2014 Legislative Session: Second Session, 40th Parliament
HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Monday, May 26, 2014

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 13, Number 7

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

MONDAY, MAY 26, 2014

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Madame Speaker: Good afternoon, hon. Members. It is my pleasure to advise that we have a visiting Clerk from another jurisdiction on attachment to our House this week: Mr. Kenneth Ring, Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, Legislative Assembly of Saskatchewan. This visit is one of a continuing series of attachments whereby our Legislative Assembly hosts Clerks from other jurisdictions.

Please join me in welcoming Ken Ring, QC, to British Columbia and to our House.

[1335]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

B. Routley: A man that I'm extremely proud to be able to call brother is here today. Leo Gerard is president of the 850,000-member USW, the Steelworkers union. The USW is the largest industrial union in North America.

Leo has been instrumental in strengthening and improving workers rights all over the world through many mergers and strategic alliances. The alliance, for example, with the United Kingdom's Unite to form a global union called Workers Uniting now represents three million members worldwide.

He is also co-chair of the BlueGreen Alliance. The USW is uniquely committed to the values of environmental protection, workplace safety and advancing a clean economy as a strategy for revitalizing manufacturing and creating good middle-class jobs. Will you please join me in making Leo feel very welcome today.

Hon. M. Polak: Joining us in the House today are Terry Smith, Tiffany Fang-Ju Lui, Yuriy Kyrzov and Christian Garcia. Terry is the president of the Langley Central Rotary Club. Tiffany and Yuriy are high school students from Langley. Christian is a master's student from Trinity Western University. Terry has brought these bright, young people here today as part of a Rotary club program to allow them the opportunity to see democracy at work. Would the House please make them welcome.

L. Krog: I'm delighted today to ask the House to welcome to the chamber Avery Valerio, a very ambitious young woman — a first-rate student who therefore can take a day off from being at Nanaimo District Secondary to come down and watch proceedings in this House today. She's a joint guest of myself and the member for Victoria–Beacon Hill. Would the House please welcome Avery.

Hon. A. Virk: I have the pleasure of introducing two contingents today. First of all, we're joined by a legislator from the Punjab region representing Khadoor Sahib, Mr. Ramanjit Singh Sikki — right up there — MLA from the Punjab. He is joined by his wife and Mr. Prabhjot Khera from my riding and his clan.

Also, right over on this side, I have my high school friend Larry Clay and his wife, Candice Clay. They are the founders of Clay Construction. They are Georgie Award Builders of the Year, and they're really contributing to the economy because they brought five of their six children with them today — Isaac, Lisette, Adam, Jessica and Brianna. Would the House please make all my guests feel welcome.

A. Weaver: I have three guests to briefly introduce. The first are Alec and Marlene Mackenzie, who are visiting here from South Surrey; and third is Chris Turner, distinguished writer and journalist visiting here from Calgary. Please join me in welcoming them to the House today.

Hon. J. Rustad: It's a pleasure today to introduce four people into the House, an assistant from our office here, Heather Doerksen. Heather Doerksen does great work for us. She has with her today her husband, David Stanley, who is here. Also, for David, David has his parents, David and Louise Stanley, who are visiting here from Clarenville, Newfoundland. Would the House please make them welcome.

E. Foster: We're joined in the House today by seven members of my riding, constituents of mine, members of the Queen Silver Star Excellence Program. We have Queen Silver Star Cheyenne Krog, Princesses Paige Webster and Simmy Sidhu, Miss Congeniality Cassia Swartz. They are accompanied by their chaperones, Britanna Jackson and Colleen Noel. I wish the House to please make them welcome.

[1340]

J. Rice: Today I have the honour of introducing Andrea Wilmot. She's a very special friend to me. She recently moved to Prince Rupert from Burns Lake. She is a northerner. She was born and raised in Smithers. She is now a new addition to the Northern Health team as a registered nurse. Would the House please make her feel welcome.

Tributes

PUBLIC SAFETY LIFELINE VOLUNTEERS

Hon. S. Anton: I'd like to acknowledge today the public safety lifeline volunteers who were honoured a little while ago in this building. They may be here right now. They are Jim Spencer for PEP Air, from Nanaimo; Vasantha Aruliah for Emergency Social Services, from Port Coquitlam; Bill Foster for emergency radio communications, from Kamloops; Keith Laboucan for Road Rescue, from Prince George, Jack Bryceland for search and rescue, from
[ Page 4108 ]
Chilliwack; and for a lifetime achievement award, Ron Royston from North Shore Search and Rescue.

I hope the House will congratulate them for their thousands upon thousands of hours of public service, volunteer service in British Columbia, helping out our citizens every day.

Introductions by Members

J. Horgan: Joining us in the gallery is the second vice-president of the B.C. Teachers Federation but, more importantly, a citizen of the Cariboo and a friend from Quesnel who also lives very close to my bestest buddy up there: Teri Mooring. Would the House please make her very, very welcome.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I hope the House will join me in welcoming 20 very well-behaved girls from York House School in my riding, along with their teacher, Ms. Marnie Seliwoniuk. She's brave enough to have brought another 20 girls this morning. For all 40 of them, please welcome them to the House.

M. Dalton: I have some special guests visiting us today from Enderby. My father, Peter Dalton, and his beautiful wife, Cleo Jones-Dalton. Dad served in the military, in the Royal Canadian Air Force, for 36 years during the Cold War and also as a peacekeeper in Egypt. Cleo comes from a logging family that owned a company in the Enderby area and was telling me yesterday about her memories, with the company doing it all by horses.

Also visiting them — and in the "beautiful" category — is my daughter Simone and Christine Secord. Could the House please make them feel welcome.

J. Shin: One of the many things that I learned in the last two years is that when you step into politics, you get enemies you didn't deserve but you also get friends you didn't earn. I have one such friend with us in the gallery today who is also serving on my constituency association executive. Will the House please make Duc Tran feel very welcome.

J. Thornthwaite: My colleague here forgot the lovely Marlene, his wife. Could we please, once again, reintroduce Marlene Dalton to the Legislature.

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

BRITANNIA SHIPYARD EXHIBIT ON
HOLOCAUST REFUGEES IN SHANGHAI

J. Yap: Last week I visited the Britannia Shipyard National Historic Site in my riding and learned about one aspect of the shared histories of the Chinese and Jewish communities, both of whom have played important roles in the history, economy and culture of B.C.

This year on April 28 British Columbians joined people around the world in Yom HaShoah, remembering the more than six million Jewish men, women and children who were murdered during the Holocaust. As the Second World War began, Jews were forced to escape Nazi-occupied Europe. These stateless Jewish refugees were denied entry into most countries, including Canada. But China, specifically Shanghai, opened its arms and welcomed the Jewish refugees, over 18,000 in all.

Today the historical Jewish area still exists in Shanghai, along with the Jewish Refugees Museum. The exhibit in Steveston at the Chinese bunkhouse at Britannia Shipyard, which goes on until July, gives a glimpse into what life was like for the refugees. It provides insight into what the families went through during this terrible period in history, how they made their way out of Europe to Shanghai and how some of them eventually immigrated to Canada. It's hard to imagine what these families went through.

The Britannia exhibit shows that through strength, courage, solidarity and the assistance of the people of Shanghai, these displaced people rebuilt their lives. Today approximately 50 families who were part of this Shanghai Jewish community live in the Metro Vancouver area, and I was privileged to meet a few of these family members at the exhibit.

[1345]

I wish to acknowledge and thank the organizers of Shanghai: A Refuge During the Holocaust, including Stephanie Goldberg and Darren Mackoff, of the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, and Kenny Chiu of the Richmond board of education, and also the city of Richmond for making this exhibit possible.

Madame Speaker, I encourage you and all members of this House to visit Steveston, check out the exhibit and learn about a little-known chapter of a dark period in world history, and continue to understand why we must learn from history so that we may make sure the same mistakes and evils are not repeated.

WESTCOAST FAMILY CENTRES

S. Simpson: Most if not all members of this House have excellent organizations in their constituencies that contribute to the betterment of British Columbia. In Vancouver-Hastings I have a number of such groups. Today I'm very proud to speak about one which is celebrating its 30th anniversary.

Westcoast Family Centres provide a wide range of services and programs for families and children in four different communities in the Lower Mainland. Working in collaboration with government and others, they deliver a range of critical programs based on strengthening the relationship between children and their families and be-
[ Page 4109 ]
tween those families and their community through programs including family preservation and reunification services, intensive parenting programs, counselling and therapeutic initiatives, parenting-after-separation programs, a healthy babies program focused on improving maternal and infant health, and programs like Family TIES that help individuals improve personal and family relationships.

All of these are built on the philosophy and belief of Westcoast that the safety of children must come first and that children are healthier and stronger in their own family unit. As a result, the challenge is to help families learn skills and have the supports and resources to create the wholesome family environment that helps achieve that positive outcome. That is what Westcoast delivers every day to B.C. families in need.

In 2010 Westcoast Family Centres were recognized for their work by the Premier's office, for their excellence in service delivery in providing family development response programs. Westcoast has come a long way from the ten employees who started in 1984 to the more than 100 staff who support families in British Columbia today. Please join me in congratulating Westcoast Family Centres for 30 years of excellent service to British Columbians and in wishing them many more years of contributing to our province, our families and our children's well-being.

NEPTUNE TERMINALS FUNDRAISING FOR
REBUILDING OF NORTH SHORE DAYCARE

J. Thornthwaite: I rise in the House today to talk about a North Shore partnership that serves as a great example of why the community is such an amazing place to call home. Neptune Terminals has been an integral part of North Vancouver for more than 40 years. It is one of the largest bulk terminals on the continent, shipping products such as potash and steel-making coal and fertilizers to markets around the world. It provides more than 300 family-supporting jobs to local residents and is committed to the health and safety of the region through the highest environmental standards.

But Neptune's contributions to the community go far beyond jobs and economic growth. Last December the North Shore Neighbourhood House's Novaco Daycare burned down. Luckily, no one was hurt, but the loss left more than 30 families without a daycare facility. They immediately planned to rebuild, but the cost of security, demolition and construction proved too much for their insurance. That's when Neptune Terminals stepped in to assist their fundraising efforts.

On May 15, I had the pleasure of attending the annual North Vancouver Chamber of Commerce governor's gala. The gala was sponsored by Neptune, and the proceeds go towards North Shore Neighbourhood House and to Presentation House Theatre. I'm happy to say that $160,000 was raised, and $110,000 of that will be put towards the rebuilding efforts. Thanks to the generous support of Neptune and the community, they hope to have the rebuilt facility ready for families this September.

I want to commend Neptune Terminals for giving back to the North Shore and for showing that local resource industries contribute far more than jobs and product. Their partnership with the North Shore Neighbourhood House proves there are many opportunities for industry to work in concert with local organizations to raise quality of life, build vibrant communities and make the province more livable for all British Columbians.

SOCIETY FOR ARTS
ON THE SOUTH ISLAND

M. Karagianis: On the West Shore they're calling it Coast Collective 2.0. Earlier this year the Coast Collective art centre began a new chapter as an enterprising non-profit under the banner of the Society for Arts on the South Island, or SASI for short.

[1350]

Since opening its doors six years ago, the Coast Collective art centre has grown into a popular West Shore cultural destination, and each year it welcomes thousands of visitors. With 200 artists and an exceptionally dedicated volunteer base, the move to non-profit status as a society will mean that SASI can qualify for sponsorships and grant funding.

The society's directors are excited about the next chapter and growing the range of arts education programs and operations available through the Coast Collective at the historic Pendray House on the Havenwood estate. The house was completed in 1927 and sits on the shore of spectacular Esquimalt Lagoon.

It's an outstanding place to experience the arts, culture and community of the flourishing West Shore. Gallery shows change every few weeks and range from works from emerging talent to some of the best-known visual artists on Vancouver Island. There are arts classes and a lovely little gift shop as well.

I'd like to offer my congratulations to SASI's leadership team and especially to Cindy Moyer, who came up with the idea for an art gallery in Pendray House. In 2008 she convinced the Pacific Landing trust, a resort development company that owns the Havenwood estate, that they could benefit from having an art gallery occupy the house. Cindy is now serving as SASI's first executive director, guiding the organization through these exciting new times.

It's fabulous to see such a dynamic, community-driven arts organization nurturing British Columbia's arts and culture and showcasing local pride and talent. I encourage all members to visit the gallery if you get a chance or to check out the website at coastcollective.ca.

LACROSSE

M. Dalton: Hockey may be known for being Canada's game, but once the ice is removed and the Zamboni parked, lacrosse players dominate the rinks, demon-
[ Page 4110 ]
strating skill, action and power in Canada's other official sport.

Wayne Gretzky, Joe Sakic, Paul Kariya — they're known for their scoring records, for their precision passes, for skilfully navigating through mazes of players and for being able to catch a pass behind their shoulders. You know what? It's all in the game of lacrosse.

Lacrosse has long been Canada's game. B.C.'s first recorded lacrosse game was played between Victoria and Vancouver in 1886 at Beacon Hill Park. But the game has actually been played for some 900 years, originating with North America's aboriginal peoples, who had hundreds of players on each team and played lacrosse as a kind of symbolic warfare.

Lacrosse has an ever-increasing following in our province. Today the Ridge Meadows Minor Lacrosse Association is one of the largest in B.C. with 36 teams and over 550 players. On May 18, I took in the association's community barbecue and watched our senior men's team, the Ridge Meadows Burrards, win an exciting season game opener. Join us later this summer as the Burrards host the 2014 female box lacrosse provincials.

In Mission lacrosse is also strong, with many young players in the Mission lacrosse club, the Sasquatch.

Today I acknowledge all the athletes, coaches, parents, volunteers and enthusiasts for their passion and commitment to this action-packed sport. I recognize the dedication of our local association, including the work of all board members, Presidents Ron Williams and Jeff McCulley and Maple Ridge Burrards President Lance Andre.

I'd like the House to join me in celebrating lacrosse, our other national sport that's growing in popularity across our province.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

S. Robinson: As the critic for local government, I had the pleasure of attending the Southern Interior Local Government Association annual conference a couple of weeks ago. The keynote speaker for the event was Naheed Nenshi, mayor of Calgary, who was there to talk about the role that his local government played in the year after their massive flooding.

As he introduced his topic, he shared his thoughts on the value of local government. He said: "Imagine for a second if our federal government just disappeared. How long would it be before anyone noticed? A month? And how long would it be before anyone noticed if our provincial government disappeared? A week? But what would happen if our local governments magically disappeared? How long would it take for us to notice? An hour?"

This past week, May 18 to 24, was Local Government Awareness Week, a week set aside to acknowledge the value and the role that our local governments play in making our communities livable, resilient and flexible. It's our local governments that ensure that we have clean drinking water, proper sewage, roads, sidewalks, recreation centres, parks and emergency services.

It's our local government that we turn to when our roads need to be cleared of snow. It's our local government we turn to, to fix potholes. It's our local government we turn to when we need a new arena, a new swimming pool, theatre or library.

[1355]

It's our local government that makes land use decisions that will determine if we live next to a farm, an industrial area, a retail store, a park or an apartment building. It's local governments that are responsible for policing and fire decisions in our communities.

When you look at the total responsibility of local governments, you can really appreciate all that they do for us. I invite — no, actually, I challenge — all members of the House to send a note of thanks to their respective local governments and staff thanking them for their contribution to making our lives and the lives of our constituents more livable.

Oral Questions

GOVERNMENT ROLE IN
TEACHERS LABOUR DISPUTE

J. Horgan: Well, we've had 12 years of B.C. Liberal meddling in negotiations with teachers, with trustees, with support workers. We've had 12 years of confusion.

You could call it a generational confusion, because the kids were in grade 1 in 2002 when the then minister, the current Premier, capriciously ripped out class-size and class-composition language from a collective bargaining agreement and then was told by the courts to renegotiate that position. A whole generation of kids has gone from grade 1 to graduation this coming month with uncertainty and unease as a result of the actions of this government — not one Supreme Court ruling but two.

My question is to the Minister of Education. He has said: "The class-size issue is an oxymoron as far as I'm concerned" — we can debate the grammar of that — "because all the research in the world says class size does not determine outcomes."

I would disagree with that, and so would thousands of other scholars. But instead of trying to explain when he had time to read all the research in the world, my question is: did he have time to read the convoluted explanation as to why we're locking people out this week when we should be at the bargaining table negotiating a fair collective agreement?

Hon. P. Fassbender: I appreciate the question from the Leader of the Opposition. I will say this. I think that if his facts weren't on an Etch a Sketch— when he flips it over, it disappears — then maybe he could stay on track.
[ Page 4111 ]

I'm going to try and help the Leader of the Opposition and the members opposite. I'm going to try and help you understand the reality of what we have done and what we are doing.

This government is committed to negotiated settlements. If you look at our track record, we have been working very hard with the public sector to find negotiated settlements — to work together with trade unions — that respect their rights and also respect the rights of taxpayers in an economic climate that requires some tough decisions.

It is not this government that initiated this current round of dispute. It is the BCTF that started limited strike action. It is the BCTF that ramped it up this week to rotating walkouts throughout the province.

This government, since June, since we were elected, was prepared to sit at the negotiating table every single day to find a negotiated settlement. We are still committed to doing that. We are prepared to meet around the clock, through the summer, to find a negotiated settlement that respects the rights of teachers, of students, of parents, of other labour unions in this province.

That is our commitment. That is our goal, because long-term stability is what is important in our education system.

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

[1400]

J. Horgan: As tempting as it is to talk about mechanical bulls and by-products, I think I'll just try and focus in on the minister's comment about the track record of the B.C. Liberals — not one but two examples that went to the Supreme Court and found the government had contravened the Charter rights of a group of citizens in British Columbia. Not once; twice.

What did they learn from that? They learned more provocation, more disruption, more confusion. Let's be clear. I love to do that. This is what we hear from the Vancouver District Parent Advisory Council: "Everybody is confused." That strikes me as not a transparent approach. It's a confusing approach.

Will there be graduation ceremonies? Will we be marking exams? It took five pages in a letter from the chief negotiator, and I'm still not clear. I wasn't reading all of the information in the world, but maybe I could ask the minister. This is a comment from the Vancouver District PAC association. This is all the PACs in Vancouver.

Interjections.

J. Horgan: Oh, I know that the minister is really concerned about this, so keep your mechanical bull to yourself for a moment, and we'll focus on this: "Parents are more willing to adapt to a one-day schedule change than they are to accept the long-term damage the provincial government is inflicting on the public education system in this province." Long-term damage.

My question is, to the minister: could he try and interpret for the people of British Columbia just what Peter Cameron is doing with the people of this province, and most importantly, the kids that are not in classrooms because of your provocation?

Hon. P. Fassbender: I am more than prepared to ride the wave of misinformation that is coming from the members opposite about what our intent was and what it has been. It is very clear. Mr. Cameron last week clarified exactly why we had to take the steps we did in response to the decisions that were made by the teachers union moving forward. But I would ask the members opposite: where was your concern over a year ago when we had almost a year of limited strike action while we were trying to negotiate a settlement? Where was your concern then when that happened?

Where were the members across the way? Where was their concern a week ago when the BCTF was initiating strike action? Where was the concern then? All I can say, and I say this with all sincerity…. There are none of us that want to see disruption in students' lives, in the lives of their parents and their communities, in the lives of the teachers. We are clearly still at the table, willing to negotiate, asking for a response that is measured and appropriate for everyone in this province.

First and foremost, stability has been our goal. It'll continue to be our goal, and we'll continue to negotiate that.

J. Horgan: A 12-year record of destabilizing public education. A child who started in grade 1 in 2002 has had 12 years of confusion as the result of this government's policies.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members. The Chair needs to hear the answer and the question.

J. Horgan: Thank you very much, hon. Chair.

My question is to the "Let's be clear" Minister of Education. You've been provoking disruptions in the education system for 12 years. The court has found twice — not once; twice — that you deliberately provoked action so that you could take more pieces of a collective agreement off the table.

What steps will the minister take to ensure that this last month of public education for those kids who were disrupted in 2002 by the then minister, the current Premier…? What steps are you going to do to make those next 30 days an enjoyable experience rather than a chaotic one that rests right at your feet?

[1405]

Hon. P. Fassbender: I think the Leader of the Opposition, as I said, has selective memory when it comes to the facts. The facts are that we've had a decade of unprecedented labour peace in this province. Another fact for the Leader of the Opposition: just last week or the week before last we signed another tentative agreement with the HEU that was within the framework. That was a five-year agreement.

I do not believe that even the members of the opposition, who have children and grandchildren, don't want what we want on this side of the House. That is stability, a focus on learning outcomes, a focus on moving forward in transforming our education system to meet the future of this country and this province.

We have learning outcomes that lead the world, that show that we are delivering results. Yes, it's absolutely through the hard work of the teachers, who also deserve a fair and negotiated settlement, not labour disruption initiated by their own union.

R. Fleming: It's déjà vu all over again with these guys. This government has a unique ability to insult the province's teachers.

Last week the Premier said she would resolve bargaining by locking everyone in a room until they get a deal. Good. But then she took to the airwaves mere hours later and said teachers are only motivated by greed. She told a radio station that for teachers: "It's all about money. It's never about the quality of education."

Wow. I thought it was this government that wouldn't let bargaining talk about class size and composition issues on the table in this dispute. Can the Education Minister describe how the Premier insulting teachers and then locking kids out from their lunchtime activities and extracurricular activities can in any way help create…?

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

R. Fleming: Can the minister describe how the Premier's sum total of her statements on teachers last week in any way helps this week in getting us closer to a settlement to achieve trust and respect at the bargaining table so that our schools in British Columbia are stable and secure?

Hon. P. Fassbender: I appreciate that the critic for the opposition is again taking facts and twisting them to their purpose. But let me say this in answer to the question. I absolutely know that the Premier and the members of this government respect teachers in this province for the great job that they do.

I also know that the Premier and the members of this government respect the rights of every person in British Columbia, that we respect the rights of other labour unions that have sat at the table with us.

[1410]

As I said, unprecedented labour peace in the province of British Columbia because we have been willing to sit at the table and negotiate and have the other labour unions come back with counterproposals to ensure that we find a negotiated settlement.

I will reiterate this for the members opposite, and I would ask you to read my lips in addition to hearing me. Please listen to what I'm saying. Our track record in this current round of negotiations is that we've been at the table since June. We have stayed at the table. We have brought counterproposals. We have been willing to move off of some of our original positions. But the bottom line is you can't negotiate with yourself. You need the other party to be there with you. That's our desire: stability and a negotiated settlement.

Madame Speaker: Victoria–Swan Lake on a supplemental.

R. Fleming: The reality is that the minister's comments are so divorced from what is happening today in schools around British Columbia. It's now kids and parents that are getting hurt by this government's carrot-and-club negotiating tactics.

One minute the government says they want to move towards a deal by offering a signing bonus. Hours later, last week, they tell teachers: "If you don't like our offer, we'll cut your pay immediately." And the government's bizarre lockout order actually prohibits teachers from talking to students and parents during recess and lunch hour.

Can the minister explain…?

Interjections.

R. Fleming: It's the same old tactic. Let's go back to the Supreme Court ruling, because the minister has got lots of time to read every report in the world. Read that one again — section 387. He tried this and failed.

The question for the minister is this, because he owes British Columbians an explanation: can he explain how his government's failed agenda of conflict and escalation, which is bringing this dispute right into the classrooms and the lunchrooms of our schools, is in any way helping to get us nearer to a negotiated settlement?

Hon. P. Fassbender: I'd ask the member opposite to make a couple of notes, because I'm going to give him some facts. No. 1, there are no extracurricular activities that need to be cancelled if the teachers are willing to participate as they have in the past. That's fact No. 1.

Fact No. 2. I find it interesting that the members opposite suggest that when strike action is initiated by one party, that's okay, but when the government responds by saying, "If you're going to withdraw services, we're going
[ Page 4113 ]
to reduce your salary," that's chaos. I don't understand the logic of that kind of thinking.

If the members opposite wish to do what we want to do — to have children in classrooms, to have parents able to live their lives, go to their jobs, and communities able to function without disruption — then my challenge to the members opposite is to talk to their friends at the BCTF and simply ask them to come to the table with a reasonable negotiating stance that recognizes the other settlements that we have that are fair to the unions, fair to taxpayers and that will ultimately be fair to the students of this province, so that we can focus on learning outcomes, because that is our goal.

[1415]

JOB CREATION AND
GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING CAMPAIGN

M. Elmore: Everyone remembers the $17 million worth of taxpayer-funded ads before the election that contained blatantly false claims about job growth. Now this government is at it again. Taxpayer-funded ads are all over transit buses, the Internet and elsewhere, outlandishly claiming there will be "one million job openings in 2020." However, this government knows that's not true. In fact, the Minister of Education issued an editorial this month after pushing the goalpost back a couple of years. He knows the ads aren't true, but still they remain.

To the Minister of Finance, will he immediately put a halt to this round of taxpayer-funded bogus job ads?

Hon. S. Bond: We have spent the last number of months, before we created the blueprint in terms of skills training, looking at labour market data that looks at specific projects, that looks at growth. But we also have to look, in terms of the number of one million job openings, at the fact that two-thirds of British Columbians who are currently employed are aging and will move out of the workforce.

When you add the number of people who are aging and will move out of the workforce plus the potential for new jobs, British Columbia, at least under a B.C. Liberal government, will be facing one million job openings by 2022.

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

M. Elmore: Well, this government came up with that rosy projection based on a labour market outlook report published in 2011 that outlined projected job openings between 2010 and 2020. However, it's 2014, and the actual number of jobs is 110,000 less than what the report projected for this year. That same document promised that the labour outlook "will continue to be updated annually." There hasn't been an update since.

Again, to the Minister of Finance: are you sitting on three years' worth of updates because you know they will prove your current job ads are just as dishonest as the pre-election ones?

Hon. S. Bond: As we canvassed this extensively in estimates, we made it very clear that the new job outlook will be released. But we have detailed analysis of all of the jobs, particularly those that exceed a threshold of half a billion dollars. We have detailed charts. We're working closely with industry to ensure that they look at the numbers and verify them. In fact, as we look at the new Industry Training Authority, we will work with industries, independently and individually, to actually check that data to make sure we have the best numbers possible.

I know this: that at least on this side of the House we're actually looking at how we move to yes in this province so we can create new jobs. It'd be fantastic to hear the member stand up today, unequivocally stand in this House and say yes to some project — some project, particularly liquefied natural gas. How about that? Are the members opposite in favour or not?

PAYMENT OF WAGES TO FORMER
KHAIRA ENTERPRISES WORKERS

H. Bains: In July 2010 while investigating a citizen report of an illegal campfire near Golden, Ministry of Forests staff found a very disturbing scene. They found a group of tree planters working for a company called Khaira Enterprises. Several were injured. They reported that they hadn't eaten for two days, were being forced to sleep two or three to a mattress and had not been paid.

[1420]

On Friday the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal called it "slave-like" conditions. In the 21st century, in B.C., on our Crown land, with a government contract, under this government's administration, it's a shameful, embarrassing example of how government can be negligent in protecting its workers.

Timber Sales B.C. awarded this contract. Timber Sales B.C. had responsibility for contract management, which they clearly did not do effectively. These workers are still owed $100,000 in back wages that have never been paid. Will the government do the right thing and pay these wages that they are owed?

Hon. S. Bond: The circumstances that those workers found themselves in were unacceptable. We've been very clear about that. In fact, the Ministry of Forests has worked through a number of initiatives.

The member opposite knows, as well, that when awards like that are granted, government does not have the liability to cover the wages. We certainly are working to ensure that every single asset that is recoverable…. That work continues, and in fact, a portion of the wages have been paid.

They were inappropriate circumstances. It was extremely, extremely unfortunate and very difficult for
[ Page 4114 ]
those workers. Some of the wages have been accounted for, and we will continue to look for any way where there are assets available so that that award can be followed through by the company.

Madame Speaker: The member for Surrey-Newton on a supplemental.

BIDDING PROCESS FOR
SILVICULTURE CONTRACTORS

H. Bains: The conditions found in the Kootenay Khaira camp weren't really a surprise to this government. The owners have been investigated for workplace violations and banned from bidding on contracts for two years since 2008. Despite all of that, the government gave them another contract.

In March 2010 police were called to a worksite on Texada Island, again due to public concern about the camp conditions. The history of mistreatment of workers, new reports, more mistreatment…. Citizens expect that the government is not handing over public money to contractors who mistreat their employees, but the low-bid system that this government has created for silviculture work in the province leads to that situation. An example is just before us.

Has the government instituted a bid qualification system for silviculture workers that stops this race to the bottom at the expense of the workers?

Hon. S. Bond: Certainly, no one on this side of the House has any disagreement that what happened to those workers was unacceptable and that changes needed to be made. I am advised that the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resources has made changes in terms of the way that those contracts are managed. We've been clear. What happened was unacceptable. Those workers needed better protection, and I'm advised that changes have been made.

REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS ON
EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS FOR
SILVICULTURE WORKERS

N. Macdonald: Okay, let's be clear. What happened was predictable. The government goes to low bid every time. They do not go for quality; they go for low bid. So the result was predictable.

After the Khaira incident was uncovered, the B.C. government put together a report on the situation and made a series of recommendations. This was a report done by the B.C. Forest Safety Council's ombudsman. To date only three of the 13 recommendations that were made have actually been implemented. This is four years later, talking about an incident where slave-like conditions were taking place. That's the rigour the government has put to this.

There are now about 7,500 people out in camps in B.C. doing silviculture work, and little has changed in those four years. The question to this minister — and probably to the government as a whole: why do workers' rights always come last with this government? Why do they always come last?

[1425]

Hon. S. Bond: Worker rights are critical to us, as a government, and to British Columbians. But in regard to the report that was related to silviculture, we'll take that question on notice.

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS FOR
SILVICULTURE WORKERS

N. Macdonald: Here's a question specifically to the minister, then. Fifty percent of the people who work in silviculture are young. Many are working their first jobs out of university. One in four of those workers, in an end-of-season survey that was done, reported that they were not paid every two weeks.

This is one of the central issues that we're still dealing with, with the Khaira incident. This past season one in four in that industry were not paid every two weeks. So the question to the minister — she is responsible for employment standards — is: what work has she done to ensure that employment standards in these camps now are actually enforced?

Hon. S. Bond: Employment standards in British Columbia are in place to protect all workers. Every single report of abuse is followed through. It is examined. Every single employer in British Columbia is expected to ensure that fair and appropriate wages are paid to employees in British Columbia. In fact, that is exactly what happens under employment standards in this province.

[End of question period.]

Motions Without Notice

COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY
TO SIT IN THREE SECTIONS

Hon. M. de Jong: Madame Speaker, I am pleased to update and advise the House as follows. After conversations between the House Leader for the official opposition and myself, we have reached this degree of consensus with respect to the schedule for consideration of the remaining estimates over the balance of the week prior to the adjournment of the House.

That has resulted in a motion that I think my friend the Opposition House Leader has received, which would see the creation, for this session and the balance of this week, of an additional third section. That is Section C, for the purpose of Committee of Supply. I think the in-
[ Page 4115 ]
dependent members of the House have also received a copy of the motion.

By leave, I would so move that motion relating to the creation of Committee C.

[Further to the motion adopted on March 3, 2014, that this House hereby authorizes the Committee of Supply for this Session to sit in an additional third section designated Section C which will sit in the Birch Committee Room as may be appointed from time to time. All rules and provisions of the motion related to Committee of Supply, Section A shall apply to Section C. The Members of Committee of Supply, Section C shall be identical to the composition of Committee of Supply, Section A.]

Leave granted.

Hon. M. de Jong: With respect to the remaining piece of legislation, no similar consensus has been reached. I will endeavour to keep the House informed over the course of the next few days with respect to the government's intentions there.

Tabling Documents

Madame Speaker: Hon. Members, I have the honour to present the 2013-2014 annual report of the Merit Commissioner.

Hon. T. Wat: I'm honoured to table the report on multiculturalism for 2011-2012 and also the report on multiculturalism for 2012-2013.

Petitions

G. Hogg: I rise to submit a petition from the B.C. Council of the Canadian Federation of University Women with respect to the adoption of a comprehensive poverty reduction plan.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: In this chamber, continued second reading debate on Bill 24; in Section A, Committee of Supply, the estimates of the Ministry of Health; and in Section C, the Birch Room, the estimates of the Ministry of Justice.

[1430]

[D. Horne in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 24 — AGRICULTURAL LAND
COMMISSION AMENDMENT ACT, 2014

(continued)

On the amendment (continued).

B. Routley: We're right now debating referring the entire Bill 24 to the Select Standing Committee on Finance for further consultation. Obviously, one of the merits of the referral would be to have some real consultation, which is something that, while it was promised by the government prior to the introduction of the legislation, was not followed through on. When the minister was confronted with that matter, we got this mea culpa type of response, suggesting: "Oh yeah, I probably could have done better."

I would use the analogy on consultation and really bring the matter home. I was walking my golden retrievers, and I thought of consultation. I was imagining if you were to announce to your spouse back at home: "You know what, dear? I've been working on a couple of zones here. We're going to have a couple of zones for the home. We're going to have one zone that you're free to kind of decorate as you like, but for the other zone, which makes up 90 percent of the house, we're going to have specialized committees appointed. By who? Oh, by me. I'm going to appoint these people."

Now, how do you think your wife is feeling about this so far? When you imagine that — and I think anybody can imagine that — does that feel like consultation going on? I don't think that you would be married. Again, walking the golden retrievers, I thought about my 44 years of marriage. If I treated her in the way that this government is proceeding with the matter of a lack of consultation, suggesting it's just okay….

"We're going to have those zones, and by the way, dear wife, it just doesn't matter what you think. We will be introducing some changes. I promise you that. They're coming down the pike just as surely as this piece of legislation…. We're going to bring in the legislation, and oh, by the way, we're prepared to do a little consultation afterwards."

How is she feeling about that? There's going to be a committee to decide the drapes and colour of the room and to make all of the important decisions, particularly the economic ones. What does it say here? It says in the legislation that this zone…. We've got the zone czar, by the way, who is kind of head kingpin of the household, and he's going to be deciding what's going on. Then you've got economic, cultural and social values, regional and community planning and other.

Again, when you think about it, it's almost absurd. Well, it is absurd. Imagine taking this home and explaining to your wife how you're going to have committees struck to make economic decisions about the bathroom. You're going to have a committee struck, and they're going to make these lofty decisions. I think there'd be a little slippage in the relationship in terms of communications about now.

[1435]

Like, there would be most certainly a feeling that there had been no consultation whatsoever, particularly if there is a whole plan laid out with…. I don't know whether it's a five-, ten- or 15-point plan, but there are a number of points on a page that are very firm and very
[ Page 4116 ]
clear, and that is not consultation. When you look at public consultation and what can go on, you have a real two-way dialogue, instead of this kind jiggery-pokery stuff that we have going on where we just roll out the plan and then say: "Oh well, I'm sorry. We'll take my mea culpa, and we'll just move on. And by the way, we didn't bother talking to agriculture people all over British Columbia."

It's the same as the wife analogy, if you like. No, there was no big communication with all of the farming and ranching communities, and that's become clear by hearing back from the farming and ranching community. What are we hearing back? No consultation. Everybody is saying we've got to have public consultation, and at the end of the day, the system has failed us so far.

You look at the fact that this was never raised prior to the election, not raised as an issue. We're not going to run on dismantling the agriculture farm — not on your life. Again, it rings exactly the same thing that we had to go through with the HST, where people had to rise up in rebellion over what's going on.

Again, what's the hurry? We've got an opportunity now to go back and rethink our position, have a second sober look, go back and have the select standing committee, which I think is kind of a minimum, really, when you hear what people have been calling for. Public consultation…

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.

B. Routley: …or even simply consultation is a process whereby…

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.

B. Routley: …the public's input…

Deputy Speaker: Member, please take your seat.

B. Routley: …on matters is going to be listened to. And that's not happening here. It's the same jiggery-pokery we're used to.

A. Weaver: I wish I were so eloquent as the member for Cowichan Valley. I am enthralled every time the member speaks. It's truly the most imaginative and entertaining speeches in the House, and I turn to the channel to watch each and every one of them. I will be quoting several times the member for Cowichan Valley in my address to the amendment brought forward to us by the member for Nelson-Creston, who I am very grateful to for bringing this motion to the House.

I remind us all here that what we're debating is the motion "That Bill (No. 24) not be read a second time now but the subject matter be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services and further that the committee be empowered to invite witnesses to appear before it to assist in its deliberations."

I rise today to give my support to this amendment. When I took my place in speaking to Bill 24 two weeks ago, I argued that it failed in three main areas. It's important for me to briefly outline these concerns so that I can demonstrate how this amendment addresses them.

The first point I raised was that there was not adequate notice given to this House or to the people of British Columbia of the government's intentions to alter the operation of the ALR. There was nothing in the Liberal election campaign about this. I frankly fail to see how this has absolutely anything to do with the core review.

The second is that despite the promises of full consultation, the government failed to provide an adequate forum for opinions to be heard and continued to push this bill forward, despite widespread opposition. Even the Minister of Energy and Mines and Minister Responsible for Core Review acknowledged this publicly on March 27 of this year when he said: "I know that we could have done a better job of consultations, and I take my mea culpa."

[1440]

I think it's important to take a look at how the Oxford English Dictionary defines the term "mea culpa." Here's what it says: "Used as an exclamation or statement acknowledging one's guilt or responsibility for an error."

So here we have the minister publicly recognizing that the government did not seek consultation on amending the ALC and the ALR, but he simply doesn't care. Who needs a social licence for change? Who needs to consult with British Columbians? Heck, let's just go like gangbusters to start dismantling any iconic institution within British Columbia.

Has the government not learned anything from what happened when they brought in the harmonized sales tax, otherwise known as the HST? I know many constituents who actually voted against the HST in the B.C. referendum, despite actually agreeing that the HST was better for business and supporting the tax because they thought it was good for the economy. They did so because they did not believe that they were consulted and felt that the process of bringing it in was undemocratic. Sure, you elect a government to govern, but you don't elect a government to govern autocratically.

The third reason why, two weeks ago, I argued that Bill 24 was troubling is that the evidence put forward by soil scientists from across the province suggests that this is a poor piece of public policy. It's designed to help a few at the expense of many.

I'm in support of this amendment, as it addresses my concerns regarding the need for public consultation and the importance of hearing voices from a diversity of British Columbians. By supporting this amendment, a thorough public engagement process can take place. It would allow government to solicit input from those who would be affected by this bill. It would also force
[ Page 4117 ]
government to more fully account for and address the evidence that many of us have been presenting in opposition to this bill.

For example, some of the statements concerning B.C.'s agricultural land put forward by the government to defend the bill is at odds with what our own expert soil scientists are telling us here, from our academic institutions in British Columbia. As a number of members have now noted, this bill appears to be a case of decision-based evidence-making. Some, like my friend the member for Cowichan Valley, would call this jiggery-pokery.

Sending this bill to the Select Standing Committee on Finance would help alleviate this concern. It would allow the government to attempt to gain a social licence for Bill 24. It would give the government an opportunity to convince British Columbians that there's no jiggery-pokery going on.

That's such a wonderful word. It's absolutely a wonderful word. I think it's never overused, and in this particular case here, it is entirely correct and appropriate. I hope to see many of my colleagues on opposition use this word to describe what we have before us here today, in the days ahead, as we discuss this bill.

Although I've heard from the government that they will not be supporting this amendment, I still have hope that if our arguments are persuasive enough, some members in government will reconsider and plead within their caucus to allow a free vote. Wouldn't it be a wonderful signal to British Columbians if members of government stood with their constituents and actually supported the amendment.

I remind you: it's the amendment that Bill 24 not be read a second time now but that the subject matter be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services and, further, that the committee be empowered to invite witnesses to appear before it to assist in its deliberations.

To the members of the government, I ask you this: how many of you knew that you were running on a platform that included the beginning of the dismantling of the ALR and ALC? I suspect it's none. Well, perhaps it's one. As I mentioned before, the Hansard record shows that members of the Finance and Government Services Committee were surprised and unaware that input for the core review of the ALR and ALC was part of their expanded terms of reference.

I've received numerous letters from my constituents concerning this bill and in support of this amendment. I have received numerous letters from across the province of British Columbia concerning this bill and, in particular, the amendment before us. I've not received a single letter in support of Bill 24 or against the amendment before us. This is why it's clear to me that British Columbians need the opportunity to have their voices heard. This can only be done by supporting the amendment before us.

[1445]

Please allow me to outline some of the reasons why this bill needs to be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services. I'll do that in the words of a number of comments I've received through my constituency office, and I'll do so briefly and selectively.

Here's my first example.

"I also want to express concern that this Liberal government seems to be doing everything in its power to destroy this province and everything we love. As a citizen, I feel powerless, and I hope that by writing this e-mail you know the way I feel. I can't speak for anybody else, but this feeling is very generalized, although not many know what to do about it. I feel extremely disappointed about the way politics is harming us these days. Between the federal Conservatives and the provincial Liberals, we are slowly but surely losing everything that we have been and are proud of being Canadian. I don't know if there's anything you can do, but I thought you should know the opinion and concerns of a citizen in your area."

This constituent's e-mail strikes at the very heart of the matter. The government does not have a social licence to move forward with this bill and so needs to refer it to committee as part of the process of trying to gain such a social licence.

Here's another selection from a letter I received.

"I urge you not to make any changes to the Agricultural Land Commission Act that would have the effect of weakening the protection of agricultural land. Please bear in mind that the Liberal Party did not seek or receive any mandate from the people of British Columbia on this issue in the last election. There have been no public consultations. I oppose proposed changes that would make it easier to use zone 2 agricultural land for non-farm uses."

Yet another — again very selective.

"I'm writing to you as a concerned B.C. resident to urge you to strengthen and protect our ALR farmland. Public consultation has been promised, and I'm asking the government to make sure that this happens in a meaningful way. We need" — in capital letters — "all our farmland preserved as such. Canada is not a food-secure nation, and we need to do all that we can to protect what farmland does currently exist. It should be a top governmental priority."

These are people who are responding with respect to, specifically, the amendment before us, requesting consultation, desperately seeking means and ways for their voices to be heard in the dismantling of this iconic institution here in British Columbia, the agricultural land reserve.

That e-mail went on and said: "There are some fundamental flaws in Bill 24." I recognize that we're discussing the amendment to it, but in outlining some of these flaws, it's important to see why this constituent and others desperately want to have an opportunity to be consulted.

It says: "The flaws in Bill 24 will, in effect, dismantle our ALR. B.C. farmers and the public are calling for you to listen and kill Bill 24." Well, frankly, I think we should have a consultation process prior to killing it. If that comes out through the consultation process, then let's move forward and kill Bill 24.

The letter goes on. "I myself was at the Legislature lawns on Family Day asking our MLAs and Premier to cease this attack on the food supply. We'll continue to
[ Page 4118 ]
protest until you listen and follow the sensible route of removing all talk of altering our ALR in specific ways, as outlined in Bill 24." And here it comes again. "Looking forward to public consultation on this vital issue. Please do all you can to ensure that this happens."

These aren't people just writing in with random streams of consciousness. These are individual letters by constituents, by members of the general public across British Columbia demanding an opportunity to be heard through the consultation process, a process that has not happened to this day. And frankly, consultation does not involve reading a few e-mails and sending a few responses that are all the same to everyone who sends one in.

I also received an e-mail from a concerned decision-maker in the Kootenays. This is not a regular citizen; this is a senior decision-maker in the Kootenays. He brings up yet another important point that really underlines the need for this bill to go to committee.

If the motion before us were to fail, the government will not have the time or process for this decision-maker's voice to be heard. In his own words, he said this. "I urge you to allow regions that wish to remain in the agricultural land reserve zone 1" — including the Kootenays, from his perspective — "not be arbitrarily categorized as zone 2."

[1450]

Where was the consultation as to what went into zone 1 or zone 2? Where did that come from? Did someone just wake up one day and realize: "Well, this is my riding. I'm zone 2. That's your riding. That's zone 1"? There was no consultation over that. Nobody knows where that came from. As far as we're concerned, it was just made up one day. Sounds like jiggery-pokery to me.

The letter continues.

Interjections.

A. Weaver: Hon. Speaker, we're hearing from the members opposite that we may be able to start a fundraising campaign, that each time the word "jiggery-pokery" is used, we could put, say, $10 into a communal pot and perhaps donate it to a homeless shelter or towards the development of a provincial child poverty plan. Perhaps we should do something like that.

Deputy Speaker: But of course the relevance of that in the current debate….

A. Weaver: I'm sorry, hon. Speaker. I had to react to the….

Interjections.

A. Weaver: As pointed out by the member for Delta South, this could be a recommendation coming out of the consultation that could happen, were this amendment to actually be passed.

I continue back to the more important task of discussing this particular decision-maker's arguments — strong arguments, compelling arguments — for the need for consultation on the bill before us — that is, in supporting the amendment we're debating now. He says the following:

"As a decision-maker I refer you to the recent installment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Summary for Policymakers. 'Findings show the earth and its inhabitants are already experiencing the ever-increasing impacts of global warming: icecaps and arctic sea ice melting and collapsing; more extreme weather–related events like droughts and floods; dying corals; freshwater supplies; rising and increasing acidic oceans.'"

You may wonder the relevance of this, but it is relevant, because if there were a consultation process, the scientific community would have an opportunity to bring to the attention of those in the select standing committee the importance of thinking about climate change and its effects on our agricultural land reserve and the potential effects on our food supply in the years ahead.

The letter writer goes on and says:

"Our food and water supplies, critical infrastructure, security, health, economies and communities will face ever-escalating risks, possibly leading to increased human displacement, migration and violent conflict."

He continues:

"Some argue we must choose between growing the economy and protecting the planet. In response, the report states: 'Throughout the 21st century, climate change impacts are projected to slow down economic growth, making poverty reduction more difficult, further eroding food security and prolonging existing and creating new poverty traps — the latter particularly in urban areas and emerging hot spots of hunger.'"

I am beginning to wonder about the relevance of this e-mail to the debate here, but it does come forward as we get to the….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: You're not making the Chair's job terribly easy.

A. Weaver: I will say that the member for Cowichan Valley sees a clear link, and that's what matters to me, hon. Speaker.

The letter writer continues, and he is getting to the need for consultation here.

"I believe that this bill, although presented as a way to support" — he keeps talking about the bill, but he's going to get to consultation — "agriculture is actually framed to support non-farm use of agricultural lands. It has the potential to undermine the integrity of the ALR and its regulatory, the ALC."

That was the hon. member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast passing behind me and breaking the longstanding tradition of the Legislature not to walk behind a speaker while he's on the camera.
[ Page 4119 ]

Interjections.

A. Weaver: It's a rule I just made up, hon. Speaker.

The letter continues:

"Further and regrettably, the changes are not focused. They do not take into account the very present danger of climate change for B.C. agriculture and food security. Again, please refer" — that's speaking to the government, of course, not to me or my colleagues in the opposition here — "to the IPCC report for information compiled by highly respected international scientists" — that's nice of them to say that, frankly — "for to you make informed, long-term decisions that will affect generations of the future."

This constituent, this decision-maker in the Kootenays area is desperately seeking an opportunity to be heard, to have his voice heard, to, frankly, have his area heard, because he doesn't know how his area appeared in zone 2. I don't know how his area appeared in zone 2.

[1455]

Does the hon. member for Cowichan Valley know? Probably not. How about the hon. member for Delta South? I don't think so. Frankly, no one knows how the Kootenays ended up in zone 2.

This decision-maker outlined three reasons why he was concerned about Bill 24 and the reason why consultation is so important. We are not presently debating the bill but, rather, the importance of sending this bill to the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services.

Please let me quickly outline the five points that the standing committee would need to hear. They are all eminently reasonable and need to be reflected upon. There is simply no opportunity for this to happen if this motion before us were to fail. Here are the points outlined to me by this decision-maker from the Kootenays.

Point 1, regarding the split into two zones with additional requirements added to the basic mandate for zone 2 — that is, 90 percent of the ALR — the intent seems to be to weaken the primary focus on agriculture.

Hon. Speaker, we're told this wasn't the case. The public still thinks that this is the case. The public needs to have an opportunity to have their questions answered directly through a consultation process, which will only happen if this bill goes to the standing committee.

The second point, regarding the delegation of decision-making to six regional panels. "This makes decision-making unduly subject to regional and local development pressures and increases the likelihood of inconsistency and decisions that are perceived as unfair."

How is this important point ever going to be heard without the opportunity for it to be brought forward to the select standing committee?

Point 3. The legislation "weakens long-term farmland protection on the pretext of improving farmers' businesses, when the real failure since the mid-1980s has been on the part of successive provincial governments" — here the decision-maker is being truly non-partisan, even pre-dating the period of the 1990s that we hear so much about in this House around us here; he's talking about since the mid-1980s — "which have failed to recognize farmers and ranchers and the services they provide for B.C. — food, but also environmental goods and services."

How will that important statement, that important piece of information be understood and heard if it were not brought before the standing committee to be reflected upon prior to the passing of this bill?

The same decision-maker, who has an awful lot to say, continued and said the following:

"We understand that for food, we need viable farms and ranches. Viable farms and ranches need access to land and water for their operations. I'm aware there are pinch points in the ALR/ALC system that need to be worked out with farmers and ranchers, and I also know that 95 percent of the applications the ALR receives are from non-farm landowners."

He continues:

"I did ask myself whether there was anything good here for B.C. agrifood. Without full consultation with stakeholders, we simply don't know. We are not sure the bill faithfully reflects the priorities of B.C. farmers and ranchers. Key B.C. farm and ranch organizations have expressed concerns about the bill, and they have asked for more involvement. They have been consulted, but only to the point of being shown the changes the provincial government intended to make."

Consultation is not marketing. Consultation is a two-way dialogue, not a one-way marketing job. These organizations that this decision-maker from the Kootenays so succinctly points out are clearly very troubling. "Since the summer of 2013," he continues, "the ALC has not been consulted at all."

He wonders why the provincial government is in such a hurry to push through the enabling legislation framework before it will sit down with agricultural organizations, the ALC and local governments to discuss the regulatory details. He is urging the provincial government, before proceeding any further with the legislation, to consult properly with farmers, ranchers, local governments, the ALC, food systems, organizations and the public, as it did with the Water Sustainability Act, to ensure that land use legislation is collaboratively updated in the long-term agrifood interests of British Columbians.

[1500]

The government will have lots of time to push forward this consultation. Russia just signed a $400 billion natural gas deal with China with a price at about $10 per million Btu, clearly making B.C.'s natural gas not economical at current or market Asian prices that were actually set through this recent deal. There is no rush to tear apart our agricultural institutions for this pipedream of LNG prosperity down the road. Let's take the time to do this right.

The letter I was sent from the Kootenay decision-maker was incredibly thoughtful and reasonable and well-thought-out. Surely the government wants the opportunity to hear from more people like this.

Finally, from the point of view of letters but not from the important information I must convey today to the government, here's a letter I received that I must admit I find deeply troubling. It says the following:
[ Page 4120 ]

"I am writing to ask you to do what you can to stop or delay the passage of Bill 24 so that the public has more time to realize how the bill will affect their future and the future of their children. Canada's traditional way of dealing with population growth is to spread. It worked for a few decades, but now it's killing us.

"Urban sprawl is polluting the air we breathe with car exhaust and paving over our farmland. Meanwhile, those who can only see as far as short-term financial gain continue to cover the province with poorly planned, poorly serviced and often poorly executed condos and housing developments.

"The Fraser Institute should not be guiding policy in B.C. We need the ALR more than ever to protect our renowned farmland. Not only will this assure a local food supply; it will force civil planners to find more creative, sustainable solutions to population growth. We need to build up, not out over, our farmland. After all, rich or poor or in between, we all need to eat. We all need to breathe."

There are so many citizens in British Columbia desperately trying to have their voices heard and sending all of us hundreds and hundreds of e-mails, and we only have time to share a few selected quotes from a number of them. This last writer raised a very troubling concern for me. His e-mail mentions the Fraser Institute.

Now, I wonder: were they consulted? Has the Fraser Institute's 2009 publication entitled The B.C. Agricultural Land Reserve: A Critical Assessment been adopted as a road map for B.C. policy by the Minister of Agriculture or the Minister of Energy and Mines and Responsible for Core Review?

I don't know. None of us on this side of the House know. That's because there was no consultation over this. This report, which I am troubled to think perhaps was consulted, says the following: "The very premise of the ALR is anachronistic. Advances in agronomy and biotechnology have dramatically increased yields, thereby easing demand for farmland."

Shocking. But what's even more shocking is that I don't think many people will actually know what the word "anachronistic" means, and it may be misunderstood. Let's again, once more, appeal to the Oxford English Dictionary. Anachronistic means "of the nature of or involving anachronism" — where anachronism is defined as anything done or existing out of date — hence, anything which was proper to a former age but is — or if it existed, would be — out of harmony with the present.

For the members opposite who may not be aware of what the word "agronomy" means, it's defined in the Oxford English Dictionary to mean the practice or the science of crop production and soil management.

This is what it said. The very premise of the ALR is anachronistic, suggesting that it's out of date, and that advances in soil science and biotechnology have increased yields, thereby easing demand for farmland. Is this what was consulted by the government? Is this what led us to where we are today? Is this the reason why so many more want to be heard and want to be consulted by allowing the select standing committee to actually see this bill and engage British Columbians?

We don't know one way or the other, for sure, whether or not the government got the idea from the Fraser Institute report. But I know that the former Minister of Agriculture, Corky Evans…. I'm quoting now from my colleagues to the right of me. He thinks so.

[1505]

In a recent letter to the "Kootenay coop news," Corky Evans said, after some ramblings about how he's not very familiar with the technology of blogs, etc…. It was a very enlightening letter. This is what he said: "The government didn't think this up. They got it from the Fraser Institute."

Whether or not this is true is immaterial. What's important, of course, is that if this bill were to be sent to the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services, we could explore this further, British Columbians could explore this further and the Fraser Institute could explore this further.

While there is some speculation about whether or not the policy is being influenced by the Fraser Institute, let me be clear. There is no speculation that science or scientists have any influence. They have not, and their voices need to be heard as well.

The public wants policy to flow from evidence. That's called evidence-based decision-making. The public does not want evidence to flow from policy. That's called decision-based evidence-making or again — this is the third time — as the member from Cowichan Valley would put it, jiggery-pokery. By passing the amendment, we would provide the only opportunity for science and our soil science community to contribute to the consultation process.

On April 3 of this year the Pacific Regional Society of Soil Science issued a press release. It's a very long press release. I suspect that I'm running short of time here, so I won't have time to read it, but I would encourage anyone who's listening to this to simply type the following words into Google: "Concerns about the future of the agricultural land reserve in B.C. were highlighted at a March 29 workshop."

If one types those words into Google, one will get a very long press release that outlines all the reasons why it's critical for the scientific community to be heard in this consultation process that would come by sending this bill to the select standing committee. Scientists do not send out press releases very often. They do so out of a last resort, out of desperation. Our soil scientists are crying out to be heard.

I will be supporting this amendment, and I urge all members of this House to do the same. I say this to the members opposite: stand up and show the people of British Columbia that you believe in the health of our democratic institutions. Stand up and show the people of British Columbia that you are representing the wishes of your constituents, and stand up and support this amendment for the well-being of future generations.

R. Austin: It's an honour to join this debate on a re-
[ Page 4121 ]
ferral motion. It's an honour to follow an eminent scientist. I think it's fair to say that in politics in general, and certainly in this chamber, we don't have a surplus of rational thought, so it's always great to follow someone who brings a lot of scientific rigour to his speeches, as opposed to jiggery-pokery.

What are we debating here? We're debating a motion to refer a very controversial piece of legislation, Bill 24, which we on this side of the House believe undermines the credibility of the ALR and the ALC. We believe that by referring this to a standing committee, which is allowed under Standing Order 83, we can improve any amendments or legislation coming forward that the government believes is necessary.

I'd like to take a couple of minutes just to discuss what occurs when we have committees doing their work, doing good work. One of the challenges in working in this Legislature is that we have a committee structure, we have a Clerk of Committees, but we don't actually use committees a great deal in the British Columbia Legislature.

I think that is really an unfortunate thing. Why? Because aside from the work that we do here in this Legislature, a committee enables a group of MLAs to go around the province, to listen to experts in their field on a variety of topics and bring back information which maybe none of us here ever thought was relevant to that conversation or pertinent. That information then could be used to make better policy, to write better legislation and ultimately serve the interests of British Columbia.

[1510]

I'm going to take a couple examples of committee work so that people who are watching this understand the benefit of it. This is not about taking something controversial and putting it away and hoping that no one gets to hear about it. No, actually, committees do fantastic work.

Recently we've seen a standing committee in our federal system invite people to come in and speak about another controversial piece of legislation, which was the Fair Elections Act — or as some people referred to it, the "Unfair Elections Act." It's interesting.

The reason why I'm comparing this is because both pieces of legislation, Bill 24 and that piece of legislation, were extremely controversial. Initially, the minister who was bringing forward that piece of legislation stood very strong and said: "No. This is a perfect bill. It's absolutely brilliant. Everything's right with it." That was the initial stance.

After several weeks of hearing people come in, experts and citizens, there was really quite a big reaction in terms of how that committee worked. The end result was that that minister who, one day, said that that piece of legislation was perfect in every way had to retract on almost all the main points of it and concede that in fact — once listening to people, once hearing from experts and from citizens and from provinces — that legislation needed to be amended and renewed and bought back into the Legislature. That's just one example.

I'm going to bring another example back to here in British Columbia. Several years ago we dealt in this Legislature with a very controversial topic — easily as controversial as these changes to the ALR. That was the issue of salmon farms.

Now, I know that some people on the other side of the House who've been here for a long time will remember that salmon farming was an incredibly controversial, hot topic.

In fact, it was so controversial that the Premier of the day, Gordon Campbell, decided that he would strike a committee, have that committee go around the province and listen to people on both sides of this issue — listen to scientists, listen to those in the industry, listen to those who lived on the coast and who were affected by salmon farms — and come back and write a report that would hopefully influence the government and enable them to make policy that would better our province.

That piece of policy was so controversial that the government of the day broke precedent and actually made the opposition have the majority on that committee, something I believe has never been done in any Commonwealth country that has our political system. I was a part of that committee, and the reason why I'm bringing it up is that it's relevant to this debate, because we were dealing with something that was extremely controversial.

We gave it to a committee. The government of that day gave it to a committee. We spent several months going around the province. We visited all kinds of communities, even remote communities.

I think it's relevant because when it comes to food and the ALR, everywhere in British Columbia has a stake. It doesn't matter whether you live in an area that's mountainous and full of trees. The reality is that we all eat and we all need to eat. We all need access to food. So everywhere in this province — every single district, every region — should have a say in how it is that we make changes to a policy that has done us so well for 40 years.

That's the reason why, and these are the examples I'm giving as to how we can improve this legislation by referring it to a committee. I can say, as someone who came from the north, that one of the benefits that came out of the committee I sat on was that a recommendation put forward by the opposition was actually enacted by the government of the day. We made sure in that instance that salmon farming didn't spread to the north and central coast and have some of the difficulties around wild salmon that had been present on the lower coast.

Here's a perfect example of how we can use our system of government to go out and do good work on behalf of British Columbians, very valuable work, and write a report so that they see that something concrete comes out of these deliberations and this expenditure. It's something which is still quoted today as people look at policy
[ Page 4122 ]
around fisheries.

Much has been said in here about the main reasons why we think referring this to a committee is a good idea. I'm going to move over to some comments that were made by the British Columbia Cattlemen's Association in referring to why they think this would be a good idea — to refer it to a committee.

They've sent a letter to the Minister of Agriculture. He will, of course, have read this, along with the hundreds of other letters and submissions that he got. They asked some very important questions.

[1515]

After they'd looked at the bill, here are some of the questions that they were asking. "What will Bill 24 mean for ranching? What changes will it bring? Where will it leave our industry in the future?" Now, if people who are directly involved in an aspect of farming don't even understand how this bill will benefit them don't understand it, then goodness knows, I think it's fair to say that the average citizen, who isn't farming on a daily basis and therefore engaged in that industry, perhaps isn't even aware of the kinds of changes that are being made or proposed in Bill 24. If they don't understand this….

Surely, if we go and refer this to a committee, that committee will travel all over British Columbia, and it'll certainly spend time in ranching country, in places that rely on the protection of agricultural land, and answer those questions. But more importantly, it won't simply answer those questions. It'll enable people from the cattlemen's association to give direct feedback to the government so that they can improve things.

I'm going to continue to quote: "We encourage you to take a slow approach with drafting and passing Bill 24. Ranchers have lived with the reserve for 40 years. Waiting a little while longer to ensure that the proper changes are made seems reasonable to our directors."

Here they are, a major part of the farming community, saying: "Look, there's no rush to do this. We didn't even know about it until this session came about." But that's another discussion, which I'll be coming to a little bit later. No one was even aware of these changes, but they're saying: "Hold off a second. Let's just refer this to a committee. Let's take time to go out and do consultation."

I believe that in the eyes of the British Columbia Cattlemen's Association…. They're advocating here that referral to a committee will serve not just their interests but serve the interests of all British Columbia, as they can improve this. I'll quote again from their letter: "B.C. Cattlemen's Association believes that the ALR reform should be driven by the agricultural community."

Here's another fundamental reason why this bill needs to be referred to a committee. We have a major component of the agricultural industry stating very clearly that they weren't even consulted in the proposals that have been made here in this bill. I think it's fair to say that any time government makes changes….

We are all elected here. We're all politicians. None of us are experts in a whole variety of fields. We come from our own background. Our world view is what we've done before we came here. I'm looking at a colleague here who was a counsellor, a therapist. What she knows in her job is very different from what a lot of us would know in our job.

So I think when we're trying to craft legislation, it behooves us to go out there and to actually consult with the folk who work in that field on a daily basis, to understand the issues from the perspective of those people who actually work in the field. It also behooves us to go and speak with other people, not just those who work in the field, to get a variety of perspectives.

I was preceded by the member from Oak Bay, who always advocates very strongly in this House, when we go out and do this kind of referral and go and do this kind of consultation, to speak also with experts in their field. We are blessed here in British Columbia to have a post-secondary system that is often regarded as the envy of the world. We have people from all walks of academic life who spend years — in fact, dedicate their life to it — doing research into a whole bunch of topics.

Well, this is a complicated process. We have had the ALR in place for 40 years, and I hear the government side saying: "It's time to modernize it." Well, perhaps we don't need to modernize it. But let's find out. Let's go and speak to people who actually study agrology, agriculture, soil science. Let's go and speak to people who make it their job on a daily basis to research not just what's going on here in British Columbia but to gain knowledge from all over the world and who come back here and teach and research in our universities.

I think when we're making this kind of change, in this day and age…. Where it's true to say that if the ALR was considered visionary 40 years ago, it's even more visionary today in light of all the changes that have happened since this piece of legislation was brought in.

[1520]

We have people here who have spent their lives dedicated to studying this. By having a committee and referring this, we can go and examine this with experts, with scientists. We can have scientists meet with industry. We can have scientists meet with just constituents, regular people who have an interest in this topic. I think it's fair to say we all have an interest in this topic, because as I say, all British Columbians need to eat, and all British Columbians want to have the best quality of food grown, hopefully, as close to home as possible.

These are simply some of the basic reasons why we think referring this to a committee will do us a whole bunch of good. One of the topics in this bill that I think needs looking at from a committee point of view is the main controversial aspects of it. We know that the bill takes British Columbia as a province and splits it up into two zones. The interesting thing about this is that while
[ Page 4123 ]
we haven't had two zones before, we have had an experimentation by the government to actually have regional panels. Obviously, that didn't work out very well, and we went back to a provincial perspective and went back to the ALC making decisions, rather than having regional panels.

What referring this bill to a committee can do is look back at that experience and figure out why it is that that didn't work and perhaps figure out why it is that these proposals now would have the same dire consequences as that previous experiment. This is the kind of thing that…. I think referring this to a committee will be very important.

I expressed in my speech about two weeks ago why I thought having regional panels was not a good idea. But what I would like to see is not just the ideas of the opposition, who obviously have been very clear on this, but a committee that goes around and listens to both sides of this argument. Maybe there's something we've missed. Maybe there's something that the government hasn't really expressed well as to why they think creating the ALR in two zones and having regional panels is a good idea. Maybe we missed something. But at least instead of just having a government press release, which those of us on this side of the House are naturally skeptical about, we can actually have a committee go around and hear all the arguments as to why this thing would be a good idea.

For myself, I live in a rural, remote part of British Columbia, and I've already expressed why I don't think having regional panels is a good idea. I'll express it again here. The reason for that is that in the smaller communities we all know one another. We have relationships. I think when you go and create special panels or regional zones in British Columbia, inevitably there are going to be people appointed to these committees who have relationships that are not in the best interests of protecting farmland. They will have other interests and relationships that maybe will influence them beyond that mandate.

These are just some of the reasons why it's important to have a committee to go out and do this important work. We want to make sure that any change as dramatic as going to two zones would be in the best interests of British Columbia and protecting farmland and making sure our agricultural industry thrives.

I'm going to give another very simple example as to why we need to go to a committee. We're going to rise at the end of this week and not return until, well, whenever the government calls us back — hopefully, October of next year. That gives us ample time.

I think it's remarkable. We in British Columbia have benefited for a long time by receiving produce from the United States, particularly from California. Any committee that goes to do its work over the summer would also take advantage of the fact that something quite extraordinary is happening in the way that our food that has come previously from California….

We are enduring now a drought in the western United States that is going to dramatically affect the ability of the western United States to provide food to us. What better way to actually focus our attention on agricultural land, when we're living through a time where this summer we're going to see produce prices go through the roof and where traditional markets for exporting to us are not able to fulfil that?

Isn't that going to make this committee and those who come to present to the committee think twice, long and hard, and go: "Whoa, things are really changing here"? Yes, I'm used to having mangoes flown in from who knows where and eating them in the middle of winter, but having food, regular food, grown locally is becoming ever more important. I think this summer will be instrumental in teaching British Columbians a lesson.

[1525]

While we talk about water here and we talk about soil and the ALR, there is a tidal shift happening in agriculture in North America. We have been so used to just receiving goods from out of country and out of state. The reality is that this may soon be coming to an end. This committee will enable us to be able to look at that in much greater detail.

Interjection.

R. Austin: Thank you for the warning, hon. Speaker. I do want to make sure that I'm staying on line here.

I'd like to, like my hon. friends, read a couple of letters into the record. They do speak about consultation, so fear not, hon. Speaker. This one here:

"I'm writing to you to express my concern about Bill 24. I'm opposed to the passage of this bill as I feel the ALR currently helps to protect farmland, farming jobs, healthy and sustainable food, and allows us to not be 100 percent dependent on California food, which is likely to not be around for long, given their overuse of aquifers and droughts. We all eat multiple times a day, and thus we need our farmland in B.C. to be protected.

"I'm a teacher, beginning farmer and consumer. I want local, delicious and healthy food. I want to know my local farmers. I want local people to be able to earn a living growing food for myself and my family and friends. I want to continue to be a farmer myself, grow food and supplement my part-time teaching income.

"The process by which the government is trying to shove this bill through the Legislature without public consultation is absolutely disgusting. I would like to teach my students that we live in a democracy, but this process has me questioning the strength of that democracy. I could go on, but my point is clear: please help prevent the passage of Bill 24."

This comes from Jessie King in Crawford Bay, B.C. This lady speaks to another huge deficit and the reason why, I think, it's actually in the government's interest for us to refer this to a committee.

As has been mentioned by many people in this Legislature, the actual enaction and bringing in of this bill was a surprise. When the session started, there was some sort of talk, almost rumour, that there was going to be change happening, but at that point it was rumour.
[ Page 4124 ]

By going to a committee, we are fulfilling our constitutional duty, I would argue. Just because we get elected and just because one side has a majority, does not mean to say that in a democracy we go about and willy-nilly make changes. We still live in a society where, notwithstanding that we have a parliamentary majority, we want to be seen to be open and transparent and have as much dialogue with the citizens that we serve. The reason for referring this to a committee is because it helps the government to get out of one of the great dilemmas of this bill: it's hugely controversial and no one knew about it. No one knew about these changes.

We all know what the government ran on. I just came from a conference in Vancouver last week. I was there with the hon. minister, and the Premier was there. She said in her speech: "I ran on these things. I ran on bringing an LNG industry to British Columbia, and I ran on balancing the budget." I think that if you went and spoke to the average person on the street, even someone who doesn't really follow politics a lot, they would argue, and agree, that yes, that's what the government ran on. It ran on bringing in an LNG industry and bringing in a balanced budget.

Nobody, not even members on their side, would know that the government was running on making changes to the ALR, so this is a huge bind. It undermines democracy. It undermines people's faith in what it is we do here.

You know, we often speak about the fact that the work that we do here is done in some kind of bubble and the people outside, the people we serve, actually don't know and don't pay a lot of attention to what we're doing in here. Part of that reason is because we debate legislation and then pass it when the people outside weren't even aware that we were going to be dealing with that topic.

By referring this to a committee, we are actually helping the government. We are taking away a major problem. They already know about this problem. They've gone through an experience where a previous piece of legislation was brought in after the last election that proved to be more than a little problematic for them and, in fact, got citizens so riled up that in the end they had to go back on it.

[1530]

I think that by supporting this motion…. And hopefully, in these last few days of debate, there will be a few people from the other side who will listen to these arguments, and perhaps not just listen to these arguments — we're on the opposition, so maybe they don't want to listen to anything we have to say — but will also listen to the constituents who are writing to them.

I know for a fact, because I've been receiving emails and letters…. These are not just NDP supporters. These are people who voted for the government who have said: "We didn't know anything about this." This is a topic — and I'm glad to say this — that transcends politics, as food should. We all eat. This transcends political partisan lines.

It speaks to an issue much bigger than politics, which is: where are we going to get our food from? Are we are going to continue to get good food? Is it going to be healthy? Who's going to make sure that in the future our children and grandchildren will have access to something which…?

We only have to turn on the television every day to see parts of the world where they are not just not as lucky as us in Canada but live in a place where there is absolutely no food security from one hour to the next, let alone weeks or months. We are very blessed in Canada to live in a wealthy country. But we shouldn't take that for granted and just pretend that we can make changes willy-nilly to something that's been working so well for 40 years.

Just to bring some kind of democratic accountability, I think, as Jessie King speaks, from Crawford Bay, we need to go back, consult, refer this, and I would suggest that a report could be written prior to a fall session. The fall session is not about a budget. It's only about legislation. This gives a perfect opportunity, by referring this to a committee, for some people to be appointed by the government side, from both sides of the House and independents, and to go around the province and actually listen to what British Columbians have to say on this issue.

I don't want to suggest that everything is perfect in the ALR or the ALC. I recognize that some of the maps that were drawn 40 years ago put some parts of land into the ALR that perhaps don't make much sense because they're not suitable for farming. As I mentioned two weeks ago, my house sits on just over two acres, on land that's in the ALR. Trust me; you couldn't farm on it. It's just not the right grade. It's not the right material. It's full of clay, etc.

I understand that there are some challenges, but I don't think that by drastically making these kinds of changes you solve those problems. Those problems can be solved within the structure that already exists. Maybe we need to improve that structure — but not have to change it fundamentally so that we're suddenly deciding that 90 percent of the ALR is not of the same quality as the other part.

I'd like to say this as well. The ALR was set up, of course, to protect land for food production. And no one in this province — the other side, as well — maintains that this bill, and if it gets referred to a committee…. They maintain that it's still protecting farmland. Yet when you listen to experts from around the province, those who have worked in agriculture, those who understand the ALC and the job that it does, they beg to differ.

I think that it's very hard for them to come out and speak publicly, because they maybe answer to government, maybe were appointed by government. But by having an open, transparent structure, everybody will feel free to bring forward their ideas. I think we're using a sledgehammer here to solve a problem that perhaps never existed or a problem that's very small and that could be solved within the current structure.
[ Page 4125 ]

I'm going to go on and refer to another e-mail that was received, again, from somebody….

"I'm very concerned about Bill 24. I believe that B.C. must retain as much agricultural land as possible so we do not have to depend entirely on international markets to feed us. Food grown closer to home is more nutritious, tasty, and we can be more assured of its safety. As climate change progresses, the agricultural land will become much more valuable as a source of food rather than used for other endeavours. Please do what you can to stop Bill 24 from passing.

"Sincerely,

"Cal Potaznik."

We don't have the votes on this side of the House to stop this bill. We all acknowledge that. But we do recognize that there is a problem here. In fact, I think those on the other side also recognize the controversy and the fact that there is a problem with this legislation.

[1535]

By referring this piece of legislation to a committee, we are going to be satisfying the hundreds, if not thousands, of people who follow public policy on a daily basis and have got engaged in this debate. I'll bet you if this bill passes and does not get referred to a committee that in the weeks, months and years ahead the public, who do not pay a lot of attention in between elections to what's happening here, will be not just upset; they will really recognize that we have done a disservice in this Legislature by passing a piece of legislation that they didn't even know about.

That's the nature of politics. The fact is that the work we do in here…. While all of us here think it's extremely important, and it is extremely important, the reality is that people outside of here are busy with their lives. They're raising kids. They're paying mortgages. They don't have a lot of time to spend on the minutiae of policy changes, especially one as dramatic as this.

I think it's fair to say that everybody outside of this Legislature — even if they don't know what the ALR is, even if they've never heard that acronym and, certainly, don't know what the ALC is, even people who don't know what those two pieces of institutions are — understands the importance of retaining farmland.

The majority of folk live in what we call down south, the Lower Mainland. Sorry, I don't mean to be in any way disrespectful to those who live down south, but you know, for those of us who live in the north, it's down south. It's just one big place, and it would be one grand cement parking lot with nothing but houses and industry if somebody 40 years ago didn't have the vision to recognize….

Everybody who lives in the Lower Mainland drives past a huge amount of agricultural land and sees food grown right before their eyes, as they're rushing around on their highways going to and from work. They know that this is unlike most North American cities, because most North American cities don't have farmland anywhere close to where they live. They go and buy their groceries from the grocery store, and many people — it's true to say — have no connection to where food comes from. They just think that milk comes from a carton.

Here in British Columbia we're lucky. Our citizens actually get to know the fact that even though we live in a big metropolis like Vancouver, we have farmland close by. I think that, without knowing what the ALR or the ALC is, if we make this change and don't refer it to a committee, they will be mightily upset later on, and they will take it out on the government.

I'll feel really badly for them, so I want to help them out. That's why I think this needs to be referred to a committee.

V. Huntington: I am pleased, in a sad sort of way, to rise and express my appreciation for the referral motion to enable this province to undergo a serious consultation on Bill 24. I support the member for Nelson-Creston's motion and wish to go on the record that I think nothing has faced this province in the last while that is more serious than this bill. This bill needs the consultation, and the executive council of this province needs to listen to the people of this province.

The member for Skeena just mentioned that he hopes some members will listen to the debate from this side of the House on what we feel Bill 24 means to the people of this province. I guess I've come to the conclusion that even though executive council members sit in the House during House duty, even though we have other members from the government side listening to the debate, none of them are listening.

I find myself wondering too often these days whether we share any values at all anymore, because I don't understand what's going on, on that side of the House. I do not understand how a government can fail, utterly, to listen to the people of this province in a situation where they have, over and over and over again, said, "Stop. Refer this to a committee. Talk to us. This needs to be talked about. You need to listen to us," and the utter failure of a government willing to do so.

[1540]

I don't understand. I don't understand whether it's a failure to appreciate democracy anymore, whether it's a failure to appreciate the people and their role in a democracy, whether it's the failure of an executive council — and, I guess, their caucus — to appreciate that they are being pleaded with, begged, to take a piece of legislation back to the people for consultation, to refer it to the stakeholders that are most affected by a piece of legislation.

Every single stakeholder has said: "This is not good enough. It has to come back to us for consultation. There has to be an ulterior motive, because this is not something any of us asked for. It's not something any of us approve, and we want you to come back to us and consult." Will anybody listen? No.

So what do we say? What is the state of the nation in
[ Page 4126 ]
this province when its government refuses to respond to anything the people have asked it to do?

As I begin my comments, I'd like to quote from the October 2013 message from the chair of the Agricultural Land Commission, who was quoting from one of the recent decisions of the ALC. It puts precisely what it is that matters to the province — well, I'd say to the people of the province, certainly not to the government of the province. I quote the chairman's comments.

"The ALR exists precisely because British Columbia has long recognized that if agricultural land were to succumb every time anyone proposed a development on particular land that proponents and politicians viewed on an ad hoc basis as being more economically favourable than the current use of that land, expedient and even shortsighted decisions would often follow, to the long-term detriment of the province's agricultural land base. The commission exists precisely to prevent the British Columbia public waking up one day and asking: 'What happened to our agricultural land?'"

This dynamic is precisely what an act dealing with less than 5 percent of the provincial land base was intended to avoid, and it's precisely why an independent commission was created.

Rather than basing decisions on the politically expedient, the crisis of the day or short-term profit that sacrifice agricultural land forever, an independent commission's task is to make its decisions in a principled fashion, in a fair process that reflects coherent agricultural policy and planning and that reflects the purposes set out above in section 6, one of which is to preserve agricultural land.

For as long as the act exists, the decisions must reflect utmost fidelity to the purposes the Legislature has assigned under the act. What the people of this province are saying is: "We do not think Bill 24 reflects the purposes that were assigned under the act, and we want you to come back to us and talk to us about it, because we believe in the ALR, and we believe that the land commission has been making good decisions on behalf of the public, on behalf of farming and on behalf of agriculture in this province."

As I noted in my speech on the second reading of this bill, I do not believe the government has the necessary mandate to make the sweeping changes to the Agricultural Land Commission proposed in this bill or to put agriculture and British Columbia's food security at risk by the passage of this bill as proposed. This bill needs to be referred to committee, and it needs to be examined by the public. Nor has this government made a public case that an emergent case has occurred to justify acting without an electoral mandate.

Here's what the B.C. Liberal Party promised the people of B.C. with respect to agriculture during the 2013 election: continue the carbon tax relief for the greenhouse sector, give growers tax breaks for donations to food banks, work on a sustainable and permanent tree fruit plant program, provide additional financial support to the Buy Local program, introduce a new B.C. meat inspection system, work with other provinces to make it easier for B.C. wine to move across provincial barriers, create a centre for excellence for agriculture, represent B.C. agriculture at global conferences and develop a B.C. organic brand.

[1545]

Please note there is an absolute and complete absence of any mention of making dramatic and sweeping changes to the ALC and to the ALR. It is clear the government did not earn an electoral mandate to make these changes — again, a necessity, forcing it to refer this bill to committee and to hear the will of people.

How disappointing it was to see such irresponsibility on the part of the Minister of Agriculture when he said this weekend that changes contained in Bill 24 are designed to give farmers in the north and central parts of the province greater flexibility to earn revenue from their property. "The bill is really trying to help farmers be more successful on their land."

We know, the chair of the Agricultural Land Commission knows, the Ag Land Commission commissioners know, the staff know that the data says otherwise. "I often find it necessary," says the chair of the commission, "to dispel the misconception that the ALC primarily deals with applications from farmers and ranchers. In fact, the vast majority of applications are submitted by owners of ALR land that neither farm nor ranch the land. In my experience, dealing with farmers and ranchers in the application process is the exception rather than the rule."

He goes on to say that he has found there are people who take the view that the ALC would make better decisions if fully regionalized panels made the decisions. The difficulty the chair has found, he says, with those taking this view — which, in his experience, is a small but vocal minority — is that they usually equate better decision-making with decisions to remove land from the ALR — again, a complete and absolute reason why the bill needs to be referred to committee in order for the people to make it quite clear to this government precisely what their thoughts are in relation to any opportunity to open up lands for development.

This bill does that, and the people have objected to it, and they want to speak to that. This government has an obligation to listen to the people, and it can easily refer this bill to committee and spend the summer dealing with the problems that people have with this legislation.

Perhaps the Minister for Core Review could take a step back and listen to his own words from November of 2010 — November 17, 2010, to be exact. On that day the minister was simply the member for Kootenay East, and he was speaking with passion and honesty about how the government had caught people off guard with the HST, something it had no mandate to introduce.

"There comes a time when you have to say to yourself and to the public: 'Look, we've probably messed up on that decision, but we need to go back and rethink it and maybe do things differently.'"
[ Page 4127 ]

I would say they need to go back this time and refer this bill to committee.

Again, the minister:

"The people really don't like it, and we brought it in, in a very, very bad way. We surprised people. I just think we should back off, and maybe in the future there's a way to harmonize the sales tax" — which is what he was speaking to — "and take the time we should have the first time around."

Bill 24 is another example of legislation that's caught the public off guard — a bill with implications for the whole province that's been introduced without consultation.

The member for Kootenay East continued:

"What kind of government is that? You don't talk to stakeholders. You don't talk to people whose lives are going to be impacted by that?

"It's just not the right way to do government."

Well, what's different now? This isn't the right way to do government. The ministers of the Crown all know that.

They know that there's a public demand for referral to committee. They know there's a public demand for consultation. They know that the stakeholders — the farmers and the agricultural associations — have said: "This is no good. We need to talk to you about it. We need to put our two cents' worth into the situation, and you need to refer this to the people for consultation."

Again, the minister:

"I think the group assumed that we would have an appropriate public consultation process. Even as short an amount of time as we had, we could have done a lot more than we did. We would have had an opportunity to get out and actually talk to the people about the policy.

"We made all those assumptions that turned out incorrectly. For me, that was the beginning of the end, because it showed that the Premier's office and the Premier were no longer as focused on the job as a person needs to be. I would suggest that I don't think the cabinet is as focused on its job as it needs to be in this situation.

[1550]

"We really dropped the ball on that one. That should have been a message to everybody on the inside."

Deputy Speaker: Member. Member.

V. Huntington: "It was a message to everybody on the outside. The people knew. The media knew."

Deputy Speaker: Member. Member. I'd remind that it's unparliamentary to make personal attacks on members or groups of members. I've allowed it to happen several times during your address, but that will be the last.

V. Huntington: Thank you very much. I'm just quoting the public record, Mr. Speaker, but I shall move on.

Listening to his words, I know the minister gets it. We've been here before. The minister knew the HST caught the public off guard. He took a principled stand and said it shouldn't have been introduced the way it was, that it deserved proper consultation. I hope the minister hears his own words and takes a step back to realize we're dealing with the same situation. It's a law with far-reaching consequences that wasn't hinted at during the 2013 election and that wasn't taken to the people before it was introduced.

The changes represented by Bill 24 supposedly come from the government's core review process, which was intended to focus on ensuring that government is efficient and effective. However, the changes proposed to Bill 24 go far beyond the core review mandate and are so much more sweeping and far-reaching that they cannot be accepted as merely an attempt to streamline government. The core review argument, frankly, doesn't wash with anyone. But the mandate letter does.

The Minister of Agriculture's mandate was to "bring forward ALR changes that will further encourage the stability of farm families and the farming industry in British Columbia." This bill doesn't do that. All of the farming associations and agricultural associations have said this bill does exactly the opposite. It destabilizes the land in the province. It destabilizes the opportunity to have far-reaching agricultural policies. It is undermining the agricultural policies that people have relied on for 40 years. So the mandate isn't being fulfilled either. The mandate was to stabilize the industry. This bill does nothing but undermine the industry.

Again, the stakeholders are saying: "Look, we have to sit down, and we have to talk about it. Please refer it to committee." Some have asked for it to be hoisted, but at least the bare minimum is referral to a committee so that the people can be adequately and properly consulted.

As I stated in my recent letter to the Minister of Agriculture, reading letters sent to him on this issue or e-mails sent to him on this issue doesn't constitute public consultation. Nor do his brief meetings with a select few groups and individuals after the bill was tabled in the House. Meaningful consultation must be publicized, lengthy and accessible.

The consultation that led to the Water Sustainability Act, passed this session, started in 2009, was provincewide, engaged the public and stakeholder organizations in public meetings and involved feedback loops to the public as the legislation was being drafted. The Off-Road Vehicle Act passed this session was likewise the result of many years of significant public consultation. It's one of the reasons the public and the opposition applauded the passage of the bill.

That is the kind of consultation process that any changes to the ALC and the ALR demand — extensive, public, provincewide and transparent consultation. That, again, is why Bill 24 should be referred to a committee — so that this kind of consultation can take place.

The government has reacted to other errors in legislation that likewise resulted from a failure to consult. It has reacted by removing or hoisting those bills or sending those bills to committee. The government attempted to introduce legislation that fundamentally changed the way B.C.'s resource roads were managed, maintained and
[ Page 4128 ]
used. It had to withdraw that legislation when it failed to conduct adequate consultation, and it has been consulting with stakeholders now for over three years on a replacement act.

It can do the same with Bill 24. The people would be relieved and would thank the government. It's not something that government has to fear being embarrassed about. Take it to committee and talk to the people.

Prior to the last election, the government was forced to withdraw its proposed changes to the forest tenure system as a result of public push-back on its failure to consult in advance of the legislation. The government is now conducting a consultation process on their proposed changes. And now we see that a major forest product company's CEO is challenging even that two-month-long consultation process. Specifically, Don Kayne, the CEO of Canfor, said the following about the government's current two-month-long, one-on-one consultation with a former chief forester over the proposed forest tenure changes.

[1555]

To that I read Bill 24 "Changes of this scope require broadly informed public support, not a brief and limited consultation. On Crown land the public are our landowners, and our opinions should be meaningfully sought and respected. Shortchanging opportunities for public consultation or forcing unwanted tenure reform brings the risk of serious repercussions."

This is good advice to this government from a private sector CEO, and it has as much meaning to Bill 24 as it does to the proposed forest tenure changes — yet another argument for withdrawing Bill 24 completely or especially for referring it to committee for informed consultation.

Bill 24 will not achieve the government's publicly stated intent of supporting agriculture and protecting agricultural land. This bill will absolutely limit opportunities for new farmers. Enhancing the possibility for exclusions in zone 2 will drive prices up for farmland and discourage new farmers from entering the industry, threatening its long-term stability. I can tell the Speaker and I can tell executive members who sit in this chamber at this moment that that is precisely what is happening in Delta this moment. Pioneer farming families, families who have been there for over 100 years, are finding the prices because of the economic pressure on the land too rich for the farming families, and they are being forced to leave Delta.

What kind of public policy will enable that situation, when we know we're talking about some of the finest soil in the country, when we're talking about farmers who have been on that land for over 100 years, who this very government has awarded pioneer farming family awards to?

Bill 24 will open up exclusions in zone 2, threatening B.C.'s food security. The more agricultural land we lose, the more likely B.C. will be affected by food shortages and rising prices in the future. The government doesn't know what effect climate change will have on our agricultural land base and what lands will be valuable in the future. Bill 24 is not a forward-thinking piece of legislation.

To that end, I would like to again quote from the letter of the chair of the Agricultural Land Commission:

"It is understood that the majority of B.C.'s population growth will continue in the southwest. Pressures to convert agricultural land to accommodate urban growth will continue, as will the pressures on farmers to change or stop certain agricultural practices.

"While I recognize that the Agricultural Land Commission Act and the Farm Practices Protection…Act are designed to resist these pressures" — and this is the important part — "there may come a time when farmers themselves will consider relocation, thus resulting in a fundamental shift in the agricultural activities in southwest B.C….

"I envision that appropriately transferable agricultural enterprises may look northward — but only if the opportunity exists. Now is the time to consider the potential future agricultural role of northeast B.C. Also, it is timely to consider the potential economic opportunities for agriculture in years ahead, given this huge land base and its proximity to northern transportation routes to Asia."

But are we doing that? No. No, we don't want to think about the future. No, we want to think about what the friends and loud, vocal minorities want out of the land, because those people certainly aren't interested in farming it. They want to develop it for other purposes.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Those purposes, if they are attached to the agricultural land, can be negotiated with the ALC. Prove that they enhance agriculture and farming in the province. Don't just open up to economic, social and cultural activities on land. You have to take this back to committee and talk to people about it. Put parameters around what it is government wants to do. Don't do it in secret. Don't do it without consultation. Don't do it via regulation. Talk and develop something that's healthy and strong and supported by the people.

Government communication materials portray zone 2 agricultural land as less valuable than zone 1 land. This is not the case. As you know, the Peace region alone has over 72 percent of class 1 to 4 lands in the province. Farmland in the north, Interior and Kootenays deserve equal respect and protection.

[1600]

Land that is classified differently is classified because those lands will support specific crops that flourish on different types and classifications of land. All any minister of the Crown has to do is speak to an agronomist to find out what crops flourish on what classification of land. Because it's class 4 or 5 land doesn't mean it isn't good soil and it can't support good agricultural crops. With proper irrigation and proper care of the land, it will support precisely the type of crop that classification is known to do by science.

I feel that this bill has ignored completely the value of science in what the ALC is trying say to this govern-
[ Page 4129 ]
ment. "We have classifications. We can take the land out that isn't classified appropriately. We are doing that. Let us do our job. Let us finish the job. Don't step ahead of us with a lack of science and a lack of understanding and try and tell us what the right way to reform agriculture in this province is."

The government also claims that Bill 24 will strengthen the Agricultural Land Commission. On the contrary, it weakens the protections of the ALC. If the government truly wanted to strengthen the ALC, it would enhance the protection of ALR lands from development across the province instead of splitting it into two zones and weakening those protections on 90 percent of the agricultural land base.

B.C. farmland is constantly being eyed for non-agricultural projects, and that includes hundreds of acres of farmland in my own riding. The government should take steps to discourage this type of development, not to encourage it, and that's what the people are telling the government they want to talk to them about.

They need to have this referred so that they can explain to the government that this is a vocal minority that wants to develop the agricultural land for purposes other than farm use. Let the people talk to you. Let the people tell you what they feel about this bill and how they would like you to massage it before you bring it back for passage in this place.

I'm not sure how much time I have left.

Interjection.

V. Huntington: Five minutes? Oh. Well, I was going to speak about what happens to a community when other economic factors start putting pressure on the agricultural land. But perhaps instead, I will read, as other colleagues have done, some of the comments that have been made. I mean, what does it take for the executive council of this government to listen?

Today we get a letter sent to the Minister of Agriculture from the B.C. Association of Farmers Markets, writing:

"…on behalf of the British Columbia Association of Farmers Markets to convey their concern regarding the lack of public consultation leading up to the announcement of Bill 24 and the resulting impacts on the B.C. agricultural land reserve. British Columbians are stakeholders in this decision, and our opinions and concerns regarding food, farmers and farmland must not be underestimated or overlooked in this consultation process.

"We urge you to seriously consider the points we have outlined below. As an organization representing 125 farmers markets and 1,000 small-scale farmers selling at markets across B.C., we are concerned that our provincial representatives have not considered our members' views and opposition to Bill 24."

Even the Delta Farmers Institute — well, I shouldn't say "even" — in my own riding has said:

"The province should put the brakes on radical changes planned for the agricultural land reserve until more comprehensive analysis and consultation are undertaken. If approved, the Delta Farmers Institute president, David Ryall, said that the Agricultural Land Commission Amendment Act introduced this spring would split the farm reserve into two zones as well as introduce changes to the ALC. 'I'm not happy with the overall view of it because it's easy to take it out of the agricultural land reserve. That only pushes the value of land up, and the farmers can't afford to pay it.'

"Ryall said that while the new Minister of Agriculture has met with the Agriculture Council, there has been little consultation, and the Delta Farmers Institute wants this bill referred to committee for consultation."

I've heard from many constituents, like other members, all of them saying protect the farmland and take Bill 24 to the people and talk to them.

[1605]

The associations — every single local government association across this province has put out motions that ask the government to do just that: "Take this bill to consultation. We do not support it in its present form." What more does it take for this government to listen? The people deserve to be heard. The cabinet of this province needs to listen. It needs to act, and it needs to understand the values that people have put in the farmland of this province. Refer Bill 24 to committee.

S. Robinson: I rise in the House today to take my place in this debate on the motion to refer Bill 24, on the agricultural land reserve, to a standing committee — a committee whose responsibility would be to hear what people in this province have to say about this bill that would have huge implications on agricultural land and how it's used.

It's a committee that I imagine would also hear from scientists, from growers, from people who like to eat — like everybody in this House — and from people who have spent considerable years protecting our farmland. For 40 years we've been doing that. Those people have lots to say about what is good about the original piece of legislation and what is challenging about the current piece before us. Referring this to a committee would provide opportunity to gather all of that information and make a reasoned, well-thought-out evidence-based decision.

I do want to take a few minutes just to talk about consultation. I think there is this idea that has been floated around, certainly from the other side of the House, about what consultation looks like. In this committee, as far as I understand, consultation would involve inviting many different kinds of groups to the conversation, extending and reaching out to them and saying: "We want to hear from you. We believe you have valuable information that will help inform this government." Consultation is not just reading letters.

One of the things that I think is important when we think about consultation…. When we represent people, it's very dangerous to assume that we know exactly what people want, especially if we didn't put that in our election platform. When you put it in an election platform, that is a form of consultation. If they pick you, then you have been given the authority to actually make those decisions. But if it's not in a campaign, if it's not talked
[ Page 4130 ]
about before the election, then you have not been given that right to represent people on that particular issue.

In this case we do know that those on the other side of the House said nothing about making changes to the agricultural land reserve. As a result, I think it's beholden to them to actually do some proper consultation, and this bill will allow that to happen.

You know, I had a colleague on Coquitlam council who took this approach of "you don't really need to consult." He was of the belief that: "I just talked to a few of my friends, and if this is how they think about things, then that's sort of good enough. It's representative enough of what the masses in our community want." He believed that this gave him enough information in order to make a wise decision. Although he might hear from stakeholders on a particular issue, he really didn't invest the time or the energy to go out and hear what people had to say.

I think it's actually a bit boorish to think that just because you talk to a handful of friends, that somehow means everybody supports it or enough people support it. But what was really interesting was that the next election didn't turn out too well for him. He didn't get re-elected. I saw that as a piece where people want to be consulted. It's important to them that their voices are heard on important pieces of legislation, and referring this bill to committee will provide that opportunity for this government.

As I think about when my previous colleague thought that he could just consult with friends…. I think what he learned — and certainly what I learned — is that when you consult with friends, it just doesn't cut it when it affects an entire community or in this case an entire province.

When you consult with friends where you're going to be making changes in legislation that affect people's livelihoods, well, that just doesn't cut it. Consulting with friends doesn't cut it when you're making dramatic policy decisions where 80 percent of the electorate actually supports the current piece of legislation.

[1610]

Part of what I needed to do…. As I knew I would be speaking to Bill 24 and certainly now speaking to this motion to refer, I thought it was important get a sense from others in this province. I didn't just want to consult with my friends; I wanted to go out and hear what people had to say about this idea of referring and consultation. Several weeks ago I was in Creston at the AKBLG, which is the local government association in the Kootenays, and there was real substantial concern among the mayors, councillors and directors around the proposed changes to the ALR and the ALC. They were quite worried about the proposed dismantling of these institutions and how they were going to affect their constituents.

What they noted to me, what they said to me, was that there really hasn't been any consultation with farmers. This group of local leaders put together an emergency resolution asking the UBCM and the provincial government to go out and properly consult with farmers in all areas of the province in order to properly identify just how these proposed changes will impact the future of agriculture in our province.

I value consultation. I think we all in this House value consultation, real consultation. When you don't consult the farming community about an important piece of legislation that's going to impact your livelihood, I don't know how you can get away with that. I come from local government, and I can't imagine making sweeping land use changes without consulting the group that is most impacted by proposed changes. When I was in Creston, I had this opportunity to spend the afternoon touring three different farms and had conversations with these farmers, just to hear what they said about the impact of these changes and how they expect this will affect their ability to continue operations. If we're being asked to make decisions about this kind of legislation as legislators, we ought to know a little bit about what the implications are of these changes.

What I learned was that they're concerned about how their operations will be put at risk by parcelling up the ALR. They're worried that this will increase land prices. Inappropriate development will mean losing these lands forever, and their ability to use these lands through the entire supply chain will increase their costs, which will result in increasing food costs continuing to make life more expensive for British Columbian families. Consulting means getting a better lay of the land and making a fully informed decision in this House.

We did actually hear from the new Minister of Agriculture. Upon his appointment, we heard him say, right here in this House, that he is in the process of consultation. He says he's consulting on the ALR and the ALC and that he's open to making changes to the proposed legislation or even taking it off the table. To me, that was a very wise thing for him to say. What that said was: "We need to hear from the people that this will affect."

When I heard him use the word "consultation," I thought that to mean: "We're going to reach out to the people that will be impacted, to the cattlemen, to the farmers, to the landowners, to the farmers markets. We're going to reach out to everybody involved in the supply chain, everybody involved in making sure that British Columbians get local, healthy food into their bellies. We're going to find out from all of these people, these experts, how this proposed legislation will impact their ability to work and to feed us."

This mention of consultation was really quite worthy, and I expected really great things to come out of that. But it was short-lived. As we heard, within a matter of days, from the minister responsible for the bill, where there was no consultation among the main stakeholders…. The Minister Responsible for Core Review said that he had absolutely no interest in consultation. In fact, when the
[ Page 4131 ]
bill was introduced back in March, the minister said: "I know that we could have done a better job of consultations, and I take my mea culpa." Really? Could have done a better job of consultations?

Well, here it is, in plain black and white. We now have a motion put before this House. Here is the opportunity to take care of those consultations. If you didn't do a good job, all right, we'll forgive you. We'll move on. We're going to bring forward a motion to refer this to a committee, where you can actually do a job of consultation, where you can actually get that information we need, where you can do the right thing. I support this motion because mea culpa doesn't cut it.

[1615]

In the days after the new Minister of Agriculture suggested that consultation on this bill would be his first order of business, we learned that what he knows to be the right thing to do gets an override from the Minister Responsible for Core Review. One minister says one thing; another minister says the opposite. Not only is this crazy-making, but it's really disrespectful of those who have vital information about the implications of this problematic bill.

Denying this motion, voting against it, is a vote to say that you don't care what British Columbians have to say about this bill. Voting against this motion says that you don't care to consult with scientists. If you don't care to consult with major stakeholders like farmers and ranchers, then just vote no. Voting no says you really just don't care to hear from anybody else. You've made up your mind.

In the absence of this Liberal government's commitment to consult with British Columbians…. Although I do need to say, on this idea of consultation…. I caught a tweet from the Premier's Twitter handle — I want to say about ten days ago — saying how proud she was that they are for consulting on liquor reform and speed limits. I thought: "Yeah, it's great. But too bad — not interested in consulting on something that is as important as land use." The agricultural land, it seems like, isn't worthy of consultation.

Here's an opportunity. We have a refer motion before us that says to the electorate that what you think matters. This is an opportunity for this government to actually look good. This motion is about taking the time to do a proper consultation, given that consultation wasn't done in order to even bring this bill forward, which I think is where things went sideways.

I think consultation should have been done first. In fact, when I think about it, it should have been in the campaign that the Liberals ran a year ago. That's really where it belonged. But at a minimum, there should've been at least some sort of consultation before it was brought before this House.

I think right now it's important that we hear from a number of stakeholders and citizens. I have been hearing a bit from citizens who've been writing to me, and I'd like to share a little bit about that. As the critic for local government, I did have the opportunity to attend a number of local government area association conferences this past spring.

I went to the Association of Kootenay and Boundary Local Governments conference, the association of Vancouver Island central coast communities, the Lower Mainland Local Government Association, as well, and I went to the one in Penticton. Each of these passed their own resolutions asking for consultation. The AKBLG, the Association of Kootenay and Boundary Local Governments, encompasses three regional districts entirely and part of a fourth and a fifth that include 23 electoral areas and 27 municipalities.

In April of this past year they had a resolution requesting that the provincial government undertake consultation with the public, local governments, the Union of B.C. Municipalities and affected parties on the proposed two-zone approach to the ALR and that Bill 24 not be brought into force until such consultation is complete.

Here we have, from the Minister for Core Review…. These are his people. His people are saying: "We want you to consult." Well, here is a referral motion right before this very House, right before this government. It's an opportunity for them to do the right thing.

Now, the Southern Interior Local Government Association had resolutions as well, asking the provincial government to maintain the Agricultural Land Commission as an independent administrative tribunal and to protect the agricultural lands — another opportunity to consult with this this group of local leaders.

The LMLGA passed a resolution, asked to: "Send a letter to…the Minister of Agriculture, the Minister of Community, Sport and Cultural Development…and the Premier…with copies to all B.C. local governments and the Union of B.C. Municipalities, requesting that the provincial government…the Union of B.C. Municipalities and affected parties on the proposed two-zone approach to the ALR and that Bill 24 not be brought into force until such consultation is complete" and that the results of a consultation be made public. Here we have local governments throughout the Lower Mainland, and this was supported unanimously.

[1620]

These are leaders. These are people who represent a whole other body, our local governments, and they are saying that there needs to be consultation. Here we have before the House a motion to refer, saying: "Here's the opportunity to do just that."

Now, I also have from local governments themselves…. They went directly to the UBCM and directly to government asking for proper consultation. The district of North Vancouver requested that the Minister Responsible for Core Review and the Minister of Agriculture have a process in place to support the objectives regarding the
[ Page 4132 ]
region's supply of agricultural land and agricultural viability and, what's most important here, to ensure meaningful consultation opportunities with municipalities and the regional district of Metro Vancouver, the Union of B.C. Municipalities and stakeholders. Here we are, local government, North Vancouver — no ALR there, but they are recognizing the value. They are saying that there is value in consultation.

Here we have this opportunity, this motion before us, and I urge the government, I urge all members of this House to recognize this important piece of making decisions.

Lo and behold, West Vancouver — again, not a place that has agricultural land to speak of, but they, too, recognize the importance of consultation. They request that the Minister Responsible for Core Review and the Minister of Agriculture ensure that the provincial core review process serve to protect and enhance the agricultural land reserve and the Agricultural Land Commission and ensure meaningful consultation opportunities with municipalities and the regional district of Metro Vancouver.

We also have the city of Burnaby, representing 223,000 people. No agricultural land there, I don't think, but they still recognize the value of eating local food, wholesome food. This past April they passed a resolution in opposition to the proposed alteration to the agricultural land reserve. Well, this local government — I think we need to consult with them. I want to understand exactly why and what's their opposition. It begs at least curiosity about what the concern is.

The Islands Trust, representing 25,000 people. This past December they sent a letter to the previous Minister of Agriculture and to the Minister for Core Review supporting the preservation of the ALR and demanding consultation. They're looking to be consulted. They recognize the value of consultation.

The district of Metchosin, 4,800 people — unanimous council decision April 2013 asking for no mandate change or reduction of the ALC. They, too, have a voice, and we as legislators here in Victoria have a responsibility to provide an opportunity to hear what they have to say and why they're in opposition.

The city of Richmond, great hub of agriculture, 190,000 people. In October they supported the resolution to protect and enhance the ALR and asking for consultation. In April they passed a motion asking the province to consult with the public and local governments before Bill 24 becomes law.

The district of North Saanich, 11,000 people. October 8 a letter to the Minister Responsible for Core Review seeking clarification on core review of the Agricultural Land Commission. They want clarification.

A referral motion is an opportunity to hear what isn't clear. What does this government need to do in order to speak to their constituents, to let people know exactly what's being proposed and how it's going to impact them?

The Peace River regional district, 58,000 people. They sent a letter to the current Minister of Agriculture requesting that the provincial proposal to separate the agricultural land into two be withdrawn from the Legislative Assembly. Well, I'd like to hear exactly why. What's the problem? What is it about this current legislation that concerns them? It's the Peace River. I think it's responsible governing to hear what people have to say, and here we have before this House an opportunity to do the right thing.

Now, the village of Nakusp — very tiny, I know, a tiny little place — 1,500 people. They, too, want to have their voices heard. They called in November. They support the preservation of farmland, and they call for a long, substantial consultation period. They recognize the importance and the value of hearing from people, hearing what they have to say, making sure that their voices are heard.

[1625]

We haven't just been hearing from local governments. Given that we heard from almost every single area association and about a half-dozen or ten different local governments, I would say that's a whole lot of people in this province who have something to say about the agricultural land reserve. They have a whole lot to say about Bill 24. A motion to refer provides us with the opportunity to really hear what they have to say.

I'm certainly supporting the motion, and it was great to hear from some of my colleagues why they're supporting this motion to refer. I'd like to hear from the other side of the House why they wouldn't support the motion. We haven't heard anything today. I'd really love to hear why they wouldn't support it. It's this idea of hearing from the electorate that, really, I think, carries the day.

I really thought…. I come from suburbia, and I joke around this place that I'm a city mouse, so agricultural land is sort of far from my experience. I loved going up to Creston and seeing how the food that I get at the local farmers market is grown. Some of it comes from up there. Some of it comes from Langley, Richmond, Abbotsford. It's really great to….

Interjection.

S. Robinson: And Surrey too. The member for Surrey-Newton wants to make sure I get his community in there. Yes, some of it comes from there.

I had the opportunity — for the first time ever, actually — to be at our farmers market. Our local farmers market, for the most part, doesn't really like politicians thumping our wares at the farmers market, so they haven't really allowed us to come in. But they approached me and said: "Would you come in and talk to people about the ALR and Bill 24 and do your own consultation? I understand that there's a motion before the House to refer. Could you help educate people about what that is?" I said: "Absolutely."
[ Page 4133 ]

An opportunity to have a table there for four hours and talk to constituents — it's like heaven. I thought: "Okay, so we're suburban, right?" Coquitlam-Maillardville is pretty suburban. I was prepared to have to explain, in detail, what the proposal before this House was all about. I was blown away by the number of people who understood what was at stake. I could not believe the number of people who came to me.

I didn't have to go and say anything. They said: "Oh, agricultural land reserve?" They wanted to come and share with me what was going on. They wanted to debate with me why this was a bad idea. Their opinions, their ideas, their fears, their worries, their hopes — they wanted me to bring those forward.

I could not believe that all these people in suburbia understood really well where their food came from. I was actually thrilled. It made my job easier, and it was a real opportunity to have some real, good discussion about what they expect from their government. As I talked with them about what was going on and what the challenges were that I saw about Bill 24, I would say to them: "Well, right now, when I go back into the House, this last week of May, what we will be debating is a motion to refer." What I heard from people is that they said: "Good."

Consultation is good. Hearing from people is good. Go more slowly. If you need to tweak the ALR, if you need to tweak the ALC, that's fine, but do it in a way that people understand what you're doing. They were saying: "We didn't know anything about this before the election. We knew nothing about it."

Now all of a sudden, we're debating this piece of legislation that people have come to love and value for 40 years. Almost two generations of people have lived life in this province with protected farmland. Now they're saying: "Now it looks like it's at risk. I want to make sure I understand it." Well, here's the opportunity.

Referring this to committee means that it will go all over the province. There will be opportunities to hear from many throughout the province — hear what their concerns are, what their fears are. If the government is saying that this is a good bill, they can explain to people: "This is how we're going to allay your fears. This is how we're going to protect farmland. This is what it's going to really look like as it plays out."

That's not what I was hearing at the farmers market. People were very, very worried, and they want to have their voices heard.

[1630]

Just like some of my other colleagues have been reading out, I've been receiving e-mails — as I'm sure everybody who's sitting here in this House has been — calling for some consultation, asking for this government to refer this bill before us to committee. I'll read just a couple of them because I think it's worthwhile getting them on the record. I just want to find the right ones.

"Dear Madam/Sir:

"I don't recall this issue of removing or swapping out farmland ever being something discussed during the last election. You have no legal right to make such sweeping changes to the farm industry or heritage that we as British Columbians are proud of. The leader of this province, from whatever political stripe, must show initiative and imagination moving forward when it comes to our food. We need to become more self-sustainable and stop relying so heavily on other countries for our fruits and vegetables."

This is from Peggy Padden from Summerland. She recognizes that there was nothing said before the election. There was no social licence to actually act on any of this.

Here's the government's opportunity to act with social licence. By referring this motion, there's a real opportunity to do some meaningful consultation that would permit this government to act according to what the electorate actually says it wants.

Here's another one.

"Food security is becoming more of an issue for many as transportation costs continue to rise and climate change brings drought to prime growing areas such as California" — as the member for Skeena had alluded to earlier in the day. "As such, agricultural land in this great province needs more protection, not more development. Once land has been developed, it will forever be unavailable for us to use for growing food or raising stock. I appeal to you to rethink Bill 24.

"Thank you,

"Clayton Bussey, Kamloops."

Here again we have somebody who is saying: "We need to think about this. There are huge implications. This is what my concerns are." He wants to be consulted. He wants to be able to share his concerns about what's being proposed.

I have another one here. This is from Connie Lloyd in Prince George. Connie says: "This bill will effectively make it impossible for young people who are interested in farming and providing food to be able to afford any land at all to do it on. If this passes, it will be a clear indication of who is running the province, and it certainly is not the people on whom these decisions impact. Nope, it's only for the benefit of big business." Connie wants to know how this is going to help the farmers.

Consultations with farmers would certainly go a long way to helping Connie understand what this piece of legislation will mean for her and for her family. Referring this bill to a committee, going out and consulting provincewide, would mean that we would absolutely have the information that we need in order to make a good decision as legislators.

Here's another one, from Roger Ricker of Vancouver–False Creek. You notice I am turning the page here, because I have dozens and dozens of these. I'm just picking out some of the more interesting ones. They're all interesting, but there are some that are just more salient, I suppose.

Roger Ricker from Vancouver–False Creek says: "The ability to plant, cultivate and produce food is critical to any area populated by humans. Food produced locally is essential and must be sustained. There is no excuse for imposing industrial enterprises on arable land over the
[ Page 4134 ]
need and rights to produce foodstuffs that ensure our healthy survival."

That, to me, says that these people, even in urban areas like Vancouver–False Creek, are paying really close attention to where their food comes from. They want to know, and they want to be consulted. What these letters tell me is that this government does not have the right to act on this proposal just yet. They have not done their due diligence. They've misled the electorate before the election, and they have to refer Bill 24 to a committee.

The motion is to refer to the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services, but I'm sure if they decided to do a Select Standing Committee on Agriculture, we could find a way to make that work. I'm sure my colleagues on this side of the House would actually think that would be a grand idea. At the end of the day, the members of this House need to be satisfied that this government has done its due diligence and it has taken the time to check in with stakeholders and the citizens of this province, given that the proposed changes can have a detrimental impact on this critical asset, our farmland throughout the province.

That's why I'm supporting this motion to refer.

[1635]

H. Bains: It is an honour and a privilege to stand and speak on this very, very important issue that faces this House, and not only this House but all of us in British Columbia. It is our future. It is about our food security. When you're talking about something that is so little and so precious…. When you consider it in the scheme of things, British Columbia, although it's a huge province geographically, where you and I come from, Mr. Speaker, I think it's probably one-third of that country. But out of that, only 5 percent is land that is appropriate for agriculture — only 5 percent.

What we are talking about here is a second sober thought. Give people an opportunity to have their say about such an important issue that is before us, so that we don't have to regret later on in years to come. The recommendation and the amendment that is proposed by my colleague and Agriculture critic says this: "That Bill 24 not be read a second time now but that the subject matter be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services and further that the committee be empowered to invite witnesses to appear before it to assist in its deliberations."

How could you be wrong if you agree with this amendment? There's no rush. There's no clock ticking. We could easily afford to take another six months, four months or whatever time it takes to give people an opportunity to have their say about such a precious piece that they actually have come to have such an attachment to since 1973.

It's not just the emotional attachment; it's for all practical reasons. It has social values behind it. It has food security, as we talked about. It's about healthy living, and it's about economy. With such dire consequences of making a wrong decision in a rush, I think that's why this amendment makes sense, and that's why I'm supporting it, and that's why I'm standing to speak in favour of it.

I'm sure the minister, the government MLAs and, I know, this side of the MLAs and the independent MLAs have all received input from many, many constituents all across the province. What are they asking? They are only saying two things. They're either opposed to this Bill 24 because they don't like what's in it, or they're saying, "Hey, let's have a little more consultation. We don't know enough about what is going on and how it will impact us" — and not now but in years to come.

I think that's why it's important that we go with this recommendation to refer to a committee, who will have the power to invite witnesses. Witnesses — you know, people who own those farmlands. Witnesses — those who actually go and buy food from the farmers market and those who work there and those who actually understand why the agricultural land reserve was brought in, in the first place.

All those reasons why the agricultural land reserve was brought in, in 1973, still exist today. Actually, there is more need, and I think that need has actually enhanced profoundly, when you look at situations all around us. California sends a lot of food to B.C., and 75 percent of California is under drought now, officially — 75 percent of it.

[1640]

When that food production is under threat, at least there's a risk. Although the United States government is trying to mitigate or do something to have a water supply there, but again, that can go only so far.

There are all those reasons why we need to have this bill referred to a committee — to give us all some time to think through and listen to all those people with all those concerns that I've just listed to make sure that we do the right thing.

It will also give us the opportunity to clarify who actually runs this file. Is it the Minister of Agriculture, or is it the Minister for Core Review — the Minister of Energy and Mines? One minister says one thing, and another minister the next day says quite the opposite.

So it will give us some opportunity to clarify for the benefit of the government as well. Where do they actually stand? Who runs this ministry, and who is driving this bill? Is it the minister who should be running and driving this bill? It seems like he has no control. He gets overruled by the person who sits right next to him. I think that would also give them the opportunity to sort out among themselves exactly what it is they want to do.

I think that if you look at the gravity and the severity of this situation…. I will refer to the ALR protection and enhancement committee, who did a study a few years ago back in, I believe, 2003. This is what they have to say, as
[ Page 4135 ]
a background.

"Agriculture is a critical industry. It contributes greatly to our economy, generating over $2.2 billion per year in farm-gate receipts. As well, due to the economic multiplier effect, agriculture provides over 280,000 jobs in our food and agricultural industries in British Columbia. It contributes not only to our economy, employment and food security but as well to the health of British Columbians."

They went on to say:

"The ALR legislation was enacted to establish a land base for farming and to protect it from urban development. Prior to the ALR, the province was losing 6,000 hectares of prime farmland yearly."

Think about this. Only 5 percent of our land base is of agricultural value, and we were losing 6,000 hectares before the ALR came in. Can you imagine what they are trying to do now and what would happen? And then what happened to our food security? What happened to our healthy living? This is exactly what that study says.

"However, at present, our farmlands are under one of the biggest threats since the establishment of the agricultural land reserve in 1973. Today in the Fraser Valley alone, for example, there are proposals to remove almost 2,000 hectares of prime farmland from the ALR."

That's with the ALR and ALC in place. Now they're talking about, through this bill, out of the 5 percent, 90 percent of the 5 percent of land that is appropriate for agriculture now will be much easier to take out of the ALR. That's what this bill says. That's how serious this is, and that's why we need to take a second sober thought by referring this to a committee. How can you go wrong? Like I said, there's no time click and there's no clock ticking that you have to do it by a certain time.

We will be back this fall. We will be back next spring in this House, and this will give all of those people who are concerned about this bill an opportunity to appear before this committee, present their case, show their concerns, and hopefully the committee will be able to come back and recommend. That will make sense to all of us, not only here but everyone in British Columbia who depends on agricultural land — the workers, the farmers, the people who buy food. They depend on our food produced in B.C. That's why it is important that we must give it a second sober thought.

[1645]

Here's another quote I will give you. It comes from Making the Connection: Food Security and Public Health. In June 2004 they published this — the Community Nutritionists Council of B.C. This is what they have to say:

"Food security is a prerequisite for healthy eating and fundamental to human and environmental health. It is a basis for the prevention of chronic diseases and the promotion of healthy growth and development. It is integral to healthy living and environmental health protection. If people do not have access to a sustainable supply of appropriate food, their health will be compromised regardless of available health care."

How clear can someone be? It is very, very clear how important the food supply is for all of us, considering that we are so constrained with our agricultural land that is appropriate for agriculture. They went on to say, about understanding food security:

"If British Columbians are to be food secure, they must have control over food decisions. Strengthening community action, collectively engaging members of the community to be active participants in shaping their food system, is a critically important aspect of increasing control.

"Food access is inextricably linked to the food supply. Food security is understood to be dependent upon a healthy, sustainable food system. A food system includes linkages between different sectors and different aspects of life with respect to the production, processing, distribution, marketing, acquisition and consumption of food."

It is so important that we really think through before we rush through this bill, which is so important to our food security and food supply. They went on to say that in other food miles — just considering what's happening in recent history — our food is travelling a longer distance from the field to the plate. Research conducted by the Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture in 2001 found produce arriving by truck travelled an average distance of 1,518 miles to reach Chicago in 1998.

This is very interesting. In 1998 the food travelled by truck 1,518 miles to reach the plate. That was in '98 — a 22 percent increase over 1,245 miles travelled in 1981. In 17 years food is travelling a distance 300 miles longer to get to the consumer from the field.

That's just at that time. Now you're looking at California, which is, as I mentioned, going through drought conditions. And we have a bill like this before us, which will make it easier for those who are trying to make a quick buck off our agricultural land by enabling them, through this bill, to remove the agricultural land faster, easier. We are actually adding to the problem that they have identified of how far the food has to travel.

That's why it is important that we must have a second, sober thought and delay this bill by referring it to the committee. No wonder that the B.C. Agriculture Council, B.C. Cattlemen's Association, B.C. Food Systems Network, the chair of the ALC, academics and soil scientists all are opposing this.

There's a reason why they all oppose this bill. Doesn't that make sense — when all of them are dependent largely on our agriculture, food and agricultural land — that they would pay a little attention to it?

[1650]

But true to form, I must say, the arrogance is way ahead of common sense over there. I think that's why they are ignoring the pleas from all those people who actually know what's going on, on our agricultural land and the farms there. Why wouldn't you listen to these people who are dependent, largely, and who know exactly what goes on, on our agricultural land?

I must say that I'm really disappointed that the government…. No one from the government side stands up. At least give us a reason. Give us a reason, No. 1, why they're supporting this bill. No. 2, what is wrong in referring to this committee? What is wrong? Some of them
[ Page 4136 ]
should stand up and make that point. They will sit there and heckle, but they will not have the courage to stand up and say why they will not agree to more consultation.

I'm going to give you a list of all those people, not only the people that I mentioned here…. The B.C. Agriculture Council, the B.C. Cattlemen's Association, B.C. Food Systems, the chair of the ALC and academics — they are opposing this bill. But hear the communities, the community leaders who live in those communities who will be impacted by this bill. Let's see what they have to say. If they don't want to listen to the farmers, the Cattlemen's Association, the ALC chair or the scientists, let's listen to what some of the committee members who live in those communities and who will be impacted have to say.

UBCM, all municipalities and regional districts — this is what they have to say:

"The UBCM executive has reviewed the legislative amendments. The executive has indicated that it is interested in working with the ministry, the ALC and the agricultural industry in developing new regulations to ensure the preservation of farmland and to help the farming community. However, it has not yet determined whether or not it supports the legislative changes to the Agricultural Land Commission and will be seeking further consultation with the province on this matter."

This is UBCM, all of the municipalities coming together, the leaders representing all municipalities coming together and saying: "Look, we need more consultation." They don't know whether they could support or oppose the amendments in the bill, but they need more consultation. That's exactly what this amendment is calling for, put forth by my colleague the critic for Agriculture. It just makes sense.

But again, like I said, true to form, common sense does not prevail here. It's arrogance that dictates. It's ideology that dictates their decision-making process, not common sense, not consultation.

UBCM — they come from all political stripes, representing different municipalities all over the province. They all are saying: "We need more consultation."

Let's go to the city of Richmond and what they have to say. On October 7, 2013, a resolution that the core review protect and enhance the ALR and ALC and enable consultation. April 28, 2014, another motion asking the province to consult with the public and local governments before Bill 24 becomes law.

It's not just the opposition sitting here, not the independent members just making the argument that we need to consult and we need to give a little more time for consultation — which they have not. They have not given the opportunity to consult and seek concerns and input from the public.

I've got letter after letter. There's a stack of them. They all ask for more consultation. It just shows that…. One minister says: "Yes, we need more consultation. We'll give you more consultation." Another minister comes in the next day: "No, we've done enough. You can have the consultation, but we're not changing our mind."

What kind of consultation is that? They've already made up their mind, and no matter what anyone says, they are saying that they will continue on with the direction that they're going in, regardless of how bad this decision is.

[1655]

Then again, there's the district of North Saanich saying they have written a letter to the Minister for Core Review seeking clarification on core review of the Agricultural Land Commission. Again, another municipality saying: "We need more consultation, more clarification."

Then you go on to the Peace River regional district. They sent a letter to the Minister of Agriculture requesting that the provincial proposal to separate the agricultural land reserve into two significantly different zones be withdrawn from the Legislative Assembly. Then we go to the village of Nakusp. They say, on November 15, 2013, that to support the preservation of farmland calls for a longer consultation period.

Municipality after municipality is saying, "We need more consultation," on behalf of the constituents that they represent. Only this group here, sitting in this House on that side, believes that more consultation is bad for decision-making. Only this group will say that. I don't know what the thinking is behind that decision. Again, like I said, it must be ideology and not common sense driving this decision.

Again, here's the Islands Trust. They are saying they sent a letter to the previous Minister of Agriculture and to the Minister for Core Review supporting the preservation of the ALR and independent ALC and demanding consultation following council resolution. Again, another municipality saying that we need more consultation — and that's exactly what this amendment calls for.

So why not? That has to be the question: why not? As I said in my previous speech, when you can't find any logical reason behind their decision…. I'd like to hear from them where the logic is behind Bill 24. Who is supporting it? The farmers are not supporting it. B.C. Agriculture Council is not supporting it. The scientists aren't supporting it. The B.C. Cattlemen's Association isn't supporting it. The B.C. Food Systems Network isn't supporting it. So who supports it? Where does this come from?

The only thing…. I'm trying to think…. As individuals they are here to do a job, and I believe in that. I'm trying to read through their minds what is behind Bill 24 and what drives it. The only word that comes to my mind is "cronyism." There must be somebody out there they have in mind who would be benefiting from it.

I mean, all these people that I mentioned who have a stake in agricultural land…. They work on the land. They're saying: "Don't do it." All the municipalities are saying: "Don't do it." So who's asking you to do it? There must be something out there. I'd like to hear, because I don't want to reach the conclusion that there's some
[ Page 4137 ]
sort of, you know, ulterior motive — that there's cronyism going on in here. A lack of explanation…. That's the only conclusion you come to. What else can you think of? Who is it that is going to benefit from it? That's the question.

I have a list of all the municipalities, and you know what? These ministers will be going back to those municipalities. They have to be held accountable in those communities. Why aren't they listening?

I have here AKBLG, the Association of Kootenay and Boundary Local Governments, again, in an April 9-11, 2014, resolution requesting that the provincial government undertake consultation with the public, local governments, the Union of B.C. Municipalities and affected parties on the proposed two-zone approach to the ALR and that Bill 24 not be brought into force until such consultation is complete.

I have not yet read one letter that came our way that says: "Hey, Bill 24 makes sense." Where is it? I'm trying to wrap my head around seeing where the logic is behind this.

[1700]

Also, on top of that, they may have that reason to bring Bill 24, to make it easier for agricultural land to be taken out of the reserve. They may have a reason. I haven't heard any logical reason. But then where is the reason not to go for more consultation when everyone is asking for more consultation? Where's the logic behind that?

Here's the Southern Interior Local Government Association. These are the municipalities from the area where 90 percent of the land is of that entire zone 2 that we are talking about under Bill 24. They are saying here, also, that the provincial government maintain the Agricultural Land Commission as an independent administrative tribunal.

The B.C. Agriculture Council represents over 14,000 farmers and ranchers and close to 30 farm sector associations from all regions of the province. This is what they have to say: "Initially, we gave support to the bill. Later, upon reviewing the act, the BCAC withdrew its support and now wants the government to delay and change the legislation." Again, why not allow more consultation when all of them…? I mean, they represent 14,000 B.C. farmers. They're asking for more consultation.

B.C. Food Systems Network also says that they have done a complete full analysis of Bill 24 and sent it to all MLAs, have sent out several news releases in opposition to Bill 24.

That's why we need more consultation. The only way for that to happen is to have this bill referred to the committee that the amendment calls for.

The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers even has concerns.

So how many more people need to come and line up and tell the government "What you are doing is wrong" — as best-case scenario? But many are saying: "Let's have some more consultation." So what's wrong with more consultation? I just don't understand the rush, that this government is pushing through without proper consultation.

There are many, many individual letters. I just talked about associations — farmers associations, scientists, the cattlemen associations. I talked about all the municipalities that are asking for more consultation. There are some individuals. Here's one letter.

I know my time is running out; I see that green light. There is so much to say so that hopefully somebody on that side will listen and pay attention and have some courage to stand up in that caucus, when they meet out there, and say: "Look, what we are doing is wrong."

Consultation is a good thing to do. That's the basic fundamental tenet of democracy. Consult the people that you are representing. Consult the people who will be impacted by your actions here.

Here's one letter. It says: "We can't eat oil nor the profit from selling it, so please stand firm on the withdrawal of Bill 24." Another one: "My husband and I have a small farm on Galiano Island. We would like to express our rejection of the proposed division of ALR lands in the province into two sectors. We understand that the northern sector would be redesigned to open the possibility, probability, to other uses — i.e., resource extraction. We are extremely opposed to any tampering with ALR land in British Columbia."

So in the little time that I have, I want to emphasize this. We all came here. We were all elected to represent people that we said we would represent. There was nothing in their last election about changing the ALR. Here's another example just like the HST. Before the election they said they would not bring in HST, and after the election they brought in HST.

[1705]

In this case here, before the election — not a mention about changing the ALR. If this was such a great idea, why wasn't it discussed during the election?

My time has run out, and I hope the minister over there will listen to this.

S. Fraser: I'm here to take my place in the debate on the referral motion for Bill 24. I notice the Liberal members were very disappointed that the member for Surrey-Newton's time ran out, and I just want to assure them that I'll do my best to try to raise the issues and continue on the debate, as my colleague from Surrey-Newton did. There's so much to talk about and, really, so little time.

The motion in place here is dealing with the ominous Bill 24. I think I said in the second reading that it's the scariest piece of legislation that I've ever seen brought into this House. I've been doing this job for the people of Alberni–Pacific Rim for just over nine years now, and I've never seen a bill that, as with Bill 24, has scared me more for future generations in this province, dealing with food security.
[ Page 4138 ]

The motion at hand here today essentially would take the subject matter of Bill 24, which is designed to severely weaken the agricultural land reserve and forward that bill and the substance of the subject matter to the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services under Standing Order 83. This motion was very eloquently introduced into this House by my colleague the Agriculture critic, the MLA for Powell River–Sunshine Coast. He rightly brought this in, and I consider it, as I think most of the public do, a friendly amendment — very, very friendly to government.

Governments of all stripes have, since this place existed in British Columbia, brought in legislation, brought in bills, brought in laws that have great significance to the people of this province. Of course, again, regardless of political stripes, a bill being brought into the House….

It is understood that the government has a role to play to bring in these laws and make changes when necessary and that they have an obligation and an expectation from the public that these laws — these bills, these changes, these pieces of legislation — will be informed by fact, be informed by science, be informed by consultation to make them valid, legitimate laws, to make sure that the public interest is always put first and foremost.

We as elected people are not bestowed any wisdom simply because we are elected. We do have to rely on those experts. In this case, the experts are the farmers and the ranchers and the soil scientists and the agrologists and those commissioners, those working within the Agricultural Land Commission. We have a plenitude of resources to inform decisions such as this and to make any amendments to the agricultural land reserve.

What we've seen, though, is that this is a textbook case of how not to bring in a bill, how not to bring in a new piece of legislation. Bill 24, which, as I mentioned, will severely weaken food security and the role of the agricultural land reserve in this province, which has been in place, luckily, for over four decades and which protected this generation and is designed to protect the next generation and the next generation when it comes to food security.

This bill was not informed by any of the experts. It's faulty. The motion that we're dealing with today allows this government a chance to repair a very, very bad piece of legislation. So in that sense, I do consider this a friendly amendment.

[1710]

I notice the minister is laughing at this, but the experts…. Here are a few quotes.

"As a group of experienced soil scientists who have worked throughout British Columbia for many years, we have serious concerns over the substantial change in direction embodied in Bill 24, presented to the provincial Legislature on March 27, 2014.

"For the past four decades preservation of agricultural lands has been a provincewide priority aimed at protecting existing farmlands and lands that have the potential for future agricultural use. Some of those future agricultural lands are now forested, and until such time as they are needed and developed for agriculture, they will contribute to the wood and fibre production and thereby to the provincial economy. For such not currently farmed lands, the objective is to keep the option open for future agriculture. We consider this to be a prudent course of action in the face of an uncertain future."

I think they are referring to the uncertain future relating to climate change and droughts we are seeing in California — essentially about food security and the changes that are happening in the world that seemingly are beyond our control. We can control something. We can control the protection of agricultural land.

Now, this is not insignificant. This is 15 different scientists, all experts in their field — land use consultants, professors from the UBC faculty of land and food systems, soil scientists who are past agricultural land commissioners, ecosystem science and management professors from the University of Northern British Columbia, associate professors from Simon Fraser University. The list goes on.

I'll cut to the chase on this. These experts that this government didn't consult with, didn't talk to prior to bringing in a very bad piece of legislation, Bill 24…. Here's what their conclusion is.

"We completely agree with the words of the late Gary Runka, the former chair of the B.C. Land Commission, that the key elements of effective farmland preservation are

"(1) a provincewide zone administered by a provincial commission operating in the overall public interest of present and future generations;

"(2) a zone firmly based on science that objectively assesses the inherent biophysical ability of lands to grow crops;

"(3) a permanent zone from which urban expansion and other compatible uses are redirected, not merely a zone that rations food-producing lands to other uses over time; and

"(4) a zone within which British Columbians are committed to supporting, where necessary, those who farm the land and produce the food upon which we all rely.

"Bill 24 undermines all four key elements and therefore should be seriously reconsidered."

That's the expert advice that this government failed to take — actually failed to even consult with the experts. They are saying that Bill 24 should be seriously reconsidered. We should take this advice seriously.

The motion before us today is an olive branch to government, allowing them to fix a bad process in bringing in a bad piece of legislation. The process is flawed, and we know it because those that know this subject are telling us so.

Again, it doesn't matter whether we have a Minister of Agriculture or a minister involved with core review making decisions and building a bill for us — or their ministries building a bill for us. If they have not consulted with the experts, the bill is bound to be flawed.

[1715]

I do not want to dismiss for a second the expertise in the actual farming community and ranching community in this province. The fact that farmers and ranchers have survived this long…. This government is, I think, the worst in Canada for providing supports for farmers,
[ Page 4139 ]
especially small farmers, so these farmers and ranchers know their field. They know what they're doing. They understand agriculture intuitively, and they were not consulted with either.

I have met with farmers in the Alberni Valley, in Coombs and Errington. These are rich agricultural areas on Vancouver Island. I've been to the Comox Valley with the minister here today, his constituency. I know he's spoken with the farmers there. There were 25 or 26 farmers who agreed, on short notice on a Friday afternoon, to meet with us. They all said the same thing. They had never been consulted with on Bill 24, and they had much to say.

The farmers I've spoken to were suggesting that if they had been consulted, they would have told the minister — or in this case, a parliamentary committee, which we're proposing engages in that consultation process prior to moving forward any further with Bill 24….

The farmers and the ranchers we met with all said the same thing. They do need government help. They need support. They need capacity support. They need infrastructure support. They need support like other jurisdictions, other provinces, other states like Washington State, provide to their farmers. What they don't need is the weakening of the agricultural base by Bill 24.

That expertise was available, is available, but this government has refused to engage in any meaningful consultation, so again, that leads to a very flawed piece of legislation. A flawed piece of legislation is one thing, but one that puts at risk the food security of future generations is quite another.

I have a young farmer in the Alberni Valley, and he sent a letter to the Premier last October. He was concerned about the process of the core review and where it has led — compromising the ALR, as he put it. He said:

"I am a young farmer who is passionate about farming and growing my business. I believe in the ALR and believe that without the ALR, we are in great jeopardy. The intent of the ALR is visionary. We live in a society where it is all about money — short-term gain for things that are not lasting — but the land that we farm is solid and is meant for the long term.

"I am 21 and have chosen a future in agriculture. I believe that the ALR is vitally important to agriculture and to this province. The ALR needs to be strengthened, not eroded. With Bill 24, we are going backwards. This backwards step is more about short-term economic gains.

"I am not trying to be disrespectful, but what this government seems to be doing is without vision or knowledge of the real issues in agriculture. Allowing more uses drives up land prices and makes it harder for the people that work the land or want to start farming to make a living. Should we not be looking at strengthening and protecting the land vital to a real farmer?

"Once the land is altered, it cannot be undone, and the future in farming for my generation is lost. I invest in my community and do my best to make a living, and it is tough. The overall cost of running a farm has only ever gone up, and the prices for products produced off the land only ever go down.

"Agriculture needs support. Do what is right for future generations. I am young and willing to work with government to help strengthen agriculture."

Now, this young farmer from Port Alberni, 21 years old, has shown more wisdom than this government, highlighting how this government can fix this process. How he's highlighting it is by suggesting that he is willing to discuss the real issues as a real farmer with the real challenges of a young farmer trying to start out.

[1720]

That is what we should be dealing with. We should not be rushing to bring in Bill 24, so flawed that it will put at risk the food security for this generation, this young man's generation, and when he has kids, for their kids and their kids, forevermore.

Again, the motion before us today is to set aside Bill 24, to refer it to the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services and engage in the process, the engagement process so necessary to derive a good decision, a bill that could strengthen agriculture.

No one is saying that we shouldn't change anything. The agricultural land reserve, the Agricultural Land Commission — they should be a dynamic entity. That should be something that government looks at to make sure that it's acting appropriately, that it has the resources, the capability and the capacity to protect the ever-dwindling land supply for food production. No one is arguing that.

As long as the four principles, the four key elements of effective farmland preservation are being protected, I think we should all be willing to look at change — change for the better. But change for the better will not come from this place, from this Legislative Assembly, unless due diligence is done by government. That due diligence is consulting with the people most affected.

During the election campaign the B.C. Liberals promised to protect agricultural land, but they are doing the opposite. It's not a very honourable position to be in. Before the election Country Life in B.C., a magazine which many of us read, asked the Liberals specifically if they would protect agricultural land from development. They said yes. But Bill 24 says no.

It is creating a two-tier system of agricultural land under the agricultural land reserve. That is a major change when it is essentially taking 90 percent of the land within the agricultural land reserve and relegating it to other uses, diluting the importance of agriculture to just one of many potential uses of land. It's an affront to the basic premises of the agricultural land reserve in the first place.

In the magazine the Liberals promised to "work more closely with farmers, ranchers and agricultural organizations to preserve agricultural land and encourage farming" and "maintain the excellent relationship we have built with the ALC." Well, that's not true. That didn't happen. There has been no working closely with farmers or ranchers or agricultural organizations — not to preserve agricultural land and encourage farming, as maintained prior to the election by this government.
[ Page 4140 ]

Less than a year later the government is pushing through this legislation that does the complete opposite. Bill 24 removes protections from the ALR land and opens it up for development, and clearly, their promise to work closely with the people who produce the food in this province was an empty one.

I would like to submit, also — in this discussion about putting off Bill 24 to go back and actually do the consultation — that it's not just the soil scientists, the agrologists, the farming associations, the farmers themselves, the ranchers themselves that need to be consulted with; it is the people of British Columbia. The agricultural land reserve and the commission have served the people of British Columbia for over four decades.

[1725]

You don't necessarily need to be involved in agriculture. You don't necessarily need to be a farmer or a rancher to have opinions and to provide input to a bill that could essentially put at risk future food security. Everyone eats, and everyone who eats has the right to have their position brought forward on this.

You know, I've heard it said that the city slickers downtown, the cappuccino-suckers, have no right to have an input into this argument. It's simply not true. The resources of this province, whether it's forests or fish or the food grown here, are important to all of us in this province. You don't have to be the expert and you don't have to actively farm to have an opinion that is informed. It's an informed decision because people do understand the importance of food security, and never has the agricultural land reserve been of more importance than at this time in history.

I've heard it said, when a few of the members on the Liberal side were actually speaking to Bill 24, that the Peace River, those areas, well, it's cold up there in the winter; it's not the same as farmland down south. Simply not true. That land has never been more important for our food security.

We all know the drought situations that are happening in some of the jurisdictions outside of British Columbia where we are relying heavily for our food security now. California is one that I mentioned before. It's a dire situation there. It's multiple years now of drought.

I mentioned this in my discussion on second reading of Bill 24 itself, but it merits repetition. There are almond farmers, massive operations, in California that have already been told they won't be getting any water for their farms. If the decision has to be made whether the city of Fresno gets drinking water or the farmer gets water, it's going to the city because people need to drink. That's how dire the situation is there, and we're seeing prices go up for the produce that we buy in California.

As we see the global temperature rising, and it is rising faster than even the scientists figured before, places like the Peace area and the farmland up there will be essential for our food security — not in the distant future but the future that's upon us now, that we're moving into.

I would never say that those that created the reserve and the commission over four decades ago were that prescient that they understood the intricacies of climate change. Certainly, none of us at that point would have had the information before us that we do now. But the fact is that the decision showed foresight, and it's provided for a situation where we have an option in this province because of the agricultural land reserve, because we have set aside land not to be used for city development, not to be used for industrial use on valuable, irreplaceable agricultural land.

The government talks about LNG, and they say that it's going to save the world. We can't eat the stuff. I operated an oil refinery for Shell for many years in British Columbia before they shut it down, and I'll tell you, natural gas has its uses, but it's not a food product.

[1730]

There's only 5 percent of the land in British Columbia that's actually usable for agriculture. With the changes being proposed in Bill 24, 90 percent of that 5 percent is being put at direct risk, but so is the other 10 percent.

The land on Vancouver Island; in Alberni–Pacific Rim, my constituency; in Comox Valley; the minister's constituency; in the Lower Mainland; in the Okanagan; in the Interior…. These lands that are not being separated out as the 90 percent sort of tier 2 farmland, which is a big mistake…. But the changes to the commission itself — the makeup of that commission, the political-appointee makeup being proposed under Bill 24 — will no doubt make it easier to get those lands out of the ALR.

It's a very easy way to make a lot of money. There are people who buy ALR land with no intention of farming it, knowing they can buy it at far less value than adjoining land that is not fettered by the rules and stipulations of the ALR. But if you can get that land out of the ALR, well, then you can make a fortune.

I wonder if that's part of the motives here — to help a few people make a fortune at the expense of future generations' food security. I hope not.

But it begs the question of why the Liberal members aren't speaking to a motion that says the government should consult on this most important issue of our agricultural land — consult with the public, yes; consult with the farmers that know their stuff, the ranchers that know their stuff and the experts — the academics, the scientists, the agrologists, the soil scientists. That is what this motion allows for. How could you oppose such a motion?

The ALR and the ALC have been in place for over four decades. There is no rush. I question the validity of a core review that decimates a system that's been in place for four decades. The core review was supposed to find efficiencies. This doesn't make anything more efficient.

I do not believe the Minister for Core Review had any right to propose these changes that are coming in through Bill 24. That wasn't part of making a more effi-
[ Page 4141 ]
cient government. There's another motive here.

The B.C. Cattlemen's Association sent this to the minister. It says: "Thank you for your willingness to meet with the agricultural community on Bill 24." Sounds like a good start, doesn't it?

"The B.C. Cattlemen's Association has been monitoring the progression of Bill 24. Our biggest questions about the amendments you presented in the Legislature this week are: what will Bill 24 mean for ranching? What changes will it bring? Where will it leave our industry in the future? We fear that these changes will make ranching more vulnerable to other industries and non-farming activities that aren't complementary or reversible to agriculture."

That's the first paragraph.

These are questions from the B.C. Cattlemen's Association that haven't been answered because the government hasn't allowed a process of consultation. This motion is providing this government with the means to do that. Surely, this government doesn't want to ignore the members of the British Columbia Cattlemen's Association or the soil scientists that I cited before.

I have received a letter from the National Farmers Union. This is a big organization. It represents thousands of farm members in Canada from coast to coast.

The National Farmers Union members — this is a letter to the Premier — believe that the problems facing farmers are common problems and that farmers producing diverse products must work together to advance effective solutions.

[1735]

"As British Columbia's, Canada's and the world's population grows and becomes increasingly urbanized, protecting farmland is more important than ever….Thanks to the ALR, B.C. has maintained a fairly steady number of farms, and nearly three-quarters of B.C. farms are less than 130 acres. Canada, by contrast, has lost about one-third of its farms since B.C.'s ALR was implemented."

The farm association said we should export the ALR to other jurisdictions so they can do what we did, not gut it.

S. Chandra Herbert: Well, I must admit it gives me little pleasure to rise today to speak on this motion. It gives me little pleasure because had the government listened, had it decided to do what all governments should do, which is talk to the people they represent, talk to people that maybe oppose what they have to do — listen, learn and then act — we wouldn't be where we are today.

I think that when we talk to our children, we often tell them they should listen to those that they disagree with. They should use two ears and one mouth rather than talking twice as much as they listen, because it's better to learn and truly understand than it is to think you know everything and forget to care at all about those who might oppose what you are doing.

Now, what we've done here, what the New Democrat opposition has done here, is moved a motion to buy the government some time, give them a way out of this, give them a chance to do what their constituents are saying and what our constituents are saying, which is: "Hold on. Listen. Learn. Make some changes. Bring back something that the people of B.C. can feel proud of."

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Bring back something that people in the agricultural community can be proud of, so that they can feel that the government is actually adequately caring for their concerns, so that they can feel, just like we have in the rotunda here in this Legislature…. It shows what were, at the time, some of the initial industries of this province — the colony. Agriculture was one of them. It was one of the prime growth engines of the province at the time, and it still plays a hugely important role in this province.

Unfortunately, this government, I think, has thrown that aside and has decided they can take farmers and ranchers and greenhouse growers and others for granted. They've decided that they can take all British Columbians that support local food and have concerns about climate change and its impact on our food security…. They've taken them for granted and said: "Forget it. Your voice doesn't matter. We don't care. Our way is the right way. My way or the highway, and who cares if that highway should happen to be paved right over your prime blueberry crop or your hay field?"

It doesn't matter to the B.C. Liberals. They know best. Who cares? As of May 14 they became the geniuses, and nobody else should need to pay attention to what they're doing because they already know. They already know. No matter what you say, they're going to determine the way things are. Who needs consultation? Who needs to learn anything? The government has it all in their heads, and who cares?

Well, we care. We care in the hon. opposition because we think that each and every member of this House should be held accountable by their constituents, to their constituents and to the entire province of British Columbia — not just those who voted for them, but everybody. After all, this is a House for everybody, the people's House not the Liberals' House — at least it's not supposed to be.

It's supposed to be the people's House because they are the ones who pay the bills. It is their land that we are sent here to look after. It is their province that we are sent here to steward.

But no, that's not what we have with Bill 24. We have a bill that weakens agricultural land protection in this province, which puts our food security at risk and basically says to the future farmer: "Well, maybe you can make more money flipping your property to develop it in the 90 percent of the province where this government has decided food and agriculture is second-class. Developing your farmland for a home that you can flip to make millions — maybe that's where the growth industry is."

Well, I disagree. The growth industry should be grow-
[ Page 4142 ]
ing food. We should be growing more food, helping more farmers to succeed in this province, not abandoning farming and agriculture and saying: "Grow homes. Grow condos. Grow blacktop. Grow something else, just as long as it's not food." That's not foresight. That's not long-term planning. That's not a commitment to our food.

[1740]

I've been thinking a lot about it. Some on the government side say: "Well, what would an MLA from Vancouver have to say that could possibly be worth listening to?" I know the government's general disdain for Vancouver has seemed to be growing as the days go on.

But you know what? When I talked to my constituents over this weekend and this last week while we were not here, I learned a lot about their love and their passion for B.C. farmers. They would tell me stories about growing up in the Peace country, growing up in the Cariboo, about family who were still there managing farms, managing ranches — and doing very well for themselves — and the pride that they had in having a connection to the land.

I also visited many British Columbians who had never farmed before, never gardened before. They were urbanites. They were people who grew up in a city, much of which, they mentioned — and they acknowledged it to me — used to be able to be farmed before the concrete went down.

They said: "What were we thinking, to be building cul-de-sacs on some of the best farmland in the Fraser River delta?" I agreed with them and said: "Well, that was not foresight. That was not thinking long term. That was thinking that we had land that went on and on forever, with little concern that we'd ever run out of it."

Just like this government has criticized and I've criticized people who think that money goes on forever, that you can spend and never have any concern that the bill will come due, we must have the same concern for our food, for our agriculture. That's what my constituents had to say.

You could see it. They wanted to grow something. They wanted to be able to have their little tomatoes. They wanted to have food growing in their own backyards.

We started to think about the West End. We were looking around the West End. Where could you possibly grow? Well, if you're lucky enough to have a little balcony or a little piece of your window and you get enough light, certainly, some growing can go on there.

But much of it happens community-garden style. That's where they feel that connection to earth and where their respect for the food that they eat — a lot of it — comes from. Because they know how hard it is to grow. They know how difficult it can be.

Now, of course, managing a small eight-by-eight little allotment garden is a lot easier, I'd say, than managing a massive farm, but the principle remains the same. So we looked. We have managed to find a place up at Nelson Park. We're expanding that garden, and that's a great thing.

The people there said: "This is great. This can get me a little bit of food, but I want to eat more local food." They asked me: "Where's that going to come from?"

I said: "Well, we've got great growers in the Fraser Valley, the Kootenays, the north, the Cariboo-Chilcotin, the Island, but our current government seems to think that we can pave over more of it." They were flummoxed. They were concerned, and rightly so. Why would a government sell out the future for our children for a short-term profit to pave over farmland? Why?

That's what we're asking here today. Yet we've still received no good answer from the government on why they would launch this assault on our food security, on the food growers of this province, without any support from the B.C. Agriculture Council, the cattlemen, the organic growers, etc.

You go down that list, and there isn't anybody who supports it. There isn't anybody who says: "Yes, absolutely, go ahead. We don't even want you to talk to us. Just pave it over. Forget it. Rip it out."

No, we don't hear those levels of support from the people who actually work the land. We don't hear it. We hear anecdotes, I suppose, of stories where, actually, they did manage to get the land taken out of the agricultural land reserve — really cancelling the argument that they've made.

When we were digging garden, when we were planting seeds, when we were getting things ready, you could see that passion that comes for the earth, that passion that comes for making a healthy living and making a healthy meal. Indeed, when I talk to relatives who are farmers, who are ranchers, that love is still there.

They say to me: "Why would you do that? Why would you not help the farmer to succeed rather than help the farmer to get out of business, help the farmer to shut down the farm?" That's what this Liberal government is doing.

They said: "Why didn't you even ask anybody? Why would your government not ask people? We farmers," they would tell me, "have our opinions. We're busy at certain times of the year, but when it comes to the security of our farm and our livelihood, we want to be involved. We have something that could be added to this discussion."

What do we have here now? We have a government that says: "You're shut out of the discussion. Forget it. You don't even need to be consulted."

I asked people: what did they think? I'll just read a few of the statements that constituents and folks, indeed, from across B.C. have e-mailed me to share their concerns — concerns like: "Without local food, we do not control our future." That's from Al in Vancouver.

[1745]

How about this? "I buy most of my groceries from farmers markets and local organic grocery stores rather
[ Page 4143 ]
than at supermarket chains, and I would hate to see this opportunity disappear. Even worse than that, I would hate to think that I could only buy produce that has been shipped from far corners of the country or continent at an added cost to me, the consumer. Grocery bills have increased a lot in recent years." That's from Stacey, another Vancouver constituent.

Indeed, it's true, and they say it's only going to get worse. We are only going to see food costs increase here on out.

Why is that? Because of greed — greed of the human species. We've decided that we can get away with polluting the environment to such a degree as we've done since the Industrial Revolution, with climate change, with pumping our pollution into the atmosphere without any cost — not thinking long term.

That's coming back to bite us in the butt. That's coming back with higher costs now and higher costs onto our children. When we just need the agricultural land the most — and with this government's move, some of it will be paved over — we're going to see the cost of food increase because of this government's shortsightedness.

I will read this. This is interesting, and it's a thing to add to the record, because if the government truly cared and read the budget debates, they would act on this. They would say what I was sent from Ken.

He writes that "the latest international panel on climate change report indicates the climate is changing. We are on track for a 2 to 4 degree Celsius rise in temperature by 2100. Each degree adds 7 percent more humidity to the atmosphere, creating massive rain bombs in some areas and extended droughts in others" — as we're seeing currently in Texas and California and, of course, as we saw earlier, hitting Calgary and other areas with rain bombs.

"A 2 Celsius rise in temperature cuts grain production by 2 percent per decade and 10 percent with a 4 degree rise. B.C. imports 56 percent of its market garden food. B.C. has less than 5 percent of its land base suitable for agriculture, and only a fraction of that is top-grade market garden capable — example, the Peace River Valley.

"In the next decade and a half global food security will be the predominant focus of governments. The world has added 40 percent more greenhouse carbon to its atmosphere in the past two centuries, and 20 percent of the snow cover in our mountain ranges has been lost in the past three decades."

Twenty percent — we see this in B.C. We're losing glaciers. We're losing water, which is only going to impact us more as the decades continue to get warmer.

"By 2070 the coldest year on the planet will be hotter than the hottest year in its past," according to the projections Ken is relying on here. "Twenty-five percent of the world's agricultural land is highly degraded, and a third of the world's soil is disappearing faster than it's being replaced.

"The average distance food travels from farm to plate in B.C. is 3,000 to 5,000 kilometres. Oxfam has indicated that even without a drought in the Midwest, corn prices are likely to spike by 500 percent by 2030, with overall food prices jumping 180 percent."

Now, these figures, stats, guesses, projections — they're not locked down. They're not hard and fast. You can't right now say it will be exactly 180 percent that food prices will rise, but we do know that that's the trajectory. We're seeing it already in this province. We do know that we are facing a real challenge down the road. Indeed, today we are seeing it with impacts on our shellfish aquaculture and others.

Well, if we know that food prices are going to increase…. We know that agriculture in many parts of the globe that we rely on currently for exports of food are going to be severely impacted with less food to be exported. We know that, internationally, governments are buying farmland in other countries.

China has been buying up farmland in Africa. Other countries are buying up farmland to feed their population because they don't feel that they have enough farmland themselves to rely on.

Why would we do exactly the opposite of what everybody else is doing and make food security less secure, make it so that we have less money in our own pockets because we're paying more for food to transport internationally? Why would we try and make it so we have to rely more on food from the other edge of the globe, with all of the carbon pollution that's created by having to import it here? Why would we do that? It makes no sense.

[1750]

There is nothing common sense about this bill. Instead, what it is, really…. The common sense seems to be a sense of: "Who cares about the future? We care just about making a short-term buck for a couple of friends." There's really no other argument the government has made except for: "We want to make it easier for people to cut up their farmland so that they can sell homes on it."

Well, the farmers that I talk to say: "No way. We want support, yes. We need assistance, yes, to get younger farmers onto the farmland." But they don't say: "We want younger farmers on the farmland by paving it over." No, they say: "We need to stop the massive speculation of farmland, where the price is growing higher and higher." You talk to folks in many parts of B.C., and they will tell you that the real estate business has picked up as people are buying up farmland to get ready to flip it, should this legislation pass, should this government decide that farmland doesn't matter and farmers don't matter, that just farming condos and housing development matter.

That is a huge concern because even that speculation drives prices as people hold land and don't use it. The farmland is leased out at highly inflated prices, with very little benefit to the farmer who's actually trying to farm it, as somebody makes tons of money waiting to flip it. When they flip it, they make out like bandits, as I said in my last remark. I think it's outrageous that our government would facilitate that kind of activity, but that's what they're doing here today.

They're not looking after the local food person. They're not looking after the gardeners. They're not looking after the person who wants to buy B.C. They're not looking after those that want to farm B.C.
[ Page 4144 ]

We've had great programs in this province. We've had great programs to support a thriving local food culture. Indeed, you're seeing it in our restaurants. I think chefs-to-table are making a huge push against this bill in restaurants all across this province for the people that spend extra. They're willing to spend a little bit more, for those that have that choice, to pay for good-quality B.C. produce.

But now they're seeing that torn away from them. They're seeing it pulled away, just at a time when people have really grasped onto the idea that we have to pay for the costs that we're adding to the planet. We do have to pay for the cost of climate change if we pollute by bringing in produce from the other side of the globe, with lower health standards and high degrees of pesticides, etc. So let's buy local. Let's support a local person and keep the food here, with high health standards, with high-quality farmland, with low pesticide use or, in many cases, completely organic.

We have an incredible opportunity to increase jobs in this province, to increase environmental protection — healthier land, air and water. You know how we do it? We invest in our farmers. We invest in our farmland, and we stop the speculation that's trying to tear up the agricultural land reserve to make a quick buck in real estate. We need to do that, and moving this bill to a committee so that that committee could actually hear from the public would do that. British Columbians support the agricultural land reserve. This government would be stepping up and cheering their refrain about why it's so important to do this if the people actually believed them. But they're not. They don't cheer this now. They don't even stand to debate this now. They hide. They hide, hoping nobody notices. But you know what? Our kids will notice.

We're talking right now in this debate about a piece of legislation brought in back in '73. I wasn't even alive back then, and I'm standing to defend a decision back in 1973 because it was thoughtful, it was considered, and it was forward-looking. It thought about "Splendour without diminishment," what we should all aim for, for our province.

But, you know what? There was a huge protest at the time. People were concerned. But the people that were concerned back then…. You talk to them today, and they say it was a great thing. Yeah, they may not have liked it at the time, but when they thought about it long term, it stabilized things for them. It made sense for them, and it made sure that there was a farm for their kids and for their grandkids that they could show, so that when times were tough, the speculators didn't move in, didn't buy up the land and turn it into something that you could never get back. It didn't cut the farms out of communities. It kept farms near communities.

That's what it should be for. That's what the agricultural land reserve was created to support — healthy farmers, healthy farmland, good food for us all. It was not created to speculate, allow some short-term investors from somewhere else to make billions, millions, gazillions — however much money they think they can make — by doing short-term property flips to tear out the heart of food.

That's not what the Agricultural Land Commission was created to support, or the agricultural land reserve. No, it's time to look at the land. They've done the surveys numerous times to show: "This is good agricultural land. This is not. If you did this to support it, this could become good agricultural land."

[1755]

You know what? Community after community in other parts of the globe are spending a lot of money to take what was maybe somewhat middling agricultural land and turning it into great agricultural land. Why are they doing it? Because it's good for the people and it's good for their communities. So here, why are we doing the exact opposite? No good reason; no good answer. That's why this should go to committee.

I support the motion that my colleague made. I support the work that people on all sides of this House but none on that House side have stated, where they've gone out and actually talked to people. They've actually fixed things. They've actually advocated for people instead of just saying: "I got elected May 14. I know everything. I don't have to talk to anybody." That's what the government is doing on this, and it's just wrong.

It's why it gives me no great pleasure to stand on this, no great pleasure to have to defend something which is so defendable against a government whose actions are indefensible. There's no good defense that they've offered, and that continues.

If they didn't like the Agricultural Land Commission, what could they do? They could do a study. They could reach out to people. They could consult with them.

You know what? They've done that. They've done that numerous times, and each time it comes back, it says people support it. People like it. People want to work to better it. They want to work to better support farmers. That's what we hear.

That's what the Auditor General has shown. That's what the Agricultural Land Commission has shown. That's what the government's own studies have shown. That's what B.C. Cattlemen's and David Suzuki Foundation…. On and on you go. Of course, the Agriculture Council itself.

It doesn't matter what partisan side you're on. They come back 10 to 1 in support, 100 to 1 in support, and based on this room, you'd think that everybody supported the agricultural land reserve. Based on the last election, when the Liberals said they supported it and they wanted to increase support for farmers, you would think they supported it too.

Little did we know that when they said they supported farmland and supported the agricultural land reserve, what they meant was: "Well, let's say support
[ Page 4145 ]
actually means decimate." We didn't see that little footnote. Otherwise, I think that things could have turned out rather differently, and that's, again, why this government won't talk about it.

We could support local food through our procurement strategy, through our purchasing, so that we have local food showing up in our hospitals, in our schools, in this place itself. Just like everybody else has been calling for in the private sector, we could be doing that as the public sector. Just like Washington does, Oregon does and other provinces, other states do, we could be doing that here. That's what we in the New Democrat official opposition have called for. We'd support it with our Local Food Act. It's something that makes sense. But no, we're not there.

Lately I've been digging an outhouse. It's something that's not in the West End. You wouldn't find an outhouse like that in the West End. I've been digging an outhouse. It's something which, if you've never done one before, is a lot of fun.

You know, I think the thing is that it feels sometimes, when you're digging an outhouse, like you're in this Legislature. You get down three feet, and then you hit the hardpan, and then nothing is really going much further — just like here. You speak; you speak; you speak. You present facts. You present the public's point of view, but you hit the hardpan, and you don't get to dig very much further.

You keep shoveling, and you keep digging, but you know what? You don't get much deeper. Maybe it's what the members on the opposite side keep producing, but it's hard to get much further when you're digging that outhouse, when the other members over there are working so hard to make it so I can't finish digging that outhouse.

When digging down through the layers of soil, you see there's just a thin little layer of soil that allows us to grow on in this province in many parts — some thinner than others and some richer, loamier soil deposited from riverbeds and so on — but other sections the soil is really rather small. When we think about the inch of soil or so that determines whether you can grow something or not, we've got to take due care. Not say: "I can tear it up and build something massive on there." Not say: "I can compact the soil to such a degree that you can't grow on it again."

No, we have to have respect for nature's systems. We must change our mindset of domination of nature, of exploitation of nature, to one of cooperation rather than exploitation. Who wants to be exploited? Certainly, none of us do. We don't want people to be exploited. We want them to be respected.

[1800]

Well, we need to respect nature's systems when we talk about agriculture. We need to respect nature's systems when we talk about development. We don't respect them and we don't support them when we make such a short-sighted deal as Bill 24, when we do our best to pave over rather than preserve and support. A focus of exploitation and domination is power, and I guess, really, that's what this bill is all about. "We got elected. We got the power to reward friends and insiders."

Now, I'm sure many people would be upset about that on the government side, because they say that's not what it is at all. But we'll have to watch, because that's the way it has worked in the past. We've seen the short-term deals going to folks who are connected, and that doesn't breed support for democracy. It doesn't breed support for systems of governance where we try to do the best we can collectively.

People will jump to that because the government has provided no other good remarks about why they won't support local farmers and instead support local development and developers on top of farmland. That's where the cynicism can come from. I always hesitate going that route, because we want to look for the best intentions in people. We want to.

But in this case, without this government actually showing any good will and intention towards the people they serve by bringing in this bill without consultation, without respecting those that actually rely on that land and those who rely on that food, which is all of us, they've shown ill will, I believe, towards the body politic, towards those that send us here, towards democracy — of the people, by the people, for the people.

No, 90 percent of the agricultural land reserve being opened up for development is bad government. That's why we need a committee to actually go out and listen to the public. I think if the government actually did that, they would find that the public doesn't support this legislation, and they would withdraw it, which unfortunately, seems to be the case more and more.

If you think you'll get an answer you like, then you do it. What do you think about liquor reform? Do you want to allow people to have some sensible liquor regulations? "Oh my god. Everybody says yes."

So the government asks the question: "Do you want to make it easier to pave over farmland for development on 90 percent of the farmland that's protected under the agricultural land reserve?" The public would say: "No, we don't want to make it easier to lose farmland." They wouldn't support that. So the government doesn't even bother asking the question, because if they did, they would withdraw the legislation.

While I support this motion to go to committee, ask the people, I think it could lead to actual solutions to support farmers and a strong, healthy agricultural economy. I think you would find widespread support for the Local Food Act. You would find widespread support for extension programs and things that actually help farmers get their food into local places, that help young people actually get access to that farmland and get the training. You would find that support. You wouldn't find support for paving over farmland.
[ Page 4146 ]

I support this motion to move it to committee so we could find out what the public has to say. But, you know, we shouldn't even be here debating this right now. The government has no mandate to do it. They didn't promise they were going to do this. They promised the exact opposite.

Here we are yet again, and it feels like déjà vu, because I have done this on a number of bills where they've said one thing and then they've done completely the opposite, just like they did with our parks earlier.

Now we have to argue for the next best thing, which is to talk to the public first, and if they have the support, then you can proceed. Why do we even have to tell them that? Why do we have to educate the government about how governments are supposed to function?

I guess the role of the official opposition is to speak up for those who the government doesn't speak for, who the government refuses to listen to. In this case, I would say it would be the majority of British Columbians, who want local food, who want long-term food for their children and children's children, who want a climate that supports our agricultural producers, that supports our agricultural land and makes sure that it's there into perpetuity.

As the climate warms, as food prices shoot through the roof and as we face disaster after disaster naturally, because of the pollution we've thrown up into the atmosphere, it's coming home to roost, and we're going to be paying the prices for it. Now, those that have gone before may well have gone before and not seen what we have to deal with.

But my generation and generations to come are going to be there for that change, are going to be there in 2050 and 2060 and 2070 when we get asked those questions: "Why did you weaken the agricultural land reserve? Why did you make it easier to pave over farmland? Why did you make it more expensive for me to eat?"

[1805]

Those are questions that future generations don't have a chance to ask in this House today. They don't get to look ministers in the eye and say: "Why are you selling out my future?" So I'm doing it for them, because I think that is who we have to consider when we make these decisions.

It's not just the short term — "My friend can make a quick buck." No, long term, how do we support our food producers? How do we support maintaining a strong and vibrant agricultural land reserve that supports the farmers? How do we support making sure we have good B.C. produce here in this province?

That's why I will support this motion, and that's why I will continue to say that Bill 24 should be voted down.

M. Elmore: I am rising to speak in favour of the motion to refer Bill 24 to the select standing committee for the purpose of holding a comprehensive consultation. I just want to outline some of the key arguments in favour of going to a consultation with regards to Bill 24. You've heard, we've heard, and I think all members in the House have been getting the e-mails and the phone calls and having the conversations with concerned constituents, stakeholders, farmers and folks in the agriculture industry with concerns about the bill.

The first point about this bill and the basic premise of legislation and public policy is that there should be a component of engagement from the public. When we go through the process of adopting bills, legislation, there's generally a process of stakeholder consultation, canvassing the issues and concerns that are going to impact various sectors or interests, asking for feedback and concerns.

Clearly, Bill 24 has not undergone that process. I think that's why, on the one hand, we're seeing such a response from the community, from constituents. E-mails are coming in increasing numbers every day. Really, the message is everything from killing the bill to slowing it down to having a fulsome consultation to hear the views and concerns about how these proposed changes are going to impact the agricultural land reserve, the Agricultural Land Commission and, certainly, agriculture and the industry in British Columbia.

First of all, I think that the public, myself included, were caught by surprise by the bill. In the last election there was no reference, the Liberals had no reference in their platform, that they were contemplating changes to the agricultural land reserve. Certainly, in the 2013 Liberal election platform….

In a May 2013 questionnaire in Country Life in B.C. magazine, the B.C. Liberal party was explicitly asked if it would work with the ALC "to ensure that agricultural land continues to be available for agriculture and not get used for port, dam, transportation, industrial and residential development." The response was: yes, they would continue to do that.

That is clearly not the case. Really, the public has been let down, and it clearly can be characterized as a deception during the election. I think it's incumbent on the government to allow full public consultations and the opportunity for individuals to have input. There's a real need and a real desire and, I think, a passion that British Columbians have around agriculture, the importance of food security and locally grown food.

Certainly, in the Vancouver area in particular, where I have talked to many folks, and right across British Columbia there's real value of our agricultural land and the importance of that for local food production, for our local economy, as well as looking to the future with regards to food security.

[1810]

We had a taste or just an inkling of, I think, the interest of British Columbians to have some input on discussions around the role of the future of the agricultural land reserve in British Columbia. I sit on the Finance Committee, and suddenly we were having presentations come forward — wanting to talk about the role of the
[ Page 4147 ]
core review making changes in the agricultural land reserve. We were taken by surprise, the members of the Finance Committee, why presentations were starting to come forward on this topic. It wasn't a formal, typical presentation that we would receive in terms of recommendations or concerns that would come to the committee. It also took the….

We learned that there was a news release on September 24 that was authored by the Ministry of Energy and Mines and Minister Responsible for Core Review that individuals who had a concern about the ALR had the opportunity to come forward to the Finance Committee. That took the Chair of the Committee on Finance and Government Services, the member for Penticton, by surprise. He wasn't advised of that, and the entire committee were also taken aback. There were quite a few days and weeks where we had a back-and-forth in terms of: "What's going on, and why are these individuals coming forward?"

It took some investigation to actually determine and to find that this release had gone out, and apparently some individuals were paying attention and coming forward with their concerns. I think that there's a real desire and a concern from British Columbians to express their concerns, and they clearly were not able to do that within the very limited scope of the news release that had come out — and the limited numbers of individuals who came forward to the Finance Committee.

We also have the minister, the member for Kootenay East, making the admission that he could've done a better job of consultations, and clearly, that's an understatement. We have a long and growing list of stakeholder groups who are concerned about the bill and outright oppose the bill. The B.C. Cattlemen's Association president, David Haywood, wrote encouraging the minister to take a slow approach and to request the minister to delay decision on Bill 24 until further information is provided and consultation can be had with the ranching community.

We also have the B.C. Agriculture Council, representing over 14,000 farmers, ranchers, firmly opposed to fracturing the agricultural land reserve into two zones. I've talked, as well, to the B.C. Food Systems Network, which is involved with promoting food security, promoting the use of locally grown food in urban areas and through a number of excellent programs and community centres providing locally grown food to folks who are in vulnerable populations and providing that service. They are also very active in opposition to these proposed changes.

As well, West Coast Environmental Law has expressed concerns for the B.C. government to take their hands off food security. We've also heard the list of governmental organizations, city councils and regions expressing opposition to the bill. These are all…. I don't think we can really find…. If you look at all of the stakeholders in the agriculture sector, I don't think that there are any that are excluded in terms of expressing concern and outright opposition.

[1815]

Certainly, it just speaks to the need to open up this process and to have a genuine participation of British Columbians on an issue of this importance, not only in terms of agriculture currently in British Columbia, but where we're going in the future and what our plan is to address food security, locally grown B.C. food, how we're going to address and adapt to the impacts of climate change, global warming. We're seeing some of these challenges around the world.

As well, looking at the agriculture sector, I think one of the important principles is that it's a key, vitally important sector of the B.C. economy. My colleague from Vancouver–West End previously commented that in the rotunda there's the picture of the agriculture and the farming. The history of farming in British Columbia is one of the founding economies here that built British Columbia, and it continues to be an important sector to this day.

In addition, nearly 50 percent of our food, locally, that we consume in British Columbia comes from B.C. — different proportions from different sectors everywhere. We heard the member talk about our ranching industry and our locally grown and raised meat. As well, our dairy industry provides milk and cheese, provides the majority of those products that are consumed here in British Columbia. Crops and livestock grown and raised here in B.C. contribute to our economy every year.

One of the challenges, also, is that agriculture is highly dependent on specific climate conditions. When we look at the concerns from stakeholders from local industry who depend on B.C.-grown food and also from individuals who are concerned around food security, these are all dynamics that come together and are driving the concern. We have increasing awareness about the challenges of climate change, global warming — the impact that is having on crops and the ability to grow food.

B.C. needs to be moving in the direction of having the ability to grow more crops and foods locally so that we can feed British Columbians with a lower carbon footprint than having the goods shipped in. We have to reduce our dependency on imports from California, from Mexico and from overseas. We have to move in the direction that we are able to expand our locally grown food and ensure that we have stable supplies of food, water — our agricultural sector.

We know that the prices are also very volatile — with the impact of increasing droughts and floods that we're seeing in California, with the worst drought on record — and that prices are also skyrocketing. Part of the concern with regard to the ability to ensure we have food security in British Columbia is that we're not held hostage or that we are not vulnerable to these impacts that we're seeing across the globe and certainly within North America.
[ Page 4148 ]

Particularly in my area in Vancouver there's a growing industry — and an appetite and support: Chefs Table. Local restaurants bring locally grown food from British Columbia, from our local farms, provide locally grown food and prepare that for folks here in Vancouver. That's a growing industry, and the Chefs Table has come out in opposition very clearly, raising concerns about their ability to not only prosper but to continue to grow and to ensure that they are able to maintain their local procurement and have their farm-to-table source of food protected and also enhanced.

[1820]

For that, we need local farms. The creation of the two zones that's proposed in the bill is an undermining of the integrity and the protection of our agricultural lands. In particular, the other growing sector that we have….

The whole agricultural sector is very dynamic, and I think that it is also unique in British Columbia. One of the reasons is because we have the agricultural land reserve in place in the first place, and it's recognized as a historic piece of legislation. Many other jurisdictions look to British Columbia and the model as a successful model for protecting, supporting and encouraging the growth of the agricultural sector.

When we look at the role of organic farms and at the expansion of our farmers markets, you know, you can really see the growth of the sector even just within the last number of years. There's an increasing awareness and support for locally grown food. We have to move in that direction to ensure that we support that and that we continue to expand and grow that.

As well, we have our farming land in British Columbia. We produce some of the best berries in the world. We are very abundant, producing wine, which also gives rise to agritourism. The agricultural land reserve itself is a great generator of jobs and economic activity. To sacrifice that in terms of undermining the integrity of the agricultural land reserve, which is proposed under the bill, is a great injustice and very shortsighted.

When we talk about, as well, the problem of climate change and ensuring that we have not only a protected source of food but that we are looking to the future and ensuring that our decisions that we're making today have long-term…. Certainly, we want to set out a view and ensure that the benefits that we've achieved from the last more than 40 years of the agricultural land reserve being in place, from 1973, can continue for another 40 years.

Certainly, the call for consultation and to have a debate and discussion with British Columbians is incumbent in terms of what is proposed with the bill. When we look at preserving farmland…. When the bill was brought in, it faced opposition, but the need was to ensure that farmland was protected in the face of overwhelming urbanization and development. That is continuing to be a driver and a huge pressure in terms of undermining our existing agriculture and land.

When we know that farmland and our agricultural land…. Not only are there many industries and businesses and just an incredible array of products that are developed out of our locally grown produce, you really see that entrepreneurial spirit of British Columbians. You can see that in farmers markets. When you go to any farmers market you'll see just an incredible array of locally grown food or items that are produced specifically in British Columbia. It's really staggering.

[1825]

In terms of the value of our agriculture, obviously it's for food production. There are food production and other items in restaurants and cafes, but there's also an intrinsic value to farmland when you talk about the open space, the role of birds, wildlife habitat. It controls runoff, and it not only creates value for our urban food system, but there's also a value for wildlife and preservation.

I want to talk about and recognize the concerns raised by a number of scientists as well. But I would like to move adjournment of debate and reserve my place to conclude my remarks tomorrow.

M. Elmore moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

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

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

Hon. T. Stone moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 6:26 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HEALTH

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

The committee met at 2:39 p.m.

On Vote 28: ministry operations, $16,788,820,000.

[1440]

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

Hon. T. Lake: Before we begin, I'd like to introduce the ministry staff members who've joined me here today. On my right is Stephen Brown, who's the Deputy Minister of Health. On my left is Manjit Sidhu, who is the assistant deputy minister responsible for financial aspects and capital.

I also want to take the opportunity — if I may indulge, hon. Chair — to thank all of the dedicated front-line health care staff and professionals throughout the province of British Columbia. We have an amazing team of people to look after British Columbians every day in our hospitals, in our community services and, in fact, in many different settings around the province, looking after health care.

Also, the civil service staff within the Ministry of Health work very hard at ensuring that this very large health care system provides the right care for the right person at the right time. I know they're extremely hard-working, and I appreciate their hard work, which allows me to do my job and represent the hard work that they do.

I also want to recognize some of the personal staff that we have working in the Ministry of Health — my chief of staff, Sabrina Loiacono; ministerial assistant Mario Miniaci; executive assistants Marie Alaimo and Dana Dobrowolski; as well as some of our other staff who ensure that our office is functioning — Shaina Jukes, Victoria Kline and Debbie Wade. It's clear from that list that it requires a lot of hard-working people to keep the minister on task and doing the job for the health care system.

Our health care system, as I'm sure many are aware, is a large percentage of the entire budget — about 42 percent. Our health care funding is increasing by $385 million in fiscal year 2014-15 to a total of $16.9 billion.

In fact, over the next three years we're adding a total of $2.54 billion in new funding to health care, so within three years our budget will increase to $17.9 billion in the '16-17 fiscal year. To put it into perspective, that's more than double the 2000-2001 budget of $8.3 billion — an amazing increase in only 12 years.

On the capital side, another $2.6 billion is going towards new hospital construction and upgrades. We've got additions, improvements, new buildings right across British Columbia from Kamloops, my home community, to Kelowna; from Burns Lake to Haida Gwaii; Campbell River and Comox. We're spending significantly and upgrading our health care system.

We also understand that our government needs to respect every taxpayer and make every tax dollar count. For my ministry, which does consume so much of the budget of the province of British Columbia, that means slowing the rate of growth while still providing British Columbians with a sustainable health care system at the best possible value for the dollars that we spend.

It's not just in B.C. where we see this happening. You can see it, in fact, across Canada. Every province is trying to bend down the cost curve in terms of health care increases, from 3 percent increases in Alberta to zero increases in New Brunswick. This is a definite change in philosophy — that we need to bend down the cost curve while maintaining health services that British Columbians can rely upon.

We will continue to invest more in front-line health care. Health authorities are receiving more of the increase than across the board. They are receiving an 8 percent increase over the next three years. We do that by seeking efficiencies across the system so that we can maintain the funding to the front line.

We'll also continue to focus on patient-centred outcomes and work collaboratively with our partners. That includes, obviously, the regional and provincial health authorities and First Nations Health Authority as well as the dedicated professionals on the ground — the caregivers, doctors, nurses, allied support staff.

We want to preserve a strong health care system for ourselves, obviously, but for our loved ones and for future generations. Taking the proper steps now means a sustainable health system down the road. I want to take a second to acknowledge the Health ministers that have gone before me, because a lot of the hard work that was done four, five, six years ago is starting to pay off in terms of the ability to create a sustainable health care system.

In the past I've talked about a triple-aim approach to health care, and I want to mention it again. We're a national leader when it comes to this idea of Triple Aim. That means improving the health of the entire population but also increasing and improving the patient experience, including health outcomes, while providing value for money.

[1445]

Triple Aim has been promoted for a number of years by the Institute for Healthcare Improvement of the United States, but it's been emulated in the National Health Service in Great Britain and in other world-leading organizations in health care.

Here in B.C., Triple Aim really does work. We have, over the years, managed to bend down the increases in health care spending yet still provide high-quality health care services and health outcomes. In fact, our province has some of the best health outcomes in the world.

Life expectancy in British Columbia is the highest in Canada at 82 years of age. I had lunch with my 82-year-old dad yesterday, and I reminded him of that — that he's on borrowed time. I think he's got quite a few good years ahead of him.

B.C. has the best overall cancer survival rates in Canada, according to the 2013 estimates in the Canadian Cancer Society's statistics of Canadian cancer. Mortality rates for all cancers combined are lowest here in British
[ Page 4150 ]
Columbia.

With that triple-aim approach, we'll continue to provide the very best service within the sustainability of the funding dollars.

We know our population is growing as well as aging, and our government and the dedicated health professionals and the members of our Ministry of Health are working to develop specific plans to address these changes. That includes building a very strong primary health care system.

The A GP for Me program and our nurse practitioners for B.C. program are, in fact, helping. Through these programs we're getting more physicians and nurse practitioners into communities to help patients manage their health care — always a challenge, we know, when it comes to smaller communities and rural areas of any jurisdiction.

We're also working very hard to help those with mental health and substance-use issues, which is a very challenging field of endeavour in health care. Last November the ministry created a mental health action plan to reduce barriers and service gaps and support evidence-based solutions for patients with severe substance-use addictions and mental illness. We are in the completion stage of the action items on that plan.

We recently announced that people with severe addictions and mental illness can find help by meeting challenges of day-to-day living with two new assertive community treatment teams. These are teams that supply treatment and rehabilitation for clients struggling with mental illness and include a whole range of health professionals to provide life skill supports, 24-7 health care, job training assistance, independent housing, social interaction counseling, as well as maintaining physical and mental wellness.

This expansion of our assertive community treatment teams is just one of many strategies being developed in response to the province's mental health action plan and report.

As I mentioned, the Health Ministers that have gone before me have done an amazing job. I'm benefiting and we as British Columbians are benefiting from the work that's gone ahead of me. Since I was named Health Minister, I've seen a lot of work done within government, and I want to thank my staff for the great support that they have given me to help the health of British Columbians.

I know we have a lot of work to do to continue to provide the right care in the right place at the right time. I'm looking forward to hearing any questions members may have regarding the Ministry of Health budget and our programs.

J. Darcy: Well, I can't begin by thanking the armies of staff who are assisting me in preparation for today, but I would like to acknowledge Jon Robinson, who is a researcher in the field of health care for the opposition caucus; my legislative assistant, Veronica Harrison; and our intern, Carly Aasen, who has also worked very hard to prepare.

Like the minister, I would like to acknowledge all of those health care workers, all of the health care providers out there who work on the front lines of health care every day. They're the ones who make this such a high-quality health care system. I think we need to acknowledge them today and every single day. I have been very proud to have a long association with health care workers in British Columbia, which continues to this day.

I want to thank the minister's staff in advance and the minister himself for the next four days. Some of the questions I'll be asking you I think are pretty straightforward. Others may be more challenging. I'm sure they will be accepted or received in the spirit in which they are asked, and that is the spirit of working to improve our public health care system to make it more effective, to make it more accountable and to ensure that it's sustainable in the long run for generations to come.

The minister has already answered my first question, but maybe you could just reiterate it. If you could just talk about the overall increase in health spending, first. And then, in particular, what's the overall increase in health authority spending?

[1450]

Hon. T. Lake: Through to the member, I appreciate her opening comments and the spirit with which we will both go forward, trying to elucidate the many millions of dollars we spend on health care and ensuring that, in fact, we are getting good value for our money. I appreciate the process we're going through.

We are spending in…. First of all, in the year past, in '13-14, we spent $16,550,698,000 on our health care budget. That's the total budget. In '14-15 we see a 2.3 percent increase to $16,936,070,000. In '15-16 that goes up by 2.8 percent to $17,402,475,000. Then in '16-17 we have a 2.6 percent increase to $17,855,475,000. That's a total increase over that three-year period of 7.9 percent.

The second part of the question was around health authority funding. Whereas in '14-15 we see a 2.3 percent increase in the overall budget, health authorities will receive on average a 3 percent increase in 2014-15, 2.5 percent in 2015-16 and 2.5 percent in 2016-17. Each health authority will see different increases based on the patient needs of the population whom they serve.

J. Darcy: To the minister: can you tell me what the transfer is, the increase is, to each of the health authorities, please? Could you also explain: why the differential from one health authority to the other?

Hon. T. Lake: First of all, let me explain the difference — why the different health authorities get differ-
[ Page 4151 ]
ent amounts. We have what's called patient needs-based funding, or PNBF. Essentially it looks at the population numbers, but it also looks at the demographics of the population, so it's no surprise that a younger population has lower health care costs and needs than an older population. Some health authorities have a much lower average age than other health authorities.

It's also based on other factors, such as utilization rates. There are health authorities that have sort of provincial specialties — you know, cardiology, for instance, or cancer treatment — so you would get utilization of those facilities in that health authority from populations outside of that health authority.

This PNBF funding is used to try to associate the funding dollars with the needs of the population of the health authority. With that, we can see that Fraser Health Authority, for instance, over those three years will get a total of a 10 percent increase.

[1455]

Interior Health Authority over those three years will get a total of 7.6 percent; Northern Health Authority, 6.2 percent; Vancouver Coastal, 6.2 percent; Vancouver Island will get 6.3 percent. Those are the regional health authorities. Again, Fraser Health, being the most rapidly growing health authority, probably explains why they get that larger increase. If you looked at just population, you would think that increase might be even more. But because their population is, on average, younger than other health authorities, then the formula takes that into account as well.

J. Darcy: If I could excuse myself, we're just going to switch chairs here. I have a bit of a back injury, and on a long wait-list.

Hon. T. Lake: I thought HEU members got in….

J. Darcy: I'm not an HEU member, and I would never try and abuse the privilege of my position to shorten a waiting list.

You explained differentials for each health authority. This is a question we raised in the technical briefing that we had a number of weeks ago. The service plan for Fraser Health, the last time I checked, had still not been published. Is that still the case?

Hon. T. Lake: We announced a ministerial order doing a review of Fraser Health Authority. The ministerial order put together a review team that would work with the Fraser Health Authority board to put together an operational and strategic plan by the end of May. That is still in progress at this time.

J. Darcy: I understand that, that there is a review, and I want to come back on that at a later point. But I don't know how that explains there not being a service plan for last year. The service plans are normally published in the few months that follow the release of a budget document. They have been published for other health authorities. They have still not been published for Fraser Health.

Hon. T. Lake: Well, the two are connected. Because of the election in 2013, the budget was reintroduced in the summer, and then the service plans followed. Because the review was being ordered, the service plan would only really have covered, by the time it was done, about a two-month period. Given the fact that we asked them to create a new strategic and operational plan, it really didn't make sense to create a service plan based on a very short time period that would, in fact, be informed, to a large extent, by the review that it was undergoing.

We just thought it would not make sense from an operational or strategic point of view to create a service plan while the review was in progress.

J. Darcy: Well, I do want to come back to the operational review at a later point, but I wonder if I could ask you: in the budget, can you please talk about if there are any new health programs or any new health initiatives that are funded in this budget and, if so, where they appear?

[1500]

Hon. T. Lake: I'll answer sort of the operational side of things, and then we can talk about the capital side of things as we find that specific information.

What we do at the ministry is kind of…. This has happened over the years. In 2007 we had a primary care charter that helped guide the service plans of regional health authorities. We also had a change and transformation agenda that came on board in about 2009, I believe, that guided health authorities.

Since I've become minister, what we've done is we did a lot of work talking to different stakeholders in health care. We sat down with all of the regional health authorities, individually and as a group. We sat down with the Doctors of B.C. We sat down with nurses, with nurse practitioners. We sought the counsel of other organizations that have been involved in health care looking for best practices.

We examined a lot of reading material, both books and reviews that were done on best practices in health care. We had the ministry, through our planning division, look at the population of British Columbia and also the system of health care we have in British Columbia to see where the greatest needs were. Through that process what we did was identify eight priorities for the health care system over the next number of years.

Number one is to provide patient-centred care. What was quickly evident from our research, and this comes as no surprise to anybody, is that in such a large system, you have a lot of stakeholders. In fact, someone in one of the books said that health care suffers from stakeholder
[ Page 4152 ]
through the heart because there are so many different stakeholders that have an interest in the way we provide health care services. In fact, our health care system has developed as a hospital system. That's just sort of the evolution of health care in Canada.

The number one thing we needed to do was not think about stakeholders as much as think about the patient. So we wanted to provide patient-centred care and let that be the guiding principle of all the decisions we made around health care.

We looked at prevention and health promotion, something that is extremely important. It almost goes without saying and is taken as a truism by most people in health care that in order to prevent the collapse of the system down the road as the population ages, we need to make sure we have good prevention and health promotion programs in place.

The third priority that we saw was primary and community care. I'm sure the member opposite read an article in the Globe and Mail about the end of the hospital. This is something that people have been talking about for a long time: moving away from a hospital-based system of care into a broader, comprehensive, holistic view of health care and strengthening primary and community care. That was another one of our priorities.

Continuing to improve access to specialist services. Despite a large investment earlier in this decade, we are still seeing challenges with access to specialist services as well as access to quality diagnostic services. That was the fifth priority that we needed to address, and we've done that with legislation that we've introduced this session.

[1505]

Access to clinically- and cost-effective pharmaceuticals. That is something that's been the subject of many studies looking at the affordability and the accessibility of pharmaceuticals that can, in fact, improve patient outcomes and reduce hospitalizations.

To review and improve acute care services. As much as we would like to think that we could do without hospitals, we know that's impossible. So we need to make sure those acute care services are appropriate and the very best that we can provide.

Then, finally, the eighth priority was looking at appropriate residential care. Of course, with the demographics as they are, we know that there will be an increased need for residential care. We need to look at the way we're providing residential care, looking at the full spectrum from assisted living to complex care to ensuring that we're looking after those that are aging in our population.

That's the operational side. What will happen is that health authorities…. We've sat down and reviewed this priority with them and the strategies that will help us address those priorities. We did it in a very iterative way with them and with our other major stakeholders, received input from them and since have followed up with some guidance on how to implement the strategies which will address those priorities.

I have to say, it's been very much a collaborative experience, and health authorities are using that document — this priorities document that we have created, which is available on the website — to inform their service plans, which will be coming out in June. That's where we will see those new initiatives.

I do want to also just highlight some of the other specific initiatives. One of the things we talk about…. Home and community care includes mental health and substance use issues. We know that is a real challenge. As our new programs roll out, it includes additional supports for mental health and substance use. We had $2.5 million to the Provincial Health Services Authority to support the ongoing operation of a secure facility to provide stabilization, assessment and individual case planning services for the severely addicted, mentally ill and aggressive clients. That'll be linked to the Burnaby Centre for Mental Health and Addictions.

We also devoted $5 million to PHSA to implement, along with Vancouver Coastal Health Authority, the high-intensity contracted group homes that are managing higher-needs patients in the community. And $750,000 through Providence Health Care of Vancouver Coastal to support the inner-city youth mental health program, and $2 million to Vancouver Coastal to support additional ACT teams. These are assertive community treatment teams that provide supports in community for those with mental health and substance use challenges.

Then, an extra $10 million in funding to assist the five regional health authorities in strengthening approved services for this population so that Fraser Health, Interior Health, Vancouver Island and Northern Health will be able to access specific funding for mental health and addiction services.

On the capital side, I mentioned that an additional $2.6 billion is planned to be spent during the next three fiscal years. Of that investment, $1.7 billion comes from the provincial government. There will be funds from regional hospital districts that we greatly appreciate contributing to the capital plan. They support new construction projects, some of which I mentioned earlier, as well as the upgrading of health facilities, medical and diagnostic equipment, and information management systems. Hospital foundations are another big partner in helping us achieve those goals.

J. Darcy: Well, with respect to the minister — and I have read the document thoroughly, Setting Priorities for the B.C. Health System — that document, which I will return to at a later point, sets out a lot of goals and strategies. It does not actually say what's being done this year in this budget. That's what my question was about: new spending initiatives, new spending programs in this particular budget.

In the very latter part of your answer you did speak to
[ Page 4153 ]
those. But this — if I read it correctly — is about strategies that will take several years to implement. It's not about spending initiatives in this year's budget.

Hon. T. Lake: I thought I had explained how the system works. Essentially, we get a 2.6 percent increase in our budget, and that rolls out to health authorities. I've mentioned the different health authorities and the increased funding they get. They are the ones that provide the front-line services based on the priorities of the Ministry of Health.

[1510]

Those priorities are outlined in the document, but of course there are things that they know are priorities for their health region, which is the strength of regional health authorities. A population in Prince George is quite different than, perhaps, a population in downtown Vancouver; a population in Clearwater much different, perhaps, than a population in Victoria. So the regional health authorities look at the needs of the clients whom they serve and, with the priorities outlined by the ministry, develop service plans that do reflect those priorities.

We don't mandate specific services in every case. We outline our priorities. We outline how much money we are dedicating to the health authorities and then, through the service plans and working collaboratively with the boards of the health authorities, ensure that the priorities are being met.

Now, there is in our funding formula a large part which is what we refer to as global funding, but there is also activity-based funding and pay-for-performance funding, which is a way of incenting certain priorities that the province may have.

We are again prioritizing home and community care, so some of that activity-based funding is centred around that. Surgical wait-lists are another one, so some of the pay-for-performance part of the budget is centred around that.

J. Darcy: Thank you, and we will pursue many of those issues at a later point.

Can I just go back for a minute to health authority funding? You gave the spending over a three-year period for each health authority. I wonder if you could do it year by year for each health authority.

Hon. T. Lake: I'll go through these numbers. It'll take a bit of time, but I don't want to hurry things.

Fraser Health Authority in 2013-14 has $2,550,044,000. That goes up 5.1 percent in 2014-15. It goes up 2.5 percent in 2015-16 and then 2.1 percent in 2016-17.

Interior Health Authority in 2013-14 was allocated $1,524,407,000. That goes up 2.3 percent in '14-15, then 2.9 percent in '15-16 and 2.2 percent in '16-17.

Northern Health Authority had $544.087 million in 2013-14, will go up 2.2 percent in '14-15, then 1.9 percent in '15-16 and 1.9 percent in '16-17.

Vancouver Coastal received $2,433,099,000 in '13-14, will go up 1.7 percent in '14-15, then 2.1 percent in '15-16 and 2.3 percent in '16-17.

Vancouver Island Health Authority, $1,689,581,000 in 2013-14, increasing 1.8 percent in '14-15, then 2.1 percent in '15-16 and 2.3 percent in '16-17.

As the member is probably aware, these are three-year budgets, so every year that budget gets revised. The '15-16 figures are preliminary estimates of where we will be. Of course, as things change — if they do change — if we see that the needs of one health authority are different than what we projected, then those adjustments are made based on our population needs–based formula.

J. Darcy: In February 2012 the Premier told British Columbians that increases in medical services premiums would be in line with increases in the Health budget. Last year — and we've discussed this issue in question period — that promise was broken. There was a 4 percent increase in MSP premiums when the budget was considerably less than that. If the minister can confirm that in fact the increase in medical services premiums this year is again 4 percent, which is more than the increase in Health spending for the year.

[1515]

Hon. T. Lake: I believe at the time of that statement that health care budgets were increasing at 6 percent, so there was a 6 percent increase. Effective January 1, 2014, unassisted MSP premiums did increase 4 percent. Our budget for the Health Ministry, as I mentioned, is going up 2.6 percent. So the increase in MSP is larger for unassisted monthly rates than the health care budget.

I should point out that there are 800,000 British Columbians that do not pay MSP premiums and another, I believe, 200,000 that receive subsidies for health care premiums. Whereas the increase in the MSP premiums to those who do not receive subsidies is 4 percent, it is a lower overall increase because there's a large number of British Columbians that do not pay MSP or have a much-reduced rate of MSP premiums.

J. Darcy: With respect to the minister, I don't think the Premier made a distinction between the MSP premiums that were being paid by families themselves and distinguishing that from other MSP premiums. It was a pretty clear statement that British Columbians are being taxed to death — by hydro rate increases, by MSP rate increases — and it was in fact a campaign commitment that MSP premiums would be in line with the increases in the Health budget, which has turned out not to be the case.

Can the minister confirm that the government is in fact, with health premiums, taking an additional $721 million from hard-working British Columbians and that the amount that is now paid for MSP, in fact, is equal to
[ Page 4154 ]
corporate income tax in this province — that it's more than property tax, more than the carbon tax, more than the fuel tax and more than natural gas royalties?

Hon. T. Lake: I don't recall a campaign promise in the last election that said anything about MSP increases. However, the 4 percent increase in MSP premiums that is effective January 1 contributes an additional $23 million to government revenues in 2013-14. As I am not the Minister of Finance, I don't have the information as to how that compares with other sources of revenue.

J. Darcy: Well, I'm not the Minister of Finance either. I've done a little digging, going back to 2001 when the Liberals took office. MSP rates were then $36 a month for an individual, or $432 a year for an individual. On January 1, 2015, an individual will pay 100 percent more than that — double that — an additional $432.24.

In 2001 a family was paying $72 a month, $864 a year. On January 1, 2015, a family will pay an additional $864.48 — so an exact increase of 100 percent — for a total of $1,728 a year.

This minister certainly…. I ask the minister how he squares that increase of 100 percent since his party took power with the promise to keep life affordable and to not have new taxes on British Columbians.

Hon. T. Lake: I guess we could go through these numbers ad infinitum. But I did mention earlier that the health care budget since 2001, when it was $8 billion, has doubled. So MSP increases have gone up at the same rate as the budget of the Health Ministry.

Let me just point out — because again, numbers are informative — that, 2002 to 2014, MSP premiums went from $54 to $69.25, which is, on average, per year, 1.95 percent, which is roughly similar to the cost of inflation over those years.

[1520]

J. Darcy: Minister, in 2001 a family paid $72 a month. Does this not jibe with your figures? I thought the minister offered some different numbers than those. If I'm working with the wrong numbers, I would appreciate understanding that.

Hon. T. Lake: I don't have the exact numbers, but I can tell the member, as I did, that over the period 2002 to 2014, the rates went from $54 for an individual to $69.25, which is, on average, a 1.95 percent increase per year.

Again, to reiterate that nearly one million British Columbians receive MSP subsidies, including 800,000 who pay no MSP premiums at all. In December 2013 over 273,000 seniors, or 38 percent of seniors, received some level of premium assistance and will continue to do so as they remain eligible based on their income.

J. Darcy: Can the minister please outline what the increases will be that health authorities will have to pay for hydro rate increases over each of the next three years?

Hon. T. Lake: I apologize. I don't have the exact numbers. I thought I had them in this binder.

What I do have, though, is that health authorities have received $14.6 million in Power Smart funding since 2003 and have also benefited from the $75 million in the public sector energy conservation agreement to reduce energy costs. In fact, those savings are realized year over year over year. In fact, we did recently announce, as part of our carbon-neutral government, that they will be available for capital to reduce their energy expenditures.

As I say, I apologize that I don't have the exact numbers. When I did the math — I wrote it down here, and I would be happy to supply the exact numbers later for the member — the increase in hydro rates, if they are unable to reduce their hydro use even more by the investments that are available to them…. Should they not be able to do that, the total amount they spend on hydro would represent 0.01 to 0.05 percent of their budget.

While we appreciate this is a fiscal pressure that accrues not just to households but to public service, it is a very, very, very small part of overall health care spending. There are mechanisms and funds available to health authorities to help them reduce their energy costs every year.

J. Darcy: The minister has said that he will provide those figures later during this week.

Interjection.

J. Darcy: Good, thank you.

I'd like to move on to the issue of pharmaceutical costs, if I could.

Interjection.

J. Darcy: No, I haven't skipped over capital. I would never skip over capital.

On this issue of pharmaceuticals….

[1525]

According to the Budget 2014 documents, there was a $99.8 million reduction from previous years attributable to savings from generic drug costs. Am I right in understanding that?

Hon. T. Lake: Yeah, this is really a good-news story. It would be nice if we could reduce our pharmaceutical costs to zero. That would be the ideal world, where we didn't have to depend on pharmaceuticals to keep us healthy or make us healthy once we were sick, but obviously we recognize that they're an important component.
[ Page 4155 ]

What we have done is work very hard — across Canada, in fact, but particularly in the province of British Columbia — to reduce the cost of certain types of pharmaceuticals, including, and mostly focused on, generic pharmaceuticals.

We have reduced the amount that we are setting generic drugs, a goal of 20 percent of the brand-name price as of April 1. That followed a reduction to 25 percent of the brand-name price last year. So we've been able to capture significant savings on behalf of the taxpayers of British Columbia by essentially telling the pharmaceutical industry, particularly when it comes to generic drugs, that we wanted a better deal. That's not always possible, to get to the 20 percent price, but we work extremely hard.

We also work across Canada with the pan-Canadian pricing initiative on…. There will be, I believe, 12 drugs total that are priced at 18 percent of brand name, so jurisdictions across the country, provinces and territories, will benefit from that.

The big savings that we have been able to realize have been on the generic drug side primarily, but we work very hard to get the very best deal possible from pharmaceutical manufacturers to provide the sustainable pharmaceutical access for the patients of British Columbia.

J. Darcy: This is certainly something that the official opposition has advocated for, for many, many years — that we need to be tougher in our negotiations around costs of pharmaceutical drugs.

If the minister could clarify…. I understand that those savings of $99.8 million were savings that were made on a small basket of some of the most commonly used drugs. Am I right in understanding that?

Hon. T. Lake: Just to correct the record, we started off with six of these targeted generic drugs in the pan-Canadian initiative. We have increased that to ten as of April 1, not 12, so I apologize for that.

The intent is to continue moving forward and adding other generic drugs to that pan-Canadian initiative.

J. Darcy: Those resources, the money that was saved — did that go back into health care delivery?

Hon. T. Lake: As the member will see from the total increases, when you get a reduction in one area, it enables you to maintain those increases in other areas. With a total, I think, of 2.3 percent increase — not 2.6; 2.3 — in our total budget, that was enabled partly by an over 8 percent decrease in our pharmaceutical budget.

When you compare that to some other provinces, like New Brunswick, which had a zero percent increase in their total health care budget, we've been able to fund increases partly — not all, but partly — because of the reductions and the savings we've accrued in some areas like pharmaceuticals.

[1530]

In terms of hydro bills, I can tell the member that for Vancouver Coastal, on a budget of just about $3 billion, their electricity bill in 2013 was $8.225 million. They will have an increase of $740,000. The total electricity bill for them is about 0.02 percent of their budget.

For Fraser, it's just under $3 billion. They spend $7.5 million. They'll see a $677,000 increase — again, if they aren't able to reduce their consumption through other means. That represents a 0.02 percent increase.

Island Health represents 0.03 percent — not an increase but 0.03 percent of their total budget.

For Provincial Health Services Authority, it's very small: 0.01 percent of their total budget. Interior, 0.02 percent; Northern, 0.05. On average, it's 0.02 percent of the budget.

So if we look at all of the six health authorities, $13.14 billion, the electricity bill in 2013: $34.566 million. The increase amounts to $3.11 million or 0.02 percent of budget for the total electricity bill.

J. Darcy: Minister, you started going through that list giving dollar amounts, and then you switched partway through to giving your 00.000 figures.

[J. Thornthwaite in the chair.]

I wonder if you could do the entire list with the dollar amounts.

Hon. T. Lake: I'd be happy to. The budget for Vancouver Coastal in 2013 was $3.91 billion, and they had an electricity bill of $8.225 million. Their increase is about $740,281 for 0.02 percent of their total budget — represents their electricity bill.

For Fraser, $2.958 billion; $7.519 million electricity bill. Their increase is $677,781. Their electricity bill will represent 0.02 percent of their budget.

For Island Health, their budget in 2013 is $1.992 billion. Their electricity bill is $6.657 million. Their increase is approximately just under $600 million, so 0.03 percent of their budget is consumed by hydro.

Provincial Health Services Authority, with a budget of $2.523 billion and electricity bill of $4 million. Their increase is projected to be $360,510. Their electricity bill represents 0.01 percent of their budget.

Interior Health — budget of $1.848 billion; electricity bill, $4.258 million. Their increase is projected to be $383,307. Their electricity bill represents 0.02 percent of their total budget.

Northern Health — budget of $725 million; electricity bill, $3.899 million. Their projected increase is $350,989. The electricity bill represents 0.05 percent of their budget. As you can see, in Northern Health the impact is a little greater, presumably because of the climatic conditions.

Total, then, health authorities: $13.14 billion budget;
[ Page 4156 ]
electricity bill, $34.566 million. Their projected increase is $3.11 million, for an average of 0.02 percent of their budget consumed by electricity.

J. Darcy: If we can go back to pharmaceuticals. The total budget for pharmaceuticals for the ministry, I believe, is in the range of $1.1 billion. Am I right about that?

Hon. T. Lake: Correct. We spend just over $1.1 billion on drug costs every year, which is a 58 percent increase since 2001.

J. Darcy: I was going to make the same point that the minister did, that this, in fact, has been a significant cost driver in the health care system over a number of years. Certainly, the news from the past year of reducing costs for a basket of generic drugs — six, then going up to ten — is very important.

[1535]

The Auditor General, going back to 2006, recommended that our PharmaCare program pursue more direct negotiations to secure even better prices on brand-name drugs. So I have a few questions for the minister in that regard.

How many direct negotiations has the Health Ministry pursued over the past eight years in order to reduce brand-name drug prices?

Hon. T. Lake: I mentioned that this pan-Canadian alliance has worked on the generic side of things. We have the ten most commonly used — or very commonly used — generic drugs that are included in that pan-Canadian initiative.

The member asked about brand-name drugs and mentioned that the Auditor General recommended that along with taking a pan-Canadian approach, we also should take a tough sort of individual provincial approach, which is what we've done. We've taken that to heart.

As of March 2014 the pan-Canadian alliance has completed negotiations on 32 brand products and is actively reviewing 12 others. So that's the pan-Canadian side. But separate from that, we have over 70 product-listing agreements with brand-name manufacturers which have been negotiated.

The nature of pharmaceutical purchasing is such that we have confidentiality agreements in terms of those product-listing agreements. I can't get into the specific details, but just to say that it has resulted in significant savings to the taxpayer.

J. Darcy: Well, I think we may be making progress over last year. As I recall, last year you couldn't tell me how many product-listing agreements were actually in place in B.C.

Hon. T. Lake: Well, I'm smarter now.

J. Darcy: You're smarter now. Okay. Last year I understood it was confidential to say the number.

[1540]

I wonder if the minister has done any projections about the possible scale of savings that could result from direct negotiations with manufacturers of brand-name drugs on all of the drugs that are covered by the formulary.

Hon. T. Lake: I guess the answer from a high level is that the 8.5 percent decrease in the pharmaceutical line in the budget represents about $100 million. That's what we estimate we will save through all of our initiatives, whether it's the generic side of things or the brand-name product-listing agreements. That's a significant savings to the taxpayer in a one-year period.

J. Darcy: I mean, my question was really directed at going beyond that. You've talked about tough negotiations. I think that certainly is what is required, and some good progress has been made.

This past fall the Pan-Canadian Pricing Alliance reported that it would also be looking at global best practices to inform and to further develop a national framework for negotiating the best possible drug prices. New Zealand has been recognized, in particular, as a leader in drug-price negotiations. That has allowed it to expand coverage for patients as a result of the lower prices that it's been able to negotiate.

I know the Minister of Health has mentioned already the Pan-Canadian Pricing Alliance. What practices are the PCPA and the Minister of Health planning to adopt from New Zealand? You've said earlier we're always looking for best practices, not just nationally but globally. They, in some cases, I believe have been able to drive down the price of drugs to about 7 percent of the earlier price.

Hon. T. Lake: New Zealand is an interesting case study. It's a population that's similar in size to British Columbia's. They have taken a very hard line with drug companies. In fact, they go to RFP, I believe, for a lot of their drugs, and they do get a good deal for the drugs that they can get — which is passed on, in terms of access, for the drugs that are made available to them.

The challenge that New Zealand faces, that is a very real challenge and would be for a relatively small jurisdiction like British Columbia as well, is that some drug companies simply cannot or will not provide a drug to that jurisdiction at the price that they're willing to pay. So what happens is that some drugs are simply not available to patients in New Zealand, or they have to do a lot of substituting to get something that is somewhat similar but perhaps not quite the same. There are some drugs that are simply unavailable.

It's a bit apples and oranges. What we feel we need, and that's why we take a pan-Canadian approach, is that
[ Page 4157 ]
the larger the market, the better bargaining power you have with these drug companies. We've seen that in organizations like the Veterans Administration in the U.S., for instance.

[1545]

By going together with the other provinces and territories and having an over-30-million-population market, we feel that we can drive our best deal from drug companies — rather than the New Zealand approach, which has left gaps in coverage for some types of drugs. Again, while it seems good, when you look a little bit below the surface, there are challenges there that I think would cause concern for patients here in British Columbia.

J. Darcy: I do have some other questions in the area of pharmaceuticals. But I know that one of my colleagues…. Because we have three Houses going, it's a bit of a challenge with scheduling. So I would like to move, if we could, to capital briefly and then come back.

K. Corrigan: Minister, I'd like to ask a couple of questions about progress in the planning for a new or partially new Burnaby Hospital. Last summer the member for New Westminster and the critic for Health asked about a specific hospital and were told by the minister that most things during an election campaign are for political purposes.

I note that in the Liberal platform, a partial rebuild of Burnaby Hospital was included in a list of "projects underway or in planning." Yet when you get to the 2014 budget and, particularly, the three-year plan for capital expenditures greater than $50 million, there is no mention of Burnaby Hospital. It's not even mentioned. I don't believe it's mentioned in the Ministry of Health service plan.

For the minister: is this yet another case of things being said prior to an election — one of those things that are said during an election campaign that are for political purposes?

Hon. T. Lake: It's amazing. When you state the obvious, it gets repeated. I would say that the members opposite, in a political campaign, say political things.

The reference was to the member for Peace River South, who was advocating for his hospital and continues to advocate for his hospital — as all of us do for our communities, as MLAs. I know that the member is doing just that for Burnaby Hospital, so I appreciate that. I'm sure that's a political purpose as well. After all, that's why they call us politicians.

I did say at the time, and I'll repeat, that Fraser Health outlines their capital priorities, as all health authorities do. We are looking forward to the Surrey Memorial Hospital critical care tower project being opened — that's $512 million — and, of course, the new emergency room that we opened there last year.

Since 2001 we've spent $8.4 billion on health capital projects in British Columbia, so we are moving forward with major projects throughout the province. It is up to the regional health authorities to determine what a priority is for them.

For Fraser Health, Surrey Memorial obviously was a priority. Royal Columbian is a priority. The replacement of Burnaby Hospital has not been deemed the highest priority for Fraser Health. That doesn't mean that we don't invest.

I had an opportunity to tour Burnaby Hospital recently. I can assure the member — and she knows this very well — that there is a tremendous staff at Burnaby Hospital. The improvements they've made and the outcomes we've seen, particularly around infection control, are nothing short of remarkable. I want to thank them for all of the things they have done to see those improvements and outcomes.

[1550]

We do continue to invest in Burnaby Hospital. The high-level master plan included some immediate physical improvements. Those include the emergency department renovations. That's $2.6 million. In fact, the cardiology unit became operational in February of this year, and the renovations to the emergency department are expected to be completed in the fall of this year.

The ambulatory care centre at $2.1 million — that is expected to be complete in 2014. Then the central sterilizing department, where they process all the surgical equipment that's used, has renovations of $800,000.

Those are the investments that are being made in the short term in Burnaby Hospital. As the health authority looks at their ten-year capital plan, I'm sure there will be consideration given to the needs of Burnaby Hospital. But at this time Royal Columbian Hospital, after Surrey is finished, is their number one priority.

K. Corrigan: I would say that there is a difference between a member advocating for a hospital and a member promising a hospital during an election. I'd say they were two different things.

This is a hospital that there already was one high-level master plan for. That was done in 2001. It has now been almost 13 years since that high-level master plan. We have a hospital that is seismically very unstable, very risky.

It is also a hospital that has, indeed, been used politically. We certainly — and I'm sure the minister is aware — have documents that indicate that the hospital was going to be used in the election in order to gain seats.

I think, very specifically, the comment made in the leaked Liberal documents was: "We'll set up a committee to talk about how we need to improve Burnaby Hospital, replace Burnaby Hospital, see what is needed, but we don't have to actually promise any money. We won't actually have to promise any money. We'll just set up a com-
[ Page 4158 ]
mittee." That was the Liberal plan.

You can understand why I would be a little bit frustrated with what has happened to that hospital. I certainly think the context is important to remember when we're talking about priorities. It is the second-busiest emergency room in the Lower Mainland.

In 2012, according to the doctors, related to the aging infrastructure we had 84 C. difficile–related deaths in the hospital. Now, most recently, it's discovered that we have the longest surgical wait times in the Lower Mainland. Although that is not specifically a capital issue, the fact is that Burnaby is being under-resourced.

I absolutely agree with the minister that the staff there are absolutely fabulous. They do wonderful things, given the resources or lack of resources that they have.

So I am going to advocate for my community. We have a hospital that is serving the third-largest community in the province. It also serves East Vancouver. We are ignored time after time. I think this most recent information — that we have the longest surgical wait times in the Lower Mainland — is, again, proof that Burnaby Hospital is not being appropriately treated. That's both a capital and an operating issue.

That's a comment. Then, perhaps, a question for the minister. Is the minister saying that the minister would have no ability to discuss or have any influence on the priority for capital projects in a health authority?

Hon. T. Lake: I find a bit of a paradox in the member's comments and then the question. She was essentially saying that improvements in the hospital were being used as a political football and then asked me if I, as the minister, as a politician, would then tell the health authority what their priorities should be. I find the two at odds, to be quite honest.

It is the role of the health authorities to look across their jurisdiction and prioritize the needs. As I mentioned, that's how the system works. I don't think it's appropriate that I, sitting in Victoria, would determine the number one priority for the people of Fraser Health. I think that's something that the health authority board is charged with doing.

[1555]

Now, the member is well aware that we have done a review or are in the process of doing a review of Fraser Health Authority and their service and operational plan. All I can suggest is that the member stay abreast of any results of that review and continue, as she should as an MLA, to advocate for her community. But it is important that we look at data and prioritize the needs based on input from the health authorities, rather than from me sitting in Victoria.

K. Corrigan: I think the Health Minister has a responsibility to ensure that good services are being provided at all hospitals. Good services, apparently, are not being provided — at least, not as well as other hospitals. I'm not suggesting political interference, but what I am suggesting is that for whatever reason, Burnaby has been ignored, not properly maintained, for years and years. I think it's something that the minister needs to turn his head to.

J. Darcy: Just so that people don't need to switch back and forth, I know that the member for Vancouver–West End is going to be back with us momentarily. Perhaps we'll continue with capital projects so as not to interrupt the flow.

The minister made reference to a promise that was made during the course of the last election campaign, where he famously said…. Isn't everything said during election campaigns for political purposes? I want to just underline what the member for Burnaby–Deer Lake said: that there is a huge difference between advocating for a hospital and saying that you will press your party to make this a priority and promising that it will in fact happen.

I think the member for Burnaby–Deer Lake was referring to the Liberal platform that talked about Burnaby Hospital, including it in a list of projects "underway or in planning." That's a quote from the Liberal platform. It was certainly vigorously promised by Liberal candidates in that constituency.

But let me go back to the Dawson Creek Hospital. In our estimates last summer the minister said words to the effect that you can't really fault anybody for advocating and saying an MLA, if elected, would do his or her very best to achieve an outcome.

But a little over a week ago we see the MLA from Dawson Creek doing some serious back-pedalling, even though he had said in a written promise on April 29, 2013, just before election day, that he would ensure that a $50 million expansion project for the Dawson Creek and District Hospital was completed during his first term. Now he's saying: "I think anyone who understands how the system works and how long it takes to manoeuvre through this realizes that we're not going to have a brand-new building by the next election."

I just want to be really clear. Previously he had said that this push was the number one issue requiring the attention of the provincial government. If you can just please underline…. The member is saying that the promise hasn't been completely put down. He hopes to have the government commit to new funding and a plan for upgrades by the next election.

But I don't see it in the three-year capital plan. Is it in fact in the three-year capital plan?

Hon. T. Lake: These are very large facilities that, given the modern state of medicine, are complex, to say the least. If you want to build a facility, there's probably nothing more complex than building a large hospital. The planning process, just to provide some insight into the
[ Page 4159 ]
stages of a capital project….

[1600]

Step 1 is the concept plan, which lays out the general plan for redevelopment of a project. It can define things like the buildings that will be demolished, those that will be built and those that will be upgraded. So that's the first step: the health authority developing a concept plan. That's often in conjunction with the regional hospital district in areas outside of the Lower Mainland, where local taxpayers contribute to hospital capital, whereas they do not in the Lower Mainland. They are supposed to use that tax room for transit.

That's the concept plan. That comes forward. Then a business plan is developed which expands on the work that was started in the concept plan. It looks at the individual spaces. It looks at the design, at a more detailed estimate of the capital costs, at a risk management plan, development schedule, options for tendering and constructing, staffing and human resource planning as well as a detailed communication plan to stakeholders.

Once the business plan has been reviewed and a decision has been made by government, the ministry will provide the approval for the project to begin the next step. Really, that's when you start to see those show up on the capital plan of the ministry, when you are down to the business plan. That can take a number of years. From concept to business plan can take anywhere — at the earliest a two-year, but more likely a three- to four-year timeline.

Then it goes through project procurement, which is the next step, which is a staged process of request for qualifications, request for proposals, and then working with the preferred proponent and finally construction.

To give an example: Kelowna General Hospital, the Centennial Building. The concept plan was approved in May of 2006. The business plan was approved in May of 2007. Procurement was complete by July of 2008. Construction was finished in May of 2012. That was a relatively short timeline of six years from concept plan to completion. It's not unusual, particularly on sites that are complex, and St. Paul's would be an example of a very complex site. VGH is another example and Royal Columbian another example.

It can take longer than that because of the complexity of the site, so it takes a while. My understanding from Northern Health is that the concept plan is being worked on at the moment for Dawson Creek Hospital, and we hope to have the concept plan late in 2014 if not early in 2015.

J. Darcy: I'm going to make these next comments advisedly. I understand that the rules of order permit the minister to take 15 minutes to respond to any question, but I think in the interest of really canvassing the issues in the Ministry of Health and health care in British Columbia thoroughly…. If the minister does, in fact, give speeches in response to virtually every question that I ask, rather than directly answering the question, we're not going to get through very many topic subjects. I think it's in the interests of both parties that we actually are able to canvass the issues as thoroughly as we possibly can and to have as many questions asked and answered as we possibly can.

If I could go to the member for Vancouver–West End, please.

S. Chandra Herbert: My question would be specifically…. The minister stated to a local radio station that St. Paul's Hospital revitalization — he didn't know the timeline. The first time he said we might get shovels in the ground might be five or six years. That was this summer.

Is that the minister's statement, or is there a better and sooner time that we would get construction going, given that the Premier, in 2012, promised that $500 million was in the budget when it's not; given that in 2010 the Minister of Health at the time said that a business case would be begun — it wasn't, and it still has not happened — and given that a concept plan has been in front of the ministry since 2010 and approved, as I understand, for the next-stage development of a business case in 2013?

[1605]

Hon. T. Lake: Thank you to the member. I appreciate his interest and appreciated him being at St. Paul's, too, for the opening of the acute stabilization unit, just recently. St. Paul's, obviously, is a hugely important hospital, not just for Vancouver but for all of British Columbia. My parents were both treated there. I have a soft spot, as many people do, for the care that they received there.

The current building is over 100 years old. It's in a very complex site, a very dense area of the city of Vancouver. As I mentioned, when you have a complex site like that, it's a lot more difficult in terms of planning and construction.

We are committed to redevelopment of St. Paul's Hospital. There is $59 million in the immediate three-year plan. That is business case development and, also, start of construction. Construction there, obviously…. Look at the Comox Street building. There has to be a certain amount of demolition before any construction starts and then decanting of people in different areas. So it is very complex.

There is a total of $500 million that is earmarked over the longer term for the redevelopment of St. Paul's. We only do specific three-year plans because things change, as we know. If we're getting into the demolition, that may change the way the project goes. We don't want to nail down the stages on a complex project like that until we have more information that's informed by the work that's being done.

Of that $500 million, $460 million will come from the province. As I mentioned, there are no regional hospital
[ Page 4160 ]
districts in the Lower Mainland, so $40 million generously will come from St. Paul's Hospital Foundation. But I can assure the member that St. Paul's is a priority for Providence, Vancouver Coastal and province of British Columbia.

S. Chandra Herbert: Will demolition begin this fall, as it was supposed to in 2013? Has the business case been approved? If so, would the minister be willing to share a copy of that very important document with me, as the member of the Legislature representing the community that houses St. Paul's?

[1610]

Hon. T. Lake: The concept plan is still being evaluated and reviewed. Once that is finished, which we expect by the middle of this year — so coming up within the next month or two — then a detailed business plan will be developed. That's where we get to the exact timing of demolition, construction and the phasing of the project.

Once the concept plan is evaluated, finalized and approved, the business plan in this case should move relatively quickly, because some work has been sort of ongoing while the concept plan is being evaluated.

S. Chandra Herbert: I think the minister can probably appreciate my interest in this topic and also my frustration. The remarks the minister gave about it being a complex site — historic, 100 years old — pretty much could be read from any estimates about St Paul's since 2008. I think it's probably time to tell the scriptwriter to write some new lines there, because it's been pretty much the same text given.

It is frustrating because we've been promised a new hospital on and on for years, since back to 2003-2004. Of course, the site has changed. But you go back to 2010, and the minister was saying: "Business case will begin shortly." We go back to 2012. The concept plan — "Well, we'll take a quick look at it, but it's largely been approved. We'll move almost instantly into business case and then demolition of the building in 2013," as had been the plans then.

Now I understand the minister has said: "Likely approval of the concept plan in a month or two and then a business case in, potentially, a year — maybe shorter." I certainly hope the minister is correct in this. He knows I'll be holding him to it, because we want a hospital.

Should there be an earthquake, we know St. Paul's would collapse. We want a hospital because we think the patients and staff deserve facilities that really match modern health care needs. We'll continue working to get that hospital, and I hope the minister is able to convince his colleagues to follow through on promises which, so far, have not been kept.

J. Darcy: If I could just ask a question about Penticton Hospital. Penticton Hospital commitments are not listed in Budget 2014, particularly under the three-year fiscal plan for capital expenditure projects greater than $50 million.

The government states in the ministry service plan that they are proceeding with business planning, expected to be completed in 2014. However, a government press release from March 2013, over a year ago, says: "Business case development will get underway next month." It was expected to be completed this year. We appear to be about a year behind what was promised last year.

The script appears to be very similar to what I remember hearing last year, Minister. If that could please be clarified, I'm sure the people of Penticton would appreciate it.

Hon. T. Lake: In the spirit of the political jousting that always goes on in these forums, I would remind the members opposite — both the member for Vancouver–West End and the member for New Westminster — that for ten years an NDP government promised a hospital in Abbotsford. It was not built until we built it. I think the obvious thing is these are complex, and they're hard, and they require a large amount of capital.

There are people who have optimism around some of these projects. I get that. Hospitals are extremely important to communities. I know that in my community they certainly are. I know that in Penticton they are. I toured Penticton Regional Hospital last fall.

Again, I think it's the people — the member knows this, having worked in health care for many years — that really make the difference. The buildings sometimes can be a challenge, and it's impossible to replace all buildings at once, given the fiscal constraints of any government.

[1615]

But in terms of Penticton, they are doing a remarkable job there, and the community is excited about a new hospital redevelopment. Again, the regional hospital district is putting 40 percent into this project. I want to thank them for that.

The business plan is being evaluated, and I am informed it will be complete by the end of June. So we should see that business plan in about a month from now and move forward to the next stage, in terms of looking at procurement and the different stages there.

J. Darcy: It is well understood that hospitals are very complex endeavours and that they can take a number of years to build and to go through the various phases, which the minister has taken great lengths to explain to me again. The issue we have raised is that when people promise that it's going to be done in a certain time frame for political purposes and then in fact that's not the case, people are troubled by that.

Let me turn to the issue of the Campbell River Hospital. The member from Campbell River is not able to be here today, but I know that is one of the issues that she has
[ Page 4161 ]
raised with the minister in the past and that I would like to also raise on behalf of the member and her constituents.

We know that a new hospital is going to be built. There's a commitment to that. That's understood. However, there is huge concern in the community from the medical staff, from the community members — I know the member has also lobbied the minister on this issue — that before the building begins, it's really critical to take a look at the capacity of the new hospital.

The present hospital bed numbers are around 80. The new hospital is set for around 95 beds. However, the current hospital is chronically overcrowded. The number of patients far exceeds the number of beds. There were 114 patients just a couple of weeks ago. Surgeries had to be cancelled. That's a regular occurrence.

The question that I have for the minister is: is he taking seriously…? Will he listen to the community and the medical staff, who are arguing very, very strongly that the capacity of the hospital be increased so that we don't have a spanking-new facility and still face the kinds of delays and shortages and cancellations of surgeries that are now being encountered?

Hon. T. Lake: Just a correction. The Campbell River General Hospital is 70 beds at the moment and will be replaced with a new 95-bed facility. Of course, those beds will be a modern standard, unlike the old situation where you had four people in a room. Most of the rooms will be single-patient rooms, for infection control and better care.

I mentioned earlier that there is a drive in health care generally to try to reduce the need for acute care by providing better care in the community — better home care, better community facilities. That's the strategy here. Even though we are, based on population needs, increasing from 70 beds to 95 beds, Vancouver Island has also committed to develop an additional 40 to 50 residential care beds prior to the opening of the new hospital. That's a commitment outside the scope of the North Island hospitals project.

When you look at the increased supports in the community, there is great confidence that the number of beds in the new Campbell River General Hospital will in fact be appropriate.

[1620]

J. Darcy: Continuing on capital projects, I have a number of questions regarding the clinical and systems transformation project. We understand — and we discussed this for some time last year — that the primary purpose of the clinical and systems transformation project, CST, is to establish a common, standardized, integrated, end-to-end clinical information system for PHSA, Vancouver Coastal and Providence Health. The vision of the integrated system is "One person. One record. Better health." A single electronic record per patient across the continuum of care.

I know that a service agreement was signed with IBM just prior to the last election. Ten-year total cost of ownership of the project, $842 million. It has a capital component and an operating cost component. Budget 2014, for the first time, includes the capital costs for the CST project, an estimated $480 million anticipated capital costs, with 2023 forecasted as the date of completion. But there's also an operating cost component of $362 million over ten years for supporting the new system and the current legacy systems.

Last spring we learned that Vancouver Coastal is shifting $72 million from operating costs in each year of a three-year budget in order to pay for the CST project. That actually came from some leaked documents, I understand. In the draft financial management plan, there's a reference to ministry clawback of operating funds totalling $72 million.

A number of questions in this regard. It is an $842 million project over ten years. It's now a year since the contract was signed. Can the minister provide an update on the implementation of the report?

Hon. T. Lake: In January of this year the CST project entered phase 2, which is called Design, Build and Integrate, which is estimated to take 18 months. So as of late May, which is now, the project is 29 percent complete and entering week 8 of the 26-week design subphase. I can report that the project is currently on time and on budget.

J. Darcy: Again, last summer in estimates it was discussed that Vancouver Coastal is shifting $72 million per year for each of the three years, with the remainder coming from PHSA and Providence Health. Is this still the case, and will that shift of operating money extend beyond the original three years as discussed last July?

[1625]

Hon. T. Lake: This was not a…. I want to take issue with the term "clawback." This was a request from Vancouver Coastal to take $72 million of operating and designate it as capital for the clinical and systems transformation project for that three years.

The plan would be, after the three-year window, to have that $72 million reappear in their operating grant. Again, this is about efficiencies, and Vancouver Coastal put this as a top priority and realized that they will be operating savings by having this system in place. They felt it was a good investment to put that money into capital.

That was their request. It went through vetting through the Ministry of Finance and Treasury Board, and they approved that request from Vancouver Coastal.

J. Darcy: In February of 2013 there were some docu-
[ Page 4162 ]
ments released that laid out what was referred to as the risk portfolio of the CST project. This was before a contract was even signed. Out of 13 categories, as the minister is aware, all but one was listed as high risk, and that was the one labelled political risk, which was deemed to be a moderate risk.

The risk categories that were all deemed to be high were finances, governance, culture, technical complexity, shared vision, resourcing, clinical standardization, achievable expectations and timelines, clinical engagement and accountability, leadership, end-user adoption, vendor relationship. That's 12 out of 13 factors that were deemed to be high risk — not deemed to be high risk by the official opposition but by those working on the project proposal.

Has this risk portfolio been updated? In finalizing the contract, what work did the government do to mitigate these risks and get any assurances from the service provider that risks would be properly managed, and what is the government's plan to manage those risks?

[1630]

Hon. T. Lake: I apologize. I don't have the risk registry available to me. This may be a document that we can provide. I'd have to make some inquiries with Vancouver Coastal.

It's a combination, as the member indicated, of Vancouver Coastal, Provincial Health Services and Providence Health — the CEOs of each of those organizations, along with our associate deputy minister, Elaine McKnight, who unfortunately is not with us today. She could shed some light on this for us. That is the project board. That project board keeps tight controls over the project. I've been told by our staff that we have someone communicating with the project night and day to ensure that it is on track.

Some of the risks that the member identified, such as financing, early in the project would of course be a risk until everything is worked out, all the details. That risk is no longer there. As mentioned, the funding is in place. It is, as of this point in time, on track in terms of budget, so a lot of those risks, essentially, fall away as the project moves down the track.

I don't have a specific updated list of things that have fallen, or how they've been reduced, to that degree of granularity for the member. I will endeavour to get that information for her and provide it at a later time in our estimates. But I'm told that the project is coming along very well and on track and on budget.

J. Darcy: Well, I was hoping to hear a bit more than "on track and on budget," because we are talking about $842 million. We are talking about a project that the project proponents themselves….

I have a copy — I'm sure the minister has — of the document that I was reading from earlier. I guess I can't pick it up and show it because that would make it a prop. It was a CST risk assessment that came into our hands in February 2013 that listed all of those risk factors, with all of them — with the exception of political risk, which was categorized as moderate — being in the high-risk category. As I've mentioned already, finances as well as achievable expectations and guidelines were considered to be high risk.

How can the minister assure taxpayers that costs for this project will not exceed projections and that the targets will in fact be met?

[J. Sturdy in the chair.]

Hon. T. Lake: Hon. Chair, welcome to the debates.

I mentioned that there is a project board in place, and that project board is chaired by my associate deputy minister, Elaine McKnight. The reason that she is chairing that is because of the intense interest we have to ensure that this project does what it is designed to do — which is a comprehensive, single electronic health record for each patient across the continuum of care and that, in fact, it remains on budget.

[1635]

I am told and I've said to the member that as of this date we're 29 percent of the way through the phase and it is on time and on budget. We have the systems in place. We have the second-highest-ranking civil servant in the Health Ministry chairing the project board, which I would say is a real commitment to ensure that we have tight controls on this project.

J. Darcy: The minister, I'm sure, will concede that the government has a pretty poor record when it comes to IT systems. We have recently heard about — and many families have been very affected by — the crashes and uncertainties surrounding the integrated case management system, the ICM system. Given the high risk of this particular project, what is being done to protect patients and taxpayers from a similar situation?

Hon. T. Lake: I'm not sure how many times I can say the same thing. I will just say that I think I've answered the question. The associate deputy minister chairs the project board and has day-to-day understanding of the project, and any change orders go through that project board. We have staff monitoring all the activities of the project. That is the highest assurance that I think we can possibly make to ensure that the project does what it is supposed to do.

J. Darcy: What's the experience of this new system on the ground, from clinical staff? Are clinical staff happy with the new system? Is it working as planned? Is the service provider happy with how it's working? I hesitate to mention rumours in this House, but they have been
[ Page 4163 ]
around for some time, so I will ask the minister: are there any lawsuits pending between the parties regarding this project?

Hon. T. Lake: As I mentioned before, the project is in the design-build-integrate phase. It is not in the in-use stage, so we won't know the answer to the question from the member at this point. I can say that the Cerner system is used in other health authorities. We do use the Cerner system — Provincial Health Services Authority uses it — at B.C. Children's, B.C. Women's and Sunny Hill.

Vancouver Coastal uses the system at St. Mary's Hospital. About 20 percent of doctors working in clinical care in the Provincial Health Services Authority, Vancouver Coastal Health and Providence Health Care are already using the Cerner system. So there is certainly some familiarity with the Cerner systems which are a part of this project.

J. Darcy: A couple of questions about the Cerner system. When does the minister expect the Cerner system to be fully functional? What led the minister to choose the Cerner system and IBM as the service provider? Were other IT systems considered? And what were the criteria that ultimately led to Cerner being considered to be the best choice?

[1640]

Hon. T. Lake: Details of the process are as follows. In early 2012 three prequalified vendors were invited to participate in a directed request for proposals to provide clinical vision, technology vision, design-build and integrate-implement services and transition support for a clinical and systems transformation program.

An evaluation committee consisted of 27 individuals from all three health organizations involved: Providence, Vancouver Coastal and PHSA. That included 15 clinicians. That evaluation committee selected Team IBM — which comprised IBM Canada, University of Pittsburgh Medical Centre, Deloitte and maxIT Healthcare — as the preferred proponent, and that was announced on June 8, 2012.

As on major capital projects, there is a fairness adviser that evaluates the process that is used to select the final vendor.

J. Darcy: As I know the minister is aware, in British Columbia today there is considerable crossover of patients between and amongst various health authorities — between Coastal and Fraser, between Fraser and Providence, between Fraser and PHSA, between Northern Health and Interior Health and between all health authorities and Coastal and PHSA, at the very least.

Why is the Cerner system only being implemented by Providence and PHSA? Why not Fraser Health? Why not other health authorities? If the other health authorities already have well-functioning systems, why not implement those existing systems at Coastal? Why is the objective not the same system provincewide in what is becoming an increasingly integrated provincewide health care system? Becoming — it has been for some time.

Hon. T. Lake: The member makes a very, very good point. I just recall an experience I had as a member of the Thompson-Nicola regional hospital district when I was mayor of the city of Kamloops before getting into provincial politics. There was a request from the Interior Health Authority for the regional hospital district to help fund an IT system. The question was asked, "Will this IT system be able to talk to the other health authorities," for the reason that the member elucidates.

[1645]

The answer was, "Not always, not in every instance," which was problematic for us as a board. This is one of the challenges of IT systems.

Having said that, there are two major systems used in the province of British Columbia, Meditech and Cerner. There is work going on to allow those two systems to talk to each other so that we can have a shared data that follows the patient around.

This is something that has, I think, bedevilled health organizations around the world: having a simple yet secure system for electronic medical records and electronic health records. I believe that that information belongs to the patient, should benefit the patient and should be available to all clinicians that come into contact with that patient.

The principle sounds simple; the mechanics and implementation are not, particularly when you get into competitiveness of systems and making sure you're getting the best price. If you were to dictate only one system can be used, it does reduce your ability to negotiate the best price.

There is effort to make sure that we have systems that are able to talk to each other yet still leave ability for best value for taxpayers. But I completely agree with the sentiment that the member is highlighting, and that is the need for a seamless system that benefits the patient wherever they go in British Columbia.

J. Darcy: Well, continuing with the theme of seamless, the stated goal of the project is: "One person. One record. Better health." But from my reading of it, the parts of health care that are going to be covered by the Cerner system are acute, ambulatory and residential, as well as diagnostics and pharmacy.

My question is: where do primary care providers fit in — doctors, nurse practitioners? Where does home support fit in? Community health? Why are we not working on a system that brings all the pieces of health care together?
[ Page 4164 ]

Hon. T. Lake: Just to ensure that we have an understanding of what the clinical and systems transformation project involves, it is a single electronic health record for acute care, ambulatory and residential care, as the member mentioned, also integrated with lab, medical imaging, health information and pharmacy.

[1650]

Now, primary care — we have made great strides through the provincial information technology office incenting physicians and primary care practitioners to have electronic medical records. They have access to some systems like PharmaNet, which are integrated with the clinical and systems transformation, the Cerner system.

There are some parts of the IT system that are integrated across the system. There needs to be more. This is an iterative and evolutionary approach. We've gone from having five different systems in the region served by this project down to one. The evolution will be to ensure that primary care practitioners have that same seamless access to all the information, as I mentioned, so that a patient really is able and their practitioners, wherever they are, are able to access that information.

But it is a staged process, and this is a big part of building the platform that we can then extend out to primary care in the future.

J. Darcy: I mean, I appreciate that that's the hope down the road, but it is a huge amount of money in the name of "One person. One record. Better health." We already experience…. As the minister knows, there are enormous problems even between physicians and specialists sometimes, much less between primary care providers and facilities. It would be good to hear some greater assurance from the minister that if we're investing this kind of money, we actually are going to have at the end of the process: "One person. One record. Better health."

Is the minister suggesting that it's at the end of the ten-year process that we're going to do that, or are we going to be doing it along the way that we integrate with records, for instance, for primary care providers, community health, home health, and so on?

Hon. T. Lake: Obviously, the goal for these types of projects is to have at some point one patient, one record and seamless care. That is a principle, that is the goal, certainly, but it does take stages. As we mentioned, over $800 million for this project, which takes five different systems and creates one system, which is a giant step forward.

We have also spent, since 2006, almost $108 million on the provincial information technology office, which is the way of incenting physicians, primary care practitioners to use an electronic medical record that is an approved system. The Cerner system, which is the subject, the nuts and bolts of the clinical and systems transformation project, is known to be able to integrate more readily with these electronic medical record systems in physicians' offices.

[1655]

We do anticipate that the leap from having the Cerner system in place and then being able to integrate physicians' offices will be less of a leap than it would be with other services.

Just, I guess, a little bit of history and perspective. Primary care physicians, practitioners, by and large are independent business people, and they bill the province for their services. It is a challenge, if you like, to take a down or an up — what am I trying to say? — a top-heavy approach to prescribing that practitioners must use a certain type of system. It may not fit in with their style of practice; it may not fit in with the current systems that they have.

We've worked with physicians around the province through this PITO program. I think we have 91 percent of community-based GPs and specialists using EMRs now, so it's been very good at getting people on a system.

The next stage, as the member indicates, is to tie those systems into the centralized systems of the Provincial Health Services Authority and the acute care system and the other components of the clinical and systems transformation project. There is no specific timeline for that. These are projects that need to be evaluated as technology changes and as attitudes change. I think we will see a rapid development because of the nature of the technology advances that we see in this area.

J. Darcy: I want to come back to the cost issue and the fact that in the case of Vancouver Coastal we're talking about $72 million taken from operating funds over each of three years. Last year in estimates we discussed what some of the service cuts were that were happening in Vancouver Coastal.

The minister may say: "Well, it's not about taking one and putting it into the other." But the reality is that when operating funds are reduced by that amount, $72 million…. Last year we saw a number of community health programs — really innovative and creative community mental health programs that made a huge difference in the lives of people who experience serious mental health issues, in some cases addiction issues…. A number of those were cut because Vancouver Coastal was having great difficulty balancing its budget, especially with $72 million from operating going into a computer system.

This year we're also seeing that Vancouver Coastal absolutely needs to…. The provincial government has mandated that more money needs to be allocated for people with severe mental health and addictions issues.

One of the things that the minister has mandated is that we need to improve primary care services for high-risk populations — in particular, people with severe mental health and addictions issues. But rather than having money specifically allocated for those very worthy goals, in fact, we're seeing money cut from other very, very
[ Page 4165 ]
worthy programs and services — namely, the community health centres. Thousands of people are being served by these community health centres across the city of Vancouver in a number of different communities.

In some cases we are seeing or will see a complete closure of the primary care services in those particular clinics. These clinics, I would remind the minister, serve the most at-risk 5 percent of the population, but they also serve thousands of other people who have severe to high levels of risk, many of them with multiple chronic conditions, many of them with mental health and addictions issues.

Does the minister think that it's appropriate to transfer $72 million into operating funds if that comes at the expense of innovative primary care programs such as the ones I mentioned — community health centres that have proven themselves to do an excellent job delivering preventive primary care to their communities?

[1700]

Hon. T. Lake: The point was made earlier — and I think I made it in the last round of estimates as well — that Vancouver Coastal requested that the $72 million be deemed as capital rather than operating because this project was very important and, in fact, would generate savings through efficiencies that could then be put back into other services. So it is not an either-or situation.

The fact is that this will transform the way that practitioners care for patients. When we talk about improving the care, this is exactly what this system is going to do. Hospitals that have undergone a similar transformation — an example would be North York General Hospital in Ontario — have seen remarkable improvements in quality of care. It enables clinicians as well as management to better manage and measure wait times as well as provide comparable and timely data for efficient resource management.

The member may characterize it as a $72 million reduction in operating. I would characterize it as an investment in improving clinical care for the patients that Vancouver Coastal Health Authority, Providence and Provincial Health Services Authority serve.

J. Darcy: The issue is not whether or not we need and should aspire to the goal of "One person. One record. Better health." The issue is that $72 million a year is going out of operating funds in Vancouver Coastal at the same time that really vital services in communities are being cut back.

Some of the services and programs that are being cut back and that are being reduced are in fact ones that are mandated in the government's priorities document. "Priority No. 3: implement a provincial system of primary and community care built around interprofessional teams and functions."

Elsewhere in the document there's a reference that we need to have robust interdisciplinary teams in place in all 62 health districts within health authorities, urban and rural, right across the province.

Clearly, Vancouver Coastal has said that in the case of the community health centres, they can't both provide intensive primary care to the most at-risk populations with severe mental health and addictions — the most at-risk 5 percent — at the same time as providing robust interdisciplinary care to thousands of other patients who also have very, very high needs. They may not be in that top 5 percent, but they are certainly very high needs.

It seems to me…. I'd like the minister to speak to it. Are those not unacceptable choices — that money is diverted from absolutely critical community-based programs that respect the priorities set out in the minister's document while $72 million can be diverted into computer systems?

Hon. T. Lake: Well, I mentioned the increased investments that we've made into severe addiction and mental illness. A lot of that has gone to Vancouver Coastal. This is additional money that we have given to support these initiatives — another $10 million available to regional health authorities.

In terms of primary care, it's about appropriateness. The needs of the population served by community health centres — for instance, in Vancouver — change over time.

In fact, the redesign that Vancouver Coastal has embarked upon will result in a greater service to complex, vulnerable patients. They'll have increased access to integrated health care services. That means they'll have direct linkages with home care, with public health, with mental health and addiction services. That will reduce emergency department visits.

Raven Song Community Health Centre, where that is happening — and I had the opportunity to visit recently — will in fact have greater availability for those complex, vulnerable patients. It's open seven day as week, 12 hours a day, which is an increase from the current five days a week, eight hours a day.

Also, an agreement has been reached between Vancouver Coastal and physicians to ensure that the majority of patients that are affected by this redesign will continue to have access to primary care services at Evergreen, Pacific Spirit and South Community clinics. In fact, they are continuing to work with physicians to ensure that no patient is left without access.

[1705]

The member is suggesting that perhaps the $72 million should have just been topped up for Vancouver Coastal. Yet I'll remind the member that her own election platform contemplated a $25 million increase in the health care budget, which certainly wouldn't cover the $72 million that she is describing. A $25 million increase is a very, very tiny part of the entire health care budget.

The member may advocate for spending more and more money. But certainly, they didn't run on that plat-
[ Page 4166 ]
form. In fact, they said they would freeze capital spending. We heard a lot about capital. The member's platform said that they would freeze capital projects that aren't already underway.

We've made a commitment to health care. That commitment is real. It was in our platform, and we continue to stand by it.

J. Darcy: We will come back and discuss the issue of community health centres in more detail. I have one last question related to the clinical and systems transformation project, and that has to do with transparency and access to information.

On November 27 of 2013 the official opposition requested the following records related to the CST project from the Ministry of Health, from Coastal, from PHSA and from Providence Health.

The documents requested included briefing materials provided to the Minister of Health; correspondence related to the CST project between and among the project director and chief transformation officer, PHSA, the chief medical information officer, Vancouver Coastal and Providence Health Care, and VP of clinical programs, Providence Health Care, executive sponsor for CST, Vancouver Coastal, and the ministry; thirdly, a copy of the contract service agreement and any other fiscal arrangements between these health authorities and IBM and the consortium partners; any and all documents related to contract violations, fiscal or non-fiscal penalties and or litigation between government entities and IBM; details on the project's costs and benefits; a breakdown of the projected $842 million ten-year total cost of ownership; records providing details on project risks and mitigation strategies; and, finally, records and rationale provided to the minister from Coastal regarding the shift of $72 million from their operating budget to capital budget for CST, referred to by the minister in estimates here and again today, at the request of Vancouver Health.

After multiple delays and extensions by the minister, after requests for huge fees — in the vicinity of $4,000 to $5,000 for processing — the only documents that we were able to gain through freedom of information were two briefing notes from Vancouver Coastal and a copy of the service agreement with IBM.

Why is the government so intent on keeping information about this expensive and risky project hidden from public scrutiny? What is it that the minister is trying to hide if the ministry is making it so difficult for the official opposition — and through us, the public — to gain access to more detailed knowledge about this project?

[1710]

Hon. T. Lake: Freedom-of-information requests are handled by our professional staff throughout government. If the member has concerns about the amount of information that is a result of that, she certainly has the right to appeal to the Information and Privacy Commissioner.

This is a project that is run through the appropriate health authorities and, as I mentioned, has a project board. The reason for things being left off of information requests would pertain to confidentiality and legal requirements, but if the member has any concerns, then she should take that up with the Information and Privacy Commissioner.

J. Darcy: It's fine for the minister to say that, but the resistance, clearly, is coming from the ministry or from the health authorities. Of all of those documents that we requested through freedom-of-information requests, going back since November, we were able to receive only two briefing notes from Coastal and a copy of the service agreement with IBM.

Does the minister think that's acceptable? Does he think that's an acceptable level of public scrutiny for a project that is going to cost, before it's finished, close to a billion dollars — $840 million? Does the minister believe that that's an acceptable level of public scrutiny?

Hon. T. Lake: The Budget Transparency and Accountability Act, section 14, guides the transparency of projects like this. In accordance with section 14, a major capital project plan was filed. That was filed with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly.

[1715]

The member may be surprised to learn that the minister does not go through freedom-of-information requests personally and decide what is confidential and what is not. That is left to professional public servants who follow the guidelines. As I mentioned, if she has concern with that, she should take it up with the commissioner.

J. Darcy: Can the minister advise whether or not…? I asked this question earlier, and I didn't receive an answer. Are there any lawsuits that have been filed regarding the CST project?

Hon. T. Lake: None that I'm aware of.

J. Darcy: That concludes my questions on the CST, but on the issue of transparency, one of the FOI requests that the official opposition made last July was for briefing notes and backgrounders prepared for the minister for estimates. Presumably, these are documents that you relied on last summer when we spent four days like this together with me asking you questions.

We filed freedom-of-information requests last July, immediately upon the conclusion of that estimates process. We received 483 pages, two working days ago. Does the minister think that that's an acceptable delay and an acceptable level of transparency? This is something that the ministry has direct control over.
[ Page 4167 ]

Hon. T. Lake: To the member's question, no, I don't think that's acceptable, and I apologize for that.

J. Darcy: Well, thank you for that. So when we file our next freedom-of-information request, then it's fair to expect a much speedier response, a couple of days. I just want the minister to know. I mean, we received them just before five o'clock last Wednesday. There was no index, no table of contents. They're not organized in any particular manner.

I can assure you that I personally spent many late nights poring over as much of it as I possibly could in order to be able to fulfil my responsibilities as the official opposition critic for Health. But it is certainly something that…. I accept the minister's apology, and I look forward to more cooperative sharing of information in the future.

Perhaps we could go back to drugs.

Interjection.

J. Darcy: I share the minister's sentiments, but I'm not going to repeat it on the record, because then it'll be attributed to me and not to him.

My next questions concern the therapeutics initiative, an issue that we canvassed at great length last summer in this process. Can the minister provide an update about what the present funding is for the therapeutics initiative, what the funding was previously, and what the funding level is now?

Hon. T. Lake: The Ministry of Health restored our full contract with the therapeutics initiative in October of 2013. That contract pays UBC, where the initiative is based, to provide health professional education and undertake PharmaCare program evaluations.

As the member knows, the contract was suspended while we worked to address the privacy and personal health information issues that we experienced a couple of years ago.

[1720]

The contract is worth $550,000 a year. For that, TI will provide health professional education and do evaluations of the PharmaCare program.

During the internal investigation which I mentioned, the TI did continue to receive some funding for some clinical evidence reviews worth up to $150,000, so that continues. Essentially, there's $700,000 of funding that goes to the therapeutics initiative for the work they do on behalf of the ministry.

J. Darcy: What was the funding previously? I thought it was in the range of $1 million.

Hon. T. Lake: As the member knows, the way that the province evaluates pharmaceuticals changed in 2012. From April 1, 2004, to March 31, 2012, the funding to the TI was approximately $1 million a year. We restructured the contract after the change in the way we evaluate pharmaceuticals in the province, and that resulted in the current situation, where there is a contract for $550,000 plus the other contracts — in this case, currently $150,000.

J. Darcy: Thank you, Minister. That happens to be on the briefing note that I received last Wednesday.

Has the data access been fully restored for the therapeutics initiative so that it can complete the important real-world drug safety and effectiveness studies as part of the national Canadian Drug Safety and Effectiveness Network?

Hon. T. Lake: The TI has full access for the contract work that it does on behalf of the ministry. Some members of the TI do work for the Drug Safety and Effectiveness Network. They have put in, I understand, an application for access to data, which is currently going through the data stewardship committee.

J. Darcy: So to be clear, they have the same data access that they had previously? Has there been any change in the access they have to data?

[1725]

Hon. T. Lake: Just to clarify, in the past the TI had data access for their work on DSEN. That has not been fully restored. It is in process before the data stewardship committee.

J. Darcy: Can the minister clarify why it hasn't been fully restored?

I'm familiar with a lot of acronyms, but that one you just mentioned…. I think you mentioned an acronym. If you could clarify what that one was.

Hon. T. Lake: That's the Drug Safety and Effectiveness Network that you referred to — DSEN.

I can't tell you why, because I don't sit on the data stewardship committee, but that's the process that they have to go to, to access the data.

It's important that we have an oversight of access. We have made great strides in improving access times, the wait times for getting access to data through the data stewardship committee. I don't have the information as to where they are in that process. We can certainly make inquiries and see if we can provide more information as we go through the process.

J. Darcy: Thank you to the minister for that. I would certainly appreciate knowing that information.

Maybe you touched on this as well, but I know that in the past one of your predecessors, and I don't recall…. I guess I can mention his name if he's not in the Legislature now, right? When Kevin Falcon was Health
[ Page 4168 ]
Minister he had retained therapeutics initiative to conduct drug and safety effectiveness studies as part of the national network.

Is the minister ensuring that therapeutics initiative has access to the data it needs to fulfil that role? My apologies if that's the question that you partially answered earlier, but I just want to be clear.

Hon. T. Lake: I cannot confirm that former ministers contracted with therapeutics initiative for work on the Drug Safety and Effectiveness Network. The member may be referring to the clinical evidence reviews that the TI does. They still do that work on behalf of the ministry. That's the $150,000 contract that they currently have with us.

J. Darcy: Has the minister looked at expanding the role of the therapeutics initiative?

Hon. T. Lake: I think we canvassed this extensively last time. We changed the way that we looked at drug approvals in the province of British Columbia to address some concerns around timeliness and providing more timely access to pharmaceuticals for patients in British Columbia. We did not want to lose some of the benefits of having the therapeutics initiative involved in our processes, which is why we continue to utilize them for doing health professional education as well as PharmaCare program evaluations and clinical evidence reviews.

They are well known and well regarded for this type of work. We always are reviewing how we do work to ensure that we are providing the very best service to British Columbians, but, as I say, the current state of play with the therapeutics initiative is about $700,000. There are no concrete plans at this time to change that.

[1730]

J. Darcy: If I could move on to a related issue that we touched on last year, and that was academic detailing. Can the minister please say what the budget is for academic detailing this year?

Hon. T. Lake: I mentioned that the therapeutics initiative does work on clinician education, which is not specifically academic detailing in the sense that the member perhaps is talking about. But providing that health professional education is invaluable in helping practitioners understand different types of therapeutics that are available.

On top of that, we spend $1.7 million per year, and this goes to regional health authorities to employ pharmacists. So as of January of this year, there are ten pharmacists offering academic detailing sessions to physicians and other health care professionals in all five regional health authorities.

J. Darcy: Yes, I'm glad the minister did. I neglected to put on the record for those hundreds of thousands of people who will be following this discussion on Hansard what it is, in fact, that academic detailers do. In fact, Vaughn Palmer, when we discussed it a few months ago on air, didn't know what academic detailers were, heaven forbid. As the minister has said, they do play an invaluable role in providing education to physicians and other health care professionals and encouraging them to use therapeutically equivalent and cost-effective drugs.

How many physicians…? Last year I understand that there were in the range of 1,500 physicians and 800 other health care professionals who had received professional education from these academic detailers — certainly, an invaluable role. The outcomes of that seemed to be very beneficial, both for patients and in terms of cost-effectiveness of prescribing and, in particular, most using some of the most effective drugs on the formulary, and so on.

Is the ministry planning to increase the number of academic detailers in order to provide that kind of professional education to even more front-line health care providers, which seems to have both very beneficial health impacts as well as is very cost-effective for health care?

Hon. T. Lake: Academic detailing — it does sound different than what it really is. Of course, this is where professionals interact to understand the types of pharmaceuticals that are available. We know that pharmaceutical companies make extensive use of detailers to talk about their products and encourage practitioners to utilize their products.

[1735]

In fact, I served in that capacity in the veterinary world at one time. It was very interesting, and of course, I was on the other side of it, being the person that they were detailing to, as a clinician.

We don't have any plans at the moment to increase this service, but of course, these are things that are evaluated year to year, looking at effectiveness. The survey that the member mentioned shows over 1,500 physicians and over 800 other health care professionals. That's a significant proportion of members of the profession that have received this service from the ministry through the health authorities.

As always, we will evaluate these programs. Certainly, if there is a good case to be made for increasing the service that would therefore relieve costs in other areas and provide better service and better outcomes, we would always be willing to hear the case for doing that.

J. Darcy: Well, I've very pleased with the minister's response. I remember asking this question last year and talking about the hundreds of academic detailers — otherwise known as salespeople, in this case — who
[ Page 4169 ]
were out speaking to physicians, speaking to front-line health care providers. When I raised that question and the need for increasing the countervailing force, if you will, the minister said he thought that physicians were smart enough that they could see through it all.

I think we know from experience, and I certainly know, from both talking to physicians and also talking to pharmacists, that they're very aware of when particular pharmaceutical manufacturers, selling particular products, have rolled through town. There is then a marked increase in the number of that particular type of product that is prescribed, and it may or may not be one that the academic detailers would be recommending.

I'd like to switch topics now entirely, if I could, to the health accord. I don't know if that's a different team or not. We have a small team on this side, so we don't have to shift.

As the minister is aware, the ten-year national health accord between the federal government and the province expired on March 31 of this year, an agreement that had been in place for ten years and that provided stable, long-term funding as well as committing leaders at the federal and provincial level to enforcing the Canada Health Act, setting wait time and other goals as well as increasing health care funding by 6 percent annually.

There are some important changes in the Canada health accord, as you're aware, Minister. Beginning in April over a quarter of a billion dollars will be slashed from the federal health cash transfers to British Columbia in 2014-2015, that amount being more than the combined reductions to Newfoundland and Labrador, the three maritime provinces, the three prairie provinces and the three territories. Over the next ten years, as the minister is aware, British Columbia is projected to lose nearly $5 billion in funding.

When we've discussed this issue before, the minister and the Premier have both said that they don't see this as a big issue. We aren't going to have to cut anything, even in light of a $5 billion loss of Canada health transfers.

[1740]

I find that very difficult to believe. It's a lot of money, $5 billion over ten years. Can the minister outline the government's plan to address these significant these significant transfer reductions and explain how a loss of $5 billion will not result in cuts?

Hon. T. Lake: First of all, I think it's important to understand that Canada health transfers and other transfers from the federal government don't go directly to the Health budget. They go to the consolidated revenue fund, and then the Finance Minister has to decide where the revenues go in terms of budgets. You can see from our three-year budget, which we have tabled, the increases in health care spending that will happen over that time period.

The Health budget is unaffected by the change to the Canada health transfer. What is affected, as the member rightly points out, are the revenues to government. While I can't speak for the Finance Minister, I can say that he has made the case to the federal government, the Premier has made the case to the federal government, and I have made the case to my federal counterpart that these changes penalize British Columbia from a revenue perspective — not from a health care provision perspective but from a general overall revenue perspective. So other programs and what government can do will be impacted by a reduction in the health transfers due to the change in the formula.

The formula is a complicated formula of population and tax points. In a simple way, it has changed so that it reflects just pure population. It doesn't really take into account the population needs. We said that in our health authorities we look at the age of the population as one of the factors in deciding how much funding goes to each health authority. In part, that was the way Canada health transfer worked.

British Columbia has an older population than, say, Alberta. We have made the argument that we should not be penalized by a change that doesn't reflect the increased health needs of an older population. We continue to make that case with the federal government at every level and at every opportunity. I have discussed this with the federal Health Minister. I have discussed it with my own MP and with other MPs from British Columbia and encouraged them, as a B.C. caucus, to take this matter up so that British Columbians are not penalized in terms of the reduction in health transfers.

I will say that the 6 percent increase generally is a good thing and that we also agree that at some point — I think 2017 — there is a change to reflect economic growth, much like what we have incorporated in some of our planning. So we do support that. But we have made our case, and will continue to make the case, that the demographics of a population of a province should be a factor in considering Canada health transfers. We will continue to make those entreaties with the federal government.

J. Darcy: I'm encouraged to hear the minister say that and to say that there have been serious discussions with the federal government. In previous times when these questions have been asked, I have to say that the questions have been pretty much dismissed. I understand clearly that the revenue comes into the provincial government, that it doesn't come directly into the Health budget. But as the minister has said now, it is a huge, huge impact.

Certainly, in communities across British Columbia there have been a lot of people who have been speaking out on this issue and will continue to be speaking out. I guess I just want to encourage the minister that what he has said here — that he also raise his voice publicly about this and encourage the Premier to be voicing this publicly.

I have to say that in the public domain the voice of the
[ Page 4170 ]
government has been fairly quiet. I would hope that the minister would try and change that in the future, because it will have a huge impact on our budget, and that will, in turn, have an impact on health care.

I am mindful that we have about 45 minutes, so I think that I will move to a number of discrete issues, rather than embarking on an entire new area.

[1745]

Can I ask the minister, first, if he can give a status report about the court case regarding Dr. Day?

The Chair: Minister, and just noting that it's actually probably half an hour.

Hon. T. Lake: The court case that Dr. Day has against the province of British Columbia…. It is not the other way around, just to be clear. A trial date of September 8, 2014, has been set. The trial is expected to last for about 18 weeks.

J. Darcy: I want to ask some questions related to temporary foreign workers. Certainly, the issue of temporary foreign workers has been the subject of considerable public debate as well as debate in the Legislature of British Columbia. Approved labour market opinions have also been a subject of considerable discussion — in particular, the fact that 25 percent were for low-skill workers and 51 percent high-skill in 2012.

According to documents that we have received and that I'm sure the minister has access to, all five health authorities received approved labour market opinions in 2012, a program that was initiated to accelerate the process which allowed employers to "receive a positive labour market opinion for their workers within ten business days of submitting an application."

In 2012 the following health authorities received accelerated labour market opinions: Fraser Health; Northern Health; Interior; Coastal; Island Health; as well as Providence; PHSA, B.C. Cancer Agency; and PHSA, Children's Hospital. Can the minister please let us know what types of positions were filled by these temporary foreign workers?

Hon. T. Lake: I apologize. I know I had that note somewhere, and I'm having difficulty putting my hands on it. I do recall that there are about 200 temporary foreign workers working throughout the health care system of British Columbia. These would be primarily specialized positions — I believe psychiatrists and specialized services for which there was difficulty identifying Canadian candidates. We will endeavour to get the exact number and types of positions for the member, hopefully even before the end of today.

J. Darcy: Yes, I would certainly appreciate receiving that information. Perhaps the minister doesn't have the answer to the next question as well, but you said 200 total. Can we also have an estimate of how many temporary foreign workers are employed by each health authority? You'll be able to provide that?

Hon. T. Lake: As I mentioned, I believe, if my memory serves me correctly, there was in that order of magnitude throughout the health care system. I'm not sure if we have it broken down by health authority, but I will endeavour to get that information.

[1750]

J. Darcy: Perhaps I'll leave another question with you for when you're able to return with the other information. The British Columbia Federation of Labour, as you are probably aware, recommends that B.C. establish a program of support systems for temporary foreign workers, similar to Manitoba's, including a registry. So my question is whether or not the minister supports the recommendations to create such a registry.

Hon. T. Lake: I do have a little bit more information here. There are 100,000 unionized health care employees in B.C. and fewer than 200 unionized temporary foreign workers that have been identified by health authorities.

I don't have it broken down by health authorities, but the number is 0.002 percent of workers. When filling vacancies, employers, as the member knows, undergo an extensive search for candidates internally, provincially and nationally before going to Canada to seek permission to employ temporary foreign workers. I will endeavour to get the breakdown by health authority and by types of positions.

In terms of the member's question on whether I support a registry, I can't speak for the Minister of Jobs, who is responsible for employment standards, other than to say that she has said in the House that we certainly support and agree that temporary foreign workers should be treated in the same way, with the same respect and with the same conditions and same rights as every other worker in the province of British Columbia.

J. Darcy: Okay. Well, I'll look forward to hearing more about what positions, in fact, those are that are filled by temporary foreign workers.

Then perhaps we can also, tied to that, have a discussion about what the plans are as far as recruitment and health human resource planning in order to ensure that there are people trained and qualified in British Columbia, if it turns out to be the case that there were not for these positions.

I'd like to ask the minister some questions about the new First Nations Health Authority that was created. May 14 of this year there was the first full-year service plan that was released by the new First Nations Health Authority — certainly a remarkable and an ambi-
[ Page 4171 ]
tious undertaking, taking on the traditional roles of the Ministry of Health, PHSA and regional health authorities all at once.

Can the minister also provide a first full-year overview of the First Nations Health Authority and its successes and challenges? How has the Minister of Health assisted in the transition?

I should have mentioned the federal government, of course.

Hon. T. Lake: I think it's important that we clarify the role of the First Nations Health Authority. The member suggested that the First Nations Health Authority was taking on responsibilities of regional health authorities and the Provincial Health Services Authority. That is, in fact, not the case.

First Nations Health Authority is essentially taking over the mandate that was previously under the federal government. So this tripartite agreement is between, or among, the First Nations Health Council, the province of British Columbia and the federal government.

It is, in fact, historic. It transfers all federal health programs and services for First Nations in B.C. to the First Nations Health Authority — so not provincial or regional health care programs but federal health programs.

[1755]

That's empowered First Nations across the province with the goal of improving health status of First Nations communities, individuals and families. So we're very, very excited, and we have worked very collaboratively with First Nations Health Authority. I was at the signing, the celebration, of the tripartite agreement in, I believe, October of last year in Vancouver. It was truly emotional and transformative to have First Nations peoples celebrate the ability to take on the responsibilities for much of the health care services that were previously provided by the federal government.

We are working very closely with the First Nations Health Authority. We have sat down with them on a number of occasions. The chair of the First Nations Health Council, Chief Doug Kelly, and I have exchanged a lot of information back and forth. In fact, we competed in the Times Colonist 10K together as a way of encouraging people to take responsibility for some of their health care through fitness and health promotion.

We include the First Nations Health Authority when we're sitting down with the regional health authorities and talk about the interface between the First Nations Health Authority and the regional health authorities. Each of those health authorities has a memorandum of understanding with the FNHA and, in fact, dedicated staff to integrate services and make sure that they are working together.

We know that there are some communities, particularly in rural B.C., where First Nations and non–First Nations populations are very similar in terms of size and needs, so it makes sense for regional health authorities and First Nations Health Authority to collaborate — where there may be a community health centre that is needed, rather than having two, to have one that is more efficiently run with that collaboration between the two health authorities.

That has certainly been the goal. The collaborative aspect of the relationship is very, very positive. I've told my counterparts nationally, provincially and from the territories that we are very proud of this accord and the work that is going on here in British Columbia, the leadership of the First Nations Health Council, and encourage them to consider similar accords in their provinces and territories.

J. Darcy: Certainly, the ministry's priorities documents speak about rural and northern communities and speak about the needs of aboriginal populations. I wonder if you could talk about how you think the First Nations Health Authority will change the current operations of the Ministry of Health, especially regarding strategic directions for northern and rural communities.

Hon. T. Lake: I should say that the framework does include a $100 million funding schedule, up to 2019-2020, to support health actions outlined in the transformative change accord, so there is dedicated funding going to that effort.

Some of the accomplishments to date. In primary care and public health, for instance, when we look at nurse practitioners — very important primary care providers, particularly in some of the rural areas of the province…. Funding for basic salary and benefits for First Nations and aboriginal-focused nurse practitioner for B.C. projects have been funded. In fact, 35 of 135 nurse practitioner positions approved in the last couple of years went to First Nations and aboriginal-focused projects.

That's, I think, a very good example of how the province, regional health authorities and the First Nations Health Authority are working together. I don't want to speak for the First Nations Health Authority, but I can say from our perspective the working relationship is very positive. I see nothing but very good things coming out of this collaboration.

[1800]

J. Darcy: Thank you to the minister. That was very helpful.

Switching gears, if we can…. One of the things that is referenced in all of the minister's priority documents, the service plan and so on, is the necessity to reduce the number of people who smoke in British Columbia. Our province certainly continues to lead the country in the lowest smoking rates, but those numbers have sort of plateaued. I think they're around 12 or 13 percent, and they've stayed there for the last few years.
[ Page 4172 ]

We still need to take greater initiative in order to reduce smoking. Tobacco, as the minister knows, is still the leading cause of death and disease in British Columbia, killing over 6,000 British Columbians every year and costing the B.C. economy $2.3 billion a year, and the majority of new tobacco users are under 18.

I want to ask again — in a setting that is, hopefully, not as challenging a one as when I asked him the last time — if the minister is prepared to move forward aggressively with banning flavoured tobacco that is, as the minister knows, targeted specifically to youth. The B.C. Cancer Society certainly strongly urges that we do this. A recent youth smoking survey found that 53 percent of youth tobacco users in B.C. had used flavoured tobacco products. That's over 30,000 B.C. students.

We have to do more to reduce cancer rates and to reduce smoking amongst young people. Is the minister prepared to take action to ban flavoured tobacco in B.C., and if so, when?

[J. Thornthwaite in the chair.]

Hon. T. Lake: The member is correct in that we have the lowest smoking rates in all of Canada at 14.5 percent. Our goal is to continue pushing that down. Certainly, that means educating young people as well as helping those who have already started smoking to quit smoking. Our tobacco control strategy uses a comprehensive approach — information, regulation, enforcement — and also tools to help people stop smoking through the use of nicotine replacement therapies and pharmaceuticals.

On the specific issue of flavoured tobacco, we do know that…. The Canadian Cancer Society has made a very salient point about the fact that the tobacco companies are targeting young people with this marketing of flavoured tobaccos and cigarettes and small cigars. We have written two letters to the Minister of Health, the Hon. Rona Ambrose, saying that we would prefer that the federal government expand their legislation and that if they are not going to do that, we will take action unilaterally.

I have an upcoming meeting with the minister, and this is on the agenda for that meeting. I will continue to encourage the federal government to ban the use of flavoured tobacco, and I am absolutely committed that if the federal government does not make that commitment, we, in fact, will move forward. We have been discussing this issue with other jurisdictions that are looking at legislation, and we will certainly use that information to inform the way we approach it.

Without reservation, I can tell the member opposite that we will use unilateral action if necessary but would prefer to have a single system across Canada. It's easier for enforcement, it's easier in terms of communication, and it's easier for industry to understand.

[1805]

We believe we'll get better outcomes, but, if that is not forthcoming, we will take unilateral action.

J. Darcy: The minister's response is, thankfully, more fulsome than the one that I received last time. But I do want to reiterate that tobacco continues to be the leading cause of death and disease in British Columbia. Six thousand people every year die in British Columbia as a result of it — a huge cost to our society and to the health care system.

The minister has been saying for quite a few months now that he was going to wait until the federal government acted. The federal government hasn't acted. Ontario and Alberta have already taken steps. I don't know what the rules are in this place about whether we're allowed to refer to bills that are before the House or not. No? Okay. Does that include private members' bills that are before the House? I'm not sure.

In any case, the minister's response the last time that it was raised, whether in the House or in the public domain, said that…. Unfortunately, he was quoted as saying that what was proposed by the opposition has no hope of passing. "They're not the government; they don't get to make the laws. They're being politically opportunistic…. They're just trying to make a statement."

Well, Minister, yes, we're trying to make a statement, a statement that is in the best interests of British Columbians. Since we had a discussion about this a number of weeks ago, I've certainly had the opportunity to have discussions with many, many young people who will say to me they started smoking with flavoured tobacco. It costs a dollar. The price point makes it very attractive. The smells, the flavouring — all of the above make it very, very attractive.

I would just like to ask the minister again: will he consider taking action, given the cost to the health care system, given the cost to the health of British Columbians? Will he consider taking action now rather than waiting for the federal government, and how long is he giving the federal government to act? Let me be very specific. Does the minister have a deadline? If the federal government hasn't done it by the fall, will he be introducing legislation in the fall, then?

Hon. T. Lake: Thanks to the member for the specificity of the question. As the member may be aware, crafting legislation is not a simple process. It's not a one-pager that you introduce and pass. It has to go through a process of consultation. It has to go through examination, through legal scrutiny, through committee stages to ensure that in fact it is effective and enforceable and, of course, legal. That process can't be done overnight.

The member is perhaps overstating the case to say that other jurisdictions have taken action. They have stated their intention, but no other province, to this date, has enacted legislation expanding the prohibition on flavoured tobacco.
[ Page 4173 ]

I've made the commitment. I'm not drawing lines in the sand. I want to work with our federal government, as we are on the Canada health transfers. We believe that collaboration and working congenially with our partners is a better approach than being confrontational and public, as the member suggests that we be. I'm making a rock-solid commitment that we will take action on flavoured tobacco should the federal government indicate to us that they are not going to expand the federal legislation in this area.

J. Darcy: I appreciate that, Minister, and I appreciate that the process of introducing legislation is a complicated one. But I hope that the minister does not stand by the response he gave earlier, which was that it was politically opportunistic for the Health critic for the official opposition to make such a proposal to the Legislature of British Columbia.

[1810]

Pay for performance — is it too late for us to begin this subject? I guess we can begin it. Does that involve a shift change, Minister?

Hon. T. Lake: A very quick one. We have very agile staff members.

J. Darcy: I'd like to ask a couple of questions about pay-for-performance funding, which is, as the minister is aware, an umbrella term for initiatives aimed at improving quality, efficiency and overall value of health care. Those are the stated objectives, in any case.

The minister is, I'm sure, also aware that pay for performance means that there is an element of uncertainty for both health authority and provincial budgets, because the pay-for-performance funding model depends on provider performance and outcomes.

What has been the experience of pay for performance so far? Are we meeting targets? What are the biggest financial uncertainties associated with pay for performance?

Hon. T. Lake: Pay for performance…. There is different verbiage that is used. Basically, the hope is to incent behaviour, whether it's around getting more done or getting things done at a higher level or quality or meeting certain targets. Sometimes it's referred to as activity-based funding, sometimes pay for performance, sometimes patient-focused funding. So there are variations on a theme, but all are to try to get better outcomes.

We introduced pay for performance in 2013-14 to help improve patient care access and patient outcomes as well as health care quality data. The target that we saw for '13-14 was for the percent of emergency department patients where their length of stay was less than ten hours. We wanted to have 55 percent of patients where their length of stay was ten hours or less in the emergency department.

The percent of patients waiting 52 or more weeks for elective surgeries is within 2 percent of total cases waiting, so again, that's about access. Percentage of hip fracture fixation surgeries completed within 48 hours we wanted to be 90 percent or higher. Rate of hospital patients who experience certain adverse events — ten or less per 1,000 patients.

Those were some examples, but we learned some valuable lessons in the initiatives. We did see additional MRIs — 30,703 over a baseline of 2012-13. We saw 6,650 more surgical procedures in that year than prior years. We did see some changes in terms of volumes and stays in emergency departments.

I would say that the pay for performance wasn't successful in every case. I met with some physicians recently to talk about this. This works well in some areas and not well in others. In other words, some facilities will have the capacity to be able to take advantage of pay-for-performance funding. Other sites may not have that same level of flexibility and capacity.

I guess we took a soft approach with the health authorities. We didn't want to penalize them, knowing that this was a new method of accessing their funds that were in the budget but frozen and released as they met targets. So we worked with health authorities to ensure that they didn't give up the philosophy, but we were a little more flexible in their ability to meet those targets.

[1815]

We will continue to work with health authorities to ensure that the principle is maintained but the capacity to meet those is there, as well, in every case. Some health authorities will have a greater ability to access the pay for performance. We want to make sure that all of those health authorities have that same access.

It does require a little bit of an iterative approach and some flexibility and design as we move along to ensure that we're getting the right kind of behaviour that we're looking for and yet not penalizing the health authorities that simply may not be able to meet the targets because of things that are out of their control.

The Chair: Noting the hour.

J. Darcy: Yes. Does that mean you'd like me to conclude now? I have two more questions on pay for performance. Perhaps I can read them into the record and leave them with you. Okay.

The second question was whether the minister could provide any evidence that pay for performance has, in fact, created financial savings and that it has led to better performance and outcomes.

Finally, I know that pay for performance requires that the ministry collect and assess massive amounts of data in order to determine if funding and targets are being met. You referred to 2013-14 as a transitional year to
[ Page 4174 ]
introduce a new pay-for-performance funding methodology. Is that because the data was showing that the pay-for-performance model established in 2010…? It's not brand-new this year. I think it began back in 2010. Was that particular model not working?

Will the minister be producing an evaluation report that summarizes the experience of the pay-for-performance model and make that data publicly available? I understand that there are several things that come under that umbrella, including ABF and PFF and probably other acronyms as well.

Hon. T. Lake: The hon. member has become my BFF this afternoon. I just wanted to throw another acronym out there.

I would be happy to provide the answers to those questions when we resume.

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

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:17 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
BIRCH ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF JUSTICE

The House in Committee of Supply (Section C); M. Bernier in the chair.

The committee met at 2:38 p.m.

On Vote 32: ministry operations, $1,025,193,000.

The Chair: We're going to recognize the Minister of Justice and Attorney General for some opening remarks on the motion, please.

Hon. S. Anton: I'd just like to make a couple of introductions: my Deputy Solicitor General and Deputy Minister of Justice, Lori Wanamaker, and Deputy Attorney General, Richard Fyfe; our executive financial officer, Tara Faganello; our chief financial officer, David Hoadley; and many other staff whom I will introduce as they come into the picture.

In order to coordinate the scheduling of staff in support of the estimates debate, I hope that the member opposite will be able to provide an order of the topics which will be covered. That will assist us and staff coming in and out of the room.

The budget of the Ministry of Justice is largely a status quo budget, but there are a few slight increases consistent with the priority we place on safe communities and strong families.

[1440]

In order to demonstrate sound fiscal management, we'll be prioritizing our resources in the areas of greatest demand and effective outcomes. That prioritization continues to pay off. B.C.'s crime rate is at its lowest in four decades.

Some of Justice's slight budget increase is going to cover rising costs from the RCMP agreement for compensation and pensions. In November we announced a multi-year, expert-led process to examine how policing is currently funded and structured. This will help to better define funding responsibilities at each level of government and to lay the groundwork for exploring new service delivery models.

This followed our appointment last September of a blue-ribbon panel that has held a number of meetings to examine existing crime reduction initiatives and research and has conducted regional round-table consultation sessions with stakeholders.

In corrections, Justice's small budget increase is also a reflection of a recent milestone in B.C. corrections history. Recently we opened the expanded Surrey Pretrial Services Centre, which is now the largest provincial correctional centre. Its state-of-the-art security features and design enhance safety for staff, inmates and the community as a whole. Its efficient design will also help us to save on operational costs over its life.

We have just this week broken ground for the Okanagan correctional centre. Construction is scheduled to be complete in 2016.

On road safety. Our commitment to improving road safety also deserves mention. B.C.'s leadership to reduce alcohol-related deaths on our roads is working. Since 2010 we've cut the number of fatalities by more than half. An estimated 190 more people are alive today than might have been.

Budget 2014 includes a $5 million increase for the office of the superintendent of motor vehicles to permanently fund the immediate roadside prohibition program.

On justice transformation, I remain concentrated on improving the justice system so that it is timely, transparent and balanced and so that our justice and public safety services are managed effectively within the resources we have available to us.

To help fulfil this goal, we're looking at new and creative ways of doing business. The civil resolution tribunal will be Canada's first-ever on-line tribunal. It will help citizens resolve strata and small claims disputes so they don't end up in the courts. We are investing in user-focused technology for the tribunal to help further reduce costs, delays and complexity.

I'm also very proud to say that in Budget 2014 we have increased legal aid funding by $2 million for this fiscal year. This brings government-based funding for legal aid
[ Page 4175 ]
to $74.5 million for 2014-15.

Of course, there is still much more to do, and we're making progress in a number of areas. We have created the Justice and Public Safety Council to help set a strategic vision and plan for B.C.'s justice system. In this past year we have held three Justice Summits. To improve access to justice in one of the fastest-growing regions in the province, we announced a plan for a long-term court expansion in the lower Fraser Valley when funds are available.

The highest-priority project is to add five courtrooms at the provincial courthouse in Surrey. The plan also recommends construction of a new 14-room courthouse in Abbotsford.

In conclusion, Budget 2014 is consistent with what British Columbians expect of this government. It is a product of sound fiscal management, and it fulfils a commitment to justice and public safety for all British Columbians.

L. Krog: I'm delighted to be here with the minister once again. I can only comment that if we were any higher in the building we'd be either a statue or seagulls.

The budget increase, I understand, this year is basically 1.3 percent. Is that correct?

Hon. S. Anton: Yes, that's correct.

L. Krog: Can the minister advise what the inflation rate is going to be for this year? And if the budget increase is only 1.3 percent, are there any new staff hirings? Are there going to be any reductions in staff in the ministry generally? If so, what areas of the ministry?

[1445]

Hon. S. Anton: On the inflation question. I would have to go to Finance, I think, to get the latest number as to inflation. But it is the case that that's not the formula which is used to decide on a change in the Justice budget. It is based on other things. In terms of hiring, we do replace staff as required. We've hired new staff for the Surrey Pretrial.

L. Krog: It obviously begs the question to the Attorney General: what are the other things that are reflected in the budget, then, if it's not inflation, and the only new staff hiring is in Surrey? Or can the minister confirm that the only new staff hiring is in Surrey? By new staff hiring, does she mean additional full-time-equivalents, actually in total, in relation to the ministry? Or are we talking about reductions in other aspects of the ministry and hiring some new people in Surrey?

Hon. S. Anton: On the staffing question, generally the cohort of new staff which has been hired is in Surrey. For the most part, other so-called new staff would be replacements. I don't want to say that there are no new staff hired, because occasionally people are hired to fulfil a purpose or in a certain program area. But generally the biggest group of new staff would be for Surrey Pretrial.

In terms of the budget increase, the budget increase is $15.275 million, and it's gone in this way: $7.593 million for RCMP; $5.852 million for corrections, Surrey Pretrial Centre; $4.973 million for office of the superintendent of motor vehicles for the operational base pressures and the immediate roadside prohibition program; and a $2 million increase to justice services to go to legal aid provided by the Legal Services Society.

L. Krog: Perhaps the minister could respond, then, around the issue of full-time-equivalents within the ministry generally. Has there been an increase or a decrease? Has there in fact been a hiring freeze in place in recent times in the ministry?

[1450]

Hon. S. Anton: The member asked about a hiring freeze. What we have is managed staffing. Any time there is a staff member who has retired or resigned for some reason, the position is considered as to whether or not it would be filled. It might be, or it might not be, depending on the circumstances in that branch. Every request is reviewed.

In terms of FTEs, we do not have detailed FTE reporting within the budget documents. I'm accountable as minister to balance the budget to the bottom line. The number of FTEs that can be accommodated within Justice depends on many factors, including a staff mix throughout the year.

L. Krog: I love the phrase "managed." The position gets filled or not filled at the whim of the ministry. I take it that perhaps hiring in the ministry is not based necessarily on need but on budget, presumably. But I am curious to know. Can the minister tell us: is the number of full-time equivalents within the ministry up or down in this year's budgetary versus last year?

Hon. S. Anton: The question was whether it was based on need "but budget." Whether or not a position is filled is based on the needs and priorities of the ministry. Obviously, the highest needs do get filled.

In terms of the number of FTEs, greater or lesser, it is obviously greater because of the Surrey Pretrial. There was a fairly significant staff increase to fill the needs at the Surrey Pretrial.

L. Krog: I wonder if the minister could indicate, then, how many have been hired at the Surrey Pretrial. And also, in addition, with respect to the staffing, can the minister indicate whether the staffing throughout the ministry generally is increasing on what I will call the union
[ Page 4176 ]
side or the management side? Does she have any numbers with respect to that?

[1455]

I appreciate all the ministries are under some direction to try and reduce government cost. I'm curious to know whether we're talking about the people on the management side or people on what is generally seen as the service delivery side.

Hon. S. Anton: The question was whether the increase is in union or management. As I said earlier, the lion's share of the new hires is in the Surrey Pretrial, and generally, they are union positions, not management positions.

As to the number, it's probably in the vicinity of 125 or 130 people. It's about that order of magnitude.

L. Krog: I wonder if the minister can at least give me an idea of how many people work in the ministry generally. If this was a school district and I was asking a question of the superintendent, they'd probably be able to tell me, "We have 1,100 teachers and 600 support staff," etc.

I'm curious to know if the minister has those numbers available, and candidly, if not, why not?

Hon. S. Anton: Again, we are not tracking the number of people. Just by way of order of magnitude, it would be around 6,000, but I don't have an exact number.

K. Corrigan: I just want to go back to the question about hiring freezes. The minister, I think, responded something to the effect that it was managed hiring and that each position was considered.

Is the minister saying that there are not whole departments or whole units or whole sections of the ministry that have been put under a hiring freeze over the last year, for several months on end?

[1500]

Hon. S. Anton: There is no hiring freeze. If a position has become vacant, any request to fill that position does come to the deputies, who then make a decision on a case-by-case basis as to whether or not the position should be filled. There are some exceptions to that. For example, sheriffs and corrections, where there's a fairly high turnover — the ability to hire rests with the branch heads rather than with the deputies.

K. Corrigan: Just for clarification, then, if, for example, an entry-level office assistant were to leave, retire or whatever, then that individual position would come to the deputy ministers for consideration about whether or not that person would be replaced?

Hon. S. Anton: The answer to that question is yes.

L. Krog: To come back to a point I was trying to make earlier with respect to the number of people who are in union versus management or salaried positions, does the ministry not track the numbers of people in management overall within the ministry and those in union positions or hourly rate — as we might say in the shop, for hourly versus salaried? If so, how is that done?

Hon. S. Anton: We do not track management versus union. What we're focusing on, in terms of employment in the ministry, is the salary budget and the balancing to the bottom line of that budget.

L. Krog: If I understand the minister correctly, she can't tell me how many people are in management in the ministry versus…. Well, firstly, we can only guesstimate how many people actually work for the ministry. We can't be sure how many are in management. And we can't be sure how many are actually hourly employees.

Now, if I've summarized that incorrectly, I'd ask the minister to respond and tell me I'm wrong. But that appears to be what I believe I've heard from the minister in response to a series of questions now.

[1505]

Hon. S. Anton: Again, I will say that we manage by a budget allocation. For example, in Justice the salaries and benefits budget is $568 million. That is divided up between the branches. Each branch gets a budget letter, and they are given their salaries and benefits budget. Each branch must manage to their allocation.

L. Krog: It puts me in mind of a story about Pope John XXIII, who was recently canonized. He was being escorted through the Vatican gardens by an American reporter, who asked His Holiness about how many people work in the Vatican. His Holiness smiled and replied: "About half of them."

With great respect, what the minister is telling me is that we send out a letter: "Here's your budget amount. Look after it. We can't tell you whether we're hiring management or hourly." I mean, is that the import of what the minister has just told me in terms of the managerial style of the ministry — that we can't give definite numbers, that we can't say how much is being allocated to what is traditionally seen in a business framework as management salaries versus hourly employees?

Hon. S. Anton: I'm certainly not going to argue with a recently canonized pope. What I will say is that my observation of staff in the ministry is that they are all working, and they are working extremely hard. I am making it my goal to visit as many as possible, and I see everyone working hard everywhere I go.

[1510]

In terms of the management staff allocation, I'll say a couple of things. The large cohorts of staff that we have
[ Page 4177 ]
in Corrections and sheriffs are union, but through the deputies down to the branches we do not manage as to who is management and who is union. We manage to deliver on the mandate of the ministry. The branches manage to their budgets. I will say one more thing, of course, which is that new jobs, when they come along, are presumed to be included unless it can be demonstrated that they should not be.

K. Corrigan: The minister has essentially said that she doesn't know how many staff there are working for the Ministry of Justice, doesn't know who's in management and doesn't know who's in the unions. Yet every single person who retires or leaves is reviewed by the deputy minister. That's completely inconsistent, and I'm wondering if there's some way of trying to marry those two things that makes some kind of sense.

Hon. S. Anton: There are big cohorts of staff in Corrections. Now, I was saying sheriffs, but I'm going to change that language. It's sheriffs and court services, so I think I'll say more generally it's actually court services. Those two groups of people can be hired by their branch heads.

The review of each position that needs to be filled by the deputies is in the last six months. Using that method of counting, which I think the member opposite is suggesting, would only be able to have taken place in the last six months.

K. Corrigan: But how can operational decisions be made and how can decisions about the most effective use of dollars, which presumably the minister wants to do, possibly be done when the ministry has no idea how many people are working for the ministry?

[1515]

Hon. S. Anton: The fundamental issue is the mandate of the ministry and whether that mandate is being followed. That is how operational decisions are made. The issue for the branches, as I said earlier, is that each branch is given its budget for salaries, and they manage to that budget.

The hiring decisions are made after careful and comprehensive discussions between the deputy ministers and the assistant deputy ministers. Our goal is to get the job done and to get it done within our budget.

L. Krog: If the minister was interpreting my remarks to suggest that half the ministry isn't working, I'm really almost hurt by that suggestion. I would never suggest that.

But it is curious to me that if the ministry's mandate is, obviously, to run the justice system, the minister can't tell me how those decisions are made except by way of a general letter telling each branch what it's got for a budget. Surely, within that budget, a determination should be made whether or not you have one manager for every five employees or one manager for every 20 or one manager for every 50.

I mean, does the ministry in and of itself as an organization look at those kinds of numbers to make operational decisions? In other words, if you have court services staff around the province working in various courthouses, is there any kind of ratio?

In addition, and this is something that I want to know, are the managers paid on the basis of the number of employees working under them? Are they paid on a pay grade based on their position? And is there a system of bonuses in place, perhaps, if you manage within your budget, once it's allocated, which obviously might be achieved by laying off a couple of hourly employees or reducing the number of hourly employees, notwithstanding the mandate of that particular branch to deliver a service?

Hon. S. Anton: There were quite a few questions in there. Are there bonuses? No. Are managers in the field paid per employee? No. Are they paid per number of positions that they supervise? No. Is there a set ratio between managers and employees? No. That depends on the site, the job, the task at hand.

L. Krog: When we're talking about setting budgets…. Now, the superintendent of motor vehicles is going to get an extra $5 million this year, roughly, as I understand it. I'm just wondering: is that money coming from the increase? Is that money coming from reductions in other parts of the ministry? Is it some combination thereof?

If so, what's the expectation of what that $5 million is to generate, in terms of employees or managers or programs? What exactly is it that these people are going to be doing? Because, presumably, the service is going to be delivered by people.

[1520]

Hon. S. Anton: As the member knows, the IRP, the immediate roadside prohibition, is a new program. Its initial funding had come from contingencies. The $5 million is a transfer from what had actually been received from contingencies directly into the budget because it was recognized that now the program itself is sufficiently stable, the money could be transferred to the base budget.

L. Krog: I wonder if the minister can tell me how many people are involved in that program. Is it seen as a separate program, or is this just an enhancement to existing employees and what they do? How does it actually work? In other words, where did we come up with this $5 million?

Hon. S. Anton: I don't have our superintendent of mo-
[ Page 4178 ]
tor vehicles here right now, but I can get…. He is available. But roughly, of the $5 million, about $4 million is for staff. The other is for some general expenses for the program and also legal expenses.

L. Krog: I wonder if the minister can advise whether or not she sees any correlation between that program and the reduction of impaired-driving cases that are actually proceeding through the criminal courts, and if there are any noticeable savings there that have been quantified or identified by any report or study.

Hon. S. Anton: I had understood that the questions today would be for the AG side rather than the SG side. This is for the superintendent of motor vehicles, who will be here tomorrow. I wonder if we could…. I can have him run down, or we could put this question off until tomorrow. But I would rather he were here so that we can get the most accurate answers.

[1525]

L. Krog: The point of my question wasn't to make it difficult. My question was to try and relate that whole issue to potential reduction in courts.

Hon. S. Anton: The court delays are reduced, and the backlog is reduced because there's no question that there are fewer impaired driving cases going into courtrooms. We don't have an accurate measure that I could just give to the member opposite which measures exactly what the reduction is in terms of the impaired driving cases and so on. But there's no question that there has been an impact in terms of the courts being freed up so that other cases can go through more quickly.

L. Krog: Well, again, I hope I'm not putting the staff in difficulty. But can the minister indicate what the numbers are with respect to impaired driving charges, driving over .08 or driving while your ability is impaired by alcohol or drugs? Has there been some…? What's the number for the last fiscal year — what's estimated? — or the previous year?

I'm just trying to get some idea of the trends in that. Obviously, it's an important issue, and we're all delighted by the reduction in deaths. But there are concerns expressed in the community that to some extent we have almost decriminalized what was historically seen as a criminal offence, which is driving while impaired.

Hon. S. Anton: I'm joined by the Assistant Deputy Attorney General for criminal justice, Joyce DeWitt-Van Oosten.

The number of impaired drivings per annum, which is reduced — in other words, not going into the criminal courts — is in the order of 7,000 to 8,000. It is possible to get a more exact number, but we would need to do a little bit of work and some analysis through JUSTIN, which is the information system for criminal justice.

L. Krog: I'm curious to know that if this information is available in JUSTIN, has the ministry considered having these numbers available for the public, for consumption generally, just as a matter of public information? It strikes me that that's obviously a statistic that the public would be generally interested in, and I would expect that the ministry would want to have those kinds of numbers readily available.

How many cases are going through the court system? What's the nature of those cases? How do you look for trends in terms of where you're allocating resources? How do you look for potential problems that are brewing or growing? Are there problems that are, in fact, in the process of being solved or reduced?

For instance, we know that the family law case time…. The information available from the ministry itself is that the time to get a family law case heard has increased, and it's estimated to go down.

In other words, are those numbers not sort of readily available? Is this something that the minister doesn't have at her fingertips? I don't want to put the ministry to a great deal of work, but you'll understand that I think these are reasonable questions to be asked here today.

[1530]

Hon. S. Anton: Well, I do appreciate the member's concern for us being able to talk about success, because I do think the IRP program has been extremely successful, particularly in the lives saved. But there are other benefits to the system throughout.

The analysis, which the member is asking for, is possible but not as easy as it might be. In fact, we are in the process of making some IT improvements so that by the end of this fiscal year, when we're in estimates next year, it may be easier to get those numbers because of the IT changes which are coming.

L. Krog: I'm going to turn now to the mandate letter that is dated June 10, 2013. Firstly, can the minister confirm that that letter has not been updated? I take it that it is the mandate letter under which she operates her ministry.

Hon. S. Anton: Yeah, that's correct. That's the letter that I'm operating under.

L. Krog: Obviously, I'm not entirely sure of the relevance of it, but the fourth paragraph down talks about: "To grow our economy and create high-paying jobs for British Columbians, I am asking you to keep your ministry focused on the B.C. jobs plan." I'm wondering: does the B.C. jobs plan figure in any way with respect to the ministry's operations?
[ Page 4179 ]

Hon. S. Anton: I think the most important role of justice is to provide a safe environment, both for people — for workers, for families — and also for business.

[1535]

When you have a stable government and when you have a stable judicial system, people will invest in your province, they will invest in your economy, and they will invest in British Columbia, because people coming to British Columbia and bringing money to British Columbia can regard their investments as safe.

L. Krog: The letter goes on to talk about, "To that end our first priorities across government are…." What I'm particularly interested in is the third bullet: "To conduct a core review of government to make sure we are structured for success on all of our objectives."

I'm just wondering. What effect has the core review had on the ministry's operations? What have been the results of that core review? Is it completed as far as the ministry is concerned? Are there any recommendations flowing from it? In other words, can the minister tell us anything about the impact of the core review on this ministry?

Hon. S. Anton: The Justice Ministry has been transforming itself since the two — AG and SG — were combined in 2012. There have been very innovative pieces of work done in the ministry.

The IRPs, for instance, are being watched across the country. People across Canada are very interested in the work that we're doing in terms of saving lives, keeping things out of courtrooms. Our road safety initiative is being watched across the country. The collaboration that is underway between the courts, court services and scheduling projects — all of these things are a constant effort to transform Justice, to deliver justice efficiently but without losing the need for justice itself.

L. Krog: What I'm hoping for from the minister when we talk about the core review…. I've asked a number of questions today about the numbers of employees, management versus hourly or salaried versus hourly. I'm just curious to know: was that part of the core review? Was there an intensive look at the numbers of people who work in the ministry, the functions they perform and any recommendations made by the core review with respect to the maintenance of those numbers — a reduction of them or, perhaps, even an increase to make a program more efficient, for instance?

I mean, the simple example is in the Ministry of Mines. If it takes you six months to process a permit and in fact, once you process a permit, a mine gets up and operating and you've got 100 taxpayers employed, it seems logical to try and reduce the time from six months to three months if possible.

I'm just wondering: were those kinds of considerations given or considered during the course of the core review of the ministry? Is the core review an ongoing project within the ministry? I don't mean in the general sense. I mean the specific core review as mandated by the Premier.

[1540]

Hon. S. Anton: The focus of Justice has been on transformation, and in fact, our focus is on improving the whole sector and improving the efficiencies of the whole sector and improving the access to Justice across the sector. That is why we are working with courts. That's why we're working with stakeholders — so that it's more than just Justice which is working on this transformation.

Our focus is on outcomes. We're counting outcomes. We're managing budgets. We're looking at how much is spent because we're operating within our budgets. But we're focusing on what we are achieving rather than the numbers of people who are achieving it.

L. Krog: I appreciate your focusing on outcomes, but I guess that begs the question: what exactly is the ministry doing? My questions come back to the core review issue. How was the core review conducted within the ministry? Was an outside team brought in? Was it conducted in-house? Were management consultants hired?

In other words, how did the core review actually roll out in practice in the Ministry of Justice?

Hon. S. Anton: I think it is safe to say that Justice started its own core review before the formal core review process, which is across government at the moment. We started, I guess, a recent iteration of this core review through the Cowper report. Based on that report, we issued two white papers. Based on those white papers, we have been involved in implementing change and restructuring the initiatives of the ministry, as I said, to increase Justice, to increase access to Justice and to increase efficiency in Justice.

L. Krog: I just wonder then…. Again, one of the questions I've asked is: is the core review continuing within the ministry, or is it regarded as a fait accompli and now we're in an implementation stage?

[1545]

Hon. S. Anton: I think it's safe to say that the work of reviewing programs is never done. We are working on justice transformation issues; they are not complete. One of the pieces I might add which I haven't mentioned yet is the traffic tickets initiative. That piece of work is really just getting underway and is something that we'll be working on over the next period of time.

Is it done? No. The answer is: it is not done. But we have been working since the Cowper report on these numerous different approaches to transforming justice
[ Page 4180 ]
in British Columbia, and we will continue to do so.

L. Krog: I'm just trying to understand the core review process as it relates to the ministry. Is there some kind of formal report that the minister makes back to the Premier or to cabinet generally? You know, we've heard so much about the core review and its great success and how important it is, and I'm just curious to understand the mechanics of it.

I mean, if I'm assigned an essay as a student and it's due on January 31, I've got to hand in an essay on January 31. I'm curious to know: how does the core review work? Is there some due date? Is there some process? I appreciate it's a fairly general direction, but I'm just curious to know: how does that process actually work with respect to the Attorney General and Minister of Justice's ministry?

Hon. S. Anton: As I've said, the work that is going on in Justice in terms of justice transformation is an ongoing process. Obviously we support core review in the government. In terms of how this fits in with core review, this is core review. We have reviewed the very core functions of what we're doing in Justice: that is, our justice transformation initiatives, through road safety, through the immediate roadside prohibitions, through the justice summits, through things that we're doing.

I could mention some more things that we have done through the justice access centres, through the family justice centres. There are so many different ways that Justice is approaching its mandate. They relate to government, but they also relate to all our partners in the justice sector. They are improving access to justice. They are approving efficiency in the system.

L. Krog: I'm not trying to be difficult, but I thought the question was fairly straightforward. Is there a report issued by the ministry? Is there some cabinet committee the minister reports to? Does she send a letter to the Premier saying: "We've been at it a year now, and the core review has accomplished these goals"? In other words, is there any kind of formal process, or with great respect, is the core review just a largely general slogan of government, saying: "We're really looking out for you. Rah-rah, folks. You know, you can trust us"?

[1550]

In other words, is there something tangible, real and practical that the minister can tell us today where I could go back out to my constituents and say: "The Minister of Justice says, with respect to the core review in her ministry, this is what it has accomplished, this is how it's been accomplished, this is who she's reported to, and I'm telling you as a local MLA" — if I happen to be on the government side — "this is what we did for you"?

Hon. S. Anton: In the mandate letter which I have, the "priorities across government are…to conduct a core review of government to make sure we are structured for success on all of our objectives." That is exactly what we're doing in Justice. We have been working on the initiatives, which I have mentioned. Are they tangible? Are they real? Are they practical? Absolutely.

If the member would like to report to his constituents on what's going on in Justice, I hope he will be telling them about the immediate roadside prohibitions. His constituents drive on the highways. They probably know about those. Most people do. It's actually pretty well published through British Columbia.

He can tell them about the justice access centre, because he's got one in his community. He can tell them about family justice centres, which are located in 21 other communities in British Columbia. He can tell them about road safety initiatives. One of these days when they get a traffic ticket, they will get it electronically, not by hard copy served on them at the time — is how we're anticipating it working.

He can tell them about the collaboration between the partners in justice to improve our justice systems. There are many initiatives going on in Justice. Those were our core review.

Do I report out on them to government? Of course. Do I report out on them to the Premier, to my colleagues, to cabinet? When there are moments that they need to be reported, they are reported. These are the initiatives that are underway in Justice at the moment.

L. Krog: Carrying on, with respect to the curious phrasing, in your role as Minister of Justice, I expect that the following initiatives are completed by you and your ministry over the coming years. Number 3 is: "Consult with the Canadian Bar Association and implement the transfer of administrative penalties and traffic tickets from the court system to administrative tribunals such as the civil resolution tribunal."

I know that the minister touched on this in a previous answer, and this is just getting underway. Can she tell us: how far along is it? Is it anticipated that it will reduce government costs or increase revenue to the province? Is this a question that should be put to her tomorrow, so to speak, if she has Solicitor General staff here, or is this something that can be commented on today?

[1555]

Hon. S. Anton: I think there are two separate things encompassed by section 3 of the mandate letter. One is the discussion about the civil resolution tribunal, and the other is the administrative penalties and traffic tickets. Fundamentally, what this is dealing with is the traffic tickets. I think it's as I expressed, which is that the work has commenced on that. Not underway yet, but it is the plan to take the traffic tickets out of the court system to deal with them in an electronic way and to deal with them more in the nature of administrative tribunal.
[ Page 4181 ]

L. Krog: Again, is it anticipated that that will see a reduction in court costs? I presume the answer is yes in the general sense. But are there any numbers or estimates associated with this change? Will it, in fact, potentially produce more revenue for government, for instance?

In other words, is there some costing and evaluation here in terms of budgetary process? We have a budget; you have to live within it. If we can save some money or you can make some money, I'd be curious and happy to hear that. This would be another success story for the minister to talk about.

Hon. S. Anton: Insofar as the numbers, they are not available yet because the program is under development on the road safety initiative. What I can say is that the components include electronic roadside ticketing — in other words, e-ticketing, so if you're getting a speeding ticket on the highway, you'll get an electronic ticket — on-line payment and an administrative justice model for resolving traffic disputes. Then, of course, all of those things allow you to have better data.

This is expected to free up court time and also improve public safety — more timely and efficient justice and increasing enforcement capacity without increasing enforcement resources, so improving productivity of staff. I think all of those things. Generally, it's more of operating a system more efficiently and also providing additional safety on our roads.

L. Krog: In light of administrative penalties for traffic and moving this to a system where people won't have that opportunity to attend in court, I'm wondering if the minister has given any consideration to photo radar again or an equivalent.

Hon. S. Anton: The answer is no.

L. Krog: I thought that might be the minister's answer.

[1600]

With respect to the numbered items on pages 2 and 3 of the letter, No. 10 talks about: "Work with communities to expand domestic violence units that bring together police, victim services and child protection workers to improve integration in these cases." I'm just wondering: what's the status of that? How's it working? Where are we with respect to that direction or initiative that is supposed to be completed over the coming years?

Hon. S. Anton: Yes, the domestic violence units are an extremely effective police–social worker response to domestic violence calls that come in to police. I've had the opportunity of visiting the Vancouver domestic violence unit myself, and I must say I was extremely impressed with the collaboration and the partnership between the police officer and the social services worker who go out together to respond to calls so that they can help. They manage both the policing side of it and also the family side of it.

We are working actively with a number of communities to expand the number of domestic violence units in the province and in fact recently provided more than $1 million in civil forfeiture grant funding to support domestic violence units. We're supporting the development of new units in Surrey, Nanaimo and Kelowna and enhancing existing units in Vancouver, New Westminster, Abbotsford and greater Victoria.

L. Krog: Turning now, if we could, to the Ministry of Justice 2014-15–2016-17 Service Plan. In particular, on page 4 the minister reports: "We have seen crime in our province drop to its lowest level in the last 40 years, and while we work to continue that trend, it's also an opportunity to focus on areas where we know more work is needed. As mentioned, over the past year government has taken significant action on domestic violence and on missing and murdered women, but we know more can and must be done."

I'm just wondering if the minister can comment or whether the ministry has provided any opinion or anyone has provided an opinion as to why crime has dropped to its lowest level in the last 40 years.

Hon. S. Anton: I should at this point mention that I am joined by the following staff members: Mr. Jay Chalke, who's the assistant deputy minister for justice services; Kevin Jardine, who's the assistant deputy minister of the court services branch; and Allan Castle, who is the head of the justice and public safety secretariat.

[1605]

As to why crime is dropping, the analysis is imperfect, but there are some things which are known to have helped. Part of it is demographics. Part of it is improved police techniques. The crime severity index is dropping. Property crime is down. The decline in the crime rate is generally through the decline in property crime. Things now are designed to prevent crime. It's, for example, harder to steal a car. Those kinds of things are driving the crime rate down.

If I knew the answer to this…. I'm not sure what that would mean, but it would mean I knew a lot more than a lot of people do. It's a hard one to figure out, but it is the case. It is a phenomenon that's happening in other places, not just in British Columbia, but it is also the case in British Columbia that we have the lowest crime rate in 40 years.

L. Krog: Referring to page 11, the report talks about: "Large criminal trials that consume significant resources have become more frequent in British Columbia in recent years. The ministry is examining data related to large cases to more fully understand their impact and to ensure the most efficient use of justice resources."
[ Page 4182 ]

I'm just wondering. What stage is that process at? What has the ministry learned, if anything, from that? The public looks at these significant trials that go on month after month after month. Obviously, those are extremely expensive. Particularly if the cost is being footed through legal aid, the criminals are not paying their own freight, and that's most often the case.

Hon. S. Anton: The question is in relation to large cases and understanding their impact. In order to do that, we have established a major case executive working group, which consists of multiple sector representatives to examine the issue, including a cross-jurisdictional survey on best practices.

L. Krog: One of the issues that has been raised to me by members of the legal community is that we often have fairly junior members of the bar. And I don't say this as a general rule, but there are certainly occasions where junior members of the criminal bar are in fact taking on fairly serious cases. Senior members of the bar are simply not prepared to do it because of what the legal aid tariff may provide.

I'm wondering if that is a consideration that the ministry is looking at, or whether there's any information that has come to the ministry with respect to what I will call that assertion, made by some members of the bar — that, in fact, we are delaying trials and making them longer, because experienced counsel who might otherwise, perhaps, agree to the admissibility of a piece of evidence are not prepared to do it because they don't have the experience and confidence that go with many years of practice.

[1610]

Hon. S. Anton: The group that I just mentioned, the major case executive working group, is considering whether or not there could be additional training offered for lawyers for major cases.

In terms of the specific question — if we have information on this — I think it is fairly anecdotal, the supposition in the question. What I can say is, generally, the defence bar on significant cases are senior members of the bar. If you look at major cases currently underway, they do have very senior counsel defending the accused in those cases.

L. Krog: In turning to goal 1 of the service plan, the minister has, to some extent, touched on this. It talks about the complexity index. "The ministry is pioneering an innovative complexity index for measuring the increasing complexity of criminal litigation."

I assume that's part of the work of this executive committee, and I'm wondering what stage the complexity index is at. What does it actually involve? How is it measured? Is it based on work already undertaken in other jurisdictions? Is this something unique to British Columbia? In other words, how is it actually working?

Hon. S. Anton: It is certainly a theory that with declining caseloads in courtrooms, the remaining cases are more complex.

[1615]

As part of our business intelligence, Justice, across branches, is endeavouring to understand the nature of that complexity. They are working, as I said, across branches and also with SFU to determine exactly what the complexity looks like, what it means and what the implications of it are.

L. Krog: I guess I'm asking…. It talks about an innovative complexity index, the concept, but what stage are we at? Are there academics who look at numbers? What are you looking at? I mean, how does it actually work? It's in the service plan, so it obviously has some importance to the ministry. I'm curious to know exactly what it is. How does it work on the ground?

Hon. S. Anton: Well, I can't resist saying that it's a rather complex question. It's a process that has been embarked upon by the ministry — Mr. Castle and his group— but it will be a lengthy process. There's not going to be a quick answer to it.

They are attempting to develop an algorithm. They are figuring out…. They're increasing their understanding of what makes a file more complex, how you measure that. The increased number of witnesses, the increased disclosure obligations — how do these things work together?

The goal is to be able to establish, more at the front end of the case, its level of complexity. One of the goals, of course, is to be able to resource a big case appropriately. As I say, it is a complicated procedure, but it is a piece of work which is underway.

L. Krog: The bullet item just before that, on page 16, talks about the costing of the justice system: "A methodology is being developed to enable the costing of the various processes within the justice system." I wonder if the minister can report where that is at. Is it being handled by the same committee? When might we anticipate some answer or response?

[1620]

Hon. S. Anton: Just to be clear, the group that I was talking about on the complexity and that I'm going to refer to now is different than the major case executive working group. The group that I'm talking about now is a business intelligence group that is working on this. The people involved are operations people across branches in Justice and also financial people in Justice.

As to when this work will be done, it relates to the complexity index work. The work is underway. I don't have a time on it yet, but they are going along together.
[ Page 4183 ]

L. Krog: I'm just wondering: will one of the considerations be the numbers of staff involved, both the management and hourly level, with respect to this costing process? Will this costing process involve separating out the various work in a courthouse? I mean, if you go into the standard courthouse, you're going to have a criminal registry, a civil registry, probate. Obviously, one would hope that some of them are generating some revenue. Obviously, the criminal registry isn't.

In other words, how detailed is that approach? Will it be looking at the concept that a courthouse produces X number of cases through it in a given year — X number of civil files or X number of criminal files? Or will it be broken down along the lines I've indicated — a criminal or family file, a probate file, etc.?

Has any consideration been given to that? If so, again, how far are we along? You know, this government…. It's been a year since the last provincial election, happily for the Attorney General, and 13 years of government. It just strikes me that some of these things, one would have thought, would have been developed along the way.

[1625]

Hon. S. Anton: Some of the work that's going on in this regard is to have a cost-per-case analysis. In terms of the courthouses, we do have data now on courthouses relating to the breakdown between civil, family, criminal and youth — I think that was the question — and also between superior and provincial.

L. Krog: To follow along on what the Attorney General has just had to say, are we then saying that the cost of various processes…? Does that relate to processes in the general sense, or does it relate to a cost — and the Attorney General indicates she has some information already — on a specific case-by-case basis? In other words, what does a criminal case cost? What does a probate file cost? What does a civil family case cost, provincial and supreme? In other words, is that information available?

Hon. S. Anton: Yes, that's the work that's being done right now.

L. Krog: Just so I understand, then…. In other words, the work is being undertaken right now, but we don't have any answers as to what those actual costs will be for the various types of cases that I used as examples. Is that fair to say?

Hon. S. Anton: That's correct.

L. Krog: Coming back to the budgetary questions, then. How can we reasonably allocate budgets to various branches — the court services branch, for instance — if we can't and don't know what the cost of a case is? I mean, how does that budgetary allocation get made? Is it just based on last year's number? The courts didn't collapse, so therefore, if the ministry gets 1.3 percent, then court services gets 1.3? How does that process work? I'm curious to understand the workings of how we arrive at these numbers, particularly when the minister tells me that all of these processes are underway that are supposedly going to be able to break things down.

I realize it may not be as simple as determining what the cost is of an automobile rolling off a line in Detroit or Tennessee somewhere, but nevertheless, is there some business-like approach as to how the system functions and the costs that are involved in it?

Hon. S. Anton: My obligation as Justice Minister and Attorney General is to provide the resources needed by the judicial branches — in other words, the courtrooms, the people that are needed so that the courts can run. The courts themselves will accept and schedule all matters which come before them. The job of court services branch and what they do is they analyze the volume coming in. They analyze how that relates to workload, and they adjust hiring and resources throughout the year to match the volume of work that is before the courts.

[1630]

L. Krog: I guess, then, if we're seeing significant reduction, for instance, in the number of impaired driving cases that go through the court system because of the roadside suspensions, which take them out of the traditional court system…. I mean, I take it from previous answers today that we don't have a firm number on that.

Is that part of the analysis that's now being undertaken to help arrive at those numbers? Because the next bullet on here talks about evidence-based decision-making and performance management. "To inform strategic decision-making processes, two key strategies are in place. First, building on previous work in this area, the ministry is refining its business intelligence framework, including the acquisition, analysis and reporting of justice sector data."

Is that part of that process?

[D. Plecas in the chair.]

Hon. S. Anton: As part of the service plan and as laid out in the service plan, yes, we are using all of these indicators to measure the need for resources in courtrooms and across the system.

L. Krog: So when we go to the bullet on evidence-based decision-making, we talk about first building on previous work. What's the previous work that the service plan is referring to, and can the minister be quite specific, please?

Hon. S. Anton: To understand complexity, we need data. The member asks: "Building on previous work —
[ Page 4184 ]
what is the previous work?" The previous work is that data collection. For example, if you go to the JusticeBC website, a lot of the data is posted. We are counting caseloads. We're counting volume. We're counting many different kinds of data. It is the accumulation of that data which helps in the next stage of the work.

L. Krog: Going on to talk about performance measures, it's intriguing to me that when we look at all of the statistics in the balance of the service report, the baseline, the year used is 2012-2013. But the baseline for determining the percentage of British Columbians who have a great deal or quite a lot of confidence in the justice system is, in fact, 2003. I assume that's not a typo, because then we've gone to 2008 as actual.

[1635]

I'm just curious to know why that statistic…. Why was that year used as a baseline?

Hon. S. Anton: The survey is done every five years.

L. Krog: I do note that the data source is noted to be Statistics Canada's general social survey on social engagement. I take it that there is a certain diminished confidence in the ability of Statistics Canada to do its work anymore. I'm just wondering if the Attorney General has taken that into consideration, when these statistics are relied on for the purposes of her service plan.

Hon. S. Anton: The survey done by Statistics Canada is a separate survey. The general social survey on social engagement is separate. I think the member may be referring to the census. This is different from that. It's a separate survey.

K. Corrigan: I have two questions — maybe I'll ask them both — on this particular performance measure, measure 1. I'm wondering, for B.C., if the minister is aware of what the sample size is for that survey.

Secondly, it says that the targets will be established when the 2013 results become available. That's to be available, it says in the footnote, in the winter of 2014. I'm not sure what the winter of 2014 means. Is that now? Are we in the winter of 2014, or is that in the fall? Are the 2013 results available yet?

Hon. S. Anton: The sample size is not known. I assume Statistics Canada would have that, but I do not have that information.

The winter of 2014 — that would be this upcoming winter.

L. Krog: With respect to, again, the service plan, we're talking about goal 2 now — court projects and services — on page 19, "Advances in technology are being used to improve access to justice," etc. "These improvements are being made primarily by transitioning to electronic documents and information-sharing." Again, can the minister outline what stage that's at? Is this leading to the elimination of any staff and, therefore, attendant costs?

[1640]

Hon. S. Anton: In itself, this is not resulting in changes in staff, but what it does is help use court capacity more effectively. For example, an e-information can be sworn electronically. Lawyers can e-file documents through Court Services Online. For example, a motion can be filed electronically, and in fact, a superior court can actually deal with the motion electronically using the judicial module. It doesn't necessarily happen for every motion, but it's certainly possible for motions. As we move forward, more and more are being done electronically.

L. Krog: With respect to the bullet marked "Provincial Court Scheduling," it talks about the leadership of the chief justice, etc., and better use of judicial and staff resources and court facilities. It also talks about "returning case management responsibility to counsel, and supporting the introduction of a Provincial Court trial scheduling platform."

Can the minister explain how that's working? Have there been any measurables as a result of it? Again, what stage is that at?

[1645]

Hon. S. Anton: The Provincial Court scheduling project — there are two components of this. This is the chief judge's project, working collaboratively with court services and with the criminal justice branch. The first piece of it is that there's a new scheduling platform for cases and rotas, and that is nearly done. It's being unrolled across the province during the rest of this year.

The second is that there are changes to process, changes to rules and other court processes. Those will be coming out over time.

In terms of measuring success, it's too early to measure the impact that these initiatives are having, but obviously, the goal is to make everything work efficiently.

L. Krog: I've raised this in previous estimates with the present minister and previous ministers. That is the issue of cases in smaller communities where you have judges who are there for a fixed period of time, who aren't resident judges, who are shifted back to, for instance, Surrey, when they were hearing cases for a couple of weeks in Campbell River, or something like that.

That has historically been seen by local counsel, certainly, who have raised this issue to me many times, as a way of, in a sense, creating delays in the system. You've got a two-day hearing and the judge is leaving tomorrow afternoon and it's Friday, so the hearing doesn't get
[ Page 4185 ]
started and it's bumped over again, etc., etc.

I'm wondering: has that kind of complaint and consideration been part of the project undertaken with the cooperation of the chief judge and the ministry to ensure that, in fact, judges are available to hear those cases?

I mean, it's one thing if you're a resident in Surrey, for instance, or Vancouver, and the same judge is there all the time. But if you're in Campbell River or you're in Nelson or if you're…. I'm trying to think of those communities that still have courthouses. If you're in those communities, are you in fact going to be able to get your case heard in a timely manner by the judge who's actually there, when you don't have resident judges?

Hon. S. Anton: The assignment of judges, of course, is the responsibility of the chief judge. But yes, technically, this indeed is part of the part of the project and one of the things that we looked at. We hope that technology will assist with the challenge identified by the member.

L. Krog: Just to clarify, the minister said that it's technically part of the process. Does that mean technically in the sense that it should be on the list or technically in the sense that it is on the list and is being considered?

Hon. S. Anton: I may not have said the word. I think I said this: technology will assist with this challenge.

L. Krog: I may have misheard the minister, so I just want to confirm. Is this issue being considered, or is it part of the scheduling project? In other words, to ensure that that added problem which arises in smaller communities isn't in fact a continuing problem, it is a problem that would be addressed by the Provincial Court scheduling process.

Hon. S. Anton: The project is a Provincial Court project. Insofar as the issue raised by the member relates to Provincial Court, the answer is yes, it is part of the project. Insofar as that problem relates to superior court, that issue does fall outside of the project.

L. Krog: I'm just wondering, following along what the Attorney General has had to say: have there been any discussions with the chief justice, then, with respect to that scheduling aspect of it, as opposed to those discussions already undertaken with the chief judge of the Provincial Court?

[1650]

Hon. S. Anton: I have to answer this question in a more general way. There is a new chief justice, as the member will know. I have met with him myself, and certainly he meets regularly with my deputy, Deputy Fyfe, and also his staff. I think he meets with Assistant Deputy Jardine as well. These are very active discussions as to maximizing the resources.

In terms of the specific question, the specific issue it raised, there is not an answer to that one. However, there's an interest in resolving it.

L. Krog: I hope that interest might include a genuine appetite as well, not simply an interest.

With respect to the next bullet, "Enhanced Crown file ownership," how is that rolling out in practice? How significant a change is that to existing practice? Have we looked at other jurisdictions to determine what appears to be the most effective and efficient?

Hon. S. Anton: The implementation of the enhanced Crown file ownership is underway, and it is running in conjunction with the chief judges scheduling project. It is a change, certainly, to existing practices. Yes, we have looked at other jurisdictions, Alberta in particular.

As to measuring success, the key performance indicators are under development by the branch to track improvement.

L. Krog: The next bullet talks about expanded duty counsel working collaboratively with the Legal Services Society to implement justice transformation initiatives and then happily talks about "supported by $2 million in new dedicated funding beginning in 2014-15."

For practical purposes, when it talks about working collaboratively with Legal Services, is this going to be based more in technology or in the providing of people who will be able to assist people directly? In other words, what's the focus of those discussions and the solutions, or partial solutions, that will come out of the $2 million?

[1655]

Hon. S. Anton: Legal Services have been working closely with our staff on this issue because the goal was not to just put $2 million more into the system but to put $2 million in and use innovation to make sure that it was actually going to do more than the regular $2 million might do.

The justice transformation projects are to test an expanded criminal duty counsel model; to implement expanded family duty counsel at the Victoria Justice Access Centre; to expand the Family LawLINE, which is the line used so people can phone in across the province; and to test a parents' legal centre model for child protection cases.

L. Krog: I'm particularly intrigued by…. I believe the minister said "a parents' legal centre for child protection cases." I'm just wondering: have we decided on a location or what we're talking about?

Hon. S. Anton: I'm joined by Jamie Deitch, who's the executive director of our justice services branch.
[ Page 4186 ]

The parents' legal centre model for child protection cases. Counsel will give services to parents, including, prior to the removal of children from the family home, advice on plans proposed by child protection workers and to help parents, even once children are removed. It is going to be a trial, and a location has not yet been determined for the trial.

L. Krog: Just so I can confirm, this service will be available to parents whose children haven't been apprehended but who think their children might be in danger of being apprehended. Is that the way I understand it?

Hon. S. Anton: This is part of a bigger project with the Ministry of Children and Family Development, which is working with families at an earlier stage in the process, if you like, to keep children at home — in other words, to not have to apprehend the children. The legal centre model, which is going to be tested, will assist parents in that circumstance.

L. Krog: I take it the desired impact is that a parent who has been "threatened" with having their child apprehended will be able to go to a legal centre and get essentially a rough-and-ready opinion from counsel that if they don't smarten up, their child is going to be apprehended.

Is that sort of the thrust of it, or is there some concept that those counsel at the parent legal centre will in fact advise parents with respect to entering into agreements with the ministry? I forget the term — it's slipped my mind — involving the ministry and the parents agreeing on a parenting plan, if you will, or something of that nature. Is that the concept?

[1700]

Hon. S. Anton: I think the premise of the question is correct, which is that if a child or children are…. If there's a possibility of apprehension, that is when these counsel would become involved. It could include provision of advice and information about next steps, support before uncontested or procedural hearings, and support before and at mediation and other collaborative processes. If it in fact did go to a full hearing, the case itself would be referred to counsel in the usual way.

Generally, I think it's safe to say, there's an overall desire to have alternatives to apprehension. This is part of the process to assist with that.

L. Krog: Just to confirm, and to use WorkSafe B.C. as an alternate, the people who work as the workers advisers are employed by the Ministry for Labour, therefore independent. They provide advice to workers who don't have access to a union or a lawyer or can't afford counsel to assist them with their claims.

I take it that these people would be employed by the Ministry of Attorney General or Minister of Justice and, therefore, be seen as independent from ministry counsel, who are hired by the ministry to work under contract, generally speaking, in smaller communities and look after apprehensions. How does this model work so that people feel some confidence that they're getting independent advice and appropriate assistance?

Hon. S. Anton: These will not be Justice staff. They will be independent lawyers on contract through the Legal Services Society.

L. Krog: The bullet marked "Revised child support case management model." Obviously, everyone applying for assistance now…. This has been a matter of some controversy. Indeed, I understand it was potentially the subject of a resolution at the recently completed B.C. Liberal convention, which didn't make it to the floor — the clawback of child support payments made by the ministry to parents who would otherwise receive it, except for the fact they're on social assistance.

This talks about a management model that will "transfer resources from lawyers and courts to case managers and a newly established child support registrar." In other words, is the concept that you're simply going to have more people now negotiating agreements?

My understanding is now that it's not uncommon that ministry staff will work with a parent and say: "You're the parent of baby Jane over here. The ministry will work with you to enter into an agreement that'll be entered into family court as a consent agreement or order of the court and resolved." Or is there something different planned with this process?

Quite candidly, often those things go by general agreement in any event, without the necessity of a great deal of court time or expense to the ministry. I'm just curious to understand how this process is going to work and what's different about it from what happens in practice now.

[1705]

Hon. S. Anton: The revised child support case management is really a two-part process. The first is for cases where the recipient of support is in another jurisdiction but the payer is in British Columbia. This has been a system where there have been delays, so we are working to streamline that particular system.

It is then the plan to use a similar process to streamline the support orders within British Columbia with the goal of getting recipients onto support sooner and, possibly, off social assistance sooner because they are being supported, as they should be, by their family members.

L. Krog: Just so I can understand this, it talks about "transfer resources from lawyers and courts to case managers and a newly established child support registrar." It's a new child support registrar, not a register, so it's a per-
[ Page 4187 ]
son, like a master of the Supreme Court. In other words — and maybe I'm completely misinterpreting this — is the concept that you now, potentially, could have a hearing in front of a provincial court judge? The application for support is made by a contracted lawyer on behalf of the ministry. The individual, who may or may not have access to a lawyer, will go, and they'll argue about it and arrive at an amount, and it'll be settled.

Or are we talking about some new process where the registrar of the court will be able to conduct the hearing and make a decision? Is that what we're talking about? Have I completely misinterpreted this?

[1710]

Hon. S. Anton: Remembering that the first stage of this is the interjurisdictional support orders…. The issue at the moment is that there is nobody who has oversight of them. So there will be a person who is designated as a child support registrar, which will be a provincial position, for all of British Columbia.

Then there are two things that can happen with these orders. One is that the parties can agree through some kind of collaborative dispute resolution. If they do not agree as to the amount of the order, that child support registrar can then bring the case into the courtroom. So it will not be the registrar making the decision.

L. Krog: Dealing with the issue of family justice reform and looking particularly at performance measure 3 on page 22, the baseline we're talking about — the number of days it takes to get a family order in provincial court — is 105; forecast this year to be 128; next year, 127. The target is 126, and the target in 2016-17 is 125.

That's a pretty significant increase in the amount of time involved when the courts are supposed to be becoming increasingly efficient. I'm just wondering. Can the Attorney General explain why it's anticipated that we've had this dramatic increase from the 2012-2013 forecast to be 128 this year? Is it simply the implementation of the new Family Law Act, or are there other factors involved? If the Attorney General could explain that, I'd appreciate it.

Hon. S. Anton: The first thing to observe is that this is actually fundamentally a court measurement rather than a Justice measurement, because it's the measure of when a court makes the order, not necessarily related to something that's happening in Justice.

[1715]

The second thing to remember is…. I'm going back to my mathematics days and the notion of infinity. I don't know how you measure it when there may never be an order. There are many family cases now where there actually never is a final order because things are resolved out of court.

The focus now is on collaboration and on matters not actually having to be in a courtroom. The way it plays out in more complex cases is that the easy matters in a case — maybe not necessarily easy, but things that can be resolved more readily — are resolved without the intervention of the court, leaving only the more complex matters to be resolved in the courtroom. Using that model and that theory, it does make sense that the timeline to the first order may be quite a bit longer.

It is the difference between an era when everything used to be decided by a court. You'd come in early and say: "Well, we've resolved our maintenance issues." And the court would say: "Fine, thank you. I'll make an order on maintenance. Now they don't need to make that order because not everything needs to be in a courtroom.

L. Krog: Making reference to an article by Rob Shaw in the Vancouver Sun on March 7 of this year. It talked about the increase in time taking a judge's order in Provincial Court having risen by 30 percent in the last three years from 98 days in 2011-2012 to 105 days in 2012-2013 and a forecast 128 days in the fiscal year ending March 31, according to Ministry of Justice budget documents.

He then goes on to comment: "The Justice Ministry said it's unclear what's causing the delays because the family law system is otherwise seeing improvements in the time it takes to start a trial and a decline in the number of new family cases as more files are solved through out-of-court mediation."

I appreciate the minister's interesting argument about infinity. It's only those cases that actually get into court. Others have suggested, including…. Georgialee Lang, who I think the minister and I could agree is probably one of B.C.'s best-known family law lawyers, talks about various things — that it might be lax oversight by administrative judges or the rising number of people who go to family court without a lawyer. That is an ongoing issue for the system.

I'm just wondering: does the Attorney General acknowledge that those cases that end up in court where one side is represented and one side isn't…? I think common sense tells you they take more judicial time and in fact are not going to proceed as smoothly through the system. Does the Attorney General agree with that assertion?

Hon. S. Anton: In terms of the first order, there are many factors, including ones that I outlined earlier. The question the member raises is: does the fact that one party may be represented and the other may not be relate to the time to the first order or delays in the system? The answer is that there is not a clear relationship.

[1720]

As I said, there are many factors. One of the factors in setting times…. Actually, when you have a lawyer, it can be slightly more complex because the lawyer has a
[ Page 4188 ]
schedule, whereas the other party may not be so fixed in terms of availability. There are not absolutes in this, but there are many different factors, and they all need to be considered.

K. Corrigan: Here's the problem I have with this as a performance measure. Presumably, the purpose of a performance measure is to say, in this case, that the aim is to improve family court timeliness by decreasing the amount of time it takes to get that first order.

What the minister is saying is that the minister doesn't know, really, what it's a measure of and whether it's effective. The suggestion is that, in fact, the delays getting longer might be a measure of improvement but also that there may be other factors involved.

It seems to me it calls into question whether or not this is a measurement that is really providing any information that is useful at all. I'm wondering if the minister could respond.

Hon. S. Anton: Fundamentally, this is the court's measurement. It's the measurement of when a court issues a first order. We look at it because it helps us look at the things that can be controlled through Justice. But as I said, fundamentally, it is when the court itself issues the order.

K. Corrigan: But it's a performance measure that the Ministry of Justice is saying is one of the ways that they measure their effectiveness. What the minister has said repeatedly, it seems to me, is that the ministry has no idea or has hunches or suspicions about why the time is getting longer but doesn't know.

I guess the point is that whoever orders it or whatever type of measurement it is, the reality is that there doesn't seem to be much useful information coming from it. When it gets longer, the minister is saying that this may mean things are getting better.

How is it useful as a performance measure if we don't…? Number 1, if times are getting longer, it might be a good thing. And No. 2, we don't know what's causing it. We have suspicions, but we don't have clear ideas.

[1725]

Hon. S. Anton: One of the goals of the ministry is transparency. The three sets of performance measures — 3, 4 and 5 in the second chart and 6 in the third chart — describe how the system is working. The court services branch and we in Justice are responsible for resourcing all of these — family court, small claims and criminal. These measurements simply are more information to assist in resourcing and, also, to assist in transparency.

K. Corrigan: I wanted to turn to ask a couple of questions about the family maintenance enforcement program. Perhaps what I'll do is simply get the questions on the record, rather than waiting for all the answers. Perhaps the minister, the ministry staff, could provide the information at a later date.

What I'm looking for are the budgets and the actual costs to operate the family maintenance enforcement program in the two previous years, 2012-13 and 2013-14. And then what's the budget for 2014-15? That's the first part.

Then also for those same budget years — I guess for this year we can't know but for the last two budget years previously — what was the amount collected from non-custodial parents and then disbursed to custodial parents for each of the budget years, the last two previous?

Then if we have any preliminary information for 2014-15, that would be interesting. Do we, in fact, have an estimate for the amount that's going to be disbursed for 2014-15? That's the same category.

It's my understanding that 6,587 families on income assistance were in the family maintenance enforcement program in the year 2012-13. I'm wondering if we could find out, first of all, confirmation that those numbers are correct, and the same numbers for 2013-2014 and also presently, the 2014-15 budget year.

And just a confirmation that the payments disbursed to families receiving income assistance over those current years would be zero. Perhaps that's the one question that the minister could answer verbally right now. How much money has been disbursed to the families receiving income assistance for the last three budget years, including this year?

[1730]

Hon. S. Anton: The specific numbers that were requested — we will provide those. Staff will get onto that.

In terms of the amounts collected, I just want to be really clear. All the money collected goes to the recipient. Whether or not social assistance is paid on top of that is a matter for Social Development. But all of the money collected does go to the recipients.

K. Corrigan: I guess what I'm seeking, then, is: if the money goes to the recipients, can we get the figures for all those budget years for the amount that is actually clawed back for each of those years?

Hon. S. Anton: The numbers that we know in Justice are the numbers that go to the recipients. As I said, if money is paid on top of that by social assistance, that question would be for Social Development.

K. Corrigan: The minister is saying that we can't get that information from the Ministry of Justice? I thought I saw nodding behind that we could get that information, that we could find out how much was clawed back.

[1735]

Hon. S. Anton: I think the question is: how much family support is received through the family maintenance enforcement program? It's transferred to recipients, who then receive social assistance on top of that. We can get those numbers in addition to the numbers that in my earlier answer I told the member we would send along.

K. Corrigan: Perhaps the minister could explain what the process is, then. The money is collected through the program, and then the money is disbursed to the recipients. Then what's the process in terms of what happens next to somebody who's on income assistance? Who takes responsibility for recalculating the amount of social assistance that is provided to those individuals?

Hon. S. Anton: That would be done through the Ministry of Social Development.

L. Krog: If I could just come back to the family court issue and the timelines. Obviously, the numbers going up is not a very welcome signal to the people of British Columbia that the courts are working efficiently for them, when you're jumping from 105 to 128 and then the government's own numbers and forecasts through to 2016-17 indicate that it's not going to drop much below the peak of 128, dropping down to 125.

I appreciate the minister's comments around perhaps the complexity of the cases, etc. But whether or not the cases are complex, the fact is many of these cases involve…. You talk about child custody. In fact, I guess we're talking about guardianship and parenting time now. These involve children. It also, presumably…. Just to confirm: did these cases include…? When it talks about family court timelines, does it likewise include child apprehension cases, as well, in these numbers?

Hon. S. Anton: These numbers do not include child protection numbers.

L. Krog: So these include all family cases with the exception of child apprehension cases. Do these numbers include…? They obviously include maintenance, parenting, guardianship — in other words, everything else.

Hon. S. Anton: These are cases in private family law where the state is not involved — so family maintenance, custody, guardianship, access.

L. Krog: The numbers are very concerning, and the discussion beneath it talks about that there was "an 8.4 percent decrease in the number of new provincial family cases and a 21.5 percent decrease in the number of court hours spent on provincial family matters." Now, I'm not a mathematical whiz, but if you go from 105, the baseline time, to 128, that's roughly a 20 percent increase in my math world.

[1740]

It just seems to me that perhaps the real explanation here is simply that the courts aren't devoting the time to family case matters that they were formerly giving time to. I'm just wondering: is that in fact the explanation? Is the Attorney General satisfied that that's the explanation? If so, what plans, if any, does she or the ministry have to get us back to the baseline number, for heaven's sake — or even better yet, back to the numbers that Mr. Shaw talked about in his article, in 2011-2012, which was 98 days?

Hon. S. Anton: There are, in fact, more hours devoted now to family than there were. Over the years there's been, actually, a steady increase in the number of hours devoted to family law cases.

I think we need to remember the fundamental goals of family law now, with the new Family Law Act, which are to get resolution of cases out of court. We don't necessarily want cases to go to court. It is preferable if spouses can achieve resolution outside of a courtroom. It can be better for the family and better for children, because any resolution that they reach needs longevity. The collaborative approach can be better for those longstanding solutions.

As I said earlier, families can be talking. They can be achieving resolution of their issues. They can be establishing conclusions to their issues. They may be doing that for quite a long time before they ever need to go into a courtroom for, maybe, the last tricky matter that they haven't been able to resolve.

There are, as I said, many pieces to this.

L. Krog: With great respect to what the Attorney General just had to say, she indicated that in fact we've seen an increase in the number of hours spent on family court matters. This ministry document, the service plan, says "and a 21.5 percent decrease in the number of court hours spent on provincial family matters" in relation to the time periods indicated in that paragraph.

Again, my question is, to the Attorney General…. That's a very concerning decrease in the number of hours available. Whether or not the cases are complex or more complex or less complex, the issue is that it's taking a great deal more time to get to that initial order. So the period of uncertainty, whatever the matter may be….

Whether it's around financial support for a family, whether it's around parenting and guardianship of a child — which are important matters to the general public, particularly a general public that doesn't have access to what was regarded as a fully functioning legal aid system as existed in this province 13 years ago — these are particularly concerning numbers.

[1745]

My question to the minister is: what specific steps, if any, is the ministry undertaking or planning to undertake to get that number back to where it was in the baseline time or, even better, back to the 2011-2012 number?
[ Page 4190 ]

Hon. S. Anton: The goal in family law is to help families achieve resolution of their issues. That was the goal of the new Family Law Act. That's the goal of the family mediation centres, the justice access centres. That's the goal of the new pilot project in the Legal Services Society. Our goal is to help families achieve resolution outside of courtrooms. If that can happen, that is all the better.

So the measure of when a first order is issued is interesting but reliant on many factors, including all the pre-court resolutions which families may achieve.

L. Krog: Well, I appreciate the Attorney General's comments. To describe the measure as interesting…. It's her measure. It's her ministry. My specific question is, once again….

It's a concerning number. It's concerning enough to be published in the service plan. It's a statistic that the ministry has produced. It obviously has some significance to the ministry. Again, what specific steps, if any, is the ministry going to take to reduce that number?

Because the people involved in the system who are waiting 128 days, as opposed to 105 days or 98 days, as they did a couple of years ago…. It's a big issue to them. It's the biggest issue, probably, in their lives.

Again, does the ministry, the Attorney General, have any specific plans as to how to reduce that number, or are we just going to let this be a rolling statistic that we're happy with year after year?

Hon. S. Anton: Let us remember, again, that this is the court's number. It's when the court issues the order. What the ministry can do and is doing is to try and keep things out of courtrooms. That was the whole purpose of the Family Law Act. That's why we're doing the pilot project with Legal Services Society. That's why we have family mediation centres and justice access centres. We want things kept out of courtrooms.

K. Corrigan: Then, using this performance measure, is the goal for it to go up or down?

[1750]

Hon. S. Anton: The goal of the Justice Ministry is to help families achieve resolution of their issues. The goal is to help them achieve those resolutions out of courtrooms. The goal is to achieve lasting resolutions so that children are looked after and family matters are settled.

L. Krog: I appreciate that's the goal. But the fact is we have a number that has increased quite significantly over the last few years. There may be various explanations as to why it's there. We may argue back and forth about whether it's caused by the fact that you're taking out of the statistics all of those happy people who've settled outside of court now because of things that the government has undertaken or other processes. And it's a court number.

But again, it's a very simple question. Does the ministry have any specific plans as to how to reduce that number? I appreciate that the Attorney General may say something to the effect: "Well, these are the courts' numbers, and it's the courts' issue."

The fact is that the courts operate with the Ministry of Attorney General, the Ministry of Justice. I mean, we fund the courts. That's how they're paid for. They don't operate in some vacuum. It's not as if there aren't discussions back and forth between the Attorney General and the Chief Judge of the Provincial Court, for instance. Everybody wants to see matters resolved in the most timely and efficient manner possible.

Again, I come back to it. Does the Ministry of Justice have any specific plans as to how to reduce the number from the 128 as forecast, dropping to 125, back to a number that was certainly substantially lower in 2011-2012, let alone the baseline in 2012-2013?

Hon. S. Anton: One observation is that the new Family Law Act came in just over a year ago. The goal of that act, as I've stated, is to keep things out of courtrooms. It's to resolve matters out of court so that things that remain in court are the more difficult issues. That's why there is a prediction that some of them may take longer.

But I think I've mentioned what the plan is, and I don't think I need to say it all over again. The plan is to help families come to long-term resolution of their issues.

V. Huntington: I didn't anticipate asking the question right this minute, but it's just to follow up very briefly on correspondence that the minister has had with my office on the duty to report, under the legislation for Children and Family Development.

The minister had responded to one of my questions about whether the ministry was responsible for ensuring there was a duty to report and, if that hadn't occurred, what the follow-up to that responsibility was. You had mentioned in a follow-up letter to myself that you had contacted the College of Physicians and Surgeons and the nurses and were waiting for a response from them about what they felt went wrong in their duty.

[1755]

I wonder if the minister can provide me with any more up-to-date information on that exchange.

Hon. S. Anton: Yes, thank you for the question. Since that letter, which, I think, went out under the deputy's signature — or my signature; I've forgotten which — was written, to say that we would be contacting the colleges, there has now been established a working group which contains the Representative for Children and Youth, the colleges, Health, MCFD and Justice. There has been one meeting, with another scheduled. The college is making it their goal, I gather, to ensure that their members under-
[ Page 4191 ]
stand their obligations and act on them.

V. Huntington: That's very helpful. It's the first indication I think we've had that there has been some follow-up to the issue. Will the ministry…? Has it been discussing with itself whether your ministry has a duty to enforce the Child, Family and Community Service Act?

Hon. S. Anton: The lead on this initiative is under Children and Families, and the goal is to promote compliance with the act. That's really the focus of the committee. It is the case that if there was a breach and if the police were aware of the breach, they could choose to investigate it. Theoretically, they could choose to forward a proposed charge to the Crown. But as I said, that's not really the main goal here. The main goal here is to get compliance from the parties who need to be in compliance.

V. Huntington: I guess what I'm trying to get to is that prosecution is mentioned in the act. There is a duty to report a child that is vulnerable and in need of assistance. If there is a failure to report, it is a prosecutable offence. I'm trying to find out which ministry is then responsible for enforcing that part of the act.

[1800]

The minister is suggesting that Children and Families is, but I'm thinking, perhaps more, it's probably within the Attorney General's venue to enforce a piece of legislation of that nature. Is the offence civil or is it criminal if there is a failure to report?

Hon. S. Anton: MCFD's goal is training awareness and proper reporting. Where Justice would come into it is if, in fact, there were a complaint.

The process then is that somebody would make a complaint about a failure to report. That complaint would have to go to the police. The police would have to investigate it. If they determined that they recommended a charge, they would send that to the Crown for charge approval. If the Crown determined that it was a charge that should be proceeded upon, it would then go to prosecution under the Offence Act, so it would be a provincial offence.

V. Huntington: Perhaps I can just end with saying that I'm not trying, in having asked these questions over a period of months, to gang up on any employee of MCFD or anybody within the system, but it was obvious there was a huge failure here. I'm just trying to put enough pressure on the minister and her colleagues to ensure that, in fact, guidelines do work and that they are developed for all of the players within the process so that when the representative writes a report, she doesn't have to say again that there was a failure within the system.

I think the failure here has been identified, and I'm just trying to ensure that the minister and her colleagues ensure for themselves and for the public that the holes in the system are closing.

Hon. S. Anton: Well, I think I could agree with the member opposite that that would be the goal: to not have another failure, to have good guidelines and to have compliance with the act.

L. Krog: Carrying on with the service plan, on the small claims timeliness, I note that the baseline is 210 and the median age of a small claims case at trial stage is 421.5 days. The forecast for the median age at first substantive appearance is dropping to 179, and then it's predicted to drop even to 176 by 2016-17. That's the target. But the median age at trial stage, in fact, is not going to change substantially.

I note that these statistics include settlement conferences, which are sometimes an effective way of dealing with these matters. But I'm just curious to know: has the ministry and is the ministry pursuing any other methods to reduce the amount of time occupied by court — in other words, through some of the mediation process that I raised last year with the Attorney General in the context of estimates?

That is, there was some concern there might be a reduction in the budget for mediators, people who are employed now who help resolve cases and, in fact, have fairly significant case resolution statistics. I'm just wondering: has there been any reduction or decrease to that budget, or any increase? Are they in fact going to be employed more as a method of…?

[1805]

And/or does the minister think that may have something to do with the timelines? In other words, are we getting those cases out of the system that much faster?

Hon. S. Anton: Currently the time to conclusion of small claims matters is better now than it was in 2005. However, it is still a rather lengthy process, which is why we have the civil resolution tribunal enterprise underway. The goal of the civil resolution tribunal is that in the more minor small claims matters, people can have a quick resolution of their issues by using the services of the on-line dispute resolution.

L. Krog: Dealing with the timeliness of criminal case conclusions, the discussion acknowledges that there's been a significant decrease in Criminal Code impaired-driving cases, obviously. That has freed up a great deal of criminal court time. So both for adult and youth, the median time to conclude the case is some 82 days, expected to drop to 80 days.

I'm just wondering: with respect to the adult and youth sources, these cases, is there any difference between the adult time and the youth time, given that we're given what I presume is an average or something of that na-
[ Page 4192 ]
ture? When we talk about it statistically, when it says it's 82 — adult and youth — is that just the totality, or has it been broken down? If so, what are the separate numbers for youth versus adult cases?

Hon. S. Anton: I don't have that information here, but we can provide it to the member.

[1810]

L. Krog: Given that significant decrease in Criminal Code impaired-driving cases, which historically have formed — I hate to say this — the dominant diet item in the Provincial Court, I'm wondering: have there been discussions with the chief judge, either directly or with administrative staff of both the ministry and the Provincial Court, as to how that time might be reallocated to perhaps, for instance, increase the number of family court hours that would be available — which, otherwise, according to the service plan, show a decrease?

Hon. S. Anton: Fundamentally, the allocation of court time is up to the court. However, that being said, they consult with us; we consult with them. An example of that was the backlog project, where we hired additional…. We sort of sped up some of the hiring of the Provincial Court judges, so to speak, so that there were more hours available in the court.

I should add that we do have a number of initiatives underway to reduce delay within the criminal justice system, including moving matters out of the courtroom to alternative tribunals, which would be the IRP program; the Provincial Court scheduling program, which has increased timeliness as a project goal; and process reforms underway in the criminal justice branch, including enhanced Crown file ownership and streamlined case management.

L. Krog: To deal with, then, other sections more appropriate to the Solicitor General side of the ministry, perhaps we could move on to goal 3. It talks about addressing domestic violence, coordinating through the provincial office of domestic violence, etc. How does that office work? What is the budget?

Hon. S. Anton: The provincial office of domestic violence is, as the member will know, in Children and Families. It is a coordinating office. They work very closely with Justice, because we do have many of the programs in Justice.

I would like to introduce Lynda Cavanaugh, who is the ADM in charge of community safety and crime prevention. She is here with Taryn Walsh, also from that group. They are the group that works closely with the provincial office of domestic violence.

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

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:15 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