2014 Legislative Session: Second Session, 40th Parliament
HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Tuesday, May 27, 2014

Morning Sitting

Volume 14, Number 1

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

TUESDAY, MAY 27, 2014

The House met at 10:03 a.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

M. Karagianis: It gives me great pleasure today to introduce Richard MacIntosh, who is now the acting business manager for the International Boilermakers, Lodge 191. Richard started his apprenticeship with the Boilermakers in 1981 and has served as a workplace steward and held positions of lodge president and recording secretary. He was an instructor at BCIT and also a graduate of the Harvard trade union program.

[1005]

It's a great pleasure to welcome him here. He, of course, is replacing my friend Jimmy Fitzpatrick, who I marked the passing of here a few weeks ago. I'd like the House to please make him very welcome.

Hon. T. Wat: Recently the government of Canada completed a free trade agreement with the European Union and Korea. This free trade agreement will help to really grow our economy. In the gallery today we have the members of the British Columbia Ministry of International Trade team who were instrumental in fighting for our province's interests in those agreements.

With us today are Janna Jessee, Linda Jakubowski, Trevor Paul, Mike Nielsen, Matthew Carnaghan, Monica Gervais, Rebecca Ewing, Teresa Zhuang, Gail Greenwood, Janel Quiring and the executive director, Don White. Will the House please join me in welcoming them.

C. James: I have two very special guests in the gallery today. The first individual is someone who just received the Community Leader of the Year award here in Victoria and who keeps the volunteer sector going in the community but, for me, has been my mentor and my biggest supporter.

I hear other members in the House introduce their mothers and say that they better behave when their mothers are here. In my case I tell my mother to behave.

Just kidding, Mom.

With my mother today is her partner, who we have been thrilled to welcome into our family. Would the House please make Mavis DeGirolamo and Bill Corbin very welcome.

J. Thornthwaite: Today we are very honoured to have in the gallery the executive director of the Dietitians of Canada, Sonya Kupka. I'm not too sure exactly where she is, but she's coming to meet with some of the members of the Legislature today to explain how positive partnerships are with the dietetic profession and government, and how great we all try to keep everybody healthy.

R. Fleming: Joining us in the House today are a group of educators — parents, academics and representatives of the Sierra Club, B.C. I would ask the House to join me in welcoming Lenny Ross, Daphne Macnaughton, Bob Peart, Daniel Ross, Carmen Ross, Calvin Parsons, Enid Elliot and Nikki Wright. Would the House please join me in making them welcome.

J. Martin: Joining us this morning is a good friend of mine from just up the road, in Chemainus. Please join me in welcoming John Sherry to the House.

Hon. D. McRae: Today in the gallery we have two visitors from the Comox Valley. John and Lynda Brocklehurst are franchisee owners of a Tim Hortons in the community. They support everything from hospice to youth soccer. They're absolutely great supporters of numerous organizations in our community. We're lucky to have them. Will the House please make John and Lynda welcome.

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

Stolen Hearts of Cowichan
DOCUMENTARY FILM PROJECT

B. Routley: I would like to introduce you to the documentary film project Stolen Hearts of Cowichan. It's produced by Raven Light Media, directed in partnership with Cowboy Smithx and Patricia Dawn. The documentary is about the many newborn babies that have been removed from their mothers at birth in the Cowichan Valley, particularly from Cowichan Tribes moms.

The impact of this practice is traumatizing to the baby, the mother and families — and our entire communities, rippling out to affect us all. Through the documentary, they host the stories of mothers who have lost their children and fought to gain them back, stories of grandmothers and grandfathers fighting for their grandchildren to be returned.

Through their shared experience, it is hoped that there will be a deeper understanding of the implications this has on society and our community as a whole. The producers of this documentary have interviewed aboriginal women, elders, retired ministry workers, medical professionals and front-line agency service providers.

[1010]

The intent of this documentary film is to offer the silent voices a space to be heard, to be known and to be
[ Page 4194 ]
honoured. One of the goals of the film is to offer alternatives from other communities who have created healthy and successful methods for helping everyone, especially the children. These alternatives are proving to be healing and helpful.

Our province and our country are rich in demonstrating amazing possibilities. We believe in caring Canadians. Our history holds stories of many heroes creating change for the betterment of all people. We know that together we can bring positive change for Cowichan families. This summer please look for and watch Stolen Hearts of Cowichan.

FOOT HEALTH AND
TRAINING OF PODIATRISTS

Moira Stilwell: A fundamental component to essential everyday living begins with a functional transportation plan. Healthy and pain-free feet, as we all know, are a basic status often taken for granted. The provision of good foot health care is paramount.

With the increasing drive towards long life, active and healthy living, government has a partnership role to help in achieving this end. Lucky are those who in a lifetime have no need for specialized services and attention to feet care. Yet the reality that exists today is that with aging demographics, there is an increasing demand, especially with wear and tear and the increased challenges demanded from sporting and active-living models. Along with this is the rising incidence of diabetes, arthritis and other foot health–associated medical visits that clog and increase the strain on the medical system.

This is where the active role of podiatry can play a pivotal and complementary role in offering preventive care as well as alleviating suffering through timely care and management. So I rise today to raise awareness about a need to recruit hard-working and gifted British Columbians who are trained as podiatrists to come back to B.C. to practise.

Podiatry provides complementary medical support, oftentimes covered by extended health care coverage, that can alleviate the burden on our public mental health system. Currently there is no English-speaking podiatry program in Canada and no residencies available to those British Columbians.

Madame Speaker, I see a profitable role for all of us to change this situation.

NORMAN GAGATEK AND BRAIN
INJURY REHABILITATION SERVICES

N. Macdonald: I recently met again with two constituents in Invermere who have a remarkable story. Norm Gagatek and his wife, Kimberley Harris, have been featured numerous times on Global. The whole province watched Norm's amazing progress and recovery following a devastating brain stem stroke.

As a young man, seemingly healthy, Norm's life changed completely overnight. Following his stroke, doctors prepared to transfer him to permanent long-term care. His discharge note said that he would likely remain dependent for all activities of daily life for the rest of his life.

Kim never accepted this diagnosis. She knew that Norm was capable of so much more. She knew he had the will and determination to prove those predictions wrong. She knew that if he could receive the rehabilitation treatment he needed, he would surprise everyone. But British Columbia does not have a facility that provides the slow-track rehabilitation that Norm needed. Instead, Kim had to fight to get Norm a placement in the Halvar Jonson Centre in Alberta.

It was through this adversity that Kim and Norm decided that once he got well, their life's work would be to improve brain injury services here in British Columbia.

Today Norm is a walking, talking miracle. When I first met Norm after his stroke he had only limited ability to move and was barely able to communicate. Now he's walking upstairs. He's correcting Kim when she forgets a name and helping out around the house, a miracle that occurred because Kim fought for Norm to get the treatment that he needed.

At the last meeting, Norm and Kim asked me for my assistance. They asked me to take every opportunity to tell decision-makers in the province just how much services for brain injury victims are needed right here in British Columbia. We need to be reminded, because Norm went to bed one night having never thought about slow-track rehab services and woke up having his whole life depend upon it.

COMMUNITY EVENTS IN
ABBOTSFORD-MISSION AREA

S. Gibson: There's lots to do this summer in the Abbotsford-Mission area. We have the Mission Soapbox Derby. It started out many years ago, and at one point there were 20,000 participants, back some years ago.

[1015]

It's come back again. For those members of the House and others who would like to go in a race, you can go with children ages eight to 14, but there's also room for you. It's your chance to have a lot of fun and maybe speed a little faster than perhaps you'd like to on a regular street.

Also, if you like both kinds of music, country and western, there are options for you. The Rockin' River Music Fest will be on for three days, with Terri Clark, who is a Canadian — some of you know her — and Rascal Flatts. That will be taking place in July. Also, there's the Mission Folk Festival, if you like that kind of music, out in Mission.

There's lots of stuff going on. You're welcome to come out to Mission and enjoy the hospitality and savour the
[ Page 4195 ]
moment as you drive through the community and smell the strawberries, the raspberries and the blueberries.

CHINESE-CANADIAN CLAN ASSOCIATION
AND KINSHIP SOCIETY BUILDINGS

J. Kwan: Chinese associations and societies have over 100 years of history in the province of B.C. They were founded in the spirit of kinship, which historically served to address the social, political and financial needs of Chinese Canadians in communities across B.C. They were in many respects extended families to their members and provided significant aid and support to them, including the provision of housing at a time when discrimination and segregation were rampant. Built in the early 1900s, today many association buildings are old and dilapidated.

On May 15, 2014, all members of this House supported a historic motion to reconcile and apologize for past discriminatory legislation, policies and practices against the Chinese-Canadian community. One proposal stemming out of this process is a legacy project to honour the historic role of Chinese clan associations and kinship societies.

This meaningful proposal originated from the observations of over 25 different service providers in the Downtown Eastside who gathered to share and discuss firsthand observations from front lines concerning issues faced by Chinese seniors. Issues of concern identified today include language barriers, isolation, racism, discrimination, inadequate or unstable housing, safety, food security and barriers to accessing medical and mental health services.

In the spirit of bridging our history through the current realities of today, organizations such as the UGM, Mosaic, the Downtown Eastside Women's Centre, the Downtown Eastside Neighbourhood House, the Dugout, SUCCESS, the Chinese Freemasons, the Chinese Cultural Centre, the Shon Yee Benevolent Association, Canada Chaoshan Business Association and many others endorsed the proposal to create a fund to help renovate and upgrade clan and society association buildings and to repurpose and re-equip them with usable community cultural space, food programs for seniors and affordable housing.

Our province has a chance to reconcile its history and then, in turn, strengthen its future. I look forward to working with the government to realize this dream.

WILLARD "KOOTCHIE" CHARLIE

J. Tegart: I rise in the House today to honour and celebrate the life of Kootchie Willard Charlie, a St'át'imc artist, educator, storyteller, respected elder and, best of all, a friend to many. Kootchie Charlie was born on St'át'imc traditional territory at Six Mile near Lillooet and was a proud member of the frog clan of the T'it'q'et band.

Kootchie mentored generations of youth in St'át'imc traditional teachings and culture. He held school art workshops, shared traditional fishing techniques, coached lahal bone game players, and, shared St'át'imc values. Kootchie was a carver for most of his life, carving intricate masks, spirit animals, paddles, totem poles and sculptures from materials such as soapstone, cedar, alder and juniper.

Kootchie began carving in high school under the mentorship of Benny Paul. Kootchie went on to study art in Vancouver and showcased his work throughout the province and Mexico. Kootchie's traditional carvings tell the stories and history of the St'át'imc, and his works often included a frog in tribute to his family clan.

Up until his recent passing Kootchie carved in winter, fished and gathered in summer and celebrated cultural, family and community events all year round. Kootchie will be remembered for his generosity, friendliness and fantastic sense of humour. I would like the House to join me in celebrating the outstanding spirit and life of Kootchie Charlie.

[1020]

Oral Questions

EMINATA GROUP AND
UNIVERSITY CANADA WEST OPERATIONS

D. Eby: In 2011 Ricki Petersen was one of many students attending the Eminata corporation's University Canada West. They took her tuition money and then closed their campus without notice the day after the tuition refund deadline. In the news the spokesperson for Eminata told Ricki and the public that Eminata would do right by the students, that they would get a refund. But that was a lie. Ricki is still paying off a $7,000 B.C. student loan with no degree to show for it.

The agreement the government signed with Eminata said that the minister can cancel or suspend their ability to use the word "university" for any misrepresentation, fraud or abuse. With conduct like this, why is this company still allowed to use the word "university" in British Columbia?

Hon. A. Virk: I thank the member for his question. The member certainly may be aware that government has done a core review of everything within the Advanced Education Ministry. Part of that core review was looking at how the public sector and the private sector universities are managed. Part of that core review also, as was announced several months ago…. The member certainly knows, on the other side, that we're examining how the regulation of the private sector is done. In fact, the private career-training authority board has been disbanded.

This government was very concerned about the quality of education, and with that concern of quality of educa-
[ Page 4196 ]
tion, that board was disbanded. The regulation of the private sector has been taken within government, and we're working through the process right now. We're working through the process to make sure the quality of education in the private for-profit, the not-for-profit and the theologic sector is done properly and appropriately. We want to make sure education quality stays high in British Columbia.

Madame Speaker: The member for Vancouver–Point Grey on a supplemental.

D. Eby: This matter is squarely on the minister's desk. There's a company operating that is ripping off B.C. students. The chair and founder of Eminata, the owner of University Canada West, Peter Chung, has an unpaid judgment of $12 million in California owed to students there for lying about employment opportunities in the school's accreditation. His school there was closed by the California government for student loan fraud.

Three separate newspapers in India, with circulation in the millions, have published articles warning Indian students to avoid University Canada West. The school has three times the student loan default rate of B.C.'s best-known private university, Trinity Western. Why is the minister still allowing this company to operate in British Columbia and use the word "university"?

Hon. A. Virk: As I noted, the quality of education and the educational brand of British Columbia is our number one priority. Keeping that in mind, the regulation of the private career-training in British Columbia has been varied. The board was removed as of just several weeks ago, and the deputy minister in my ministry has been appointed as a regulator for all private education in British Columbia.

As a result of that, we're going to ensure that quality of education continues and that we have the checks and balances — and the fact that private educators continue to provide the best quality of education in British Columbia.

Madame Speaker: Vancouver–Point Grey on a further supplemental.

D. Eby: The minister would love to put this off on another board, but this is on his desk. The agreement says that the minister has the discretion to pull the use of the word "university."

Before joining Eminata, Eminata's current president and their vice-president of marketing both worked at private colleges successfully sued by the governments of Ontario and California for millions in student loan fraud. Here in B.C. a former Eminata recruiter told the B.C. Supreme Court that Eminata executives told them to lie to students about the availability of student loans, mislead students with fake job placement statistics and show fake portfolios of student work that actually belonged to students at other schools.

All of this information has been part of the public record for more than a year. Can the minister explain if his ministry has taken any steps to investigate why this school is allowed to use the word "university" and investigate the track record of this place?

[1025]

Hon. A. Virk: As I noted before, the regulation of the private career-training institutions in British Columbia were the purview of an industry-led board. As of several weeks ago, this government made the courageous decision to disband that board, to take the regulation of that industry within government. Part of that move is to ensure that there's continued quality that we continue to look at, that students are served. We're going to continue to do that.

S. Simpson: The buck stops with the minister, not with the board. It's the minister who's responsible for this.

The last time we talked about the Eminata corporation in this Legislature, it cost the Premier's only caucus supporter his job in cabinet. We remember Harry Bloy. He was the ill-fated cabinet minister who passed along sensitive information to the founder of Eminata, Peter Chung. Mr. Chung at the time claimed to have influence with high-ranking people in government, apparently enough to get Mr. Bloy to do something that put his seat at the cabinet table in jeopardy.

In this province the term "university," a valued term, can only be used with the express permission of the Minister of Advanced Education. This corporation continues to use the term "university." Will the Advanced Education Minister tell us, Mr. Chung's claims of influence aside: why is the Liberal government and why is he still allowing this institution to use the term "university"?

Hon. A. Virk: I'm at a loss as to how I could be potentially any clearer to the members opposite. The regulation of the private career industry was the purview of a board that was industry-led. This government is ensuring that student quality and education quality is number one. In doing so, we have taken over the regulation of the private career-training agency to ensure quality access to students, to ensure the quality of education in British Columbia stays high. Those concerns that the members raised are part of that regulation change, and we're going to continue to work on that.

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

S. Simpson: The responsibility rests with the minister. The responsibility is on his desk. He's the one who has to do this, and he shouldn't slough his job off.
[ Page 4197 ]

Mr. Chung and his $30,000 of donations to the B.C. Liberals isn't the only Liberal insider involved with this situation. Gwyn Morgan, the former head of the Premier's transition team, was recently appointed by the Premier to the position of chair of the Industry Training Authority. Well, Mr. Morgan is also a financial backer of Eminata. He gave the company a half-million-dollar loan so that they could buy University Canada West. Now, in court documents filed in November, he says they stiffed him for the full amount plus interest.

Again, the use of the term "university" is at the minister's discretion. If the minister revokes Eminata's ability to use the term "university," the Premier's friend, Mr. Morgan, is almost certain to lose his entire investment. But setting aside Mr. Chung's claims of influence and Mr. Morgan's investment portfolio, why will the minister not revoke the ability of Eminata to use the term "university" when it discredits advanced education in this province?

Hon. A. Virk: In British Columbia we have a very robust system of public and private universities. We have 25 excellent public post-secondary institutions, complemented by many, many excellent private institutions that provide excellent education to students. Where that education quality is compromised, we are committed to ensure that education quality stays high, and we're going to ensure that continues.

[1030]

L. Krog: It's very interesting to listen to this minister this morning talk about protecting the reputation of B.C.'s universities when he has an opportunity to do something today to act properly and protect that reputation.

We've obtained an e-mail from government staff dated June 5, 2013, and it reads as follows: "Hi, all. University Canada West is a donor for Friday's event. Their president and CEO is Randy Cox. Please send him an invitation this evening indicating the company's five guests." The event in question was the announcement ceremony as part of the swearing-in of cabinet, a government event which sold access to corporations.

How much did this company pay for access to this government event? Five thousand dollars. Yet after all we've heard about Eminata this morning, is the government investigating Eminata? No. They're selling Eminata access to the Minister of Advanced Education, the Premier and the cabinet at government events.

Can the Minister of Advanced Education, exercising his responsibility this morning, explain why, instead of investigating Eminata, they are selling access to the Premier and the entire B.C. Liberal cabinet for $5,000?

Hon. A. Virk: Well, as I noted, our educational system is comprised of public post-secondary and a very robust private for-profit, private not-for-profit and theological…. We have an excellent university system all across the sector.

If there are issues with quality — student quality, student outcomes….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Hon. A. Virk: The education quality assurance brand of British Columbia — we intend to keep that brand as strong and vibrant as it is.

M. Farnworth: My question to the Minister of Advanced Education is really quite simple. Does the minister have confidence in University Canada West as an excellent private educational institution in the province of British Columbia?

Hon. A. Virk: The private universities and private colleges in British Columbia go through the same degree quality assurance branch as public universities. The rigour by which they put their degrees forward is the same rigour that the public universities must go through. When a degree is approved, it's the same independent board that examines it, and it's the same rigour that's applied across the sector and will continue to be applied.

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

M. Farnworth: Perhaps I wasn't specific enough. Does the minister have confidence in University Canada West as being a sound educational institution in the province of British Columbia that he would recognize and recommend to his own kids?

Hon. A. Virk: There are 320 private career colleges and institutions in British Columbia, 320 that report to their own board of governors, their own processes. The same degree quality assurance criteria that all public colleges and universities have to go through — it's the same criteria. We are committed to ensure that we have quality education in public and private institutions.

GLOBAL NATURAL GAS SUPPLIES
AND LIQUEFIED NATURAL GAS
DEVELOPMENT IN B.C.

A. Weaver: The government has promised British Columbians a generational opportunity of prosperity through development of an LNG industry.

[1035]

We've been promised a $100 billion prosperity fund, more than 100,000 jobs, a $1 trillion increase in GDP. We've been promised a debt-free B.C., the elimination
[ Page 4198 ]
of the PST, thriving schools and hospitals. [Applause.]

Hon. Speaker, they should wait for the rest of the question.

Russia, with about 20 times the natural gas reserves as all of Canada combined, just signed a $400 billion 30-year deal with China to provide them with natural gas at a cost of around $10 per million Btu. It's projected to cost about $6 to $8 per million Btu to get gas to Asia. Natural gas is currently trading at about $4.50 per million Btu in North America. This means that B.C. natural gas is simply not competitive with the new 30-year price target set in Asia.

My question to the Minister of Natural Gas Development is this. What's the backup plan for economic prosperity in B.C. if its LNG goal is not realized?

Hon. R. Coleman: First of all, I want to thank the member for his question, the first question on LNG in four months in this Legislative Assembly during question period.

I want to tell the member this. Last week British Columbia hosted the most successful government-sponsored conference in the history of the province on liquefied natural gas — or anything, for that matter — in Vancouver. During that conference a tentative agreement between China and Russia was announced, which might be able to supply maybe 10 percent of the growth in the Chinese market in natural gas if it actually ever gets built. With the distance of the pipeline, the time indicates it will take decades to do.

I sat down with the CEOs and presidents and senior people from all the major companies that are in British Columbia today with regards to liquefied natural gas. Not one of them…. They all told me that this is not a game changer for them. They're still confident in British Columbia. They know we can compete with them globally.

We know the gas will not arrive at the cities, particularly on the coast, in China at the price that was quoted in the press release. It is just not possible. We actually know our prices will be competitive with China, and they tell us they're still coming and they're still investing in British Columbia.

Madame Speaker: Oak Bay–Gordon Head on a supplemental.

A. Weaver: Japan is in the process of turning back on its nuclear plants. The Queensland gas fields in Australia are coming on line. Russia is expanding its LNG capacity through Vladivostok. The U.S. is ready to go with LNG exports. Qatar has more than ten times the reserves of Canada. China has more than three times the shale gas reserves of Canada. There is no shortage of natural gas out there to meet world demand.

The reality is that not a single company has made a final investment decision in the British Columbia LNG industry. Yet we have put all our eggs in one basket, and in the words of Preston Manning at the last B.C. Energy Conference in Fort St. John, we're counting our chickens before the rooster has even entered the hen house.

My question to the Minister of Energy and Mines is this. Will he commit to working towards positioning B.C. as a global leader in the clean tech sector, which will serve as the foundation of tomorrow's economy, and if so, how?

Hon. R. Coleman: First of all, we do know where the supplies and the reserves are of natural gas in the world. We do know that we can compete on that world market. We have been told that specifically by major companies like Shell and Chevron and Exxon Mobil and BG and Petronas and others. They have actually spent in this province, to date, well in excess of probably $8 billion or $9 billion in getting towards working on their final investment decision, the designing of plants and what have you.

Interjections.

Hon. R. Coleman: I know the members opposite want to heckle, because they don't want to admit that they don't actually support a vision for the future of British Columbia. They don't support liquefied natural gas. They don't support the opportunity. But the reality is this.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Hon. R. Coleman: These people have sat down with us. We've worked out the financial parameters. We know that we're competitive globally. We know we're going to get a final investment decision, and we know we will be successful on this file.

[1040]

Interjections.

Hon. R. Coleman: I know the members opposite are heckling because they are so nervous about the fact that they are opposed to liquefied natural gas in B.C. But I can tell you this, Member opposite. I'll tell you this very simply. You doubted my optimism going into the election last year; don't doubt my optimism in going on to this file.

CLEANUP OF FUEL SPILL
INTO LEMON CREEK

K. Conroy: Here's some optimism that's not working out. It's been ten months since a fuel truck spilled 33,000 litres of jet fuel into Lemon Creek in the Slocan Valley. Not only can fuel still be found; locals recently uncovered
[ Page 4199 ]
eight soiled booms stinking of fuel left in the creek. This is the entire problem with the B.C. Liberals' approach to environmental cleanup. "Polluter pays" is meaningless if there is no ongoing supervision of the cleanup.

My question is to the Minister of Environment. What penalties will the company pay? What will they face for failing to properly clean up Lemon Creek?

Hon. M. Polak: While the ministry remains involved in monitoring and remediation that is being undertaken, nevertheless, the member knows that the matter is currently before the courts, and I have to be very cautious with respect to any commentary specific to the case.

Madame Speaker: Kootenay West on a supplemental.

K. Conroy: Residents are left with this mess. They're bearing the ongoing costs of this spill. Not a dime of compensation has been paid to the organic farmers who lost their entire crops. There's not a nickel for residents who still can't drink their water, and there's no environmental analysis. There are no people going out and watching. It's before the courts, but there should be people out there working. There should be ministerial people working.

So much for polluter pays. The Slocan River Streamkeepers, which has a long history of monitoring the water quality of Slocan Creek and Lemon Creek, just did further testing, which showed that the water is still polluted from the spill. Are we going to wait for the courts to be done before we're going to clean up the pollution in that creek?

Again, to the Minister of Environment: if polluters pay, why do the people of Lemon Creek and the Slocan Valley continue to pay for this spill?

Hon. M. Polak: I know that this has been just an awful experience for the community in and around Lemon Creek. I can't say enough about the community members and especially organizations like the Slocan River Streamkeepers and how they have participated and worked with us as a ministry. There is ongoing monitoring taking place and ongoing remediation.

Unfortunately, I can't comment with any detail about this case, but I will say this. The principle of polluter-pay is one that we are absolutely supportive of on this side of the House. To that end, we have just released the second land spills policy intentions paper for comment. I am pleased to say that the most recent federal announcement also included significant aspects of our own policy intentions around the principle of polluter-pay, and we continue to advance that aggressively.

PREPAREDNESS FOR OIL SPILL RESPONSE

S. Chandra Herbert: Yet again when it comes to the environment, we get all talk and no action from the B.C. Liberals. Eight booms laden with jet fuel found in Lemon Creek, left there for ten months. Who found them? Not the Ministry of Environment. No. Not the company that dumped the fuel in the creek. No. It was the citizens, left holding the bag because this government doesn't pay attention to protecting the environment. Yet the spill still hasn't been fully cleaned up.

My question to the Minister of Environment: if we can't trust the B.C. Liberals to ensure that a spill from a single fuel truck is cleaned up properly, how can British Columbians have any faith that this government would act properly should we have an oil spill 10,000 times the size on our coast?

[1045]

Hon. M. Polak: With respect to the Lemon Creek spill, there is ongoing monitoring that we are undertaking as the Ministry of Environment, ongoing remediation, together with organizations in the community. The member well knows that.

We have been the government in Canada leading with respect to not only land-based spills response but also research on marine spills response. That is why…. When the federal government released its most recent strategy with respect to spills in the marine environment, do you know what they did? They adopted the very same research materials that we had produced by asking Nuka Research to conduct the most thorough research with respect to marine spills ever undertaken on the coast of British Columbia.

That's what this B.C. Liberal government has done, because we are standing strong on our five conditions.

Madame Speaker: Vancouver–West End on a supplemental.

S. Chandra Herbert: Yet again, talk, talk, talk while the gas is in the water. How is that action? That's talk. That is not action. That is not leadership, unless you count leading in letting oil and gas stay in the water.

Let's talk about another project that this government has bungled, the recent coal spill in Burnaby's Silver Creek — yet another example of the Liberals' attempt to talk big and do nothing when it comes to protecting our air, land and water.

The Liberals let the railway company that spilled the coal hire their own consultant to try to clean it up. Then when the government came back and took a look, they realized that no, the biologist said that the company's action was inadequate and — wait a second — oh, that we'd waited so long that nothing could be done to actually collect the evidence to properly repair that stream, properly bring back the turtles, because the evidence had washed further down the creek and into the lake.

If the Liberals can't even properly manage a coal spill or a gas spill, how are we ever going to trust them to manage an oil spill?
[ Page 4200 ]

Hon. M. Polak: One of the unfortunate realities for the opposition is that they are unable to take a clear position with respect to how they are going to address resource development in this province.

On this side of the House we have taken action with respect to our five conditions, with respect to land-based spills response, not just including hazardous materials like oil but also in the matter of materials like coal. It is our government that has led on polluter-pay. It is this Ministry of Environment that has worked with rail companies, with the federal government, to ensure that the land-based spills response policy intentions paper reflects the best available science and response that we can produce in North America.

CONSULTATION ON CHANGES
TO AGRICULTURAL LAND RESERVE

N. Simons: The new Minister of Agriculture says that consultation on removing protections from farmland means that he'll read all the e-mails sent to him. Now he tells the people who write to him that consultation will take place with industry, local government and other stakeholders on the regulations after the bill has passed.

Well, last fall the Minister for Core Review said consultation would happen before legislation was tabled because "effective public and stakeholder communications will be an important element of our approach." The Parliamentary Secretary for Core Review and the MLA for Penticton also said that there will be plenty of opportunity to provide input. Last month the minister again promised provincewide consultation.

These three promises, plus the pre-election commitment not to do any of the things that they are planning to, make one wonder and question the veracity of this government's intentions.

To the minister: why should anyone believe your government?

Hon. N. Letnick: Thank you to the member opposite for that question. It's key to remind all members in this House that our approach, the government's approach, to agriculture is to continue to grow agriculture.

[1050]

We're looking at trying to achieve $14 billion in sales by 2017. We're just around $11½ billion right now. We will continue to work with our industry partners to make sure that we achieve $14 billion by 2017. We're doing that in many ways.

We're doing that by continuing to support the Buy Local program. We're doing that by continuing to invest money into the replant program, which we've done. We put that into our mandate letter as well to continue to work with our agricultural partners in that area. We continue to provide food and veggie programs to schools. The milk program has expanded. We have the meat inspection system, which we have taken over from CFIA.

Anyway, the list can go on and on. I'd just like to say that it's great to work with people like the B.C. Ag Council, the leadership in the ALC, and others to make sure we have a viable, strong, supportable agricultural sector not only for the people in the sector but also for people all throughout British Columbia that eat our products and drink our products.

[End of question period.]

Standing Order 81.1

SCHEDULE FOR DEBATE ON BILL 24

Hon. M. de Jong: Yesterday I rose and advised the House in presenting a motion that agreement had been achieved around the timely disposition of the estimates and final supply, and I indicated I would advise the House with respect to Bill 24, which is the remaining piece of legislation being considered by the House.

I rise today pursuant to Standing Order 81.1(2), regrettably, to advise the House that a similar agreement has not been reached, and therefore to propose the following motion:

[Pursuant to Standing Order 81.1(2), all remaining stages related to Bill (No. 24) intituled Agricultural Land Commission Amendment Act, 2014, including any proposed amendments on notice standing in the Minister's name on the Order Paper shall be completed and disposed of on or before 5:30 p.m., Thursday, May 29, 2014.

At 5:15 p.m. on the date mentioned, all necessary questions shall be put forthwith for the disposal of the remaining stages of Bill (No. 24) without amendment or debate. Divisions called on sections of Bill (No. 24) shall be taken in accordance with Practice Recommendation No. 1.

Any divisions called or second or third reading of Bill (No. 24) may be taken in accordance with Standing Order 16 and all other divisions will be covered by Practice Recommendation No. 1. Proceedings under this motion shall not be subject to the provisions of Standing Order 81, or the Standing or Sessional Orders relating to times and days of the sittings of the House.]

I have provided copies of the motion in advance to the Opposition House Leader, and, I believe, to both independent members of the House.

I so move.

Madame Speaker: Hon. members will know that this motion is not debatable.

[1055]

Motion approved on the following division:

R. Fleming: I seek leave to introduce a petition.

Madame Speaker: Proceed.

Petitions

R. Fleming: I have with me today 2,500 signatures that are gathered on the provincial government, calling upon them to preserve environmental education as a core element in the revised science and social studies curricula, from kindergarten through grade 9. Proposed changes in grades 4 to 7 remove the study of the natural world, and the petitioners ask the Ministry of Education that that mistake be undone.

S. Robinson: I've got a petition as well. It's 632 signatures petitioning this government to continue the current funding to the Burquitlam Lions Care Centre and to maintain the 76 care beds in this facility.

Orders of the Day

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

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 24 — AGRICULTURAL LAND
COMMISSION AMENDMENT ACT, 2014

(continued)

On the amendment (continued).

M. Elmore: I'm very pleased to stand and continue the debate on the motion to refer Bill 24 to a committee to allow for consultation.

Reflecting on the similarities of Bill 24 and the proposed changes to the agricultural land reserve, it struck me that there were some similarities in a bill from the previous session. What do they share in common? There was a broken election promise.

[1100]

We had the election promise that the Liberals would not make changes, that they would continue to support the agricultural land reserve. They said one thing during the election, and now we have another decision to break that promise, as well, with no consultation.

What was that similar bill previously that I think British Columbians are very familiar with, certainly all of us here? That's the HST. The HST — well, we had one thing during the election and a broken promise afterwards, characterizing the lack of consultation as well. We had the debate on both sides, the benefits and the disadvantages of the HST. That was ongoing. What really galled the public and really generated that opposition was the lack of consultation, the broken promise during the election to say one thing and do another. That resonated with British Columbians.

I think that there is a very strong parallel, a similar phenomenon that we're seeing here with Bill 24 looking to undermine and dismantle the agriculture land reserve.

This is certainly what we're seeing come forward in terms of from constituents, from stakeholders, from farmers, from concerned citizens who have concerns about these proposed changes. On the one hand, the broken promise during the election not to make changes and the exact opposite after the election; and the lack of consultation, the lack of opportunity for individuals to have their say, despite having been promised the opportunity for consultation but having that denied.

I think there's a strong message for the government to heed that and to learn those lessons — the hard lesson that was learned over the HST fiasco and debacle and what we are seeing and experiencing now, today, with Bill 24 and these proposed changes to the agricultural land reserve. I think it would be very timely for the government to reflect on that and to support the decision to allow the public to have consultation and input on this bill and the issues that are really stirring and are of concern to British Columbians.

This weekend I attended the 12th annual South
[ Page 4202 ]
Vancouver neighbourhood festival, had a table there talking to folks, constituents, about their concerns. This is an issue that was raised around the future of the agricultural land reserve, about the changes that were being proposed in Bill 24 and, really, the lack of opportunity to raise questions, to have input and to be part of the process.

This is really a slap in the face and a disservice to citizens in British Columbia. It is an insult to our institution of the principles that our Legislature is based on, is founded on, and it is an insult, as well, to British Columbians — this farce of a bill and the promise of consultation, the complete abandonment, the repeated promises and the repeated broken promises for the opportunity for consultation.

What is the government afraid of? If the government has full confidence in the bill and stands behind the bill, then certainly, they can also allow the public to have a chance to have input — to engage constituents and for them to come forward, to have the opportunity to bring their concerns forward to the Minister of Agriculture and to the government, to bring forward their concerns. What are they afraid of, and what are they scared of?

I've had numerous e-mails come to my office, talked to scores of individuals at farmers markets and businesses impacted, and my message is that this is wrong. We need to go to a process of consultation to allow British Columbians to have input and express their concerns with this bill.

[1105]

My message is that the government should listen and should allow that opportunity and that British Columbians should not be denied their basic rights, as British Columbians, to have input into public policy issues that are important. British Columbians value the agricultural land reserve that was struck with great vision over four decades ago. It has allowed our agricultural sector to thrive and really develop a robust and unique economy and infrastructure with respect to our vibrant farmers markets, our food-to-table businesses and has allowed the expansion and success that's unique to British Columbia.

The decision for Bill 24 being introduced and rammed down the throats here in the Legislature, invoking closure, cutting off debate in the Legislature and not allowing British Columbians to have the opportunity to express their concerns — and stakeholders and folks who are concerned about food security, supporting our agriculture in British Columbia and looking at the future, where we want to go and how we want to share that as British Columbians…. It's a disservice here in British Columbia, and it's a shame.

I feel very passionate about this issue. I've met with folks who have been involved, engaged, talking to the public, sponsoring petitions, going out and talking about the issues of food security, the concerns around climate change — how that's going to impact our agriculture here not just today. We are seeing the manifestations of that in terms of the drought in California, the rising food costs, the concerns for our long-term security when British Columbia is also tackling these issues.

These are key concerns. They're important. They're of concern not only for today but going into the future and looking at our long-term direction of how, as British Columbians, we're going to secure food security, support our local economy, support our farmers and address these challenges into the future. It's shortsighted. It's just a disappointing process that we're faced with today here.

I'm in support of the motion to go to committee and to allow the public to have input. It was a sham of a process. Promises for consultation. First there was the mystery press release that came out, advising the public they had the opportunity to make consultations to the Select Standing Committee on Finance. It was a sham. The Chair of the Finance Committee didn't even know about it. I was on the committee. We were surprised when we had delegations coming. It was given a debate in terms of how that information was going to come forward.

The public has been shut down. It's been an insult in terms of…. British Columbians, who have legitimate concerns and want to have their voices heard, have been insulted, I think, by this government. There is a reckoning. The government should take heed and learn the lessons from the HST where British Columbians were denied the opportunity to have input. We know the results of the HST.

My message to the government: I hope that they will support the motion to go to committee. My message to British Columbians is to not accept this heavy-handed, disgraceful example of a bill, Bill 24, which will undermine our agricultural land reserve. My message to British Columbians is to bring forward their concerns to their MLAs, to the government, to continue to organize and express opposition to this bill and defeat it.

S. Simpson: I'm pleased to stand to speak to the amendment to Bill 24, the Agricultural Land Commission Amendment Act, 2014. It's a pleasure to get an opportunity to speak to the amendment.

[1110]

Just to refresh memories about the piece of legislation that we're debating here, which the amendment is proposed to, these dramatic and radical changes to the agricultural land reserve and the Agricultural Land Commission do a number of things. Generally, they do two things that are pretty fundamental.

The first one is to create the two zones. As we know from the debate that we've heard here, the creation of these two zones creates a situation where about 90 percent of the actual acreage — and we'll debate about productivity on the land — falls into zone 2, a zone that allows much more opportunity for land to be extracted from the land reserve and to be used for other purposes.
[ Page 4203 ]
As has been interestingly noted, much of that is in areas where oil and gas development is expected to take place.

So that's a dramatic change — to take such a significant portion of the land that currently sits in the reserve and radically change its status. That's one of the things Bill 24 does that's pretty fundamental.

The other one is to change to go to six regional panels that will in fact make decisions about land use in six regions of the province. We know that this experiment was tried before and essentially was set aside by the land commission as not very functional, not very workable. They went back to what was largely a commission-driven process for decision-making. Now that's going to fall by the wayside if Bill 24 passes, and you're going to have these panels.

So we have this situation where we have these changes in front of us. It's been a hearty debate in this House, and the debate will continue until we see closure at the end of this week, I suspect — when the government invokes closure to pass this bill without a proper resolution.

The result of these changes is a significant erosion of the agricultural land reserve and a significant diminishing of the powers of the Agricultural Land Commission. The response to that from people in the public has been pretty dramatic. We have heard from large numbers of groups across the province. We've heard from municipalities. Most of the municipal agencies, the authorities — what would be the regional districts — have passed resolutions saying: "Stop what you're doing, and talk to us, at least."

We've heard that from the agricultural council. The cattlemen's association has clearly said: "Stop what you're doing and talk to us before you take this any further." The National Farmers Union has raised issues, and we'll talk a little about their recent correspondence. Other groups like the B.C. Food Systems Network have raised concerns. Letters from academics and scientists have been written to the government saying that this is a big mistake. "You shouldn't be doing this. At least talk to us. At least have a consultation." That's been much of the debate.

The Agricultural Land Commission's chair, Mr. Bullock, has raised serious concerns about how this is all unfolding. So to that, the opposition has moved the amendment that essentially says to send this to a committee, that says that we need to talk about this more, that says with something that has for 40 years been a pretty fundamental piece of what we do, how we do business in this province when it comes to food security, to farming, to agricultural opportunity…. The Agricultural Land Commission and the agricultural land reserve have been the cornerstone and the foundation of that for 40 years.

What people in the province have been saying — and we've heard it over and over — is: "Talk to us about what you're doing before you make these changes." Many of those groups, the stakeholders, the people on the ground who actually do this work — whether it's the membership of the Agriculture Council or the cattlemen's association or the National Farmers Union or any number of other groups who are hands-on, front-line in this work — have said that much of what you've proposed here is ill-conceived, and you haven't spoken to us about this.

It's simply not good enough when the minister says: "We'll talk to you after we pass the law." That's not very good practice by anybody's terms. So we have this situation where we don't have any meaningful consultation.

[1115]

What has been proposed here in the amendment that we're debating now is to, in fact, refer this to a committee, to send it to the committee, to ask that committee to go and do the consultation that has been omitted from this process.

It particularly becomes concerning because I think there was a little bit of hope when the new Minister of Agriculture first received his appointment, which was in the middle of the process of Bill 24. He stood up on the first day and said: "I'm hearing from lots of people, and I'm going to consult. I'm going to talk to people, and everything is on the table. We'll look at significant amendments. We'll look at the viability of the bill in its entirety. We're prepared to put it all on the table and look at that."

That lasted something less than 24 hours, till he was corrected by the Minister for Core Review and of Energy, who said: "Talk to whoever you want, but you're not changing anything." That, essentially, then became the Minister of Agriculture's view.

The Minister of Agriculture stood up in this House then and all of the sudden wasn't talking about a significant consultation before the bill becomes law but instead said he was reading his mail. That's a good thing. The minister should read his mail. But he essentially said he's going to read his mail.

Now, it would be interesting to know — and when he closes debate on this, if he takes a role in here, maybe he can tell us — about how many pieces of correspondence he's received and how many thousands and thousands of those were telling him to stop what he's doing, to stop Bill 24, to stop this process.

My guess is that volume of mail that's sitting on the Agriculture Minister's desk…. The pile that says this is a bad idea is a heck of a lot bigger than the pile that says this is a good idea. I suspect it's from some pretty thoughtful people and people with significant expertise in the field or people who make their livelihood out of farming and out of agriculture who are saying: "This is a bad idea."

What we have said in this resolution, in this amendment, is: take it out and do consultation. It's a practice that we should probably be adopting for a whole lot of what we do here.

The reality is this. Even if you believe in Bill 24, even if you support Bill 24, there is nothing pressing about that
[ Page 4204 ]
piece of legislation being passed at the end of this week that wouldn't be just as appropriate in the fall, if you went there. And you would allow a committee, if you would accept this amendment and put a legislative committee in place….

Put a committee in place and give them the mandate to go out around this province and talk to British Columbians, to seek the advice of experts and of stakeholders, to talk to people in local communities in different places in this province that will be affected. Talk to local governments. Take the advice that we're given, and prepare some advice for the minister and for the Legislature about how, in fact, this bill either could be improved or dismissed entirely, if that was the view of the committee.

It would be extremely valuable to do that. There's nothing that's going to happen between now and October or November that is so pressing that this legislation has to be passed this week. It would create the opportunity for that discussion to happen, for a report to come back to the Legislature before the bill is finalized, for a discussion before the bill is finalized and for real input from those on the outside.

While that process was going on with a committee of the Legislature over the next number of months with the mandate to come back in the fall with some kind of report for this Legislature, based on the results of their findings, it would also provide the Minister of Agriculture some more time to not just read his mail.

[1120]

It would provide the Minister of Agriculture some significant time to be able to consult, himself, and many of those groups, those stakeholders, those individuals, those communities, those local governments who have a concern about Bill 24 — concern that it is undermining and compromising food security and the agricultural industry in this province — to sit down with him and have a meaningful conversation, to sit down with the minister and talk about the issues that are important to them, and to do it in a way where the clock isn't simply ticking hours. It would provide some days, some weeks, some months to get at this properly.

There are significant questions that are raised by many of these groups. We talked about the academics and soil scientists and the questions they've raised. There has been the discussion about what is going on in California right now around their industries, which we rely on for food security, that are now being compromised because of drought and other issues in California that are changing that availability and price.

We haven't had those discussions, and there's no evidence that the government had looked at those questions in any way, shape or form before bringing forward Bill 24. There has been no assessment or analysis in any way, shape or form of what that means.

We know and we've heard often about issues related to climate change. What we hear about British Columbia when we discuss climate change is that we might actually be, in the short term, a jurisdiction that in some ways benefits. Because of slight changes in climate, we could create growing areas in this province that we hadn't envisioned before or expand the possibilities in growing areas for variety. That's a possibility.

We may find that some of those areas have been essentially dismissed by the Minister for Core Review and the Minister of Agriculture as not that valuable — i.e., the zone 2 areas. Well, we don't know what the value of those areas is going to be, moving forward, and we've seen nothing from the government, nothing from this minister, that suggests there has been any assessment done, any analysis done, of what the potential is in those areas.

Wouldn't it be worthwhile to have consultation that allowed us to better understand that, to have a committee of the Legislature that could invite the kind of expertise, whether it be from within the ministry or external expertise, and ask for that advice and that direction about what the potential is ten, 20, 30, 40 years out? What are they projecting? But we don't have that information. Instead, we've got a fairly shortsighted approach being taken by the government here in regard to this.

We know that it's a significant problem. I understand the Premier at the end of April received a letter from the National Farmers Union. It says: "The National Farmers Union opposes the amendment to the Agricultural Land Commission being proposed in Bill 24." I want to talk a little about some of their advice. They're a pretty thoughtful bunch, and they sent a six-page letter to the Premier that lays out their concerns.

At their recent convention in 2013, the resolution that was passed was: "Whereas the agricultural land reserve was set up to protect viable farmland in B.C., and whereas the current provincial government has initiated a process to dismantle or weaken the ALR and allow agricultural land to be further developed and mined…be it resolved that the National Farmers Union publicly acknowledge the agricultural land reserve is a model that should be replicated across Canada and maintained and strengthened in B.C."

Here they've said, as one of the groups that should be part of this consultation and part of this discussion, that it, in fact, should get more attention and more support. They raise that for a number of reasons. They certainly have the concern that they've raised about the notion of splitting up the province into two zones and, also, the panel structure.

[1125]

To give you an indication of the kind of discussion that you would see in a consultation, I suspect, I just want to give you a quote from their letter around this.

"The NFU opposes the creation of zones and the permanent-panel structure. All farmland in B.C. is important and needs to be protected, regardless of location or the type of development pressure placed upon it. The ALR was set up as an institution for
[ Page 4205 ]
the benefit of the whole province, and thus, the overall farmland protection values need to be reflected in decision-making, regardless of location.

"By delegating the Agricultural Land Commission's full jurisdiction to the small regional panels — some as few as two individuals who reside within the region — there is clear danger that local development pressures could influence the panel members and that the overall vision of the commission would be diluted and/or fragmented over time. Local interests need to be balanced by broader interests, and there's a high risk of losing that balance when the full power of the commission can be exercised by so few people."

That's what they said. The other thing that they said that is particularly important to this discussion we're having today — around the amendment that calls for sending this to a committee — is when they talk about the process that we've undergone. I'd like to quote what they've said about that.

"The National Farmers Union would also draw attention to the undemocratic manner in which this bill has been brought forward. The ALR is a longstanding institution in B.C., one that helps define the province's character as well as its land use and economy.

"Any change to such an important element calls out for a comprehensive and inclusive public process. Farmers should be at the forefront of any discussion about the future of farmland, since without land it is not possible to farm. Yet there have been no public consultations. B.C. farmers and other B.C. residents have not had a proper opportunity to be involved in a full public debate on this matter of vital interest."

These comments, made by the Farmers Union in a letter to the Premier on April 30, have been echoed time and time again by British Columbians, whether it be by British Columbians who work directly in the industry or by British Columbians who simply are concerned about food security issues and are concerned about how that unfolds.

They see us compromising an institution. At a time when we look at the issues of climate, when we look at the issues of the changing climate and the effect that it will have on us long term, the last thing that we should be doing is taking away what have been very effective and fundamental tools that allow us to be able to address those issues. The agricultural land reserve was clearly one of those tools that ensured that we in fact protected the land that we need for farming moving forward — something that's had broad support.

We know that there just hasn't been much discussion on this. We'll go back. The Minister for Core Review said to me in estimates, in his estimates the other day, that the government had looked at tens of thousands of pages of documents that Mr. Bullock…. When he prepared his report, which was a fairly comprehensive report on the state of the ALR, he made a series of recommendations that are not at all consistent with Bill 24. The suggestion somehow from the Minister for Core Review was that all of that had been considered.

Of course we then learned afterwards that that wasn't in fact the case, that in fact those documents and all of those documents that Mr. Bullock had put together hadn't been considered. There was some suggestion that ministry staff had been following Mr. Bullock around, taking their own notes, and that those notes had been considered. It sounds much like a bit of grasping at straws, about making claims that there wasn't the substance to back up. That's what it seems to me.

The bottom line with all of this, of course, is that we don't know and the government doesn't know. The government doesn't know because in fact it hasn't done the work. It hasn't done the consultation.

If the minister, the Premier, the Minister for Core Review, the minister for LNG, the rest of this cabinet and this government is so confident about Bill 24…. If the rest of the cabinet, this cabinet and this B.C. Liberal government is so confident that this is the right thing to do, that this is the right thing for public policy, that it's the right thing for farming and agriculture, that it's the right thing for food security….

[1130]

If the government and the cabinet and the B.C. Liberals truly believe that, then you should be enthusiastic about going out and engaging in a meaningful consultation and discussion with the people who deliver this industry day in and day out — and with the local communities that will be the most directly impacted or affected by decisions that are made around changes in the ALR.

There should be a discussion. There should be opportunities at the upcoming UBCM to have a discussion about the substance of this bill before it's passed, not after it's passed. There should be an opportunity to go into those six regions that are being identified in this bill for panels and have discussions in those regions and have discussions about the potential impact of regional panels. Are they a good idea, or are they a bad idea? That's not going to happen. Those panels are going to get put in place.

There should be a discussion with academics, with soil scientists, with agrologists, with those people who understand this very, very well about what the potential impacts of these decisions are on production of food and what the projections are, moving forward, as to what our needs will be and what our opportunities are in the different parts of the province. How do we ensure that we're able to exercise those options and opportunities?

None of that's going to happen. All of it is going to come post Bill 24. The bill will be passed. The regulations will be written. The appointments will be made. The people will be in place. The action will be going forward, and then there will be a public relations exercise — maybe, maybe not — to talk to people about something after it's done.

This is this old story about closing the barn door after the horse is gone. This is truly what we're talking about here, and it doesn't make sense. It just doesn't make sense. If the government truly believes this is in the best interests of British Columbians, if they truly believe they have an argument to make that British Columbians will embrace across this province, to say that this is the right way to go, then they should engage British Columbians in the discussion about that.
[ Page 4206 ]

There are folks out there who might be in agreement with some of this, but what you hear from them is: "I have lots of questions, and I have no answers." Doesn't the minister, doesn't the Premier, doesn't the government feel some obligation to hear those questions, to respond to them, to answer them — if the government doesn't have the answers — to take it upon itself to go and find answers that are substantive and credible and put those answers forward. Isn't the government prepared to do that? That's really what has to happen here.

I would say this is a bad piece of legislation that shouldn't go forward. I would say that it doesn't make sense in terms of food security. I would say it doesn't make sense in terms of climate. I would say it doesn't make sense in terms of the agricultural industry.

I should be obliged to go and hear from people who might disagree with me, and that should be part of that process — me, or members on this side who share that view, who could sit on that legislative committee, along with the members on the government side, of course, and go out and hear that debate and engage thoughtful, informed members of the public in that discussion and that debate.

Then come back, as committees often do, and sit down and do the work to prepare some thoughtful recommendations, amendments, suggestions, whatever, for the minister and for government, and be prepared to submit that in the fall to this Legislature, to tell this Legislature what they heard, to tell this Legislature what they assessed or deemed from what they heard, to say what science is out there, what questions haven't been answered that need answering.

[1135]

We may well find that. Legislative committees can do some work, but they're not research centres. We may well find…. I suspect there is a good possibility that what we would find are some very real questions about thoughtfulness and about the need to look forward and the need to do more assessment and more analysis, the need to look at the bigger picture moving forward.

If that advice comes from sources that bring credibility and legitimacy to those questions, why wouldn't the government, why wouldn't the Ministry of Agriculture, say: "That makes sense, and we're going to do that, because we want to get this right"? That's important.

Part of the challenge we have — and part of this is the track record of the government — is far too often taking decisions that haven't been thoughtfully considered and then having to back-pedal out of them later on. It would be very unfortunate to pass Bill 24, which I think is one of those times when not a lot of thought has gone into this. There's a bit of a myopic view moving forward about where all the cards lay in this game now for the government, and that anything that has to be done to facilitate that should be done.

What we need to do is get a little bit past that. This is too important. When we talk about food, when we talk about food security, when we talk about an industry that still is critical to this province and critical to the country, we should be more thoughtful. We should be more careful about how we make those decisions. The amendment that's here that we're debating today would give us, give this Legislature, the opportunity to do that.

It doesn't say to the government: "You have to change this bill today." What it says to the government is: "You have to go listen to British Columbians. You have to create the vehicle, through this Legislature, to go talk to British Columbians. You have to give people a fair hearing. You have to be prepared to engage and defend your position if you truly believe this is good for British Columbia, good for the agricultural industry, good for the farmers in this province, good for local governments, good for communities, good for people who are concerned about environmental questions that are also impacted by decisions here."

There has to be some obligation from somebody at that cabinet table to go out and talk to people. Unfortunately, it doesn't appear to be the case. Unfortunately, it appears that these decisions were taken…. As is often the wont with governments — it certainly is the wont with this government — decisions are taken that the government knows cannot be supported by any kind of thoughtful debate. They sit on a base of sand. They will move. They will shift. They are but another agenda. Rather than go and defend them, you just railroad them through.

We as the opposition have spent time, and will continue until the end of this session to spend time, to give people out in the community more opportunity to put pressure on this government. But sadly, this is a government that, when it knows it's wrong but has an agenda anyway, will ram that agenda through. That's probably what we're dealing with today.

I do wish the government would do the right thing, would engage British Columbians in the discussion about this 40-year-old jewel, in terms of legislative and programmic policy in this province, but that's probably not going to happen. Instead, we will get closure forced upon us on Thursday. We will move forward from there.

I would assure the members on the other side this debate will not end on Thursday. The people in this community concerned about agriculture will not stop their voices. This side will not stop raising its voice. We will be talking about this for an awfully long time to come and holding the government accountable for ramming this through without talking to British Columbians, for ramming it through and ignoring all of the evidence and all of the experts who say this government is just terribly, terribly wrong in this decision.

It's a failed piece of legislation that will hurt this province for decades and generations to come, but I don't think the government or the minister really cares that much about that.
[ Page 4207 ]

C. James: I, too, am pleased to stand and speak to the motion to refer that we have in front of us on Bill 24. A motion to refer — I just want to take a minute to talk a little bit about why we would take a look at a motion to refer on a bill like this.

[1140]

A referral motion calls for the referral of a subject of the matter of a bill to a select standing committee of the House for the purpose of obtaining an opinion or observations. That comes from Parliamentary Practice in British Columbia.

Obtaining an opinion or observations — I'll come back to that. I think it's important just to lay that out, but I'll come back to that when I speak about how important it is to take a look at this referral motion and how in fact it is an opportunity for the government to correct a wrong — correct something that wasn't done and that should have been done. I'm certain that if members on the other side took a minute to think about it, they would recognize how important it is to have those discussions.

I believe that there are some basic steps that are critical when you're bringing forward legislation. I spoke a little bit about those in my first discussion on this bill. If you're looking at good government, if you're looking at bringing forward legislation, it's fundamental that you take a look at a couple of questions.

One of those, I think anybody would imagine, is: what's the purpose of the bill? Why are we bringing forward this bill? What is it looking to fix, and what is it looking to improve or strengthen? I think those are very fundamental to any kind of legislation. We'll come back to the importance of referral on those questions when it relates to this bill.

As I've noted and as other speakers on this side have noted, Bill 24 certainly doesn't come forward to improve support for agriculture. If you're looking at the purpose of this bill, you certainly don't see the purpose of this bill improving support for agriculture. In fact, it's just the opposite. We'll have an opportunity to talk about that. But it certainly doesn't come forward to improve agriculture in British Columbia — something that the public and that people have strongly stood up for, for many, many years.

What does it look to fix, then? Again, if you look at this bill and take a look at the legislation, it certainly doesn't appear to fix a problem. The public that I talk to say, "Yes, there are areas where we could strengthen agriculture, and there are areas where we could improve things for agriculture in our province," but this bill doesn't do any of those. This bill doesn't look to fix a challenge that's there.

If it doesn't do any of those things, then let's take a look at what I believe is fundamental to public policy — fundamental to not simply bringing forward legislation but in fact fundamental to any kind of discussion that any politician at any level needs to have — and that's public consultation, engagement of the public.

If you take a look at some of the public out there and the lack of support we see for politics and politicians and democracy, often what you hear from the public — the comment coming back — is that they don't feel that they have an opportunity to make a difference. They don't feel that they have an opportunity to engage. The public often says: "Well, I feel like the decision is already made. I feel like those in charge have already decided, so why would I get out and engage in something? I'm busy; I have a busy life. I want to feel like I can make a difference."

The sad statement that Bill 24 brings forward and that we're trying to fix with the amendment to refer…. The sad reality is that this kind of behaviour from the government in fact reinforces that view for the public. It reinforces the view that we're bringing forward something that we didn't talk to you about, that we didn't have a discussion with you on. In fact, we're not going to discuss with you. We're just going to bring it forward and push through.

That does exactly what the public feels is done too often in politics, which is that it doesn't give the opportunity for people who are impacted to be able to have a say. Surely all of us in this chamber, who have been elected by our communities, should understand that we have an obligation to go back and talk to our communities about the decisions that are being made. We have an obligation, a serious obligation, to have that kind of conversation and have that discussion, and you don't see it with this bill coming forward.

[1145]

You would expect that this government, having now been in place for a number of years, would understand the importance of that public debate, particularly with something so historic as the agricultural land reserve and the Agricultural Land Commission. This is an act that has survived different governments of different political stripes. That is unusual in our democracy — to know that an act, whether the government has changed stripes or not, has continued on.

The reason it's done that is because the public supports it, because the public had an opportunity for a voice. They were able to speak out. They said loud and clear: "We support the agricultural land reserve, we support the Agricultural Land Commission, and we support protecting our farmland in British Columbia."

You would imagine that this government would have seen the opportunity for consultation — the exact consultation that now, through this amendment, we're trying to fix and give an opportunity for the public to have. But it didn't happen. In fact, exactly the opposite happened. Exactly the opposite happened where no discussion took place.

You might say that in fact this motion is saving government from itself. This is an opportunity for government to recognize that they did something wrong, that they forgot a fundamental step when it comes to public
[ Page 4208 ]
policy, which is consulting and having a discussion. This referral motion in fact corrects a mistake, a step that the government didn't do.

Here's an opportunity. I think that the government should look at this as an opportunity — not a motion that's coming forward to say that everything the government is doing is wrong. It in fact gives the opportunity for government to say: "You're right. We forgot a fundamental step, which is giving the public a voice, and we will give that opportunity to the public."

It's not as though this government hasn't had other opportunities to be reminded of that. It's not as though this government is learning for the first time that they should have consulted and that perhaps things might go better if they did. In fact, this government has had many, many, many opportunities to learn about that. I just want to look at a couple of those, because I think, again, it emphasizes the importance of the referral motion and why government needs to take a look at that motion.

The first one, of course, was when this government came into power back in 2001 and decided that they were going to rip up contracts for employees in this province. Sadly, we're still in that debate with the teachers right now. But teachers, health care workers — this government decided that it didn't matter, that they didn't need to have a public consultation, that they didn't need to talk to people about this. They were just going to rip up contracts that were legal negotiated, legally in place, and ignore them.

What ended up happening because of that? What ended up happening was that millions of taxpayer dollars were spent on legal cases that the government lost. The government was shown that they didn't act constitutionally, that it was illegal what they'd done and that they hadn't had any consultation or discussion around those contracts. Well, that's exactly the reason that a referral motion is sitting right here, because the referral motion gives an opportunity for government not to repeat that mistake again, for the government not to in fact move ahead with things without any kind of public consultation.

We're seeing it right now with the discussion around the youth custody centre here on Vancouver Island. Again, just as we're talking about with this legislation, just as we're talking about with this referral motion, the minister, the government, admitted that no, they're not going to consult. They've made the decision already, and too bad for anyone who wants to have a say. What kind of direction is that? What kind of direction is that for a government to take? What kind of respect is that for the public?

[1150]

An issue where people who are impacted — just as this bill is, just as the referral motion talks about — by a decision get no opportunity to be able to have a say; no opportunity to be heard; no opportunity to raise their voices; no opportunity to talk about the successes, the challenges or resolve some of the problems. Instead, the government says, "You don't count. We're going to make a decision anyway," just as they're doing with this bill and just as we're trying to fix with a referral motion.

We saw it a few weeks ago with the example of a regulation that the government decided to bring in around natural gas and have no discussion with First Nations about that. "We'll talk to them about it afterwards." Well, if government needed a current example, that's another one for them to take a look at — where they didn't consult, didn't have discussions, didn't go out and talk to anyone and ended up pulling back that regulation.

It's also not unique for government to change their mind and say: "You're right. We should have consulted. In fact, why didn't we consult the people who were impacted? Let's pull that regulation back." I give credit to government for doing that. They shouldn't have brought in the regulation in the first place. That would have been the smarter thing to do — to consult first. But once they realized the mistake, they pulled that regulation back and said: "You're right. We need to go out and consult with the people impacted."

Well, that's an example we have right here, where the government can correct their mistake just as they did with that regulation and say: "You're right. We should have consulted. We should pull that back."

Of course, there's the example that I think all of us are all too familiar with, which is the example of the HST. If ever there was an example to be studied in British Columbia, it's the example of the HST and the fact that the government did absolutely no consultation on that issue. Think of all the time, energy and resources that were wasted on that.

I think that's part of the frustration that you're certainly hearing from this side of the House. You can save those resources, and you can save that frustration by doing the right thing in the first place, which is talking to the people who are impacted. Yet we don't see that. We don't see that happen. We see the government decide, as they're doing with this bill: "Let's go ahead. Let's not consult. Let's move forward."

Well, there's a missed opportunity here, a missed opportunity to actually make a better decision, a missed opportunity to actually hear from the people who are impacted by this bill and to do the right thing. The public that I talk to ask a pretty basic question, which is: what is government afraid of? Why would this government be afraid to listen to people? Why would this government be afraid to let the public have their say?

If the government believes in this bill, if the government believes it's the right direction to go, why on earth wouldn't they allow that?

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]
[ Page 4209 ]

Noting the time, I will move adjournment of the debate and reserve my right to speak when the House comes back.

C. James 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. D. McRae moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 11:54 a.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HEALTH

(continued)

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

The committee met at 11:06 a.m.

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

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

Hon. T. Lake: I wanted to take a minute to refer back to yesterday's debate and wanted to just make a correction for the record. I don't think the hon. member was necessarily trying to mislead the committee.

I wanted to correct in terms of timelines. I think it's important. Yesterday the member opposite said that the official opposition made a request last July for briefing notes and backgrounders prepared for the minister for estimates, which we did last summer, and did not receive them until a few days before the estimates were to begin — a few working days.

I said that I agreed with the member that that was not acceptable in terms of the timeline. We went back and looked. Just from a high level…. The request made by the opposition was received in the Ministry of Technology, Innovation and Citizens' Services information access operations group on December 13, 2013, not in July. The due date for the request was January 20.

This was a large volume of information, and there were a number of requests for extensions, all of which were granted by the applicant in this case — the opposition. I just wanted to correct that timeline, but I still agree that it's important to provide this information in a timely manner. I would have thought that the member should have had that material sooner than she did.

I just wanted to correct that the request was made in the middle of December, not last July.

J. Darcy: I will certainly double-check on that myself. Apologies if the date was December rather than July. The minister apologized yesterday. I think it was appropriate to do so. To receive such a huge volume — 483 pages — two business days before estimates were to proceed…. Whether it's six months or whether the request was nine months before, the issue, I think, still stands.

I would also like to put on the record…. I questioned the minister yesterday about medical services premiums and said that MSP premiums had gone up by 100 percent since 2001. The minister contradicted me, but in fact, he used 2002 figures.

The fact is that in that first year, when the Liberals took office, there was an increase in MSP premiums of approximately 50 percent. In fact, the figures that I was using were accurate. The minister is also accurate when he goes from 2002. But frankly, my assertion regarded 2001, and I don't really think it's appropriate in this room to use spin and to leave out a 50 percent increase from the first year.

[1110]

Hon. T. Lake: This is a bit silly. I used figures from 2002 to 2013, and I said those figures. I didn't say that the member was wrong. I did not contradict her. I used figures from 2002 to 2013. I also said that while MSP premiums have doubled since 2001, the health care budget has also more than doubled since 2001.

I would be happy to spend our time together answering questions, rather than having this sort of exchange that I don't feel is very worthwhile in terms of getting information to taxpayers about the way their health care dollars are being spent.

J. Darcy: I would like to move on now to the issue of the Ambulance Service of British Columbia, as we had indicated to the minister previously. My first question is with regard to targets for response times for ambulance paramedics. Could the minister please indicate what the national target times for ambulance response times are at the present time?
[ Page 4210 ]

[1115]

Hon. T. Lake: There are no national response time standards. In British Columbia the response times will vary depending on the location of the situation — whether it's remote, rural or metro. Understandably, in a remote area response time is going to be different than it would in a metro area, where there are more ambulance stations, more full-time paramedics, because obviously the need, the demand, is there.

In the metro regions of the province our expectation is that the response will be under five minutes 55 percent of the time. We are looking at specific cases or conditions, such as cardiac arrest, in which we would have a specific goal — in this case a response time less than nine minutes 80 percent of the time. We're actually using this as a shadow pay-for-performance model, looking at that target of responding to cardiac arrest in less than nine minutes 80 percent of the time or greater.

In the U.K. they have a goal of an eight-minute response time in 75 percent of the cases. Again, there are different standards, and again, that would vary depending on the circumstances — the geography, the location, the remoteness — of the need for the ambulance.

J. Darcy: As the minister, of course, is well aware, the B.C. Ambulance Service introduced some major changes to how ambulance calls — 911 calls — are responded to, called the Resource Allocation Plan, on October 31 or November 1 — right around then. One of the major criticisms of these changes has been that they were introduced without any consultation with people on the front lines, whether those were ambulance, paramedics, firefighters, municipal governments or whatever.

The issue of consultation has been raised time and time again in the responses to the Resource Allocation Plan. Dr. Dick, in responding to these on The Bill Good Show on April 3, referred to an expert panel that he said was consulted. But from all of the consultations and the statements that I've seen from the various people who are involved in either first-responder service or ambulance paramedic service say that, in fact, the expert panel was a handpicked one, not one representing those organizations.

Dr. Dick is also quoted on the air saying that this was messaged out through UBCM. In other words, he didn't ask them; he told them. It was messaged out through UBCM.

The Lower Mainland Local Government Association refers to this decision as being a unilateral decision. The fire chiefs across the Lower Mainland, their association, said there was no consultation. It was a unilateral decision. They asked that the Ambulance Service hold off, and they were refused. The chief of the Vancouver fire department and the council are on record criticizing the lack of consultation. So is the Burnaby fire chief and council, the New Westminster fire chief and council, as are the mayors of Surrey and Coquitlam, and the list goes on.

Does the minister believe that there should have been thorough and complete consultation with all of the above before sweeping changes like this were implemented?

Hon. T. Lake: Let me just review the consultations that did take place, and let me also say that this is not the first time that these kinds of changes have been made over the years. It's happened a number of times. But this is the first time that such a detailed data-driven methodology was utilized to inform the appropriateness of the response.

[1120]

The review determined that too often ambulances were responding with lights and sirens when what was medically required was a routine response with no lights and sirens. This is important because when you use your resources efficiently, you can actually get to the cases you need to faster.

The review of the changes has shown that, on average, B.C. Ambulance is responding to appropriate emergency calls one minute sooner, and non-emergency — what we would call care- and comfort-type calls — are about six minutes longer than before. But getting the right resources to the right person at the right time is the key to the appropriateness.

The Resource Allocation Plan review committee reviewed 868 different patient conditions and decided on a case-by-case basis, with the support of a statistical analysis, which resources should be dispatched for each call type. The committee included representatives such as physicians, paramedics, dispatchers and first responders, importantly. As I mentioned, we review the Resource Allocation Plan on a regular basis. It's been reviewed five times since its inception in 1997.

In terms of the consultation, it is important that we work with local governments, because they're our partners when it comes to response. That's why at the Union of B.C. Municipalities meeting in 2013 the Resource Allocation Plan was canvassed with communities. Local governments were informed of the upcoming potential of changes, and we also sent letters on November 12 and January 3 to municipalities.

To date, our organization has met with the Fire Chiefs Association of B.C., the Greater Vancouver Fire Chiefs Association. I mentioned delegates at UBCM and expanded B.C. emergency health services first responder committee. That has included over 25 fire chiefs. They will continue to meet with local governments. I had a good conversation with Vancouver mayor Gregor Robertson a couple of weeks ago and his city manager as well.

It is important that we look at the evidence and that we work with local governments. We have had some local governments say that, actually, they agree with this
[ Page 4211 ]
change. Maple Ridge and Mission, I believe, were local governments that said their first responders do not respond to care-and-comfort calls — never have — and they think it's appropriate that these changes be made for the most efficient use of taxpayer dollars and appropriate response to the patients whom we serve.

J. Darcy: Well, it's one thing to send information out and say that you've consulted. It's another thing to actually consult beforehand and then listen. In the period of time since the Resource Allocation Plan was introduced, we have heard…. I won't enumerate them again, but I went through a long list of people who have spoken out: city officials, fire departments, ambulance paramedics.

Just to quote one of them, this is the fire chief in Vancouver, who was quoted as saying: "We woke up the morning of October 29, and the calls started to come in from my officers that the ambulances aren't showing up to these calls. When we finally got informed, we got information from the Fire Chiefs Association of B.C. at about 10:30 a.m. We learned the Ambulance Service has instituted this" — "this" meaning these changes — "five hours before."

I could read into the record what the Lower Mainland fire chiefs association, the Lower Mainland Local Government Association, representing all local governments from Hope to Squamish, have said. They recently passed a motion unanimously criticizing the lack of consultation as well as the downloading of risk and responsibility onto municipalities.

I think the real issue is, yes, there has been discussion after the fact, but even when a review was conducted by the B.C. Ambulance Service recently, it did not take into account those responses by people who really do work on the front line. But I'd like to move on.

[1125]

In the Legislature on a couple of occasions at least, when questions were raised about the fact that some of these downgrades — 74 types of calls downgraded from code 3, lights and sirens urgent response, to code 2, routine response…. They have in fact resulted in some serious problems, and there have been numerous cases reported in numerous municipalities where these patients actually should have been classified as code 3 and required an urgent response.

Unfortunately, the minister has been very dismissive when those issues have been raised. The head of the B.C. Ambulance Service and B.C. emergency health services has unfortunately also been very dismissive in the public domain about any and all of these concerns.

The experience of front-line firefighters is that they arrive on the scene after a 911 call — and not in all cases. No one is suggesting that some of the downgradings might not have been appropriate. On too many occasions they find that patients were improperly classified as code 2 and should have been high-priority urgent calls, and they have done their very best to try and get those calls upgraded to code 3 and often have had to wait a very, very long time.

Many of the incidents have been raised and reported in the public domain in the Legislature — again, dismissed out of hand. The minister has referred to them as comfort calls and just referred to them, I believe, as care and comfort calls — a call that Mr. Dick has also used repeatedly.

In response to the Lower Mainland Local Government Association raising serious concerns recently, Dr. Dick has said, in a way I think is completely disrespectful to these people who are responsible for emergency services in municipalities: "You wouldn't have a city councillor tell you how to do surgery in an operating room." Well, that's true. We wouldn't have city councillors in a operating room, but it certainly makes sense to listen to firefighters and ambulance paramedics on the front line who have raised serious and repeated concerns.

Point of Order

Hon. T. Lake: Point of order, Mr. Chair. According to the rules of the House, it is not proper for the member in estimates debates to impugn a member of the public service, and that is what the member is doing. So I would hope that she will retract those comments.

J. Darcy: Well, I am, frankly, stating facts. I am reading quotations that are on the record, that are in the public domain and that the minister has repeated and has defended in the Legislature of British Columbia. I would like to move on to a question.

The Chair: One moment, please.

Member, during the time we're here, it's not appropriate to be impugning the work of an aide. Could you please retract that statement.

J. Darcy: I'm happy to do so. Could you please be specific about what it is that I should withdraw?

The Chair: The comments regarding the staff member.

J. Darcy: Well, I will certainly withdraw the comments regarding Dr. Dick. I will, however, reassert that in the Legislature of British Columbia, the Minister of Health has repeatedly and disrespectfully dismissed the issues that have been raised repeatedly by fire departments, by municipal governments and by ambulance paramedics about the seriousness of downgrading these calls from code 3 to code 2.

Hon. T. Lake: I have not been disrespectful.

The Chair: Minister.

The member will continue her comments.
[ Page 4212 ]

Debate Continued

J. Darcy: It has been stated on the record — this is a direct statement; it is not impugning anyone — that the Ambulance Service has received "131 cases, reviewed probably close to 105 of them. I haven't seen yet one case where there was a medical issue with them, and their response was correct."

My question to the minister is: does he accept that of the 131 cases submitted by local fire departments and municipalities, of which it is said the B.C. Ambulance Service director reviewed 105 and did not find there was a medical issue with any of them…? Does the minister believe that to be the case?

[1130]

Hon. T. Lake: Any call that is in question is reviewed. The review involves looking at the dispatch records and looking at the judgment of the dispatcher in terms of the type of response. The patient care record is reviewed at the emergency department.

The last note I have was that 77 complaints from municipalities were reviewed operationally and clinically, and it was found that there were no adverse outcomes in terms of the patients. In other words, they were responded to appropriately.

I'm told that in some cases in which there was a delay, it was deemed unrelated to the changes in the resource allocation plan. So even before the changes to the resource allocation plan…. There are times, for whatever reasons — it may be traffic; it may be other situations — in which a response is longer than would be hoped for.

But the ones that we have examined…. I have talked to Dr. Dick about this personally. In all the cases that he has reviewed to date, there have been no adverse events or no adverse outcomes to patients as a result of the changes in the resource allocation plan.

J. Darcy: There are a number of cases of serious concerns raised by the Vancouver fire department. I want to inquire about a number of those — whether these are among the ones that were examined.

November 2013, traumatic injury, 65-year-old male, large laceration to the head, result of a fall. Patient was bleeding and disoriented when the fire department arrived. Requested dispatch. Requested upgrade from routine to emergency. Ambulance arrived 49 minutes afterwards.

An assault, 39-year-old female on the ground, trauma to the face and head, decreased level of consciousness, possible skull and jaw fractures. Fire department asked for an upgrade. Ambulance service arrived 21 minutes later.

[1135]

Abdominal pain, high school student, January 2014. A 17-year-old, abdominal injury, extreme pain, rigid and point-tender. Contacted dispatch for upgrade. Ambulance arrived 50 minutes later.

January 2014, hemorrhage, 54-year-old man. GI bleed, respiratory distress. Contacted for upgrade 27 minutes later.

Finally, traumatic injury, 55-year-old male. Head trauma, fall down two flights of stairs, disoriented, head wound. Requested upgrade. Level of consciousness deteriorating. After 20 minutes, second call for ambulance requesting upgrade. Ambulance arrives 40 minutes after the fire department.

Does the minister think that those are acceptable? Certainly, the fire department and the city of Vancouver do not.

Hon. T. Lake: I want to put on the record that I take great issue with the member's characterization of my comments as being disrespectful. Certainly, no one has any disrespect for first responders or the organizations for whom they work, a local government.

As a former mayor who worked very closely with our first responders in the city of Kamloops, I can say that I have always had a very positive relationship with first responders and great support from them as well. I wanted to get that on the record.

We do take these concerns seriously, which is why we review each and every call. Now, some of the cases that the member cites I don't have information on. I'd be happy to follow up. But I can say that in certain cases….

This was a result of the comments of Chief McKearney of the Vancouver fire department at Vancouver city council on a meeting April 1. There were a number of cases mentioned there, so I have information on those. Number 1 was an assault. The call was assessed accurately, and the appropriate resources were dispatched according to the patient's condition. Again, this was a review which I outlined earlier, the process that's followed.

Number 2 was abdominal pain secondary to injury. The call was assessed accurately, and the appropriate resources were dispatched according to the patient's condition.

A fall was a third call, and it again was assessed accurately. Appropriate resources were dispatched according to the patient's condition. The paramedic's assessment did not concur with that of the first responders that the patient's condition was more serious than initially reported.

No negative outcomes were found for any of those, as I mentioned. None that we have reviewed to date have had negative outcomes or adverse consequences associated with the type of call response.

It is important that if there are differences of data, we reconcile those differences, and we've been working very hard with first responders to do just that. B.C. emergency health services has been working on a data-sharing agreement so that we can better understand how fire de-
[ Page 4213 ]
partments collect and use information.

However, to date B.C. emergency health service has not been provided with any first-responder data to review. We would love to be able to sit down with first responders and share data so that we are all working from the same information, and we look forward to, at any opportunity, sitting down with first responders to work out a data-sharing agreement.

K. Corrigan: Well, I know that the city of Burnaby fire department, via city council, has reported a number of incidents and that Dr. Dick, vice-president of medical programs, has been sent the information.

I have also raised a case in the House. I want to go over a couple of those cases.

First of all, on April 9, 2014, there were 11 cases, ten of which were ones that previously would have been a lights-and-siren code 3 that were downgraded to a code 2.

Those included a 90-year-old female who fell from standing, lost her consciousness, had a large laceration in the back of her head, no memory of the event, had a c-spine the entire time. The firefighters were concerned because they were unable to control the bleed. It took the B.C. Ambulance Service one hour and 23 minutes to arrive after the firefighters arrived.

Those incidents that I'm mentioning were sent to Dr. Dick because they were all incidents, except for the one that they said should have been a code 2, downgraded.

[1140]

The other ten were all ones that took between one and two hours after the firefighters arrived before they got there. In my view, they were all serious cases, whether or not there was a negative outcome. I'd be interested to know if there was a review. That's my first question, and then I have another one. Is Dr. Dick aware and is the minister aware of these cases?

Hon. T. Lake: Dr. Dick is aware of those cases reported from the city of Burnaby. My last conversation with Dr. Dick indicated that all but one of those cases had been fully reviewed and all were deemed an appropriate response.

Again, there is one case I know that was still under review, so I don't have those results. I can certainly provide that to the member.

It's important that we get information and share information with first responders. We obviously want to perform the very best service, the most appropriate service, so that we can respond to the urgent cases quickly while the non-urgent cases are dealt with in an appropriate way that keeps members of the B.C. Ambulance Service safe, because going lights and sirens….

I can cite, and I will, cases whereby accidents occur with lights and sirens. In fact, on the day this discussion was being reported in the Globe and Mail, on the very same page was a story of a $1 million award given to a motorist, I believe in Delta, when a police car with lights and sirens went through an intersection and t-boned her car, causing severe injuries.

On May 8, 2014, the Alberni Valley News reported a fire truck slid off the road while responding to an emergency with lights and sirens. On May 4 of this year a New West ambulance was involved in a collision while responding with lights and sirens. On April 16 in California 15 people were injured when two fire trucks collided, both responding to a house fire with lights and sirens on.

It's important that we look at not just one part of the reason for the resource allocation plan but also the other part, which is safety of our employees and more importantly — I shouldn't say more importantly, as importantly — safety for members of the public as demonstrated by that unfortunate accident with the police car.

J. Darcy: I just want to be clear that no one is suggesting that ambulances should respond lights-and-sirens to every single call. Certainly, we understand that there is risk involved both for the people who have to drive lights-and-sirens as well as to the public, potentially.

The issues that we're raising are very specific, about cases that were inappropriately downgraded from code 3, lights and sirens, to code 2. The member for Burnaby–Deer Lake will continue with some questions in that regard.

K. Corrigan: I see that we don't have that much longer to go. I was going to read out ten of those cases, the ones that took between one and two hours, that have been characterized as care and comfort calls.

They did include, as well, a 103-year-old male who fell from his wheelchair and had a head injury. The ambulance arrived in one hour and 13 minutes. What the minister is saying is that that man should have lay on the ground, or whatever he was doing, for one hour and 13 minutes, plus whatever amount of time it took the firefighters to get there because it would have been just a care and comfort call.

What has also been said is that firefighters shouldn't be going, so there would have been nobody there. If that's appropriate, then thank you for that.

I want to go to one other case. One of the claims that has been made, one of the facts that has been asserted, is that by having 74 different types of conditions which are care and comfort calls and include these kinds of cases that we've been talking about…. One of the reasons for that is that we'll wait six minutes longer on average — these are between one and two hours longer — but we will have a quicker response when we have very serious events happening.

I want to again raise the case, which is one of three cases, where very serious cases that should have been a code 3 ended up being a code 2 for whatever reason. I'm going to talk about one of them specifically, and I raised
[ Page 4214 ]
it in the House.

This is a case that was an upper…. This has been sent to Dr. Dick on April 29, 2014. As of last week, I was told that there had been no response, at least according to the fire department. It was in the queue to be considered. I don't know whether Dr. Dick has taken a look at this, but I hope he has, considering that I raised it in the House a couple of weeks ago.

[1145]

The second case that was mentioned was a report of an upper gastrointestinal bleed on April 21 at 1527. This is reading from the letter to Dr. Dick.

"The patient's condition deteriorated. We notified B.C. Ambulance Service dispatch, saved four separate times. Our first call back to B.C. Ambulance Service at the seven-minute mark was to say the patient was coughing up blood and was short of breath. The second call, at 11 minutes, was to advise that the patient was reporting a headache for the last two days. We requested B.C. Ambulance Service respond code 3.

"The third call, at 15 minutes, was to advise the patient was deteriorating with decreased loss of consciousness, and asked whether the ambulance was indeed responding code 3. The fourth call, at 21 minutes, was to advise that the patient was critically ill. The patient subsequently went into cardiac arrest, and the BLS ambulance arrival time was shortly thereafter."

This is continuing to quote from the letter.

"It is interesting to note that the initial dispatch code for the ambulance was BLS 3" — code 3, in other words — "for hemorrhage, abnormal breathing, but was changed within five seconds to BLS 2 for hemorrhage, dangerous hemorrhage" — in other words, a lower code — "and that the ambulance response remained code 2 for the duration of the incident, despite our repeated updates and requests for a code 3 response.

"CPR was continuous en route to the hospital and in the emergency room, so your data collection methodology may categorize the patient as alive when delivered to a doctor's care, but this would not be a true interpretation of patient outcome relative to their initial condition."

From the notes that were taken by the captain who attended the last time at 1552, this last dispatch was:

"At 1552 dispatch was again called to let them know that we were losing the patient and needed B.C. Ambulance Service now, when the patient collapsed and went into cardiac arrest."

I don't know if the minister has checked what the outcome is. I know the outcome of this case. I haven't talked about it publicly. I know the outcome. I want to know what the minister has to say about the outcome of that case — which started as a code 3, changed to a code 2 by B.C. Ambulance Service dispatch and remained there the duration of the time until the person went into cardiac arrest, later transported to hospital in Burnaby and then to New Westminster.

I think we both know the outcome. I want to make sure that the minister is aware of the outcome and what he has to say about this case.

Hon. T. Lake: I don't know the outcome of that case. I will discuss that. I will certainly be following up with B.C. emergency health services.

As I've said, every case is reviewed and a determination made. We are as interested as the members opposite in making sure that our resource allocation plan is accomplishing the goals of providing the right response to the right patient at the right time. That is why it's critical to share information with first responders, whom we hold in the highest regard, to address any legitimate concerns that may be related to the resource allocation plan.

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

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:49 a.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
BIRCH ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF JUSTICE

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section C); M. Bernier in the chair.

The committee met at 11:06 a.m.

On Vote 32: ministry operations, $1,025,193,000 (continued).

L. Krog: On September 26, last year, the criminal justice branch announced that a special prosecutor had been appointed in regard to an RCMP investigation into allegations of Criminal Code and Election Act violations on the part of the government and the B.C. Liberal Party. At that time the Premier's office issued a statement: "The government of British Columbia respects the process and will cooperate fully."

My question to the minister is: is the investigation by the special prosecutor and the RCMP into allegations of Criminal Code and Election Act violations still ongoing?

Hon. S. Anton: Before I start, I'll just introduce one more member of my staff. Clayton Pecknold, who's the assistant deputy minister of police services, is assisting today.

As far as the special prosecutor, these are very independent of government, as the member will know. There has been a special prosecutor appointed. To the best of our knowledge, he is still working. But the matter is in the hands of the police and the special prosecutor, and I'm not in a position to comment any further on that.

L. Krog: Well, perhaps the minister can comment whether or not, in light of the Premier's comments, the government is in fact fully cooperating with the investigation.
[ Page 4215 ]

[1110]

Hon. S. Anton: This would be within the knowledge of the police and the special prosecutor. I have no…. They are in possession of that information, if there is information to be in possession of, not myself.

L. Krog: Well, I wonder if the Attorney General can advise how the commitment to fully cooperate was communicated to government ministers, including the Premier, government MLAs, the government's political staff and members of the public service.

Hon. S. Anton: On an issue like this, one would always expect full cooperation from staff, from elected officials. There's no reason to believe that any cooperation which has been sought would not be occurring, but as I say, these are matters within the knowledge of the police and the special prosecutor.

L. Krog: One would presume, as the minister is a minister of cabinet and the Attorney General and an MLA, that there would be some knowledge, at least, of the commitment to fully communicate and cooperate with the special prosecutor. Was it a general advisory across government? Was it communicated to specific individuals? Were any written instructions issued, or were they given verbally?

Hon. S. Anton: The Premier stated publicly that there would be full cooperation. The matter has been referred to the special prosecutor. We — and I, as Attorney General — would expect cooperation from all parties, and there's no indication of any issue. As I said, it is in a process independent from government, and I am unaware of any issues with regard to cooperation but would expect full cooperation.

L. Krog: Well, I'm wondering if the Attorney General says she has no knowledge of what happened across government, can she comment or not whether any written direction was given to her as an MLA and a member of cabinet, either verbally or in writing, by the Premier or the Premier's office requiring or directing cooperation with the investigation?

[1115]

Hon. S. Anton: The answer is no, but I don't think I or anyone in my ministry needs direction to cooperate with an investigation.

L. Krog: I wonder: can the minister comment? Has the government or government members or government staff been contacted in regard to the investigation? Can she name anyone in government who's been contacted, or is she aware of anyone in government who's been contacted?

Hon. S. Anton: This kind of investigation is highly confidential, and it would be highly inappropriate for me to comment as to any discussions between a special prosecutor and any member of government or staff.

L. Krog: During the course of the work of the special prosecutor or the RCMP, is the minister aware…? Have any requests been made for documents, including e-mail contact and records, to the government or members of government or government staff?

Hon. S. Anton: This is an ongoing investigation, and I would question, Chair, whether this has any relevance to the estimates.

L. Krog: I appreciate the minister's request for an opinion on this matter, but I would remind her she is the Attorney General of British Columbia. The Assistant Deputy Attorney General, criminal justice branch, appointed a special prosecutor to look into what are serious allegations, potential violations of the Criminal Code and the B.C. Election Act, and it's her responsibility to ensure that justice is not only done in British Columbia but seen to be done.

With great respect, my question relates to the issue of cooperation by government staff and the pledge to cooperate fully. Again, have there been any records or e-mail records which have been provided to the special prosecutor or the RCMP?

Hon. S. Anton: Chair, again I question the relevance of the question to the estimates.

The Chair: Just a reminder that the onus is on the member, then, to be able to justify the relevance of the motion that is on the floor.

L. Krog: Thanks, hon. Chair. I appreciate that.

If the Attorney General doesn't wish to answer the questions as asked, that is certainly her privilege in this place, and I can't compel her to do so, but one would have thought that when the very integrity of the last election and this government is in question here, she would wish to ensure that any information that would satisfy the public interest in this matter would, in fact, be responded to appropriately.

Again, I'm asking that question: to her knowledge and given her position as the Attorney General, is she aware whether or not any requests have been made by the special prosecutor for documents relating to this investigation?

Hon. S. Anton: As I answered a moment ago, the investigation is ongoing. It's in the hands of the special prosecutor. As Attorney General, it would be inappropriate for me to comment on any aspects of the investigation.
[ Page 4216 ]

L. Krog: Since it's quite apparent I'm not going to get any answers to any questions relating to this serious matter, I would advise the Chair that my friend the member for Delta South has a few questions before we get further back into ordinary process of estimates — around the issue of legal aid, as I understand it.

[1120]

V. Huntington: I appreciate the opportunity to take some time. I did want to just canvass a few of the facts with regard to legal aid, none of which will be a surprise, I'm sure, to the minister. I'm noting that funding for the legal aid society in 2001 and '02 was $88.3 million, and while the budget has been increasing over the last two or three years, it still remains at only $74.5 million. Funding is down, then, about $13.8 million, close to $14 million, or 16 percent from the budget in 2001-02. I have no idea what that would be if we looked at the actual inflated costs — that is, the real dollars.

We're looking at a budget that's 16 percent less than it was a dozen years ago, and, as a result, we're looking at inexplicable differences in tariffs between Ontario and British Columbia — for instance, two to five times the cost. I'd just like to read into the record some of the differences in those costs so that the minister and those present have a true idea of what the vast differences in these tariffs mean.

If we're looking at guilty pleas and sentencing or breach of probation in Ontario, the tariff is $818.44. In B.C. it's $240. For assault, $711.94 in Ontario; $300 in British Columbia. For a stay of proceedings, breach of probation, Ontario is $1,056. In B.C. it's $160. For assault, $919; in B.C. $200. I could carry on. In other words, the tariff differences are becoming huge, an inexplicable gap between how we represent people in British Columbia who need the assistance of the province.

According to the Canadian Bar Association, 90 to 95 percent of family law cases in B.C. Provincial Court involve a person without representation, and 40 percent of the people accused of a crime are unrepresented in Provincial Court in British Columbia.

This is something that I believe the minister should be interested in. The Canadian Bar Association estimates that providing legal representation for unrepresented people in B.C. Provincial Court, family and criminal cases, could result in savings of $50 million to the public purse per year. That doesn't even include an additional $50 million if we provided legal aid for poverty law cases.

What I would like to ask the minister is whether she acknowledges that criminal defence lawyers in this province are considerably underpaid and, as a result, there has been a serious decline in the number of lawyers in B.C. willing to take on legal aid cases. Is the minister aware of that fact, and will she acknowledge that there is a significant problem in the province?

[1125]

Hon. S. Anton: We have about 1,000 lawyers who do legal aid work in British Columbia. I do appreciate that the work they do does have a certain element of public service to it because of the tariffs they receive.

I will say, at the same time, that we work extremely closely with the Legal Services Society, looking at innovative ways to maximize the benefit that is received from the $74½ million that we provide to the society every year. For example, this year we do have some innovative programs, which have just been announced, to use the $2 million in additional funds that were provided this year in innovative ways.

V. Huntington: Well, I think in response to that answer I'd like to say that I haven't been asked to ask these questions because defense counsel now feel that there is only a certain amount of public service involved in their work on legal aid cases. There is a lot of public service involved in their work on legal cases.

As a result, I've been asked to inquire how the minister would respond if those criminal defence lawyers who are currently doing the legal aid work around the province…. What would the minister's response be if they were to stop taking criminal referrals and stop doing duty counsel work until the legal aid budget starts to receive sufficient funding?

Hon. S. Anton: It's a hypothetical question. It's tough to give an answer to a hypothetical. What I can say, though, is just to emphasize how closely my team — Jamie Deitch, who I introduced yesterday, and Jay Chalke, who is head of justice services — works with the Legal Services Society so as to maximize the value of the $74½ million which goes to Legal Services every year.

V. Huntington: Again, I'll just respond by saying you have some very, very discomfited criminal defence and defence lawyers out there who are not at all happy with the situation and who are encouraging the province to consider the vast differences between the Ontario tariff and the British Columbia tariff and whether these individuals can continue doing their jobs and paying their staff, paying their leases, paying their rents and managing the offices that they have.

I am suggesting that there is a serious problem out there. I'm not standing here for my own benefit. I'm standing here for the benefit not only of their clients — or the lack of their clients and the numbers of people without representation — but of the criminal defence lawyers themselves, who are currently doing the work.

[1130]

My last question would be…. I'm sure the minister will acknowledge that the PST on private lawyers' billings brings in about $150 million a year. Can the minister explain why only a small portion of that goes to the legal aid system in the province and why she isn't work-
[ Page 4217 ]
ing with her colleagues in cabinet and on Treasury Board to increase that number significantly?

Hon. S. Anton: Like all taxes, the sum goes into general revenue — the tax collection off legal fees. And a reminder that the total budget of Justice is over $1 billion.

I would add, as well, on things that are very closely related to legal aid, we do spend about $30 million a year on justice access centres, family justice centres and family maintenance enforcement program, which are all justice services — helping people solve their problems but not necessarily involving lawyers.

We stretch the dollar in legal aid to maximize the benefit, and we also spend a significant amount — $30 million — on direct services to help people, but again, not necessarily involving legal counsel.

L. Krog: If we can just step back a bit into the service plan and talk about the evidence-based approach to specialized courts. I want to talk about the downtown community court, and my friend from Surrey-Newton has a number of questions related to that particular interest in his constituency and of concern.

We have the report. The office of the chief judge — the associate chief judge — sits on the executive board and indicates some disagreement with the conclusions of the report with respect to its efficiency and effectiveness.

I'm just wondering: what plans does the government have with respect to the possibility of developing other community courts around the province, if any?

[1135]

Hon. S. Anton: The downtown community court in Vancouver opened in September of 2008. The court brings together justice, health and social services agencies to address crime and health and social circumstance of the offenders. It's based on a geography, so the people who have their cases heard in that court or their matters dealt with in that court are from a geographic area, namely the downtown.

There was an evaluation completed and released on March 5 of this year addressing the court's efficiency. One of the evaluation studies was peer-reviewed, which is a particularly important step in reinforcing the quality of the evaluation. What our goal is, is to really determine the benefit of this court. That fits into the broader strategy of looking at specialized courts overall. That work is being done, and we're aiming to have that complete by March of next year.

H. Bains: As the minister will know, the Delta police chief, Mr. Cessford, presented to his board a report that they conducted, saying that a lot of these people have concurrent disorders. When he's talking about these chronic offenders, a lot of these people he's talking about have concurrent disorders, which is drug addiction combined with mental illness. Often they are committing crime just to stay alive. Putting them in jail doesn't work. These people need treatment.

Going back to 2006, when Vancouver community court was being discussed here, the Attorney General of the day said that Surrey will also get a community court. When I questioned him the following year that somehow the Surrey community court did not appear to have a budget in the next budget, he challenged me. He said, "No, it's in there," and that Surrey will get their community court.

Here we are sitting — what is it now? — eight years later after that promise was made and six years after Vancouver community court was brought in and in operation. We're still waiting in Surrey.

As you know — in the public reports, the media reports — the crime in Surrey is escalating. It's not stabilizing. It's not being reduced. It's escalating, especially certain parts. Surrey-Newton is one of them. I stood with one neighbourhood with 31 homes; 14 of them had had a break-in. Their houses or their cars were broken into — 14 in one cul-de-sac within an eight- or nine-month period. That's not the kind of community that we want to live in, that no one wants to live in. And here the throne speech said: "A violence-free B.C."

My question to the minister is…. The police chief has said that we cannot continue on with our traditional way of dealing with these chronic offenders. All the experts are saying that as well. That's why Vancouver community court was brought in. On the Surrey side we are saying that we need a comprehensive plan to deal with these chronic offenders, which means we need a higher police force, a better modelling of police. We need a community court to deal with these chronic offenders. We need help on mental health and addiction; as Chief Cessford has mentioned, many of them have those issues.

Well, we're not getting any help. So my question to the minister. It's been promised for at least six years now that Surrey will have the community court. We still haven't seen any light at the end of the tunnel. We still don't have any help for mental health and addiction issues. My question to the minister is: does she believe we need to work with the local community to make sure that we deal with the crime, especially escalating crime, in Surrey and have those components in place, especially a Surrey community court?

[1140]

Hon. S. Anton: Yes, I am very aware of the issues in Surrey and have been in frequent contact with the mayor — and the work that she is doing through her taskforce.

We did meet in March. I might have to correct that date, but I did have a meeting with Mayor Watts. As a result of that meeting, we have formed, through Justice, the Surrey specialized court task force.

Members include the associate chief judge, Gurmail
[ Page 4218 ]
Gill; the Surrey city manager; Surrey city solicitor; deputy regional Crown; fire chief; RCMP detachment commander; our court services — which I think is probably Kevin Jardine, assistant deputy minister of court services; and, also, corrections services. So there's a pretty robust committee. They are determining the needs of Surrey, because there is no cookie-cutter approach on courts. It's to determine the community needs and do a needs assessment.

As I said, this work is ongoing. There is a plan in place to put additional courtrooms into Surrey, and the work is ongoing in terms of how new courts would be used.

H. Bains: So we are looking at more committees and more discussions. In the meantime, the police report just came out — the RCMP report — reporting the first quarter of crime statistics of this year compared to the previous year. Mr. Chair, guess what.

Despite all the talk, the crime — in Surrey-Newton, especially — is up 51 percent from the previous quarter. Despite all of the discussion that has been going on, despite all of the other different action that different parts of the government are talking about, the crime is continuing to escalate.

On the other one, there are a number of different areas. Business B and E is up 68 percent from the previous quarter. Sexual assaults are up 58 percent from the previous one. So every area of crime is escalating, despite all of the discussion and all of the talk and the more committees now.

My question to the minister is this. When is the time for action, rather than continuing to consult, continuing to put these committees together? In the meantime, people are afraid to go to work, because they are not sure that their house will be safe when they are not at home.

I met with this group of people. They said that during the day when they are at home, they turn their alarms on. This is the kind of situation that the people are living under, and they are afraid to walk their neighbourhoods. One young woman, Laura Parker, met with me.

She also called a little rally out there to raise her issues. She said: "I do not walk with my purse in my hand, because I am afraid that I will be mugged, assaulted and attacked." This is not how a community should be put in those kinds of conditions, especially when the motto is for a violence-free B.C.

[1145]

My question is: when will the action be? What are the deadlines? What is the end date when help for…? I mean, I think the minister, not purposefully, missed the second part of my question, which was that we need help for mental health. We need help for addiction. Where is that help?

Vancouver put their case together. I wonder whether it's because the minister is from that city that they received tens of millions of dollars to put a mental health plan together. Surrey has the same issues, if not worse, because we're the youngest community in B.C. We have, actually, a bigger problem when it comes to crime. So mental health and addictions help we need.

The regulation of the recovery homes is another issue. What is the minister doing about that? And community court — when is the end date?

Hon. S. Anton: The issues in Surrey, as I said, are ones that we have been taking very seriously. I have met with Mayor Watts by phone and in person several times — including on New Year's Day, as a matter of fact, following the very sad homicide of Ms. Julie Paskall.

As a result of those meetings and the efforts of Mayor Watts, there has been significant work underway in Surrey. There's been a high risk location initiative by the RCMP and others, which has resulted in a number of charges and arrests.

We have a Blue Ribbon Panel for Crime Reduction. My assistant deputy minister of police services, Clayton Pecknold, has had a meeting regarding the recovery houses issue. There has been a request, a formal motion, I believe, by council for more police officers in Surrey. So there are a number of initiatives underway.

We should remember that crime, overall, is down. That is not much comfort if you have had your home broken into, but generally, the crime statistics in British Columbia — and, indeed, in Surrey — are going in the right direction. However, we do recognize that there are number of issues, as the member has said, which is why a number of members of my team are working with Surrey to assist.

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

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:49 a.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet.
Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.
Question Period podcasts are available on the Internet.

TV channel guide • Broadcast schedule

Copyright © 2014: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada