If I leave one off, my apologies. These are just more top of mind: the Minister Responsible for Housing; Social Development and Social Innovation — that's ours — MCFD; JTST — I apologize for the acronyms, but we're going to go through this fairly quickly — Health; Finance; Transportation; Citizens' Services; Advanced Ed; Education; Environment; and Justice.

[1700]

When it comes to cross-ministry communication and supports, I believe we're already there. We continually try to refine and make sure we do better. We also work with our federal government counterparts to make sure there are opportunities to improve. I think the member opposite would have seen the LMAPD agreement that was just signed recently.

Furthermore, we also work with our municipal government partners. There is a group, I'm sure the member opposite is aware, called the Minister's Council on Employment and Accessibility. One of the members of that is Mary Sjostrom, the former chair of the UBCM and mayor of Quesnel. One of the things we talk about there is how we work with municipalities — both large municipalities like in the Lower Mainland, like Surrey or Vancouver, or a small community, perhaps, in northern British Columbia — to make sure that if there are community needs there, we have that level of communication as well.

Again, we'll continually try to improve and reform our cross-ministry services. But that being said, I think there is a culture and expectation that we will work and do work cross-ministry to support persons with disabilities in British Columbia.

M. Mungall: I'm just wondering how much of the ministry's budget is set aside to implement white paper recommendations this year.

Hon. D. McRae: We're going to work within our existing budget to move forward. That being said, I think it's really important that we're not pretending that we're going to be able to solve everything we hear in the next 12 months in this budget cycle. We're looking at sort of a short-term, a mid-term and a long-term outlook as to how we go forward and get a workplan that's going to be responsible for making us the most progressive jurisdiction in Canada for persons with disabilities.

It will not be done quickly, because some things could take a very long time to do. I say "a very long time" not because, necessarily, government is going to drag its feet, but certain processes do not happen overnight. For that reason, there will be that workplan. I'm looking forward to seeing some things happen in the very near future after we release the report and go forward. But some things may be several years away, and I don't want to be under any illusion that it's going to be solved in the next fiscal year.

M. Mungall: With my short question, I certainly did not mean to imply that everything was going to be done within this fiscal year — by no stretch. I think everybody understands that there are going to be things that require a multi-year approach. What I am just wondering, though….

I would assume that some money has been set aside in this year's budget to begin implementation of some of the recommendations — not knowing what those recommendations would have been, going into this process, it being an open-ended process, but having some idea that there would be some required action from government early on, I'm assuming that some type of budget was set aside to take those actions — and then also, looking at the next two fiscal years, that there would be, again, some type of money set aside specifically for implementing recommendations coming out of the white paper.

I'm wondering if that has been done and what the total amount is that's been set aside.

[1705]

Hon. D. McRae: Like I stated earlier, there will be those short-term, mid-term and long-term goals we will work towards. At this stage we're going to live within our ministry budget.

That being said, if we require funds that require us to exceed our ministry budget or would cost more than our ministry budget is capable of paying for, it would require us to go to Treasury Board and make the ask at that time. At that stage, I'm afraid I'll have to say to the member opposite that she'll have to stay tuned and we'll see how it goes. It will be a work in progress.

M. Mungall: Then am I left to interpret from the minister's response that the ministry has not set aside any specific fund or any specific amount to implement recommendations coming from the white paper either this year or the next two fiscal years?

Hon. D. McRae: I think we're a little bit…. If I may, we're putting the cart before the horse here.

We actually haven't published what we heard from the people who participated in the process. We haven't made any recommendations. We haven't had any feedback from the people who participated or the general public as to what could be happening in those recommendations.
[ Page 3501 ]
Until that's done, we are not able to guesstimate or estimate what kinds of costs will come forward.

That being said, if we do put forward changes that require us to spend moneys outside of our legislative mandate, or what we're actually debating today, it would require me or the ministry to go forward to Treasury Board and have that conversation.

The first thing I'm looking forward to in the near future is releasing what we heard, coming up with recommendations and seeing from the people who participated and British Columbia: are these good recommendations, and do we need to go forward on them?

M. Mungall: All right. I'm just wondering, then, what the total cost to taxpayers for this consultation has been.

Hon. D. McRae: We budgeted, for this whole process, half a million dollars. Now, again, that's over two budget cycles. You'll notice that we started in December. We'll end in a summit in June of this year.

The total cost of what we actually spent…. I'm very confident that we'll work within our budget of half a million dollars and, hopefully, even come in under budget. Again, we're sort of working within our ministry mandate. By the time, I'm sure, the summit is completed, we'll be able to give a full accounting as to how much was spent.

M. Mungall: Sorry. Did the minister say that half a million was budgeted for everything? Okay.

I have some questions about poverty reduction. Specifically, we look to the Select Standing Committee on Finance's report for this fiscal year.

In that report they recommend that government introduce a comprehensive poverty reduction plan. The service plan doesn't make any mention of this. I'm wondering what the government is planning to do with this recommendation.

[1710]

Hon. D. McRae: Questions in response to poverty reduction should be directed to the Minister of Children and Families, and I believe she was asked and did answer these questions earlier in the estimates session.

M. Mungall: When we look at other provinces, all eight of them, in Canada, as well as the territories, what we find is that poverty reduction plans and economic or social inclusion plans are not just the purview of one ministry but of multiple ministries, with, of course, one ministry taking the lead.

Often it's the ministry that's dealing with income assistance, because this is the primary tool for poverty reduction that government often uses. That being the case, one would consider that poverty reduction is also something that this ministry has taken into consideration. What is this ministry doing in terms of that recommendation?

Hon. D. McRae: I can't speak to how other provinces choose to deal with the situation. However, in this province questions in regards to poverty reduction would be addressed to the Minister of Children and Families. Again, I believe she has been asked and has answered many of these questions. In this case I will continue to refer the member opposite, if we talk about poverty reduction issues, to that ministry.

M. Mungall: I will be moving on to employment services, to EPBC. While that's happening, I will make note for the record that, yes, questions were asked in the estimates of the Ministry of Children and Family Development. I would say that at that time the government made no commitment whatsoever to a comprehensive poverty reduction plan with legislated targets and timelines, making us one out of two provinces in the entire country that is just not going with this best practice. It's a real shame.

With that said, I see that we have our ADM here for EPBC, so I can proceed with my question.

The ministry is budgeting $25.5 million less for employment programs this year. Where are those cuts going to be made?

[1715]

Hon. D. McRae: In 2014-2015 the ministry has budgeted $331 million in EPBC, or the employment program of British Columbia. This includes $301 million from the federal labour market development agreement, or LMDA, and $30 million in provincial funding.

Now, as the member opposite knows, EPBC, the employment program of British Columbia, was implemented in April of 2012, so it's been a relatively new program in government. Based on service trends over the past two years, it's been adjusted. The EPBC provincial funding was adjusted from $55.5 million to $30 million to reflect the anticipated service demand for 2014-2015.

The 2014-2015 provincial allocation of $30 million reflects increased services compared to the actual spend of the provincial budget in the past two years. The actual spend, I believe, from my memory, is in the range of about $15 million, so we're projecting or budgeting to spend $15 million more than was actually spent in the previous year.

M. Mungall: I'm just looking at the information here that's provided to the public. What we see from previous years is that the government is reducing their contribution, the government's contribution, to employment programs by $25.5 million, leaving only $30 million left. Am I hearing the minister correctly when he says that they did not even spend $30 million last fiscal?
[ Page 3502 ]

Hon. D. McRae: I'm a teacher of history, not a teacher of financial ledgers, so I'll do my best, if I may.

In the years 2013-2014, in terms of provincial spend for the employment program of British Columbia, we spent $15.5 million. By $15.5 million, that means no services were cut. No eligible person was turned away. That same year we spent $271 million of LMDA funding. This year we're hoping for even more uptake for the employment program of British Columbia. Again, no one was turned away, and no services were cut. In 2013-2014 we spent $15.5 million.

[1720]

This year we're hoping we will be having people coming to see us, looking for support services, and we'll spend $30 million.

I think the member opposite might then, in terms of…. I might do this in terms of logic: "Well, hold on. What happened to those other moneys? You had $55 million there before." The question was…. We go back to other pressures. On a very small level you might see things like bus pass, where we spent $2 million more than we'd forecast, and we also have other pressures in things like CLBC.

That being said, we're trying our very best to make sure that the general public is aware of the employment program of British Columbia. We talked earlier about opportunities for supports, whether it's for employment for persons with disabilities or the opportunity for people to explore volunteer capacities. There might be resources available there. Again, we want to make sure as many people are aware that they can go through that.

We talked earlier about the community volunteer supplement and how it's not having any new intake. Again, there is a hope that there will be more people saying: "Well, there's an opportunity for me to get some job training. Maybe there's a chance to get some supports, whether it's in terms of transportation or maybe I need some specialized clothing to assist me in my job search, assist me in my decision to pursue volunteer opportunities."

You know what? I think it would be really, really exciting to see more and more people across the province, in communities large and small, taking advantage of some of the supports that the employment program of British Columbia has. It has some really great individuals working within the system, and the more people who know about it, the better.

M. Mungall: If the ministry only spent $15 million of its portion of the funding for EPBC when they actually budgeted $55 million for last year — and the minister has said where some of that $40 million has gone — I'm wondering: how do you budget $55 million and only end up spending $15 million? What's going on with the budgeting? How are you so way off on calculations of $40 million?

Hon. D. McRae: First of all, too, it's a new program. It's only been around for two years. One of the things we want to do as well is…. Again, we work with the federal government. I think the member opposite will remember that earlier we talked about $301 million coming through LMDA funding from the federal government, $30 million from us. We always try to leverage and use the LMDA funding from the federal government as the first spend, if at all possible. In the very first year, in 2013, with start-up costs and amalgamation of contracts, we spent $25.5 million.

We continually refine supports, raise awareness. We want to have more individuals coming to the employment program of British Columbia. Last year $15.5 million was spent. We're hoping, as we have…. Again, conversations and knowledge like this, where I think we're learning about new services, even on both sides of the House…. As well, people who are on employment insurance, EI, come to the employment program of B.C. looking for services so that we help them re-engage back into the workforce. Hopefully, the economy does improve as well.

[1725]

That being said, we want to make sure that we continue to grow the program and provide support for individuals both on employment insurance and PWD who are looking for opportunities in their communities.

I think right now that we're forecasting or budgeting $30 million. I'm hoping that we get to spend a good chunk of that, because it means we're assisting individuals to either find employment or volunteer opportunities in their community.

M. Mungall: So the $30 million that is being budgeted, then. Is that what was in the recent announcement about the labour market agreement for persons with disabilities? In that announcement the ministry committed $30 million to their portion of that agreement. Is what's in the budget that $30 million, then?

[1730]

[G. Kyllo in the chair.]

Hon. D. McRae: I think we might be talking about two different pots of $30 million. If you look at the budget, the provincial share of the employment program of British Columbia is $30 million, which is for non-EI clients. It goes to services and contractors providing those services in that system.

The LMAPD, which also recently announced $30 million of funding, funds a number of different initiatives in a number of different ministries. For example, Health will receive some dollars; Advanced Ed will receive some dollars; CLBC will receive some dollars. However, that being said, $4.3 million of that $30 million will be paid to persons with disabilities through the employment program
[ Page 3503 ]
of British Columbia.

There are two different pots of $30 million, which might be a bit confusing. I'm trying to make sure I can say it in a way that doesn't look like we're blowing off the question. Hopefully, that works for you.

M. Mungall: The approximate $30 million that is in this year's budget from the provincial portion to EPBC — what is that money for, then?

[1735]

Hon. D. McRae: Employment program of British Columbia — there are 85 different offices around British Columbia in communities large and small. I know the member opposite knows this.

The money, the $30 million in question, goes towards employment services to non-EI clients. It would do, for example, things like helping with resumés, if there are sort of one-on-one services that were needed for someone searching for employment. It might provide workshops for a large group setting of people looking for employment, assist individuals with job searches. But again, the money would go towards non-EI clients.

I'm sure the member opposite can imagine there is some staffing and office space for the 85 offices around British Columbia, which comes at a cost.

M. Mungall: So the ministry has $30 million budgeted this year for those types of programs, but if I heard the minister correctly, last year they only spent $15 million for those programs of the $55 million that was actually budgeted. Again, I know that EPBC is in its infancy. In fact, prior to EPBC we do see the budget for employment services out of the provincial side of things coming in…. In 2011-2012 the budget was $82.8 million. So compare that to this year, and that's a $52.9 million cut, or a 64 percent cut.

I'm wondering. With the reorganization we see a 64 percent cut from the budget, from prior to that reorganization to now, and then we see last year's budget of $55 million but only $15 million spent. This year $30 million is budgeted from the provincial side, but I would anticipate that perhaps even less is going to be spent.

I'm just concerned that as we are spending less money on these programs, British Columbians are not getting the services they need to find jobs. When I look at the outcomes listed in the service plan, we see that 40 percent is the percentage of people who are clients at EPBC centres who are actually getting jobs or community attachments, such as the volunteer positions that we talked about earlier. The projections in the service plan on page 14 are continually below 50 percent until 2017, when they come up to about 53 percent.

I'm just concerned with all of these numbers that we're not seeing British Columbians getting the services they need for whatever reason. Perhaps that's because the budget is not actually matching the demand, and we're not seeing better outcomes than 40 percent.

[1740]

Sorry to do this to you, Minister, but another number to throw at you is that when we actually crunch the numbers of people who are getting attached to jobs, just not to community attachment…. I don't want to belittle the importance of community attachment by any stretch, but what we do see is actually 22 percent of clients got jobs. So only half of the people who come under that 40 percent of the community attachment and employment are actually getting employment.

I'm sharing that concern with the minister, and I'm wondering if he can come back to me with some more information about how this budget is being managed.

[1745]

Hon. D. McRae: To the member opposite: one of the joys of estimates is — and no fault of your own — that sometimes we're getting all these numbers, and we're making sure we're responding to the numbers we think you're using and where you're getting them from. So if I do this wrong, my apologies.

I think you mentioned before something to do with unemployment up 23 percent, receiving jobs. If I'm pulling from the right…. If it's performance measure 4 within the service plan, which is incredibly exciting reading for most British Columbians…. If we're talking about that particular performance measure, those are the people actually just receiving case management, not employment.

In terms of employment, it would be measure 5. Depending on the year…. In 2012-13 it would be that 45 percent would receive employment. We're targeting 49 percent for this coming year.

The other stat I was going to throw to the member opposite, if it's okay, is that approximately 83 percent of all people receiving services through EPBC have been provided services through an employment case manager. Of those individuals, 40 to 50 percent have found employment.

That being said, I know there are lots of numbers here, so there are two things we can do. Either we can explore this a bit more, and I'll do my best to give the answer, or if the member opposite wishes to write us a letter, we can do our best to work from that information as well. I'll leave it up to the member's preference as we go forward.

M. Mungall: I think, in the interest of time, we'll have to write a letter.

Where I am pulling the 22 percent of people who are actually getting jobs is my own calculation based on the monthly reports that come out about the stats at EPBC, the employment program — the EPBC monthly report. I was looking at the total numbers coming out December 2013. We just did some math, and we looked at the total number of people who were served and the total number
[ Page 3504 ]
of people who got jobs from that. It was 22 percent. So it's not performance measure No. 4.

We were looking at performance measures, however, in the service plan. That number of 40 percent came from the performance measures in the service plan on page 14 that looked at projections for people obtaining employment or community attachment. That's where those numbers were coming from, but that wasn't the core of my question.

The core of the question was explaining how this budget is being managed. We have a big cut that was a result of the reorganization of employment services in terms of the province's side of putting in funds to those services. You have a large cut of about 64 percent from previous years as a result of that reorganization. Then what I'm hearing from the minister is that last year $55 million was budgeted, but only $15 million was spent. This year we have $30 million budgeted, and potentially only $15 million is being spent again.

I mean, it might not seem like a large amount of money to government, but for the general public, that's their tax dollars, and that's a large amount to them. I think it's only fair to have a better understanding of how budgets are being created and how, then, that money is being spent on services that are supposed to go out to the public to help them get jobs or volunteer positions or so on under the broad umbrella term of "community attachment."

I'm trying to get a better picture of how this process is taking place, because the numbers aren't leading me to have a lot of confidence at this point. I'd just like the minister to comment on the state of the budgeting process and how things are being spent and if what it's being spent on are direct services to the public. If they are, then are we seeing a reduction in services overall to members of the public? Because we're not spending to the full capacity of the budget.

[1750]

Hon. D. McRae: We have seen some of this program evolve from the legacy programs, and I believe there were 400 legacy contracts out there. We're now down to 85 EPBC offices.

Of the $15.5 million that we spent last year…. Again, remember, not a single person who was eligible was turned away. When a person comes through the door, it's not always obvious immediately what services they're going to need to, basically, go down the employment path or if they're going to go down a volunteer path.

We're going to budget $30 million this year. We're going to hope to see more uptake in the program going forward. More individuals will come forward that we can assist in finding employment or some form of volunteerism in their community.

That being said, too, if we go back to 2013, the first year, we had $25.5 million budgeted in this area. That was a start-up year. Again, we want to make sure we continually attract individuals who we can support through this program.

That being said, this year, our 2013-2014, the gross total is $306 million. Next year, 2014-15, going forward, we're seeing a $331 million budget. The nice thing is that the LMDA moneys are going up from the federal government, and our contribution, our actual spend, is projected to be higher as well.

M. Mungall: I'm looking at the clock, and we've got maybe about a half-hour left. I'm going to, probably, by the end of it have to ask a bunch of questions at the end and just ask the….

Interjection.

M. Mungall: No, we're not. No tomorrow. We could stay later, though, Minister, if you'd like.

[1755]

What I'll probably end up having to do is just put a bunch of questions on the record towards the end and then wait for the minister to get back to me on those.

Just continuing along, going back to performance measurement 4 for EPBC, the percentage of clients actually receiving case management services. It was 23 percent for 2012-13; 25 percent for last year; 27 percent for this year is the hope; then, ideally, by 2017, 31 percent. It seems to be a bit low — that that's the percentage of people getting actual case management services.

I've been speaking with employment counsellors around B.C. They're saying one of the reasons that they feel that they're not able to devote more time to clients is that the new ICM system takes up about 30 percent of their time with data entry and administrative work. This is considerably more than the general 10 percent that's estimated when we fund non-profits, for example.

That concerns me — the 30 percent of people's time. They're supposed to be doing front-line service work, helping people get jobs, and 30 percent is consumed with data management. Just to be clear, many of the people that I've been speaking to are very computer literate. They feel very comfortable on the system. They understand how the system works. It's just time-consuming. That's just the reality of it.

I'm just concerned that this is taking away from direct service to the public and wondering if the ministry is doing any analysis of this and looking at the actual time spent on the front line and if too much of it is being spent on data management and administrative work with the ICM.

[1800]

Hon. D. McRae: I think one thing I will say about ICM is that it's under continual modification. Employment program of British Columbia was unrolled in 2012. ICM for the new contractors came out at the same time. There
[ Page 3505 ]
are seven different working groups with contractors that deal with admin and program issues, ICM being one of the admin and program issues that we talk about.

As we come up with ways to be more efficient of their time, by all means, those are considered and worked into the system. But our goal is, of course, to reduce administrative burden but at the same time retain that level of accountability.

It is a work-in-progress. When there are good suggestions, we do our best to act. There are meetings, as well, where we get all 85 service contractors in the same room, or through technology, making sure that we're sort of evolving to a place that works for the whole system.

M. Mungall: Great. My next question is about the Equipment and Assistive Technology Initiative. I'm just wanting to make sure that that particular initiative is under the funding that's coming from the labour market agreement for persons with disabilities — the recent renewal. If it's not, is it under some other fund?

Hon. D. McRae: EATI is not funded under the LMAPD. It's actually funded under the LMA funding. There are a number of people who are on the wait-list for services, and they will receive services. EATI was something that came up a lot during the disability white paper consultations. We received lots of input during that time.

Just for the record, if I may, I want to make sure people understand. EATI has done a great job and provided lots of supports. In fact, it was able to assist over 2,000 people. I think, we've invested, as a government, about $19½ million. But there are other programs as well.

We will continue working with people requiring assistive technology through alternative programs. Work B.C. employment service centres offer a range of supports which include assistive devices, equipment and technology; communication and hearing devices; ergonomic supports; interpreting and captioning services; and workplace access and modification services as well.

M. Mungall: I just want to highlight a particular case — not necessarily about where the funding for the EATI is coming from but some of the rules that apply to people that can perhaps be too strictly enforced. One of the cases is Tessa Schmidt. She was in the news in February when she went to the media because she was denied a new power wheelchair from the ministry.

The ministry was saying that she was only eligible to receive a new power wheelchair in June, because that is the ministry's rule. Every five years people are eligible to receive a new power wheelchair. Now, she was just a few months short of that deadline. It was February. Of course, the ministry is saying: "No, come back in June."

[1805]

In the meantime, she doesn't have a proper wheelchair. She has cerebral palsy. She needs a power wheelchair to get around to the best of her ability and also to continue on with her small business that she had just started, which was a dog training business.

Now, I don't expect the minister sees all his tweets, because I know lots of people tweet him every day, but I did tweet the story to the minister at the time to bring his attention to it.

Hon. D. McRae: I remember.

M. Mungall: Oh, you do? Wonderful. So I'm wondering if the minister did step in to ensure that Ms. Schmidt was helped and that she did get the proper equipment she needs to keep working instead of being denied this opportunity on a ministry technicality of just a few months. If the minister did step in, can he please let us know, and if not, can he please let us know why?

Hon. D. McRae: It wasn't just funded through EATI, but I think the most important part is that the person had an issue. It was raised. And I apologize. I had to look through my correspondence. I don't remember if it actually was a formal letter to my ministry office or not.

That being said, it was, I believe, solved to the person's satisfaction. And I don't think it was recently solved. I think it was done a little while ago. But yes, I do remember it. I'm glad common sense prevailed and the individual was able to get not only a better quality of life but also to pursue their employment opportunity.

M. Mungall: Great. Thank you very much. I'm just wondering, too, then: is this like a one-off situation, or is this happening quite frequently in the ministry where, again, as the minister said, common sense didn't prevail first and foremost right off the bat?

Hon. D. McRae: I think it was just near the end of this lease period, and it was reasonable to fund it. That being said, sometimes there's a communication breakdown.

To the member opposite: I hate to do this, but I want to make a confession at this table. I don't always follow every single tweet that comes through my office. That being said, if there is…. I think you were away last week at the very end when we were talking about this. But again, I'll reinforce what I said then as well.

If there are issues that constituents have through either side of the House, if they want to go through their constituency offices in their local community…. If there is an issue, especially when it's a communication breakdown, we want to make sure that people who are eligible for supports are getting those supports, and we very much want to make sure we're aware of them and solve them.

That being said, a letter — I hate to say it in this day and age — is still, in my books, an easier, more concise form of communication.

I'd hate to miss a tweet, but it is possible because
[ Page 3506 ]
I'm not always on top of every single tweet that comes through my office.

M. Mungall: Thank you very much, Minister. And also, thank you for reminding the public that letters still are the most effective way in government. We operate by paper. I tell people that all the time.

I'm going to move on to a few questions around the Social Innovation portion of the ministry. Hopefully, we'll be able to wrap them all up in the next ten minutes or so.

The first question I have is: can the minister share the initial investment made for the resilient capital fund that Vancity established in 2008?

Hon. D. McRae: It's $2.2 million.

M. Mungall: Has there been further investment since then, and how much?

[1810]

Hon. D. McRae: No, we have not contributed more dollars, but the resiliency fund is now up to $13 million because partners have added to it. While my list won't be comprehensive, both Vancity and the Vancouver Foundation have contributed to the resiliency fund.

M. Mungall: Which organizations, and for what programs, have received funding from this fund?

Hon. D. McRae: We don't administer this fund. It is actually administered by Vancity. So I will give a very fast readthrough, and then if the critic opposite wishes a reread or just a written answer, we can give those too.

It's Lambda Solutions; Ecotrust; iCompass Technologies; Tree Island Gourmet Yogurt — which I think is actually from the Comox Valley, and their yogurt is darned good; Cowichan Energy Alternatives Society; Elizabeth Fry Society of Greater Vancouver; QuickMobile; Salish Soils; Artspoints Rewards; Climate Smart; Sole Food; East of Main Cafe; Galiano Conservancy Association, which I believe is on Galiano Island — makes sense; Corporate Knights; Atira Property Management Inc.; and Save on Meats.

M. Mungall: The ministry doesn't have any involvement whatsoever in terms of disbursing those funds? Okay. I see the answer there.

My next question is: what is the budget amount being allotted to Social Innovation, and under which vote would we find it?

Hon. D. McRae: It'll be under Vote 40, under "Income Assistance" in the program management line. Approximately, off the top of my head, about $500,000 is budgeted towards Social Innovation. Those moneys would be used for things like administration, mostly staff salary, and travel.

M. Mungall: How does the ministry plan to carry out the strategies listed in goal 5 in the service plan? That is the goal to "promote a culture of social innovation."

Hon. D. McRae: As the member opposite will well know — because I had the opportunity and the pleasure to spend a short period of time in her community just the other day — social innovation often happens without government actually being there in the first place. I think the community of Nelson is well known across British Columbia as being a hub of social innovation and has been so for a long time.

That being said, I think one of the things that government can do is we can help support existing social innovation. What we have is a great culture in this province. We have social innovation but also social enterprises, as well, going forward, doing their work.

[1815]

The member opposite will probably remember in March of 2012 the B.C. Social Innovation Council charted out 11 recommendations in its action plan, which started us down a path.

The Ministry of Social Development and Social Innovation also leads government's work to promote and support social innovation, including ensuring the province's legislative and regulatory framework to support social innovation. We've created, just in the past year, the community contribution company, the CCC, as a new corporate forum, as part of the work.

It also functions as a conveyor, bringing together innovators, entrepreneurs and other key players in the social innovation space to share information and experiences, learn from others and create new partnerships and collaboration. We also make sure we work with the B.C. Partners for Social Impact.

I think we are the envy of Canada when it comes down to having the foundation of organizations and individuals who are social innovators and social entrepreneurs in social enterprises that exist in communities large and small.

I must say that I thoroughly enjoyed my time, a little wet though it was. The three landing attempts at Castlegar didn't add to my time in the community, but it did add to a couple of stories.

M. Mungall: Well, I'm glad that the minister had a small introduction to my life with Castlegar Airport.

That concludes the questions that I have for the budget estimates process.

I did just want to rise and thank all the staff who came out for a full two days — actually, three days, if we think about Wednesday, as well, and the estimates process with CLBC. I know that this isn't probably the most en-
[ Page 3507 ]
tertaining, but I hope that the minister and I did make it as entertaining as possible with a few good references to Saturday Night Live and other things that probably people would prefer to watch on TV than us.

But this was very important. It's critical to the democratic process and to ensuring that taxpayers' money — that they're getting their bang for their buck. I want to say thank you again to all of the staff and thank you to the minister. With that, I will take my seat.

Vote 40: ministry operations, $2,529,819,000 — approved.

Hon. D. McRae: Thank you to the members opposite for the questions, not only in regards to the ministry but also on behalf of their constituents. Some answers I was able to give very quickly, because we knew the situations. For others, whether it is because of lack of waivers for confidentiality or just further information being needed, we will get those answers back to the members opposite, as we committed to do in these estimates.

Again, not just to the individuals in this room but to those that may be watching, as well, on the elected-officials side of the world, please don't hesitate to bring constituent issues to the minister's office. We don't always have the opportunity to give an answer that everybody would like to hear. That being said, it's really important, I think, that people get answers as quickly as possible, and if they are not satisfied, there are also opportunities for reconsideration going forward.

Again, I thank the members opposite. I'm sure the ratings for this estimates was absolutely phenomenal, probably into the dozens most of the time. That being said, thank you to the member opposite for your questions and your colleagues' questions.

With that, I move the committee rise, report resolution of Vote 40 of the Ministry of Social Development and Social Innovation and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:18 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet.
Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.
Question Period podcasts are available on the Internet.

TV channel guide • Broadcast schedule

Copyright © 2014: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada