2014 Legislative Session: Second Session, 40th Parliament
HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Wednesday, May 7, 2014

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 12, Number 3

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

WEDNESDAY, MAY 7, 2014

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

[1335]

Tributes

JACK SINGH UPPAL

Hon. S. Anton: I rise today to pay tribute to an extraordinary British Columbian, and that is Dr. Jagat "Jack" Singh Uppal, who died last Sunday at the age of 89. He will be missed.

Jack was a successful businessman, a community leader and a philanthropist. He was only a baby when he arrived in Canada from the Punjab in 1926. His father, Dalip Singh Uppal, was a true B.C. pioneer, having arrived in 1907 as part of the first wave of Sikh immigrants to British Columbia. In fact, his father was a key member of the group of South Asians who tried to advocate for the rights of passage for those trapped aboard the Komagata Maru exactly 100 years ago.

Jack continued the legacy of helping others. Over the years he assisted thousands of people new to British Columbia. He has been described as a one-man social worker before there were social workers.

Jack was one of the first Sikh children to attend public school in Vancouver, but when he was 13, his father was killed in an accident, and young Jack had to drop out of school to support his family. He found work in a sawmill, which began his lifelong involvement in the B.C. forest industry.

Eventually he moved from millworker to management and then into mill ownership. He became and was for a long time the owner of the successful Goldwood Industries on Mitchell Island. As such, he hired new immigrants and sponsored others.

Jack was a great historian of the forest industry in British Columbia. When we lose someone like Jack, we risk losing that great knowledge.

In his later years he was seen as one of the B.C. Sikh community's foremost historians and a generous supporter of many local charities. He was president of the historic Khalsa Diwan Society when the temple was on West 2nd Avenue in Vancouver. He was a key figure in building the Ross Street Temple in the '60s, which is located in my riding of Vancouver-Fraserview, and he was much involved in starting the No. 5 Road temple in Richmond.

A prominent member of the Sikh community and the province, he was recognized for his provincial accomplishments in 2010 when he received a British Columbia Community Achievement Award. In 2012 he was presented an honorary doctorate by Simon Fraser University.

But above all, Jack was a loving family man. He's survived by his four children, their families, 11 grandchildren and six great-grandchildren. I had the pleasure of being in his house a few months ago, and his phone never stopped ringing. His is a family that keeps in touch all day, every day. His daughter tells me that their home was always full of people, and it was clearly a joyous household.

Jack's family, his city, his community and his province will miss him. The service to commemorate Dr. Jack Uppal's life and legacy will be held Sunday in Delta, and we will all miss a great British Columbian.

H. Bains: I, too, would like to join the Attorney in paying my tribute to Jack Uppal.

I started to get to know Jack in the early '80s. I was the representative of the IWA, and Jack was the owner where we had members. We sat across the table on many occasions. In fact, we had many disagreements.

Jack was a person — in addition to being a successful business person, a good community person — who represented that segment of our community that fought long and hard so that people like me can be in this House. People like me who were actually denied the right to Canada were given the right to come to Canada.

[1340]

The right to vote was denied in 1907 in this House. It was Jack Uppal, Khalsa Diwan Society and many of those people at that time who went to Ottawa, came here and lobbied on our behalf so that people could have a better future and so that we as Canadians have a society made of equals — a society that can actually respect each other and value all of the values and customs and religious values that we bring here to the country, celebrate by learning from each other and make a better society. Jack was one in those groups that fought for us.

I met Jack just recently, when he was not doing well. His health was giving way. He told me at one of the gatherings also: "When no one supported us…." He was actually very active in politics. He said: "No political party would support us until CCF came into existence. They were the only ones who would stand with us and advocate for the right to vote and the right for equality."

Needless to say, the community will miss him. All of us will miss him. I think that the legacy that these giants have left behind is something that we can be proud of. I think the reason why we are a better society today is because of people like Jack.

On behalf of everyone on this side of the House, I say: Jack, job well done.
[ Page 3604 ]

Introductions by Members

L. Larson: I'd like to introduce Mr. Robert Davidson, president of the Canadian Pulmonary Fibrosis Foundation; IPF patient George Kaminsky; and from the B.C. Lung Association, Scott McDonald. They are here today to meet with MLAs about disease awareness. Please join me in welcoming them to the Legislature.

J. Horgan: Joining us in the gallery today are two of my biggest backers. I would not be the Leader of the Official Opposition today were it not for their perseverance in persuading me to pursue this position. And yes, that's the best alliteration I'm going to have for today. I want to introduce Kody Bell and Mark Bridges. Many members of this House will have seen Mark and Kody making mischief in the hallways here many times in the past, and I suspect they'll be doing it again this afternoon.

Would the House please make them welcome.

D. Horne: Madame Speaker, on your behalf it's with great pleasure that I introduce members of the Canada Asia Pacific Business Association who are visiting us today — Elsa Wong, the president; Thomas Wu, the immediate past president; and Ming Chak Siu, the vice-president. As well, they're joined by other members of the association, including Huan Kui Yin, Paul Tam, Susana Su, Bill Han, Harry Xun, Horace Ng, John Wong, Andy Leong, Sarah Zheng, Tina Guan, Win Pan, Carol Li, Echo Huang, Elaine Yu and Yoyo Yu.

May the House make them truly welcome.

J. Darcy: I'd like to join the member for Boundary-Similkameen in welcoming today the delegation from the Canadian Pulmonary Fibrosis Foundation and the B.C. Lung Association.

It was especially moving that two of the people in the delegation have themselves had lung transplants and were able to tell their story in a very, very compelling way. One of the people who was present — who is not in the gallery, who had another appointment — Linda Martin, is going through the process and is waiting for approval for a lung transplant. They were here to advocate for support for treatments that can improve quality of life for them and other people like them.

I'd also like to give a special welcome to the president of the B.C. Lung Association, who hails from New Westminster, Mr. Scott McDonald. He said: "I'll see you in the grocery store." We will, indeed.

If the House could please join me in welcoming these people and really congratulating them for the wonderful advocacy that they do.

Hon. P. Fassbender: I have two sets of introductions today of people in the House visiting us. The first is a group of students from Kwantlen Park Secondary School and their teachers — Rae-Ann Leburn, Olivia Helmer, Anmol Swaich, Saad Al-Samarrai, Shauna Nero, Margaret Ackroyd and Garry Thind, the incoming president of a Surrey Rotary club.

[1345]

I need to say, that when I met with the students and the teachers over lunch, I had a great chance to talk with the students. They have an amazing perspective on education that I welcomed hearing — and a lot of challenges. I would ask the House to welcome them here today.

Then, very quickly, some longstanding — I never used the word "old" anymore — friends of mine: Keith and Pauline Batchelor. Keith helped my wife and I build our house that we're currently living in. I've updated it a few times, and not because of the quality of his work. The friendship that grew out of it has been longstanding, and I'd ask the House to welcome them as well.

Tributes

HAROLD MITCHELL

J. Kwan: I, too, have some sad news to share with this House. I wish to pay tribute to two much-loved members of our community. Harold Mitchell, a valuable member of the First Nations community, passed away a few days ago. He was on the board of the Circle of Eagles Lodge Society and worked out of the aboriginal friendship centre.

There will be a blanket ceremony tonight at the West Coast Night, at the friendship centre, and there will be a dinner and donation collection for the family.

I ask all the members of the House to join me in honouring Harold Mitchell and to express our deep condolences to his family and friends.

BUD OSBORN

J. Kwan: The second person that I wish to honour today was an incredible, incredible individual in the Downtown Eastside. You can just see the beauty and the strength of this individual in his everyday presence, in what he does, what he says and through his actions. Bud Osborn was a Downtown Eastside resident, and he, sadly, passed away last night.

He was, in my view, the father of Insite, the supervised injection facility, a former drug user who dedicated his life to recovery and then to advocate for those who struggled with addictions. He is an enormous advocate in our community, a beautiful poet, an activist and a friend. He was loved by many in our community, and he'll always, always be remembered by the strength and the beauty of him as being the person that he was.

I wish to, actually, put on the record a quote from a poem that Bud had written, a couple verses from his poem. It reads as follows:
[ Page 3605 ]

We have become a community of prophets in the Downtown Eastside,

rebuking the system

and speaking hope and possibility into situations

of apparent impossibility.

To raise s-h-i-t is to actively resist,

and we resist with our presence,

with our words,

with our love,

with our courage.

I think that exemplifies Bud Osborn and everything that he stood for in the fight that we stand in Downtown Eastside for all the things that we wish to gain for our community.

Introductions by Members

Hon. T. Stone: It gives me great pleasure to introduce today — on behalf, also, of the Minister of Health; the Minister of Community, Sport and Cultural Development; and, I would say, the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin — three special guests who are here today representing Thompson Rivers University.

In the chamber we have Alan Shaver, the president; Uli Scheck, vice-president, academic; and Baihua Chadwick, who has a fantastic title. She's the CEO of global operations.

TRU is arguably one of the most comprehensive institutions in the province of British Columbia, with programs that range from welding to law. Students can choose from over 140 on-campus programs.

There are 12,000 students on both of the campuses. There's a campus in Kamloops. There's also a campus in Williams Lake and five regional centres.

In addition to that, there are another 12,000 open learning students, as TRU is British Columbia's Open Learning Agency. There are 2,589 international students from more than 85 countries, who enrich our campus both culturally and academically as well.

I'm very, very proud to welcome Alan, Uli and Baihua here from Thompson Rivers University, a university that was created by this government in 2005. I'd ask the chamber to please make our three guests from Kamloops welcome.

B. Routley: I'd like to welcome to this House Bev Thompson. She's a well-known and respected artist from the Cowichan Valley. She does prints and paintings. She even has a studio down here in Victoria, in Chinatown.

[1350]

She divides her time between her artistry and her English teaching. She teaches English as a second language. She's also fluent in French. She's a wonderful volunteer at the Intercultural Society in the Cowichan Valley.

Would the House please join me in welcoming Bev Thompson.

J. Thornthwaite: In the gallery today I'd like to welcome Andy Smith from the B.C. Maritime Employers Association.

The B.C. Maritime Employers Association is doing exactly what our government is asking them to do — they've reached out to a post-secondary institution, Capilano University — and is developing a leadership course for those in the maritime business to help our youth move into all the jobs that are going to become available. They're a partnership, and they're doing well. I very much wish them and Capilano University well when they get this leadership course underway.

Would the gallery please join me in welcoming Andy.

D. Eby: I just wanted to join my colleague from across the way in welcoming Dr. Shaver and his colleagues from TRU. I wanted to say that Dr. Shaver is clearly a very hands-on president. The last time I saw him he had a full, grease-stained apron on from serving students hamburgers at the orientation barbecue at TRU all afternoon.

Welcome, on behalf of the opposition, to the House.

Hon. T. Lake: All of the members of the Legislature depend on hard-working and very capable staff to assist them with their duties. Today I'd just like to take a brief second to recognize someone that certainly has their hands full looking after our office.

Sabrina Loiacono has been working, I think, in the buildings for about nine or ten years. She started when she was about 15, I believe, and she has been the receptionist for the B.C. Liberal caucus. She's been executive assistant to the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Environment, ministerial assistant to the Minister of Environment and now chief of staff for the Minister of Health, which is her toughest challenge yet.

I would like to have the House join me in wishing Ms. Loiacono a very happy birthday today.

Tributes

FARLEY MOWAT

M. Karagianis: I'd like to rise today to pay tribute to the loss today of a Canadian icon. The beloved author Farley Mowat has passed away today. Farley Mowat was born in Belleville, Ontario, on May 12, 1921, so he would have been 93 on Monday.

Of course, we know him as an amazing author and a very keen environmentalist. He won the Governor General's Award for Lost in the Barrens. He won the Stephen Leacock Medal for The Boat Who Wouldn't Float. And of course, I think many of us here grew up on the stories like Never Cry Wolf, The Snow Walker and A Whale for the Killing. His books were published in 52 languages, and 17 million copies were sold.

I'm sure that everyone who went through the school
[ Page 3606 ]
years in the past couple of decades had a chance to read some of his books, fall in love with his books and in fact gain a love and an appreciation and respect for the environment through his writings — so a sad loss today of a great writer.

Introductions by Members

Hon. D. McRae: Today we're joined by three guests from the Comox Valley. We have Sarah Stromquist, with her daughters, Kate and Elsa, joining us here today. They were taking opportunities…. Kate and Elsa are home-schooled. They're here to learn about the physical structure of the Legislature, the people in the Legislature and the processes by which we govern.

They're in the gallery today, and I'd like the House to please make them welcome. If I get a question, you never know.

G. Holman: It's an honour for me today to recognize a distinguished visitor from my constituency in the gallery today, Mr. Adam Olsen, a very talented young man — a youngish man — who's also interim leader of the Green Party and a proud and well-respected member of the Tsartlip First Nation.

Would the House please make Mr. Olsen feel welcome.

[1355]

D. Horne: Other than the official introduction I made earlier, I also have a second guest in the House today, Joel Thirsk. Joel has this week joined my constituency office after moving from Ontario. He was with a very close friend of mine for many years, Jim Watson, who is the mayor of Ottawa, and he's now decided to come and join us here in British Columbia.

May the House make him truly welcome.

G. Heyman: Joining us today in the gallery are Julie Raymond and Danielle Raymond of Maple Ridge. Julie is the mother and Danielle is the sister of Shannon Raymond, who tragically died in 2008 following a night of celebrating with her friends that ended in a tragic incident on a party bus.

In the last few weeks I've had the honour of getting to know Julie and Danielle and talking with them about the work they've been doing to raise awareness of the perils that are inherent with this unregulated industry. They've been working hard as advocates in the community.

Will the House please join me in making them very welcome.

Hon. S. Cadieux: Joining us in the gallery today are two very hard-working young women from the Ministry of Children and Family Development, deputy minister's office: Zita Teng, who's the director of executive operations, and Francesca Guetchev, documents coordinator. Friday is Francesca's last day with the government before embarking on a new journey in the province of Alberta, but we do wish her all the best.

R. Fleming: I want to extend birthday wishes, too, to a staff member here at the Legislature: Ed May, who was formerly a legislative assistant and is now a communications officer. His most illustrious posting was as the past president of the Victoria–Swan Lake NDP Constituency Association. Ed and his wife, Fiona, are expecting their second child very soon, so it's a special birthday for him this year.

I would ask the House to please join me in wishing Ed May a happy birthday today.

Hon. J. Rustad: All of us spend a great deal of time away from home, and we miss a lot of events, so I wanted to take this opportunity to say to my parents, Molly and Laurie Rustad: happy 62nd wedding anniversary, which was yesterday. As well, to my wife, my lovely wife, Kim — yesterday was our 19th wedding anniversary. And then today to say to my wife: I love you very much, and I miss you. Happy birthday.

J. Shin: We have a lot of tributes and celebrations today, but I would also like to also share mine. This time 18 years ago I woke up in the middle of the night from the discomforts of an immunosuppressive therapy that I was receiving in B.C. Children's. Eyes half-open at that time, I noticed the shadow of a body next to my bed kneeling on the cold hospital floor. It was my mom.

I don't think I'll ever forget the image of her that night. She had tears streaming down her face, and she was rocking back and forth in utter distress. And with her eyes closed, she was uttering prayers, reaching out and calling out to God that she barely knew, asking that he would let me live and take her instead. She must have been so desperate that being on her old knees wasn't enough. She lifted her arms in the air as if inflicting that physical pain on herself would somehow increase my odds.

I would have died 18 years ago and left her permanently devastated had it not for the 80-some blood donors out there somewhere and medicare and social services that my family couldn't have afforded otherwise but were provided to us in this great country.

Today is my mom's 64th birthday, and so on her behalf I wanted to thank all the members who donate blood and who put social policies in place for all families like mine in British Columbia.

Would the House please say happy, happy birthday to my mom, Michelle Myung Bok Shin, and wish her a very wonderful day.

M. Morris: In the House today we have members of the British Columbia Police Association. Would the House please make them welcome.
[ Page 3607 ]

[1400]

A. Weaver: In the House today I'd like to introduce a number of visitors who I had lunch with. We've got Noel Muller and Kim Darwin, who are in the riding of my good friend from Powell River–Sunshine Coast; a number of people from the North Shore — Len Laycock, Jessica McIlroy, Richard Warrington; and a special guest visiting from Toronto — filmmaker Daniel Roher, who is in Vancouver showing one of his short films this week. Thank you very much, Madame Speaker, and may we continue with question period now.

K. Corrigan: I would like to add my welcome as well to the B.C. Police Association, who are meeting here, meeting with us, having their own meetings. I had a wonderful reception last night from, particularly, Tom Stamatakis — great work that he does — president of the B.C. Police Association, president of the Vancouver Police Union and president of the Canadian Police Association. He puts in a lot of work, as do all the members. I would like to also make them very welcome.

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

85th ANNIVERSARY OF WILLIAMS LAKE

D. Barnett: This past Saturday I had the pleasure, along with my colleague from Cariboo North, of attending an 85th birthday party for the city of Williams Lake. It was a delightful event coordinated by Councillors Danica Hughes and Surinderpal Rathor. Chief Ann Louie gave a warm welcome from the Williams Lake Indian Band, recognizing the traditional territory where the community lies today.

Mayor Cook welcomed mayors Ethel Winger, the first female mayor of the city; Jim Fraser; and Ivan Bonnell. She welcomed residents born 85 years ago and raised in Williams Lake.

Mayor Cook also talked about the proud history of Williams Lake, its rich culture and cowboy heritage and First Nations partnerships.

We have had our fair share of difficult times in the city, including the pine beetle disaster, but the citizens of Williams Lake are and always have been resilient. The importance of our natural resource sector, including forestry and mining, agriculture, tourism, and small businesses are driving the Williams Lake economy forward into the future.

What really makes me so proud of Williams Lake are the people. Many residents serve countless hours volunteering their time to the community through service clubs and organizations. We are also so proud of our local heroes, like the inspiring Rick Hansen and Team Canada gold Olympic winner and Canadiens goalie Carey Price. They know how special and how supportive the community is.

Happy birthday, Williams Lake — 85 has never looked so good.

RESIDENTIAL SCHOOL SYSTEM
AND WITNESS BLANKET INITIATIVE

H. Bains: Today I would like to thank Shelley Thorne and the Fraser Region Aboriginal Friendship Centre for inviting me to the Witness Blanket ceremony in Surrey. The Witness Blanket ceremony is a moving experience. It is an avenue for people to collect artifacts for the blanket and acknowledge the effects that residential schools still have on people today.

It is my privilege to bear witness and join in the journey to recognize the atrocities of the residential school–era in our country, an era we cannot afford to forget. We must stand together as Canadians and fellow human beings to acknowledge the unthinkable actions of our institutions of the day.

Many of us did not experience the residential schools firsthand but are able to witness through learning and active participation in the reconciliation process. Clearly, these were the times where people thought there was superior existence. We have come a long way in today's world, but not far enough.

Today is where we must recognize these wrongs and work hard to make sure the treatment of human beings does not repeat itself. Education creates awareness, and acknowledging the appalling treatment of the residential school victims is the beginning of the healing progress.

The Witness Blanket is a great start to educate the public and a demonstration to the victims of the residential schools that we hear them. We must empathize with their feelings and support them in their healing process.

[1405]

The Fraser Region Aboriginal Friendship Centre shares an important part of this process. People come together in the comfort of their aboriginal culture and identify with the experiences people have had. I was proud to be included in this ceremony to pay tribute to all those who have been directly or indirectly impacted by Canada's Indian residential schools.

JOHN KOERNER

S. Sullivan: I would like to acknowledge that British Columbia recently lost a great artist and humanitarian named John Koerner. He died at 100 years of age. He was a prolific artist and was creating art until the end. He was truly a gentle soul whose art was representative of his genuine love of life, his integrity of spirit and his belief in humanity. This is not what one might have expected from someone of Jewish descent who had to abandon
[ Page 3608 ]
everything and leave his native Prague and then Paris, where his skills and identity as an artist were developed.

This was just before World War II, but he decided early on that his art would not reflect the tragedy and horrors of the world. Indeed, his art is suffused with the powerful message of peace and the celebration of the positive. One only had to meet him to realize how truly his art reflected who he was at his core.

When John Koerner arrived in Vancouver, he quickly became friends with a network of people committed to exploring new directions in art, including Lawren Harris of the Group of Seven, B.C. Binning, Jack Shadbolt, Gordon Smith and others.

He exhibited his art at the New Design Gallery in West Vancouver, founded by Alvin Balkind and Abraham Rogatnick, which was one of the first of its kind in Canada devoted entirely to modern art. Today his works can be found in some of the finest galleries around the world, including the Tate gallery in London and the National Gallery in Ottawa.

John Koerner taught and inspired more than one generation of British Columbia artists at UBC and what is now called Emily Carr University. He had a great influence on the culture of the province. Even at 100 years of age, he was hosting an art show in Penticton and planning one for his 101st birthday.

We are all most grateful that he and his family chose to find refuge in British Columbia. They have contributed so much. His relatives created the Leon and Thea Koerner Foundation, which continues to support numerous charitable initiatives.

I know that all of us in the British Columbia Legislature celebrate with his family the life of a great man, a great artist and a great humanitarian who has embodied so well a positive message of peace and resilience and love of life.

FOOD SECURITY AND COMMUNITY GARDENS

C. Trevena: Food security is becoming an almost hackneyed phrase. It's a truism that food is essential to life, whether you enjoy a meal or just eat for sustenance, but the meaning of food security is understood differently by different people.

For many, food security and poverty are inextricably linked. For thousands of our neighbours, food security is simply about getting food. Those who rely on food banks for regular sustenance or to get them through the end of the month have no food security. The children who go to school hungry and are reliant on the schools, the PACs and the volunteers to provide a breakfast program or on the snacks that teachers can provide for their students' lunch have no food security.

There's also a definition of food security bounded by geography. Here on the Island we are very vulnerable. As agriculture production has diminished and the population has grown, we are tenuously dependent on food being shipped in. We have a three-day supply of food here, and that security is made more fragile by the spiralling costs of our ferries and the government's abrogation of responsibility for the marine highway.

Then there's a local definition of food security, in which communities and community groups encourage community gardens, and I have to mention an interest here. I have a plot in a community garden. I have a bag of kale in my fridge, ready to be eaten. I thoroughly enjoy it.

They can happen almost anywhere. I smile when I walk through the constituency of my colleague from Vancouver–West End and see food growing on the corner of Burrard and Davie. Here in Victoria one stumbles over community gardens almost every couple of kilometres, and in the real north Island, the Mount Waddington region, there are nine community gardens. One provides food for the food bank, another for the elders' lunch. Some are for community groups and some for individual consumption.

[1410]

It's perhaps an awareness of the importance of healthy food, perhaps a fear of climate change, perhaps a question of cost, but people are investing in food security and are growing in their awareness of it. We're seeing more and more seed sharing, seed banks and a growth in the idea and the process of wild harvesting. Food is essential to our lives and to our communities. Food security should not be a debate; it should be a right.

PUBLIC POLICY AND
SUBJECTIVE WELL-BEING

G. Hogg: The Canadian Centre for the Study of Living Standards
[ Page 3609 ]
report states that the sheer volume of evidence that income inequality leads to various negative social and health increases is reason to look at measures other than GDP and debt-to-GDP ratios to augment the development of public policy.

UBC economist and fellow of the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research John Helliwell has written that individuals, communities and governments are becoming increasingly interested in using subjective well-being, which is based on how individuals rate the quality of their own lives, to supplement or even to supplant more traditional economic measures with measures that better reflect individual and social progress.

Some countries have made increased subjective well-being an explicit goal of their public policy initiatives. This has resulted in efforts to increase the quality and quantity of subjective well-being data, research and analysis. This has happened in jurisdictions like the United Kingdom, the European Commission, France and the OECD countries.

Canada's Centre for the Study of Living Standards sponsored a conference in Ottawa to explore policy implications of the research into subjective well-being. Helliwell says that the evidence should be enough to convince policymakers to utilize this research. Not many have, primarily due to the human predilection to adhere to our old ways of understanding and doing, despite the arrival of evidence that suggests we are wrong.

He says that we all tend to stick to our old ways because we are generally unaware of our bias in favour of the evidence supporting the view which we already hold. As is often the case, it is easier to find new ways to think and to do than it is to let go of our old ways. May we all become more aware of our biases and act on those.

BIRD MIGRATION AND HABITAT
PROTECTION IN DELTA SOUTH AREA

V. Huntington: In Canada and the United States, International Migratory Bird Day is celebrated on May 10. Mexico, Central and South America and the Caribbean celebrate this day in October. The seasonal flights of millions of birds moving between breeding and wintering grounds cross many nations and cover many thousands of miles. The timing of the migration is controlled by the length of our days, and the dazzling navigation by the earth's magnetic field, the stars and by memory maps.

One of the world's greatest wildlife migrations takes place on our own doorstep — a doorstep in danger of becoming a doormat. Delta South is without parallel in B.C. It encompasses the Boundary Bay wildlife management area, the Boundary Bay raptor management area, the Burns Bog conservancy, the Alaksen national wildlife area, the Reifel Bird Sanctuary and the Roberts Bank wildlife management area. It is designated an international Ramsar site, a UN recognition that Delta is a wetland of international significance.

Helping our farmers protect agricultural uplands and the forage it provides is essential. Protecting the eelgrass beds and mud flats of the Fraser River estuary is essential, for throughout Roberts Bank a rare intertidal biofilm sustains the world's population of western sandpipers. Sandpipers are the only higher vertebrate known to survive on biofilm, and they will graze 20 tonnes a day in preparation for migration.

But competing interests threaten what remains of this habitat, and as usual the threat comes from man's inability to find balance. Our quest is always for more. In the end, the quest destroys those gifts of nature that give wonder to life and that enrich our community.

God willing, and before it is too late, the men and women in this House will have the spirit, intelligence and courage to say, "Enough is enough," and will help us save this vital ecosystem.

Oral Questions

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

J. Horgan: Since this Premier came to office, the private sector job growth in British Columbia is amongst the lowest in Canada. Some 142,000 people are looking for work here. Many, many more are underemployed or have temporary jobs — tens of thousands of other people.

The question I have for the Minister of Jobs today is: why would it be, with 142,000 people unemployed, that we have 22 percent of the temporary foreign workers, when the refrain from the minister has been over and over again that British Columbians will be in line for these jobs first and when the evidence is quite to the contrary? Can the minister demonstrate today — show some tangible proof — that that's not the case?

[1415]

Hon. S. Bond: We are working every day in government to ensure that we attract investment, that we look at brand-new opportunities in this province. As we speak, there are discussions going on in Malaysia and Singapore about bringing a brand-new industry here to British Columbia.

To the member opposite's question, there are currently 74,000 temporary foreign workers in British Columbia. I want to remind the member opposite that the very largest group of those temporary foreign workers — they're classed as temporary foreign workers — 39 percent of those individuals, are part of a youth mobility program.

It is a program that is recognized in 32 countries around the world, where reciprocal exchanges take place. So, in fact, almost 40 percent of that number is a youth mobility program for students. I am thinking that perhaps the members opposite are supportive of that type of program.

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

J. Horgan: I asked the minister for tangible evidence of the statement that the minister had been making for the past number of months: that British Columbians will be first in line for job openings. That's demonstrably not the case, and the minister should acknowledge that.

Other jurisdictions — Quebec, for example — have negotiated an agreement with the federal government to manage and maintain the temporary foreign worker program. Similarly, in Manitoba there's a program where employers must register before they apply for temporary foreign workers. The minister has talked about discussions with the federal government — but no action. She's talked about British Columbians first, if Ottawa says it's okay.
[ Page 3610 ]

Two other jurisdictions have got agreements in place, Minister. Why don't you?

Hon. S. Bond: As I have said to the member opposite, we have had very, very direct conversations with the federal government. This is a federally administered program. As I've said in this House and outside it to the Leader of the Opposition, we are looking at the models that are currently in place in Manitoba and Alberta.

We are waiting for additional changes, which the federal government has committed to. But we should be clear about this. When employers abuse a system for which there are legitimate needs, I would think that….

As I said to the member opposite, when we have a reciprocal agreement with 32 countries — about 29,000 of those individuals — I think there is legitimacy to that. But if there is abuse of the temporary foreign worker program, in British Columbia or anywhere else, we support the federal government taking far more significant steps to stop that abuse and ensure that employers pay attention to the legislation and to the criteria.

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

J. Horgan: Well, the minister and her system of self-enforcement of employment standards put all of these individuals at risk. She knows that. No action has been taken. We know two other jurisdictions in Canada have agreements in place.

I don't know why, with demonstrable evidence — again, something that the minister doesn't have…. When it comes to the fact that 142,000 British Columbians are looking for work today and students coming out of university will be looking for work at the end of this month, what do we have? A program that has run amok and a government that can't keep control of temporary foreign workers.

My question is…. There have been discussions, the minister has said. Can she put in place for this House and for the people of British Columbia any evidence at all that she's been advocating for joint control of this program as exists in two other jurisdictions in Canada? Any evidence of that at all, or is it just more rhetoric?

[1420]

Hon. S. Bond: Well, there was pretty clear evidence, in fact, when this government actually made a decision to go to Ottawa with one of the largest contingents possible to talk about labour market and skills training needs. In fact, it was unprecedented.

What we discussed with Minister Kenney directly…. In fact, there was media coverage, to the Leader of the Opposition. There was actually coverage that said we're going to work together with the federal government to do a number of things. First of all, we're going to work on how we can train people together across this country, looking at things that have not been done before and how we, certainly, supported the absolute changes that Minister Kenney has made. We support them. We absolutely believe that employers should not take advantage of this program.

But we're doing what's most important for British Columbians. We're actually attracting investment. We are looking at a new industry in British Columbia. It would be wonderful at some point…. Again, we're at about day 3 of the new Leader of the Opposition's role here. It would be fantastic to see him stand up and unequivocally today support liquefied natural gas in British Columbia, which will create jobs for British Columbians now and in the future.

TEMPORARY FOREIGN WORKER PROGRAM
AND PROTECTION FOR WORKERS

M. Elmore: Well, a plane ride and a chat with the minister do not qualify as taking responsibility for oversight of this program in British Columbia. It's the provincial government that is responsible for setting and enforcing employment standards in this province. No matter how much the minister points her finger at Ottawa, this is her responsibility.

Every day we're treated to stories of workers being abused in various ways: substandard housing, threats to be fired or worse, if they complain. Even Jason Kenney criticized B.C.'s weak legislation and lax enforcement of employment standards.

Let's be clear. This is about more than temporary foreign workers. While some workers lack protection, how can any worker be confident this government is on their side? Can the minister tell this House which employers have been fined and what other enforcement actions have been taken to stop abuse of these vulnerable workers?

Hon. S. Bond: Employment standards in British Columbia apply to all workers in this province, whether you are temporary or permanent. The member opposite well knows that services are provided to support temporary foreign workers. In fact, this government stepped up and filled a funding gap for clients that are considered non-eligible under federal funding. We provided almost $2½ million to settlement services organizations, in particular to look at non-eligible clients — which, in fact, covers temporary foreign workers.

None of us want to see workers that come to British Columbia not treated appropriately, and certainly, they have the same rights. That's why there are a number of outreach programs. If a temporary foreign worker is in need of one-on-one consultation, referral services, education services, all of those services are available. In fact, more than $2½ million is being provided for clients who are considered ineligible under the federal program. The
[ Page 3611 ]
province is closing that gap.

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

M. Elmore: These words are cold comfort to temporary foreign workers who are here in the gallery listening to this government and this minister talk about supposed services available to them. They are not, and with this complaint-driven program, they are left out of the process.

[1425]

For temporary foreign workers, life is often very difficult. Some employers extort placement fees on them. Some do not pay overtime or give them time off when required. The stories go on and on.

When asked about these abuses, the minister's standard response is to say that Ottawa needs to do a better job of enforcement. It's not Ottawa; it's this minister and this government who are responsible for workers in British Columbia. It makes a person wonder how any worker can be confident that the government is enforcing the rules if they can't do it for some of the most vulnerable workers in the province.

To the minister: you've heard the same stories we have now for many weeks. You can't keep saying that Ottawa needs to solve the problem. What have you done to improve service to these vulnerable workers so that they don't face these situations alone?

Hon. S. Bond: For the benefit of the temporary foreign workers that are in the gallery — who I did not know were actually here today, and this is more than once that that's happened — what we have done, in fact, is we have provided additional funding to settlement services offices across British Columbia to provide support for non-eligible clients under other programs — $2½ million plus. What that allows for is one-on-one consultation services, often delivered in the clients' first languages, and the opportunity to receive referral, education, support.

We should be clear that employment standards in British Columbia apply to every worker. We expect employers to pay attention to that and ensure, and we also ensure, that every single complaint is followed up with and dealt with aggressively. There are one-on-one services available for temporary foreign workers through settlement services organizations across British Columbia.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, as I said earlier, in terms of what the government has done, the taxpayers of British Columbia have provided $2.6 million to ensure that temporary foreign workers have support through settlement services agencies today.

REGULATION OF PARTY BUS INDUSTRY

G. Heyman: In July 2008, 16-year-old Shannon Raymond died after travelling with friends on a party bus where alcohol and the drug Ecstasy were used in combination.

In February 2013, 16-year-old Ernest Azoadam was found dying at a Chevron station in Surrey after riding on a party bus. He was transported to Surrey Memorial Hospital, where he later died.

We are on the cusp of graduations, a time when teenagers celebrate a transition to their future. While party buses are a popular choice for these celebrations, even some of those in the industry say that operators too often place youth in vulnerable positions by failing to provide protection and by allowing them easy access to alcohol and drugs.

Will the Minister of Transportation commit today to immediate action to protect young people from the virtually unregulated party bus culture before another preventable tragedy robs someone of their bright future?

Hon. T. Stone: I thank the member opposite for his question. I want to also take this opportunity to acknowledge and welcome the Raymond family, who are here in the chamber with us.

As a father of three daughters myself, I can only imagine what it must feel like as a parent to receive that phone call that your child has been involved in an incident of this sort. Certainly, it's tragic when lives are lost.

I think it's very clear to reiterate for all British Columbians that the consumption of liquor in any vehicle in British Columbia is illegal.

[1430]

Furthermore, with respect to these commercial charter vehicles, which are regulated and licensed through the Passenger Transportation Board, I think it's very important that we take every opportunity we can to remind these companies of their obligations. Their obligation is to ensure the safe transport of their passengers.

Now to that end, there have been two meetings between the 30-plus commercial charter vehicle companies in the province and the Passenger Transportation Board, where the PTB has made very clear to these companies what their obligations are. I certainly, as the minister responsible for the Passenger Transportation Board, am going to ensure that those obligations continue to be described and enforced with these companies.

Finally, as the member rightfully has pointed out, we are approaching the very busy grad season. To that end, I have had a number of conversations with the Attorney General. Together, we are going to ensure that our two ministries work collaboratively on awareness and edu-
[ Page 3612 ]
cation, and indeed work with law enforcement partners and other stakeholders, like ICBC, to ensure that the operators are aware of their obligations and, ultimately, to ensure the safe transport of all passengers here in British Columbia.

Madame Speaker: Vancouver-Fairview on a supplemental.

G. Heyman: Unfortunately, words in the absence of action are cold comfort to families who've lost a loved one. We've heard the Minister of Jobs talk about how education and awareness clearly haven't done the job in protecting workers' health in mills, and I would submit that it won't do the job here either.

Following Ernest Azoadam's death, the former Transportation Minister promised to review regulation in order to increase the safety of the industry. She said: "It's kind of tough to swallow that operators are saying, 'Look, it's not our fault,' when their advertisements in many cases imply alcohol is going to be part of the celebration these folks are going to be paying for."

There are around 400 party bus companies that operate in B.C. without even the level of regulation that applies to limousines and taxis. California has recently passed laws to protect under-age passengers from harm and to end the practice of dumping sick or distressed youth in isolated and dangerous locations. The state of Washington is looking at passing laws.

Shannon Raymond's mother and sister are in the gallery with us today. They've e-mailed the Minister of Transportation several times to ask for regulations to protect young people from unscrupulous operators, without even the courtesy of a meaningful response. Will the minister commit to the Raymonds today that he will regulate party buses before another senseless tragedy occurs?

Hon. T. Stone: Again, I think it's important to underscore the different actions that have been taken on this particular front over the last number of years. I don't think anyone in this chamber would say otherwise than that it is critical that these operators understand what their obligations are to the people that they transport.

The Passenger Transportation Board actually held a meeting at the end of March. During that meeting it met with 36 licensees from the Lower Mainland to clarify their responsibilities and emphasize that under no circumstances whatsoever can liquor form part of their services — no circumstances whatsoever. Offences include consuming alcohol in a public place, including commercial vehicles; operating a motor vehicle while there is liquor in the motor vehicle; and permitting a minor to consume liquor in a place under his or her control.

Again, we are going to ensure that there is a coordinated campaign of awareness and education in this upcoming busy graduation season so that through law enforcement and other stakeholders — like ICBC; municipalities are an important partner in this as well — we're all working together to ensure that all British Columbians know what the law is and that the operators understand clearly that their number one obligation is to ensure the safe transport of their passengers.

[1435]

IMPACT OF INTEGRATED CASE
MANAGEMENT SYSTEM ISSUES
ON SAFETY OF CHILDREN

C. James: Two years ago New Democrats raised serious concerns around the integrated case management system and how critical flaws in the system could put vulnerable children at risk. The B.C. Liberals didn't listen, and the problems continued.

Now we find out that caseworkers have been consistently unable to access the system for a week. As the Representative for Children and Youth noted today: "That means a social worker today, going into a home to remove a child, will not know whether in that home there are weapons, won't even know, perhaps, the last known address of that child…."

We had a range of ministers, today at lunchtime, say that the system was fixed. Well, we've continued to get calls to say that the system has crashed again today after lunch. So my question is to the Minister of Children and Families: why wasn't the system fixed in the first place when the Liberals were told that it put children at risk?

Hon. S. Cadieux: First and foremost, I'd like to assure the member opposite and all the members of the House and the general public that are listening that our first and foremost priority in the Ministry of Children and Families is always the safety of children and vulnerable youth in our province.

There have been, for the last number of days, challenges with the system. ICM has not been operating at full capacity. That's why, as part of standard procedure, all of our service delivery areas, all of our offices have continuity plans in place to manage situations like this. Hard-copy files are available to be used, as are phone calls between offices. Our social workers know their jobs very well and do a very good job, even in challenging circumstances, to ensure that children in this province are safe.

Madame Speaker: Recognizing Victoria–Beacon Hill on a supplemental.

C. James: I spoke to a social worker this morning who went in to work before 6 a.m. in hope that she could get onto the system before it crashed once again. She's preparing to do a court case for a child in a custody issue. She has no idea whether the files that have been printed
[ Page 3613 ]
off when the system was working are up to date or not because the system crashed again. The system isn't working, Minister, and children are being put at risk, and social workers and other staff are frustrated.

A note came out today from management to the staff who work in the ministries. It says: "We do not have the ability to issue meal tickets or grocery cards. You can, however, direct clients to shelters." That's the kind of response that is happening right now.

The Representative for Children and Youth said this morning: "For six months we had an information system where you couldn't…push and print a report to go to court and get a hearing…." And now nothing has been working for a week. This was almost $200 million of taxpayer dollars. So much for the — and I quote from earlier in the week — "well-balanced, outsourced contracts to manage our IT" that the Minister of Citizens' Services was bragging about. It has been down for a week.

The system has been down for a week. If the minister has no idea what the problem is, what kind of assurance can be given by this government that the system isn't going to crash next week or the week after or the week after that?

[1440]

Hon. S. Cadieux: As I stated, the safety and security of the children and youth that we serve is our foremost priority. That means that we have backup systems in place to ensure that our social workers are able to access the information they require to keep those children safe.

Much of what the member opposite has just recited is incorrect, so I would like to make clear that the system, ICM, has been experiencing challenges for the last number of days. There have been other protocols in place for workers to access the information they need, including pulling the hard copies of files and communicating with other offices via phone. As well, our after-hours services have had operating capacity during this time. We are confident that children are being kept safe by the very staff that serve them.

IMPACT OF INTEGRATED CASE
MANAGEMENT SYSTEM ISSUES
ON INCOME ASSISTANCE RECIPIENTS

M. Mungall: Well, not only is this broken computer system putting children at risk; it's throwing families living in poverty into chaos. Clients of the Ministry of Social Development are unable to get cheques for crisis grants, and as the member for Victoria–Beacon Hill said, they're unable to get meal tickets, grocery cards and other critically important help like damage deposits. Many of them are facing eviction right now or are unable to get into a new place and are seeing themselves going homeless this upcoming month.

After a week of all of this nonsense, the public now knows why — not because the government let people know and was upfront about it, telling them their plan to fix the problem, to manage the backlog and how to get service back on track in a timely manner. It's because advocates spoke out.

My question is to the Minister of Social Development. Why was he asleep at the switch, failing to tell the public what was going on, when he was going to fix it and what he was going to do to make sure this didn't happen again?

Hon. D. McRae: The ICM issue is something that came up late last week, and yes, we were aware of it. Many clients told us. The 1,500 front-line workers…. We were aware of it.

One of the things I'm really, really proud of is that the front-line workers did a very good job under troubling circumstances to prioritize the individuals who needed help the most. They worked very hard, so if there was an opportunity where individuals would need some resources, those resources were able to be provided.

One of the things that we were looking for when we knew this was going down was that we wanted to make sure we were dealing with the people who needed help the most. So one of the things we were doing was making sure that when people came into the office, we understood their needs.

We also went another step. There are people actually expressing concerns on social media, not directly communicating to the ministry. What we do is, if we find a social media concern and we can identify that individual, we actually proactively reach out to the person to see what their needs are and see if we can help. It's really important that we learn about these issues.

One of the things we were able to do in estimates, on Wednesday, Thursday and the following Monday this week…. We talked about how important it is that if there is a person who is struggling, we want to make sure the right staff know — and, if necessary, the minister knows — to see if we can find a way to intervene to assist the individuals. If the members opposite are aware of those individuals, by all means, please make sure we are aware of them.

M. Mungall: Facebook and Twitter are not a backup plan for ICM. I'd also like to remind the minister that neither are pencils and pieces of paper, as he suggested this morning on the CBC. That is not a backup plan. The fact that the government knew this for a week and didn't tell the public at all is shameful.

Not only is that shameful, but when the Minister of Citizens' Services stood in this House on Monday and said that this government has "an enviable record of de-
[ Page 3614 ]
ployment of top-end IT" services….

[1445]

At the end of the day, ICM is his responsibility, and if he didn't know that ICM had crashed last week, he should have.

My question is to the Minister of Citizens' Services. Did he mislead this House on Monday when he boasted of the government's IT services? Or did his colleagues, the Minister of Children and Families and the Minister of Social Development, not tell him what was going on and what was putting hundreds of thousands of people's lives at risk?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: As is now known, the ICM information system has not been….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members will come to order.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The ICM information system has not been operating at full capacity over the past few days. There have been slow response times and intermittent problems with entering data.

Now, the system was up and running this morning. It's going through reboots this afternoon. The key point is that the end-users, those who need the services that are the subject of the system, are receiving services. The cheques for the month of May, social assistance cheques for the month of May, were delivered in late April.

The current delays are in issuance of payments for special circumstances in the short term. These will be addressed in the short term, and I'm proud to be able to say that the ICM system has been operating at 99.72 percent uptime over the past two years.

[End of question period.]

Petitions

B. Routley: I have petitions from the constituents in the Cowichan Valley, 247 of them, that are calling on the B.C. government to implement a community plan for a public system of integrated early care and learning. The proposed $10-a-day care plan is a made-in-B.C. solution to the current child care crisis. It will create equality and affordable spaces and will pay educators a living wage.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: In Committee A, Committee of Supply, the ongoing estimates of the Ministry of Jobs, and in this chamber committee stage debate on Bill 2.

[1450]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 2 — ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES
COMMISSION AMENDMENT ACT, 2014

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 2; D. Horne in the chair.

The committee met at 2:52 p.m.

On section 1.

The Chair: I believe the minister has an amendment in her name on the order paper.

Hon. S. Anton: Yes, I move the amendment to section 1, which is under my name, printed in the orders of the day.

[SECTION 1, by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the underlined text as shown:

1 Section 3 (2) of the Electoral Boundaries Commission Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 107, is repealed and the following substituted,

(2) The commission must make proposals to the Legislative Assembly for 85 electoral districts.

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

The Chair: The amendment is in order. Would the minister like to speak to the amendment?

On the amendment.

Hon. S. Anton: The section would permit the next Electoral Boundaries Commission to propose up to 87 electoral districts for the province. In other words, it can stay at 85, or it can choose to go to as many as 87.

The existing section of the act authorizes the commission to propose increasing the number of districts up to 85. This gives them discretion to increase that by two, which does give them additional flexibility to address representation in urban areas that are experiencing population growth. It's really up to the commission to decide how they might use those, but that would be where we might think that they would use them.

The amendment does not provide any direction to the Electoral Boundaries Commission as to where specifically any new district should be created. As I said, it is entirely in their discretion as the Boundaries Commission.

L. Krog: With respect to the amendment, the amendment is fairly clear. It says that section (2) of the bill will now read, if amended: "If, in carrying out its functions under subsection (1), the commission considers that the number of electoral districts in British Columbia should
[ Page 3615 ]
be increased, the commission may make proposals to the Legislative Assembly to increase the number of electoral districts up to a maximum of 87."

As I read the purpose of the section, it doesn't restrict the commission in terms of increasing…. Or I shouldn't say it doesn't direct the commission. It's not mandatory the commission increase the number of seats, but it simply allows it to increase the number of seats from 87 to 85.

Whereas the present section 3(2) of the act, under the section "Function of commission," says: "If the commission in carrying out its functions under subsection (1) considers that the number of electoral districts in British Columbia should be increased, it may make proposals to the Legislative Assembly to increase the number of electoral districts up to a maximum of 85."

[1455]

Essentially, the effect of the amendment as I understand it, then, is to allow the commission to consider up to 85 electoral districts, if in fact this amendment passes.

Hon. S. Anton: It's 87.

L. Krog: Pardon me, 87 seats. Thank you.

With respect to the amendment, is it the intention or belief of the government that those two seats would be focused on the so-called 17 protected seats that are referred to further on in the bill? Or is the concept that this would just apply across the province?

Hon. S. Anton: There is no direction. The member is correct. The Boundaries Commission has discretion as to whether they create two more districts or one more district or no more districts. It is entirely up to them where those districts would be placed, although I will say that it is anticipated that they are likely to go where the population growth has been greater and the ridings are bigger.

L. Krog: The way I would understand it is that the commission will otherwise, only if it wishes to, increase it from 85 but that the base under this proposal will in fact be 85. In other words, they can't go below 85 seats.

Hon. S. Anton: The combined impact of the section 1 as amended and then section 3 with the proposed amendment would be that the number of districts would be no less than 85.

L. Krog: Just in terms of process today — I look to the Chair for assurance, lest I make any errors that might jeopardize the passage of this bill — we will in fact be dealing with, and will continue to deal with until finished, the proposed amendment to section 1. We will then go on to section 2 of the bill as it stands and then on to section 3. Is that correct?

The Chair: Yes.

L. Krog: With respect to the proposed amendment to section 1, then, the government has chosen to give the commission, arguably, some tiny leeway by increasing the number by two seats from 85 to 87. I guess it begs the obvious question: why change it by two seats as opposed to four, as opposed to ten, as opposed to 200? In other words, what's the rationale behind this amendment?

[1500]

Hon. S. Anton: Clearly, there is no magic number, or all this would be so easy. However, government believes that this number, allowing for a possibility of an increase of two seats, strikes the appropriate balance between providing for growth — because parts of the province, in particular, are growing fairly quickly — and also fiscal restraint. There generally is no great desire to grow government, but it may be necessary, as seen by the Electoral Boundaries Commission, particularly given fairly robust growth in some parts of the province.

L. Krog: I'd appreciate, first, an initial question. Can the minister confirm the number of seats in the Alberta Legislature and what the voting population of Alberta is?

Hon. S. Anton: Again, there is no magic formula for the amount of representatives compared to the population of a given entity. Generally, if there's a trend at all, it is that the larger provinces have more population per MLA.

L. Krog: I suppose the minister appreciates that she has to keep one eye on this chamber and one eye, potentially, on the B.C. Supreme Court at some point, and maybe some higher court as well. That's the reason I'm asking the question.

I'm sure that if it ever comes to a judicial challenge to this act — if it passes, amended or unamended — clearly, the courts will be looking very carefully at what is said in this chamber and, particularly, what the Attorney General herself would have to say with respect to the government's rationale for the proposed amendment, let alone the whole bill.

I come back to my point. Can the minister advise the House…? I assume that information is probably readily available with the able assistance, I know, of her staff, who I don't think I heard introduced today but I think we all know and recognize as a competent public servant of many years' experience and ability.

Again, can the minister advise the House: how many seats in the Alberta Legislature, and what's the population?

Hon. S. Anton: I thank the member opposite for reminding me of my responsibilities and would like to introduce Mr. Neil Reimer, who is our very expert staff person in this area.
[ Page 3616 ]

The populations, numbers of districts and average population per elected representative are set out in our white paper on page 20. This was the paper, of course, which sent this question out to British Columbians for consultation.

[1505]

It shows that British Columbia has 85 districts at the moment, with an average of about 54,000 per district. Alberta has 87 districts with an average of 46,000 per district. Then, in declining numbers as the provinces themselves get smaller but in growing numbers as the provinces get bigger: Quebec has about 65,000 per representative, the House of Commons about 114,000 and Ontario about 126,000.

L. Krog: Again, given those numbers and the contrast, particularly between our closest neighbour in Confederation, the wonderful province of Alberta — a very large geographic mass, perhaps less challenging from a geographic perspective in terms of transportation corridors and access but, nevertheless, similar in size but smaller in population — which has a larger Legislature….

Again, I'm asking the Attorney General if she could provide some cogent explanation, given that this is the government's solution or proposal for reform of the Electoral Boundaries Commission Act, of why only two seats — as opposed to four or as opposed to ten, perhaps, to bring the average voting constituency population in line with the province of Alberta or some other jurisdiction in Canada?

We have heard over and over again — well, not as much as we might have, I suppose — from the government in their explanation of why with this particular bill, with this particular language, the emphasis has been on the fact that they wish to preserve rural representation, a worthy goal that I think all British Columbians support. As a native-born British Columbian and, frankly, as a family who's been here for many generations, I certainly support that concept, but two seats added to 85 seats, with great respect, doesn't seem to me to be a significant increase in relation to what other provinces have in terms of average population per constituency.

Again I'm wondering: why two seats, as opposed to four or as opposed to ten, particularly with regard to our comparison to the province of Alberta?

Hon. S. Anton: As I said earlier, I believe that this proposal, this option — we must remember that it's only an option for the Electoral Boundaries Commission — provides a good balance between allowing for growth in British Columbia and allowing for fiscal restraint and not growing government unnecessarily.

L. Krog: I appreciate the minister's use of the term "growing government unnecessarily." I'm flattered to think that she believes that all the seats that might be added to the B.C. Legislature will end up on the government side of the equation, as opposed to the opposition side, but I'll leave that for another day.

Again with respect, this amendment has the same problem, if you will, as exists with the section itself as it's stated in the act. The section that is proposed to be amended now provides: "If the commission in carrying out its functions under subsection (1) considers that the number of electoral districts in British Columbia should be increased, it may make proposals to the Legislative Assembly to increase the number of electoral districts up to a maximum of 85." That's the existing section.

The proposed amendment was: "The commission must" — mandatory — "make proposals to the Legislative Assembly for 85 electoral districts." Now the proposed amendment that we're dealing with says: "If, in carrying out its functions under subsection (1) the commission considers that the number of electoral districts in British Columbia should be increased, the commission may" — permissive — "make proposals to the Legislative Assembly to increase the number of electoral districts up to a maximum of 87."

We're still directing the commission. We're still restricting its ability to do its work, because if the commission's direction in the section was simply changed to say that if the commission in carrying out its functions under subsection (1) is entitled to determine the numbers of boundaries, etc…. Or subsection (1) as it exists now could simply say that the function of the commission is to make proposals to the Legislative Assembly as to the number, area, boundaries and names of the electoral districts.

[1510]

That would give the commission free range to come to whatever conclusion it came to, as opposed to what is essentially proposed here, which is that the politicians get to make the decision, not the commission. The commission, after all, is the independent body.

The commission, as the Attorney General is well aware…. I'm going to use committee stage of this bill a little bit by way of educating British Columbians, who I know are interested in this issue because of the number of submissions that have been made and the amount of opposition that exists the way it's worded.

The commission itself, and this is not proposed to be changed, is….

"The Lieutenant Governor in Council must, as required by this Act, appoint an Electoral Boundaries Commission consisting of (a) a judge or a retired judge of the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeal who is nominated by the Lieutenant Governor in Council," — cabinet — "(b) a person who is not a member of the Legislative Assembly or an employee of the government and who is nominated by the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly, after consultation with the Premier and the Leader of the Official Opposition, and…."

In other words, specifically — very specifically — someone who is not a member of the Legislative Assembly. I mean, the act itself as it exists makes it very
[ Page 3617 ]
clear that we don't want the politicians interfering with this process. That's the way section 2 now reads.

Then the third: "(c) the chief electoral officer appointed under the Election Act." Now, there is someone who truly is independent. Hired by a unanimous decision of a committee of the B.C. Legislature and approved and recommended to the House, and only then do they get to become the Chief Electoral Officer.

So what does the act do? The act takes the commission entirely out of political control and influence or even the appearance of it. I have used the old language many times, the old phrase, in this House on many occasions: "like Caesar's wife" — must not only be above reproach but be seen to be above reproach.

That's the point of the statute. That's the way section 2 reads now. So when it comes to the commission, we don't even want a sniff of association with the Legislative Assembly by being a member, an employee of the government.

So the concept behind that is what? The concept is to allow the commission free range. The concept is to allow the commission to come to its decision based on what it feels is right and proper and appropriate in the context of case law, including Dixon v. British Columbia, 1989, and Reference re Prov. Electoral Boundaries, 1991. Both cases have been accepted and regarded, I think, well by legislatures across this country.

What both the proposed section 1 but, more importantly…. Speaking specifically to the proposed amendment to section 1, this is saying: instead of giving you free range, we are restricting you to 87 seats.

Notwithstanding the commission has the full opportunity and ability to look at jurisdictions across Canada and consider other alternatives, and indeed, if the government is so interested in reducing costs, to consider reducing the number of seats potentially, if the legislation was so changed, why are we adding two seats and putting a cap on it?

Indeed, when you read this in conjunction with the proposed amendment to section 3 of the bill, which reads: "…the number, which must not be less than 7985 nor more than 8587…." In other words, you have to have 85 — mandatory, must — but you can't go more than 87.

So again — I'm looking for something that's fairly substantive in terms of a response from the Attorney General — why two? Why not four? We have heard in discussion in this chamber from members on both sides of the House that they're concerned about rural representation, that that's a real issue for British Columbians.

If that's an important consideration — it can't, unfortunately, be the paramount consideration — why not leave the commission free to pick the number that it thinks appropriate? It is the commission and the commission through its work, entirely independent of government, that will go forth around this province and come to a determination as to what is appropriate.

So again, why not let the commission determine how many seats? Why include this cap? Instead of the amendment as proposed, why not simply say: "the commission considers that the number of electoral districts should be increased or decreased; the commission may so recommend at its discretion"?

[1515]

Hon. S. Anton: I will start off by mentioning to the member opposite that the Legislature is also a branch of government.

Why not just give the commission free rein? Because the act has in fact always prescribed an upper limit. The current act, the one that we are amending — I think we'll be amending it one way or the other; we're on the amendment on the amendment right now — says 79 to 85. It gave the commission a range. Before that the upper limit in the act was 79.

It is the case that provinces do set limits — either an upper limit or a range — on the number of districts because their legislatures choose to make that policy decision in the same way that the British Columbia Legislature has chosen to make that policy decision over the years.

L. Krog: I appreciate that. I think the obvious response is that when you look at the act as a whole…. It's not a very big act. Nevertheless, when you get to section 2, it's not just about putting a cap on the number of seats. It's directing the commission very specifically that it has to protect certain regions of the province, namely the Cariboo-Thompson region, consisting of five constituencies or electoral districts; the Columbia-Kootenay region, consisting of four electoral districts; and the North region, consisting of eight electoral districts or constituencies.

With respect to what the Attorney General has to say, this legislation goes a great deal further, arguably, than other jurisdictions'. We know that other provinces certainly protect or preserve some rural constituencies, but those numbers are relatively slight in terms of number. Saskatchewan protects a couple. We know that Newfoundland protects Labrador. I believe — the Attorney General will certainly correct me if I'm wrong — it's 11 seats in the 103-seat Ontario Legislature that enjoy some protection.

But this legislation proposes to protect 17 of now possibly 87 seats, as opposed to 85, as originally proposed. That is ballpark, by way of math….

The Chair: We're still on the amendment to section 1. It appears the question is related to section 2.

L. Krog: I'm bringing it back slowly, hon. Chair.

The Chair: All right.
[ Page 3618 ]

[1520]

L. Krog: Paid by the word.

It's preserving roughly 20 percent of the seats.

So again, if the purpose of the legislation is to allow the commission an opportunity to do its work, where do we come up with the concept of increasing it from only 85 to 87, in terms of protecting rural representation, which is surely not the only consideration?

The court cases have been fairly consistent in terms of saying that the main consideration…. Certainly in the Dixon case, it was the drawing of electoral boundaries: in drawing them, this must be population. That was fairly clear. And in the reference regarding the provincial electoral boundaries, Saskatchewan 1991 case, the court held that the right to vote meant having effective representation, holding that the "relative parity of voting powers is a prime condition of effective representation."

Again, how does the arbitrary number of two in fact protect rural representation, as proposed?

Hon. S. Anton: As you observed, Chair, it is the next piece that talks about protecting the rural areas, and we will come to that. But I think the specific question on this section is about the possibility of going from 85 to 87.

As I said before, that is to provide some room for population growth while keeping any expansion of the number of districts modest, because of the interest in fiscal restraint, and also not growing government unnecessarily, but providing for that balance. It allows for growth but not an endless expansion, if you like, of the Legislature.

L. Krog: Well, then, if the purpose of the proposed increase is to allow for population growth, and working on the presumption that the two seats will be added to the unprotected seats — not to the 17 but, in fact, to the remainder, which in this case will be 60, as opposed to 58 as was originally proposed in the legislation — then perhaps the minister can provide the House with some numbers or rationale or explanation of what exactly that means in terms of those two seats, potentially, and what sort of numbers we'll be looking at for electors in an electoral district under the legislation, as proposed to be amended, as opposed to under the previous bill.

Hon. S. Anton: If those two seats are to be deployed, that will be up to the Boundaries Commission. What the possibility of adding the two seats does is give them an extra tool in their work in balancing the next set of boundaries for British Columbia.

L. Krog: I appreciate that that's obviously what it will do — arguably, provide this tool to the Boundaries Commission.

[1525]

But what I'm curious to know is, and the Attorney General can correct me if I'm wrong, working on the assumption these two seats will be added to the rest of British Columbia — the ROBC, if you will; there's a new term for the Leg. — how does that take into account and what are the numbers with respect to growth? I particularly think of the minister sitting behind the Attorney General, who represents one of the Surrey constituencies which has seen significant growth as opposed to other constituencies in the province.

In other words, what does this really do in terms of reducing the number of seats that have potentially significant numbers of voters, as opposed to some of the rural seats, as they exist now with their present boundaries, that are referred to in the proposed section 2 of Bill 2?

Hon. S. Anton: These decisions really are going to be up to the Boundaries Commission. Probably they would put the districts where the voters per riding are larger, but we are not offering any direction as to that. It is really entirely up to the commission if and how they use the possibility of two extra seats in the province.

V. Huntington: I appreciate the critic giving me this opportunity in the midst of his own questions, given I think he'll be a bit of a while.

I'd like to just perhaps put on the record, in terms of this amendment, how it applies to the legislation itself and specifically my concern about both pieces within this discussion, the amendment and the original section of this bill.

I think what we're trying to come to grips with in the House and, obviously, on the government side is: how do we manage population growth within the province of British Columbia, and how should this place reflect that growth appropriately?

There is real concern in this place about the protection of certain ridings, which will, therefore, have advantage, when you consider the fundamental principles of rep by pop, representation by population. It's giving benefit, therefore, to these ridings that remain protected, and yet this amendment is now suggesting, we hear, that even those protected ridings could be examined, if we were to allow the commission to go up to 87 seats.

Really, what we're dancing around here is that issue of population growth and reasonableness — reasonable representation and reasonable numbers of individuals who are providing that representation to the population of the province.

It goes further. Because we're looking at the issue of population growth and how to manage it legitimately within a democracy, we're also looking, as the minister says, at fiscal realities. You can't expect this place to grow ad infinitum, year after year. Even if we do approve an amendment up to 87, in another few years we'll be looking at amendments up to 92 and 95 and 100. All of a sudden you're looking at a House that needs a new in-
[ Page 3619 ]
stitution and the hundreds of millions of dollars it will require to provide that new institution.

All we're on is a downward slope that we're not going to get off unless we fundamentally re-examine how we provide adequate representation to the public. That means you're looking at: how do we satisfy taxpayer fatigue in this province and the demands that taxpayers have that their legislators be fiscally conscious in all aspects of their decision-making?

[1530]

I think that what we're struggling with here, and the fault that we've all had, is that we are not coming to grips with the fundamental question of: how do we keep this place in restraints, if you will? And how do we adequately provide representation?

And I am blue-skying this discussion. Does that mean we look at weighted votes in some ways? Does that mean we do provide protected ridings but recognize that some element of representation has to be provided to the urban sections of the province? Those questions are really fundamental to how we struggle with democracy in this province and in this building.

I think that this entire issue properly belongs…. I keep saying this, but I can't think of another issue that more properly belongs in the hands of a committee of elected officials themselves — how else? — with experts providing their best advice to that committee. Unless you're an elected representative, you don't really understand what the struggles are in providing adequate representation to the people. You don't really understand what the job is unless you've been part of it and in it itself.

I say with huge respect to officials that have been responsible for developing this legislation, in all goodwill and doing the best that they can: they have no idea what our job is on a day-to-day basis. You see it from this side of the House — or in this institution — but you don't see it when we're in a constituency office. You don't see it when we're walking around our ridings or at different events.

There is a huge demand. So whether we provide…. Okay. In an urban riding…. If we are brainstorming how we adequately represent and we stay within the structures of similar size, do you weight the votes? Do you provide more funding to the urban riding, to the urban representatives, so that they can properly have staff that can manage the actual numbers of cases and inquiries that come into the offices? Do you provide funding that enables them to have two offices?

We look after rural ridings because of the size of them, but we don't look after urban ridings and the pressure they place on the elected representatives.

I just feel that, really, the amendment and the original section itself are failing to come to grips with what truly is the problem, and that is: how do we provide adequate representation into the future without allowing this place to grow exponentially? So I'm struggling with whether to support the amendment or not, because I don't feel either it or the act gets down to what the real problem is.

I guess that if I had my druthers, I would like to say: "Let's pull this act, take a good hard look at what the fundamental issues really are and come back with something that is modern, is intelligent and is perhaps in the forefront of modernizing representation in this new world of ours."

L. Krog: I appreciate the comments of the member for Delta South, and her remarks. I appreciate — and I do want to publicly thank the Attorney General — the opportunity to discuss this legislation.

Arguably, what the member for Delta South had to say is absolutely true. Essentially, we are putting off this long-going, outstanding, longstanding, perennial — all of the adjectives you can think of — problem in British Columbia politics. That is, we're up against difficult geography and a heavily populated Lower Mainland, a somewhat less heavily populated Vancouver Island, and then the rest of British Columbia — the ROBC. I'm starting to love my own term in here.

[1535]

The ROBC is what this act is aimed at. The proposed amendment, again, says that in carrying out its functions the commission can consider an increase up to 87. We're left with 85, going up to 87.

Does the Attorney General honestly believe that the mere increase of two seats will enable the commission to come up with boundaries that will withstand a successful court challenge?

Hon. S. Anton: First of all, I would like to thank the member for Delta South for her comments, because I think they are a good reflection of the issues facing the Legislature right now and perhaps an argument for a different approach in the future. But this is where we are right now, and this is the way this legislation is intended to proceed at the moment.

In response to the member for Nanaimo, the proposed amendment to section 1, as I have said a number of times, is intended to strike the right balance between not growing government unnecessarily but allowing for population growth.

L. Krog: I'm wondering if there is some opinion or some evidence or some example from another jurisdiction in Canada where a similar legislative proposal has been made, passed, and either not challenged or challenged and passed court muster?

Hon. S. Anton: The options that we are providing here are more similar to Newfoundland's than any other province — closest to Newfoundland's. However, we are not aware of any challenge to the Newfoundland legislation. There was a challenge to the Saskatchewan legis-
[ Page 3620 ]
lation where, again, government made choices between urban and rural ridings, and their map, their legislation, was upheld.

Different provinces choose different ways forward on these. We do believe that, within the different paths which are chosen by governments across Canada, this is very similar to others. We believe that it is a kind of format for the Electoral Boundaries Commission which is appropriate and which does give the commission an option to choose good boundaries for British Columbia, balancing both rural and urban needs.

L. Krog: The Attorney General in her response referred to the province of Newfoundland. I'm just wondering if she could explain to the House exactly how many seats are protected in Newfoundland? Did they do it like British Columbia is proposing to do, with an increase in the number of seats and then the protection? Or did the protection precede the increase in the number of seats? Or were they completely unrelated?

In other words, what exactly happened there that the Attorney General says hasn't been challenged in the courts and, presumably, is acceptable to the good people of Newfoundland?

[1540]

Hon. S. Anton: The approaches used by different provinces in Canada are set out in the white paper. As the white paper describes, in Newfoundland they chose to protect the four seats which are in Labrador and to maintain those four seats.

L. Krog: I appreciate that the good people of Newfoundland and Labrador are heavily devoted to democracy, having been their own country at one time, so to speak. Having said that, four seats is not 17 seats — a substantive difference in numbers, regardless of the differing sizes and numbers in the actual legislatures of these two provinces, ours and theirs.

Again, if the approach to helping the commission do its work is to increase by two, which the Attorney General says is chosen because it represents some balance between giving the commission some leeway and, at the same time, what I think the member for Delta South referred to as taxpayer fatigue — cost, in other words, of course arguing always that democracy is expensive — is this in fact the solution that is going to work?

It seems to me, and certainly, I think, to the opposition generally, that the proposal by way of this amendment of simply increasing the number of seats by two is not a significant leeway to the commission because of the significant increase in population in the existing electoral districts outside of the 17 that are proposed to be preserved.

We know that Surrey is busting at the seams and enjoying, unfortunately, all of the problems that come with rapid growth. We know that the city of Vancouver is continuing to densify, lane houses and every other kind of method of allowing for further density, because they're running out of land.

Again, I come back to it, and I'm looking for something quite specific on the numbers if the Attorney General has that available. Given that we're preserving these 17 and looking at the population increase in British Columbia since the last Electoral Boundaries Commission sat and looking at the average numbers of voters in those electoral districts, is this in fact any real solution whatsoever?

In other words, when you're preserving so many — the 17 — and by this amendment allowing a further two to water down, if you will, or dilute the significant populations of the remaining electoral districts, is that in fact going to be enough?

For instance, is there an opinion, a legal opinion…? I appreciate the Attorney General will probably tell me she's not going to share it if she had it. But is there some form of legal opinion or has there been appropriate advice received that would indicate that this in fact will withstand a constitutional challenge?

I think that's an important question because we know that there are a number of groups in this province who have all indicated significant opposition to this bill. The majority of the 63 public submissions received by government were opposed to the contents of the bill.

[1545]

Other opponents include the well-respected organization IntegrityBC, COPE Union, TWU, CUPE. The B.C. Civil Liberties Association opposed the retention of the lower-population seats during the last redistribution process.

In other words, is there some concrete evidence by way of an opinion that says what in fact we're going to do will withstand a constitutional challenge? Because if it's not, then what are we doing here?

Hon. S. Anton: I am confident that the amendments that we are proposing will stand up to scrutiny.

A. Weaver: I recognize the opposition to this bill, and I do appreciate the amendment being brought forward. I will support the amendment.

I will say that I'm surprised that this bill is being brought to the Legislature today because we've heard a lot about these 100,000 jobs that we're going to have in our rural communities. I'm not sure that such a piece of legislation is actually necessary, if these 100,000 jobs were to transpire.

My question to the minister is: how does one reconcile the introduction of this legislation to protect the electoral regions where there's supposed to be 100,000 jobs, which actually would suggest that the rural regions don't need protecting, and in fact, the urban regions will need protecting?
[ Page 3621 ]

Hon. S. Anton: Well, I do appreciate the optimism in the question — optimism which I share, and optimism which government shares in terms of our interest in, indeed, growing the economy in our northern and rural areas.

However, we're dealing with what we've got right now and who is living in…. The Boundaries Commission will be looking at the populations in the communities that they will be looking at in British Columbia right at this moment. We will have to leave that very interesting challenge probably to the next commission a few years from now.

L. Krog: I suppose the question that follows from what we've been talking about in the last few minutes in this chamber is one suggested by my colleague the member for Victoria–Swan Lake.

Interjections.

L. Krog: No, Victoria–Swan Lake, actually — with great deference to the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head — who suggested, "Well, maybe that's the whole point of this," that this is designed, in fact, to fail. Then we can go into the election with the same old boundaries. Everyone will be quite happy with that, because after all, those same old boundaries produced a majority for the B.C. Liberal Party.

I guess that the real question is — and this becomes quite problematic…. If this amendment passes and the bill passes and we end up with a court challenge, for practical purposes, do we go into the next election then — and this is a question for the Attorney General — on the existing boundaries, the 85 seats as they exist, all populated by the happy members of this chamber here today? Or do we face some constitutional problem? Will we be looking for injunctions, or will we push ahead and then wait for the election to be challenged?

In other words, for practical purposes, I'd love to hear from the chief law enforcement officer of the province of British Columbia: what's going to be the practical effect if this legislation is challenged, and what are the various options?

Hon. S. Anton: In response to the first part of the member's comments, I would like to assure this House that this bill is designed to succeed, that it is designed to give the Electoral Boundaries Commission the tools that they need to succeed so that they can draw up a good electoral map for British Columbia to go into the next election. We are aiming for success.

[1550]

The hypothetical, speculative question raised by the member opposite, I'm not going to respond to. It is hypothetical, it's speculative, and there's no point in going down that road.

L. Krog: I thought the Attorney General might take that position, but I think those hypothetical questions that I have raised are indeed entirely legitimate questions. Whether or not she cares to answer, or the Chair would ever suggest that she should answer those questions, they are questions that British Columbians are going to be asking, assuming this amendment and this bill actually pass this Legislature.

We are facing a bit of a time challenge because the commission itself "must be appointed no later than one year after the general voting day for every second general election following the appointment under subsection (1)." That's section 5 that I've just referred to.

The commission could actually start its work, and I suspect it'll be rather slow to get rolling, but there isn't some necessity that this bill be passed, or the amendments, by May 14. Nevertheless, there is a certain pressure to get this thing done.

I'm concerned that we in British Columbia will end up going into another election with boundaries that in some cases are grossly unfair, particularly to voters in some of the fast-growing areas of the province, in contrast to voters in areas of the province where there is either little, if any — or, indeed, perhaps some reduction in the number of voters. Notwithstanding all the interest in the thousands of jobs that are promised in this chamber day after day after day — we're all waiting for them to happily materialize, of course — the fact is that right now we have some significant variance in the province.

When you look at section 9 of the existing act, the commission is permitted to exceed the 25 percent deviation by no more, plus or minus…. It then allows that the commission would do that "where…very special circumstances exist." I guess my concern is: is the Attorney General's position still that she is absolutely satisfied that this is going to pass constitutional muster?

Hon. S. Anton: Well, I believe I've answered that. I would like to point out that the boundaries today that this House was elected under were unanimously supported by everyone in the last go-round.

The goal of this act and the proposal that's in it is that the Electoral Boundaries Commission can balance population needs, but not just population needs. The challenges that these large rural ridings present to members reaching out to their constituents and to constituents being able to talk to their own members are different than the challenges of a busy urban riding where people are much closer and their members can be easily found and easily spoken to.

[1555-1600]

The Chair: Hon. Members, the question is the amendment proposed by the Minister of Justice to section 1 of Bill 2.
[ Page 3622 ]

Amendment approved on the following division:

Section 1 as amended approved.

The Chair: Those members that need to go to other duties, I'd ask that they do that.

On section 2.

L. Krog: With respect to section 2 of Bill 2, it's a fairly lengthy section and makes reference to three regions — the "Cariboo-Thompson Region," the "Columbia-Kootenay Region" and the "North Region" — all consisting of varying numbers of existing electoral districts.

I'm just curious to know. How did we come to pick these electoral districts within these regions?

[1605]

Hon. S. Anton: The regions set out in section 2 are chosen — the Cariboo-Thompson, Columbia-Kootenay and the North regions…. It was in those three regions that the previous commission was considering reducing the seats. In the preliminary report the previous commission actually did reduce each region by one seat.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

In the final report that changed slightly, but it was indeed the case that those were the regions identified where seats would be lost due to redistribution.

L. Krog: Just so I'm clear, the reason the government has proposed these three regions is because these are the three regions where the then commission indicated that a seat would be lost? In other words, we were looking at a reduction of three seats in total?

Hon. S. Anton: In each of those three regions in the preliminary report, the preliminary recommendation was that one seat would be lost from each of those regions. As I said, in the final report that changed in that one of those regions was left intact, and in the other two it was suggested that one seat be lost from each. Now, that was not the report that was adopted in the end by the Legislative Assembly. They went on to adopt an alternate model which kept the regions intact.

L. Krog: Just to confirm, though, that the regions were a creation of the commission in its report. The regions weren't a creation of statute. In other words, the commission looked at these boundaries and determined the boundaries of the regions.

Hon. S. Anton: The previous commission did define these regions. It is indeed the case that they were not identified in the legislation prior to the proposal today. Adopting a regional approach is common for B.C. electoral boundaries commissions. The previous commission did adopt that regional approach. In fact, the regions which they identified at that time are the regions that we are now proposing be placed into the legislation.

[1610]

L. Krog: I appreciate the Attorney General's answer. What we have are regions that were defined by those independent souls who form the Electoral Boundaries Commission, working independently of government. It wasn't a definition imposed upon them by an electoral districts act. It wasn't an order-in-council from cabinet. It wasn't some direction from government.

In other words, the commission independently defined these regions based on historical practice, precedent and ease. That's what I understand to be correct, and that's what I understand the Attorney General's answer to be. Could she confirm that, please?

Hon. S. Anton: That's correct.

L. Krog: So in fact, what we are doing with proposed section 2 — and I'm not making reference to all of it, but in particular 2(a) of Bill 2 — is giving direction to an
[ Page 3623 ]
independent Electoral Boundaries Commission that, I would believe and suggest to the Attorney General, may be without precedent in British Columbia's history.

Can the Attorney General confirm to the House: has this approach as legislatively proposed before us today ever been used in British Columbia's history before?

Hon. S. Anton: The member is correct that this specific approach has never been used in British Columbia before, putting it into the legislation this way. But I will observe, again, that the regions identified in the proposed legislation are the regions which were identified by the independent Electoral Boundaries Commission last time.

L. Krog: So two elections down the road, eight-plus years of population growth…. After all, the last time we did this was to get the boundaries in place for the 2009 election. We've now got two elections. We're going to have a total of two terms of electoral growth, and we're going to base direction to a new commission on boundaries based in history, essentially. That's really what this legislation is doing — in other words, imposing an unprecedented direction to an independent Electoral Boundaries Commission about what they can and cannot do with respect to 17 electoral districts.

Now, I appreciate the Attorney General will say that they have the option under section 2, in proposed section (3).

"For certainty, for the purpose of making proposals under section 3 (2), the commission may propose (a) changing the names of electoral districts in the Cariboo-Thompson Region, the Columbia-Kootenay Region and the North Region, and (b) adjusting or changing boundaries of electoral districts in the Cariboo-Thompson Region, the Columbia-Kootenay Region and the North Region, including, subject to the purpose set out in subsection (1.1) (a), boundaries of electoral districts that are regional boundaries."

In other words, the way I read this, we're going to give you unprecedented direction in terms of 20 percent of the seats in the B.C. Legislature — slightly less now, assuming the bill passes, because we've now upped the possibility to 87 from 85.

[1615]

We're going to give you unprecedented direction and, indeed — just to be really, really specific — we're going to give you this oddly defined leeway that says even though we've created this 20 percent area, you can play with the boundaries in the three regions, and you can change the names of electoral districts in the three regions.

But you can't eliminate seats in those regions, notwithstanding any population growth that has taken place between the last Boundaries Commission and the next provincial election, the date of which is presumably going to be May of 2017 but could, in fact, be the fall of 2017, if the Legislature, in its wisdom, changed its mind or the Premier changed her mind and convinced her cabinet colleagues to do so.

Would the Attorney General not agree that this is probably the most significant specific direction given to a boundaries commission in living memory?

Hon. S. Anton: This approach of putting the regions into the legislation is a new approach in British Columbia. But I will observe that it has been used in Newfoundland, where there are similar levels of instruction in their legislation, although I might argue that their legislation is actually even more confining — or defining, rather — than ours is in that it actually sets the ridings. Whereas this proposed legislation still allows the Boundaries Commission a great deal of latitude in terms of defining the boundaries of the different ridings.

L. Krog: But surely the Attorney General acknowledges and agrees that the Newfoundland legislation protects and preserves four seats, not 17 seats. We're talking about the geography of Labrador. I'm sure the former elementary school teachers in the chamber here today who have a greater grasp of Canadian geography than I do would be the first to acknowledge that we're talking about one of the most sparsely populated parts of the dominion and, certainly, one of the most sparsely populated parts of Newfoundland and Labrador as a province.

Hon. S. Anton: The size of the two provinces is different. The number of districts altogether in the two provinces is different. The population is different, rather. However, the approach is a similar one. As I said earlier, I am confident in this approach — that it will give the Boundaries Commission the tools it needs to give proper representation to British Columbians in the next election.

[1620]

L. Krog: The proposed section 2 says that the commission can play with the boundaries of the electoral districts, including their names, etc. But essentially we're going to be stuck with — set in stone — five in the Cariboo-Thompson, four in the Columbia-Kootenay region and eight in the north region. This is to address the government's concerns and the concerns of the people of British Columbia about rural representation. For instance, I believe the remarks of one member yesterday talked about the enormous distance between Blue River and Prince George, and yet Blue River was included in one of the Prince George constituencies.

But surely the problem is that when you have preserved this significant part of British Columbia's geography via the setting in concrete of the three regions and say, "Look, you will get 17 seats regardless…." Surely the Attorney General would agree with me that that has the effective of severely restricting the ability of the commission overall to achieve electoral fairness and comply with the cases that I've already referred to in my remarks earlier today.

By that, I mean this. The commission cannot now, for
[ Page 3624 ]
instance, create a more strictly urban Prince George constituency and say, "Look, we recognize the problems of rural representation, so what we're going to do is to create this much bigger rural electoral district," to use the language of the statute. But because the legislation already provides in section 9 that in special circumstances the commission can exceed the 25 percent one way or the other, what that means is the commission won't be in a position to do that.

In other words, for instance, out of the 87, they won't be able to create 82 that British Columbians would see as fair and five that we would all acknowledge are grossly unfair in one sense — because they certainly exceed, by a substantial percentage, the 25 percent deviation — but nevertheless meet the very special circumstances test.

Would the Attorney General agree with me that by prescribing that 20 percent, roughly, of the seats — 17 — can't be changed, that is the impact? You will create not just a few seats or electoral districts that are way out of line with the act, but you have the potential to create a far more significant number on both ends of the scale.

By that, I mean rural electoral districts that have a small population and urban electoral districts that have a much more significant population than they had in the last go-round. In the last go-round they were already substantial electoral districts. They'll be potentially even bigger now. We've confined and tried to jam all of this in an 87-seat House but, at the same time, set aside 17.

So would the Attorney General not agree that, in fact, by section 2, as proposed, setting out these 17, you're going to have the effect of severely restricting the ability of the commission to do fairness to what I referred to earlier as ROBC, the rest of British Columbia, and potentially create an even greater number of seats that represent worse deviations, if you will, from what would be seen as the principle of the act and of the legislation overall — which is effective representation?

[1625]

Hon. S. Anton: The goal of the legislation, and the intention, is to give the commission the tools it needs to achieve a balance of urban and rural and a balance of good representation for all British Columbians. There are two tools that we are proposing to give to the commission: one is the regional approach, and the second is the potential of adding two more seats.

L. Krog: Surely, the Attorney General would agree with me that in the government's desire — and I think reflective of the people's desire — to ensure effective rural representation, and rural representation in the broader sense, the true effect of this legislation is to provide unprecedented restrictions on the freedom of the commission to act. To suggest that giving it a two-seat leeway will somehow balance off a restriction on 17 electoral districts is, with the greatest respect, almost nonsensical.

I appreciate the work and effort that has gone into this legislation and the work of staff involved in preparing it, but the overall impact will still be the same.

The commission won't have that broad freedom to come back in its initial report, which it will statutorily provide, and say, "You know what? We're going to have to reduce the number of rural seats, and here's where we're going to do it" or "We could recommend an increase in the number of seats," if there was no restriction, taking into consideration the applicable law, the provisions of the existing act.

The possibility now of doing fairness for much of British Columbia will be, potentially, at the expense of the rest of British Columbia, because you're setting aside 17 electoral districts that may, in fact, be so unbalanced, as opposed to many of the rural electoral districts. That is why I asked the question earlier about what in fact the numbers demonstrated, with respect to ridings or electoral districts, when you only add two seats essentially to the rest of British Columbia and preserve the 17.

My suggestion is, and I'm speculating, that you will see those Surrey seats…. I use it as the most common example, not to either anoint Surrey with any special status or to pick on Surrey either, but we know that there is tremendous growth in those constituencies.

[1630]

If you try, for instance — and commissions often do — to jam constituencies within municipal boundaries, it may provide an even worse set of circumstances than we know already exist. If you're going to talk about preserving rural representation, the two examples that are most frequently used are North Island and Powell River–Sunshine Coast. If you want to talk about difficulties of access, Powell River–Sunshine Coast is entirely and utterly ferry-dependent, unless you want to hoof it over the hills or take a floatplane.

The Attorney General wisely points out that so is Nanaimo, but I would argue that Vancouver Island is a magic jewel unto itself and has produced such fine members of the B.C. Legislature in its time that it would be impossible for me to spend enough time talking about it. But we will save that conversation for another day.

The member for North Island will candidly explain to you, if none of the members of this House have looked at it, the enormous difficulty she faces — dusty, dirty logging roads to get to many parts of it, boats, ferries. It goes as far as Tweedsmuir Park, actually. But we're not going to ask the commission to protect those two constituencies, because those weren't seen as part of the areas that the commission looked at last time in terms of its regional approach.

What I'm suggesting is that, really, notwithstanding the work of the previous commission and no disrespect, to refer to these three regions now and the 17 electoral districts within them is really pretty arbitrary. For instance, why not extend one of the West Vancouver ridings fur-
[ Page 3625 ]
ther up the coast and let its member have to take a ferry to get to the southern part of a more northerly-positioned electoral district?

In other words, when we do this, we retract or reduce the options that the commission could actually have. After all, if the Attorney General can't give me the numbers today in terms of population and where it has grown, I will guarantee the commission will be looking at those numbers and will have a very clear idea where the growth is.

By imposing this fairly arbitrary 17-seat protected area, then the commission in fact will be restricted in doing its independent work, because the commission's main function is to ensure that the general law as established by the courts, as established by legislation and as expected and accepted by the people of British Columbia is in fact carried out.

So I come back to this. Wouldn't the Attorney General agree that the approach indeed not only has the potential but the likelihood that we will see significantly larger urban electoral districts, with the potential of a significantly high number of very small rural electoral districts?

Hon. S. Anton: The member opposite used the word "arbitrary," and I would take issue with that description, because the regions which are set out in the proposed legislation do flow directly from the work of the last independent Electoral Boundaries Commission.

I would remind the member that the commission stated…. This was in the materials, so he will be familiar with this passage, but I will read it again. The commission said:

"It is well outside our legislated mandate to propose changes to the legislative framework within which electoral districts are developed. Nevertheless, we respectfully encourage the members of the Legislative Assembly, who we are confident understand the complexities of this issue, to develop a legislative model well before the appointment of the next commission in 2013.

"We would encourage legislators to give this matter priority and develop a model that strikes an appropriate balance between these competing interests and, at the same time, We would encourage legislators to give this matter priority and develop a model that strikes an appropriate balance between these competing interests and at the same time respects the constitutional framework within which the legislative branch must operate respects the constitutional framework within which the legislative branch must operate."

That is exactly what we are proposing with this legislation.

[1635]

On the specific issue of the urban districts. I would just like to observe, without going into too much detail, that many of the urban districts are very close to the average size of electoral district. In other words, there are many urban districts that have plenty of room for growth even going with exactly the same boundaries that we have right now.

There is plenty of room for growth in those without taking them beyond any unexpected or extraordinary population size. There's perfectly reasonable room for growth in the boundaries that we've got right now. However, of course, the new commission will have entire freedom and discretion to choose new boundaries or set new boundaries in the way that it determines to be best for British Columbia and within the confines of this act.

L. Krog: I appreciate that the Attorney General takes issue with my use of the term "arbitrary," but we're a couple of elections away from the information and evidence on which the commission did its work. I can't remember what a much wiser person than I said, but something to the effect that if the facts change, my opinion or my position changes. The fact is: the population in British Columbia has changed since the last Electoral Boundaries Commission. What the commission may determine by way of evidence and listening to British Columbians may well be different from what British Columbians had to say two terms ago, so to speak — as to what they'll say this time.

It seems to me that the whole point of the independent commission — which I've emphasized in my remarks earlier and which the legislation makes clear — is to be so completely and utterly independent. Yes, the commission would love to have direction. Yes, it's a tough job, and I acknowledge that. And yes, it's challenging for the commission to come up with boundaries that are fair and constitutionally viable and acceptable and…. I hesitate to use the term "legal," but that's the way the average British Columbian would say it. In other words, they would with withstand a constitutional challenge.

I understand all of that. But it doesn't get past the fact that setting up these regions based on numbers that may or may not exist anymore doesn't justify — again I will say it — a fairly arbitrary approach by simply setting aside 17 seats as proposed and saying: "This is okay, and we're going to preserve those, but the rest of British Columbia, whether it includes burgeoning Burnaby or the vital city of Vancouver or dear old Surrey…."

Interjection.

L. Krog: "Virtuous Victoria," my friend says. Virtuous Victoria — there's an interesting thought.

Nevertheless, there is a fundamental unfairness to this in restricting the commission's work by preserving the 17. And I come back to it. Surely it would do better for the commission to do its work, come back with a preliminary report, and then, with great respect, if it falls to the politicians once again, as it did before, at least we will be working with up-to-date information. Working with up-to-date information, a new commission would have looked at it with different eyes than the commission did previously and be able to recognize what problems exist today as opposed to what problems existed before as determined by the commission.

That is certainly a more problematic approach, and I
[ Page 3626 ]
would be the first to acknowledge it. But it is certainly arguably the fairer approach for the people to have their say in front of the commission, for the commission to do its work — with all the information and evidence available around population growth or, indeed, reductions in population in certain parts of the province — and to come back with its preliminary report and say: "Based on the legislation, considering the applicable case law, this is what we believe we have to do." At that point, the members of this chamber can wear it, so to speak.

[1640]

But, what's proposed now is that this commission is being sent out to do work that for the vast majority — indeed the almost unanimous view of British Columbians — is simply fundamentally unfair from the get-go.

You've had, as I said earlier, IntegrityBC, the major unions, all of the private submissions, the academics. The people have looked at this and have said: "You know what? This is just wrong. This is unfair."

Yet the government is insisting on plowing ahead with it, having thrown some legislative bone, if you will, to those who take issue with it, by way of offering up two more seats, two more for the rest of British Columbia, and saying: "You can chew on your two seats for a while, but we're going to preserve 17 electoral districts around the province." That's the fundamental unfairness of this — the restriction on the commission's work.

I think the real argument to be made here is that this act, small as it is, unduly and unfairly and unreasonably restricts the work of the Electoral Boundaries Commission, which is, by statute, by history and by precedent, supposed to be impartial and fair.

With respect to the boundaries as set out, or the regions, one of the questions that arises is: why not simply allow the commission to look at all of these 17 electoral districts as a whole? Why constrict them even further by separating them into these regions?

What's the rationale behind that approach, the approach in the legislation, as opposed to saying, "Well, we're going to do it regardless. We're going to preserve these electoral districts. We want these 17 electoral districts preserved," but separating them into regions and then giving further instructions within those regions? Why not just eliminate the regional approach? In other words, what's the rationale for the regional approach? Is there any rationale beyond simply the fact that the last commission several years ago looked at it in terms of these regions?

Hon. S. Anton: On the latter part of the comments and the specific question offered by the member opposite, in effect, the member opposite should remember that, in fact, the regions themselves, the boundaries between the regions themselves, can be adjusted. Because the three regions all border each other, in effect, the Boundaries Commission could actually make adjustments of the nature suggested by the member opposite. Certainly, the three regions are defined, and it's the general intention that those numbers should stay as the 17. But there can be adjustments between the regions as well.

The earlier point that the member opposite made, which is that we should let the commission make its changes right now…. I think this is his argument. Let the commission come up with what it comes up with, and then if we don't like it, the politicians at that point intervene. The Legislature at that point intervenes.

I think that is precisely when there can be accusations of political interference. It is much better to give a direction, a good set of directions, to the commission, as requested by the previous commission. Give them a good set of directions based on their own request, the previous commission's request for direction, based on the challenge of maintaining representation in these three regions of the province, based on the need for balance around the province.

It's my position, and the reason I support this bill — and that my government will be supporting this bill, I believe, I hope — that this does offer the best balance to the commission and lets them do their work with the kind of direction the previous commission requested.

[1645]

L. Krog: With great respect to the Attorney General, if the politicians are seen to interfere at the end stage of this process, so be it. That will be in an open forum and may well go against the views of the commission, which will represent — hopefully, if they've done their work well, and they general have, historically — the views of the people of British Columbia, who have taken their time to make submissions to the commission. It will go against, potentially, the work of the commission in looking at the figures around population and growth patterns and all of those things and considering all of the evidence. It will be the politicians attempting to go at it and having to face the consequences.

If not interfered with by way of this legislation, the process will have been at least seen to be a fair process, whereas right now British Columbians have said very clearly: "What you propose to do by way of directions to the commission is, in and of itself, unfair. We don't approve. We don't like it. We don't think this is fair or right. We don't think it will pass constitutional muster. We don't think there is really any precedent for legislation of this kind anywhere in the Dominion, and we don't believe it will pass a court challenge."

That's what the people of British Columbia…. That's what the opposition is saying. I must say — at the point of sounding tedious and repetitious, which is generally the way I like to perform in court, historically — that's what everyone is saying. You're setting off on a track that is simply wrong from the get-go, instead of allowing the commission to do its work, come back with something
[ Page 3627 ]
that then represents, hopefully, the wishes of the people or the interests of the voters. Then if we as politicians interfere with it, so be it. Let us be judged by it. Let us face the voters openly and fairly at that stage.

Right now what is being proposed is that a commission go out with restrictions and directions of an unprecedented nature that will only result, I believe and suggest, in the creation of boundaries that will create an even greater disparity between urban and rural seats and potentially lead to the creation of urban seats that are grossly above the 25 percent, where the commission will have to try and justify why that exceeds the 25 percent on the high side as opposed to what could be a significant number of rural constituencies that exceed the 25 percent deviation on the low side.

In other words, we'll end up with more constituencies under this proposed legislation that are seen as unfair than we would if we let the commission do its work.

I come back to it again. Has the government, in its wisdom, looking at all of the evidence available and evidence that might well end up in front of the commission, considered carefully what the effect of this legislation would be, for example, based on the voting numbers, voting patterns and population as existed at the time of the previous election?

In other words, have we done our homework and said: "All right, we're going to take the 85 seats or the 87 seats, plunk them back and protect them?" Is that result going to be worse off having regard to population growth than we were before? Are we indeed creating more uncertainty and unfairness this time around?

Hon. S. Anton: I'm confident that this gives the commission, the independent commission, the right tools it needs to strike the balance between urban and rural and between good representation for the citizens of British Columbia.

[1650]

L. Krog: The problem is: how can you strike a balance between urban and rural when you're setting aside 20 percent of the seats? How do the Attorney General and the government and the B.C. Liberals possibly justify a commission that is told from the start that 20 percent of the province's electoral districts — not necessarily 20 percent of the population and certainly not 20 percent of its geography — are somehow sacrosanct? How is that possibly going to produce a fair result from an independent commission when it is so hobbled by the directives of this legislation?

Apart from the fact that the Attorney General clings to the language of the previous commission around districts, how does she justify imposing this containment around 17 seats, 11 of which just happen to have elected Liberal members? How does she justify that?

Hon. S. Anton: The justification is, of course, that if these steps are not taken, it is almost certain that these regions would each lose a seat. That is a very good reason for giving this direction, as requested by the previous boundaries commission.

As to who the representatives are at the moment, I am confident that when the boundaries commission, if it's looking at this, or if a court is ever looking at it, and they look at the historical representation of these areas, they will conclude that there is absolutely no relationship to who's occupying the seats at the moment.

L. Krog: The Attorney General talks about what past commissions have said, urging direction, tension between growth and geography. But this isn't some happy club where all the members are unanimous. This is the B.C. Legislature, and the suggestion that somehow we're all going to be able to come to some collegial conclusion about what is reasonable and fair, with great respect to commissions, isn't exactly on.

Again, we come back to this problem. If we are in a position where rural seats are going to disappear and we as a Legislature say, "Absolutely not," so be it. We will deal with that issue. But right now what is being proposed is a restriction on the commission's work that avoids the problem, puts it off to another day, opens the legislation — presuming it's passed — to challenge and the work of the commission to a challenge, which will not provide any certainty for British Columbians and will not in any way guarantee any fairness.

Surely it is better and fairer that the commission itself be allowed to do its work. If it comes to the same conclusions, then let us make that decision here in this Legislature. If the commission's recommendations are X and we reluctantly have to support them, so be it. But it will be the commission's recommendations, an independent body.

[1655]

The way the whole act is structured is to ensure that an independent body — independent of the potentially petty concerns of members here to preserve their areas or their constituents or whatever motivation may be behind their decision — would be away from all of those issues.

You're asking an almost impossible task, I would suggest, of the commission. The commission now, under section 9, is directed as follows:

"In determining the area to be included in and in fixing the boundaries of proposed electoral districts, the commission must be governed by the following principles: (a) that the principle of representation by population be achieved, recognizing the imperatives imposed by geographical and demographic realities, the legacy of our history and the need to balance the community interests of the people of British Columbia; (b) to achieve that principle, the commission be permitted to deviate from a common statistical Provincial electoral quota by no more than 25%, plus or minus; (c) the commission be permitted to exceed the 25% deviation principle where it considers that very special circumstances exist."

That's the law of British Columbia today. Then Bill 2
[ Page 3628 ]
takes 17 electoral districts and adds the following subsection to section 9. What it says is:

"With respect to the Cariboo-Thompson Region, the Columbia-Kootenay Region and the North Region, the commission must be governed by the following additional principles…."

In other words, just in case no one is getting my point, with respect to certain people and parts of this province, different principles are going to apply to you. That's what the effect of the legislation is.

With respect to those regions,

"the commission must" — must, mandatory — "be governed by the following additional principles: (a) for the purpose of effective representation in the Legislative Assembly, each of these regions must not have the number of their electoral districts reduced from the number of electoral districts that currently exist for the region; (b) for the purposes of complying with paragraph (a) of this subsection, the commission may exceed the 25% deviation principle established by subsection (1) (b)."

Then it goes on to say:

"For certainty, for the purpose of making proposals under section 3 (2), the commission may propose (a) changing the names of electoral districts in the Cariboo-Thompson Region, the Columbia-Kootenay Region and the North Region, and (b) adjusting or changing the boundaries of electoral districts in the Cariboo-Thompson Region, the Columbia-Kootenay Region and the North Region, including, subject to the purpose set out in subsection (1.1) (a), boundaries of electoral districts that are regional boundaries."

So what we're doing here is saying: look, 20 percent of the seats in the B.C. Legislature get treated differently than the rest of British Columbia, away from the general principles of fairness established in the existing legislation.

Now, it's a worthy goal to try and preserve rural representation. Everyone in this House gets it. I was raised in Coombs, B.C. You don't have a name and be a place and be much smaller than Coombs, B.C. when I was raised there. I understand rural British Columbia, all right? I get it. I may represent one of the oldest constituencies — indeed, a constituency that's had a member in this chamber since Confederation. I understand that too.

But somewhere in between there, there is some kind of fairness that says: you can't treat 20 percent of British Columbia differently than you can the other 80 percent.

[1700]

If we were talking about legislation with respect to admission to school or university or the ability to, I don't know, be allowed to work in various areas of the province, we would be horrified by that prospect. But here we are with legislation that says: "These are the principles for British Columbia in general, but for 20 percent of the seats, well, you get something extra. You get protected."

Where does this legislation leave us in the next go-round, the next time there's a Boundaries Commission? Maybe, as the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head was joking earlier, all those jobs have materialized in rural British Columbia, and maybe it isn't a problem.

Assuming that, in fact, urban British Columbia has continued to grow — and I would suggest the growth and settlement patterns in this country for many decades now have demonstrated high urban growth and stagnant or declining rural populations — do we then say to the good citizens of Surrey or Vancouver or Burnaby: "It's going to get a lot worse, but that's because we have legislation that says 20 percent of the seats in this province are protected, and the rest of you get the leftovers"? That's going to be fair?

When you look at the mandatory nature of this section, which says the commission has to be governed by principles that apply only to 20 percent of the electoral districts, does the Attorney General think that is fair to the rest of British Columbia?

Hon. S. Anton: Well, the answer is yes. I do believe it's fair. In fact, I will go further than that. I'm confident that it's fair. The balancing that the Boundaries Commission will be asked to achieve….

By the way, the suggestion that we should intervene in the future rather than offering direction now, I think, puts the Legislature in a very difficult position. I think that what we are doing…. In fact, again, it's not "I think." I'm confident that what we are doing right now is exactly as we were requested by the previous commission.

It is exactly the right thing to do to give the commission direction now, not send them away and then come back later and try and tinker or change or whatever with what they've done because, actually, we should've given them the direction a year earlier.

The commission will be bound by section 9 and, in particular, section 1, which sets out some conditions which do bind and continue to direct the commission. In addition, the three regions are established, and they are given additional direction.

[1705]

This is indeed in response to the previous commission. It allows the flexibility and the balance which will allow the commission to come up, fairly and properly, with good divisions and good districts for British Columbia.

R. Fleming: I want to follow up on the questions that the member for Nanaimo has been asking. Just for the folks following along at home, he's been asking her questions about what meets the tests of fairness. We understand that this bill is extremely delicate, perhaps one of most delicate pieces of legislation that government can amend and change, because it's about electoral fairness.

The two options that are on the table are the minister's option, which is Bill 2, which will send the independent three-member panel out to British Columbia with a map that is — let's face it — distorted, because the conditions are so prescriptive.

To circle 17 ridings, 20 percent of the constituencies in B.C., and confine the panel to develop a map in the rest of the province on that basis, with that number of ridings being off-limits, means that the panel has to go into communities and take the flak for what is likely going to
[ Page 3629 ]
be a very odd-looking map.

It will erode the principle of balance between population growth, which has changed dramatically over the last 10 years, as my colleague has said, and the geographic lay of the land, the consideration the panel would have for having constituencies that are serviceable and not so unwieldy and large that an MLA's job becomes impossible.

It's for them to decide where the balance lies, and here we have government tipping the scale. She has quoted the commission, following their last iteration, as saying that they wish they would have more direction from the Legislature on how the process should unfold. The member for Nanaimo is correct. The commission believes that the Legislative Assembly is an ideal place where grownups put aside their partisan interests and talk about the issues that this bill ignores.

That's not what's happened here. We have something that was done by one side of the House, the government side of the House, laying a template of 17 ridings that they picked in consultation with nobody on this side of the House — not the opposition party, not the two independents. One side of the House put its partisan interests into developing a map that is to their benefit.

Let's be clear. We've talked about the arbitrariness. We've talked about how nonsensical much of the content of this bill is — which ridings are included and which ones aren't. This isn't about a clean urban-rural definition. We know that, because Kamloops is suddenly rural and all sorts of ridings are not rural — Powell River–Sunshine Coast.

That's option 1. That's the government's option that's available on this bill. That's what the commission would have to labour under, those kinds of conditions, in town hall meetings and consultations around B.C.

The second option, which is the better one, is to give no such instruction on the 17 ridings or give more fair directions on which constituencies ought to be considered unamendable because of size proportions, but let the independent panel go out and consult with British Columbians.

They understand their mandate. They understand the balance between population growth and geographic size. They will go out and do it without the taint of partisanship and over wieldy direction and intrusion into their mandate that this government is including in Bill 2.

Doesn't the minister see that it's the latter that is the fair process? It's the latter option that I've outlined that is the one that is transparent and untainted by partisan interests. It's the former option, the one that's contained in Bill 2, that is the one that will not pass the legitimacy test that citizens of British Columbia expect from their democracy.

[1710]

Hon. S. Anton: Well, I just fundamentally disagree with things the member opposite said — that the 17 ridings are off-limits. Of course they're not. The commission is given discretion to change the boundaries of those ridings and, indeed, to change the regional boundaries.

The draft bill has been public since November. The members opposite had ample opportunity for comment. Not only that, but the House Leader — the member from Abbotsford — and I met with members opposite over the last month or two to discuss this bill. So it's hardly…. I just completely reject the descriptions that the member for Victoria–Swan Lake is putting forward.

There was every effort made to do this in a collaborative approach. In the end, the members opposite have chosen not to agree with it. As I said, it's been public since November, and the white paper. There was plenty of opportunity for comment.

We do believe that this is a good balance struck to allow for appropriate representation in the three regions that are described and, indeed, in the rest of the province.

R. Fleming: Let me ask her a more succinct question, and that is: does she understand that if you freeze 17 seats, 20 percent of the constituencies in British Columbia, then conversely, you magnify the distortions and the amount of change to boundaries in the other 68 constituencies?

Because you are going to skew the population distribution by taking 20 percent of the seats and exempting them from consideration, you're going to fundamentally change, in urban areas in different parts of British Columbia, the amount of change that will be experienced by British Columbians living in the other 68 seats. That's how it works. That's what this intrusion into the mandate of the commission means. Does she get that?

Hon. S. Anton: I do believe I have answered these questions earlier today. The word "freeze" I completely disagree with. The commission, as I mentioned earlier, does have the ability to change boundaries.

I will repeat what I answered earlier, which is that the previous commission did request direction from the Legislature. That is what we are doing.

Thirdly, as I answered earlier, many of the districts have ample room to grow and still remain within their 25 percent deviation. I'll just name a couple of them, for instance. In Vancouver, my city, Vancouver–West End was exactly at the average the previous time, Vancouver–False Creek was below the average, and there are many that are just above the average. There's plenty…. That's just to give one example from one set of ridings.

I disagree with the propositions that the member opposite has raised, and I'm confident, as I said earlier, that the Boundaries Commission can come up with a good new electoral boundaries map for British Columbia prior to the next election.

L. Krog: In her remarks earlier I'm sure the Attorney General didn't mean to suggest that I was suggesting
[ Page 3630 ]
that we would do something or wanted to do something unfair in the future, when the commission's final report comes back to the Legislature.

[1715]

My point — and I want to emphasize this very carefully — is if the commission, in its deliberations, comes to a conclusion and this House doesn't think it's appropriate, even though it's the work of an independent commission doing its job and respecting court decisions, then we will bear the direct and easily identifiable responsibility as a Legislature or as political parties, depending on how any such vote would go. We will bear that responsibility. It will be open and apparent and obvious. That's what I'm suggesting to the Attorney General.

But starting this process with directions that apply only to 20 percent of the electoral districts of this province is fundamentally unfair from the get-go. We know that the court has ruled previously that the main consideration in drawing electoral boundaries must be population.

We understand that. But the court has commented, as well, that you can infringe on that: "The degree to which the infringement is related to the goal of meeting regional and geographic concerns was questionable. In some cases the existing borders clearly did this. But in too many cases grossly disproportionate riding populations could not be justified on the basis of regional and geographic factors either at all or in their extent."

That's why the case was decided the way it was. That case was commented on favourably. In the Saskatchewan case they recognized, reiterated Dixon, holding that the relative parity of voting power was a prime condition of effective representation. In other words, we understand and we all accept that it can't be perfect. You can't have ridings that have exactly the same number of folks in them, but you have to make a reasonable effort.

Our legislation — I'm not going to repeat and read through section 9 again — already includes a number of factors that the commission is entitled, legally, to look at and consider. But that's the commission's work.

It's not the job of this Legislature to change the rules for 20 percent of the people on the playing field, so to speak, or 20 percent of the electoral districts, and then pretend somehow that the commission, in meeting its statutory obligations under existing section 9, is going to be able to do its work fairly. That's the position of the opposition.

You are setting this commission off with directions that make it impossible for it to meet either legal tests, tests of fairness or, indeed, the statutory requirements and the principles that are enunciated already in section 9 of the existing Electoral Boundaries Commission Act.

That's the point of the opposition's questions. That's the point of our position today on the bill. That's the point of what we are trying to achieve here. We're saying we have to let this commission do its work and do it fairly. It must be independent, and it must be seen to be independent, and its recommendations have to be the result of an independent process.

If, in fact, the commission's recommendations, as proposed by this legislation, are a result of a process that is not seen to be fair, is seen to be unreasonable, is seen to be biased, then British Columbians are not going to respect the recommendations of the commission. They will have even less respect for the result of the election that will follow if, in fact, the work of the commission results from legislation that started off on the wrong foot. That's the position of the opposition.

I don't have further questions for the Attorney General. I think we're both at the stage where the positions are fairly clear, inasmuch as they can be clear in a debate of this nature. But it is apparent to me that if these are the directions the commission has, then the commission is going to have an extremely difficult time balancing principles enunciated for the whole of the population and then special principles enunciated for 20 percent of the population, or 20 percent of the electoral districts.

Section 2 approved.

On section 3.

[1720]

Hon. S. Anton: I move the amendment to section 3, under my name, printed in the orders of the day:

[SECTION 3, by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the underlined text as shown:

3 Section 10 (1) is amended by striking out "the number, which must not be less than 7985 nor more than 8587, and".]

On the amendment.

L. Krog: Speaking to the amendment on section 3, I simply want to state the position of the opposition that this is an amendment to a flawed bill that is not going to allow a commission to do its work. And whether it's two more seats or three more seats or 85 seats, when you restrict the ability of the commission, as has been done by the passage of section 2, the end result will not be boundaries that are fair, that will withstand a court challenge.

Amendment approved.

Section 3 as amended approved.

Sections 4 and 5 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. S. Anton: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved on division.

The committee rose at 5:22 p.m.
[ Page 3631 ]

The House resumed; Madame Speaker in the chair.

Reporting of Bills

BILL 2 — ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES
COMMISSION AMENDMENT ACT, 2014

Bill 2, Electoral Boundaries Commission Amendment Act, 2014, reported complete with amendments.

Madame Speaker: When shall the bill be considered as reported?

Hon. M. Polak: With leave, now.

Leave granted.

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 2 — ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES
COMMISSION AMENDMENT ACT, 2014

Bill 2, Electoral Boundaries Commission Amendment Act, 2014, read a third time and passed.

Hon. M. Polak: I call continued second reading debate on Bill 24.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 24 — AGRICULTURAL LAND
COMMISSION AMENDMENT ACT, 2014

(continued)

N. Macdonald: I'm not sure how much time I have left. I think about 20 minutes.

We're in the middle of a process where we're again debating Bill 24 and debating a piece of tremendously flawed legislation. We've just passed here Bill 2, which I think most will understand is inevitably going to be challenged in the courts as unconstitutional. It raises the question: what sort of work are we doing here as legislators when we pass bills like that? It is the same with this Bill 24. It is a deeply flawed piece of legislation.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

How do representatives from across the province come here and turn out work like this? That's a question I think each and every member needs to ask themselves. We are proud, I think, and rightly so, of the work we do in our offices. We have every reason to be proud of the civil service, which does tremendous work on behalf of all of us — and that we see, as legislators.

But our primary function is as legislators, as lawmakers, yet this process, in my nine years' experience, is incredibly flawed. We do not have real debate. We do not have real exchanges. We do not have MLAs looking at bills the way they should be looking at them.

[1725]

That last piece of legislation is going to the Supreme Court, like so many other bills from here have gone and have been found to be unconstitutional. That's the record of this government.

Now, the constitution is as basic as you can get for the rules, and when you are flawed to the extent that the courts say it's unconstitutional, you've got a problem.

Let's come to Bill 24 — again, another piece of legislation. Now, the tools that we have as opposition to a piece of legislation like this are familiar to us. We will extend the time and make it as difficult as possible for the government to move ahead in this direction, because it's the wrong way to go.

Let's divert for a second. I'll tell you a story. We've got time, because I think I'm going to have about three opportunities to speak for 30 minutes on this. Let's stop for a story here. I think it'll interest you.

I was walking along the Gorge today. I was coming from where I stay. At 6:30 in the morning I walked past an apartment. Suddenly there was somebody kicking at the window of the apartment, in the hallway. They were kicking out the glass. Well, that is, of course, a very odd behaviour. They kicked out the glass, and as I was standing there, from the second storey somebody was coming through the broken window. I yelled at them: "Stop. What are you doing?" There was glass exactly where he was going to sit to jump down. He jumped down, avoided cutting himself seriously and without breaking his leg and started to walk along the street with me.

I said: "I'm calling somebody to help you." This is clearly somebody who is not thinking rationally. So I called police, and I talked to them. Within two or three minutes the police were there. They dealt with the individual, clearly a complex individual to deal with. Let's be clear: this was a complex individual to deal with.

What I was struck with by that whole event this morning, as I was walking along thinking about what I was going to say here, was just how good the people who responded to that were at their job. The person I talked to on the phone, how calm they were and how competent they were. The police responded incredibly quickly and then dealt with a complex individual in such a calm way.

It reminded me that how society works best is when people are doing the things they're supposed to do to make it work and doing it with pride and doing it properly. That's part of what I want to bring here today.

We are supposed to be doing a job properly. This is the job that we primarily are elected to do. We are supposed to be here listening, debating and putting forward good legislation. I've been here nine years. I know how this works, but the experience this morning reminded me that if I accept that that's the best that this Legislature
[ Page 3632 ]
can do, then I am part of the problem. I am just buying into what happens here all the time, which is not really a debate, but it should be a debate.

Most of us have come from local government, and there are an awful lot of the MLAs that are new. They are just here. I'm sure that coming from, many of you, local government, you come here and wonder: "What is going on here? How come this is so different than the experience I had on councils, where we really debated things in a serious way and reached compromises and made decisions that we didn't always all agree on, but at least we reached decisions that for the most part seemed rational?"

The part that I think I have to play here — I haven't even dug into the notes that I have prepared — is that I just want to speak, especially to backbenchers. The Legislature, the legislative branch in our system includes the executive, but it doesn't have to be completely dominated by the executive. Individual MLAs here have the same vote and have the same opportunity to participate in lawmaking. I would invite you to take the time and actually look carefully at this legislation, which is deeply, deeply flawed.

[1730]

The legislation has implications for agriculture, a lot of serious negative implications for agriculture. In the various speeches that I have, the opportunities I have going forward, I'll talk about those. But everyone should understand that the motivation for this is actually real estate. This is real estate. That is the motivation, and that is the central flaw in this bill.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

Now, many of the members, the MLAs, have served in local government. They understand that some of the decisions they make in local government that have the biggest implications for the people that they represent have to do with zoning.

Zoning is a huge part of what local governments do, and with those zoning decisions there are implications not only for quality of life but also for the value of the property. If you make a certain zoning decision, you may increase the value of property tremendously or you may devalue adjoining properties. The zoning decision is important not only for quality of life but because it affects the value of property.

Think of the ALR for what it is, which is essentially a provincial zoning policy. It is essentially provincial zoning. Now think back to your local government experience, where elected officials are making decisions on zoning. There is recognition in laws from this Legislature that that zoning — decisions made by politicians — has to be watched carefully. Otherwise, there's going to be abuse. Because money can be made with changes in zoning, you have to put in place a structure that has some rigour.

In local government what is the rigour that is there? You have a requirement to inform the broader public about any changes. There is a requirement to put that in the newspaper to make sure that the public is aware that there is a zoning change that is going to happen. There is a requirement to do three readings. You can't just go in one public meeting and change the zoning. There is a requirement for public hearings.

There are all sorts of rules that are in place that give some rigour to changes in zoning in local government. Yet even with all of that, you still have, clearly, elements of developers being able to influence that local government decision. How do we know that? We know that because developers invest hugely in politicians at the local level.

If you look at Vancouver, you look at Surrey, you look at Kamloops — any of the big cities — who finances the civic parties? To a massive extent, you have developers. So even with all the rigour that is set out to make sure that there is not corruption on zoning, there is, nevertheless, huge interest by developers in terms of making sure they have people in that decision-making process that they've funded.

Let's look at this bill, and I would just invite members to look carefully at this bill. You have the ability to change zoning. You take agricultural land that is in the ALR, and you have the ability through the process that's laid out here to change it into land that can be used for a whole host of other uses. There's no question that you impact the value of the property when those decisions are made.

What is the rigour that is in place in this bill to make sure that there is not abuse of the system? There's none. This is a politically controlled panel, completely politically controlled, making decisions in a back room, with no requirements for notice, no requirements for openness, no requirements to make sure that it is going to be a process that is beyond abuse. That's the fact of it. It is open to abuse.

[1735]

Interjection.

N. Macdonald: The minister disagrees. Of course, you would. But it is, of course, open to abuse.

The minister can look to his own experience on local government, where there were in place all sorts of protections for political decisions made around zoning. Are those protections here in this bill? Can the minister point to those protections? He cannot. Inevitably, you are going to get abuse. There's no question, especially in zone 2, that those local panels will be chosen.

Now, if the government is clever…. I don't think they've been particularly clever in terms of what the member for Kootenay East has done in the past. But let's say they're clever. When they first choose the panel, maybe they'll choose one person that's actually a farmer. No requirement to. Maybe they'll throw one in so that they can say: "Look, that's a panel that's not just a group
[ Page 3633 ]
of government or B.C. Liberal appointees that are going to do whatever the government wants." Maybe put in one.

Maybe, if they're really smart, they'll have a legitimate panel that's for three years. They have, nevertheless, set up a system in which, at some point, you're going to end up with appointees that are going to understand what they're there to do, which is to do what they're asked to do.

Now, they're supposed to look at some criteria. Well, what's the criteria? How rigorous is the criteria? You look at, for zone 2, what that panel is supposed to look at in terms of deciding what a legitimate change in zoning is all about. What is not underneath that umbrella that is there in this bill? What on earth can you not do and describe it as economic or social or what the local government wants? What is not included there?

Is it completely subjective? Yeah, it's completely subjective. You have a politically appointed panel that gets to come in and make a decision without any requirements to have that decision in public, any requirements to post that you're going to make these changes, any rules in place at all.

If you can say, "Well, that's something economic," there's a reason. Or there's a social reason. There is even more than that. There can also be anything else the government decides after to put in as a reason. You've got this broad range of reasons. It is absolutely impossible for the public to say: "Hey, they should not have made that change."

You have political appointees controlled by somebody like the member for Kootenay East. You have a broad range of things that one can use to explain what is going on. And when you make this change in the zoning, you dramatically change the value of the land. It is absolutely designed for abuse.

That is why…. When I say that this House needs to do a better job, we do. How do we send these laws out the door? There's a certain inevitability about decisions that are made here and the outcomes that come.

I mean, we stand here in this House, and we have ministers going: "How are there possibly problems at mills? Like, how did that happen? How did two mills blow up? How did that happen? What a surprise."

Yet this government made decisions that almost inevitably led to those problems. You can go and look back. No rigour in terms of looking after safety issues — you cut staff that were supposed to do that. You set up a system that was designed to lead inevitably to problems. There was an inevitability about it.

There was an inevitability about the temporary foreign worker program. What did you think was going to happen? It was set up for abuse.

Deputy Speaker: Through the Chair please, Member.

N. Macdonald: Then, when abuse comes, all of a sudden we're surprised. We're going to get to the bottom of it. You set it up that way. That's exactly what's happening with this bill. It is set up for abuse. That's the fact of it.

It's not only our side that should be concerned about it. It's individual backbenchers on the government side. There's a way out of this that allows the minister to actually do, I think, what he actually wants. He was thrown into this. This isn't his bill.

[1740]

Just like Bill 2 was Kootenay East's bill, this is not his bill. It's Kootenay East. That's who's driving this. How in this world we got to the place where the member for Kootenay East is driving the provincial agenda, I do not know. I know I don't agree with it. I just wish…

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: The member for Columbia River–Revelstoke has the floor.

N. Macdonald: …there were some ministers or members on the government side that would start to raise some questions about where you're going with that, because you're ending up with all sorts of flawed legislation, all sorts of flawed direction. And as individuals, each and every one of you, just as each and every one of us in this House, has a responsibility to raise those questions and to make sure that they're proud of the work that comes out of here.

It was said by the member for Chilliwack that he's happy with the ALR in Chilliwack. Good for him, right? He's happy that the farmland is protected there. Then was….

Interjection.

N. Macdonald: Yeah, okay. We won't mention John Les and Chilliwack and the ALR. That's not what we do here.

You know, he was happy with the ALR and the work that was done to preserve farmland there but said that the pressure on land there was such that without the ALR, we would lose good farmland — insinuating that that same pressure did not take place in zone 2. But, of course, that pressure does take place in zone 2.

One of the wealthiest cities, if not the wealthiest city, in all of Canada is Calgary. The Columbia Valley, the areas that I represent, as well as the area that the member for Kootenay East represents — this is Calgary's backyard. This is Calgary's playground. This is where they come to buy recreational property, and they will pay top dollar — top dollar.

Where are the areas that they want for these recreational properties? They are areas that are in the agricultural land reserve, but they have no intention of farming it.

You know, the population of Invermere is four times
[ Page 3634 ]
greater once the Calgarians come in than if it's just the permanent population. That's the impact. I know the member for Shuswap knows this. Your whole business depends upon those Calgarians, and they go all the way to Salmon Arm in huge numbers — right? — in massive numbers.

That's the reality in our area. That land is under pressure. If you are able to get land out of the ALR, then you will make incredible amounts of money.

What do we know with the system we have in place? That 75 percent of the applications are approved. So we have a fairly robust system for getting land out as it stands. What else do we know? About 90 percent of the applications to take land out of the ALR come from developers, not farmers.

Well, what are you setting up when you put in place, in zone 2, a decision-making process that is likely going to be worth hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars, and you then connect that to a panel that is politically chosen? You know, I can almost name who Kootenay East is going to put on our panel. I can almost name them. I actually am pretty sure exactly who they're going to be, and I'm pretty sure exactly what sorts of decisions they're going to make.

So you've got the panel that's politically controlled. You have the money to be made. And then you have criteria for making those decisions that is as wide open as the gate on the barn. It is predictable what you are going to end up with, and yet we all…. We have members here that will still go along with that, with no protection — no protection.

What could you do? I only have a few minutes left. I'll tell you exactly what you do. You let this go for two weeks. It doesn't pass. The minister takes it away and brings it back in the fall, after he has done what always should have been done: proper consultation with a bill, his bill, that is thought through and not the mess that we have in front of us.

That's what should happen, and all it takes is…. If you don't want to do that here, you've got caucus tonight. You have that discussion. You tell the minister what you want. You stand up to the member for Kootenay East for once, and you put forward legislation. You can actually walk away from here with some sense that you've done the job that you're being paid for.

[1745]

You know, this morning I started out with a story of the police. There are people all over the place that make this province work because they do their job. That's all that I'm asking members to do here. Collectively, we have to do better than the rubbish that was Bill 2 and the rubbish that is Bill 24. If that's the best we can do, then that's a pretty sad indictment of members of this Legislature.

We have to do better. It's in everyone's hands. I know on this side we intend to take this bill and make sure that we fight it, because it's wrong. What I suggest is that you take the opportunity as legislators on the government side to do what always should have happened: proper consultation and thought-through legislation that is not going to lead to abuse.

I'll have an opportunity to talk more about this. Thank you for now.

G. Kyllo: I rise in the House today to speak in favour of Bill 24, the Agricultural Land Commission Amendment Act, 2014. This legislation will benefit agricultural producers, landowners and residents throughout the Shuswap and across this great province. Now is the time to recognize that updates to the ALR are necessary, and I commend our government and the Minister of Agriculture for bringing forward these commonsense changes to the ALR.

Let's be clear on some facts. Our government fully supports the independence of the ALC. We support the agricultural sector and the hard-working men and women who work in it.

When we proposed these changes to the agricultural land reserve, we went in knowing that we'll never achieve complete consensus on this issue. That is a given. But we are moving forward, making these effective changes to the system so that farmers can grow their businesses and earn a better living. We are working on ensuring that agricultural producers have a more modern and better land management system so their operations can continue to grow and thrive in our province.

The one-size-fits-all approach does not work, and changes need to be made. I fully support the efforts of my colleague the Minister of Agriculture for listening to British Columbians and making the amendments proposed yesterday in this House.

After hearing comments and letters from farmers, growers, ranchers and producers, many from the Shuswap, amendments were made to provide clarity and better direction for the bill. I appreciate the efforts of the minister to listen and review the comments of British Columbians throughout the province.

These amendments include: the ALC chair will have more flexibility….

Deputy Speaker: Member, actually the amendments are yet to be on the floor and therefore are not debatable at this point.

G. Kyllo: Thank you, hon. Speaker.

Through consultations with stakeholders like the B.C. Agricultural Council, we made it abundantly clear that this act will enforce the integrity and the independence of the ALC with the amendments proposed yesterday.

I'm speaking to this bill particularly because my constituency of the Shuswap is an agriculturally based constituency within zone 1. Without a growing and strong agricultural sector, our regional economy would certainly
[ Page 3635 ]
not be as prosperous as it is today. This sector employs thousands of residents and defines the beautiful rural landscape of the Shuswap.

We have one of the best climates in B.C., with hot summers, mild winters and rich soil to grow a diverse number of products, such as apples, peaches, berries and even vineyards for producing wine. Ranching, dairy and poultry producers are found throughout the region, including dairies and cheesemakers such as Armstrong Cheese. We also have D Dutchman Dairy in Sicamous, Farmcrest Foods in Salmon Arm and the Blue Goose cattle company in Grindrod.

The key to success of the agricultural sector in the Shuswap is the small producers and the operators owned by families. When taken as a whole, the small producers have a significant impact on the local economy.

As my colleague from Chilliwack-Hope mentioned yesterday, there are over 260,000 people employed in this sector, living and working on over 19,750 farms in communities throughout the province. These figures are worth mentioning, because in our B.C. jobs plan, agriculture and agrifoods play a key role in job creation, being a growing sector and an important keystone in our efforts to expand B.C. products for export to Asia and beyond.

By opening up markets internationally and supporting our agricultural industry to expand jobs, jobs will be created directly in this sector and indirectly in port facilities and in transportation. This is good news for our economy, this is good news for British Columbia, and indeed, this is good news for farm families and farming communities throughout the province.

[1750]

These amendments to the ALR are necessary to ensure that stability and economic balance are achieved for families and commercial farms. Our government is committed to the success of this sector. It is one of the largest economic contributors to our province, and it's a growth industry, as more and more people around the world come to appreciate the quality of B.C.'s agricultural products.

In my discussions with farmers and small businesses in the agricultural sector, as Parliamentary Secretary for the Jobs Plan, we are on the right track in proposing this legislation. The government has also heard many positive remarks from groups like the B.C. Cattlemen's Association, the B.C. Grain Producers and the Greenhouse Growers Association.

In the Shuswap tree fruits are an important agricultural export of the North Okanagan. Fred Steele, the president of the B.C. Fruit Growers Association, said the following in a news release on Bill 24: "The BCFGA understands that changes must be made to the ALR in order to provide sustainability and profitability for the tree fruit industry." Mr. Steele goes on to say: "We are prepared to engage in positive discussions with the province to ensure that regulations benefit the farm industry and protect farmland in B.C."

Contrary to the opposition attacks and the rhetoric, we are listening to the needs of British Columbians and the agriculture sector. Our government is engaged with producers, growers and stakeholders from the agricultural sector so we can find ways that we can grow their farming businesses, amending the rules which prevent growth and prosperity in this industry.

The fact is that three-quarters of farming operations in the province generate less than $50,000 of sales, and only 6 percent of B.C. farmers are under the age of 40. We need to start thinking of the future of this industry and make this sector more attractive for growth and investment for young people so that agriculture in this province can thrive for many more years to come.

Making it easier for farmers to operate a small business on their land and contribute to their income and their quality of life just makes sense. Already, over 25 percent of B.C. farm operators work off the farm for more than 40 hours a week, and 52.6 percent of all B.C. farms have an off-farm job or business.

The ALC currently uses existing regulations to help them guide their decisions in response to an application about a specific plot of land. For instance, under the existing regulations, the ALC can consider approving things like agritourism, breeding kennels or animal boarding facilities, telecommunications equipment, temporary sawmills and unpaved airstrips if it is satisfied that the purpose would be consistent with the act.

We want to increase the viability of the sector so that farming operations are thriving in all regions of our province. The amendments in the legislation go a long way towards making this possible.

Our government wants to see more agricultural producers in every region of the province. What was mentioned before is that the one-size-fits-all approach is unsustainable and unreasonable. By being flexible, applying specific applications and regulations to zone 2, we can not only grow this sector but increase production and increase the attractiveness for farming operators to establish within this zone.

However, to make it clear once again, any decisions regarding land use in zone 2 will ultimately be made by the independent Agricultural Land Commission in the region. In zone 1, which includes the Shuswap, the status quo will remain in place.

These amendments find balance. We're giving the ALC flexibility to consider other agricultural and non-agricultural uses in zone 2 if the ALC believes that they're appropriate. These amendments do not prescribe decisions, but they do provide the ALC the ability to give consideration to other uses.

I recognize the need to preserve the precious resource that is agricultural producing land. That remains our guiding viewpoint on this piece of legislation, and that is not going to change.
[ Page 3636 ]

Farming communities throughout my constituency depend on having a thriving agricultural sector. On this side of the House we have given our steadfast commitment to this important sector of our economy by growing markets for goods and products, helping to reduce costs by removing the tax on carbon for purple gas used in farming and by promoting Buy Local B.C. initiatives across the province.

We have also shown our commitment to supporting the mandate of the ALC by increasing funding year over year. This year alone the B.C. government is providing the ALC with close to $3.5 million in annual operating funding, an increase of $600,000 from 2013-2014. This is the second consecutive year the commission's budget has increased to support the ALC in providing better and more effective oversight of the ALR.

[1755]

To conclude, the amendments will continue to enact the powers of a fully independent ALC to make final decisions on specific land uses within the ALR. These necessary changes to the ALR will improve the agricultural sector, including addressing the need for local governments and regional districts to have the opportunity to engage with the ALC earlier in the land use planning process.

The ALC will be able to achieve its common goals of protecting farmlands, addressing the interests of farm families and allowing for responsible economic development opportunities when they believe it is appropriate, particularly in zone 2.

I'll be voting in favour of this legislation because, as members in this chamber, we need to serve the best interests of our province by protecting our growing economy, creating jobs and creating a prosperous future for the next generation of British Columbians. Agriculture plays a key role in our economic future, and I'm proud of the work our government has done so far to ensure agriculture continues to be strong and vibrant for many decades to come.

Deputy Speaker: I recognize the member for North Island. [Applause.]

C. Trevena: I thank my enthusiastic colleagues. We're still early on in this debate, and we know that this debate is going to go on for a while. So while we are still early in the debate, the House shows some enthusiasm in debating it.

I'd like to echo some of what my colleague from Columbia River–Revelstoke mentioned in part of his remarks about the essence of debate. I listened closely to what the member for Shuswap was talking about and really wanted to have some sort of discussion with him. But the format of this Legislature doesn't allow that.

I don't know whether people have watched the House of Commons in England, the Mother of all Parliaments. There you actually do have a debate. Somebody has the floor. An opposition member may have the floor. A government member may ask leave to basically join the debate. So they have a back-and-forth for a while, and it's in that person's time. So in my time I would be having a debate.

It doesn't work like that here, so I will make my remarks. I think the other thing — and I'll be commenting on this a little bit later…. One of the real problems with the bill is the fact that it is working through the very strange way that parliamentary democracy works in B.C., in which it is tabled by the government without much consultation. We have this opportunity for both sides of the House to give our views on the bill. It will go into a committee, where our very able critic for Agriculture, supported by others who are vested in agricultural issues, will be asking the new minister questions about the bill. And I'm sure they'll be very detailed questions.

It's not going to a broader committee. It will be going through this process, where the opposition critics will be asking the minister, and the minister will be advised by his staff. That is the committee process. It's not bringing in outside experts.

I think people sometimes look on us and think we're a bit like Ottawa in that we actually have a full working committee process, where we are bringing in people who have expertise — whether it's from the agricultural council, the cattlemen, soil growers — and they are actually participating. We don't do that here.

This bill, which is hugely significant for B.C., is…. The ALR, it would be fair to say, is part of our definition as a province. We are looked upon somewhat with awe, somewhat with envy, I think, by many other provinces for the fact that we had the foresight 40 years ago to create an Agricultural Land Commission to look to future, to think not just in the short term but really in the long term.

The fact is that we are going to be going through this very speedy process, effectively, in two weeks. In two weeks we're in our last week of this session. We have our break week, so by the end of the month this piece of legislation…. The government clearly wants to have it passed.

The minister, when he took over the portfolio…. Our sympathy goes out to his predecessor. We hope that he's doing very well. But when the minister took over the portfolio, he started talking about consultation and taking it out and making sure the people were engaged in what was happening here so that he really heard.

[1800]

On questioning by the opposition and in remarks in the media, we did find out that that consultation was more reading his public e-mail account, which is good. It's good to read your public e-mails and see what people are saying. But we had hoped for more.

We have seen successful consultation: the very thick, very detailed and very substantial Water Sustainability Act that the Minister of Environment brought to this
[ Page 3637 ]
House earlier on in the session. The very reason that we were not spending weeks debating every single line of it and going through and through — we gave it a substantial amount of time — is that bill, that piece of legislation, now an act, was about five years in the making. It had a thorough consultation.

It was seen as an important enough part of the evolution of our province that the government and the bureaucrats…. The government decided that instead of just pushing this one through and dealing with the slings and arrows of the critics, they would take it out publicly. So we didn't have…. On this side of the House we had concerns. You know, we had caveats, but on the whole we thought it was a job well done. It was an updated bill that was dealing with a much-needed piece of legislation that we could support.

Unfortunately, this bill…. It is an amendment; it's not drawing up a whole new Agricultural Land Reserve Act. It is an amendment. But these amendments, which so fundamentally change the way the agricultural land reserve works, should have been worthy of equal levels of consultation.

My colleague from Columbia River–Revelstoke, when he was talking through the Speaker to the back bench of the government and saying: "Tell the minister that this is not right…." I would say to the minister that he still has the opportunity to show leadership and to say to his cabinet colleagues and to his caucus that this isn't right — that we have the opportunity to go and have a broader consultation.

There has been enough opposition, not just from us, the opposition, and not just the e-mails from individuals who care passionately about the agricultural land reserve for whatever reason, whether they are farmers, environmentalists or people who care about food security. It's not just those people, not just people who are tuned in, but from the organizations who work on behalf of agriculture.

We've had the cattlemen. We've had the agricultural council. We've had so many organizations coming forward. Organizations with an interest in the best operation of the agricultural land reserve and the best operation of agriculture have come forward and said: "Don't do this. Let's talk." I think that there would be a real opportunity to just slow the process down.

That being said, one of the things that I find really shocking is that we can all look back to where we were a year ago. A year ago, we were all out knocking on doors and ringing bells and picking up the phones and calling people and convincing people that both our parties were the right ones to lead the province.

During that time I didn't hear any reference to a change from my opponent for the B.C. Liberals or in the greater rhetoric or in the government's platform. I never heard and nor did my constituents hear any mention of radical changes to the agricultural land reserve and the Agricultural Land Commission. Not one word was mentioned.

I can use other examples of what has transpired in this Legislature and transpired publicly since the election. We've had increases in hydro rates, which…. Obviously, you're not going to tell people: "Oh, vote for us. We'll jack up your hydro rates." We've had increase in Ferries fares. Again, "Vote for us, and we'll jack up your ferry fares" — those aren't winning arguments.

But to say to people, "Vote for us, and we're going to be looking at the agricultural land reserve," I think would have caught a lot of people's attention. You see how engaged they are now. It would have certainly caught a lot of people's attention.

I am extremely troubled by the fact that the government thinks that because it has won the mandate to govern, it has won the mandate to do everything.

[1805]

This is a significant piece of legislation that will have an impact on B.C. for years to come. Just less than a year ago, when we had an election, the people of B.C., those who came out to vote, had no idea that one of the significant steps of the government they voted in was going to be, effectively, the tearing up of a strong agricultural land reserve. I say "tearing up" because there has been and is an amendment — so we're not talking about a big bill; we're talking about a few pages — and in these few pages the fundamentals of the agricultural land reserve are changed.

The agricultural land reserve, when it was set up in the 1970s, saw the province as an entity, one entity. You weren't going to distinguish between, effectively, the north, as is happening now, or the Interior and the lush farming belt of the Fraser Valley, of the Cowichan Valley, of the Comox Valley or of the Okanagan, where we have now fruit and wineries. It was supposed to be an entity. The very fact that this bill splits that entity in two, making it two zones, is a move to the destruction of the agricultural land reserve.

The other part that is destructive to the agricultural land reserve is the change in the commission. Having the people appointed to the commission in the way that they're going to be appointed is going to effectively…. Again, I quote my colleague from Columbia River–Revelstoke: "It's about development." That's what this bill is about.

That is most likely why the government didn't have the courage…. And I think it is courage. If you've got something that you see as visionary, if the government could have sold it as, "We're going to fix the agricultural land reserve. We're going to make sure it works for the whole province. It's a visionary thing," you have the courage to go out and tell people.

But what we see here is: "Let's just bring it in quietly, quickly through the B.C. legislative system that we have here, where you can get a bill through very quickly. Let's just hope it will get through. Yes, people are going to com-
[ Page 3638 ]
plain, but it's not going to cause too much trouble for us. By the next election everybody will have forgotten about it, because they'll all be living with it. Our friends will have got the benefits from it, because they'll have been able to sell off what land they want, and we'll have the development." I think it really is extraordinarily worrying that the government had the arrogance to think that this is just fine.

I've had lots of e-mails. I'm not going to fill up my time quoting lots of e-mails, but I just wanted to quote from one of my constituents — Kathy Parton up in Sointula, a fishing family. She said:

"I'd like to see the agricultural land reserve kept in place, and maybe your government could review why it was created in the first place and why so many British Columbians want it kept in place. This is a big change to make without some direction from the residents of British Columbia, and I don't remember this being part of your election platform, so it seems underhanded.

"We don't have that much land in B.C. that's suitable for agriculture, so it's prudent to protect what agricultural land we do have. Please kill Bill 24 and protect our food security."

That's from Kathy Parton, one of my constituents in Sointula. As she says, it wasn't announced in the election and seems underhanded.

Mr. Speaker, you were around in the 2009 election. You might remember what happened after the 2009 election when things weren't mentioned in election platforms. We had a debacle that consumed, effectively, three years of the government's life, of the province's life, which was the HST.

Now we've got the ALR. Let's use all of the acronyms, the short forms. HST was not in anybody's lexicon before the election. After the election we end up with the HST. The ALR — not mentioned. After the election…. Okay. It's taken a little longer to get out in front of it. We did have that leak back last fall when we heard of very drastic changes to the ALR. There has been a bit of backtracking since then. The previous Agriculture Minister…. We saw correspondence that showed a significant attack on the ALR. That was the nearest we got.

[1810]

It is no wonder that people have little trust in this institution when we have an election, an election when we're supposed to be airing issues — supposed to be having a debate, talking about policy, talking about what it is that we want from our province, how we want our province to develop — yet something as significant as this is ignored, not mentioned.

This is significant, not just because of the history of the ALR but because it's set 40 years not just of protection but 40 years of framing what B.C. is about. B.C. is committed to protecting its agricultural land, protecting its future. I think at the moment that is particularly important — the fact that we are looking to the future. Forty years ago we could do it. We should be looking 40 years hence now, because a lot has changed in 40 years.

We all make the jokes about, you know, the cell phones. I remember carrying around a foot-long cell phone — no props — a 30-centimetre-long cell phone. They used to be big things. They used to be heavy. Now we have phones that can do everything. But I'm not talking about that sort of change. I'm talking about the very fundamental environmental changes we've been seeing in our world.

Forty years ago we were talking of…. We definitely weren't talking climate change. I'm just trying to remember. We had problems with the Great Lakes. We were aware of environmental issues. There's no question about that. We had that awareness, and that was one of the reasons why the ALR was formed — the awareness of that.

But we are now dealing seriously — and should be dealing seriously — with climate change. We should be looking at how we can both mitigate it and ensure that our own province and our own country are prepared to deal with this. Part of dealing with that is looking at food security, looking at what we have and how we can make sure that we're going to carry on being able to produce, because what we're seeing is a huge shift in the climate.

We all complain that the summer wasn't warm enough or that it was raining in June, but we can look at the science. There was another report that came out yesterday. We can look at the science. There is a huge change in the climate. We can look at the pictures of California, which is undergoing a severe drought. It's the driest winter in years. You can see photographs of lakes and reservoirs that were full a few years ago in the summer, and now in the middle of winter are mere puddles. We should be worried about this.

But we can do something about it. We can look at our land base and work on how we can protect it, maximize what we have. Rather than looking at it as a commodity that effectively, because of this division in the zones — the good zones and the bad zones…. Look at it as an entity, not as a commodity. "The bad zones we could sell off." We shouldn't be looking at it like that. This is a piece, our land. How are we going to protect it?

In some places the best they can deal with is the fact that they didn't get overpasses in their cities, that they didn't get six or eight highways into the downtown of their cities. Here in B.C. we've done so much better than that. Yes, we've got the sprawl.

I live in and represent the North Island. It's wonderfully empty there for many people. I go down to the Lower Mainland, and I see a sprawl. Twenty years ago going down to the Fraser Valley compared to now going down to the Fraser Valley — we've got a lot of people living there, but we still have the farmland. We have the farmland that we should be protecting.

It's not much to ask. In B.C. only 5 percent of our land base is in the ALR — 5 percent. It really is a minimal amount.

I represent North Island, Campbell River up to…. As my colleague was mentioning before when we were discussing Bill 2, which is going to be looking at electoral
[ Page 3639 ]
boundaries, my constituency actually does go right up to the edge of Tweedsmuir Park. We've got agricultural land there, we've got concerns about food security, and we've got farmers. We've actually got very good agricultural land. Much of it has trees on it at the moment. You look at the Comox Valley or the Cowichan Valley. Those, too, used to have trees.

There has been some soil sample testing done around Campbell River. It found that some of the soils around Campbell River are equivalent to the soils around Delta, and we know what good soils and the growing capacity they have around Delta.

[1815]

We have to be aware that this is a very, very small proportion of our land base that we're talking about — 5 percent.

I'd like to just quote Joan Sawicki, who used to sit in your chair and was very, very involved in setting up the ALR. She wrote recently, when this bill came out, and she voiced her concerns. There is a very interesting article by her, which I would suggest to members of the government side — particularly, again, those backbenchers who might want to talk to the minister a bit about it — and the minister himself. I'm sure he's read it. It's a very interesting piece that was in the Times Colonist back at the beginning of April, April 8.

What Ms. Sawicki says is: "Unlike other kinds of zoning, the ALR was always envisioned as a permanent zone, not a zone of convenience. Its vision is long term — to keep the options open for future food production. Eighty-five percent of our best agricultural lands are within the proposed zone 2, where they will be less protected."

That's 85 percent of 5 percent of our land base. Again, we're not talking a huge amount, but we're talking about the need to protect long term into the future. We need to be starting to show that we have a vision for those grandchildren and great-grandchildren, for the future of our province, not just for what we can do now. It doesn't take much, really, for people to start getting concerned when you look at zone 2.

What we did hear a lot in the election campaign, obviously, was that everything, the whole future of British Columbia, was going to be based on this El Dorado of LNG, of liquefied natural gas. We were all going to find hundreds of thousands of jobs and huge wealth, and we know where that is. That's in zone 2. So necessarily, there is that sort of concern.

I think that we should also be aware that it isn't just a matter of drawing boundaries and drawing lines and saying: "This good, this bad." It is a matter of really putting your money where your mouth is and ensuring not just that the zoning is right, that it is one zone, but then that there is investment both in the Agricultural Land Commission and in the Ministry of Agriculture budget.

From 2002 to 2010 the ALC budget went down by almost $1 million, by $800,000. That's a lot of money for a small commission. But I think, more significantly, is that in 2009, when we were obviously dealing with the HST — the other hidden post-election package, that little surprise — the Minister of Agriculture's budget went down by 25 percent. The Minister of Agriculture's budget was cut by a quarter.

In some ways, I guess, we shouldn't be so surprised that this is happening now. A government that at one stage was purporting to be the visionaries for climate change, that was purporting to be saying that they were leading the way, at that time were also cutting the budget to the Ministry of Agriculture.

Food sustainability, food self-sufficiency, is extraordinarily important. It's extraordinarily important for us as a province. It's extraordinarily important for us, as a province, as a commodity, as part of our economy. We need to make sure that we have that ability to sustain ourselves as we see the increasing impacts of climate change.

We know we have a very good farm economy that could be so much better. We hear about produce being shipped to China, and we have wines that are getting increasing renown, and so on, but it could be so much better.

As I continue my remarks, I hope to have time to talk about some of the farmers who I've been talking to. I've been having lots of chats with farmers over the last few weeks. It's interesting. This has raised such emotion, as I say, from individuals in communities to the small farmers to the big farmers.

[1820]

What they're telling me…. It's very interesting. It's not only that we have to protect the agricultural land reserve and the Agricultural Land Commission, protect its independence and make sure that the Agricultural Land Commission is working independently and the agricultural land reserve is preserved, but we have to find ways of helping farmers, helping the small farmers, helping those who have just a few acres. There are those farmers who have a few acres and want to get their products to different markets.

There are the larger farmers, who are trying to deal with the large chains of stores, whether it's Thrifty's or Sobeys, now, on the Island — Thrifty's is now owned by Sobeys — or whether it's dealing with Save-On. You know, you have a producer who is working in particularly, it seems to be, a small environment and who is trying to always meet what the buyers are asking for from the big stores. They're looking for some support too.

Instead of bringing forward a bill like this that is going to seriously erode, if not destroy, what we have worked so hard to develop over the last 40 years and worked so hard for the people of the province, we could have been looking at how to make life work better for farmers and work better for those who want to farm.

I mean, I was talking to one young farmer who is work-
[ Page 3640 ]
ing on a basically small holding. He'd love to be able to buy land. He just can't afford it. We should be looking at how to get those young people, the young farmers who want to be able to have access to agricultural land, to be able to buy it.

What you do see in that 5 percent that is ALR…. You can actually look. I've quoted here that the gorgeous Cowichan Valley and other places…. You do see a lot of people who come in and buy ALR land, and they're not farming it. They either have a hobby farm or they have some horses or they just have bought the land. They clear a place. They put their house on it. If you're lucky, they'll clear enough and have their own garden, but often it's not that. They just bought the land because they can afford it, and it's their rural retreat.

I'm not criticizing the fact that people want rural retreats. I have many constituents who want their rural retreats and live in a rural area on their ten acres of ALR. But we could be looking at how to make the ALR more productive, rather than how we can erode it.

I think this is one of the real problems of this bill. It's not looking at the possibilities. It's not looking at what we need to be doing for the future for our food security nor for our environment. It seems like this is sort of like we've got to…. Let's deal with this because we….

I don't want to be cynical, but is it just because of LNG? Is it just because of gas development? Is it just because it's going to make some people rich? I would hope not, but I can't see any other reason why we are faced with this bill.

As I mentioned, in Campbell River we have ALR. We have 5,000 hectares of land in the ALR, only 0.4 percent of which is developed. I mean, there's a huge possibility there. So why are we not looking to the future rather than working on the dismantling?

I know that my time is coming to a close. I just wanted to quote from Ronald Wright's A Short History of Progress — excellent Massey Lectures. It really is. He lives on Saltspring Island. Fascinating and very interesting discussions with him, but fascinating lectures.

This is the section called "The Rebellion of the Tools." I'm not going to even try to emulate how he read it in the Massey Lectures. He writes:

"Civilization is an experiment, a very recent way of life in the human career, and it has a habit of walking into what I am calling 'progress traps.' A small village on good land beside a river is a good idea, but when the village grows into a city and paves over the good land, it becomes a bad idea. While prevention might have been easy, a cure may be impossible. A city isn't easily moved.

[1825]

"This human inability to foresee, or to watch out for, long-range consequences may be inherent to our kind, shaped by the millions of years when we lived from hand to mouth by hunting and gathering. It may also be little more than a mix of inertia, greed and foolishness encouraged by the shape of the social pyramid.

"The concentration of power at the top of the large-scale societies gives the elite a vested interest in the status quo. They continue to prosper in darkening times, long after the environment and general populace begin to suffer."

Well, I think that what Mr. Wright has written is very prescient, and I fear that that is what we're seeing here — that it is an elite that is looking at favouring its friends, favouring industry, over the real needs of our society. We should be able to look around ourselves and question what we have done.

As I say, we have the Fraser Valley — lots of good farmland there, lots of building in the Fraser Valley. We have areas where we still can develop but areas where we should be developing farming, areas where we should be developing agriculture — not areas where we should be exploiting it.

I'm going to oppose this bill, and I would urge the government also to oppose this bill.

D. Barnett: Today I am pleased and honoured to be standing in this House to support Bill 24. Bill 24 will see the establishment of two zones — zone 1 for the Island, Okanagan and Lower Mainland and zone 2 for the Kootenay, Cariboo, the Interior and the north.

The existing ALR legislation is 40 years old. Changes have been asked for by local governments and landowners in my riding for years.

As a young child, I was raised in Richmond when it was true agricultural land and farms. I understand agricultural land. I understand the need for land to be in the ALR, but it must be land that is productive.

During my many years in local government I saw many applications from people to remove land from the ALR for purposes that would improve their quality of life, that would help the ranchers stay on the farm and help young people move forward. I saw these types of applications go to local governments, be approved by local governments and be rejected by the Agricultural Land Commission.

Soil, Nos. 6 and 7; no water; rock. You couldn't grow a weed on it. This is the type of land that we are talking about. We are not talking about removing good agricultural land. The Agricultural Land Commission will continue to operate independently, whether the opposition believes it or not. Fertile lands will remain protected, and regional panels will play a key role.

We hear from time to time that "too often government sits in Victoria and makes decisions for all our ridings." This is an opportunity for people with agriculture experience, people that care and understand the land in their regions, to help make decisions — local people, local boards, with knowledge.

The opposition says no, but local people say yes. I am amazed at how consumers will say: "No change to ALR resource…."

Interjection.

D. Barnett: Are you done? Thank you.

Consumers will say, "No change to the ALR" — those people that live on a quarter acre or less and don't under-
[ Page 3641 ]
stand the differences in land in this province, the differences in topography, the differences in geography. You try and grow something at 3,500 feet above elevation on a piece of rock that you may have two months a year with no frost.

[1830]

N. Simons: Where is that?

D. Barnett: That is in the Cariboo-Chilcotin.

N. Simons: I'm sure it's the only place there, eh?

D. Barnett: Do you not understand this? You know….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Proceed.

D. Barnett: The members opposite do not understand that people are tired of doing things the same and expecting different results. And you know, fearmongering is not the answer for this bill. This is a good bill.

I'm going to read you a letter from one of my constituents, and please listen carefully.

"We are writing this letter in support of Bill 24. We believe that restructuring the ALR into two provincial zones is an excellent idea, and we also agree with using local boards to assess applications. It makes far more sense to have people familiar with an area be part of the decision-making process.

"We are third-generation ranchers in the South Cariboo and remember very well when the Agriculture Minister, Dave Stupich, announced the agricultural land freeze in 1973. We were at the Kamloops Bull Sale banquet, and he was the guest speaker that night. Everyone there felt they had woke up that morning in a free enterprise system and by supper it had all changed to a socialist system. We were all furious. There was absolutely no consultation.

"We have said for years that our part of the province cannot be compared to the Fraser Valley, Okanagan or Vancouver Island. The land in the Cariboo-Chilcotin grows grass. We have a short growing season with limited frost-free days because of high elevations. Our land is best suited for grazing livestock and growing a crop of hay.

"Over the years much of the good croplands down in the Lower Mainland and in the Okanagan have been taken out of the reserve for developments, golf courses and such. But the ALC is always quick to point out that the agricultural land inventory of the province has been maintained. That is because marginal land located in high-elevation parts of province is being put into the ALR, while land located in the lower-elevation areas with the best soils and climates is to be taken out. It is just a smokescreen.

"The past several years have been tedious ones for beef producers. Many have given up and sold their herds. We have hung on, but it has not been easy. By being given the opportunity to subdivide off unusable or non-arable acres from holdings and perhaps build a business or sell some land, a producer could then stay on his place longer and make improvements to the land that has good agricultural potential. This could also help aging producers give their children a better chance to afford taking these ranches over.

"There is considerable investment on these ranches, and it really irritates us that there are people out there who keep insisting the agricultural land of B.C. belongs to the people of the province. It doesn't. It belongs to the producers and farmers who have paid the mortgage and have put their blood, sweat and tears into these places all their lives.

"We are sick to death that every person out there tells us what we can and cannot do on our property. Cattle seem to bring out the worst in people. If anything, we need some teeth put back into the Livestock Act and some loosening of other cumbersome rules and regulations to help us be able to continue.

"The areas of the province that the government has proposed as zone 2 have far different climates than the designated milder zone 1 areas. We are lucky in our area of the Cariboo if we get two consecutive months of frost-free days. By November it is dark shortly after 4 p.m.

"Those who think it makes sense that farming in the future may move to the northern part of the province because the land base in the Lower Mainland will continue to be under development pressure are living in a dream.

[1835]

"Who is going to be able to afford heating and lighting greenhouses to grow tomatoes and other warm-weather vegetables in areas of high elevation where there are feet of snow and temperatures in the minus 20 to minus 40 range for months on end? Further, who will be able to buy that tomato?

"Everyone seems to have some opinion on what those on the land should or shouldn't do. Most of those people have no expertise. They are caught up in the romanticism of the ALR and the idea of homegrown products. They want us to be held in a land freeze but don't want us to be able to make a decent living of it. They want to watch the grass grow, but they don't want anything to eat it. We have to be able to utilize our assets to make a living.

"We applaud the government for having the courage to recognize that some changes need to be made in parts of the province in order for those of us that are left on the land to survive. Thank you for consideration of our comments.

"Yours very truly,

"Norman and Diane Wood of Lac la Hache."

I have another one here that I'm going to read too. This is to the Minister of Agriculture.

"This is a letter of support for the recent changes to the ALR zones in B.C. My family ranch is located in 100 Mile House and is, in fact, the land the town was built on as my grandfather, the Marquess of Exeter, purchased the ranch, Bridge Creek Estate, in 1912. My father, Lord Martin Cecil, ran the ranch until his death in 1988. My brother and I took over the ranch and subsequently divided it into two in 1995.

"Currently I run my family ranch, 100 Mile Ranch Ltd., and find it is not always an easy task to make ends meet in the ranching haying business, let alone actually make some money. Over the years, 102 of them, we have tried to diversify and tried new business areas within the ALR restrictions and have found we could not pursue many of them.

"Believe me when I say a ranch, farm, must diversify if they are to make it in this day and age in the interior of B.C. Working with the ALC over various issues over the years has sometimes been a lesson in frustration.

"If anyone was to make a go of it on some parcels of land agriculturally, it would have been my family. But the fact is that some parcels are simply not productive agriculturally in any way. My family has many ideas of things we can do to keep my ranch in our family — maybe for another 100 years.

"So I support this bill and congratulate the minister for bringing it forward."

I would now like to read you a press release from the B.C. Agriculture Council:

"Reaction to controversial Bill 24 amendments" — and that's what it says — May 6.

"Agriculture Minister Norm Letnick revealed the results of his intensive…"
[ Page 3642 ]

Deputy Speaker: The member will refrain from….

D. Barnett: I'm sorry. Scrap his name.

"…although brief, provincewide agricultural land reserve consultation by announcing formal amendments to Bill 24 this afternoon.

"The British Columbia Ag Council chair...reacted to the proposed amendments today, calling them 'a step forward, reflective of the new minister's recent efforts on behalf of agriculture.' BCAC directors and membership played a key role in the consultation process that led up to today's announcement.

"'The BCAC-ALR steering committee was directly involved in the amendments made to Bill 24,' the chair said. 'Unfortunately, we didn't get everything we asked for.'" BCAC remains firmly opposed to the ALR two zones.

Interjections.

D. Barnett: Are you listening? Listen. Don't miss it.

"'BCAC supports a one-zone system that provides reasonable opportunities for regional representatives to consider community need. We put forth this request, but government is moving forward with the proposed two-zone system.

[1840]

"In addition to securing amendments to Bill 24, the council, representing approximately 14,000 B.C. farmers and ranchers, negotiated two significant commitments from government.

"'The Minister has committed to directly engage BCAC in the development of regulations and practices for Bill 24. He has also committed to formally engage a working group of B.C. farmers and ranchers to explore the feasibility and implications of adopting an overall net benefit to agriculture...ALR policy,' the chair said.

"'BCAC has always been committed to preserving agricultural land, but we are also committed to preserving farmers. If enjoying locally grown and raised goods is truly important to British Columbians, we need to find ways to support economically sustainable farming and attract youth into agriculture,' concluded the chair."

Interjections.

D. Barnett: Yes. Read the letter. You didn't read my lips when I was reading.

This is not something that we should be laughing about. This is something that is very serious to this side of the House and is very serious to myself and the people of the Cariboo-Chilcotin. We have been consulting for the last 40 years that I know of, trying to move forward.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members, the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin has the floor.

D. Barnett: You know, I find it very, very interesting that a member of the opposition, a few minutes ago, said we had to look to the future. This is exactly what this bill is about. It's looking to the future. It's protecting agricultural lands, and it's helping those on land that is not agricultural to survive and move forward — maybe a five-acre parcel for a young person off the corner of a ranch, so he can get a mortgage and help his mom and dad live on that ranch for the rest of their working days. There are opportunities that we've been asking for, for years.

I'll give you an example of a rejection that just happened from the Agricultural Land Commission in my riding. I have a rancher with 300 or 400 acres on this side of the road. There's the road, and he has ten acres on the other side with a house. He applied to take that out so that he could improve his ranching land on the other side of the road, build his wife a new house, sell back and stay there and have a good working ranch and make some money so that he could live there. Rejected.

This story goes on and on. People with gullies who would like to do something with it, but we can't do it because it is in the agricultural land reserve.

This is about moving forward, not moving backward. This is about protecting good agricultural land. This is about having local people on boards and panels making good, solid decisions for the betterment of the land and the people that own the land. Let's move forward. Let's get this job done and help both agriculture and the citizens of British Columbia.

D. Eby: I rise to oppose this bill, with my colleagues, to speak about the problems with it and encourage the government to adopt some measures to back away from this plan and to engage in consultation with the communities that will be affected.

I think it's helpful to start, because it's easy to get distracted by some of the things we've heard about, with what's actually on the table here. This bill proposes to remove agricultural protection as the key consideration for 90 percent of ALR land — 90 percent.

[1845]

Interjections.

D. Eby: Yes, all of zone 2. That's correct.

Preserving agricultural land and farming will be only one of a series of factors the commission members must consider. It's no longer the primary consideration. That only remains in zone 1. So 90 percent of the ALR land.

The second thing this bill proposes to do is to create regional panels, and that seems, on its face, to be a neutral initiative. I look forward to bringing to the attention of the members opposite research from people who have dedicated their lives to looking at this issue, around regional issues.

Then the last piece is: the bill proposes to remove key markers of independence for the commission. So in law and administrative law….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: The member for Vancouver–Point
[ Page 3643 ]
Grey has the floor, please.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members, the member for Vancouver–Point Grey has the floor.

D. Eby: It proposes to remove key markers of independence for the commission. In law and administrative law you look at the independence of a commission. Do they have the ability to appoint their own members? Do they have the ability to set their own priorities? This bill proposes to remove those key markers of independence.

I heard a member opposite ask: "Well, how much farmland is in your constituency?" He's right. I live in an urban constituency. But I think that the critical piece, for the member opposite who raised that question, seeming to suggest that people in urban communities have nothing to say about farmland…. There's actually a very direct connection, which I'd like to bring forward to this House, to the economy in British Columbia and the importance of farmland.

There is a revolution happening across this province around local food. It's a huge deal. I'm going to start by talking about farmers markets and the impact that they've had on the economy. I'm going to talk about local food in restaurants that attract tourists from around the world, and I'm going to talk about the academic research that shows that this bill is headed in the completely wrong direction.

The story in my constituency, in my urban constituency, and why I rise to oppose this bill, why I believe it's a priority, is not just for the fact that people in my constituency enjoy local food but also because it's a huge economic driver in Vancouver. And it's a priority from that perspective as well.

The farmers market story starts in 1994. It's hard to imagine a time when this was the reality, but there was no farmers market in Vancouver. At that time a group of people got together and said: "We'd really like to have access to local produce at a farmers market." There were 15 people who got together and said: "This would be a great thing to do."

When they tried to go ahead and do this — and this was only 1994; this wasn't a long time ago, right? — the procedure that they tried to engage in to find a location for the farmers market was soon met with a huge barrier. The city of Vancouver had rules that made it illegal to sell fruits and vegetables off the back of trucks. There was no area in the city that was zoned to accommodate a market.

So they had to form a lobby. They had to go to city council and lobby city council to get local food sold in the city. It took them a long time. It was difficult to do, but they persevered and got a location — the Croatian Cultural Centre.

It was only one week before opening day when they got a very limited concession from city council that they could sell fruits and vegetables, and that's it. They weren't going to allow this farmers market group to poison the community with local eggs and cheese and meat. It was halfway through the first season before they were eventually permitted to sell those products.

So 500 people showed up on the first day in 1995, and it ran for 11 weeks. The economic impact was $40,000 in sales.

That was in recent memory that that took place in Vancouver. In the second year the farmers market struggled about location. In the third year a market started in Coquitlam in response to the success of the farmers market. In the fourth year — this is just four years after the first farmers market was established — total sales of $414,000 by 1998, a new market established in the West End, and then another market in East Vancouver.

[1850]

Let me tell you about the impact of these farmers markets on the economy, even just in the city of Vancouver, for the farmers who are able to attend and sell British Columbia products there.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members. Members, I'll remind you that the member for Vancouver–Point Grey has the floor, and the Speaker would like to hear him.

D. Eby: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The market now has eight locations. They opened two new locations this year. The mission is critical: "To foster community health and local economic development through the creation of a venue where community members have greater access to safe, healthy, locally produced and environmentally friendly food and where B.C. producers can market their goods directly to urban consumers."

I hear my friends across the way mocking farmers markets — that this is just Vancouver. This is just zone 1. This is just zone 1 lifestyles. Right? Well, in fact, let me tell my friends across the way that this is a provincial phenomenon. Cities across the province have these farmers markets that rely on access to local food coming from across the province.

Here are some statistics for my friends, to enlighten them. Clearly, they are not aware. A survey of over 9,800 people…. In case my friends across the way wish to look this up, a survey of over 9,800 people at — how many markets? — 33 markets across the province found over half of the visitors shopped there at least two to three times a month. At the highly popular Squamish Farmers Market…. It started six years ago, very small — just 12 vendors. Now they're full. They've got 62 vendors, and they have a waiting list.
[ Page 3644 ]

The impact across B.C. of farmers markets was greater than $170 million, a 147 percent increase from the results of a similar study done in just 2006. Total direct sales: $46 million higher, to a total of $113 million. The study found…. It was asking people across the province: "Why are you coming to a farmers market?" The five most important factors: nutritional content, whether it is grown or produced in B.C., whether it is in season, grown or produced locally and animal welfare issues. Those are the priorities of people going to farmers markets across the province.

Now, the research has shown a 62 percent increase in the number of markets. Here's the punchline, the concern. It's that the people researching these markets are concerned about a shortage of vendors and competition for vendors. The researchers said: "The sharp growth in the number of markets could make it difficult for smaller markets and smaller centres, including in the north, losing vendors going elsewhere."

They said that many people are concerned about conventional food systems, and they like eating locally, across the province. "Farmers markets are the most visible and accessible venue to accessing local food." He said the trend bodes well for B.C.'s farmland. "As demand for local food increases, it places more importance on the protection of the agricultural land base."

That's the connection between economic prosperity across the province: the development of an industry now worth over $170 million to the province and that just started in 1994 and relies on, across the province, access for local food — because that's what local consumers are looking for. That is what this bill is putting at risk.

It's not just farmers markets. It is also restaurants across the province. In my constituency you may have heard of a celebrity chef. His name is John Bishop. He wrote some very important words about the connection, for him, between what he does and the agricultural land reserve. He wrote a book called Fresh. In the introduction to that book he said:

"Fresh has been inspired by my friendship with Gary and Naty King, a local couple who have farmed organically on a 4½ acre plot of land in Hazelmere valley, just one hour south of Vancouver, for more than 20 years. When I first met the Kings about 14 years ago, introduced by my chef Dennis Green, I was able to see and taste firsthand the incredible array of vegetables they grow.

[1855]

"The flavour and quality of this produce, grown without the use of chemicals or pesticides, was far superior to what we had been buying for Bishop's to that point, and I was hooked. Little did I realize what an impact that first brief meeting would have on my outlook and on my restaurant.

"Visiting Hazelmere Organic Farms changed my whole way of thinking about sourcing locally grown produce. More than ever before, I realized the importance of knowing where the food we consume comes from. Chefs are very busy people, with little time to visit their suppliers personally to see what is available, fresh and in season. In the past I, like other chefs, would get on the telephone and place my orders with wholesalers who would provide ready-peeled vegetables, premade salads, even cleaning fluids and paper products. Everything arrived in one convenient delivery. The problem with this system is that I had no real idea where the produce was coming from, who had grown it and how far it had travelled."

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

"Today, at Bishop's, we know all the growers and the farmers who provide our food. Our menus are in harmony with the seasons, and much of the produce is grown in the Hazelmere valley, which is rich with clean water, abundant sunshine and, most of all, fertile soils."

These chefs across the province who are buying locally — zone 1 and zone 2 — are leading a local food revolution that this bill directly threatens.

Hon. Speaker, just noting the hour, I would love to pick this up. I'd like to reserve my place in the debate and continue the debate at the earliest opportunity.

D. Eby moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

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

Hon. T. Lake moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 6:57 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
JOBS, TOURISM AND SKILLS TRAINING

(continued)

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

The committee met at 2:57 p.m.

On Vote 30: ministry operations, $183,688,000 (continued).

H. Bains: Today we will move right into WorkSafe. The time is very limited, as I was told by the House Leader, so I will try to get through some of the areas of WorkSafe as quickly as possible.

If the minister could advise the House about the previous…. Mr. Anderson, the president and CEO of WorkSafe B.C. — was he terminated, or did he retire?
[ Page 3645 ]

Hon. S. Bond: No, in fact Mr. Anderson remains at WorkSafe B.C. He has indicated his intention to retire. That is fairly imminent. Mr. Anderson had indicated to the board sometime ago that he was planning to retire, and that is indeed what is taking place.

H. Bains: Is he conducting as he was prior to the announcement in the media that he has left the board? What were the reports about? Where did the reports come from? Is he still in charge of WorkSafe B.C. as he was, say, four months ago?

Hon. S. Bond: I think that the intention of Mr. Anderson to leave the employ of WorkSafe on his retirement was made public. He continues to work in a number of areas in WorkSafe B.C.

What has changed is the fact that I asked WorkSafe B.C., the board, to appoint Gord Macatee to particularly look at the issue of sawmill safety, looking at the whole circumstance around what happened in Lakeland and Babine. Gord Macatee is conducting that work. The staff and board will be dealing with Mr. Macatee on those files. But Mr. Anderson is in the process of completing his work and then retiring, as he said that he would.

H. Bains: So who is in charge of WorkSafe B.C. today?

Hon. S. Bond: There continues to be a board at WorkSafe B.C. which is actually responsible for the oversight of what is an independent organization. I'm sure the member is well aware of that.

[1500]

David Anderson continues to complete his role, which is exactly what he said he would do, and Gord Macatee has been appointed to look at a very specific set of circumstances within the organization.

H. Bains: Just to make sure: Mr. Anderson is going to work, as he did a few months ago, and he conducts his business as he did before? If that's correct, the minister could acknowledge that.

Also, the announcement was made by Mr. Morfitt that Mr. Anderson will be retiring as of June 30. Is that the date still?

Hon. S. Bond: That is the date of Mr. Anderson's retirement. As I said, he continues to hold the role that he held previously. What I did in response to what was the most recent decision concerning Lakeland was request that the board appoint Gord Macatee to deal with the issues specifically related to sawmill safety and to the Lakeland and Babine investigations. That is currently the work that he is doing.

H. Bains: Does that mean, then…? If Mr. Anderson retires on June 30, as is announced, is he entitled to any severance pay?

Hon. S. Bond: No. He's retiring.

H. Bains: Now let me move on to some of the other questions about the executive. I just want to make sure. Sometimes these questions are uncomfortable for many of the staff members, and it is no reflection on the work that they do. It doesn't diminish all the important work that they do on a daily basis, but these are some of the questions that come, and I think we need to ask them.

To the minister. Between 2006 and 2013 the WorkSafe executive committee saw pay increases of 54 percent on the average. The average was $188,000, and in 2013 it was $290,000. Can the minister explain: how does that happen, a 54 percent pay increase, when benefits are cut, life pensions are no longer there, and injured workers don't feel that they've got any better protection at the workplace than they had before?

Hon. S. Bond: Because we're talking about 2014-2015, I don't have the benefit in front of me. Neither do the WorkSafe representatives, by the way — who are Roberta Ellis, senior VP, and John Panusa, the director at WorkSafe. Neither of them has the charts that would show wage changes over time.

I can assure the member opposite that WorkSafe compensation is in line with public sector guidelines which are in place for agencies, including WorkSafe.

From that perspective, I can also remind the member opposite, yesterday one of the things that I indicated to him was that — in addition to Gord Macatee working on the sawmill and occupational health and safety side — we are, as part of our own decisions around core review, looking at WorkSafe from an efficiency, compensation and spending perspective. All of those things are being considered as we take a look at WorkSafe more broadly.

[1505]

H. Bains: I think if the minister says and the staff say they don't have those numbers, perhaps the minister can then send me that information later in writing so that we could confirm or correct the information that I have.

Then again, along the same line, the CEO, David Anderson, saw his compensation rise 40 percent from $291,000 to $408,000. Does the minister know that? Can that be confirmed, if that's the case?

Hon. S. Bond: As I said to the member opposite, all of the compensation that is in place at WorkSafe, I'm advised, follows the PSEC guidelines that are in place for agencies. I don't have Mr. Anderson's chart in front of me, but we should be clear that we expect — and, obviously, we would monitor to ensure — that PSEC guidelines are in place. I am advised, without the data in front of them, that base salaries have not increased — only, pot-
[ Page 3646 ]
entially, over the last number of years. But I don't want to be specific about that until we actually have the data. Compensation does meet PSEC guidelines.

H. Bains: Let's look at some of the numbers on the executive side. The WorkSafe executive committee is composed of chief officers, vice-presidents and executive directors. In 2006 there were 13 members who earned $2.1 million in total. In 2012 there were 12 people earning $3.5 million in total. It's about a 108 percent increase. Does that meet all of the guidelines that this government promotes and believes in?

Hon. S. Bond: As I said to the member opposite, we don't bring charts from 2006. When I look at the data that's provided for 2012 actual compared to 2013 actual, we see a very small, incremental loss — actually, a reduction in salary for the CEO and president and the senior vice-president of operations. That would also be in regard to the fact that there were changes made in the system to bring compliance at the PSEC level, moving from a bonus system to a holdback system. We've had that discussion before. But we don't have the charts for 2006.

I am advised that the compensation levels are in compliance with PSEC. In fact, when you look at the accrual amounts from 2012 to 2013, there's actually a slight decrease in salary for the senior executive positions.

H. Bains: For the benefit of this House and everyone who's listening, perhaps the minister could explain the difference between a holdback system compared to the bonus system.

[1510]

Hon. S. Bond: There were guidelines introduced in 2012 which required that WorkSafe actually comply with a plan to reflect new guidelines. Those guidelines included moving away from a bonus system. In fact, there's a holdback system in place for cabinet members and for my senior executive team. WorkSafe was required to come into compliance with those new guidelines.

In fact, there are a number of deliverables. In the case of a cabinet minister, your holdback is based on whether you balance the budget in your ministry and, as a government, whether we balance the government's budget.

Obviously, there was a period of time when we did not receive our holdback. I'm pleased to say we're now in a different position. It is a system that is in place across both the political leadership and our senior executive team, and WorkSafe is also now in compliance.

H. Bains: I asked: how do they work differently from each other? A bonus system — again, there are targets, and there are deliverables. If they meet those targets, they get certain bonuses. A holdback — the impression is left that the salary is already added. Those bonuses, or equivalent money, are already added to the salary, and they don't even have to meet the targets anymore. They are guaranteed the bonuses, so-called.

So unless the minister differs on that description…. Perhaps the minister could explain to everyone here how this system is a better safeguard and how it is better than the bonus system.

In the private sector you're competing against other companies. You're trying to enhance your business. You're trying to out-compete the other businesses. But at WorkSafe B.C. who are we competing against? What are the issues about bonuses for executives and compensation when they're not competing against anyone? They are there to do a job. If they do their job, they get a salary. So why should there be a bonus or other system that will recognize their performance?

Hon. S. Bond: To the member opposite, I'm sure he's well aware that there was a shift in the policy around PSEC, and all Crowns were asked to be in compliance. We should be clear. There is no bonus system at WorkSafe B.C. any longer.

There is a holdback of a person's salary if, corporately, outcomes are not met that have been articulated by the board of WorkSafe. The individual doesn't set their own deliverables. The board at WorkSafe sets a series of targets that need to be met by the corporation. If they don't meet them, they do not get paid.

[1515]

In the case of WorkSafe, it is a 10 percent holdback of their salary. It's no different than what happens for a deputy minister who doesn't meet the targets or a cabinet minister or government whose salary is held back. It's not about a bonus. A percentage of your salary is held back.

The changes were made in July of 2012, and all Crowns are expected to be in compliance with that. That is why WorkSafe made the shift, looking at a holdback of salary.

H. Bains: Again, it's a very uncomfortable question for many of those who are in the room, and probably listening. It's not an attack on them. I think they probably deserve every penny that they get.

I think the issue is the system. People have a right, the taxpayers have a right and the workers have a right to understand how that system works. If you're holding back — it's called holdback — a part of the salary, I think that's a bonus by another name.

I mean, it works no different than the bonus. The bonus was that if you meet certain targets, if you deliver on those targets, you get a bonus. Now you're saying that your salary is already padded, but the 10 percent is a holdback, and if you meet those targets, you get that 10 percent. I don't see a difference.

Anyway, that's the system in place. I want to move on from there. You look at the front-line workers who face challenges every day to enforce the act, who are there to
[ Page 3647 ]
protect the health and safety of the working people. They face challenges because they have limited resources. They do the best job that they can given the resources that they're given.

Let's compare them to some of the executives, for example. Three executives were promoted from vice-president to senior vice-president and thereby received a $100,000, or 47 percent, pay increase. How do you justify that, just by changing the name from vice-president and assistant financial officer to senior vice-president and chief financial officer?

I'll go on and say that some of the duties didn't even change — the title did change — but you still got $100,000. How is that justified when you compare it to the front-line workers who are constantly challenged for the resources that they need?

Hon. S. Bond: I just want to clarify something for the member opposite. He's said it several times, and I just want to be clear. There are no uncomfortable questions for either the minister or the staff. They're very proud of what they do. They are transparent about what they do. I have every confidence that this organization as a Crown is in compliance with its expectations.

There are tough issues. We're taking a tough stand at WorkSafe in terms of dealing with workers' safety, in particular. I can't tell you how professional the staff has been about dealing with issues that have brought significant criticism to WorkSafe.

I want to put the member opposite at ease. There are no uncomfortable questions. This is our job, and it's their job. They are doing their best to provide the information, and it's not uncomfortable.

To assume that a title change is all that happened would be inaccurate. In fact, there were 11 executive staff at the end of 2013. That is down from 14 in 2011. So there was a reduction of three executive staff members. By the way, the number of executive staff will remain the same in 2014. There will be no new positions added.

[1520]

What that meant is the work of three other executive staff members was divided between individuals, including one of the ones that's in the room today. It meant that things like human resources and other responsibilities previously divided amongst three other people were added. As a result of that, there was a title change to reflect the fact that that person was doing more work because there were three fewer executive members.

H. Bains: Thank you to the minister for the observation.

I say uncomfortable because any time you bring somebody individually into it, it does make at least me feel uncomfortable, but it is a job that, as the minister said, we all have to do, and put those questions.

Again, 2006…. The minister talked about 14 to 11. In 2006 there were 13 members on the executive, and their total salary was $2.1 million. In 2012 there were 12, and they were earning $3.5 million. You're talking about a 108 percent salary increase in six years. Where else do you see that kind of salary increase?

Let's go on. I use one example: a vice-president. An assistant chief financial officer was moved to senior vice-president and chief financial officer, and the pay increase was 47 percent.

Let's look at another one. Comptroller has seen a 90 percent increase in salary, from $142,000 to $271,000, with no title change. How do you explain that part? Then there's another one.

Let's stay with those two first, and then we'll go on to the other general areas of salary increase. I'm hearing every day from the front-line workers. I'm sure the executive hears that every day. The minister probably gets some of the messages, and the assistant deputy minister probably has those messages as well. The front-line workers are the ones that are taking the brunt of everything that goes on out there.

Yes, there's an administration office. Yes, they have a job to do, but it is the people on the front lines, the union members, who are facing those workers on a daily basis. It's their job to make sure that the employer is complying with the act. It is their job to make sure that the workers' health and safety is protected. It's their job to put up with all the requests that come from the workers and from the employers.

How can they actually do the job that they need to do? They can't be everywhere. They see that their work is being expanded. They see that they are outstretched to do their job and to do the job the best that they can, but then they see these salary increases at the top level. It just does not sit well with the workers, with the front-line workers and those people who expect this government and WorkSafe B.C. to protect workers' health and safety.

Hon. S. Bond: I do want to go back just ever so briefly to the difference between a bonus and a holdback. A bonus is actually money that is provided on top of one's salary. A holdback is that you have the potential for losing a percentage of your salary.

We have been very clear that there were changes made through PSEC, and WorkSafe was asked to be in compliance with those changes, so there were changes made in terms of holdback versus bonus. I can tell you that as a person who has had her salary held back on numerous occasions, it is quite different than a bonus from that perspective.

Again, I do want to remind the member opposite that we are discussing the budget for 2014-15. We do not have with us details around 2006. It is impossible to look at a comparison when we do not have the years 2006 through 2013 in the room. We will, as I said — or perhaps I didn't — certainly commit to having a look at those numbers.
[ Page 3648 ]

All of us have a great deal of respect for front-line workers. That's why WorkSafe actually increased the number of compliance and safety officers — I think those are the people that the member is referring to — from 185 in 2004 to 272 in 2013.

[1525]

WorkSafe currently has more safety and inspection officers, as an example, than at any time in its history. That is an area that investment has been made.

The other thing that's important to note is that there is a ratio provided by the International Labour Organization, the ILO. I'm sure the member is very well familiar with it. The ILO recommends that there's one officer to every 10,000 active workers, and based on their most recent worker numbers, WorkSafe B.C. estimates one officer for every 8,000 active workers. So in fact, WorkSafe today exceeds the ratio for occupational health and safety officers.

We obviously respect the work that front-line workers do. WorkSafe has respected that, as well, by adding additional staff. As I've said, there is a reduction in the executive team. It will not be changing. As part of what we are looking at, at WorkSafe, separately from what Mr. Macatee is doing on the occupational health and safety side, we are looking at compensation, making sure that we're looking at expenses and spending. There will be a very significant look at the administrative side at WorkSafe as well.

H. Bains: I'm glad that the minister has some numbers going back to 2007, but not all. But if that's the case, that's as the case may be. Also, I would say that the minister talks about the bonus versus holdback. The minister also knows that when the system was changed to holdback, the salaries were increased by almost an equal amount to the bonuses that were paid in the previous years.

The bonuses are now guaranteed. They're built into the salary, and now it's all pensionable. Let's be clear. The bonuses weren't pensionable before. I think those are some of the things that everyone needs to understand. The bonuses now are added. Now you hold back 10 percent, and if they meet all those targets, I think it's business as usual. I don't see a much different system than what the minister is trying to make it as. Fair enough, that's the system — as long as people understand that's the system.

Now I want to go on to another area here. There were 47 WorkSafe B.C. employees with "director" in their title that earned between $100,000 and $263,000 in 2012. We're talking about 2012. If you do the average, that is $153,000. If you compare that to 2007, there were 58 employees with "director" in their title, and their average remuneration was $139,000.

I think there is the question of: are we adding more salary and…? Although the numbers in some cases are lower than in 2006 and 2007, the salary portion is disproportionately higher than normally you would see these salary increases, if you go through inflation and other increases. I think that's where the questions are raised by front-line workers and by the workers at workplaces — that we are not perhaps doing the job that we need to do.

I will leave it at that. I will ask my colleague from Alberni–Pacific Rim to ask a few questions just along the same lines.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister and staff for being here today and making themselves available. Just going back to…. Our critic has probed this already. Is Mr. Macatee, as administrator…? He would be then responsible to and be reporting to the president and CEO, Mr. Anderson?

Hon. S. Bond: No. In fact, Mr. Macatee is reporting to the board.

S. Fraser: I'm a bit confused. The minister did say that Mr. Anderson has 2½ months left, give or take, before he retires, that he is still the CEO and president, and he's still carrying out the same duties. Mr. Anderson was essentially the architect overseeing the substantial changes made to WorkSafe — ten years ago, I suppose. That would be about right. Why would the president and CEO not be the one to be reported to by Mr. Macatee?

[1530]

Hon. S. Bond: Because of the extraordinary circumstances that took place regarding Babine and Lakeland, I asked the board to appoint an administrator to deal specifically with a number of things, including the recommendations of John Dyble, to look at whether or not it would be practical and necessary to consider separating WorkSafe's occupational health and safety side of the organization.

It was my decision to look at an administrator that would report directly to the board, and I did that completely in response to what happened at Babine and Lakeland, and the distress that had been expressed, and rightly so, by families and others in the province.

Mr. Macatee is an administrator. He reports directly to the board. Mr. Anderson, as he completes his time at WorkSafe, continues to look after the general operations of the organization.

[S. Sullivan in the chair.]

S. Fraser: The administrator, Mr. Macatee, coming in — it's like appointing a trustee when the system is broken.

You're not utilizing the existing CEO-president for this review. He is being paid, as my colleague the critic rightly pointed out, well over $400,000 a year. He's continuing to receive that salary, but you've not utilized him, as the architect of the current system, to be involved in this review?

Am I correct? Is this akin to putting in a trustee when
[ Page 3649 ]
you've lost confidence in the leadership?

Hon. S. Bond: I don't consider it that. What I did was make sure that there was extra capacity and expertise that would focus specifically. Candidly, families and others have been appreciative of the fact that we are actually ensuring that there is someone targeted that will be looking at the Babine and Lakeland circumstances to ensure they don't happen again.

This is a large organization. Mr. Anderson had already indicated his intent to retire. At some point in this process there will be a search for a new CEO of the organization. In fact, Mr. Macatee will be looking at the Lakeland and Babine circumstances, looking at the Dyble recommendations, doing research and looking at models that are in place.

I think British Columbians expected us to take significant action to look at WorkSafe in its current situation to see whether changes need to be made. Mr. Macatee has done a good job in other roles that were somewhat comparable when he was the Ferry Commissioner. In fact, I asked that he be relieved of his Ferry Commissioner duties for a period of time to take on what I consider to be a special project, focused and targeted and certainly necessary as a result of the concerns that all of us have about what happened with Lakeland and Babine.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that answer. The families of those injured in Babine and Lakeland are certainly going to be, if they're not already, dealing directly with WorkSafe — those workers that were hurt — to achieve their compensation and, hopefully, retraining for as many that are able to get back to work.

I've seen some disturbing statistics. Since changes made back in 2003 — the new computer system that was put in there…. We saw a dramatic reduction in the benefits to workers who were hurt in the workplace. There's been a huge increase in risk of suicide from WCB clients, workers who were already injured in the workplace, from dealing with WorkSafe B.C., from trying to get proper compensation.

Can the minister confirm the dramatic increase in risk of suicides for those clients of WCB because of WCB?

[1535]

Hon. S. Bond: It's certainly not an easy discussion when there are workers who are contemplating suicide. I can assure you that WorkSafe takes that unbelievably seriously, and they should.

Obviously, I've been in this portfolio for a limited period of time, but I'm told that a number of years ago there was concern at the way data was collected and the way that it was related to WorkSafe about the state that some workers were in. They began to collect data differently, to find out more accurately how an employee was feeling, especially when it comes to the issue of the risk of suicide.

I don't have definitive information that would tell me why the numbers were increasing. I'm told that part of that is the way data is collected — and the more specific focus on ensuring that they understood a worker's risk level. But I can tell the member opposite that WorkSafe has a special care services department, and they developed a mental health services unit, which consists of psychologists, mental health specialists and social workers, supported by a 24-7 crisis line to ensure that workers have help 24-7, day or night. WorkSafe also contracted a team of ten social workers provincewide to provide 24-7 support to injured workers experiencing a mental health crisis.

Starting in 2011, WorkSafe introduced the role of a mental health specialist. In 2013 there were six mental health specialists on staff that are responsible for coordinating the clinical care or safe plan for workers who are experiencing psychological distress. There are a number of other features, including restructuring the service model for delivering psychology services to better support injured workers.

Since 2006 WorkSafe B.C. has created a training program to raise awareness about the identification of suicidal ideation in clients and, as I referred to earlier, strengthened reporting and tracking systems. There's also a crisis line. Created in 2009, it is 24-7 to support clients and families to have easy access to a mental health professional and to provide support.

I think it's fair to say that WorkSafe is painfully aware of the challenges that some employees may experience and in fact has worked to build a comprehensive suite of supports. I'm sure there are circumstances where families or workers don't feel that that is enough. I can certainly relate to that, but it is important, for the record, to point to some of the specific changes that WorkSafe has initiated to support those workers.

[1540]

S. Fraser: Well, of course, another explanation for the need for these things to be implemented is because there is a great increase in risk of suicide from clients that have seen the level of compensation for their injuries in the workplace dramatically cut.

I would suggest that we're talking about half a billion dollars a year in reductions. We've seen cuts in things like disability pensions, as the critic has mentioned, in indexing and rehab. Getting that bad news may be part or all of the picture here when you see a massive increase in risk of suicide.

I've no doubt that the minister takes this seriously, but so do I. The coroner's inquest in Mr. Bhupinder Singh Kang's 2006 suicide death…. If the minister is not familiar, he took his own life six hours after a meeting at the board staff, getting the news about where he was going with his compensation.

The minister must know that many hurt in the work-
[ Page 3650 ]
place in this province are basically marginalized after that. Many have issues with bankruptcy, marriage breakup — relegated to poverty, essentially.

There were 17 recommendations from the jury in the Kang inquest. I haven't seen any indication that the board has effectively implemented these recommendations that directly related to risk of suicide.

I'll go to recommendation No. 8 that called on the board to have an independent person review the board's compliance with those recommendations, the other 16, and include the compliance report on the board's annual report. I haven't been able to find that. Can the minister tell me where I need to look to find that annual report?

Hon. S. Bond: I guess I'm just going to start with…. I am no expert on suicide. Tragically, people have circumstances in their lives which either cause them to think about it or, horrifically, commit suicide.

I am very sympathetic to the issue of compensation for workers in British Columbia, but I think it's unfair to attribute suicidal ideation solely to compensation. In some cases that might tragically may be the case, but I think it's regrettable if we try to summarize someone's choice not to live based on a meeting. I hope and truly pray that was not the case.

For the record, the benefits paid to B.C. workers remain competitive with those paid across the country. So as difficult as it is…. You know, that matters to me, as well, and to everyone on the government side as well.

I am told that when we look at how workers are compensated across the country, we remain competitive. Our maximum insurable earnings, which is $77,900, are the fifth-highest in Canada. Two of the provinces that are ahead of us, with Nunavut and Yukon, are Alberta and Ontario. So, obviously, we remain competitive.

[1545]

There is a series of things, I would imagine, that workers face when they go through these situations.

In terms of the tragedy involving the Kang family, I'm not aware of the specific circumstances. I am very sorry for the loss. I am told, though, that the list of changes that I read into the record was a result of some of the recommendations from that report. We don't have the recommendations with us today.

For the benefit of interested parties who are watching this process — because I'm sure they're asking, "Well, why wouldn't you have that?" — we are here to debate the 2014-15 budget estimates. We're happy to take any questions, but as you can imagine, staff can't lug entire years' worth of materials here.

They do their very best to be here to provide me with advice. I wasn't there in 2006, but I am happy to provide the member opposite with information related to what recommendations were made at the end of the process and how WorkSafe responded to them.

But I am told that the recommendations in that report actually led to some of the changes. We're happy to provide an update to the member opposite in writing, talking about what was done.

I think it is important to note that anytime recommendations of that nature are received, they are taken very seriously. There is every attempt made to implement. If there are challenges with a specific recommendation, I know that the spirit or intent is always considered in terms of trying to get to the ultimate, which is a safer workplace.

H. Bains: I think that the minister talked about…. She's not an expert, and I'm not an expert. I don't think anybody in this room — not that I'm aware — is an expert on suicide.

But we are talking about the inquest. There was a jury that came up with those recommendations. Obviously, they listened to the experts. The expert witnesses came, and they gave evidence before the jury. Finally, these recommendations came, and No. 8, which my colleague mentioned, requires the board to report every year on the progress. That's what the recommendation is.

So I would ask the minister if that annual review is issued. And all of the other recommendations that were there, that came out of that inquest — where are they at as far as the implementation of those are concerned?

I think my understanding is that the minister agreed to provide us with an answer on that inquest in writing.

Interjection.

H. Bains: All right, thank you.

The problem that I see, where many of the issues come up…. We have forgotten the basic fundamentals behind that historic compromise of 1913 — the historic compromise where the workers gave up their right to sue their employer. The employers were actually facing escalating court costs and, perhaps, the shutdown of their operations because of the heavy court awards.

That was the compromise, but it was based on those five fundamentals. I think at least four of them we're moving away from. That's where most of the problems are. The No. 1 principle was no fault; No. 2, collective liability; No. 3, guaranteed benefits; No. 4, independent administration — I would agree that we are living up to that. Exclusive jurisdiction was the fifth one.

If you judge each one of them to our current system today, the experience rating takes away all of those four principles. That's what you're driven by — experience rating. Let's take a look. When it's introduced, it should be no fault. When you look at the experience rating, it introduces fault to the system that was intended to be no fault.

As a recent review of the research on the experience rating in the workers compensation system put it: "Experience rating is seen as introducing an adversarial and judicialized process." That's the system we
[ Page 3651 ]
have moved on to, and that's where most of the problems occur.

[1550]

Look at the second one, collective liability. Again, when you look at the experience rating, now you are proposing that the collective liability is being eroded through this, because the individual is considered to be at fault. Now their rates are going to go up. As a result, when it's a guaranteed benefit, again, it was a critical trade-off for the workers to give up their right to sue employers on workplace injuries.

An experience rating introduced a powerful incentive for the employer to oppose, appeal and do everything, because it is going to go against their experience. So I think that if you look at each individual basic principle, that's where the fault is. We have moved away from that area.

I want to go to now some of the real issues that we face today. I'm looking at the 2012 annual report, if the minister could look at that. I'm looking at page 31. The report has the "Key objective/performance indicators," and in one area it shows 2012 injured workers' rating of overall experience. The actual was 77 percent, but the target was 75 percent. Then you go on to look at page 33. This is the employer rating of overall experience. The actual for 2012 is 81 percent, but the target was 83 percent.

Can the minister explain why it is felt that the employer must be higher, or that the expectation is that their experience should be much higher than the target compared to the employees? For the employees, only 75 percent are expected to be happy, to put it simply, and for the employer, the target was 83 percent. Why is there a difference?

Hon. S. Bond: I would assume it's because when you set targets, you begin at the baseline, and you work to continuous improvement. In fact, what I would assume is that employer satisfaction was higher to begin with, but in the attempt to move our…. We don't want to be happy until there is 100 percent satisfaction. That is not likely to happen ever. All of us know that as we face issues.

So I'm assuming that as targets were set, the baseline was higher, but there was an intent to move up both the satisfaction rates for employees and employers. Obviously, we'll continue to set targets to stretch WorkSafe's organization to improve those numbers.

Obviously, our overall target is 100 percent. We're not likely to get there. The baseline was higher to begin with, but that doesn't mean we should stop creating stretched targets.

[The bells were rung.]

The Chair: I'm going to recess this meeting until we finish voting.

The committee recessed from 3:53 p.m. to 4:05 p.m.

[S. Sullivan in the chair.]

H. Bains: I think I'll just go back to the question that was asked earlier, on the satisfaction rate — the expected satisfaction rate for employers, by the board, compared to employees. The minister's answer, I think, does leave an impression, at least — when you put those targets higher for employers, as far as their satisfaction is concerned — that WorkSafe is there more so to satisfy the employers than the employees. I mean, doesn't that leave that impression?

Hon. S. Bond: I hope that's not the impression that it leaves. I think it's the way that when organizations are setting targets they look at what the baseline is. I mean, I suppose we could set the target — the member said that it had moved to 77 percent — for employees at 84 percent, or 83, to be comparable with employers, but I think we're trying to be realistic about continuous improvement.

I should tell the member opposite that when we look back at employer rating and employee rating over time, in 2009 the number for employees was actually 65 percent, and it was 78 percent for employers. If you look at the difference, in 2014 the number is 77 percent for employees, and it's 81 percent for employers. So in fact it's been a 3 percent improvement on the employers' side, and we have a 12 percent increase in terms of the feeling of workers about WorkSafe B.C.

That's what matters to me: that we continue to see worker experience with WorkSafe B.C. improving. I expect that to continue, and the organization is committed to doing just that.

H. Bains: Section 13 of the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act states that service plans for all government organizations must be made public by the responsible minister on the date when the main estimates are presented to the Legislative Assembly for each year.

WorkSafe B.C. is not listed as one of the Crown agencies that have brought their service plans on the date. It was presented to the assembly on February 18. My question to the minister is this. Last year the same thing happened; this year it's still not out. Why is there delay? Why is it delayed every year?

[1610]

Hon. S. Bond: The member has identified an issue that we are currently grappling with. First of all, WorkSafe is not a Crown. So the tabling of Crown service plans doesn't relate to WorkSafe because it isn't a Crown.

He is correct, though, in that the delivery of the service plan is late, according to statute. The problem we've encountered is that there is a new set of accounting principles that have to be used: IFRS. The current statute and the date that is there do not allow the actual financial work to be done in time to meet that date, so we're going
[ Page 3652 ]
to have to fix it. So the member is correct.

The service plan is included in the annual report that is produced by WorkSafe. It is late because the way that financials are done now is different. It takes longer. So I have to grapple with the date that's in statute.

H. Bains: Was that the same reason from last year? Last year we had to phone. In fact, the service plan was ready. We had to phone, and then it was released to us. So is it the same reason as last year? How long have you been grappling with this change in technology that delays the service plans?

Hon. S. Bond: Obviously, we had an additional challenge last year. So yes, the same issue regarding the way financials were required to be done, but there was a truncated legislative session because we went to an election.

H. Bains: I have a lot more to ask, to say on that, but I will not because of the shortage of time.

Section 125 of the Workers Compensation Act states: "An employer must establish and maintain a joint health and safety committee (a) in each workplace where 20 or more workers of the employer are regularly employed…."

However, the problem is that especially in the construction sector, three-quarters or more of the employers have companies that employ less than 19 employees. Who is in charge of their health and safety, because the workers have no input under the act to look after their health and safety?

Is there a move by the minister or WorkSafe B.C. to have something in place to make sure that those that are not covered by the act also have a say, just like the larger employer — to look at their health and safety, at how to improve their health and safety, have a joint health and safety committee in place so that they can actually talk to their employer jointly and talk about the challenges they face as far as health and safety is concerned?

[1615]

Hon. S. Bond: There are obligations for the employer even when there are fewer than 20 employees. While there is a health and safety committee required in the act if you are 20 or more employees, there is a requirement for a health and safety rep if there are fewer than 20.

I am told that when officers go and visit those smaller companies, they do check that there is a health and safety rep. In fact, when they do the inspection of that particular premise, they will want to have an employer rep but also a health and safety rep on behalf of those employees. The act actually requires that if there are fewer than 20, you must have a health and safety rep, not a committee, but the act applies equally to large and small employers.

H. Bains: The reality is a bit different than what's been described here. At a larger employer the employees elect their own representatives, so there is a structure in place. They get training as far as how to perform the health and safety duties. They meet regularly. The act requires them to meet certain conditions.

In the situation where they are a smaller employer, usually…. They even try it at larger employers where there is a health and safety committee. The inspector goes in and tells the employer, "I'm coming in," and they want to have somebody representing the employees. Sometimes the employer picks somebody and says: "Let's go and do the inspection." That doesn't do the job.

I think that in a smaller employer situation you need to have some structure. You can't have the employer decide who the rep is going to be. There have to be some regular meetings. You have to give these committees, in a smaller operation, some powers, some training so that they actually understand what's going on in their operation so that they can recommend to the employer and to the board what the deficiencies are at their workplace and what needs to be improved.

That is one area that I think many of those workers working for those employers are looking to this government to make those changes and modernize the act so that their needs are recognized, because they shouldn't be treated any differently than larger employers. The health and safety of someone working for a smaller employer with 19 or under employees versus someone with 200 employees — the importance is the same.

That's why I think we shouldn't be treating this separately. We need to find maybe a different way of dealing with it. But there has to be some structure so that the employer understands that they need to work with that committee and WorkSafe knows that that is a committee that is working, trying to implement the act.

Now I want to move on to another area. WorkSafe B.C. historically focuses its inspections on large workplaces and typically ignores the smaller operators. On top of that issue that I brought up earlier, here is another area. Who makes up the significant amount of workplaces in B.C.? What is the government doing to expand the inspection of the smaller employers?

Also, over the last ten years I'm advised that WorkSafe B.C. has almost tripled inspections, and worker fatalities have gone down only slightly. Many construction groups have been calling for unannounced spot checks to encourage compliance. Does the ministry have any plans to increase the number of unannounced inspections on construction sites?

[1620]

Hon. S. Bond: Yes, we do unannounced inspections. I think it's fair to say that the majority of inspections are unannounced. I support that principle, and obviously, so does WorkSafe. The majority of inspections are unannounced.

It is not the number of employees that determines
[ Page 3653 ]
whether or not there are inspections. It isn't whether there are 15 or there are 400. It is a targeted inspection process where WorkSafe looks at the highest risk, looks at all of the statistics related to that, and they target the inspections based on high-risk factors. Considering that 95 percent of businesses in British Columbia are small businesses, meaning they have fewer employees, obviously, a large number of smaller businesses, smaller operations, are inspected.

Yes, we do unannounced inspections. The majority of the inspections are unannounced. They are targeted, and it is not the number of employees that actually determines where the inspections are done.

On the other point that the member opposite made, our inspections have more than doubled, but if you look at overall fatality rates, from 2000 to 2013 we've seen a 37 percent reduction in fatality rates. We've seen traumatic worksite fatalities in the same period of time drop by 59 percent. If you look at serious injury rates, they're down by 30 percent during that period of time.

Where we have seen numbers go up is actually occupational disease fatalities, and that would include exposure to asbestos. In fact, at this year's Day of Mourning a significant number of the deaths that were remembered — and obviously, a tribute was paid to those workers — were actually related to asbestos. Those are longer-term occupational disease fatalities.

We are seeing trends heading in the right direction. None of us want to see that trend move in another direction. We want to continue to create even safer workplaces in the province.

I think that covers the questions the member had.

[1625]

H. Bains: My question would be on unannounced inspections. Is there a plan to increase the unannounced inspections in the coming years, or will they be the same?

The next question I have is also…. The B.C. Construction Industry Advisory Council recommended compulsory safety training for all construction workers. This was brought up after four workers fell to their deaths on Bentall IV Tower in 1981. Over 30 years later we're still waiting for implementation of that recommendation.

Can I ask the minister if this is the time to comply with that recommendation to have all construction workers trained on health and safety?

Hon. S. Bond: To the member opposite's question about whether there are going to be more unannounced inspections, certainly, I want to reiterate that the vast majority of inspections are unannounced. They will go up. Since we are working aggressively on the sawmill safety issue — that alone, for example — we've doubled the number of inspectors to 20 to deal with that issue, and there will be more frequent targeted inspections. Those are, obviously, unannounced, and you're going to see that section alone go up.

[1630]

But the answer is yes, you will see more unannounced inspections, in addition to the ones that are already taking place. The vast majority are actually already unannounced.

[J. Thornthwaite in the chair.]

In terms of who should be…. I know the Bentall situation was tragic. It happened, I believe, in 1981 or so. I'm not really sure. But employers have already, under the act, in section 115(2)(e), the responsibility of training every employee.

I would just quote that for the member opposite — the general duties of employers. It says, then, in section (2) that every employer must "provide to the employer's workers the information, instruction, training and supervision necessary to ensure the health and safety of those workers in carrying out their work." So the act already has a requirement for employers to do just what both the member opposite and I would want and expect employers to do.

H. Bains: I want to write some questions, perhaps, in writing, as far as the benefits are concerned. If it's okay with the minister, then maybe we could get some written answers because of the time here.

I want to move on to some of the questions here largely to do with the adjudication area. Normally what happens is it takes time to have the claim adjudicated. In many cases workers are required to use up their sick banks. After the sick bank is completed, many of them don't even have sick days, so they are without pay during the time when the claim is adjudicated.

Many times the employer does not send the information that they're required to send — and the board is very, very slow in enforcing that part of the act requiring employers to provide that information on a timely basis — because, I'm told, there's no deterrence. They could take weeks, or they could send it within 72 hours, as the case may be, but there's no deterrence for them filing the claims late.

That leaves many people without pay. Especially in the case of mental health situations, they are in challenging situations to begin with. Then for them to have to go through that without a paycheque for weeks, I think, causes extra strain on them, and it adds to their situation.

My question to the minister is this. How does the minister ensure….? You know, the first part is protection. We talked about that: how do we protect the health and safety of the workers in the workplace? But then if one of them is injured, how do we treat them? How is their claim processed in a timely fashion?

Right now, I'm told, in many cases that those claims are taking weeks. Sometimes some employers simply
[ Page 3654 ]
do not comply with the act, and they do not send the information on a timely basis. In that situation the injured worker is sitting at home without a paycheque. He has family obligations and bank obligations. All of that is put on hold.

[1635]

Hon. S. Bond: I think it is important to look at whether or not workers have challenges with the adjudication system. If they're injured, obviously they deserve and should expect as rapid a turnaround as possible.

From the good-news perspective, in 2009 the average adjudication period was 27 days. In 2013 it was 18 days until the first cheque was received. There is lag time because the adjudication has to take place, but I think what's important to note is once the claim has been adjudicated and if it is successful, the award is retroactive to the day after the injury.

[1640]

Yes, some workers would use sick days to fill that gap in the short term, but there would be a retroactive payment once that claim is adjudicated. The period for adjudication has been shortened significantly since 2009, and that continues to be a goal for WorkSafe, to look at that turnaround time.

In terms of employers who don't do what they're expected to do, they have, according to the act, three days to report an injury. If they don't, there is a process where it goes through the workers advisers office, and obviously, employers are reminded about their responsibility to do those things. We also, though…. According to the act, if by seven days the employers have not complied, an interim adjudication will be done. So in fact after seven days, if the employer doesn't provide their side of the information that's required, there is an interim adjudication that is actually done. Obviously, any claim impacts an employer's experience rating.

So three days they have to report, but if they haven't done that by seven days, then the adjudication moves ahead on an interim basis.

H. Bains: I think, if you listen to the WCB advocates, they'll tell you that it seems that in most cases they don't report within 72 hours. Because there's no penalty, they just drag their feet hoping the worker will give up and come back to work because the cheque isn't there. You talk about average 18 days, or average 26 days, I believe the minister mentioned. But that's the average. It means there are cases that will take much, much longer. Those are the cases that actually are a very serious situation.

I leave it with the minister to make sure that that system is in place. Let's modernize our system. Hopefully, Mr. Macatee is looking into this area of adjudication, that the adjudication system and the claims are adjudicated in a very, very timely situation. The only way to do that is to have the employer required — and have some penalties as deterrents for them — to report within 72 hours.

I want to move further into the adjudication system, into WCAT. Again, the court systems actually have criticized that system itself because WCAT in many instances, or I think often, send back the claim on a particular issue that specifically was not dealt with by the board earlier because they don't have the powers or tools to adjudicate themselves. So it goes back. The treadmill system starts, and that's what's been criticized by the court system because it's so pronounced.

Again, my question to the minister is…. In this day and age we should be looking at improving the system to make sure that if the claim is denied, the system is there so that, in a timely fashion, all of the cases, all of the evidence is before WCAT and they're able to make adjudication, listening to all of that.

Is that something Mr. Macatee or the board itself is looking at to improve in that area?

[1645]

Hon. S. Bond: I want to just check off a couple of things in this answer. To the member opposite: obviously we'd be happy to respond to written questions. I know there were some others that he wanted to cover off but, because of time, didn't.

I want to also indicate that on the core review side of what we're looking at in terms of WorkSafe — not Mr. Macatee's work; his is very targeted and very specific work — we will look at adjudication. I would welcome the member's feedback. Or advocates or others that have spoken to him — we're happy to hear from them about the adjudication side of this.

In terms of looking at the WCAT in particular and timelines, the member may or may not remember that in 2002, coming out of the previous core review work that was done, we actually revamped this system very significantly. What was very innovative at the time — I'm not sure if other jurisdictions are in that place at the moment — was the fact that we legislated timelines for WorkSafe. The internal review is now a 150-day time limit to make the decision. The second and final level of appeal — the independent, external WCAT process — is 180 days to make a final and binding decision.

It still stands up well across the country when we look at outcomes. The reason we had to do that was that actually at the time we made those changes — that was 2002, following our initial core review process — there was a backlog of 22,000 appeals that had accumulated by March 3 of 2002.

We revamped the system, said: "That is not acceptable. It needs to be fixed." That came from the Workers Compensation Review Board and appeal division prior to 2002, and the backlog was eliminated by 2006.

We will obviously look for continuous improvement, but it was very innovative, and there are mandated timelines for both the work done by the appeal division and
[ Page 3655 ]
then, obviously, by WCAT.

H. Bains: I want to move on to a different area. In 2007 the agreement between the B.C. Solicitor General and WorkSafe B.C. investigators was negotiated and signed. It gave special powers to the investigators. It required them to know how to conduct interviews and seize evidence so it could stand up in court.

I think all of the staff here and the minister read the Vancouver Sun. They received that agreement. It called for a special constable agreement. "The MOU allowed the appointment of a special constable to conduct formal investigations on fraud, but also misrepresentation, compliance, and fatal and serious workplace incidents under both the Criminal Code of Canada and the Workers Compensation Act." That agreement existed since 2007, but when WorkSafe was approached by the same reporter, they said that the special constable powers apply only to fraud investigation under the Criminal Code.

[1650]

I know that. I was advised that that's the department that does that kind of investigation. They said not fatality investigations, but the agreement actually says otherwise. The agreement also gave special powers to constables to do the investigation for a workplace fatality and serious injuries.

My question to the minister is: why on the fraud side was it acted upon, not on the criminal investigation by special constable powers to investigate fatality and serious injuries?

Hon. S. Bond: Unfortunately, we don't have a copy of the agreement with us. I think it's fair to say that there is some confusion about whether it's fraud or fatality-type circumstances. Now, I'm advised that the preamble, while it refers to everything that WorkSafe does, which would include a number of things…. The piece about special constables actually refers specifically to fraud. I'm not in a position to debate that today and don't want to. We want to get this sorted out.

What I have asked…. In Gord Macatee's work, No. 4 in his terms of reference, or basically the workplan that he has, is to look at the inspection and investigation regime, best practice, workforce review, enhanced training. I would very much expect that this issue about jurisdiction, what the actual agreement says, how it works and how it fits with investigations would be a piece of work that he will be looking at.

[1655]

H. Bains: That is very, very disappointing, both of the minister and of the management of WorkSafe.

I mean, here we had Babine and Lakeland. We had Mr. Dyble come up with the report, and he made certain recommendations. Here, in the media, clearly, it was shown that there was an MOU that existed between WorkSafe B.C. and the ministry. Yet no one seems to know what specifically that agreement says, whether that covers the fatalities and serious injuries at workplace investigations or not.

Certainly, there is a fraud part of it covered up, but on the side of the serious issue, which is fatalities and serious injuries, that particular part of that agreement isn't implemented. Mr. Dyble recommended updating the MOU between WorkSafe B.C. and police services as part of this review of the incident, which is Babine.

Yes, isn't it the case that the current MOU requires WorkSafe to ensure that all evidence obtained through its investigations is admissible in court? It seems, though, that the problem is less about updating protocols and more about WorkSafe failing to follow protocol to the detriment of those who are affected by this explosion.

The agreement existed, and today I'm so disappointed that no one knows that that section of the MOU actually requires a special constable to have those powers, to do the criminal investigation in incidents like Babine and Lakeland.

Hon. S. Bond: First of all, the member, respectfully, in his comments is confusing documents here. All I am putting on the record is the fact that when it comes to the use of special constables, which is an MOU…. There is also an MOU with police services. What I am saying to the member opposite is that for the MOU that talks about the use of special constables, I am advised, the language around that refers to fraud only.

Yes, John Dyble, in addition to Gord Macatee, has made it clear that we need to not only improve communication between police services, WorkSafe and Crown…. All of it will be part of what Mr. Macatee is asked to deliver: making sure the Dyble recommendations are being sorted out.

My point to the member was simply that for the MOU that talks about special constables, I'm advised, the preamble refers to a broader set of things that WorkSafe does, but the specific use is related to fraud only. I am not passing judgment on whether that's right or wrong. What I'm saying is that is what exists today.

All of us are heartbroken and disappointed about what happened for the Lakeland and Babine families. I think that the actions that we have initiated demonstrate that we intend for that to be clarified and made extremely clear. That has been made extremely clear to WorkSafe.

Both in the recommendations that John Dyble provided and also the framework that Mr. Macatee was given, there is an expectation that inspection and investigation regimes are sorted out, best practices are used, and there is enhanced training in figuring out how this doesn't happen again.

H. Bains: For the minister's benefit, this is exactly what was reported. I'm going back to that agreement that
[ Page 3656 ]
was received through FOI by Gordon Hoekstra of the Vancouver Sun. This is what he said WorkSafe B.C. said to the Vancouver Sun: "The special constable powers apply only to fraud investigations under the Criminal Code, not fatality investigations." Then he went on to say:"But the agreement signed by WorkSafe B.C. on August 22, 2007, appears to say otherwise, referring to fraud investigations but also to compliance and fatality investigations." That was reported in the Vancouver Sun.

Now, unless he, Mr. Hoekstra, is completely off base — I don't believe so — or he was reading a different agreement, and the minister is referring to a different agreement…. That's the agreement he is referring to: August 22, 2007. That appears to say that it does talk about fraud investigation and also compliance and fatality investigations.

[1700]

Again, the question is going to come back to: is that the issue? Isn't that another reason why we should have a complete, independent investigation into those explosions so that we can get to the bottom of it?

I know the minister wants to get to the bottom of what happened, but they have made up their mind that they are not willing to go that far. They depend on Mr. Dyble's report. They are now moving on to the coroner's report and investigations, and we all know that the coroner's investigation and their procedures are quite a bit limited. It will not get to the bottom of situations like this.

Why doesn't WorkSafe B.C. conduct investigations that would hold the employer criminally liable when, due to their negligence, a worker died or was seriously injured? I mean, isn't that a reason that we should actually move in that direction?

The minister always says how seriously she is affected by these explosions, and I believe her. But again, in order to really fix the problem, we need to go to an independent investigation. That's what the families want. The families think that is the only way they can put some closure to their pain. And also we could fix the problem, fix the system for future workers who are, right now, not sure whether their health and safety is protected by those who, under the law, must protect their health and safety. Those are the CEOs, and those are the managers of the companies.

That's where, I think, I come back to. There's another reason why we need to get to the independent investigation into both of those explosions. Why will the minister not go that far?

Hon. S. Bond: As I have said repeatedly, it is essential that we understand what happened here. Families have asked for answers. They deserve them, and so do British Columbians, who want to have confidence that when processes are in place, they are adhered to.

There are a number of initiatives underway as we speak which will aggressively and systematically look at the way WorkSafe handled the inspection and investigation side of that. That includes not only the report and recommendations from John Dyble but the appointment of an administrator to go and to focus specifically on sawmill safety, to look at implementing world-class inspection and investigation regimes, and also to go as far as to look at whether or not we need to separate the occupational health and safety side of WorkSafe from the inspection regime side. All of that work is underway.

I try very hard to think about how families feel about where we're at, and I know they are disappointed. But I know this: the coroner's inquest is an independent process. It is transparent. It is inclusive.

One of the things that matters to me most is that there's a process in place where if someone wants to participate, they can do that without a lawyer. An inquest allows for that. It means that a community member…. It means that individuals who have been impacted can all participate in this process. It is open. It is transparent. It will provide….

The coroner has broad-reaching powers. In fact, the coroner can actually subpoena. They can require witnesses to testify, including employers, to bring forward evidence. They will be compelled to do that.

I understand. I have heard face to face, personally, and in many other ways, how disappointed families are. I want the process to take place as quickly as possible. I believe that the coroner's inquest will allow that to happen and to bring conclusion with recommendations and input in a very, I hope, open, transparent and efficient way.

[1705]

In my most recent meeting with, obviously, two of the widows who lost their husbands and someone who was significantly impacted by the explosion at Lakeland, I laid out for them the coroner's inquest, the fact that the coroner will work individually — and together, her staff — with family to make sure that the issues that are of importance to them are covered and included, that questions they have can be included.

I understand their frustration and the pain that they feel. I can only say that I believe that the coroner's inquest is independent. It is transparent. It will be fact-finding. I think families and British Columbians deserve that.

H. Bains: The minister comes back to the coroner's inquest. Let me read to the minister the limited scope that the coroner's inquest has, compared to the independent inquiry. This is an opinion from a very, very reputable and respected counsel, Mr. E. David Crossin, QC. This is what Mr. Crossin has to say about the comparison between the coroner's inquest and the public inquiry. This is what he says:

"The coroner's inquest, by its nature, is limited to determining facts related to a particular death. It is also circumscribed quite narrowly by the Coroners Act [SBC 2007] chapter 15 [Coroners Act].
[ Page 3657 ]

"While a jury in a coroner's inquest may make a recommendation about a matter arising out of the inquest, it is only expected to certify findings of fact respecting a narrow range of issues, namely: (a) who the deceased was, (b) how, when, where and by what means the deceased died and (c) any other matter concerning the deceased that the coroner is required to report under section 17, subsection (2)(f) [particulars of deaths] of the Vital Statistics Act — Coroners Act, section 38."

Also, he went on to say:

"The coroner's inquest is also not designed to assign fault to individuals involved in the incident. Indeed, 'the jury must not make, and the coroner must not accept, any finding of legal responsibility or express any conclusion of law' — Coroners Act, section 38(3).

"A commissioner of a hearing commission, however, has, subject to the terms of reference, the express powers to make findings of misconduct against individuals — Public Inquiry Act, section 21(1)(d)."

That's the difference, Minister. That's why the families are pushing for a public inquiry, an independent inquiry. That's how we are going to get to the bottom of why that preventable incident took place. Who was responsible? Who failed those families? Who failed those workers? That is at the core of what the families are asking. If it was preventable, who failed to prevent it? The coroner's inquest will not do that.

My question is to the minister. I think the right thing to do is…. It's still not late. The minister should agree to a public inquiry into both Babine and Lakeland so that those families can actually start to put some closure to the pain that they have been suffering.

Then I would go on to say that the minister has talked about how Mr. Macatee and other core reviews will make some changes. My suggestion to the minister is this.

I introduced in this House the Workplace Accountability Act. That actually puts some teeth into what we're talking about here, so that those who are under the law, the employer side of the responsibility…. The CEOs, the executives and the managers, under the law, have the duty, under the WorkSafe act, to protect the health and safety of the workers. If they fail and, because of their negligence, workers die and suffer serious injuries, they can be held criminally liable under C-45 of the Criminal Code.

The only way to do that is if you take some of those policy changes. For example, have a dedicated Crown prosecutor who will be an expert in workplace fatalities, have police investigators and WorkSafe inspectors trained under 217.1 of the Criminal Code, the Westray bill, and have all of the workplace fatalities investigated by police.

[1710]

Also, have specialized policies for workplace fatalities and serious injuries, such as we have for the domestic violence policies, between the police and the Crown. I think those are some of the policy changes that are needed in order to make the Westray bill, C-45, work.

I have two questions here. First, the public inquiry into Babine and Lakeland, because that's the only way we're going to get to the bottom of it, and that's the only way we'll find out who failed those families and whose negligence it was that caused that explosion and those workers to die and many to be injured.

The second part is: going forward, will the minister recommend to WorkSafe B.C. to have the workplace accountability bill that I introduced in this House to include in the policy changes? I will be the first one to praise the minister if she agrees to do both of those things.

Hon. S. Bond: As much as I appreciate that, it isn't about praising the minister at all. It's about trying to find a venue and an opportunity for the answers to questions that families who are heartbroken have. I'm not one to get into a debate with David Crossin by any stretch of the imagination. But I do know this. In the words of the coroner herself, she points to the fact that a coroner has many tools at their disposal. "They may issue subpoenas to anyone who they believe has useful information…and those subpoenaed must attend the inquest, testify and answer all questions put to them."

The questions that families have had, and I can't even imagine what that feels like…. They have questions. They deserve to ask them, and the coroner's process allows for them to ask those questions and to get answers. The person cannot refuse to testify on grounds that it might incriminate them. There are no escape routes at a coroner's inquest. If you are called, you must be there, you must respond, and you must answer the questions. The only exception is Crown counsel, which I'm sure the member opposite would know.

An inquest is open and transparent. Hearings are open to everyone. At the conclusion of the inquest the jury foreperson will read aloud the jury's findings and recommendations for all to hear. The jury is made up of community members, for example, and anyone directly impacted by a fatality may apply to the presiding coroner for what is known as participant status. It will be broad. It will be inclusive. The goal will be to get answers that families are looking for.

As I've said to member opposite, I understand that families have a different view. I can tell you that I know that the coroner is committed to ensuring that this process is inclusive, it is broad, it is far-reaching and it gets to the answers that families are looking for.

The other aspect of the member's questions…. I can't today say that we agree to a particular bill that the member opposite has tabled. What I can reiterate is the fact that we are going to be relentless about sawmill safety in British Columbia, and that has been made very clear to WorkSafe. That's why we're engaged in another round of inspections.

It is phase 4 of a series of steps that have been taken. That means we're going to target inspections at employers where there has not been compliance. It isn't acceptable for them to be in non-compliance. Not one person in this chamber or any other chamber believes that that's
[ Page 3658 ]
appropriate.

We have taken a number of steps, and we've worked constructively, for example, with the Steelworkers. Their representative was at the meeting where I brought all of the parties together. We need to make sure that employees understand their rights to say, "I won't work in this unsafe workplace," with no threat of repercussion. In fact, we're looking at a campaign together to make sure that employees have that right.

Now, it isn't their responsibility alone to deal with unsafe workplaces. That is WorkSafe's job, and that's why we've seen the number of inspectors focused on the sawmill safety issue doubled to 20, and we are in a period of a 90-day aggressive inspection period. We're continuing to work on a dust audit standard, which is also important to the Steelworkers, making sure that we have a tool that would actually assist employers.

[1715]

WorkSafe has been also been asked to bring expertise on, to work alongside some of the smaller businesses, smaller sawmill operations, because it is hard, at times, for them to work their way through these processes. We're not going to accept that. We're saying that we're going to give you expertise, and you had better figure out how you're going to be in compliance.

There are a number of things underway. The coroner has committed to working closely with families to ensure that those questions that are most important to them are part of this process, including the possibility of having employers answer questions as well.

H. Bains: Answering questions is one thing. The Coroners Act clearly defines that the jury must not make and that the coroner must not accept any finding of legal responsibility or express any conclusion of the law. I mean, that's clear. So no one will be held responsible. No one will know who failed, because there is no fault through this process. That's one thing.

The second thing that the minister talked about, the sawmill safety — that is important. I spent most of my working life there. That's only one piece of the puzzle. The minister knows that we have had over 1,350 deaths in the workplace since 2004, when the Westray bill was brought in — 1,350. That requires holding those responsible for workers' health and safety criminally responsible if they fail to follow through with their duty.

Not a single criminal charge has been laid in B.C. — not a single one, out of 1,350 workers who died — never mind a conviction. So there's a problem with the system. A worker dies at the workplace. "It seemed to be that it was an accident, so it's not anybody's responsibility. We will make sure that…. We'll see that it doesn't happen again." Well, somebody lost their life because of somebody's negligence.

You can't get away with that negligence outside of the workplace. You're driving a car, you caused an accident and because of your negligence caused somebody's death, you know that you will be held responsible — criminally responsible. That's not the case at a workplace. That's the attitude, and that's the environment we need to change. The only way to make that change is to make the Westray bill, C-45, work. The only way to make that work is the recommendation that I put forth in the House.

It's high time now. We have done enough talking. We have done enough speeches about how sympathetic we are with the families and the workers. We understand that. They understand that. But it is time to act, and that's where the problem is. We're not acting in a concrete manner.

There are some recommendations the Steelworkers have put. Those are some of the recommendations that I put forward here. The minister talked about Steelworkers. They came from Steelworkers. They came from B.C. Fed. They're pushing for those changes. They think that's the only way we can make the Westray bill work.

Until an employer is held criminally responsible, the business will be as usual. I can tell you that right now. I think that's where we need to go. Even WorkSafe B.C., when they conduct those investigations, say that these are regulatory non-compliance, so the charges are recommended.

If they are convicted, what's the final outcome? Fines. No one is going to go to jail. No one is going to be held criminally accountable. Then the employer uses that as a cost of doing business. That adds to their cost. But that shouldn't be in 2014 in British Columbia. That attitude shouldn't be.

I think it's time that this government…. I, in all sincerity, say that the minister is sincere when the minister talks about these issues, of how it affects her. But somehow the ideology or the government culture or something doesn't allow that minister to take the next step. We need to take that next step.

[1720]

It's not about praising, but I think it will be something that will be in the history books that this minister did that. I think we need to move in that area.

I ask the minister one more time. The coroner inquest, and I have shown why, will not do the job that the families are expecting, will not get to the bottom, as there will not be any fault attached, coming through that system. We need to have a public inquiry. That's No. 1, and No. 2 are the recommendations that Steel and the B.C. Fed put together to make C-45 work, which I introduced in this House as the ones that are needed.

Will the minister agree with those two recommendations?

Hon. S. Bond: The reference to "It's time to take action" and "Enough of the speeches" is hard not to take personally.

There have been actions taken, and I've also clearly
[ Page 3659 ]
outlined, in our view, the process of a coroner's inquest that allows for there to be an inclusive process, to ask very tough questions, to allow for subpoenas that can be issued.

Our sincere hope is that the coroner's inquest will answer some of the questions that need to be answered for families in British Columbia. The member opposite would know also that, as Attorney General, I actually took the issue — after several meetings with the B.C. Federation of Labour, with whom we had a very respectful discussion about Westray — of Westray to the national ministers' meeting and in fact directly to the then Minister of Justice federally.

One of the pieces of context that is missing from this discussion so far: as difficult as it is, the RCMP did not recommend criminal charges in either of the Babine or Lakeland cases, and neither did WorkSafe. Crown deals with the recommendations that are presented to them. There were no recommendations, either from police or WorkSafe, that were criminal — as difficult as it is for me to say that and for families to hear that.

What we need to do now…. I would totally agree with the member opposite: we do need action. That's why we've taken it. That's why we took the very unusual step of asking the board of WorkSafe to appoint an administrator. He's going to focus on this particular part of WorkSafe — inspection and investigation — so that we get it right.

There are questions. I have them as minister. I expect to get answers about how that was conducted and how we are going to make sure that that does not happen again. It's why we also asked a very highly regarded civil servant to actually look at what happened here. There are recommendations, again, and we expect Mr. Macatee to ensure that they are followed through on. All of those things indicate action.

I understand the member opposite has a different direction that he would like to see. My goal is this. It's to make sure that British Columbia's workplaces and, particularly, sawmills continuously improve. I do care about how workers feel when they go to work in the morning. There is no one in this province who should send their husband or wife to work and not have them come home at the end of the day.

This is not about lack of action; it is about a different choice in direction. I can't imagine how difficult it was for those families, at all. None of us can comprehend that, unless we've been in that situation. We are compelled to act, and despite our choice in terms of a different direction, I have confidence that Lisa Lapointe will conduct the coroner's inquest in a way that will be far-reaching, that will be public, that will allow families to have their time to ask their questions. I think that that process has merit.

[1725]

H. Bains: Again, because of time, I'm going to move on. Obviously, the minister is not going to move on those, I think, very reasonable and practical solutions that I proposed and that the families are proposing.

But it is what it is. It's not acceptable — to me, to our side of the House or to the families. I can almost speak on behalf of all of the workers in B.C. that it is not acceptable to those workers.

I'm going to ask some questions on behalf of…. There are a couple of people, but there are many, many people in that situation. Two people actually approached me: Darren Gregory and Stephanie Conn. These are the two people who brought an issue, and I'm sure the minister is aware. It is about post-traumatic stress disorder. I think that the questions, basically, are these. I think that the minister and WorkSafe B.C. have already heard those.

The minister is aware that the rate of post-traumatic stress disorder seems to be two to three times higher in the first-responder profession than in the general population, so hopefully the minister believes that the stigma around mental health contributes to this prevalence in the first-responder professions.

Also, the minister should believe that we have a moral and legal responsibility to support the first responders who voluntarily expose themselves to the traumatic events in their work in service to the public.

The question to the minister is this. Will the minister commit to adding presumptive provisions for first responders in British Columbia under section 5(1) of the Workers Compensation Act?

Hon. S. Bond: I certainly appreciate the input and feedback from the two individuals that the member referenced. We're not considering a presumption at this point in time.

[1730]

One of the things that I am very mindful of and interested in will be the outcomes of some very significant changes that were made to the coverage for mental disorders. They've only been in place, in fact, for 18 months. Section 5.1 of the Workers Compensation Act was actually amended on July 1, 2012, and it now allows for a much broader coverage of mental disorders that are a reaction to one or more work-related traumatic events, also mental disorders that are predominantly caused by significant work-related stressors, including bullying and harassment.

[M. Bernier in the chair.]

Those changes actually apply to all decisions made on or after July 1, 2012. So we have very much recognized the need to make changes. Those changes were made. We've broadened the coverage substantially. But the changes to coverage are only 18 months old. So, you know, I think a pragmatic way to approach this is to
[ Page 3660 ]
look at the impact of what were very significant changes at the time.

WorkSafe has actually told me that they have had exceptionally good cooperation from workplace parties as well as the psychology and medical communities since that legislation was introduced. Just for the member's comfort, as we referenced earlier, WorkSafe now has a specialized mental health claims unit to manage claims with efficiency. I think what is more important to me — efficiency is critical — is that they are thorough and compassionate in the way that these claims and individuals are supported.

I think it's early days for what were significant changes to section 5.1 of the Workers Compensation Act. I would like to see the outcomes, so at this point we're not considering a presumption.

H. Bains: So Ms. Conn and Darren, you've heard the answer.

I will contact them and let them know what the minister's answer is.

Minister, if it's okay with you, I have a number of questions still left, but the time is just running as fast as it can. I have some questions on governance of WorkSafe. I have questions over return-to-work policies, asbestos exposure and a number of other areas that I wasn't able to get to the minister today. So perhaps, if the minister would agree, we will put those questions in writing, and hopefully we'll get the answers to those.

I want to take this opportunity to thank the staff. You've been great. I think these can be painful to go through, this whole experience. As the minister said, you know, I think you also understand it's part of the job, and you have done a good job providing us the information to help us go through the many questions that come on behalf of our constituents and stakeholders. Thank you very much.

We move on, Minister, now to Labour.

Hon. S. Bond: Just in closing that section, I would also like to thank the representatives from WorkSafe who were here to provide answers.

I'm obviously happy to provide information to the member as he provides written questions. I would also be more than happy to have the two individuals that the member referenced…. They're more than welcome to contact either WorkSafe — Roberta or anyone — and we'd be happy to hear about their circumstances personally.

[1735]

H. Bains: My question is about employment standards. I'll start with that.

As you know, employment standards, when you go back to 2002-2003 times, the enforcement officers and those who take complaints and do the investigations — and at the same time having all the different offices in different parts of the province — have been cut back. The number of investigators has been cut back, my understanding was almost by more than a third and maybe down two-thirds. I think that's one of the things that I was advised.

As a result, I think we had a little discussion in the big House today. The self-help kit — the minister talked about it applying to the temporary foreign workers as well. The minister has to understand that I've been there. I've been working with many of the people who are not represented by the unions. I helped them during those days when I was with that position and helped them process their complaints through employment standards and represented them on many occasions.

It's not that easy for someone to face the same employer who has actually abused them and exploited them, especially for temporary foreign workers. For them to be required to have taken that first step, to face the same employer…. Now they know who's complaining. You know the very, very delicate situation they are in to begin with. They are with that particular employer. If they don't have a job with that employer, you know they have no place to go to. The only thing that would happen to them is to go back to their old country.

I think that system needs to be changed so that there is a system, so that these workers who are so vulnerable…. They don't even think about complaining. They're advised not to complain by many of those people who actually help them, because they will not be in the country for too long. Even those workers who are here — in a non-union situation, if they complain, they can only complain once. You know that that employment will not be there once they make that complaint.

Also, the Employment Standards Act was changed. Whereas if an employee complained for back wages, it used to be that it could go back two years retroactively, now they can only go back six months. It actually pays for some of these employers to cheat their workers. There are not that many. There are very few of those. I understand that. The vast majority of employers are good employers. We all know, and the minister will agree with that. But those who actually abuse the system, whether they're temporary foreign workers or Canadian workers….

I think that system needs to be changed so that the tools are in place, the system is in place to provide so that they can use those tools and system and complain, have those complaints heard on a timely basis and, at the same time, their job is not lost. How does the minister suggest those changes will take place and modernize that system?

[1740]

Hon. S. Bond: I apologize for how long that took. I was just trying to figure something out. I wanted to know more about the self-help kit.

There were changes made, and there has been some
[ Page 3661 ]
criticism about some of the changes that have been made. We do want to support temporary foreign workers. I agree with the member opposite that it must be an incredibly vulnerable circumstance to have to go and talk about an employer who has been abusive in whatever way. That is difficult.

[1745]

The employment standards branch's responsibility is to treat workers in British Columbia the same, whether you are a British Columbian who has a job or whether you're from somewhere else and you have a job. There are a number of things that are in place to support workers in the province.

I'm always a person who believes in continuous improvement. I don't think that everything you've ever done is the way it should be ten years later. I'm very open to looking at how we improve support for employees in British Columbia. That's why, some time ago, I asked our staff to look at models that were in place in Manitoba and Alberta in terms of how you hold employers accountable and how you also better protect workers. That work is underway. I have said in the big House, outside, everywhere that that is important to me, and that work is underway.

I am, however, also very cognizant of the fact that this is a federal government program. There is a role for British Columbia in terms of employment standards, making sure that everyone is treated equally in the province. So we do have work underway. As I said, I'm not at all averse to looking at what else British Columbia can do, and in fact, that work is being done right now to be able to make an informed decision. I'm not going to make a decision overnight. We want to look at how we align changes, potentially, with what the federal government is also going to do.

But most specifically about the self-help kit, there are a variety of employees that are actually exempt from the requirement to use the kit, and that is important. That includes children, agricultural workers, domestics, garment and textile workers, and employees who have a significant language barrier — many of the people that the member opposite and his colleagues have very passionately expressed concerns about. I respect that, and I feel that concern as well.

Many of those would be captured in this category — that the self-help kit is not necessary. They can go to an employment standards branch personally, get in touch with them and file a complaint. There is not the need for them, as it would be difficult for many, to use that kit. So there are exemptions in place, and they can simply directly make that complaint to the employment standards branch.

H. Bains: Again, even with that, even if you go to the employment standards branch, an employment standards officer has to approach the employer and talk to the employer on whose behalf they're doing the investigation. If it's a temporary foreign worker, that would be the end of their employment in that operation, and they will be sent back. They'll find some reason to send them back.

I think it's a system that needs to be really seriously looked at — how we deal with them. This system applies to Canadian workers who may lose their job for complaining, but they can find another job. But the temporary foreign worker cannot. The only avenue for them is to stay quiet if they want to continue to work. That's the only thing available to them.

My question is also to the complaint process. If the minister could tell us: what is the average time when a formal complaint is filed with the employment standards branch and when the complaint is actually resolved? What is the time frame average, and also, what is the target? Is there a target set that they must be resolved by a certain time?

[1750]

Hon. S. Bond: There are targets, but they are service plan targets; they're not legislated targets. The target would be that 78 percent…. It's a service plan target, not unlike some of the other ones we looked at before. The service plan target is that 78 percent of the complaints are brought to resolution within 180 days.

Now, we have been slightly below that target in the last couple of years, and we're grappling with how we deal with that. But right at the moment…. I'll say it, and then I'll just double-check that it's correct. I believe it's 75 percent that we're dealing with right now that are brought to resolution within 180 days.

H. Bains: You know, that just shows the problem: 180 days is six months. Here we're talking about, in most cases, low-wage workers. These are non-union. These are the people that work at close to minimum wage in most cases. For them to wait for that cheque for 180 days…. I mean, Minister, respectfully I put to you that that should not be acceptable to you, and that should not be acceptable to the modern society that we live in, in British Columbia.

That's even 75 percent, with improvement, resolved in 180 days. What happened to the other 25 percent? I think it's very, very timely, again, that we put in the resources that we need to make sure that those applications are taken in a timely fashion, investigated and resolved within, I would say, weeks, not months, because those are the people that depend on the money that they haven't been paid.

Also, the question I put to the minister — also, it would require, probably, legislative changes — is: why allow only to go back six months? Would you consider going back further, perhaps two years' time, so the employer would know that if they do not pay according to the law, that employee, if they quit — or the time they complain,
[ Page 3662 ]
which normally is the quitting time — could go back two years, and they will have to come up with the back wages.

I think those are the questions. One is the time. The other one is to look at the retroactivity of it.

[1755]

Hon. S. Bond: I think it's fair to say that I share the member opposite's concern about, first of all, the service plan targets. I'm concerned that we're not meeting those targets. I do think there does need to be an expeditious resolution — as expeditious as possible.

In terms of this file, I've also asked that we look at other jurisdictions to see what the comparator is in terms of how quickly others move to resolution. I am advised, on the initial look at that anyway, that we hold up fairly well. I'm not going to be explicit about that today because that work is still being done, but we are taking a look at that.

I should say to the member opposite that we are not contemplating going back to two years of retroactivity. Obviously, I wasn't in this position when the changes were made, so it's hard to articulate it as well as, I'm sure, the minister of the day would have. But it is about balance.

I absolutely understand the need. It's critical to me that we support workers. I'm told that after the last core review process these changes were made, and the primary rationale was to find balance.

In terms of where we're at, we need to be striving harder to meet the targets that are set. We have to look at the resources that are allocated in terms of any better outcomes. Those are the things we're grappling with in the ministry, along with the need to look at resources in a couple of areas. That is something that is on our radar screen and that we are looking at.

H. Bains: The minister talked about core review at that time and not knowing what they were thinking, that they must have had reasons. I can almost assure the minister that it had nothing to do with balance at that time. It was all about ideology. We're talking about the 2002-2003 year, right after the 2001 election.

When you look at the actions of the government of the day, ripping up collective agreements of HEU workers and then putting these changes in place to take the rights of the working people, it wasn't about balance. It was all about ideology. That was the government, that was their ideology, and that's how they acted.

[1800]

I think now the times have changed. I think there's a new government, a new Premier, a new minister. I think it's always reasonable to look back and say: "Well, you know, how is it fair to other employers?"

Let's forget about the employees for a few minutes. How is it fair to the other employers who are actually playing by the law? They're paying the wages under the law. They are incurring all the costs under the law, and they're competing with these few who are cheating the system by cheating the workers.

I think it's not only about looking after the workers. Certainly, we do that. But at the same time it's not fair to the good employers, who are 95 percent of them. I think that's why the changes are necessary — to protect the workers and also to help those employers who are playing by the rules. Right now they are at a disadvantage.

Even if you get caught, you're only going back six months. And even at that, if you look at the history here about these investigations of employment standards, the negotiations take place, and it's a percentage of the total owed. I'll give you some examples of how that system works. I think that's the problem that needs to be changed. That's the reason why I say it.

I want to move on to another area, on some of the exemptions to the employment standards. For example, the IT professions we talked about last time are not covered, truck drivers' overtime is not covered, and I think that farmworkers on many occasions are not covered. That is another area that I would ask the minister to look at when she's looking at if there are going to be any changes.

I want to read you this letter from this truck driver. I think the minister has the letter, because the letter was written to the minister and cc'd to me. This Mr. John Mark Forest had written to the minister in February 2014. He says:

"I'm a truck driver and would like to know when the legislation was brought into force pertaining to truck drivers and the hours that overtime comes into force. I would like to know who brought the legislation into force.

"I have been told that we are not entitled to overtime until after nine hours, and yet a forklift operator gets it after eight hours. A truck driver's job, being on the road and putting up with the stress and heavy manual labour, is a lot more stressful than most jobs. The legislation needs to be changed."

That's one of the workers who wrote. I think last time I read a letter from an IT worker.

Perhaps the minister could look at those two or three areas that are exempted from the Employment Standards Act.

[1805]

Hon. S. Bond: When it comes to the truck driver exemption, it is a fairly longstanding exemption. I'm told that it is common in other jurisdictions, as well, that there is some type of exemption for truck drivers.

I can tell the member opposite that I appreciate it being brought to my attention. It is not something that we're contemplating changing at the moment. I think feedback is always appropriate and helpful. But I am advised that we are not unique in having that exemption included on our list of exemptions.

H. Bains: I guess the answer, again, is that the minister isn't moving to have them included, whether it is IT workers or truck drivers. Okay.

The question that I asked earlier was on how long it
[ Page 3663 ]
takes to have those issues resolved at employment standards and what changes are needed. This is a letter we received.

"The first week of August 2013, I served the employer with the help kit, along with two other complaints, as required by employment standards. We waited for a response. We did not receive any satisfaction from the employer," and there's a name. "We then filed a complaint 15 days later, as per procedure. Two of us hand-delivered a formal complaint to employment standards in Langley."

By the way, that's not easy for Coquitlam residents, with no local office — or for Vancouver residents.

"The other girl used legal aid, or a free student lawyer. Hers was sent by mail to the Richmond office. When I delivered a complaint to Langley, I asked them to please put them together. They unfortunately did not.

"Her complaint was handled by phone two weeks earlier. She was owed about $1,000. Employment standards asked her if she would settle for 20 percent of what she was owed. She needed the money, so she settled, even though she knew that she was owed the full amount.

"Tisha and I had to wait another two weeks before we were contacted in the beginning of October, taking time off work to do this" — lost time from work "then were referred to a meeting late November, early December with employment standards. We were referred to another November 18 meeting, again taking a full day off from work for a phone hearing.

"Because we could not resolve it by having a lower negotiated settlement, we would have to wait for a hearing in the office. After waiting for three weeks not knowing, Tisha called several times, not getting a response as to when we would get our hearing.

"When they finally got back to us, they said the file was on the mediator's desk, December 2, and was in line with the rest. Finally, towards the third week of December we found out an in-house meeting was to be held March 27, 2014, eight months from the time we filed the complaint.

"After that meeting we were told that a decision would probably be at least three or four months, because our hearing person was still working on files from August of last year, and not to call her. It would not speed things up, because she was busy.

"That means it will be a full year before we hear back.

"Thanks,

"Ron Niall."

This is the system in this day and age, under the watch of this government. How do you call that a fair and just system?

[1810]

These are the workers who are owed money, and there's no one to help them. If they go to an office for help for $1,000, take more time off of work, it costs more money, and it takes them over a year to get an answer, unless they're willing to take a cut in a negotiated settlement — which, in the first case, was 20 percent. They were told: "You may lose the case if you don't accept this."

I think there is a serious problem with the system. I hope the minister — and I believe her — will look into this very, very seriously and put a system in place that people will actually have some trust in and say: "Yes, that's the system that we can work with."

I want to move on to another area. It's a serious area. It affects both union and non-union workers. It's the area, largely speaking, of the janitorial sector of the industry and, more so, of the health care sector as well.

You have a contractor who is given the responsibility to provide services on the health care side, largely speaking, to seniors. Then it's decided that they will open up the contract. The new contract comes in. The employees of the first contractor are told that their services are no longer needed. The same thing happened at the janitorial services.

I think it does nothing for the people that they service. It does nothing to the service that they provide to other operations. Why wouldn't the minister agree that successorship rights are the way to go? It was something that wasn't brought in, in the 2002-2003 changes. It is high time, I think, especially in the health care sector. HEU workers — we have seen what happened on the Island. We've seen it elsewhere as well.

Can the minister assure these workers that she will look into their concerns? Hopefully, she will be the one that will be making those changes so that those workers who have a collective agreement will continue to work and provide a service, regardless of who the owners are and whether there's a change in the ownership.

Hon. S. Bond: Again, this is an important issue for the member opposite. I appreciate him bringing it to my attention. I don't think he's going to be surprised by my response, which is that we, along with other jurisdictions, have not….

[1815]

I don't think there is an intent to change the direction of policy that we have in place today. I'm quite confident that that would not come as a surprise to the member opposite.

H. Bains: No, it does not surprise me, Minister, knowing where the government has begun and where they're going.

I would like to present to the minister this piece of document. Perhaps the minister can take a look, or the staff can take a look. This is some of the other ways the system is being abused. I have this construction company, actually, CCBS Contracting Services. Their address is Port Coquitlam. They require all of their employees, I am advised, to sign a contract that makes them contractors. They don't hire them as employees, to go around the legal requirements of looking after their employees and their obligation under the law.

I am told that this contract was given to employees on February 21, 1914, and it was actually signed and dated the end of November 2013. This company didn't offer employees to work for the company. The contract is not honest about paying based on piecework. They are paid based on hours. This company is trying to get out of paying WCB, etc., and all of the other requirements. This company does not pay overtime hours.

The main site, with many employees with no work permit — they are saying it's on 13th Street and Andrews.
[ Page 3664 ]
It's a psychiatric hospital, so it's a government operation. I will leave this to the minister, if they could investigate whether this is against the law or not.

I have a number of other questions for the minister, again, on employment standards and on labour. I will write, and hopefully, the minister will respond to them.

I want to move on now to the jobs part, if the minister would allow me.

My first question is…. As you know, according to the B.C. jobs plan 24-month report, the government plan says that it is on track. However, the independent reviews are telling a different story. How can the minister say that the jobs plan is working when 12,000 private sector jobs were lost in the first ten months of 2013?

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, since the plan was released, the province has actually added a net new 54,400 jobs. When we look at the jobs plan in its totality, it's supporting the development of eight key sectors. There were a number of action items in the original plan, 61 supporting actions. Over half of those have been completed. The remainder are either in progress or considered to be ongoing.

The jobs plan, obviously, is…. We're monitoring against 19 targets that measure progress. In fact, currently 11 of our 19 targets have been met.

[1820]

From my perspective, a plan is something that you stick to. You don't decide overnight that you're just going to change the plan. It takes hard work, and it takes continual focus. As I have said, month-by-month job numbers…. In fact, we just saw an article yesterday, and I'm sure the member opposite read it, that said looking at Stats Canada numbers and attributing job creation or growth or lack thereof is pretty unreliable because of the mechanism that's behind it. We know this: we are focused on increasing jobs in British Columbia, and in fact there's been a net 54,400 added since the plan was released.

H. Bains: The minister talked about overall jobs, but I mean, the jobs plan targeted primarily the private sector. Those six or seven areas of target are private sector. If you look at these statistics, 12,000 private-sector jobs are lost, and the jobs plan has been in place for over two years now. When we talk about the private sector, we have lost 12,000 private-sector jobs.

The next thing I want to talk to the minister about. That plan was put together with the labour market outlook that has since been actually cited by many experts. If you look at TD Economics, the report that came out in October 2013, they clearly they said that the data that the government used to predict those jobs — a million jobs, the minister says — is outdated now. It is on shaky ground.

I think we will ask the minister: has the minister looked at updating the labour market outlook, since the predictions have changed since the plan was released? Maybe the minister could answer that.

Hon. S. Bond: No, in fact the number is accurate. But what I've said…. In fact, just last week we unveiled the blueprint for our skills-training program, and that blueprint is based on current data.

One of the things we are doing, as I mentioned yesterday, is we have refocused our ministry to look at making sure we have relevant, accurate labour market data. That is a priority for the ministry because it really drives the skills and training plan that we have in place.

If you take, for example, the pullout that we used in the skills-training plan, which was applying it to the LNG sector…. We meet virtually every couple of weeks with LNG proponents to say: "How many workers do you need? When do you need them? Where do you need them? What skills do you need?" I'm very confident we have accurate data, particularly in that sector. The work that we have done actually looks at the financial threshold of a project, and we have explicit data on dozens of projects.

We are in the process of seeing our system evolve, but we're not relying on Kijiji or other devices. Whereas, you know, the federal government has recently been cited for using Kijiji, we're doing a lot of hard work with proponents, analyzing the data, and I have every confidence that the information, as it evolves, will continue to be refined.

The number won't be the same today as it is tomorrow, depending upon slippage in project delivery. If a project moves several months before they're going to start or finish, all of those numbers need to be adjusted. Some good work has been done, and I can't tell you how excited we are, certainly on the government side, about what is in the future in terms of job potential.

H. Bains: When the B.C. labour market outlook was created in 2011, it was based on the government's claim that we will have a million jobs. In July 2013 estimates the minister said again: a million job openings. All of that was actually based on a number of different indicators.

For example, the outlook was based on GDP growth projections that haven't been met. It was based on projections made in the 2011 B.C. budget that assumed we would return to a long-term GDP growth rate of 2.8 percent. By 2013 GDP growth has already been slower than predicted, and long-term growth projection has been revised down to 2.5 percent. That small change compounded year after year would make a big difference to the projection of 2020, as the minister is saying.

[1825]

Also, the 2010 labour market outlook said that it would be updated every year, but this hasn't happened. I ask the minister: what happened to that plan that was supposed to be updated every year? Why isn't it being updated every year?
[ Page 3665 ]

Hon. S. Bond: It is still one million jobs. I'm going to be very correct about this, because I've certainly heard about it. Two-thirds of those jobs will come as a result of an aging demographic and a workforce that we will need to replenish as some of us move into that older category. Two-thirds of those one million jobs will be as a result of retirement and an aging demographic. One-third of those one million jobs will be as a result of new growth.

We will continue to refresh the jobs plan. But as I mentioned earlier, we have met a significant number of the targets. It's certainly our intent to look at it, as we did, annually. We will look at that, and we will be talking about our progress on those targets and the progress we're making on supporting actions.

I'm actually very proud of the work that we are doing on labour market analysis. Minister Kenney and other ministers from across the country were very complimentary about the approach we have taken. It is very detailed. But as I said to member opposite, the exact number will vary as we move forward.

As projects come on line — perhaps they take a little bit longer — those numbers will vary. Certainly, the target of one million jobs is still on the horizon for our province. In fact, we released that number once again last week, including it in the skills-training blueprint that we released.

H. Bains: I don't know how the minister can sustain that argument. On the one hand, she said that she will continue to review the outlook. It was promised — they committed to it in the 2010 labour market outlook — that it would be updated every year, but it hasn't happened. If you don't update your outlook, how can you say that your predictions will come exactly the way they were predicted on the previous review? I think that's something that's really worrisome.

We keep on making these claims, but the labour market outlook hasn't been reviewed, hasn't been updated. We continue to use the same data. The report from TD Bank has said that that is on shaky grounds, and other experts have said they're on shaky grounds. What is the answer for not reviewing on a yearly basis? Where is that report?

Hon. S. Bond: Well, I can assure the member opposite that we're not at all reluctant to release the outlook yearly. In fact, we're looking at updating data every week in our ministry. We continue to adjust it as projects — as I said to the member opposite — come on stream.

We're working individually. We're able to look at projects like Site C, for example, working with B.C. Hydro, looking at the requirements that are attached to that project. We're looking at mines. We're looking at forestry. We look at the project, and we assess the number by working with the proponent. We're going to have extremely accurate data.

My point to the member was only that as projects take longer to come on line or they adjust their beginning construction phase — whatever it is — those numbers will change. They are a point in time at the moment. As the schedule is impacted, so will our numbers accurately reflect those changes.

We certainly are very confident that the new work we're doing on labour market data is something that we're going to look at ways to share. We're sharing it regularly with post-secondary institutions, with employers, with anyone who needs that data.

[1830]

In addition to that, we're going to, through the labour market priorities board that we now have in government across a number of ministries…. That's the data that drives the decision-making that sends dollars out the door. We're going to use that data as the basis for moving dollars and programs forward. We're working on it every single day. As I said yesterday, we're shifting the focus of our ministry because data drives decision-making. That's exactly what we're going to do.

H. Bains: Perhaps the minister, if you really want to look at what is reliable…. Many of the economists will agree it's the employment numbers, not the unemployment numbers. If you look at the employment numbers going back to the pre-depression time, when the economy of North America and Canada started to slide — 2008, 2009 numbers — B.C. numbers were higher than even today.

When you look at all of the other provinces, what they have done since that time…. They have gone through the valley, and now they're starting to pick up again. You look at Alberta, look at Manitoba, look at Saskatchewan. Their employment rate is in the mid-60s. They're actually better than in the pre-recession time. We are actually slipping.

I think, if my memory serves me correctly, prior to the depression our employment rate was 59.8 percent. We have slipped down to 58.6 percent now. Perhaps the plan isn't working. That means that the jobs that are available…. Of the people that are available to do the jobs, only 58.6 percent are employed.

I think that tells the story when other provinces have improved. They've gone to where they were — actually improved from where they were. When you look at our growth, we are in the lower pack in Canada. We are the lower side of the average.

I think maybe the minister should revisit the data she's using. Perhaps she should update the labour market outlooks on a more regular basis and readjust our predictions and assumptions. Maybe that's what we'll do so that we can put some real programs together to have those workers with a real hope and opportunity for those jobs.

Hon. S. Bond: As I said, maybe the member opposite is mixing apples and oranges a little bit. What I'm talking about is making sure that we understand as best we
[ Page 3666 ]
possibly can what the job demands are going to be today and into the future.

[E. Foster in the chair.]

We're doing that in a way that very few other jurisdictions are actually doing that. Our unemployment rate in British Columbia today is fourth-lowest in the country. We are significantly below the national average.

Friday is labour force survey day. I can assure the member opposite that he'll be watching with some interest as to whether or not those numbers go up or down.

I can tell you this. Looking at it from a monthly basis is really not that accurate. I certainly look at those numbers. They're important to me. What's more important to me is what the trends over time are, making sure that we understand the labour market that we're creating programs to serve. I think our blueprint clearly laid out that we not only are having a much better sense of the labour market demands, but that we're going to manage the $7 billion that is invested in skills and training in the province in a way that lines up the demands we have with the dollars that we have available.

I do know this. Currently we sit at the fourth-lowest unemployment rate in the country. I know that that is significantly improved over when we first became government and we looked at some of the numbers of unemployment rate that was were in effect, certainly in my part of the province, at that time.

[M. Bernier in the chair.]

H. Bains: Let me put some of the facts on the table here. The B.C. labour market outlook that was created in 2011 is the basis of the government's claim that there will be one million job openings by 2020.

[1835]

The outlook has fallen short on jobs and GDP growth in both areas. As of 2013 we are already 70,800 jobs short of what was projected; 2,379,600 were predicted for 2013, and 2,308,800 are actual. So 70,800, or 3 percent. There's a gap between what was projected and what the reality is.

Also, the labour market outlook and the 2011 B.C. budget assumed that the real GDP growth would be 11.9 percent between 2009 and 2013. In reality, it was only 9.2 percent. Additionally, the government has downgraded its long-term GDP growth forecast from 2.8 percent to 2.5 percent.

Again, I refer to the TD Bank report, which clearly shows that those predictions were made on shaky ground because they have not come through. The predictions that were made, the assumptions that were made, based on the data that was available at that time, haven't come true.

I've given you some numbers on jobs. I've given you numbers on GDP growth. Based on that, we're short by 70,000 jobs. I think, then, Minister, it is time that you revisit and readjust your labour market outlook and now come up with new predictions and assumptions about what lies ahead of us based on what we have in reality.

Hon. S. Bond: Well, in the spirit of putting facts on the table, as I said to the member opposite, we have an unemployment rate that ranks fourth in the country, and we are significantly below the national average. In addition to that, when we look at the flat economic growth that British Columbia faced, along with many other jurisdictions, we're very pleased to see that we are looking at a fair degree of optimism from economic agencies across the country. In fact, they're predicting growth in excess of 2 percent next year and looking at even better numbers in 2016.

The economic tide, I hope, is turning, and we will see a far stronger economy. But we should be clear. During the period of time when the economy was still fragile, we saw below 2 percent growth. In fact, our growth was downgraded in 2013. We're looking at a far more optimistic situation for our province in 2015-2016.

From my perspective — to the member opposite's point — we are going to look at relevant labour market data. We are going to line up the programs that we offer in government based on the demand. We're actually going to see a demand-driven system, not a supply system. We're going to look at $7 billion of spending and make sure that we're spending it in the most appropriate way possible, lined up to those labour market demands.

I know this. I have in my office on a weekly basis investors who want to come to British Columbia. There are some reasons that they want to come here. It's because this is a government that has focused on fiscal prudence. It's a government that's balanced its budget and has some of the lowest income taxes in the country. We have a triple-A credit rating. All of those things send strong messages to investors. They want to come to a place that actually knows how to get its fiscal house in order, and we've managed to do that.

Now, if we get the kind of economic growth that is anticipated…. We're optimistic, but again, I'm always very cautious about those numbers. Look what happened in 2013. Our growth numbers were actually downgraded, and because we took a very conservative approach in government, which we always do, we were able to balance our budget and maintain the economic integrity that this province has gained.

We are looking forward to a much brighter future in the next couple of years. We have the jobs plan in place. We're going to work hard. We're going to make sure we emphasize the need to bring investment to British Columbia. But when I look at unemployment numbers in this country, we are currently fourth in the country, just slightly above Manitoba at this point in time, and we are well below the national average, which is sitting
[ Page 3667 ]
at 6.9 percent today.

[1840]

H. Bains: I want to move on to another area. The minister talked about these jobs. Who will do these jobs? I know the minister is going to stand up about the agreement that they signed. Even in that agreement there's a section left in there about temporary foreign workers.

My concern is actually shared by the students that I met last week from Kwantlen University who are in the welding program. They actually invited me to talk to me about their worries about jobs that are coming up, whether they will be able to have those jobs or will be bypassed and whether the companies will be allowed to bring temporary foreign workers to fill those jobs.

To begin with, there's a two-year wait to get into that program. On one hand, we're saying there's a shortage of the skills; on the other hand, there's a two-year wait to get in that program, not only at Kwantlen but at BCIT as well.

This is the lack of planning for the last 14 years. That's what brought us here. They're worried. Many other workers are coming out of universities and colleges. They're worried, and those coming from high schools. Will they be actually given the jobs? Will they actually be in the front of the line, as they deserve to be, for those new jobs that are created in British Columbia?

They're worried because the government's actions are quite different and opposite to what the minister says. I think that's why they're worried. They know what happened at HD Mining. They know what happened at the Canada Line. They know that there are so many others, many employers, who are looking at bringing employees from overseas and other countries — rather than having our workers trained, having them ready and then having those skills and training that they need.

How do you assure B.C. workers first and then Canadian workers that all future jobs that will be there — whether they're openings in the existing jobs because of attrition or new jobs, skilled or unskilled — that B.C. workers will come first in the lineup? Right now they don't believe they are even in the lineup, looking at some of the actions of the government and some that the employers are allowed to do.

Hon. S. Bond: One of the fundamental beliefs of our government is that British Columbians should come first when it comes to jobs in our province. In fact, there are particular groups of people that we're very concerned about in terms of marginalized British Columbians, people who have not had the opportunity to get into the job market at this point in their career.

That's why we fought so aggressively and led the national agenda to talk about the changes to the labour market agreement. It's all about making sure that British Columbians, particularly those who have not had the opportunity to be in the jobs market at this point, get the training they need. We've led a national coalition that led to changes in the federal government program, and we're going to work very hard to make sure that the criteria that's in place there works well for our province. It's not perfect, but we got changes made, and that was important.

I did read with interest about the member's visit with the Kwantlen students. I'm hopeful that when he was there, he introduced them to the Work B.C. site, because on that site today, there are over…. I want to be accurate. I don't have the number, but we think that at the moment there are 13,000-plus job postings on the Work B.C. site, many of which are trades-related. If I had more time and the ability to use an iPad in here, I could look that up very quickly for you. There are welding positions, trades positions, all of those things.

We'd be more than happy to talk to Kwantlen students, any students in the province, about the tools that are available. But right now, today, in British Columbia on Work B.C. there are 13,000 job postings, many of them which are trades-related.

To the other point that the member was…. We're concerned about wait-lists too. We want to make sure, though, that any funds we invest are targeted to in-demand occupations, so in fact, we are looking at $6.6 million this year alone — an additional $6.6 million.

It is noted on page 13 of B.C.'s Skills for Jobs Blueprint. It says: "'Providing more funding for trades training seats.' Government is providing additional $6.6 million this year for critical trades seats, a 10 percent increase over the current Industry Training Authority funding to public institutions. It will significantly reduce wait-lists by adding spaces starting in September 2014 for the jobs needed."

[1845]

Not only do we have 13,000 job postings, many of them in the trades field, but thanks to the good work of my colleagues the Minister of AVED and the Minister of Education, we're going to add $6.6 million to reduce some of those wait-lists that the member opposite spoke about.

H. Bains: I think the job openings are there. Job openings will be there. They were there when the HD Mining situation came up. The issue isn't about job openings. The job openings are there, but their worry is whether they will be considered for those jobs or if this government will continue to allow employers to bring temporary foreign workers to fill those jobs. That's their concern.

When the minister signed the 15-point agreement with the different stakeholders, again, there is that section in that agreement, the last section, No. 15, on room to have the temporary foreign workers brought in.

At the same time, also, maybe the minister could advise this House: have they hired those agencies — as was advertised some time ago — to help temporary foreign workers to have their credentials recognized in B.C. or to
[ Page 3668 ]
make it easier for them to have them recognized here in B.C.? Also, who is on that agency? Do they actually have any trades experience? What background do they have so that they could consider themselves qualified? How can they help temporary foreign workers to have their credentials recognized here in B.C. faster?

Hon. S. Bond: We absolutely need to look at the issue of credential recognition. I'm not sure — and perhaps we can pursue this tomorrow — whether or not there is the question of the agency. I'm not sure at this hour, and with my thinking, what exactly the member is talking about, but we can come back to that tomorrow.

I do want to point out that wait-list data will actually be published. Where there are vacancies and space and capacity, students will be able, and their parents will be able, to go. That's going to be some very innovative work that's done by the Ministry of Advanced Education.

Hon. Chair, I know I'm going to get the nod here very shortly.

I do want to challenge the member opposite in the discussion about temporary foreign workers. None of us want to see British Columbians displaced, but on this side of the House we actually believe that there are legitimate and appropriate shortages that from time to time require temporary foreign workers. Just once I would like to see the opposition stand up and say that unequivocally. It is critical to the economy of British Columbia, and in many northern communities and other places there are specific urgent needs.

Temporary foreign workers should be considered only as a last resort, but we recognize on this side of the House that there are legitimate needs from time to time which require, after a rigorous process with employers who pay attention to the rules, the need for temporary foreign workers. It does not include abusive employers. It does not include McDonald's being able to say: "No, thank you; we don't want you." But there are highly specialized workers, and from time to time there's the need to use temporary foreign workers.

In fact, the B.C. Federation of Labour, through Jim Sinclair and Tom Sigurdson, is on record saying it has happened for some time in British Columbia. The liquefied natural gas task force actually has as one of its recommendations not that we get rid of the temporary foreign worker program…. And organized labour was at that table. It was that we develop appropriate protocols to ensure, when they are used — not if they're used; when they are used — and when it's necessary, that there are appropriate protocols.

We have accepted those recommendations, agree with them and in fact believe that in certain circumstances, after rigorous processes, there is a role, occasionally, for temporary foreign workers in our province. But we do not support a program that allows employers to abuse that program, and we support the very significant moves that the federal government has made to crack down on abusive employers.

With that, hon. Chair, I move that the committee rise, report progress and seek leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:50 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet.
Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.
Question Period podcasts are available on the Internet.

TV channel guide • Broadcast schedule

Copyright © 2014: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada