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)

Tuesday, May 6, 2014

Morning Sitting

Volume 12, Number 1

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

TUESDAY, MAY 6, 2014

The House met at 10:04 a.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

[1005]

Introductions by Members

Madame Speaker: Kelowna–Lake Country. Minister of Agriculture.

Hon. N. Letnick: Thank you for both, Madame Speaker. Joining us in the members' gallery this morning is the president of the Pacific NorthWest Economic Region, Sen. Kevin Ranker, from Washington State; the PNWER CEO, Mr. Matt Morrison; and an eight-member delegation of public and private sector leaders accompanying them on a visit to Victoria.

Senator Ranker and the delegation will be meeting with several members of the House today to discuss border issues; energy, including natural gas; tourism; environment; workforce development; and other issues. The delegation will seek advice on how best to showcase British Columbia at the upcoming 24th annual PNWER summit in Whistler in July. All of you are invited, of course. PNWER was created in 1981 and is comprised of Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, Montana, Washington, B.C., Alberta, Saskatchewan, Yukon and Northwest Territories. Would the House please extend a warm welcome to our PNWER delegation.

J. Darcy: It gives me great pleasure to welcome three constituents from New Westminster here today. Keely George, who is from the Skatin Nation and a resident of New Westminster, is an incredible inspiration in our community. She went back to school to study to get her grade 12 in her late 20s. She is now a few years older than that and is a real role model for the literacy community for people of all generations.

With her is Lucy Smith from Samahquam Nation in the Port Douglas area — she's a sister to Keely and wonderful person in our community, a grandmother raising two daughters — and Deborah Goertz, who was a teacher to Keely and other adult learners at the New Westminster school district's adult learning centre. Will the House please join me in welcoming these constituents to the House today.

M. Mungall: It gives me great pleasure to introduce the House to a group of very active people in the south Island area, and all throughout B.C. really. We have members from Faith in Action. We have Peggy Wilmot, Sister Joyce Harris, Lorraine Parsons, Gertie Jocksch, Penny Tennenhouse, Sister Marina Smith, Philip Symons, Marya Nyland, Bill Gaylord, Judy Gaylord, Michael Purves and Sonya Ignatieff.

We also have Susan Low, from the Victoria community action plan on poverty. And from the Christ Church Cathedral we have Rev. Nancy Ford, Director of Deacons, diocese of British Columbia.

It's a very active group, a very passionate group. May the House please make them welcome.

J. Horgan: I'm not the only newly elected leader of a political in British Columbia. Joining us in the gallery today…. I'm very excited, on this side of the House, certainly, to introduce Dan Brooks, the leader of the B.C. Conservative Party. I know members on the other side will join me in making him very, very welcome.

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

BILL M212 — POVERTY REDUCTION
AND ECONOMIC INCLUSION ACT, 2014

M. Mungall presented a bill intituled Poverty Reduction and Economic Inclusion Act, 2014.

M. Mungall: I move that the bill intituled the Poverty Reduction and Economic Inclusion Act, of which notice has been given in my name on the order paper, be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

M. Mungall: Poverty lives in British Columbia. It is not something that only happens elsewhere — in Africa, Asia or Latin America. It is an issue here in our communities, among people we know.

Although B.C. has had the highest rate of overall poverty in Canada for 13 years and the highest child poverty rate for ten years — 33 percent above the national average for that decade — government has yet to take action with a direct legislative approach. We remain one of two provinces in Canada without a legislated plan.

[1010]

Today this Poverty Reduction and Economic Inclusion Act seeks to take the needed action to look at the ways government can reduce rather than contribute to poverty. For example, government could begin reducing child poverty by allowing children of single parents receiving income supports to keep their child support payments.

Actions taken under the guidance of this act would not only identify how best to change this existing policy but others like it, like the policy that forces seniors with disabilities to take a reduced early Canada pension rather
[ Page 3510 ]
than continue receiving persons-with-disabilities benefits. When such policies are identified and changed, we reduce the poverty of real people of our province as a whole and provide for greater economic inclusion for all people calling B.C. home.

An advisory committee composed of people from all walks of life, like First Nations representatives, business, academia, labour, non-profits and those experiencing poverty themselves, will work with government on making B.C.'s economy more inclusive. By working together we can reduce poverty and eventually make it history.

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

Bill M212, Poverty Reduction and Economic Inclusion Act, 2014, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES
FOR CHILDREN AND YOUTH
IN RURAL COMMUNITIES

J. Rice: It is national Child and Youth Mental Health Week, and tomorrow is Child and Youth Mental Health Day. This year the theme — the "I care about you" campaign — aims to connect kids to parents and caring adults to let them know that their mental health is important to us and that we are there for them as adults.

Talking to health professionals in my community and surveying their opinions, mental health issues are brought up time and time again as a major concern. There is a greater need for services that are either not offered or are offered but not staffed. In fact, perusing the human resources section of my health authority's website, the mental health and addictions worker positions are one of the most common job vacancies across northern B.C. The youth clinician position has been vacant for over a year in Prince Rupert.

Just recently a murder-suicide has rattled my community — a desperate parent at the end of her rope because she felt alone in her struggle and our community lacked the kind of support she needed to support her teen. A teen suicide has spurred a chain reaction of multiple suicide attempts by other teens.

A local Coast Guard officer tells me that many of their call-outs are to the various First Nations communities that are only accessible by boat or seaplane to medevac someone who has attempted suicide. These communities are extremely isolated and remote and may lack the necessities many of us take for granted.

I draw attention to two reports from the Representative for Children and Youth that I think can really improve the youth mental health system. Lost in the Shadows: How a Lack of Help Meant a Loss of Hope for One First Nations Girl. This report finds that the tragic suicide death of a 14-year-old girl living in a rural B.C. First Nations community reveals a child protection system that is not reaching the children who need it most.

Lastly, as a guide for setting B.C. in the right direction, we should seriously heed the recommendations in Still Waiting: First-Hand Experiences with Youth Mental Health Services in B.C.

QUALICUM BEACH DIGITAL ARTS STUDIO

Michelle Stilwell: It's my pleasure to share a success story from my riding today. The Qualicum Beach Digital Arts Studio operates out of an old train station. It's a dynamic space that is creating some very positive opportunities in the community. The studio is already attracting talented individuals and companies who value the space as both a place to work and as a place to network with others in the digital media industry.

The train station was once a hub of activity back when the railway was a symbol of innovation. It's fitting that the Internet is often called the railway of the 21st century. Much as the train opened up new markets and fostered growth in the years gone by, the Internet is a major engine of the world's economy. That history makes the station an ideal location for a digital arts studio. It's a natural gathering place, which is important for many of the small companies.

Some of these firms are as small as a single employee who has chosen to live in Parksville-Qualicum not only to take advantage of our wonderful quality of life but also because we are ready and able to support their high-tech goals.

[1015]

These are jobs that create economic and cultural value in the community, supporting sustainable jobs and vibrant social fabric. In our increasingly connected world, innovation drives opportunity and helps create creative communities. People choose to live in Qualicum Beach or Parksville because of the quality of life our area offers. It's easier for young people to start families and build a home in our community than it is in some of the bigger cities where the high-tech industry has played a vital role in the local economy.

I want to see jobs, good jobs, in my riding, and I think that this collaboration between the town and industry, along with the hard work of people like Patricia Huntsman and Jared Shaw, is a great way to create a climate that will attract jobs in the industry in the area. That's something we're all working towards.
[ Page 3511 ]

VISION HEALTH MONTH AND
WORK OF CANADIAN NATIONAL
INSTITUTE FOR THE BLIND

J. Darcy: May is Vision Health Month. This morning some of us were honoured and very moved to take part in a breakfast sponsored by the Canadian National Institute for the Blind.

Over 135,000 British Columbians are blind or partially sighted — a staggering number, one in seven people. As part of Vision Health Month this year, the CNIB has developed a healthy vision checklist to help families take steps to preserve their sight, because the good news is that 75 percent of vision loss is preventable or treatable. There are three checklists on their website — one for kids, one for adults and one for seniors.

Speaking of children, I was really struck to learn that 80 percent of early learning is visual. When a child's loss of vision isn't detected, it's of course very tough for them to succeed in school and to develop their full potential. Too many children are labelled as having learning disabilities when in fact they suffer from poor vision.

The CNIB recommends that children have their first eye exam at six months, another before kindergarten and then every year after that — good advice, but something that is unfortunately beyond the means of many low-income families. CNIB also recommends that eating a nutritious diet is critical — again a real challenge for some families.

They urge that children wear eye protection when they're playing sports and that they wear sunglasses outside. Finally, the CNIB recommends that children should take breaks from playing video games every 20 minutes — something that's very tough, we know as parents, to enforce.

And there's some good advice for adults — MLAs included, I would suggest. Every 20 minutes we should take a break from our iPads, our computers or our cell phones and focus on something 20 feet away — the Speaker, the official opposition, the government, whoever.

The most important thing we can do as legislators in Vision Health Month is to recommit ourselves to removing barriers for people with vision challenges in the community and the workplace, where blind and partially sighted British Columbians have an unemployment rate of 30 percent. As a society, as a province, we must do better.

CLINTON ANNUAL BALL

J. Tegart: I rise in the House today to recognize two significant events in the community of Clinton. Last year Clinton celebrated 150 years as an established community and the 50th anniversary celebrating their incorporation. But those of you who know Clinton know that it is well known for its annual ball, held in May each year.

Beginning in 1868 the Clinton Annual Ball showcases the legacy and heritage of the southern Interior with the welcoming charms and western-style hospitality of yesteryear. In the early days before rail, families travelled by wagon, horseback or on foot to the remote outpost of Clinton, at that time the heart of the Cariboo gold rush. The families of prospectors, miners and ranchers would gather together and dance the night away to folk song and fiddles.

The Clinton Annual Ball has survived the Great Depression, two world wars and the socioeconomic changes, continuing as a reminder of the charms of a gentler era. Today elegant ladies and gentlemen dress up in their finest and celebrate the living history of the colourful characters of the Gold Country. The legacy and heritage of Clinton is thriving, with the 147th Clinton Annual Ball celebrations to be held on Saturday, May 17, at the Clinton Memorial Hall.

[1020]

I would like the House to join me in recognizing the continuing vitality of the community of Clinton, and I hope to see you at the Clinton Ball.

B.C. SCHIZOPHRENIA SOCIETY
AND MENTAL HEALTH WEEK

R. Fleming: I'd like to recognize a vital non-profit society in my community that works on behalf of people with mental illness and their families. The office of the B.C. Schizophrenia Society's Victoria branch is located in my constituency of Victoria–Swan Lake.

This organization serves the mental health community of our region. BCSS Victoria provides services for people with mental illness, regardless of their diagnosis, and supports the people who care about them. The BCSS is a place of compassionate professionalism, providing help to those who live with anxiety, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder or major depression. They help parents, family and those with a loved one living with these conditions.

This month marks the 30th anniversary of the Victoria branch of the B.C. Schizophrenia Society. It was founded in 1984 by a group of people who wanted to improve local services and support for people with schizophrenia and their families. Currently BCSS Victoria is the largest branch of the B.C. Schizophrenia Society in our province.

This 30th anniversary for BCSS Victoria also falls at the same time that we recognize May 5 to 12 as national Mental Health Week. It's a very important event, encouraging people from all walks of life to learn, talk, reflect and engage with others on all issues relating to mental health. Mental Health Week was developed because mental health and mental illness is a difficult and sometimes uncomfortable topic for many. But it is a subject that becomes infinitely easier to discuss and to lessen prevalent stigmas with dialogue that raises awareness and understanding.
[ Page 3512 ]

That is part of what BCSS has worked on for 30 dedicated years in my community. I would invite all members of this House to join me in thanking the executive director, Hazel Meredith, and her great staff and volunteers at the B.C. Schizophrenia Society Victoria for the difficult but tremendously appreciated work they contribute to the community and to recognize this milestone anniversary for the organization.

MENINGITIS AWARENESS AND PREVENTION

L. Reimer: April 24, 2014, marked the sixth annual World Meningitis Day. Its purpose is to raise the global profile of meningitis, emphasize the importance of vaccination and provide support to those dealing with the consequences of the disease.

In Canada not-for-profits such as Meningitis Relief Canada embrace a mission of education and public awareness. They remind us that meningitis can strike anyone at any time and it can strike anywhere.

In my community I have seen two families horrifically impacted by this disease. The Chan and the Campbell families both tragically lost young men with tremendous potential in the prime of their lives. Leo Chan and Brodie Campbell were both only children to their parents. Both had bright futures ahead of them.

They are not alone. Approximately 1,000 Canadians will contract meningitis this year. Of that 1,000, most will be children and teenagers. In fact, meningitis kills or disables 1.2 million worldwide each year. Tragically, meningitis can kill within hours and is often mistaken for the flu in its early stages, as symptoms include fever, vomiting, headache, stiff neck, sensitivity to light, drowsiness, and muscle and leg pain.

Meningitis is preventable. There are vaccines available to protect against the three major causes of bacterial meningitis.

In honour of World Meningitis Day, the message I hope to convey today is to please make yourself aware of the signs and symptoms and to learn about preventing the disease with vaccine protection.

Oral Questions

INCOME ASSISTANCE POLICY ON
CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENTS AND
GOVERNMENT ACTION ON POVERTY

J. Horgan: For weeks now members on this side of the House have been raising the issue of clawbacks of child support payments to single-parent families. The government has stonewalled and, in fact, has continued to sustain the policy. As an individual who grew up in a single-parent family, I certainly understand the challenges that it involves for families, for parents and for children.

[1025]

My question is to the Minister of Social Development. Can he tell us why he believes that rather than offering hope to parents and opportunity to children…? Why would he not, with the stroke of a pen, do away with the clawback and do it today?

Hon. D. McRae: The government of British Columbia — Social Development and Social Innovation — provides a wide range of supports to individuals. I've said in this House before that we provide 70 different programs for individuals within this ministry. We serve 175,000 individuals in British Columbia.

Yes, we do look at policy reform as we go forward. We've made policy reforms in the past. As the ministry evolves and we talk to individuals, we talk to families and we talk to people involved, we realize that we can always do a little bit better. As we go forward, we consider new changes.

At this stage, though, we have to make sure we balance what we can afford with the policies we have. Yes, a stroke of the pen is very cheap in ink, but there are costs attached to it. We want to make sure that when changes are made, we also have an ability to fund them, because that is the responsible thing to do.

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

J. Horgan: What about the cost to those families — families all across British Columbia — that are struggling every day to make ends meet? When you have a parent that is prepared to give child support and have that clawed back, where is the hope and opportunity for those families? Where does it go to?

Another example that's even more appalling than the clawback of child support. Jennifer Buckingham is a Surrey mother of two. One of her daughters is severely disabled. She has multiple disabilities. She's on social assistance. She receives child support from the father of the children, but a month ago the father offered up a reimbursement for school supplies. When the ministry found out, not only did they claw back the child support payments, but they clawed back the gift of school supplies to those children.

As a former teacher, can the minister explain how he can justify taking money for school supplies away from children on minimal incomes at a time when costs are soaring? How do you justify that, Minister?

Madame Speaker: Comments through the Chair.

Hon. D. McRae: I'm not going to stand in this House and pretend that every support we have is absolutely perfect. They can be evolved. They can be improved upon. Income assistance is a payment of last resort. We expect that if there are opportunities for parents to support their
[ Page 3513 ]
children, that is the first opportunity.

That being said, there are issues that sometimes they struggle with. That's why we have a number of supports. Yes, there is an income assistance amount that families receive. But we also make sure that families have access to things like…. Depending on their circumstances, they could have access to bus passes, earning exemptions. They have opportunities for increased school start-up supplements.

We make sure there are supports, but yes, one of the things that we're committed to doing in this province is making sure that families have jobs. We can grow the economy and make sure that families, parents — single parents or families that are together — have the opportunity to best support their children and give them the lives that they want to do.

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

J. Horgan: Well, rhetoric doesn't feed hungry children. Rhetoric doesn't provide a backpack for a child when everyone else in the classroom has a backpack. These are fundamental issues for people living in poverty.

The first order of business, I would suggest…. If you're going to leave the exemption and you're going to claw back child support and you're going to take school supply money back, why don't you put forward a plan — a real, comprehensive plan? B.C. and Saskatchewan are the only two provinces in this country that don't have a poverty reduction plan.

To the minister: if you're going to continue to pull back child support, if you're going to take away school supplies from impoverished children, at a minimum why don't you come up with a plan so the people of British Columbia can have some confidence that you're going to do something about poverty in this province?

Hon. D. McRae: I know the member opposite has been Leader of the Opposition for now two days, but he's been involved in government for a very long time. I'm sure he's also very much aware that from 1990 to 2000, ten years there — I believe the NDP and yourself were involved there, Madame Speaker and member opposite — families living in poverty increased by 42 percent. Poverty is not a new invention that's happened in the last ten years.

[1030]

We take this issue very seriously. But just because you have a legislative poverty plan, it does not mean success. I'm sure the members opposite are aware that Quebec has a plan in place, and they have not matched B.C. in reducing child poverty. Since 2003 we've reduced child poverty in this province by 41 percent.

Ontario has a plan in place, and did you know that child poverty there has increased? A plan does not guarantee success. What guarantees success is an opportunity for families to engage in the economy, to have jobs, to provide opportunities for their children. That's what I want to do. As a teacher, I want to make sure young children leaving the school system have that opportunity to get the training and the jobs. This side of the House is dedicated to that.

M. Mungall: The minister is right to say that poverty isn't new. It has existed for millennia. What would be new, however, is action from this government. That's what would be new. That would mean a lot to Jennifer Buckingham and her family, because they're struggling. They're struggling because of Liberal choices.

Those choices take a total of $750 out of her two daughters' hands every month. Being poor means Jennifer's daughters are being bullied at school for not having the same things as their classmates. The girls are stressed from the teasing, from not having enough food to eat and not being able to have the same opportunities as other kids.

How can the minister continue to defend the indefensible? How can he not stop this grievous wrong of taking money out of B.C.'s poorest kids?

Hon. D. McRae: The members opposite talk about a stroke of a pen to make policy changes to improve the lives of British Columbians. I think I should give them some examples of some policies that we've done in this government to improve the lives of British Columbians. I'm sure they support these changes as well.

We've increased the minimum wage to $10.25 per hour. It is amongst the highest of any province in Canada. One of the things, as well, we've done is reduced the overall tax levels in British Columbia by 37 percent in 2001. That keeps money in all persons' pockets, to allow them to spend it on opportunities for their children going forward.

I'm sure the members opposite remember that in the 1990s the lower incomes had to pay income tax. Why? Well, because they taxed everybody. We want to make sure those who can least afford it do not pay.

I'm sure the member opposite is also aware that our policy for child care subsidies helps 50,000 children every year. We also make sure that 800,000 individuals do not pay MSP premiums.

Talking about investing, over $3.5 billion has been invested in the last ten years to provide affordable housing in British Columbia.

I'm not going to sit here in this chamber for a second and say we're done with our work. We'll continue to grow the economy in British Columbia and invest in supports that will help vulnerable people across this province.

Madame Speaker: Nelson-Creston on a supplemental.
[ Page 3514 ]

M. Mungall: Every time we ask this question in this House the minister, or whoever is answering, provides a long list of things that they are doing, but they never, ever come back to the fact that at the end of the day, B.C. has had the highest rate of child poverty under their watch for ten years. It's 33 percent above the Canada-wide average. That's the reality.

People in British Columbia are tired of hearing government excuses for not taking action today to reduce child poverty. With the stroke of a pen, an order-in-council that would actually be welcomed by British Columbians could be done, and it would end the clawback of child support payments to B.C.'s poorest kids. That could happen, but they are not doing it. Furthermore, they are leaving B.C. as one of two provinces in this entire country that does not have a poverty reduction plan.

My question is to the minister. Will he join us in making a difference with a poverty reduction plan, or will he continue to defend the indefensible, taking money out of the hands of B.C.'s poorest kids?

[1035]

Hon. D. McRae: I'm sure the member opposite heard my earlier answer when I talked about how, while legislative plans are well-intentioned, they do not mean absolute success. Ontario and Quebec are two examples, and I know their politicians passed those plans with good intentions.

I know the members opposite understand. Even though I would consider a 41 percent decrease in child poverty after 2003 an incredible step, you know what? I would have loved to have got to a higher number. We continue to work in this government, in this province, to make sure that we have those supports. I know the member opposite is well aware that we also spend moneys and have programs, and 98,000 households receive benefits from provincial social housing programs and services. Next year we are introducing the early childhood tax benefit.

I've said this before, and I'll say it again: we're not done with our policy changes and reforms and our supports. We will evolve them to support individual families across British Columbia. We may not meet the time frame the members opposite have. I would love to grow the economy that much faster, and I would invite the members opposite to join us in growing the economy of British Columbia to help families across this province so that we can make those investments and those supports.

CHANGES TO COMMUNITY HEALTH
CARE CENTRES IN VANCOUVER

J. Darcy: Last Wednesday community health workers at the Pacific Spirit, Pine, Evergreen and South Community Health centres in Vancouver were notified that they were being laid off. The next day, physicians who work at these clinics were told that their contracts would be terminated on October 31. At some of these clinics, nurse practitioners and a pharmacist have already lost their positions.

The Minister of Health has said repeatedly in this House that these primary care, multidisciplinary clinics will not be closed and that no patient will be without a family doctor. When doctors, nurse practitioners and other staff are being given pink slips, how can the minister continue to make such a claim?

Hon. T. Lake: To the member, who does not seem to recognize that change is necessary to reflect the change of the population that is being served: the integrated primary care model of a community health centre is designed to help a vulnerable population with a complex set of needs. Over time the population in the areas of the clinics mentioned by the member has changed, and Vancouver Coastal has done the responsible thing and changed the level of services to match the population.

In fact, I toured Raven Song primary health care centre a couple of weeks ago and met all of the dedicated men and women who serve the community. Now, with these changes, Raven Song will offer seven-day-a-week service, 12 hours per day, which will result in a net gain of service hours and improved access for clients, including at-risk youth.

It's important to match the right service to the right clients with the right providers. That is what this redesign is doing, and as much as the members opposite hate change — we can see that every day — this is the right kind of change to provide the right kind of service to the vulnerable populations of Vancouver. We'll continue to support that.

Madame Speaker: Member for New Westminster on a supplemental.

J. Darcy: I think it's important for the minister to understand that the kind of change he's talking about means that thousands of patients with chronic conditions and high needs are going to be without a family doctor. That's the kind of change that this minister is bringing about. You can call it a redesign or a reprioritization, but it is a cut to front-line health care, pure and simple, and this reckless cut is coming at a time when 160,000 British Columbians don't have a family doctor.

The Alberta government is moving full speed ahead with the first 24 of 140 planned family care clinics. Ontario already has 114 multidisciplinary community health centres in place, and they are pushing full steam ahead.

[1040]

These clinics have a proven track record of delivering high-quality, cost-effective preventive care and reducing emergency visits by 20 percent. Why is this government
[ Page 3515 ]
shutting down primary care clinics in Vancouver instead of creating them in rural and urban communities right across British Columbia?

Hon. T. Lake: Again, it's important to match the service with the clients that they are serving. I would say it's bordering on irresponsible, the fearmongering that is going on, on the other side.

Dr. Rolando Barrios….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Hon. T. Lake: Dr. Rolando Barrios is a senior medical director of Vancouver Coastal. I met with Dr. Barrios and many of the members of the primary care team at Raven Song. He absolutely rejects the opposition claims that people will be left without physicians.

In the clinics that will not be providing the same services, they will be moved over to a fee-for-service model. They can support clients in the area. As Dr. Barrios says, it's very disappointing to hear the fearmongering and unnecessary anxiety being caused by the members opposite. Vancouver Coastal is matching the needs of the clients with the service that is provided to ensure that vulnerable populations get the kind of health care that they need and deserve. We'll continue to support that.

G. Heyman: Perhaps the minister doesn't understand that anxiety is being caused by the removal of services that people do depend on, that vulnerable people depend on and that are matched to the needs that they have.

The Pine Free Clinic has been part of the community bordered by Vancouver-Fairview, Vancouver–Point Grey and Vancouver–False Creek for four decades. If it closes, young people in Vancouver will lose a critical lifeline. This is a place where they can ask questions about sexual health or get help coping with depression.

As one patient writes: "Any questions I have, any time I'm scared, I know I can go to Pine Free and be taken care of. I don't have access to anywhere else." If this clinic disappears, many young people will struggle alone.

Is the minister turning his back on Vancouver's community health clinics and the people who depend on them, or will he pledge today to keep Pine Free Clinic open?

Hon. T. Lake: As I mentioned, we know that change is very difficult for the members opposite. They cannot think that anything should ever change. The member opposite is concerned about youth. The redesign will actually improve access to service for youth through the creation of the youth hub at Raven Song as well as additional physician hours at the Three Bridges Primary Care Clinic and an increase of primary care physician resources at the East Van public health youth clinic.

I know in the NDP world things should never change. That is obvious when we look across. But we will always use the resources of the taxpayers of British Columbia to optimize health care, to make sure we get the very best results and ensure that we meet the needs of the most vulnerable people in our society.

HEALTH CARE SERVICES
FOR YOUTH IN VANCOUVER

D. Eby: We've had 40 years of all-party agreement that youth need a dedicated clinic in Metro Vancouver, but this minister knows better. Let's hear about the changes, the revisioning that he's talking about.

[1045]

The Pine Free Clinic staff have received their layoff notices effective October 31. After it closes, his government will be sending vulnerable youth from across the region to the very same clinics that serve street-involved adults struggling with chronic and severe addictions, including in the Downtown Eastside.

Will the minister pledge to support a dedicated youth-only clinic so that young people can get the services they need in a safe and supportive environment?

Hon. T. Lake: Not only do the members opposite have difficulty understanding change; they apparently have difficulty hearing the answer to the last question — when I mentioned that the youth hub will be created at Raven Song to improve access to service for youth, that in fact there will be an East Van public health youth clinic located at the Robert and Lily Lee community health centre to make sure that there are supports in place for youth. We just doubled the supports for youth at St. Paul's.

We have increased supports for youth throughout the province of British Columbia. We will continue to do that. But that doesn't mean that we will just have one model and see it through to the end of time. We will respond to the needs of the patients of British Columbia and provide them with the interdisciplinary health care that they, in fact, deserve and that will give them the best results possible.

IMPACT OF
FERRY SERVICES VESSEL CHANGES
ON PASSENGERS WITH MOBILITY ISSUES

C. Trevena: The Discovery coast ferry route is being changed. This government is replacing the Queen of Chilliwack, which has long served the route, with the Nimpkish, a vessel that could only fit one-third of the number of vehicles. I think even Liberal math would show that that's going to have a severe economic impact, when you have one-third on the vehicles on the car deck.

But there is another serious problem with this ves-
[ Page 3516 ]
sel. It's going to be impossible for people with mobility issues to access the lounge. In a swell the car deck on the Nimpkish — which takes that one-third fewer vehicles — can flood, and overheight vehicles have to be tied down to make sure that they're safe when the waves break over the deck, so they don't move around.

Passengers with disabilities won't be able to access the lounge. They're going to be stuck on that car deck. My question to the Minister of Transportation is: will the minister act now to ensure that there is a proper, adequate ferry that will serve the people as well as the economy of the central coast? Or is he simply going to wait for the lawsuits to flood in?

Hon. T. Stone: Again, let's remember the purpose behind this decision. As a government we were very clear with the people of British Columbia, particularly those in coastal communities, well before the last election, certainly through the election and ever since, over the last year, that we are going to make the tough decisions to ensure that the ferry service in British Columbia, which we're all very proud of, is sustainable, that it's affordable, and that it's there for the long term.

Now, specific to route 40, the route that the member has asked about, this is a route that was being subsidized by the taxpayers of British Columbia to the tune of $2,500 per vehicle. We believe on this side of the House that that's not sustainable. It moved only 500 vehicles on average last year.

We're working very hard to strike a balance between continuing to provide the services that are critically needed in coastal British Columbia, all the while ensuring that we're doing so with the utmost respect for the taxpayers of British Columbia.

Madame Speaker: The member for North Island on a supplemental.

C. Trevena: I think the minister would have more credibility if he'd actually done any economic analysis before making these cuts and if he'd done as he'd said, actually look people in the eye when he's going around implementing these cuts.

[1050]

This is also a human rights issue. We're talking about people with disabilities who could be stuck on a car deck in bad weather, who have no access to anywhere but that car deck. It's such a shortsighted move.

There is a huge economic impact that is going to happen, not just for the people on the coast but into the Interior along the Cariboo-Chilcotin. The minister still has time to fix this massive mistake of Liberal math, making sure that we don't have tourism operators going out of business and an industry that is just building up being wrecked.

So I ask the minister, will he seriously address this, sit down with tourism operators and find a way of keeping at least the Chilliwack for this season so that they can continue their business, bringing in income for the province of B.C., bringing tourists to the province of B.C.? Or is he going to just close the door on the province and close the door on the coast?

Hon. T. Stone: Well, certainly, it's not that much of a surprise, I would suggest, that an NDP economic analysis would suggest that a route which loses $7.35 million per year and would lose upwards of $15 million per year if there was a new vessel procured for that route, when that route only moves between 500 and 600 vehicles a year on the direct connection from Port Hardy to Bella Coola, somehow demonstrates respect for the taxpayers of British Columbia.

On this side of the House we happen to believe that there is an important balance to strike. That balance is, on the one hand, absolutely making sure that the basic service levels that are required for coastal communities are there, that the service is affordable and sustainable for the long term but that taxpayers are well respected.

I want to specifically mention one other piece. The member opposite has suggested to some degree that perhaps there are accessibility issues at B.C. Ferries. Surely, the member opposite isn't saying that the many, many investments that B.C. Ferries has made up and down the coast at ferry terminals and on ferry vessels haven't demonstrated our commitment to ensuring that this ferry service is absolutely as accessible as it possibly can be.

MANAGEMENT OF INTERFACE FIRE RISKS

N. Macdonald: We've been fortunate to avoid massive wildfire seasons the last number of years, but I think everyone understands that just a few hot weeks in any summer or any period of time could mean that we could be into some really dangerous times with wildfire. Fuel management in the wildland-urban interface to date has been expensive and of limited value, meaning that 4 percent of this critically important work has been completed since the 2003 Filmon report.

Last July the opposition laid out a three-point plan to protect communities from wildfires by managing fuel buildup in wildland-urban interface areas. Amongst other things, the minister will remember that we called for incentives in the legal framework to create bioenergy products and cogeneration plants using feedstock from the interface buffer.

So the question for the minister is…. He agreed with the idea almost a year on. Would the minister tell us what work has been done to implement this plan to safeguard our communities from wildfires?

Hon. S. Thomson: I thank the member opposite for his question. It provides me the opportunity, firstly, to
[ Page 3517 ]
recognize the great work of the wildfire management branch in the ministry and the preparation work they are doing now for the upcoming season — over 1,000 employees well prepared for the season and the training underway currently — and, again, to be able to convey the message and the importance of the public awareness and education campaign around acting responsibly and safely in the outdoors and around our communities.

[1055]

As you know already, with the wildfires that have started — and we had some flurry of activity early — all of them human-caused, again, the message is around ensuring that we continue to create that awareness and education about acting safely.

With respect to the individual initiatives, we continue to fund the wildfire interface management program, with local governments taking action. We have brought in new tenure tools — fibre supply licences to cut, supplemental forest licences that are assisting in increasing waste utilization in the province, bringing that waste out and being utilized. We have an increase in the pellet industry in British Columbia. Waste is being utilized, and we continue to provide tenure tools and licensing opportunities in order to support that.

[End of question period.]

Petitions

D. Eby: Hon. Speaker, I rise to table a petition from the University Women's Club of Vancouver, calling on the provincial government to establish a poverty reduction plan.

M. Mungall: I have here a petition of 1,217 postcards calling on the government to take action and implement a poverty reduction plan in this province.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: Madame Speaker, in Committee A, Committee of Supply — for the information of members, the estimates of the Ministry of Technology, Innovation and Citizens' Services; and in this chamber, continued second reading debate on Bill 2.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 2 — ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES
COMMISSION AMENDMENT ACT, 2014

(continued)

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

R. Fleming: I appreciate the opportunity to continue remarks from yesterday on Bill 2, the electoral boundaries redistribution act.

Yesterday I didn't get too far into being able to respond to the bill. But the point that I was trying to make…. I'll reiterate it just to begin there again, and why this is an issue for the public of British Columbia. We went through the inglorious history of electoral boundary redistribution in B.C. and the reform movement, beginning 30 years ago, to clean up the practice of how electoral boundaries are decided in British Columbia.

I think many members on this side of the House have made the point that after having ridden a wave of public outcry and a demand for independence and democratic legitimacy around how boundaries are decided in British Columbia, Bill 2 represents a fundamental backsliding in that direction. The year is 2014, and we are seeing a major intrusion into the independence of Elections British Columbia and the elections commission that decides how the map is divided up and who is ultimately a representative in this place and what regions and communities they stitch together to create a constituency in the province of British Columbia. That is a warning sign, Mr. Speaker.

[1100]

When a bill like this ties the hand and puts in a straightjacket the independence and the ability, the scope of the three-member panel that's independently appointed on what they can look at and what they can recommend in the way this bill does by red-circling 17 ridings out of 85 and leaving aside and setting up a category of 68 constituencies, you have a greatly reduced ability for the commission to actually make decisions.

You have taken away one of the fundamental things that an independent election commission must do, based on a century of practice. It's based on, actually, jurisprudence going back to the foundation of Canada, to the first Prime Minister of Canada, Sir John A. Macdonald, when we were involved in drawing up how federal government works — that is, balancing several sometimes competing interests in order to get a map that maybe everybody doesn't agree with but that today, in the 21st century, passes the test of independence, passes the test of legitimacy and, most importantly, passes the test of balancing the competing interests and considerations that that independent panel must consider. Those are, for the most part, geographic size.

The panel — even before, especially before, this government intruded on what its mandate is going to look like, should this bill become law — is already obligated to ensure that we don't have ridings that are unduly large and unmanageable for an MLA. They have to consider that. First of all, I expect that the three distinguished panelists would do that of their own course, but in order to ensure that is the case, it's there in the legislation already. They have to balance the geographic size considerations of a riding with what is considered to be fair in terms of the value or the relative power of a vote in B.C.

They have to look at geographic size at the same time
[ Page 3518 ]
that they look at population. The province of British Columbia, as we know, changes very quickly, even in a decade. Wouldn't it have been interesting, hypothetically speaking, if, as part of the negotiations as an act of union between Vancouver Island and mainland British Columbia, Vancouver Island had negotiated, as some eastern and maritime provinces negotiated in the foundations of our federation in the Constitution of Canada, a guaranteed number of seats?

That would have been probably a reasonable debate at the time of the act of union. It might have even been a reasonable debate up until World War I, because Victoria was both the commercial and the population centre of the province. That changed, of course, with the terminus coming to Vancouver and the end of World War I and settlement patterns and investments and where industry located. But that didn't happen.

Now we're talking about, at least for the next decade and possibly beyond, embedding a distortion in the Electoral Boundaries Act that is based on red-circling 17 constituencies in B.C., saying: "These shall" — not may, shall — "be protected from any consideration during redistribution." They have to be the same, and that is now putting a lens or a template on electoral boundary redistribution in B.C. that ties the hands of the commission to be able to balance those fundamental considerations between population distribution and what a reasonable geographic size for a constituency is. This is a slippery slope.

[1105]

I'm not going to say it's a straight line between what British Columbia may look like should this bill become law and redistribution proceeds along the lines that the government intends it to. I'm not going to say it's a straight line between that and the practices we see down in states like California or how congressional districts are decided in the United States. But it's getting closer and closer.

If you ever want to see the most ugly democratic practice imaginable, you only have to go down to the United States and look at how they decide what a constituency looks like for, say, a congressional election. Politicians — not independent commissions but politicians, who naturally seek re-election — put together their own maps. It's a process that is absolutely the opposite of transparency. It is absolutely the opposite of independence.

It is all about politics and negotiations and trade-offs from the two-party system that they have in the United States, and it ends up ensuring that you have districts that have nothing in common with each other, other than how they have historically voted. It doesn't look at geography, it doesn't look at diversity, and it doesn't look at population growth. It looks at how incumbents can get re-elected. That becomes the prime directive and is, in many states in the United States and for congressional elections.

We were on that path here in British Columbia. People still remember Gracie's Finger — I mentioned it in debate yesterday — and how you could have the absolute absurdity of bypassing neighbourhoods and bisecting a part of urban Vancouver to make a safe seat for an incumbent minister, who hoped at that time to become the Premier of British Columbia. That created a spark of outrage in B.C. that led to a modern reform movement that we find today.

We're on the slippery slope of going back and forgetting the lessons of 30 years ago by taking as many as 17 constituencies in B.C. and saying that they can't change. The other constituencies are the only things that can be considered. We're reducing the scope and independence of the commission to such a great extent that anything else after that, unfortunately, becomes possible. If the government gets away with it, they'll be so emboldened that they'll try other kinds of things that mess around with the independence and the authority around how elections are conducted in B.C. It's important that they not be allowed to do that.

I mean, other members in this chamber have pointed out how arbitrary those 17 constituencies are that have been selected in the province. I shouldn't say arbitrary. It appears arbitrary when one looks at it. But if one understands that the 17 constituencies were primarily chosen on the basis of how they vote and whether they vote and return governing members more often than they elect opposition members, then it becomes pretty obvious what we're dealing with here at the heart of this bill.

This is about protecting a governing majority and skewing the changes in the province's demographics and the lay of the land geographically, if it suits them politically. It's an absolute affront to why the boundaries commission process was initially established in the modern era.

If you look in the 17 constituencies that are red-circled, you find the major thing they have in common is that they generally vote Liberal. After that, it's pretty hard to tell what they do have in common. I don't know what parts of northern British Columbia, per se, which are large constituencies…. That has to be considered and can be considered by the Boundaries Commission. Those are definitely rural constituencies. Those are definitely areas that are far away from the capital and are hard to service.

I appreciate the MLAs who do that job and how difficult and different it is from urban MLAs. But if you go into the list of 17 constituencies, I have to ask why growing communities like Kamloops are in there, which are distinctly urban. We're talking about a regional metropolitan hub for the southern interior of British Columbia. Now, all of a sudden, those two constituencies are deemed rural.

[1110]

This is a city in excess of 100,000 people. This is a city that is a regional supply centre, that has a university, that has a downtown which is a regional hub for many other communities. Now, all of a sudden, the Electoral
[ Page 3519 ]
Boundaries Commission is prohibited from reviewing and looking at and making recommendations about that community? The same with Prince George, the urban hub of northern B.C. The commission is prohibited from looking at that. Now, why might that be?

Well, the commission in its wisdom over the last couple of iterations about the electoral map has decided that Prince George does not deserve and shouldn't have a purely urban riding. They have had a sort of hub-and-spoke map. I'm not going to go back and argue whether that was good or bad. What's the point? In fact, I will defend that decision because it was made independently.

But I will question the inability now of the commission to look at Prince George. That completely lacks legitimacy — that they're prescribed and prohibited from looking at Prince George, but they can look at 68 other ridings.

It's got to be about one British Columbia. We're all the same. We're all captured by the legislation in terms of our voting interests. The democratic balance is best served by an independent panel that is appointed based on expertise and is above and beyond reproach for having any partisan or political interests. That's what's at stake in this debate.

I have very serious concerns about this bill. This is one of the worst offences that you can commit in a chamber like this: to take legislation that was the product of hard-fought gains by citizens in British Columbia to move to an independent model — to take the electoral boundaries process out of the back rooms and put it in the light of day — and now in 2014 to put a straightjacket on that process. The government will try and get away with saying, "Hey, it's still independent," even though they have stacked the deck, changed the terms of reference and prohibited this new commission from looking at a huge part of British Columbia.

This is divisive. This is wrong, and this is going to tilt the playing field in British Columbia so that it skews the electoral map. It is about crass partisan interests and nothing else. I have not been persuaded by a single member on the other side that's participated in this debate so far that it's about anything else.

For those reasons, Mr. Speaker, I would thank you for the opportunity to speak to this bill this morning. I will be voting against Bill 2, and I hope it's defeated, in the interests of democracy in British Columbia.

S. Chandra Herbert: I rise, as well, in opposition to Bill 2, the Electoral Boundaries Commission Amendment Act, 2014. I rise to oppose this because my constituents have been clear to me: they want fair elections.

It's been clear — whether or not it's the federal changes to the Elections Act, which they've told me they strongly oppose, or the question of whether or not it's gerrymandering of riding boundaries or even municipal elections and campaign spending issues — they want democracy to be clean, to be fair and to have no whiff of gerrymandering or attempts to fix the deck in favour of one party or another. They have told me loud and clear that they will accept nothing but.

This bill tends to, I think, attempt to claim it's doing one thing when really it's trying to do another. It says that it's about ensuring some communities are protected and have good representation. While on one side of its mouth the government claims those communities are growing, this bill seems to suggest that much of the province is shrinking, that there are fewer people living in the northeast, fewer people living in the northwest. Out the other side of the government's mouth it claims, and we have seen, that population has been increasing in a number of parts of the province because of changing economic opportunities.

The government is trying to have it both ways, trying both to say that their seats need to be protected because there are too few people and, at the same time, claiming that the economy is booming and that there are a gazillion people running to these communities.

[1115]

Under the court rulings, we understand that special circumstances can be considered when designing seats, when an independent commission is establishing an electoral map, establishing where representatives represent. They say "in very special circumstances," not whenever we feel like it, not that we can change riding boundaries to reflect our own desires however we want, just because it's a nice thing to do or it represents self-interest or might be good for one political party or another. No, they talk about truly exceptional or extraordinary circumstances.

This bill decides — I guess, like a parent — that everybody is unique, special, truly extraordinary and that 17 seats should be hived off and protected specially, for now into forever, without having the opportunity for an independent commission to decide on what would best reflect the demands and desires of the public.

I oppose this legislation because I think we need to be preserving the integrity and the independence of the Electoral Boundaries Commission, not supporting a Liberal boundary commission or a New Democrat boundary commission or a Conservative boundary commission but an independent boundary commission, one that truly listens to the people of this province, not to the partisan interests and not to the politicians, one that listens to the public who, after all, are the ones we are here to represent and who elect us through our ridings.

Now, I represent Vancouver–West End. It's a very urban seat. It's a very dense seat. Instead of 19 kilometres between homes, we have 19- or 20-storey buildings. We have 35-storey buildings. We have the tallest tower in British Columbia in my riding — a very different area to try to represent than other communities across the province. But it's not easy. Some seem to suggest that it's so hard to represent some parts of the province but it's easy to represent urban Vancouver or urban British Columbia.
[ Page 3520 ]

The demands are different. It's a lot harder, in some ways, to connect to constituents. You can't just walk up through the picket fence and knock on the door, because there really might be only one picket fence in my entire constituency. You have a challenge to reach people and also a very high turnover rate of people moving, people arriving, people changing apartments. So it's difficult to build relationships, but it's also incredibly exciting.

What this bill seems to suggest is that for urban areas there is no problem, no challenge representing incredibly large numbers of people. Well, I'll tell you. When I was first elected, I represented Vancouver-Burrard — the entire peninsula of downtown Vancouver, approximately 90,000 people — while some of my colleagues in this Legislature were representing constituencies of maybe 25,000 people. Their constituents had effectively 3½ and a bit votes. In a sense, their vote was worth that much more than my constituents' at the time.

The Electoral Boundaries Commission recognized that and said that wasn't fair, that it didn't make sense that I had to represent so many people and that they had one vote electing me, whereas another British Columbian had effectively 3½ times the power for their vote at that time. What they did is they changed the boundaries — so now I represent Vancouver–West End — and established a new riding, Vancouver–False Creek. That made sense. That's how the process is supposed to work.

They considered communities of interest. They moved boundary lines around to reflect, to the best ability they had as independent people…. A retired judge; a layperson, who connects and has expertise; and another. They decided that the boundaries should be this way after hearing from the community.

What the Liberals have decided to do with this bill is to say that for 17 ridings they don't have that ability. They're not able to reflect the population changes, growth, diminishment and what have you for the entire province because they've restricted and frozen 17 seats in time, whether or not those seats are growing in population or shrinking or whether or not other seats are growing in population or shrinking.

It's interesting to look at what they've decided to protect. Of course, 11 of those seats are currently held by Liberal members. But what's challenging with this is they claim this is about allowing people to better represent their constituents, but they've also decided to leave out constituencies not currently held by the Liberals which, I would argue, are just as challenging to represent geographically, if not more so, than some of the constituencies they've decided to protect, the Liberal constituencies.

[1120]

Of course, you look at Powell River–Sunshine Coast, and you look at North Coast — some of these areas which are very difficult because you have to float-plane in to get to places. You have to ferry and travel and travel and drive and drive, and it's difficult to get to. But they also don't decide, as a rural constituency, the Boundary constituency. They've decided to leave this out of their 17 protected seats for some reason but decided to put Kamloops south in.

Now, I love Kamloops. It's where my parents met. It's a beautiful community. Great people and an incredible tourism industry there. But I would wonder — and I think some of the people I talk to in Kamloops wonder…. They said: "Well, why are they freezing us in time while leaving the Boundary country, which is geographically bigger, in many respects, and more diffuse, not included? Why is that?"

Well, I don't know the answer to that, because the government has not effectively shown why they've decided to freeze 11 of their seats in time to protect them and to protect their majorities, their electoral wins in those seats, the cynic would say.

I would argue that without any other evidence, which the government hasn't shown, I could understand why people would think that. I could understand why people would think this was Liberals protecting Liberals, because they have not demonstrated any real clarity for how they chose seats to protect and those they chose not to.

Just because your riding is big doesn't mean that it's harder to represent than one that is somewhat smaller. The reason I say that is that you can look at one seat where the vast majority of the population lives in maybe two towns or a city and a town, and there are a couple hundred, maybe a thousand or two, spread out everywhere else.

Whereas there can be somebody who represents a small area but their people are spread all over the place, maybe harder to represent because there are no clear town boundaries, there are no clear total hubs of one or two hubs that you can drive between, have offices in and represent in the same way.

Now, I love this province, and I try to get to know it and travel around it and get to meet people. That's the only way that I, as a representative of Vancouver–West End, can truly understand what's going on for my colleagues, for members on the opposite side, and understand their arguments in a better way so that it's not one view but I can hear many views.

I think that's one of the great benefits of this Legislature. We do get to hear from people from all across the province. But we do that knowing that those people were fairly elected. We do that knowing that their seats have not been designated by some secretive group who've decided to protect partisan interests as opposed to the public interest, because it's vital for our understanding of democracy that the popular will is heard.

Now, this bill is about electoral boundaries. It's not about the electoral systems. Those we can save for another day. Certainly, there's much to debate and discuss there, as we've seen over the years, a strong desire for reform to make this place work better and be more truly
[ Page 3521 ]
representative.

If we go back to the idea of very special circumstances, truly exceptional or extraordinary circumstances, that's a very high bar for the minister to meet, to have to prove. Some have argued, very effectively, I believe, that this bill will not pass constitutional muster, that it does not effectively argue for why these special protections for 17 seats — not one or two, but 17 seats — would be necessary.

Unless the minister is able to rise in this House and provide a definitive argument about why these particular 17 seats were protected as opposed to others that are more diffuse, others that have in some ways greater challenges, I can't support this legislation, because no effective and good argument has been made.

I thank the minister for delaying this legislation, the House Leader for delaying this legislation, introduced early in the session but then halted because the government heard from us on this side that we wouldn't support it, that it didn't look fair, that it didn't look non-partisan and that the electoral system was effectively, we argue, being stacked in the deck in favour of the B.C. Liberals. So I'm glad the minister stopped the debate at that point.

I had hoped that they would have withdrawn the bill at that time and let the independent commission do its work. That would have been a good response. That would have been to hear from the public, to hear from concerned members of this Legislature and to try to get to a non-partisan solution here.

[1125]

You know, the suggestion that we are going to bring in two more seats, and maybe this will somehow help things — two more legislators here will help things and make it fair — I don't know where the government has got that from. I don't know.

My constituents tell me they like the work I'm doing, but they don't tell me they want more politicians. They don't tell me they want another one of me or another one of somebody else in this place to increase the number of politicians. They did say: "Could we have another one of you to work extra hard, to double up your efforts?" I did tell them I have a twin brother. He is a very fine person, but thankfully, he is not running to be a member of this Legislature at this time. He is, instead, holding politicians to account and asking some pretty tough questions up Kamloops way. But my point is that the public thinks that we are supposed to do what we can with what we've got.

We're in tight fiscal times, as we always are. There are always challenges to pay for things that we desire and we need. It doesn't matter — any day. That's always a challenge. We always have to manage the public's money wisely. I think, with that in mind, that this bill doesn't do that. This bill clearly doesn't do that. Adding more politicians, opening yourself up to a potential major court fight, all to protect the interests of 17 constituencies — in particular, majority Liberal constituencies — is not the right way. We need to empower the independent commission to do their job. That's how we will build trust in the process. That's how we will not have gerrymandered ridings like they have in the United States.

You look at some of these ridings. They're crazy. A little pocket here, a little pocket there, a little pocket over there — mass differences in between, kind of a Rorschach test, where you look at them and you…. Is that an animal? Is that a butterfly? What is that? That's not a constituency. That can't effectively be a united community of interest. But because they've let partisan interests rule the day, that's what they've got. You get seats which are, for generations, one party, where in effect, what they have become is rotten boroughs, places where the party controls, as opposed to the people.

I like competition. I'm a team sports player. I'm a person who likes to get into the thick of it, make my arguments and see where the chips fall — to completely confuse metaphors — but this bill does not create that situation. In fact, it seems to solidify secure ridings for Liberals, and that's not something that we should support.

You know, the last time I checked, the government was claiming they were about the free market. They really applauded competition, and they wanted more competition, and they wanted fair rules. This bill does the opposite. It decides to protect certain Liberal seats and solidify them in time in a kind of amber so that we can look at them — like the fly in Jurassic Park, frozen in time. You know, there are certainly some exciting ideas that come out of that movie, but I don't think that freezing a politician or a fly in amber in time from now into perpetuity is the right move.

We need debate. We need diverse opinions. We need that competition to represent the public in a better way and to appeal to the best in them so that they can appeal to the best in us to get the best for our province.

I will be opposing this legislation. I think there are effective ways that we can increase the representation of rural British Columbia if the rural constituents are able to effectively show the challenges they have getting their voices heard by their MLAs if their MLAs are not able to be effective.

But you know, when I've travelled this province, whether or not it's in Prince George or Hazelton or Fort St. John or others, I ask them. I say: "Let's put politics aside. Is your MLA accessible? Are you able to reach them? Do you find because your riding is so big that you can never actually get to hear from them?" What they tell me is: "Well, you know, I sent them an e-mail the other day. Their staff wrote back to me, and I was able to get my situation resolved." I hear that quite often.

Now, we could go to the partisan level. Certainly, there are those that like to say, "Well, because they are from that party, they don't hear my interest," and I've heard that.

[1130]

Quite often, whether or not it's a poverty reduction strategy or other things people want and their member
[ Page 3522 ]
is from a different party, they don't always get the results they want. But they do say that if the MLA is good and if they are going to likely get re-elected because they work hard for the community, that generally, they're able to reach them. Generally, they're able to connect with them. Certainly, I've seen from colleagues on this side who represent rural B.C. that they're often on the phone talking to constituents and representing them in the same way that I am.

I do a lot of the work that I do as an MLA over the phone, by e-mail as well as in person. So there are many ways to connect to members of the Legislature. More and more, it's via Twitter or Facebook or other innovations that have allowed us to in some ways shrink the size of the province so that members of the Legislature and the information that we have here is more accessible for the public.

I will be opposing this legislation. I am concerned that the government has decided that their might is more powerful than the might and the will of the public to have their voices independently elected, independently design the electoral boundaries.

When I was a young boy, my parents were talking about Gracie's finger. I thought that was such an interesting term. I didn't quite know what it meant at the time. We lived close to Vancouver–Little Mountain. They said that the area that had been taken out of a Socred seat was put into Grace McCarthy's seat to make her win more convincing, I suppose, and it just struck me as wrong. I said: "Why would they take a finger?" And they had to show me on the map that a finger was a section of the city which had been represented by one and then slapped onto a different area.

I think the comment a friend of my parents' said was: "Well, Gracie's finger is giving democracy the finger." I was confused at the time, but when my parents explained it to me and said, "But don't do that yourself; that's a bad thing; you shouldn't give anybody the finger," I was surprised that our democracy would do such a thing, given that I was brought up to really believe in democracy and believe in fair electoral processes and having our voices heard in this House.

I hope that this legislation will be defeated. I hope the minister will hear this loud and clear. I hope that the public will have their chance to have their voices represented in this House in a fair and honest and open way that reflects constituencies at their best, not at their partisan worst.

S. Robinson: I'm pleased to stand up today and take my place in this debate. I, too, stand in opposition of this bill. When I think about the need to change electoral boundaries and I think about the idea of fairness and how it is that we as MLAs have to represent our constituents…. I hear what my colleague from the West End talks about in terms of the density of his community and how he represents them just by being out on the street. He bumps into people.

My experience as a new MLA is that I come from a suburban area. Standing on the street, I may not bump into people, but I certainly have easy access, and people have easy access to me.

Then I talk to my colleague, for example, from North Coast, who talks about getting to some of the remote areas of her constituency once every few months because the only way in is with a float plane because of the remoteness of her community.

I really do appreciate that we all serve our constituents as best we can with the kind of terrain and kind of population that we serve.

I also was pleased to hear my colleague from West End speak to the value of social media and e-mail and how that has brought us so much closer and made it so much easier to represent our constituents in all of our different communities, making us far more accessible.

But what I find really, really troubling about this bill is that…. When we're taking a look at changing electoral boundaries, we need to make sure that it's impartial, that it's fair and that it's independent. Really, somebody from outside of this House ought to be taking a look at what needs to happen, what needs to change in order to make sure that it's done from a non-partisan perspective.

[1135]

I value democracy, as I'm sure everybody else in this House values democracy. On Remembrance Day we all have these opportunities to speak in our communities about those who fought for democracy, those who lost their lives so that we could have the freedoms that we have. If we taint that democracy, if we taint it with a hint of partisanship, then we've lost. We've all lost, and those who gave their lives have lost too — because then we don't have the principles of fairness and impartiality working for us. That's a basic tenet of democracy.

One of the things that worries me about what we have before us in this bill is that it has lost some of this independence, impartiality and fairness. Red-circling 17 ridings…. I believe the words were because they are "most sparsely populated or geographically remote." I thought: "Okay, well that makes sense. That's a reasonable rationale."

What kind of test gets used to identify these 17 ridings? What are the measures that you use? Any changes need to be credible. So what is the credibility of this government, using, in order to identify what is sparsely populated and geographically remote…?

In looking at which of these 17 areas are going to be red-circled, as they call them — safe seats, not redistributed — we learn that Kamloops and Prince George are considered safe seats. They are not going to be redistributed in any way.

I don't know how many in this House would know this, but I consider myself a city mouse, not really much of a
[ Page 3523 ]
country mouse. I love to go to the country. I like to dig in the dirt. I like remote; remote is lovely. I will visit remote, and I will visit isolated but not keen to stay there long term. It's going to be very interesting for my husband and I as we talk about retirement. We're not there yet, but he wants to go remote, and I want to go to Coal Harbour. So it's going to be very interesting to see how we address that.

I thought: "Well, maybe if I take a look at what this government identifies as remote, sparsely populated, we might be able to find some middle ground." In doing some of this research, I thought, "Well, maybe we could move to Kamloops or to Prince George in our retirement," because according to the government side of the House, Kamloops and Prince George are sparsely populated and geographically remote. So this might be where we retire.

In doing my research on Kamloops, I went to their city's website, and I said: "Okay, how remote is it? Will it meet my husband's needs?" The website says:

"Kamloops is strategically located at the intersection of western Canada's four major highways: the Coquihalla, Trans-Canada, Yellowhead and Highway 97. It's serviced by both national railways, is the meeting location of the South and North Thompson rivers and home to the Kamloops Airport.

"The city has a growing population of almost 86,000 within the city and 128,473, including the city and regional district. Kamloops is home to Canada's most comprehensive university, Thompson Rivers University, is Canada's tournament capital" — I know that because I've been there lots — "and has a lifestyle like no other, with 82 parks, 200 lakes, ski hills and golf courses."

Where it certainly meets my needs as the city mouse, my husband would be, I think, rather disappointed, given that it's not one of the most sparsely populated or geographically remote areas of our province. It's quite the stretch, actually, but I'll try it on him and see if I could sneak that past him.

As for Prince George, what's interesting…. I went to their website. It's known as B.C.'s northern capital. It's a bustling city with a population of approximately 76,000, situated at the crossroads of Highway 97 and Highway 16 and at the confluence of the Fraser and Nechako rivers.

[1140]

It's a major city of the Pacific Rim, and it's firmly tied to the global market. The city of Prince George is a vibrant, active and diverse community that provides a strong focal point and identity to the north, with a thriving economy that offers full opportunities for housing, employment, education, recreation and cultural life. It's also the host city for the Canada Winter Games. That's fabulous. And it has a university.

So it becomes really challenging to understand what the government means by remote and diversely populated. From my perspective, that becomes really challenging.

My husband certainly…. It wouldn't meet his criteria for a retirement city or a retirement town or a retirement community. He's looking for opportunities where you have huge spaces between people, where there is real remoteness. I shudder when I think about it because that's certainly not something that I'd want to live in, in my retirement. Like I said, we're certainly going to be having our own debates about this.

What worries me about this is that what we're looking at is not about the criteria that this government is putting forward. Certainly, North Coast wasn't put on this list. Sechelt wasn't put on this list as remote or sparsely populated.

From my perspective, and certainly from constituents that I represent, it starts to looks surprisingly like this notion of fairness is being severely compromised. This notion of impartiality is being severely compromised and, certainly, the independence that people gave their lives for so that we'd have a good democracy. Those principles are being compromised here in what's being proposed in this bill.

I'm actually quite disappointed. I really expected better. I expected that there would be certain principles that would be adhered to and that the commission would have full independence and the full ability to be impartial and fair, to act in the best interests of all the citizens of our province and to make the recommendations for electoral boundary adjustments as they would see fit. That's not what we're seeing here in this bill. For that reason, I'm in opposition.

K. Corrigan: I'm rising to speak in opposition to this bill. The right to vote and the integrity of the voting system are fundamental tenets of any democracy. I think they need to be treated as a sacred trust. Any changes that are made to something that is so fundamental must be, and must be seen to be, impeccably non-partisan, transparent and defendable. I submit that this legislation does not meet that test.

Whether it is true or not, there can be an appearance that the motivation for parts of this bill is political, and it can appear to be political on two major fronts.

First of all, as many of my colleagues have pointed out, coincidentally or not, 11 of the 17 seats that are protected by this bill are Liberal seats. That raises questions. Whether or not there is any truth to the fact that the Liberals are bringing in legislation for political purposes, as I said earlier, the changes must be seen to be impeccably non-partisan, whether they are or not. So first, 11 of the 17 seats that are protected are Liberal seats.

The second political issue that I see in this bill is the fact that it appears to be trying to avoid what happened in the past, the last time we had a boundary commission reviewing the boundaries in British Columbia. It appears to be trying to avoid political past problems that this government experienced — prolonged and painful problems that ended up causing them to be politically hurt, as happened the last time.

[1145]

It appears, whether it's true or not, that this is yet another attempt to interfere politically in order to avoid
[ Page 3524 ]
political problems.

For that reason, I think you have to take a skeptical look at the bill, and you have to say: "Look, because we are meddling so fundamentally with something that is fundamentally important to our democracy, you have to be absolutely clear. It has to have no taint whatsoever of political interference." On both of those fronts, there is an appearance, at least, that there could be political motivation for this bill.

I think the other fundamental problem that I have with this bill is the dangerous precedent that it sets of interfering with the work of the Boundaries Commission. You know, there has been talk in the past of past Boundaries Commission work being interfered with, and that's another huge danger in our democracy — if there is some suggestion that the work of the Boundaries Commission is not independent.

Essentially, what this bill does is it prescribes the circumstances under which the Boundaries Commission works. In essence, what it is doing is prescribing what the results are instead of prescribing principles, and defensible principles, that the Boundaries Commission must work on.

One of the fundamental principles of a democracy is the idea of one person, one vote. It used to be one man, one vote, but we've updated it to one person, one vote. That idea is the principle that all citizens, regardless of where they reside in a state, are entitled to equal legislative representation.

There have been numerous judicial precedents in Canada, going back 100 years or so, that say that this is a fundamental tenet of our democracy: one person, one vote. Those cases over the years have refined exactly what that means.

There can be a variation, up to about 25 percent. There can be a variation if the circumstances warrant, and in extreme circumstances it's acknowledged that there can be a higher variation. But what we have with this bill is we have, essentially, a pronouncement by this government that 17 of the 85 existing constituencies in this province would qualify as extreme circumstances, and I do not believe that that is what was meant in the Supreme Court of Canada decisions — that you could end up with 17 of 85 seats being prescribed as essentially being in extreme circumstances in our province. So I am very concerned about that.

Recently I was reading the White Paper on Electoral Boundaries Commission Act, which was put out by the government. I mean, let's not pretend that this is anything but a political document. The Electoral Boundary Reform: White Paper on Amending the B.C. Electoral Boundaries Commission Act is put out by the Ministry of Justice — the justice services branch of the civil policy and legislation office. This is a document that is posited for discussion, but it's a government document. It is a political document.

This is not work of the Boundaries Commission. This is work that the government…. This is a government document, so it is political in nature even though it talks about the context for electoral boundary revision in Canada, the legislator role and the ombudsperson role and so on and the fact that "every citizen of Canada has the right to vote" — this is quoting from the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms — "in an election of members of the House of Commons or of a legislative assembly and to be qualified for membership therein."

It talks all the talk, but essentially, at the end of the day, what this does is…. It was essentially like a trial balloon.

[1150]

Interjection.

K. Corrigan: Well, thank you. The hon. member for Port Coquitlam is asking me to repeat a quote from the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The hon. member knows that I am always happy to quote from the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. My legal background absolutely just gravitates that way. But you can read it in Hansard, hon. Member.

I'm not supposed to indicate who's here and who isn't. But anyways, apparently the member for Port Coquitlam is here.

Looking at the very beginning of this white paper, when I was looking at it a few days ago, it talks about the roles. I appreciate that it talks about the roles of MLAs. The roles of the MLAs include the legislator role. When you're changing boundaries, you're going to affect the legislator role because it is the majority of MLAs elected to the House who determine which party governs and which laws are enacted.

As the paper acknowledges, it is important that each MLA represent roughly similar numbers of eligible voters so that a majority of MLAs actually represent a majority of the population. The population of an electoral district is therefore a key part of the principle of representation by population. Talking about that role….

Then the other role that they talk about is the ombudsperson role, and we all know about that. We all know that what we do in our offices is very important — that we have casework come into our office and that we need to respond to that. It's another part of this bill. It's perhaps a bit of a balancing of those two roles — the legislator role and the ombudsperson role. That's legitimate, because I know some of the members from remote rural districts have said it's a challenge to represent those areas. I understand that this is a balancing.

What that description of the two roles of an MLA misses is the crucial aspect of whether the configuration that we arrive at favours one party or another. When they talk about the ombudsperson role and representing individuals and the problems that they have, the problems that individuals have in their constituencies, part of the an-
[ Page 3525 ]
swer to the problems that individuals have is having the right to vote and saying: "This party is not properly representing me. I have the right to determine that the other party, whoever that may be, is either representing me well or not. I'm having a problem, and I want to change the government."

Yes, we're legislators. Yes, we're ombudspeople. But just as fundamentally, we are representatives of the configuration of votes and seats that the people of British Columbia determine is what they want in terms of the makeup of the House. I think that was missing from the white paper.

Another part of this that concerns me is the fact that when we have these changes, we will have a disparity. I understand the reason for representation and wanting representation for our rural communities and the difficulties that people have. I hear some of the members that come here from places like Nelson-Creston and from the north and so on. I mean, it essentially takes not only travel within the constituency, but travel from the constituency to come to this place to vote on important bills like this is very challenging. I understand the importance and the challenges of rural representation.

Another one of the principles that was included in the discussion, has been included by the Supreme Court of Canada, has been included in academic papers and so on, is another type of representation, which is minority representation.

If you take a look at the various ridings that will be less represented if this bill passes — less represented — some of those ridings have some of the highest minority representation in this province. For example, my riding — well over 40 percent of the constituents are of Chinese heritage. Many of them speak Chinese as a first language. It is challenging for me, but it is crucially important for me to communicate and represent those individuals. Those individuals are minorities in this province, and they deserve to be well represented.

[1155]

Unfortunately, one of the things that is going to happen with this bill is that we are going to interfere with the representation of minorities in this province.

Now, I know that we have talked about…. One of the provisions of the bill is to limit the number of seats to 85. We understand that perhaps there is not a huge appetite in this province to increase the number of seats, given the fact that taxpayers are feeling hard hit, particularly lower-income people, families. Middle-class families are feeling hard hit.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

We understand that that is a challenge, but if we keep it at 85, it necessarily, then, sets up…. If you are going to protect 17 seats, what that means is that in terms of representation there are going to be losers. My concern is that in areas like mine we will have lower representation, proportional representation, in some of the urban seats.

I have concerns about that aspect of the bill, but my fundamental problem is the lack of respect for the constitution and a concern that there could be a Charter challenge. The fundamental problem is the dangerous precedent of interfering with the work of Boundaries.

With that, Madame Speaker, noting the hour, I would like to reserve my place and adjourn debate.

K. Corrigan moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

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

Hon. T. Stone moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Madame Speaker: This House, at its rising, stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.

The House adjourned at 11:57 a.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF TECHNOLOGY,
INNOVATION AND CITIZENS' SERVICES

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

The committee met at 11:03 a.m.

On Vote 41: ministry operations, $64,213,000.

The Chair: Minister, do you have any opening remarks, introductions?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I am quite content to move ahead with the estimates. Mr. Heyman is well informed and has thoughtful questions. I suggest we move ahead on the areas that have been outlined, which include: information access, freedom of information, privacy, relationships with the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner, sale of assets, the technology sector and government communications.

I leave myself in Mr. Heyman's capable hands.

[1105]

G. Heyman: It's good to be back. We have questions
[ Page 3526 ]
in a number of areas. Estimates is a good opportunity to ask this and to explore some areas related to finance and related to the operations of the ministry and the positions the ministry might take in response to both public concerns and concerns expressed by independent officers of the Legislature.

I want to start with some questions about freedom-of-information requests. Can the minister confirm the number of full-time-equivalents the information access operations office currently has approval for?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The freedom-of-information processing branch has 105 staff. Those numbers are included in the total count for the information access operations group of 149 full-time-equivalents.

G. Heyman: Do I understand that correctly? There are 149 FTEs but only 105 currently employed.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The 105 are involved in freedom-of-information processing. The other 44 are involved in information records management generally, not in freedom of information specifically.

G. Heyman: That number is the number for those people currently employed or the current budget complement.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The current complement of the 105 budgeted positions in freedom of information is currently lower due to staff turnover and so forth — roughly 100 — and recruitment is ongoing. We can provide a more accurate number for the grand total — that is, the 149 budgeted positions — this afternoon, if the member would like that.

[1110]

G. Heyman: Thank you. I would appreciate that information. At the same time, or perhaps now, could you confirm or do the math on how many vacancies there currently are in information access operations?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The position is that recruitment has occurred recently. We're looking forward to approximately two weeks from now, when those people come on stream, and the vacancy rate will be zero in information access operations.

G. Heyman: That's welcome news. In a PowerPoint that was obtained through a freedom-of-information request, one slide really stuck out for us. It said: "Information access operations is approved for 115 FTEs. Currently 93 positions are staffed." And here is an important sentence: "If staffing had kept pace with request increases since 2008-2009, IAO would have 148 FOI staff."

My question to the minister is: if the current number of FOI analysts actually working is below complement, even when it gets up to complement, why is there a deficit from the number of staff that was projected within the ministry that would be needed to support the increase in the number of requests on a continuing, timely basis?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The PowerPoint the member refers to…. I'm not sure what the date is, but it seems to be dated in that the member refers to the goal of having 148 staff in information access. We now have 149 budgeted positions and expect to have all of them filled, as I say, once training and recruitment are complete in a couple of weeks. The number oscillates around that number as people move on to other lines of work. Recruitment is ongoing. We sometimes slightly exceed that number, and sometimes it goes below that number, but we stay roughly in that range.

G. Heyman: If I understood the minister correctly, in fact, once recruitment and hiring are completed in this cycle, information access will actually be one over the recommendation that was made.

My question to the minister is: with those positions filled, does the minister believe it's possible to achieve 100 percent compliance with the legislated timelines in the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act? If the answer to that is yes, what has the impact been in times when there has not been a full complement?

[1115]

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The current performance of 74 percent completion within statutory timelines is a slight reduction, because these requests are getting (a) more voluminous and (b) more complicated. We're in the position where…. Although we're at full staff complement, we would be in a much better position in terms of timeliness if we didn't have an accumulated backlog. Our current challenge is trying to clear the backlog. We have an appropriate staff complement to deal with current demand, but sadly, there's a backlog of complicated requests that's built up.

G. Heyman: I'm looking at a PowerPoint from the ministry. It notes some processing hiccups or delays. I guess that's what the average citizen would consider them to be.

For the Ministry of Children and Family Development, there's a 56 percent on-time rate for requests and then 82 average processing days overdue. The minister's own ministry was only 25 percent on time with an average 62 processing days overdue.

The general average, I think, as the minister pointed out, is 75 percent on time, 44 average processing days overdue. The average processing days from April 1, 2012, to March 31, 2013, compared to April 1, 2013, to December 1, 2013, increased significantly from 25 days
[ Page 3527 ]
overdue to 60 days overdue.

If this is the case, two questions to the minister. What does the minister think is an adequate staffing complement or other measures to actually handle the volume of reasonable requests and avoid delays and meet the legislated timelines? If, in fact, the backlog is a problem and the complexity of the backlog is a problem, what extra measures would the minister consider undertaking to reduce the backlog so that we don't continue to have delays and long periods of overdue requests going forward ad infinitum?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I'm pleased to be able to report that we're processing now roughly double the number of requests that were processed in 2007-2008. A couple of factors have made life more complicated and the processing slower.

[1120]

There has been a large increase in the number of cross-ministry requests. An individual will come in asking for something about watercourses in the Cariboo, but they've sent it to all ministries. Having fought our way through that for some time, which resulted in a lot of "no records" responses from irrelevant ministries, we are now being proactive and talking to the requesters to try and get them to focus on what they specifically want, rather than just having a blunderbuss, all-ministries request, which proves to be slow and inefficient and expensive.

There has also been a great increase in calendar requests going farther down into the civil service, which, of course, slows things down. The calendars have to be reviewed to take out personal phone numbers and "pick up the kids" and those kinds of things that are inevitably found in calendars. That has increased the workload.

There was also a burst of activity through the 2013 pre- and post-election cycle, which led to a substantial backlog. The premise is that staff in the freedom-of-information processing unit take about six months to train properly — to get them up to speed. There is also significant turnover and attrition in this field, because it is demanding.

We try to staff in anticipation of demand and when we can clear the backlog, but we are reluctant, of course, to hire and recruit and train a large batch of people only to have them underemployed, dissatisfied and then leaving in a very unsatisfactory environment.

Our goal is to increase the efficiency of the division and clear the backlog as soon as we can so that we can raise those percentages up into the higher numbers that we all seek.

G. Heyman: I note that in some instances it's clear from communication within the ministry that the aim — or at least the expectation for this year and presumably going forward — is not to complete 100 percent of FOI requests on time, despite the legislation. For instance, I think that at different times government has projected to receive approximately 9,500 requests this fiscal year. IAO is currently at 77 percent on time. If the remainder of this year's requests are closed at a rate of 90 percent on time, government would end the year at 81 percent on time. A more realistic projection is 75 percent.

The minister has given some reasons for why that might be the case now. I've heard the minister say some steps are being taken to address what he termed as, I think, shotgun or scattershot FOI requests.

Are there any other internal processing measures that the minister is contemplating or putting in place that would deal with the inevitable fact that people searching for information will cast the net as broadly as possible so that they don't, in fact, get a reply that says, "Sorry, don't have it," when it's down the hall or in another ministry?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The division has, over the past few years, centralized this function so that dedicated professional civil service staff perform the work, and that leads to some degree of efficiency. We have also been working on the rollout of a new software system that will be functional in late summer to provide more efficient processing and only do the steps that need to be done, rather than duplicating things or doing things manually. The goal is to do this more efficiently.

The key, though, it seems, is to make sure that the staff are comfortable working with the demand side, which is largely journalists and, to a degree, the members of the opposition and other political interests, to make sure that the requests can be focused and therefore processed in a more timely fashion.

[1125]

Understandably, some members of the media — and, of course, it's in the purview of other political interests, whether the official opposition or otherwise — maintain that they still want a broad request to be processed. But that inevitably leads to lengthy delays as ministries go looking for something that doesn't exist.

G. Heyman: In the centralizing of the function of searching for material requested through FOI, are there any other measures that the ministry has put into place or the minister is contemplating that would actually internally streamline the search?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Two steps have been taken that are, I think, substantive. First is to implement, to the maximum possible degree, a Lean management process so that each step taken is examined to make sure that it is actually producing something of value to the end user, rather than internally satisfying processes such as lunch breaks.

The second thing is that we're working upstream with the ministries to make sure that they have a structured, organized approach to this so that it becomes a straight-
[ Page 3528 ]
forward task for them to perform as soon as possible, rather than an onerous and uncertain task which they will put off for an inappropriate amount of time.

G. Heyman: People within the ministry have also noticed that freedom-of-information classifications have not kept pace with the changing nature of FOI work. This results in a high rate of staff leaving information access operations for higher-paying positions in the public service, which would of course result in what the minister correctly identified as a high rate of turnover requiring training of new staff to fill vacancies — all of which I'm sure the minister would agree is inefficient and results in delays, which is another level of inefficiency.

My question is: does the minister know what the exact turnover rate among FOI analysts has been for the last one or two years?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: It turns out that the turnover annually in recent years has been about 15 percent. That obviously requires recruitment and training of the replacement 15 percent. In doing the math, that comes to roughly 20 people a year being trained and recruited.

The other point that should be made is that these people, once they decide to move on from this role, tend to stay within the civil service and move to other roles in other ministries. Of course, they take with them the knowledge and know-how of how the system works. They're often relied upon in other ministries for their skill and efficiency and knowledge of freedom-of-information processing.

Lastly, in terms of compensation for these individuals and their job classifications, we work within the PSA classification system on these roles.

[1130]

G. Heyman: I know that on numerous occasions within the public service there have been temporary or long-term grid adjustments within the pay grid for recruitment and retention purposes. Has the ministry done an analysis of whether the rate of turnover is largely attributable to pay rates, is attributable to other causes such as burnout or workload? Have there been exit interviews done? Is there a general framework for why the turnover rate is where it is?

If compensation is one of the issues, is the ministry looking at trying to deal with that for recruitment and retention rather than simply being a farm team for other ministries? If burnout is an issue or workload is an issue, there are two causes. One is more senior staff working with new staff who are still on the learning curve or being trained, and the other one is staffing levels generally. Can the minister comment on any of these factors with respect to retention?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: It turns out that this collection of employees actually has fairly high levels of engagement, and we have some longtime employees who take pride in the work and are pleased and proud to be a part of the freedom-of-information process and take it as a matter of principle to do their work properly. Others develop the skills, and it turns out the degree of meticulousness and broad thinking is actually in demand in other ministries, and these people are actually recruited out from the FOI role.

The concept of burnout, I think, is perhaps less applicable here than the concept that people develop a knack for this work and like it and carry on doing it, or they see opportunities elsewhere and say: "Well, I'm now so well trained out of FOI, I can do just about anything."

G. Heyman: Well, fair enough. But if, in fact, the classifications haven't kept pace with the changing nature of the work and people are able to take the skills that they have developed through doing work of a changed nature and receive higher compensation elsewhere in the public service, which is, of course, a value to the public service…. There's no question about that.

There are two possible avenues here: one is a classification review to ensure that the jobs are placed at the appropriate classification and grid level; or if they generally are, but people are being recruited elsewhere, that there be a temporary retention adjustment. Although, frankly, if they're taking the skill set and able to make more money elsewhere in government, my hunch would be that it's the classification of those jobs themselves relative to other classifications in government that may have been updated that's the problem. Is the ministry actually proactively looking at this?

[1135]

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Mr. Chair, it turns out that there have been some internal reclassifications as the nature of the work has shifted, and as the long-timers acquire more skills and experience, they have moved up in the grid. If one took the average classification over perhaps the last decade, it has moved up within the organization.

The people who come in, get trained and then move on tend to be in the lower classifications, and the ones who are the long-timers are the ones who have moved up the classification grid and tend to stay for a long time.

G. Heyman: I'll close this section with a couple of questions. I'm just trying to get a handle on where this all goes once the backlog is cleaned up — or if the backlog is cleaned up — and when the ministry adjusts to the changing nature of requests.

I'll just simply point out that, legally, the government is required to aim to complete all requests on time within the legislated time limits. Does the minister intend to take the steps necessary to ensure that, in fact, the ministry and its offices fulfil this requirement?
[ Page 3529 ]

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The working premise is to seek to get as close to 100 percent performance on the legislated deadline as we can. As I said earlier, perhaps to summarize: this is not only a matter of being at full staff complement, which we roughly are now, but also cleaning the backlog, which we anticipate will take a bit of time, because there was a surge in requests.

The two major steps we're taking to sort this out are improved internal processes, and secondly, to work with requesters to see if they're prepared to focus their requests so that it can be hopefully processed in a more timely fashion.

G. Heyman: Two more questions. Are there any other steps the minister can envision the ministry taking to ensure that the legislated timelines are met? And how far into the future does the minister think it will be before the ministry is in a position to meet timelines on an ongoing basis?

[1140]

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The review of the act comes up in 2016, and we fully anticipate there will be some novel ideas coming into that review. We are in an information age, and it may well be that there are opportunities to create more automated processes here. We just don't know at this point. But we're certainly anticipating that 2016 review with those things in mind.

Secondly, to the member's question about when we expect to reach a point where we're processing requests on a timely basis…. If we were taking the requests from this calendar year, we would be rapidly approaching 100 percent on-time performance. It's this backlog from the previous year that's holding us back, and we're anticipating getting to that as soon as we can.

It's difficult to answer the question because, of course, we don't control the new incoming requests. The pattern has been erratic in terms of the incoming work.

G. Heyman: I don't want to spend too much longer on this. Can the minister tell me if the backlog is being addressed at a rate where it will eventually disappear and the staff will be processing requests as they come in rather than having backlog creating future backlog?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I just have been handed a little note that says that — this is in that confounding government accounting — we currently have 103.63 FTEs. I will leave that to people wiser than me to answer any written query about how we're at 0.63. I think that's annualized by weeks. That's as of April 19, against an allocation of 105, and, as I say, we are in the process of training, recruiting to be a full complement, anticipating attrition in the foreseeable future.

For my colleague the member of the opposition's question in terms of a projected time to reach completion of the backlog, we could answer that more accurately on a monthly basis because of the monthly surges and subsidences in queries. If some people go on vacation in August, the number of queries will subside dramatically and we'll make some headway. At the current state, as I say, the member is aware of the percentage completion on time now, which we seek to improve upon.

G. Heyman: There is one other thing. The minister pointed to the complexity of some of the requests that are coming in. In commentary and in investigation of the actions of the ministry in proactively releasing information under section 25 with respect to a number of instances but, in particular, events and flooding resulting from the Testalinden dam breaking, it was noted that many people in many ministries were simply unaware of their legislated requirements under section 25, which were to proactively release information with respect to public health, public safety and environment in the case of temporal urgency.

My question is twofold. First of all, the other thing the commissioner recommended was that there be clarity given to subclause (b), which says that information that is "clearly in the public interest" should be released — period. But the practice has only been to do it in cases of urgency of a temporal nature.

First of all, can the minister tell me what is being done throughout all ministries in government to ensure that they comply with the practices at a minimum with respect to temporal urgency and whether the minister is considering making the amendments to the act recommended by the freedom-of-information and protection-of-privacy commissioner to proactively release information that is clearly in the public interest, which would, in turn, cut down on the number of processing requests that come in because more information would be available?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The member is correct about section 25 and it requiring disclosure when public safety and public health are under threat.

[1145]

Of course, the problem is with the vast pool of information available across the entire civil service. Identifying that information proactively is not something that anyone in this room can do, because we don't know what information they have about which dam or which health facility in which location….

Our contribution to that is to continue the ongoing regular training about the application of the act in each of the ministries of government and to increase the emphasis and guidance on section 25 — that is, the requirement for public disclosure where an imminent threat occurs. That has been enhanced in the training program. We are still working on finding resolution to the concerns raised by the commissioner, but we're very much aware of them.
[ Page 3530 ]

G. Heyman: Just for clarity, does that mean that the minister is actually considering the recommendation to make amendments to section 25?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: We always take the commissioner's advice with great interest and treat it with gravity. I actually have a list of commissioner's reports, which the member opposite may also have, at hand at this very moment, so that we can be aware of the numerous recommendations made. And we pursue each and every one of them.

Some of them take time to consider or to determine whether they're workable to implement. Others are implemented promptly. And others — we go back to the commissioner and say: "We're going to have to reformulate this. We can't complete this particular recommendation." That's a cumulative phenomenon over the many reports that the commissioner has produced.

G. Heyman: I'm unclear from the minister's answer. Perhaps he can clarify whether that means that he's aware of the recommendation but he and ministry staff haven't gotten to it yet; he's aware of it and the ministry plans to tell the commissioner that it's unimplementable; or that he's aware of it, there's been some discussion, and it's under consideration.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The latter.

G. Heyman: I'm going to move on to a rather controversial issue, which is connected to the issue of "no records" responses. I understand the minister claims that part of the reason for the rise in "no records" responses is requests which are generated and addressed to any number of ministries, some of whom may have no records because they had nothing to do with it.

Nonetheless, the rate of increase over a four- or five-year period is fairly substantial — reaching levels of, I think, at one point, 45 percent in the Premier's office and a general level of, if memory serves me correctly, 27 percent overall. That included requests, for instance, to the Premier's office of any information regarding briefings she'd received on looming B.C. Hydro rate increases, briefing notes for a meeting with the Premier of Alberta for a discussion of energy policy. Surely there has to be some documentation in the Premier's office on matters such as this.

If the minister recalls — and I'm sure he does — when we met here in July he said, in response to the concerns expressed by the Information Commissioner, that many people within government, including ministers, were relying on private e-mail to skirt freedom-of-information law. I think I have the quote correct. "If it's written on the bottom of your shoe, you have to disclose it." He was going to make that clear to people.

Something else has popped up that is frankly quite disturbing. One of the provisions of the act allows for the deletion of communication, e-mail or otherwise, that's deemed to be of a transitory nature. That's generally thought to relate to booking appointments, logistics of meetings, scheduling — things that really don't have to do with the actual policy discussions or information in which the public may have a real interest.

Apparently, a lot of information is being deemed to be transitory and deleted which I assume — and I assume I'm correct; I will hurry up — is inappropriate. That's why the "no records" response.

[1150]

What is the government's policy when it comes to employing the term "transitory"? Is there an overall policy surrounding when information should be designated transitory and deleted and when it should not?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Just to reflect on some data, in the previous fiscal year 25 percent of requests showed no records, and that's down to 19 percent in the immediately past fiscal, '13-14. When multiple "no records" responses are accounted for in cross-ministry requests, which is what the commissioner has recommended, we've seen only a 3 percent increase in "no records" replies since 2009.

The context for this is that in 2009, moving to the centralized system, we enabled the option for the requester to ask for all ministries. Of course, the casual or very curious requester would simply check all ministries. For most topics, of course, there's nothing in 70 or 90 percent of the ministries, so that has bogged the system down somewhat. Nonetheless, as I say, it is improving through proactive work with the requesters and also through more efficient systems internally.

In terms of the transitory records situation, I'm going to read a policy statement into the record here, and my staff will provide the member with a written version of this so that it's all in one place for the member to use. "Transitory records are records of temporary usefulness that are not an integral part of an administrative or operational record series, that are not regularly filed with standard records or filing systems, and that are only required for a limited period of time for the completion of a routine action or the preparation of an ongoing record."

Quite a lot more can be said about this, but it may be best if I simply ask staff to send that in writing to the member.

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

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:52 a.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