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

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 14, Number 2

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

TUESDAY, MAY 27, 2014

The House met at 1:32 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

BILL M214 — MANUFACTURED HOME PARK
TENANCY AMENDMENT ACT, 2014

H. Bains presented a bill intituled Manufactured Home Park Tenancy Amendment Act, 2014.

H. Bains: I move that the Manufactured Home Park Tenancy Amendment Act, 2014, of which notice has been given under my name on the order paper, be introduced and now read a first time.

Motion approved.

H. Bains: The Manufactured Home Park Tenancy Amendment Act, 2014, amends sections 42 and 44 of the Manufactured Home Park Tenancy Act. This bill will accomplish the following: (1) require that the park owner provide 12 months' notice of eviction when redeveloping land under any form of tenancy agreement; (2) require that the park owner at the time of eviction pays a tenant's relocation expenses up to $25,000; and (3) require a park owner to pay those tenants who are unable to relocate their manufactured homes because of local building standards or because their home failed to meet the transportation safety standards, an amount equal to the fair market value of the manufactured home as compensation.

It provides protection to one of the most vulnerable sectors of our society: the owners of mobile homes. Currently tenants renting a pad or land in home parks have little protection against eviction for the purposes of development.

This group of people faces unique obstacles and barriers when they face an eviction. Their homes are, in most instances, permanent structures and not movable. If they can be moved, the costs are prohibitive for moving a manufactured home, if you could find another location at all.

Manufactured home owners are frequently older British Columbians who have chosen this as their retirement option. They have worked hard all their lives. They pay their rent, and they keep their homes and surroundings in good repair. They look out for each other.

[1335]

These British Columbians believed they had an arrangement that would allow them some longer-term security for their latter years. The Manufactured Home Park Tenancy Amendment Act, 2014, will help to ensure that this is the case and, when it is not, will guarantee that they are at least treated with some fairness in terms of their costs and the protection of their assets.

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

Bill M214, Manufactured Home Park Tenancy Amendment Act, 2014, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Polak: In this chamber I call continued second reading debate of Bill 24; in Committee A, the continued estimates for the Ministry of Health; and in Committee C, continued estimates for the Ministry of Justice.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 24 — AGRICULTURAL LAND
COMMISSION AMENDMENT ACT, 2014

(continued)

On the amendment (continued).

C. James: I am pleased to continue on from my discussion this morning on the motion to refer Bill 24. As we were wrapping up the debate this morning, I was talking about the opportunity that this motion to refer really provided to government — an opportunity, from my perspective, to make a better decision; an opportunity to give the public a chance to have their voices heard.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

I was saying, as well, that I really couldn't understand why government was afraid to open up the opportunity for public dialogue and public discussion. It's not only government who has a monopoly on good ideas.

In fact, the public and those impacted by the bill that's coming forward — I'm certain from the letters and the responses that I've been receiving and that I know all members of this House have been receiving and, I'm certain, that the minister has been receiving as well — have lots of good ideas around how to strengthen agriculture in British Columbia, about how to ensure that we build support.

The opportunity to refer really gives the government an opportunity to strengthen the bill, not to weaken the bill. It's not a sign of weakness to
[ Page 4220 ]
have an opportunity to hear from the public. It's not a sign of weakness to give experts the chance to be able to weigh in. And who knows? The government could learn something in that dialogue and discussion.

Certainly, the public having an opportunity to have a say really is a basic tenet of democracy. It's pretty straightforward that you would give the people who elected you a chance to weigh in around major public policy.

That's what we're talking about here. We're talking about major public policy that has survived governments of different political stripes, that has broad public support. Yet here we are having to debate an opportunity for the public to have a say on something so fundamental to British Columbia, to our past, to our present, and certainly, to our future.

I also think that it's important that the government recognize that agricultural land and the issue of agricultural land isn't simply important to people in the region that the agricultural land is in. I think sometimes we see the government writing it off, saying: "You shouldn't have an opportunity to be able to speak on this." Well, in fact, agricultural land is important to all of us.

It's important to the entire province. Everyone deserves an opportunity to be heard, which is why we're here debating the issue of referral.

It matters to people in rural communities — no question — and probably, agriculture is closer in many respects in some rural communities for those people who are on the land, working the land, who have the opportunity to connect. But I think one of the wonderful things that's occurred over the last 20 years is that the importance of agricultural land has grown so that everyone recognizes the importance of agricultural land. It's not simply a rural importance. It's important to urban settings as well.

I'm reminded — as I did this Saturday, as I did the previous Saturday — when I visit my local market in my own community, actually right across the street from this legislative building. There's a market held on the grass at the end of the parking lot, a wonderful farmers market that is not certainly unique to my community — that is common across communities — where people have an opportunity to go and buy local produce from farmers close by in the region.

[1340]

It's interesting to take a look at the expansion that has happened of local markets. There was a study prepared for the University of Northern British Columbia, which showed that market sales from farmers markets rose 147 percent between 2006 and 2012. I mean, that's extraordinary.

If you think of that kind of success in almost anything else, that kind of expansion, government normally would be saying: "Isn't this a wonderful thing? Isn't this a great economic opportunity? Isn't this a great social opportunity?" Yet here we have a government that says: "No, actually, you don't even deserve to be heard on the issue."

Well, I believe that people who work in those local markets, who run those local markets, and people like myself and my family who shop at those local markets deserve to have a voice on a major change on agriculture.

Markets have expanded as well. I think it's interesting to take a look at those markets. It's not simply a couple of stands with vegetables, but you now see the value-added. We talk often in this province about value-added when it comes to something like forestry and how we can expand value-added in forestry — not simply shipping away our raw logs but in fact building and manufacturing and keeping that here.

Well, you see that in agriculture. It's been an extraordinary success story when you look at value-added, everything from jams to breads to granola to baked goods. I mean, you name it. The agriculture industry is a value-added industry. It is an industry that has shown that kind of success, which has been able to keep that kind of economic growth and those kinds of jobs right here in British Columbia.

You see it again in my riding in the opening up of the Hudson market. Again, it's a great success story where an old building that used to be retail now has become living units above, so actual downtown residents, and a local market on the bottom where people are shopping on a regular basis. What a great success story. What a wonderful opportunity.

I believe those individuals should have the opportunity to be able to speak to this bill, to weigh in around changes to agriculture — which is why, again, we're talking about referring the bill to give the opportunity for those people to be able to weigh in.

The expansion of local grocers. It's not simply a market once a week that people can go to. You're also seeing local grocers, grocery stores, the old corner stores from when I was a kid growing up.

There's one right in this neighbourhood — again, around the corner — Niagara Grocery, which was a corner store when I was a kid growing up in this community and now has become a place that sells local produce that is extraordinary. It's a wonderful place where I get my Christmas turkey every year because they bring it in local from the farmers. It's a great place, a great opportunity to be able to show the produce that we have right here on Vancouver Island and to show the strength for it.

Then, of course, there's the whole area of home delivery — all of the places now that deliver a home produce box right to your door. We have the Good Food Box. We have spud.ca here in Victoria where, again, you can order local produce right to your door.

For those who think the issue of agriculture matters simply to farmers or for those who think agriculture simply matters to people who work in the business, I think the government really needs to think again about the number of people who should have the opportunity for a voice on this bill. It certainly has more of an impact than
[ Page 4221 ]
only people who work directly in the industry.

We wouldn't have all of those kinds of wonderful parts of our community that I just talked about, everything from the grocers to the markets to the home delivery, if it wasn't for the protection of farmland. None of that would be part of our community; none of that would be part of the joy and the life and the economic activity that goes on in our community. It's another reason that the issue of agriculture is so important to everyone and why everyone deserves an opportunity to be able to weigh in.

I haven't even talked about the issue of climate change and global warming, which of course impacts agriculture, impacts crops, impacts food production and impacts prices — which, again, is why the issue of agriculture is so important to everyone. It will impact all of us, and those are the kinds of things that need to be discussed before you look at any changes to a bill on agriculture. You need to have those big-picture discussions.

[1345]

This needs not to be a short-term "let's make a decision now, and oh, we'll worry about it later." We'll have a discussion with people later about climate change and how it'll change the prices of produce coming in and things that we're able to produce right here in British Columbia. I mean, wouldn't it be wonderful if in this House we'd spent the last couple of weeks talking about how to improve agriculture and how we could actually strengthen agriculture in this province, instead of having to fight simply to get the public voice to be able to be heard. That's really what we're talking about. It's that straightforward.

I think most people would be shocked to find out that's what the fight is about. The fight is just to give people a voice, just to be able to be heard on something that is so critical.

We're so fortunate in British Columbia. We're so fortunate compared to other areas when it comes to agricultural land. We have a very high proportion of family-owned and independent farms. That's unique to our province. We have a more diverse basket of foods than any other province. Again, that's something unique to British Columbia. We do that in our province with a very small percentage of our land put aside for agricultural land.

I believe that's a critical thing for us to look at before you make changes to an agriculture bill. I believe it's pretty critical for us to weigh that, to take a look at that, to look at how we can strengthen that. Those things don't happen by themselves. You don't see that kind of strength, you don't see the strength of what we're able to produce, and you don't see the strength of family-owned farms without good policy in place. It doesn't happen by itself.

You just need to look at other places and other jurisdictions across this country or around this world to know that protecting agricultural land needs good policy, good regulations and good protections in place. When we have that in British Columbia, why would we change that kind of protection and policy? More importantly, why would we change it without any discussion from the public, without any opportunity for the public voice to be heard?

Now, it doesn't mean that the Agricultural Land Commission and agricultural land reserve are perfect. It doesn't mean that there shouldn't be some changes, that there aren't areas that we can strengthen, that there aren't protections that should be put in place. I believe, for example, that we don't recognize agriculture as a key part of our economy enough here in our province.

We have an opportunity to look at it as a key part of our economy, strengthen support for agriculture and work with the industry to be able to recognize that it is part of a diverse economy in British Columbia that we should be building towards. Yet we don't have that opportunity. Again, we don't have that opportunity because there isn't a chance for the kind of consultation that needs to occur.

It's interesting to take a look at the Auditor General's report from a number of years ago, which pointed out that the government had not been supporting agriculture. In fact, the report in 2010 said: "The commission is challenged to effectively preserve agricultural land and encourage farming in British Columbia." That report also showed cuts to the Agricultural Land Commission, cuts of 28 percent since 2002.

Well, just imagine. If this motion to refer is approved, if this motion passes, we have the opportunity through the Finance Committee to be able to actually hear from the Auditor General, to bring that report forward. Perhaps the government disagrees with that. Perhaps the government would have a different opinion around that Auditor General's report. Well, that's the reason that we're looking at referral, because then you do have the chance for that dialogue. You have a chance to put everything on the table, a chance for all those voices to be heard, a chance for all of that experience to be heard.

Now, there are different kinds of structures in place for the opportunity for consultation. One of them, of course, was the fixed legislative calendar that was brought in by this government. The idea of the fixed legislative calendar…. I'll be honest. There aren't a lot of things I would praise that I've seen the other side bring forward, but certainly the legislative calendar, from my perspective, was a good idea.

[1350]

The premise was that legislation would be introduced in this session, in the spring session that we've just had from February that goes to the end of this week, and that that legislation would be tabled but not necessarily voted on.

If there were opportunities for further dialogue, if people raised concerns about the legislation that was brought forward, if there were opportunities to be able to actually have a discussion and a dialogue and to bring that legislation back in the fall…. It's a chance to say to
[ Page 4222 ]
the public: "Here's the legislation. Go out and have a conversation, have a discussion. Take your opportunity, your democratic right to speak on something, and then we'll bring it back in the fall, and we'll make a final decision."

That, unfortunately, hasn't happened in this case — in fact, just the opposite. The government, when there was an opportunity for consultation — the election campaign — said that they weren't going to make any changes to the Agricultural Land Commission.

So here we are. Here we are in the Legislature fighting for the opportunity for the public to have a say on something. I think it's pretty shocking today that that's the kind of state we're in, where you actually have to fight for the public to have a voice. We were all democratically elected by the public, and they have a right to have a say. That's not happening on this bill. That's not happening at all.

In fact, the minister even said: "We'll do some consultation after the bill has passed." Well, talk about cynical. Why do voters get cynical? They get cynical because they believe that the government has already made a decision, and what's the point of getting involved? The minister basically said that. "We'll make the decision, we'll pass the bill, and then we'll give you an opportunity to be heard."

Well, that's not democracy. Democracy is saying: "We brought this forward. We're going to stand up for this bill and give the public an opportunity to have their say."

I will be voting in favour of the referral motion. I believe it is the opportunity to be able to give the public a voice.

Hon. S. Thomson: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Hon. S. Thomson: I would like to introduce and welcome the Okanagan Adventist Academy to the Legislature. These are 30 grade 12 students from Kelowna. They're here with their teacher Kevin Littlechilds. I had the opportunity of welcoming them to the Legislature, along with my colleague the MLA for Maple Ridge–Mission. I'd ask the House to make them welcome and hope that they enjoy their tour and their stay here in Victoria.

Debate Continued

R. Chouhan: Last week I rose in this House expressing my opposition to Bill 24. Since then, many of our colleagues have spoken on that Bill 24, and also since then, my colleague has moved a motion to refer this Bill 24 to a committee for consultations with the public.

In a democratic system like ours, it's important that we engage the public in our deliberations. The only way we can strengthen democracy is if the public is part of it. Otherwise, we would be no different than other countries, Third World countries, where people are not allowed to say what they should be saying.

Here is something so fundamental, so basic, that we have been used to, for the last 40 years, the agricultural land reserve and Agricultural Land Commission, which have provided plenty of opportunities for us to save the land which produces food for everyone, even though we know that all our land which we have under the ALR is only 5 percent of the B.C. land mass. Therefore, it's even more important that whatever little we have, we preserve it, not weaken it, when we have something like Bill 24, which threatens the existence of that four decades of work to protect our land, to produce food for everybody.

[1355]

People have contacted in the thousands. They have written letters, they have sent e-mails, they have made phone calls to the Minister of Agriculture and other MLAs, but unfortunately, their voices are not being heard.

Since Thursday I have received 39 letters in my office, and you won't believe how many people have sent their e-mails regarding this issue. Each and every one of them is concerned that if Bill 24 passes, we will not have the same ability and same opportunity for what we were able to do for the last 40 years.

People are desperate. They're desperate to engage themselves to provide their input, to give their feedback to the government, but they're being denied that opportunity. They're begging for an opportunity to just have a two-minute meeting with their MLA or a committee member or their minister, but it's not happening.

On Saturday I was at the farmers market in Burnaby. There were about 25 or 30 stalls and a minimum of 100 to 150 people who were there, either growers or people who were buying the produce from them. I went there and met with each and every one of them. Each and every single person who was at the farmers market told me how angry they were. They told me that they were trying to contact the minister's office. Some of them even called, but their calls were not accepted. They sent letters, and there was no reply to the e-mails or letters — nothing so far.

Today I'm standing here to express my support for this motion, but I'm also going to read a number of the letters that those members of the public have sent to the minister. They were not recognized, so I'm going to read those letters. At least they will be on the record, so their voices at least will be recorded in history — that they expressed their opposition, hoping for the government to listen to their views.

As we know, many of the stakeholders have also written letters to the government very strongly condemning the government's action on this — like the B.C. Agriculture Council, which we all know is the province's umbrella farm association. They have expressed their concerns,
[ Page 4223 ]
because farmers are concerned that the two-zone system will allow farmland in B.C.'s north to be more easily used for natural resource projects like liquefied natural gas. That's what Mr. Vander Waal has said, the new chair of the B.C. Agriculture Council.

Vander Waal said: "I think we are genuinely afraid that the changes" brought by Bill 24 "will trump the well-being of agriculture and agricultural land." That's what he said.

There are also worries that the current system of using regional panels to approve or reject changes to agricultural land leaves commissioners more easily influenced by local advocates to make decisions not in the best interest of protecting agriculture, said Vander Waal.

These are very genuine concerns that they are expressing. They want to be heard. They want sincere public consultation.

The B.C. Agriculture Council met with the Minister of Agriculture on April 24 to try to convince him to delay and change the legislation. The BCAC want more time to consult and ensure changes to the act do not compromise farmland.

That's, again, what we are doing here when we moved this motion — to provide that opportunity not only to BCAC but also to the public so that they can all be engaged in that consultation process.

[1400]

After the meeting the Minister of Agriculture said: "The opportunity is everything from amending the bill to leaving it alone to removing the bill. I haven't landed on any particular recommendation yet because I'm not finished my consultation process." The question is: what kind of consultation process is the Minister of Agriculture awaiting?

Just reading these e-mails is not consultation. The real consultation can only be when people are having that opportunity face to face, meeting with the minister or the committee members so they can express their views and those views would be recorded.

Again, there's another organization, the B.C. Cattlemen's Association. We know that the B.C. Cattlemen's Association are not always against the government's position; in the past we have seen. But even they are against the government's stand on this, on the ALR.

General manager Kevin Boon of the B.C. Cattlemen's Association estimated that the majority of the BCCA members are against the province on Bill 24, which allows the minister to appoint panel members. And half of BCCA members are against the bill entirely. Even they are saying that this is not acceptable, that they should have that opportunity to engage in this public consultation system.

Kevin Boon, the general manager, said: "Farmers have long sought greater flexibility in land use decisions, including, possibly, oil and gas development, but we can't do it at the cost of agriculture." He further says: "Overall, we need to look at the importance of food security not only for our province but as an economic driver down the road."

Then we have the B.C. Food Systems Network, and they have expressed their concerns as well. They are saying that they believe the bill, "although presented as a way to support agriculture, is actually framed to support non-farm use of agricultural lands." That's their view. So they would like to meet with the minister to sit face to face to hear that that's not true. That can only happen when that meeting, that consultation process, takes place.

They also are concerned that Bill 24 "has potential to undermine the integrity of the agricultural land reserve and its regulator, the Agricultural Land Commission, making it easier for ALC decision-makers to favour development over agriculture in most of B.C."

The chair of the Agricultural Land Commission, Mr. Richard Bullock, also has expressed his views, and I'm going to quote it. He said: "I'm not sure if any of our people should be treated different in one part of the province than they are in the other. I thought equal treatment is how we operated as a society, but we will see." So they really are not sure what would be the impact of Bill 24 if it passes.

Some of the people who have contacted my office and who've contacted me in person — I'm going to just read some of their letters and e-mails that they have sent. But before I read those individual letters, let me read the letter which I was given at the farmers market by one of those people there. That letter was sent to the Minister of Agriculture.

"I am writing to you on behalf of the British Columbia Association of Farmers Markets to convey our concerns regarding the lack of public consultation leading up to the announcement of Bill 24 and the resulting impacts on B.C.'s agricultural land reserve.

"British Columbians are stakeholders in this decision, and our opinion and concerns regarding food, farmers and farmland must not be underestimated or overlooked in this consultation process. We urge you to seriously consider the points we have outlined below.

[1405]

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

"B.C.'s farmers markets work tirelessly in all corners of the province to strengthen local economies and provide British Columbians with fresh, healthy, local agriculture products. Our ability to continue to deliver these benefits into the future, however, is tied directly to the availability of agriculture land throughout the province. As one of our members stated, 'Protecting the ALR is central to protecting and enhancing what our local farmers markets exist to support — healthy and strong communities and food systems.'

"Our members' farmers markets in the north and the Interior specifically have expressed concern that Bill 24 would directly threaten their regionally focused agriculture initiatives and thereby threaten the very viability farmers markets in their area.

"B.C. farmers markets are a rapidly growing sector that contributed $113 million in direct sales to the B.C. economy in 2012, a 147 percent increase from $46 million in 2006. The proposed changes
[ Page 4224 ]
in Bill 24 not only threaten the viability of farmers markets; they threaten the economic and social benefits markets deliver to the communities they support.

"The BCAFM is opposed to giving regional panellists the authority to make initial decisions on ALR applications as proposed in Bill 24, since this governance structure was used from 2002 to 2010 and was considered less effective than the current centralized administration and vetting of all ALR applications by the ALC, which ensures strong and consistent centralized authority.

"British Columbians voted for a Liberal government. A campaign promise included: 'Yes, we will maintain the excellent relationship we have built with the ALC.' The party also said that it would increase funding to the Agricultural Land Commission and would work more closely with farmers, ranchers and agricultural organizations to preserve agricultural land. We regret that these promises have not been followed through.

"In an era of climate change, significant urban expansion and concerns about the local food supply, food safety and sustainability, the B.C. government and the Agricultural Land Commission must look at ways to encourage farming. Permitting non-agricultural, industrial activities on ALR land will only fragment and degrade the remaining viable land, leading to greater challenges for farmers in accessing agricultural land. That being said, we support changes that will help farm and ranch operations to be financially successful."

This letter is signed by Jon Bell, president, on behalf of the BCAFM board of directors.

At the same farmers market I also met with a rancher — it's called Redl farm; I forget the exact name — from 150 Mile House. He was there, and he told me that they are so worried. He came all the way to Burnaby so he could talk to some of his relatives and friends so that they could also express their opposition to Bill 24.

[1410]

The letters that I have received from…. I'm going to read the names of each and every one of them, but I won't read all the letters. I'll only read a few. Elizabeth Zinder; Patricia Beldrama; Zoran Todorovic; David Wasabati; Linda Bennett; Penny Oyama; Christine Lidden, MD; Wayne Lerotz; Cindy Grey; Eleanor Lennon; Megan Christianson; Jerry Penner; Julie Michaud; Anne Golpenberg; Paul Browning; Barry Carlson; Lindsay Marsh; Tanis Hopkinson; Robert Miller; Kathy Freeberry; Maureen Mendoza; Mark Rose; Suraj Mari; Carolyn Willmore; Jim Miller; Ken B. Bell; Christina Marchit; Miroslava Mijeska; Penny Swanson; Daniel O'Leary; Jen Hogg; and Leona Skoligard.

These are the names that I have just read — the letters we received from people who have contacted my office expressing their views against Bill 24. They all have said that since we have moved this motion to refer this to a committee, they are hoping that the Minister of Agriculture will listen to and will agree with the motion, so they can all be able to participate in that process.

This letter is from Carolyn King. It was written to the Premier.

"I'm deeply opposed to Bill 24. I ask that your government not pass this bill. How can a government justify opening up our prime agricultural land to development? The ALR is one of the strongest, most historic pieces of legislation in B.C.'s history and must not be dismantled.

"B.C.'s food security depends on it. Industrial activities like fracking and others are not compatible in any way with food production.

"On behalf of people of British Columbia, I urge your government to listen to the people of B.C. and defeat Bill 24."

This letter is from Jay Stevenson.

"I'm not a farmer, but like everyone else, I depend on farmers for my daily bread, for the sustenance and pleasures of food. Here on Saltspring it is clear how much the protection of the ALR and ALC has helped us hold on to our most productive land and keep it safe for a new generation of farmers to increase local food production.

"This kind of protection is so important across our province, wherever our soils can support farming. It is especially important now in light of the terrible impacts climate change is already having on some of the big food-producing areas of the continent like California. We are going to need more agriculture capacity in B.C. going forward, not less.

"We can't eat oil, nor the profits from selling it, so please stand firm on the withdrawal of Bill 24, and if not, at least have public consultation.

"Jay Stevenson."

Also, another letter came from Galiano Island. I'm sure the minister also got a copy of it. I believe, as he said, he was reading all of these letters. I hope he will read them and pay attention, too.

"My husband and I have a small farm on Galiano Island. We would like to express our rejection of the proposed division of ALR lands in the province into two sectors. We understand that the northern sector would be redesigned to open the possibility or probability to other uses, ie, resource extraction.

"We are extremely opposed to any tampering with the ALR land in British Columbia. As our climate changes, our very small acreage of farmland in B.C. will become absolutely essential to providing food for our population.

"California may no longer be able to supply our citizens with cheap produce. Drought conditions there may make their farmland no longer viable."

That's signed by Elizabeth and Doug Latta.

[1415]

Just a couple more letters. This is a very long letter, four pages long. I won't read that one.

This is from Surrey–White Rock.

"Our names are Dorothy Randall and Patricia Randall, and we are mother and daughter to each other. We are each shareholders in a cooperatively owned organic farm in the Fraser Valley. The farmers to whom we lease the farm grow a variety of vegetables and fruits which they sell at venues throughout the Lower Mainland.

"We are writing to you out of our concern about the state of agriculture in British Columbia, and more specifically, the Agricultural Land Commission and the agricultural land reserve.

"One of the reasons we bought shares in a farm is to help protect this beautiful land for farmers, allowing them the opportunity to access high-quality land at an affordable price. We also want to preserve this land for future generations.

"We would like to see this vision held more broadly in our society, and your government could help. Only 5 percent of B.C.'s land base is arable, and this land base is under constant pressure. But we absolutely cannot forgo our food production security for the sake of residential or industrial development.

"Future generations of British Columbians rely on today's government to protect their interests and survival. If any change is to be made to the ALC or the ALR, it should be that the boundaries of the agricultural land reserve be enlarged and strengthened. No more land should be removed from the ALR.

"We have had 40 years to meddle with the boundaries. It is time to stop wasting money and energy with that approach and to now dedicate our efforts to saving farmland and getting more land into
[ Page 4225 ]
production. This should be the focus of the Agricultural Land Commission, along with enforcement of the current legislation that protects farmland from soil dumping and contamination.

"Furthermore, legislation should prohibit the extraction of oil, gas and minerals from ALR-designated lands as such activities would destroy its agricultural capacity and contaminate it, preventing its safe return to food production.

"The increasing seriousness of drought and the desertification in California, from where British Columbia imports significant amounts of our food, is a clarion call for action to ensure that our own food production capacity remains sustainable and uncompromised.

"There are some practical initiatives your government could take to improve the viability of the agriculture sector in B.C. We need to invest in agriculture innovation and provide support for our food growers. Extension agents and apprenticeship programs would be valuable measures. Currently B.C. has one of the lowest levels of government spending in the agricultural sector in Canada. British Columbia's farmers not only need better support in growing our food and preserving and improving our food security but deserve better support from their government.

"In 2006 the B.C. Ministry of Agriculture published B.C.'s Food Self-Reliance report, stating that in order to produce a healthy diet for British Columbians, we need just over two million hectares of land in production, which would have to increase to 2.8 million by 2025. As of 2011 we are 200,000 acres short of this 2025 target.

"We request that you take strong, clear action to preserve and strengthen the agricultural land reserve and, in turn, the Agricultural Land Commission to ensure agricultural lands are adequately protected for all future generations of British Columbians.

"Dorothy Randall and Patricia Randall."

[1420]

That's why the motion proposed by the opposition is so fundamental. It's so important that we take it to a committee for public consultation so that people like Patricia can go and engage themselves and express their views, hoping that the Minister of Agriculture will listen and do the right thing and withdraw Bill 24.

M. Karagianis: I'm quite happy to take my place here and speak in favour of the motion that we've put forward from the opposition, the motion to refer. I'm going to outline, shortly, my reasons for supporting it.

One of the things that happens in here while we're debating bills, especially Bill 24, is that we often hope the information we bring forward and the language we use is compelling enough and convincing enough that we can produce enough of a counterpoint to the government's position so that we can actually change the government's mind — have them reconsider, have a sober second thought on issues that we think the citizens of British Columbia are concerned about and anxious about.

This is a very good moment for us to reflect on that. It's my hope that I can lay out enough arguments here that are convincing so that the government will in fact reconsider the current actions around Bill 24.

It's always a bit frustrating to try and lay your hands on exactly the right language, to use the English language and your skills with it in such a way that it in fact captures the attention of the government and gives them a moment to reconsider — that it somehow inspires them to reconsider what they're doing.

This motion to refer Bill 24 to the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services is such a moment in this debate. We are now triggering a pause for government that I think is both legitimate…. In fact, there's enough evidence produced here that it would be a wise consideration for government to take these steps. I want to talk a little bit more about that.

I mean, one of the purposes of referring something to a committee is so that this particular bill can in fact go through a process of opinion or observations and consultation by the public. I think it's fair to say there is overwhelming evidence that there has not been adequate consultation on Bill 24 and that pushing the button at this point to say "refer this to a committee" is the most prudent action government could take right now.

This kind of motion is not used often, but I think it's highly supportable in this particular circumstance. I think that even some of the government's own actions and language and behaviour lends itself to supporting this motion to refer this to a committee. Certainly, I think, first of all, the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services is the perfect place to lodge this, because there is a process in place that has already been created, a process that has been historic.

Each and every year this committee does go out and make a very determined effort to consult with British Columbians right across the province. It travels from area to area, from town to town and city to city. It convenes day-long consultation opportunities with the public on a whole variety of input by the public. I've sat on that committee, and I know how very beneficial it is to have this consultation process with the public.

The Finance Committee goes out and basically opens the doors to the public and says, "We're actually seeking your opinion on how you'd like to see government spend money and what kind of decisions you'd like government to make on your behalf. What kinds of policies do you think are important? What kinds of things do you think government needs to change? Where have they erred? Where have they gone wrong? Where have they disappointed you? Where have they failed to follow through on promises that were made to you?" This is a great and extremely relevant democratic tool and process that is undertaken by the finance and governance committee.

[1425]

Where else to put this kind of process and take the discussions here around Bill 24 and the implications of that out to the public, open the doors and say: "Do you know what? We're going to seek your input, because this is such an enormous shift in a 40-year-old piece of legislation that's been embedded in the culture of British Columbia, and we think it's appropriate to go out and speak face-to-face with British Columbians."

That, I think, in itself is evidence enough to say that Bill 24 should and must go to be referred to the Select
[ Page 4226 ]
Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services for this kind of consultation process. Among all of the many failings of Bill 24, I think the one that first and foremost pops up and is so self-evident is the lack of consultation, despite the fact that the government has made a couple of fatal flaws in their process around how they brought this bill forward. Disappointingly now, we see today that they're even going to invoke closure on it. I'll talk about that as well.

The thing about a referral motion that I think, in this case, should give the government some comfort is that we're not removing Bill 24 from the books. We're not, in fact, asking for this bill to be ripped up. I personally, given the debate we've had earlier on the bill itself, think there are lots of compelling reasons for us to get rid of this bill. I think it's bad legislation, but in this case, we give the government its due. It put the legislation forward.

This motion to refer is a particularly effective tool because it doesn't remove the bill from the order paper. What it says is to put the process on pause. Take Bill 24, give it to the Finance Committee, and go out and consult with British Columbians on this. It will stay on the order paper. It's not to be tampered with. It will stay there, simply suspended for a time, until such time as the Finance Committee has had a chance to go out and consult with British Columbians. Then we'll come back and resume the discussion here, after British Columbians have had a chance to have their say on this bill.

I think this is a really effective tool for the government at this point, because there is certainly enough anxiety raised right across all sectors of British Columbia about this. This is a really effective way for the government to pause the process — not to throw it out the window, but to pause it. Go and have this consultation process that's been missing — which the public is asking for, industry is asking for and the agricultural sector is asking for — and then resume this in the fall.

We've got lots of time to do that. What better time to go out and consult with people about agriculture than in the prime agriculture season, which is during the summer and early fall? That in itself should be enough of an opportunity for government to seize upon. Yet sadly, I don't get the sense that government is doing that because we have seen no dialogue back and forth here in the chamber on this for some time. It seems to me that government perhaps is not going to seize upon this great opportunity.

One of the other very compelling reasons that we might want to see this referral passed is because this opportunity to go out and gather stakeholder input is a better opportunity now to understand the full effects and ramifications of Bill 24. Frankly, it's been my experience with government that often they put in place legislation that ends up having both intended and unintended consequences. I think this is an opportunity, by referring this bill to the Finance Committee to go out and consult, where we can actually explore all of the aspects of the unintended consequences as well and maybe the detrimental effects that this bill is going to put in place.

Also, this is an opportunity to alleviate a lot of anxiety. Whenever this issue of the agricultural land reserve and our concerns about it are voiced in this chamber, I see the government members shaking their heads and getting all anxious about this. "You're misleading everyone with what you're saying on the opposition side." You know what? Let's take the opportunity to refer this to the Finance Committee and let the government go out and have their say. Let them explain to the public what this is about. Let the public have an opportunity to question and to examine this and to in fact alleviate the anxiety on both sides of the House around this.

[1430]

I believe we are correct in our evaluation of the consequences and the end game with Bill 24, but I think the government can go out and hear from the public and not just from the opposition on this. What a great opportunity to do that. You're out on the barbecue circuit for the summer anyway, and into the fall. Why not go out and consult with the people of the province and ask them how they feel about this and what their thoughts are and whether or not they actually support these changes and both the intended and unintended consequences of Bill 24.

When I spoke against Bill 24, I talked about some other things that are happening elsewhere in the world, right on our borders in some cases, that I think have a huge impact on this. I think that the shortsighted thinking in Bill 24 is particularly alarming in view of things that are happening elsewhere and the information that's come to us from elsewhere.

I'll talk about other stakeholders' views of this as well, but I want to talk a little bit about some of the things that are taking place outside our borders and what the consequences will be to us and what it is that we're putting in motion with Bill 24 that I think is going to get us into bigger trouble and is going to lead us down a path that I think is very destructive for British Columbians.

I quoted in my remarks on Bill 24…. In my opposition to Bill 24, I talked about Dr. Lenore Newman and her very compelling evidence that has been presented around these issues of tampering with the agricultural land reserve at a very time in history that it suffers the most fragility, ever, since it was created back in the 1970s.

Now, Dr. Newman is the Canadian research chair in food security at the University of the Fraser Valley. She has laid out several really compelling articles and is a great speaker, a very compelling speaker. I have no doubt that if she were in here and able to mount a debate, we would hear and perhaps be able to influence government in a much more inspiring way, even, than we are able to here in the opposition seats.

She has talked about the long-term view here of what is happening with Bill 24 and what is likely to happen with
[ Page 4227 ]
Bill 24 and has talked about the consequences of that in view of what's happening south of the border.

Dr. Newman talks about how any erosion of the agricultural land reserve, which is an automatic likelihood…. You don't have to be any kind of genius to understand that as soon as you split up the agricultural land reserve and now make it sort of subject to local concerns and interests and self-interests and pressures, there will be changes, tampering with the agricultural land reserve, that could have impacts over time, not just in the short-term — it seems to me that much of the thinking here by the government side is very much short-term thinking — but in the long term.

What are the long-term consequences of what we are doing here? It seems to me that the long-term concerns about this lead, again…. It's absolutely focused like a laser beam on this issue of pressing the halt button and going out and consulting with the public on this and having some second thoughts on this.

It is inevitable that any time you begin to tinker with the land reserve, you are going to see loss of farmland to urban sprawl and industrial development. That has been historic practice. That has happened even when there has been a concerted and focused devotion to the land reserve and to protecting the land reserve. We've still seen the kind of erosion that I think we'll continue to see in the future.

It's no secret that there is a drought in California. This government has not once responded in any way to the implications of that and how that affects Bill 24 — not heard one syllable from the government side on what the implications are there. Yet we are seeing drought of unprecedented size and scope that's affecting production in California and other states that we depend on for food. Some 800,000 acres of farmland are currently out of production of food; 800,000 acres are not producing food in California right now.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

What is our observation about that? Well, apparently nothing. Apparently, we're indifferent to the implications of that. The government said not one word about what the implications are of that.

[1435]

Let's also talk about the fact that this is not just a singular little blip in the California desert and California drought situation. This is the third year of a drought. Other states are beginning to experience drought and loss of food production. It is anticipated that with climate change, this is the beginning of a long-term drought.

Food producers, growers in California have been told to chop down their almond trees because there will be no water for planting because there is not enough water to drink. The implications of that are not short-term. And yet, when we look at the legislation before us, it in no way demonstrates a long-term view — a studied, evidence-based, scientifically sound, prudent, thoughtful and responsible long-term view of British Columbia's needs and the implications.

If we continue to see drought south of the border and massive loss of food-producing lands while communities in the U.S. grapple with food versus drinking water, what are the long-term implications here? This is not going away tomorrow. You're not going to have one rainfall in California and suddenly, oh, it's all gone. This is huge.

We have farmlands that are being turned into desert. As we have already seen in southern British Columbia, we have lands that used to be farmlands being turned into desert as well.

Now, at no point have I heard the government in any of their discussion around the agricultural land reserve even allude in the remotest way to what this means for us. Well, I think that Dr. Newman talks very directly about that and talks about food security for all of us.

When you talk food security, the government seems to just turn a deaf ear, or somehow food security is something that happens elsewhere and has nothing to do with decisions we make here in the Legislature. Well, I say that is wrong.

The decisions we are making here about the agricultural land reserve today have implications on our food security forever. So it would seem to me that there is enough push-back right now, across this province, from concerned citizens and stakeholder groups that the government needs to stop in their tracks, take a breather and go out and consult with people.

Refer this to a committee. Take it on the road and ask people that are much more knowledgable than the members sitting in this House about what they want done around the long-term future of the agricultural land reserve. The government has refused to do that.

I think the twist in this is that this has a huge political backlash coming in it, and the government, again, seems oblivious of that. So I can't understand what the single-minded purpose behind this is. It makes no sense to me whatsoever or to anyone that you talk to — any experts in the field, any stakeholders, farmers, ranchers. Nobody understands what it is that the government is trying to achieve with this.

It seems to me that at a time when we should be making every effort to be more protective of our farmland and food-producing lands in this province, we are going in the wrong direction. We are doing the very opposite. We are offering less protections. Now we are threatening the very land reserve that has allowed us a modicum of food security.

I say "modicum" because we are still reliant on almost half of our food from a state that is currently going through an unprecedented drought and will not be producing food on 800,000 acres of land and maybe more in the future. What will that look like next year and the
[ Page 4228 ]
year after that, as they grapple with water shortage and climate change?

What are we doing here in British Columbia? We have a land reserve that has served us very well for 40 years, and we are now going to dismantle it. We are going to pretend that somehow that's good for the land reserve when every bit of evidence in the world shows you that it is not.

We have always had that agricultural land threatened by urban sprawl and industrial development, and now we are going to open the gates and say: "Have at it. Land developers, have at it. If you've got a legitimate reason to come into the Interior and begin to take apart the land reserve, just talk to your local board and convince them of it."

[1440]

You know what? I guess we'll — what? — get that land back another time. No, we won't. We will never recapture that land. We have lost hundreds and hundreds of food-producing acres now to urban sprawl in the Delta area.

Now, I talked, when I debated on Bill 24, about us being the only creatures that destroy our habitat and the area around us that produces food and sustains us. We are the only creatures on the planet that go out and wilfully destroy our food-producing environment.

This motion to refer is an opportunity for government to put the brakes on this. You know what? If they have nothing to fear, if they feel that this legislation is so sound and so evidence-based and such good, strong legislation, well, refer it to a committee, take it on the road, take it out with the Finance Committee and give it a test run.

This idea of bringing it through, in a few weeks ramming it through in this sitting of the Legislature…. Despite all kinds of evidence and concerns and opposition coming to them, not just from the opposition seats here but from all across the province from stakeholders, the government continues to just barrel ahead. So what is the agenda here? You have to ask: what is this agenda that they cannot take time to halt, stop and take this out to the public? That truly is the question.

It's very interesting because, of course, we went through an election here only a year ago, and this was not on the platform of the B.C. Liberals at the time when they were out talking about getting re-elected.

They did not say one word about: "Our mandate is that when we get elected, we're going to start taking apart the agricultural land reserve. Forty years it's been in place here and has protected food-producing lands and farms in this province, but you know what? We are not going to say one word about it during an election campaign. We're going to sneak up on people and do this after the fact."

In fact, there was a questionnaire that was put out to the Liberals during the election campaign. "Are you anticipating doing anything with the land reserve?" And what did they say? No. "No, we're not going to tamper with the agricultural land reserve." Yet here we are one year later, and what are we doing? We're getting ready to take apart the agricultural land reserve.

It would seem to me…. I talked about political backlash a moment ago. Now, here's the ultimate political backlash, and did the government learn anything from the last time they tried this trick? Does everybody remember what that trick was? Oh, wait — the HST.

The last time the government said one thing before an election and did another after the election, the people in this province rose up and threw the idea out in a historic referendum where the people of the province said: "We are not taking that. You did not tell us about it before the election, and we're not going to swallow it after the election."

It's sad, unfortunately, that this piece of legislation, Bill 24, taking apart the land reserve, is again kind of coming in under the radar. Talk about slipping something in stealthily here and ramming it through, with a couple of weeks here in the Legislature, promising consultation but never really delivering on consultation.

You know, I heard the minister responsible talk about, "I'm going to consult with people," and that just means reading his letters. Well, we're all reading the same letters, because we're cc'd on every letter that's sent to the government. I hardly consider that consultation in any way.

You want to consult, then support this motion to refer this to the Finance Committee, take it on the road, look British Columbians in the eye and explain to them why you didn't tell them last May that you were going to take apart the agricultural land reserve, that you were going to do it in a sneaky, sneaky way and that you weren't going to listen to British Columbians while you did it.

It's interesting how very much like the HST debacle this is. Whether or not people will have the capacity to mount the same kind of opposition that they did to the HST is probably unlikely. The government is busy saying, "Oh, don't you worry your little heads about this. Just a little innocent bill to split up the agricultural land reserve into a couple of zones. Nobody's going to get affected or hurt by this," which of course is nonsense.

[1445]

The minute you break up the land reserve, the minute you begin to downzone it, you send out responsibility into regional areas where the local pressures will be enormous. I doubt not for one moment that the B.C. Liberals will appoint specific individuals to run the local agricultural land boards that will make these decisions.

All of it leads irrevocably to decisions that are shortsighted and irresponsible at a time when, in the face of what's happening south of the border and climate change and issues around water security and food security, we need to be thinking 30, 40, 50 years into the future — which is what happened in the 1970s when the then NDP government put in place the agricultural land reserve. Was it, for them, for the moment, for the next six months, for the next electoral cycle? No.
[ Page 4229 ]

It has stood the test of time for 40 years. It had enough foresight that for 40 years it has protected — not as well as it should have — agricultural land. Are we in this Legislature now going to be just as responsible to the future generations, and are we thinking 40 years in advance around the legislation we're passing here in Bill 24? No, we are not. We are not at all. We can't even be bothered to take this to a committee for 40 days and go out on the road with it, let alone 40 years into the future.

How much confidence does the government have in their legislation? I would say very little. Otherwise, you would take the opportunity to go out and consult with British Columbians, refer this to the Finance Committee and go out and see what British Columbians think of this.

I will say that at one point it looked like, for just a moment, the government was going to consider doing this. The Minister Responsible for Core Review said back in September of 2013: "The public will have an opportunity to provide input to the core review as part of the Committee on Finance and Government Services budget consultations."

Now, that was the Finance Committee that was going out around the province, doing the usual fall circuit of consultation with British Columbians on the B.C. Liberal budget. The Minister for Core Review…. And this agricultural land reserve bill is under the core review. It's under the guise of the core review that Bill 24 is being put forward. It looked like for just a moment in time the Core Review Minister thought that the Finance Committee would do this.

However, the member for Penticton, who chairs this committee, had no idea that this was one of the expectations of the committee, so that was not done. For just a small window of time, it looked like an opportunity was there to use the Finance Committee, and its process of touring the province, to actually consult with British Columbians. But no, sadly, that wasn't the mandate of the committee, and they didn't undertake that work. They should have.

So here's the opportunity. We are presenting the opportunity to the government now, to say: "You know what? You can go back. For that brief moment of time when you had the opportunity to consult with British Columbians, you can do it now. You can have a little do-over." Because we are saying: "Refer this bill, Bill 24, to the Finance Committee, and let them go out and do the consultation."

I think that the government has undertaken not only this stealthy act of Bill 24 and a refusal to go out and consult…. They're reading a handful of letters that have come in. They have not listened to the opposition from experts and stakeholders that are deeply involved and deeply knowledgable about the land reserve.

The B.C. Cattlemen's Association have written to the minister saying that they don't agree with this bill. The agricultural industry has unanimously called on the government to stop this concept of splitting the agricultural land reserve into two areas. The B.C. Agriculture Council…. I know that the members on the other side like to talk about the B.C. Agriculture Council and how they're supporting this, but I don't think they are supporting it. I've spoken with them, and I did not hear one word of support from those members.

If the very experts in the field are opposing this, the thousands of letters that they're getting…. We're cc'd on those. We know exactly the volume of opposition there is to that. Has the government taken any opportunity to listen to any of that? No.

[1450]

They have continued with blinkers on to just push ahead on this and push through Bill 24, regardless of all evidence to the contrary — all warnings, all science, all pleas for them to think more long-term on this. They have not only refused at this point to debate the motion to refer, to speak against it or for it or take this opportunity, but in fact we've seen a closure motion being brought in.

The debate on this will be arbitrarily halted at a certain time on Thursday. That is unfair and irresponsible, and I am opposed to that with every core of my being.

S. Hammell: I am pleased to support the MLA for Nelson-Creston's motion: "That Bill (No. 24)" — the Agricultural Land Commission Act — "not be read a second time now but that the subject…be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services and further that the committee be empowered to invite witnesses to appear before it to assist in its deliberations."

In other words, what the member for Nelson-Creston is suggesting is that we take a sober second thought. That's a very famous position that W.A.C. Bennett used to do many, many times in the past, and I think he coined that phrase, "a sober second thought." When things would come in there'd be a bit of blowback, and he, being reflective of the community that he lived in, would then think twice about what it was that was being presented. It's like a time-out. It's time to let the community have its say, to let the community find its voice in participation and to be consulted by its government.

In this debate it's interesting because we have a position by the government. The official opposition disagrees fundamentally with that position and uses its opportunity to debate and to outline the differences so that the community or the public listening can hear the arguments and then themselves make up their minds as they listen to the debate.

When I spoke on Bill 24, on the principle of the bill, I described the farm activity on Sea Island, where I grew up. I mentioned some of those very large farms and described how every single one of them has disappeared and has been replaced by the expansion of the Vancouver
[ Page 4230 ]
International Airport and its associated industrial activities — hangars, huge commercial and industrial staging centres for parcels and whatever else needs to fly, parking lots and roads as well as runways.

All of those structures require that the rich soil of the farmland brought forward by the Fraser delta be transformed by sand and gravel so that the land could be compacted and hold stable those large buildings, runways, parking lots and roads. I just don't think this is the future we are looking forward to when we think of our current stock of agricultural land, and this airport enterprise very clearly demonstrates what happens when you alienate farmland and set it aside for another use.

I do think that pausing now and not reading this bill for a second time now — but that the subject matter be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services and that they go out and consult the community — is just smart politics. It would take the tension out of the bill. It would allow the people of British Columbia to have a say.

[1455]

Wise government always knows that power is not central and held only by a few. Everyone has power, and a wise government will include people that they represent in that decision-making. So not only is the decision that is made supported, but perhaps the decision is even refined and made better by consultation through the community that it represents.

We know very, very clearly what happens when you alienate farmland and what can happen without the strong oversight of a body like the Agricultural Land Commission and the supporting agricultural land reserve. Much of the land that I keep referring to was expropriated — this agricultural land on Sea Island — in the late '60s and early '70s by the federal government.

The federal government is not restricted by the laws of the province, so development has gone unrestricted through the '70s, '80s and '90s and through the last 13 years. We have a very close example of what happens when you do alienate the farmland. If you go on to that island, you will see today the mounds of sand and gravel covering the land, mixing and compacting the soil, so that more can be built. We all know that that land is then alienated forever.

In fact, when I spoke before on the principle of the bill…. Not on the motion that is now here before us where we just pause, put aside this bill, have it referred to a committee. When I spoke before, basically on the principle of the bill, I quoted the then Liberal leader, David Anderson, from the 1972s when he spoke on the issue. Again, he said that once it's gone, it's gone for good. "God gave up making farmland a long time ago."

One might extrapolate from that comment that perhaps he or she expects us on this land to preserve what farmland we've got. There is just something so fundamental about saving 5 percent of the land base that's arable in this whole beautiful province. You think you've got 100 percent of a province, and 5 percent of it is arable. You are not going to make sure that that land is protected not only for yourself, your children and your grandchildren but for generations into the future?

This land, this province of ours, is rugged — beautiful, but rugged. A province of mountains, fjords, streams, rivers and a bit of a desert. We only have 5 percent that is arable. That is so clear when you fly over this land. You fly over the Rockies. You fly over the coastal mountains. You just fly from one end of this province to another, and you see in front of you mountains after mountains.

So 5 percent is river delta and land that is arable up in the Peace. In the Peace, or the northern region of this land, 90 percent is in the zone 2 that is open for development. There is something that is just not logical about this. You have to look for another reason. You have to try to understand why a government would put at risk the land that it needs its community, its people, to have to produce food.

Again, once it's gone, it is gone. We know that from not only the Fraser Valley, but we know from the Okanagan and we know from other areas. In 1972 the government of the day understood that once it was gone it was gone and acted in the public interest and stopped the housing stampede onto the floodplain of the Fraser.

[1500]

To quote again from an editorial in the paper of the day, "The government of that day in the early '70s showed great courage," referring to the acts that gave life to the agricultural land reserve and the Agricultural Land Commission. The courage that allowed the government to introduce the ALR in the '70s is lacking now. This is the first major, major assault on the agricultural land reserve since. This is redefining the rules of the agricultural land reserve, and that just begs that we go out and check with the community that they believe that that is the thing we should do.

The courage of the government in the '70s halted the destruction of farmland on Lulu Island, the sister island to Sea Island, also found at the mouth of the Fraser River delta. These two islands make up the city of Richmond. Before the ALR the farmland on Lulu Island was being gobbled up by development and housing for subdivisions at an astonishing speed. Even now, if you go to Richmond, the division is very, very visible between the land that was pre-ALR — which is now housing, retail, commercial and industrial activity — and that of post-ALR, land which largely — not completely but largely — remains farmland.

If you went out and consulted and you talked to the people of Richmond who understood what happened to their island and you talked to the people in the Peace River and you talked to the people in the Kootenays, you would find in this province, I believe — I could be wrong, and I'm prepared to take that risk, through a consultative
[ Page 4231 ]
process — that people want the farmland to remain. They want that land. They want it to stay where they know it is doing the very best it can. The land is being treated and farmed in a way that is good not only for the land but for the people of the province.

Many of the blueberry farms that covered Lulu Island are long gone, long gone. Places where students earned a little money during the summer by picking berries — those are gone. Those lost farmlands on the Fraser River delta, on those two islands, were real examples of the 4,000 to 6,000 hectares of arable B.C. soil that were lost yearly to non-farming purposes before the introduction of the ALR.

What is amazing also is this act and the preservation of it through the last number of decades — in fact, 42 or 43 years — has been replicated in other parts of the country. If you go to other countries, you also see very, very strong preservation of farmland and of green space.

The Quebec government installed a body similar to the B.C. commission in the late 1970s called the Commission de protection du territoire agricole de Québec. Quebec officials contacted B.C. during the commission's early days for advice, and they were invited out east to consult. The relevant B.C. legislation, regulations and forms were even translated into French.

Most recently the Ontario government passed its greenbelt legislation, which protects designated land in the greater golden horseshoe region from further urban growth. The greater golden horseshoe area circles up from the Niagara region in the south and includes several regional municipalities and counties and cities such as Toronto, Hamilton and Peterborough. Under the rules, using land designated as prime agriculture areas or specifically crop areas for non-agriculture purposes is restricted.

[1505]

Even in Alberta they have done some restriction and put some reserves out — it was done by a group of Albertan ranchers — that hold conservation easements on ranchland.

This is not brain science, right? This is just common sense. What you do is you protect the land that feeds you. On farmland there's…. I watched a TV program from Kansas where this farmer talked about having oil wells on his land versus a wind farm. He was moving his farmland, his ranch land, where he had wind farms, where he could also raise his cattle. He also pointed to the ground where there had been an oil spill from an oil well that was also on his land, and he explained very clearly that once that land was damaged, it was done. Nothing would bring that land back.

Agricultural land is a very, very precious commodity. If you do other activities on that land, you put at risk the land that feeds you. It is unbelievable that after the years and years of work around the Agricultural Land Commission, we would put at risk that land without consulting the community that we live in. I do think that that is misguided.

I can beg to differ with the members opposite, but what I have a right to expect is that when you bring major legislation into this House, you will have the will, the political will, to consult the people that the legislation affects. That has not been done in this case.

Over and over again, members from the other side have made it absolutely clear they are not interested in consulting. They did not consult prior to bringing this bill in. They did not have this bill up for debate during the last election. In fact, when asked during the election, they denied doing exactly what we're doing now.

It just makes sense that you take a bill like this that has been brought in without consultation…. It has sort of been brought in without forewarning, without any discussion with the people of British Columbia — let alone the opposition, just the people of British Columbia — with no consultation with the farmers, no consultation with the people this affects. You bring it in, and you haven't got the political moxie to say: "Hold it. We will consult with the people."

In fact, the province belongs to the people. It's only governed by you, and you need to have the people that you're governing at least agree in part with what you're doing. I am amazed.

It is a time in our history where food is much more a topic of conversation, especially as we understand now how directly food affects ourselves and our health. We have debates now, and there is more information now, around the negative impact of processed food. What do we do? We take the land where you could directly grow food, and we give it all kinds of other uses. You have to ask why.

You have to say at some point: "Why are you doing this? Why are you bringing in a bill that you've not consulted anybody on, bringing it in at the end of the legislative term here, refusing to put it over to be consulted on, to be taken around by the Finance Committee? Why are you doing it?" You only can come back to: "You must have some reason for alienating the land and having another use."

[1510]

I've never been a member directly of a municipal government, but I do understand the whole process around zoning. When you start going upzoning, you increase the value of the land. You may have a piece of land that here…. Farming is generally the least expensive of land. You have farming, and if all of a sudden you can do something else on the land, and it is upzoned, somebody makes a lot of money. It doesn't matter where you are on that continuum. If you continue to upzone, you increase the value of the land.

What never happens — I can't remember a case that I know of, but maybe there are people who have seen this — is where you downzone, where you take something valu-
[ Page 4232 ]
able and make it less valuable by governments. I think we don't see that because that would cost the government money or the person taking action to downzone or make something less valuable. It's much easier to upzone, so what we have is land that, once it's out of the agricultural land reserve, becomes more valuable because there can be more uses to that land.

It absolutely astonishes me because never, ever have we known more about the need for good food to feed our kids and our grandchildren and the people in our province. We know much more about food than we did 40 years ago.

We know that we eat too much sugar. We know that we take in too much salt. We know that deep frying is not necessarily good for food intake. We know that what we need to get back to is having food from the farmland as directly as we can. That's why we have a lot of farmers markets and why people are now so much more interested in agricultural land and farmers markets and anything than they ever have been before.

Like many in this House, I have gotten quite a number of letters that have supported the notion that we stop, that we either remove this bill or we put it aside so that we can think about it and we can have a sober second thought. We could give this bill to the committee and ask them to take it out to consult with the community and to see whether we can actually take the advice or hear the advice of the people of the province that this bill affects.

I'd like to read into the record a couple of them from my part of town. I'll read to you a letter from Loretta Bogert-O’Brien. She says, "Dear Mr. Letnick," and I'm sure the minister has read this because he tells us….

Deputy Speaker: Member, no names to be used.

S. Hammell: Sorry?

Deputy Speaker: No names to be used. Just refer to the minister as the minister.

S. Hammell: I'm sorry.

I have a letter to the minister.

Thank you very much. Of course, I see what I did.

"I wrote when I first heard of the possibility of a change to the Agricultural Land Commission. I am deeply, deeply concerned with this possibility. I would like you as the new Minister of Agriculture to also know my concerns.

"Here's what I wrote: I'm concerned that there is a move to change the legislation regarding the agricultural land reserve and commission. This is a very important set of laws which protects high-value agricultural land in B.C. from being raped, all the topsoil removed and sold for development. There is no returning from that kind of development to being able to use the land to feed our citizens.

"I implore you and your government to cease and desist from changing these very important laws. They were visionary when they were implemented, and, sadly, it would be extremely shortsighted now to change them.

[1515]

"It is not good enough just to put lower-quality land in the reserve to replace high-quality land. Indeed, instead of being regressive, we should be looking forward and supporting those who want to have a farm to be able to have a decent living doing it."

That was from Loretta Bogert-O'Brien. She also made some comments on transparency, and she did want the government to allow the public to understand this issue.

I also have another letter. This was to the Premier. This person is Gwen Mass, and she says:

"I am gravely concerned by Bill 24, the Agricultural Land Commission Amendment Act. This bill fundamentally changes the ALR, and that could result in the permanent loss of protected B.C. farmland.

"B.C.'s farmers, ranchers and fruit growers have made it clear that they oppose this bill because it is not in their interests. It is being pushed through with no public consultation with the agricultural community, the Agricultural Commission or the people of British Columbia.

"Thanks to the ALR, British Columbia has maintained a steady number of farms while the rest of Canada has lost about one-third of the farms over recent decades. I call on you to defend B.C.'s farmland and reject this dangerous bill."

Again, it goes back to the notion that consultation is pretty important. I guess my major thrust around that and my major argument around that position is that we actually, I don't think, as a government have the right to shove a piece of legislation down the people of British Columbia's throat.

I think that as a responsible act, what we should do is stand back and say: "There's a lot of controversy about this. There has been no consultation, and therefore it is up to us to be sure that we do consult so that we know that we have the support of the people of British Columbia when we go forward with this bill."

You see, to me, there is no compelling reason why we need to move quickly. I don't believe that the government has made the case for this bill. They have not made the case. They have not told us why they're doing it. Their attitude is: "We won. We get to be government. We can tell the people what they can do. We can tell the opposition. We don't have to consult, and there we go. We don't even have to give good reasons why we're doing this."

Interjection.

S. Hammell: I have been. You know what? Just because you're called, just because you hit the nail on the nose does not mean you then have to start heckling back and forth.

Deputy Speaker: Members. Members, let's focus.

S. Hammell: We've heard letters from all over this province. To stand there and say, "Have you ever been to Cranbrook?" as some ridiculous reason why we should not consult the people of British Columbia over a bill that you did not even talk about during an election — in fact, that you said you were not going to do during election…. You do it, and then you come in here and you….
[ Page 4233 ]

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members. Members, let's have order, please.

Member, continue.

S. Hammell: Well, I actually just think it's shocking and shameful.

[1520]

The tragedy of Bill 24 is that after 42 years of protection, we in this House cannot see clearly into the future as those who have gone before us. And the members opposite have not made the case. They have not brought forward to this House compelling arguments for why we should be doing this. No one has made that case. You just sit there and say it's good for whatever reason. We need a time-out to consider. We need a time-out to think through. We need to refer this bill to the Standing Committee on Finance and have those people go out and consult, like you should have done before the bill was brought in.

We need time to consider the gifts from those who went before us, the value that consultation will afford and the impact on the future.

D. Routley: I rise to speak to support the motion to refer this bill, Bill 24, to a committee for further reflection and consultation with the people of B.C. It's to the notion of consultation and consideration that I'd like to direct my comments.

There has been much said about the controversy that has been created by this bill. There has been much said by different interests in the province, through e-mails, letters and web postings, both to the members of the opposition and members of the government, pointing out shortfalls and shortcomings of Bill 24 and potential negative consequences, intended or otherwise, if we were to pass this bill at this time.

I think there's been no shortage of reasons given to the government as to why it should take a moment, at this time, to pause and carefully consider what it's about to do with this legislation and then, commensurately, what it would be doing to the precious agricultural land reserve of British Columbia.

You know, the government is, in my experience in nine years in this House, not ever hesitant or shy to impose closure and speed the debate at the end of a session. In fact, Mr. Speaker, you and I have been in this House for the same number of years. I believe that you and I have never seen a session of this parliament end without closure, without the government limiting debate and without the government taking these last moments of the session and ramming through significant legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I think we both know weeks, if not months, in advance that this will be the outcome of the session, based on its progress. But when it happens, I know most of us share the feeling of collectively having been kicked in the gut — that democracy has really taken another blow, that this government has chosen this method of debate, which is really not debate, to push through some of the most significant legislation the House has ever had to deal with.

Not only does haste make waste, in that the legislation is often found to be faulty, is often found to be unconstitutional and overturned by courts, to the great shock and cost to the public purse and public confidence; but it is an affront to the notion of a civil democracy.

I'd like to talk a little bit about that, about the notions of democracy. We come to this place. It's a place where its primary purpose is the resolution of differing points of view. Democracy has, as its core, its base, the notion that the majority rules. But this whole process and the habits of this government bring to question what democracy really should be — what it is, what it has become and what it ought to be.

[1525]

Is democracy simply the right to absolute power? When the government won the election in May, it won a mandate. What does it mean? What is a mandate? What is a mandate to a government that has come to power in a province where the participation rate has sunk to a dismal 50 to 55 percent, where so many people have been so disengaged by the process that they don't even choose to vote anymore and when so many of those people who choose not to vote point to the fact that they feel voiceless and powerless and that it will make no difference?

In that circumstance, in that context, for government to bring forward legislation and then force it without debate is only contributing to that sense of disengagement and cynicism that is the most toxic element to democratic participation and health and good government. That's what we're doing here.

Government exists only with the confidence of the people. If this government were to bring forward significant legislation and a majority of members of this House voted against it, the government would fall because it would fail the test of having the confidence of the people — not the people who sit here but the people who are the citizens of British Columbia.

When we speak to each other in this House — you reminded the last speaker not to use the name of the minister when she accidentally read the name from a letter — we speak to each other as constituencies. I am Nanaimo–North Cowichan. I am not going by my name, which I'd like to say, but of course I can't. Why? Because we are representing people — not ourselves, not our own party, not our own government or our own opposition view. Essentially, we are representing the people of British Columbia, and if the government fails the test, it falls.

We speak to each other in a parliamentary tone. We don't use words that are considered unparliamentary, like…. Well, I can't use it. If the government is dishonest, if the government says something that isn't true, there's
[ Page 4234 ]
a very short word that defines that, and I can't use that word, for good reason. I may feel that the minister himself has deceived the people I represent, but I can't use that word because I would be calling every one of his constituents that.

Deputy Speaker: Member, be careful.

D. Routley: I am being careful, Mr. Speaker, but I think it's a very important point. It's an important point because this is the respect we give to each other. It's not because we necessarily like each other. I think there's enough evidence here that people on either side aren't particularly fond of each other in many cases. I mean, there are many members on the other side who I consider to be close friends after these nine years here, and I have respect for all of the members.

But that is why. If I were to use that word or another unparliamentary word in referring to the behaviour of the government or a minister or another member of this House, I would not be insulting that member but the people they represent.

That's the essence of what we are here. It's the essence of what we do here. Democratic government is absolutely based upon the principle of majority rule. But in this context, where 50 percent of the people vote and the government is elected by 41 percent of that 50 percent and the official opposition represents 37 percent of that 50 percent — a narrow 4 percent difference — it behooves the government to listen. In fact, it's the duty of government to listen.

When they were elected in May, they weren't elected with a blank cheque. But I have the very distinct feeling, through this type of behaviour, that that's exactly how the government interprets it — that modern politics has become about pure, unabridged power, that it doesn't matter what the people we represent think, that it doesn't matter that the ministers on the other side have so little respect for this process that they are willing, as a government, to ram through legislation that is contentious, that is dividing the province.

[1530]

We see clear evidence that even people who declared themselves as supporters of the government are disturbed and alarmed by this legislation. But the government, by its definition of its mandate, is taking that to mean it has the unadulterated right to jam and ram through whatever ideas it has, regardless of what the people of the province think. I do not think that is responsible government. I do not think that is responsive government.

I think that people can be brought back into the system to consider their own participation, to become authentic participants — not just to vote but also to participate in the way our communities are managed — if they saw from their government a willingness to be authentic, to consult, to listen and to be responsive to what the people are telling them, but this government does not see it that way.

Although democratic government is based on the absolute principle that majority rules, it also depends on a number of other significant elements. Majority rule requires that the minority abide by the will of the majority. The willingness of the minority to abide by the will of the majority is, in turn, based upon the willingness of the majority to permit the minority to have their say before any final action is taken. In Greek mythology Themistocles said to Eurybiades: "Strike, but hear me." Okay? "You have the power to do what you want to do, but hear me."

The chief purpose of what we do here in parliament, the chief purpose of the process that we are engaged in, is not simply to enable majority rule, mob rule. It is to ensure that the minority views are protected and heard. That's the primary function of this place. Maybe that's why the government doesn't call this place to sit very often — because, in fact, its interpretation of democracy is something very different. "We won. We don't have to hear you. We're doing what we want."

This place is meant to temper that. This place has many mechanisms in place, processes to ensure that the minority is heard, that the minority's rights are protected and that the minority's views are considered. The majority can almost always simply take care of itself. This place is meant to do something else, and that's why we need to refer this bill for consultation.

Good government is reflected not only by process in law but by its habit in dealing with its citizens and their interests — its habit. The habit of this government is not to consult. The habit of this government is not to be, frankly, honest about its intentions during election campaigns.

I'll give you a few examples of the deceit that we've seen displayed, and that deceit contributes to the lack of confidence that people have in government process and democracy. I mean, they're well-known examples, but I'll recite them in any case.

Mr. Speaker will be familiar with the example of the Hospital Employees Union, the HEU. Back in 2001, before election, then Gordon Campbell, about to become Premier, promised the Hospital Employees Union workers and others that he would not tear up their contracts. But what did he do? What did he do, Mr. Speaker? He did exactly that, and the tearing up of the HEU contracts led to the largest mass firing of women in Canadian history.

Now, wasn't that an act of government, a government elected by a very narrow margin, another example where sober second thought and consultation should have occurred? In the end, the HEU….

[1535]

Bills 27, 28 and 29, the bills which affected the rights of workers in this province, were overturned by the Supreme Court and were shown to be trampling on the civil rights of British Columbians. That cost tens of mil-
[ Page 4235 ]
lions of dollars to the public purse in order to remedy it. Teachers were affected, and they still are affected. Right now we have the teachers of this province on a strike action, and the government in a lockout position, and students and teachers further suffering. After 13 long years of chaos, we have more of the same because the government fails to consult, and because the government fails to recognize the views outside of its own cabinet room.

We were promised as a province that our railway, B.C. Rail, wouldn't be sold. It was. Before the 2009 election we were promised by the government that there would not be a harmonized sales tax. There was.

The government has this habit of ignoring its own word, of ignoring the words of British Columbians, of ignoring minority views and even ignoring majority views, if it has the power to do so. I would suggest, based on the kind of polling that indicates support for the ALR in this province, that a very clear majority, much larger than the narrow margin of victory of this government, are in support of the ALR, are alarmed by this bill and would be further shocked, appalled and dismayed at the state of British Columbia's democracy if this bill were to pass without further consultation.

Those are really very good reasons for the government to pull back, to refer this bill to committee for consultation and for further consideration.

As I've said, good government is reflected not only in process and law but by its habit — by its habits of how it deals with citizens; by its habits of how it campaigns and then governs; by its habits of dealing with citizens and their interests.

The habit of good government is giving one's best thoughts and efforts for the general welfare but at the same time being willing to consider the thoughts and efforts of others — if need be, or if the people's best interests indicate, compromising with or submitting to the thoughts and efforts of the majority or even minority of their fellow citizens, our fellow citizens.

How will they know? Even the people who are so directly affected from the agricultural sectors are calling out for the government to stop, to consult, to consider. Will the government hear them?

Well, the habit of listening, the habit of hearing, the habit of being responsive and reflective of what a government hears from its people is like any other habit. It's acquired through practice. The habit of ignoring people, of not telling people what you're going to do, or doing exactly the opposite of what you told people you will do — that habit is also acquired by practice.

This government has had plenty of practice in letting down the people of B.C. when it comes to their word, of springing upon the people of B.C. significant legislative change that was not even given mere mention in their platform.

That, I believe, requires mandate. That, I believe, requires that the government go back, speak to the people of the province, formally hear them. The definition of consultation is the action or process of formally consulting or discussing. Synonyms of consultation — discussion, dialogue, discourse, debate, negotiation, deliberation. It is a meeting in order to seek advice. It is to talk. It is discussion. It is interview, audience. It is hearing.

[1540]

These are the definitions, and these are the synonyms of consultation. The government is deaf to these. Wake up. You were elected not to have a simple handle on raw power. You were elected by a narrow margin. You were elected in the context of a province that has less than 55 percent participation. You were elected in a democracy that is torn and scorned by cynicism and disengagement.

In that context, this government fails to hear by habit. This government needs to develop better habits. This government needs to commit itself to authenticity. This government needs to commit itself to responsibility.

Being responsible as a government means operating within the confidence of the people, not simply winning votes, not simply winning elections. In order to give people confidence, we need to be better than we are. That government needs to be better than it is.

This government, and any government in a democracy, stands only with the confidence of the people, and that is not a simple vote in the House. That is much more than that.

As I said, I represent Nanaimo–North Cowichan. I don't stand here by name. I don't call the minister by name. I call him by his constituency for a very good reason: out of respect for the people who elected us, out of a sense of duty to reflect the views of the people who elected us. This government has forgotten that, and I'm begging them.

I've been here for nine years, right? It's three years till the next election. If the last election taught us anything, it taught us that it won't really matter too much if you stand back and say: "Look, we might have made a mistake here. We might have gone forward without really adequate consideration."

Maybe, without losing face, without losing any political capital whatsoever, the government could step back and actually consider the views of British Columbians and maybe, then, would begin to develop a habit. It would begin to develop a habit of hearing and a habit of listening.

The people of this province have developed another habit, born out of cynicism — a habit of not voting. People tell me that the reason they don't vote is they think it doesn't matter. They think they can't make any difference. They think they won't be heard.

What is this government telling them with Bill 24? What is this government telling them with closure? After nine years, every single time I've sat in this House — every single time you, Mr. Speaker, and I have sat in this House — sessions have ended with closure and limit on
[ Page 4236 ]
debate. That's the bottom line. That's what people see. It almost leaves a politician speechless.

Significant change requires extraordinary process and attention. It's the same in this place as it is in labour negotiations, in contract law. If you are going to make a significant change in the workplace, you must engage a special process to consult. If you want to make a significant change to any contract, you have to have support to do that.

This government is making a significant change in the contract it has with the people of British Columbia, and it owes the people of British Columbia a hearing. It owes the people of British Columbia consideration.

We have heard about issues of food security, how important the ALR is to future generations. We have heard people talk eloquently about climate change and the implications that climate change has for the production of food, not only in British Columbia but around the globe and, particularly, in markets from which we source our food, such as California.

[1545]

We've heard from people about the consequences. We've heard about the notions of land speculation, that already there are lineups at the doors of real estate offices as people speculate on the future of agricultural land in British Columbia — which brings me to another element of responsibility.

As an analogous circumstance or process around budgets from governments, around declarations from the directors of central banks, around economic choices such as interest rates, the fine definitions of every word used by a finance minister or the director of a central bank is dissected by the marketplace. It directs the marketplace, because it encourages speculation or discourages speculation. The actions of this government are encouraging speculation on the agricultural lands of this province — particularly of the Minister for Core Review.

The farmers in our constituencies are speaking to us loudly and clearly. The buzz in the farmers markets in our constituencies is about this bill. People are noticing. This is about more than the ALR. This is about democracy. This is an opportunity for this government to acquire a new habit. This is an opportunity.

I know that no one could have predicted the outcome of the election in May. I know that there's an unfortunate aspect to it from the point of view of the health of democracy. Any government that's been in power for a long time and has been shown to have taken less-than-forthright actions, has been mired in scandal, has been floundering in the outcomes and consequences of deceit — that government….

Deputy Speaker: Member, I know you are very passionate about this issue, but you should be very careful about the language you use. A word like "deceit" is not advisable.

D. Routley: Thank you.

I know that a government that found itself in that status before an election and then engaged in state-of-the-art negative campaigning and fear-based campaigning and wound up winning an upset can congratulate itself, can assume a certain mandate. But there are limitations to any mandate. The limitations are defined by the campaign and by the tolerance of the people.

The government has taken that to be simply a blank cheque. It has taken it as a message of distemperance — that there is no limit, that there is no governor on the throttle of this government, that it can do as it pleases, when it pleases and in whatever fashion it pleases. That's the message they seem to have taken.

It has further encouraged the government to wallow in these negative habits of not listening, of not being responsible, of not being reflective, of not being willing to compromise. But this is yet one more opportunity for this government to change its course.

[1550]

Far be it from me to offer them advice that I think could lead them to further victory, but really, the interests of the province demand that I say to this government: "What are you missing? Why not refer this bill for consultation? Do you not realize" — to every member of the government side — "that the people of B.C. would congratulate you for having such a responsible and reflective habit? Do you not see that raw power is not worth the consequence of losing the confidence of the people and of damaging democracy with further cynical disengagement?"

To every member on the other side: do you not feel a responsibility to hear, to listen, to dialogue, to negotiate and to compromise with the minority and even majority views of this province that are outside your cabinet offices?

G. Holman: I am pleased to rise today to speak in favour of the amendment, which is to refer Bill 24 to the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services and that "the committee be empowered to invite witnesses to appear before it to assist in its deliberations."

I completely support this amendment for a number of reasons. I would point out that it is somewhat ironic that this amendment is a referral to the Finance Committee, because it was the Minister for Core Review who initially publicly stated that the Finance Committee was exactly where the public should go to talk about potential changes to the agricultural land reserve and the land commission. At the time there were just rumours of e-mails, leaked e-mails and that kind of thing, but the Minister for Core Review did initially identify the Finance Committee.

This amendment is completely appropriate for three basic reasons that I wanted to talk to today. As has been stated, there is certainly no electoral mandate to make
[ Page 4237 ]
these changes to the land reserve, to the Agricultural Land Commission. There's been no public consultation whatsoever despite explicit promises, again, to the contrary. Again, there's no answer to the key policy questions here. The key questions are: what's the problem that we're trying to address, and what's the best approach to try to address a problem that has been identified? For all three of those reasons, Bill 24 needs to be referred to the Finance Committee for consultation and to take input from the public and the stakeholders.

With respect to the electoral mandate…. The members opposite do like to remind us from time to time about their electoral mandate: "We won, you lost, so we're going to do this. We have a mandate to do this." Clearly, with respect to Bill 24, that doesn't exist. It simply doesn't exist.

Not only were major changes to the ALR and the land commission not raised with voters; the changes were explicitly denied in writing. It was not just a question of not mentioning plans to change these institutions — which, by the way, have been supported by all parties, by all political persuasions for 40 years and no mention of these changes — but over and above that, such changes were explicitly denied in a question from Country Life in B.C. magazine. The B.C. Liberal Party was asked if it would work with the ALC to ensure that agricultural land continues to be available for agriculture and not be used for "port, dam, transportation, industrial and residential development." The Liberal Party's written response? Essentially, yes.

[1555]

Not only wasn't it mentioned; when asked specifically about potential changes to the ALR, it was explicitly denied, in writing, so clearly there is no electoral mandate here.

It has been mentioned that this is reminiscent of the HST debacle, where, once again, there was an explicit denial that any such changes were being planned. Then after the election all of a sudden our financial…. You know, whatever the reason. In fact, the HST was implemented, resulting in that fiasco.

Unlike the HST…. At least in that instance government did consult with the public after the fact. Even when they denied it in the election, at least after the election they went out and tried to engage the public, explain their position, explain their rationale and, of course, ultimately were forced to take it to a referendum, where it was ultimately defeated. This is not happening in this case, so it's even worse than the HST debacle, in that sense. At least with the HST there was an attempt to engage the public and explain government's rationale.

The Minister for Core Review, again, stated very publicly…. This was when the issue first was raised with the Finance Committee. I was a member of that committee. All of a sudden we were being presented with delegations concerned about these potential changes that they were hearing about, and the committee was quite confused about why we'd be the audience. Then we discovered that, in fact, the Minister for Core Review had put on his website that "the public will have an opportunity to provide input to core review as part of the Committee on Finance and Government Services…budget consultations."

It was right there in black and white on the website, and that's why people were coming to us. The committee, of course, was quite surprised, including the committee Chair, who happens to be the Parliamentary Secretary for Core Review. He had no idea that this was coming. But there it was in black and white on the website: the Minister for Core Review identifying the Finance Committee as the place to go if you had concerns about rumoured changes, which is what they were at the time, to the ALR and the ALC.

Later, of course, the minister in an interview stated: "I know we could have done a better job of consultation, and I take my mea culpa." There's a clear admission on the minister's part that the public hasn't been consulted at all, despite very clear promises to the contrary.

The Chair of the Finance Committee, after a few days of toing and froing, I expect, with the Minister for Core Review, ultimately spoke and, in deliberations with the Finance Committee, ultimately had a response for people coming to us with these questions, which was essentially: "We will take your comments. This is not the appropriate forum, but you will have plenty of opportunity for input into this legislation."

Another promise by another member opposite, the Chair of the Finance Committee. Again, very clearly an explicit promise that there would be plenty of opportunity for meaningful and effective consultation with the public and the stakeholders, and that, of course, has not come to pass at all.

There's a whole range of opponents who oppose this legislation and are urging government to slow down and reconsider its options. I would agree with my colleague who just stated that in fact — and I'm not being facetious about this — the best thing that government could do with respect to this bill is to take it out to the public. Demonstrate that you're willing to listen, follow through on the commitments, the explicit commitments made by your ministers. That would be the best political advice that I could give them on this particular issue. They will not lose face. In fact, they will gain credibility, absolutely.

[1600]

That is, in all sincerity, the best political advice I could give to this government on this issue. Live up to your promises and take it out to the public. Take it out to stakeholders. What's the rush here?

The B.C. Association of Farmers Markets is one of those key stakeholder groups who have objected to this legislation. I want to just read very briefly from some correspondence from them to the minister. Just to describe who they are, B.C. farmers markets are a rapidly growing sector contributing $113 million in direct sales
[ Page 4238 ]
to B.C.'s economy in 2012, up 147 percent from $46 million in 2006.

"The proposed changes in Bill 24 not only threaten the viability of farmers markets. They threaten the economic and social benefits such markets deliver to the communities they support."

They write further to the Minister of Agriculture:

"I am writing to you on behalf of BCAFM" — I'm paraphrasing here somewhat — "to convey our concern regarding the lack of public consultation leading up to the announcement of Bill 24 and the resulting impacts on B.C.'s agricultural land reserve. British Columbians are stakeholders in this decision, and our opinions and concerns regarding food, farmers and farmland must not be underestimated or overlooked in this consultation process. We urge you to seriously consider the points that we've outlined below."

So a very important stakeholder in these discussions. They're being essentially completely ignored.

Another group, the B.C. Cattlemen's Association — it's been mentioned before that they're not exactly necessarily friends of the official opposition — have also written the minister urging the minister to slow these changes down.

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

By the way, it's my understanding — and they do indicate here in their letter — that the B.C. Cattlemen's Association own and manage the majority of lands within the agricultural land reserve. I would suspect the majority of lands held by members of the association are located in zone 2. I don't know that for a fact, but I would suspect strongly that is the case.

The Cattlemen's Association goes on to ask the minister:

"We encourage you to take a slow approach with the drafting and the passing of Bill 24. Ranchers have lived with the reserve for 40 years, and waiting a little while longer to ensure that the proper changes are made seems reasonable to our directors."

It sure seems reasonable to us on this side of the House.

The letter goes on further to say: "It is difficult to see what the overall benefits to agriculture will be from Bill 24 and the amendments you introduced this week." So this is the largest owner of ALR land in the province urging the minister to slow down, questioning the benefits, the so-called benefits, that this legislation is supposed to bring and indicating that they've lived with it for 40 years and that waiting a while longer to make sure they get the changes right seems very reasonable.

[1605]

Another organization that has made its views known on the issue is IntegrityBC, who also have written the minister and copied the members of this House.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

They state in their letter that this is what the Liberal Party indicated: "'We will renew the Agricultural Land Commission and protect the agricultural land reserve to ensure we have farmland and food grown in B.C. for generations to come.' If party platforms are to mean anything, surely its words must be honoured by those who run and are elected by it."

They go on to say, "Consider who is opposed to Bill 24 or believes there needs to be further consultation," and they indicate it's not a short list. Farmers, ranchers, academics, scientists, B.C. Liberal Party members, local and regional governments and agricultural associations have all have spoken out against the bill or called on the government to slow down and involve British Columbians in the process through genuine consultation.

Finally, IntegrityBC states: "Consider for a moment why you got into politics. Isn't this one of the reasons — because you were fed up with politicians in Victoria or Ottawa who always thought they knew better and rammed legislation through without listening to constituents?"

There has been a whole range of local governments that have either opposed the legislation or requested government to slow down, including, by the way, in the northeast, the Peace River regional district.

In my area, the Islands Trust has asked exactly that and is reminding government of the reviews that have already and just recently been undertaken by the Agricultural Land Commission and by the Auditor General. The Islands Trust states that these reviews have happened twice in the past three years and that we surely don't need a third until implementation of the previous recommendations bears fruit.

"The agricultural land reserve is an important asset in the Islands Trust area, helping to sustain the character of our islands and the health of our communities." So they also are asking this government, the minister, to please include the recommendations from previous reviews and to please include a meaningful consultation process with local governments and communities.

The list goes on and on — individual farmers. My understanding is that the minister has received quite literally thousands of letters and e-mails and has indicated he's going to read them all, but it's not clear that it's really going to have an effect.

I'll read just quickly a letter that I got from a farmer in my constituency in Central Saanich — a Mr. Maxwell, a farmer, retired soil surveyor:

"To the hon. Premier and Mr. Bennett: please leave the ALR and ALC as is. It's a flexible system. It now has a worthy, established code of practice most people understand and want to continue. Hundreds of thousands of British Columbians want local food, local agricultural production and growth and increased sustainability for the future. We don't have the right to compromise the choices of our children. They will make their own wise decisions, but they need the land base intact."

Even the B.C. Agriculture Council, which the government appears to be hanging its hat on as supporting this legislation…. I think that's an overstatement, to put it
[ Page 4239 ]
mildly. Even the B.C. Agriculture Council has stated in a letter to the minister just recently that it remains firmly opposed to fracturing the ALR into two zones.

Now, this is the largest agricultural group in British Columbia, representing literally billions of dollars' worth of production in British Columbia. Cattlemen's Association are the largest landowners; this is the largest group in terms of revenue.

They go on to state that they firmly oppose the fracturing of the ALR into two zones. "Farmers and ranchers have raised a number of questions, including how the other factors for consideration in zone 2 will benefit agriculture."

[1610]

Again, there's a fundamental question here about what the problem is exactly. Again, the need for consultation here — aside from the fact that there's zero electoral mandate and aside from the fact that the rationale for the bill has yet to be explained by government — is that these institutions have been supported for 40 years, four decades, by governments of all political stripes. When you're dealing with institutions like that, I think there's an even higher standard of consultation with the public and with stakeholders that government should meet.

It should not be playing with legislation like this out of some whim or the whim of a particular cabinet minister. In this case there's even more of a rationale, a stronger rationale, for public consultation.

An explanation of the reasons why we're doing it here — why we're proposing changes to this bill. You know, Mr. Speaker, there have been some good examples here in this House of legislation that has gone through that process. The Water Sustainability Act is an example of that. The elections legislation is another example, where both of those pieces of legislation were supported unanimously by members of this House. In part that was because of the extensive public consultation process that it went through.

I guess the final and most fundamental question is: what is the problem here? It's been demonstrated very clearly that data shows that the vast majority of applications for non-farm use or non-farm exemptions have been approved by the system. The system works. This is the issue that I have in particular with this legislation — that it's a solution looking for a problem. They have not demonstrated the rationale, and this is another reason why we need to take this bill out to the public and consult with stakeholders about their rationale, about what the issues are and what's the best way to approach it.

Are there ways to address the issue of supporting farmers? If that's one of the objectives of the legislation — to better support farmers — then can we do it in a way that doesn't destroy these institutions that have lasted for 40 years in this province? There absolutely are ways to do that.

The government can reconsider bringing back Buy B.C., which they've done away with. They could consider supporting the private member's legislation that we brought forward requiring public institutions like hospitals to buy a portion of their food requirements locally.

They can bring extension officers back to the Ministry of Agriculture to help young farmers so they're not reinventing the wheel. There are so many things that could be done to help farmers actually make a living doing farming as opposed to changing legislation which is really ultimately going to result in the conversion of farmland to non-farm uses.

Instead, we should be looking at options for supporting farmers and actually growing food. There's a whole range of options that could be considered there, and part of the reason for referring this legislation to the Finance Committee would be to get some ideas on how to do that. Although, as I've indicated with the Islands Trust…. There have already been two recent reviews and a whole number of recommendations made about how to support farmers, and they've not been followed through on.

I won't go on too much further here. Obviously, the referral would allow the Finance Committee and government not just to consider alternatives to changing the legislation rather than supporting farmers; it would also give government an opportunity to hear the real concerns about the potential detrimental effects of the legislation.

A number of members here have spoken, including myself, for example, about the concerns around the speculative forces that are going to be unleashed by this legislation and, as has been mentioned, are lining up already.

Has the agricultural land reserve actually worked? Has it actually protected land? The data indicates that in the rest of Canada there's been a loss of farmland. About a third of the number of farm operations have been lost in Canada, whereas in British Columbia the number of farmers has roughly been maintained.

[1615]

There is an indication that the system is working not just to protect farmland but to actually support farmers in making a living in growing food as opposed to converting such lands to commercial and industrial use.

The one final comment I wanted to make, and again, it gets back to the…. Perhaps it's a bit pretentious on my part to be offering government political advice. But the other aspect of this legislation that's concerning is that six regional panels will be mandated, and the land commission had moved away from that model. These panels are appointed by government, so it's friends of government who are going to be close to political lobbying in their local areas.

These panels are going to be much more vulnerable to persuasion in local communities and not necessarily for the public good. There's a real issue here, a real concern
[ Page 4240 ]
that these regional panels could be making decisions that are going to get this government into hot water. I would make the modest prediction that over time, if this legislation passes and we get into these six regional panels, government is going to find itself in hot water in a whole number of circumstances. You're setting this up, and I think it's predictable that that kind of decision-making is going to be getting this government in hot water.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak to the bill and strongly support the amendment being proposed.

G. Heyman: It's actually an honour to be able to rise to speak to this motion to refer, having already spoken to this bill at second reading. It's an honour because I believe, as my constituents do, that the challenge of food security is one that we need to take seriously, that we need to address and that the best tool we have at our disposal is the legacy we've been left of the Agricultural Land Commission and the agricultural land reserve. For that reason, I think this bill is ill-advised.

Not only is the bill itself ill-advised, but the method of implementing it is ill-advised. Bringing it in under a core review is ill-advised and, frankly, makes no sense. The issue of a core review, as I understood it, is a process by which we looked at which activities of government were central to the needs and purposes of British Columbians. What do people expect from their government? To assume that the Agricultural Land Commission and the reserve are things that are not central to the concerns of British Columbians is, I believe, a misguided notion.

I think the government certainly has the right to raise the issue of the land reserve and raise the issue of how decisions are made. But it would seem to me to be appropriate to do that through a consultative process, through some sort of forewarning in an election platform, through some sort of broad-based discussion of something that is so fundamental to the future well-being of all British Columbians. I mean, it's said that without a roof over our heads, without food and without water, we have nothing. I would say that's true.

Something so central as the ability to feed ourselves in a changing world seems to not be something that should be addressed willy-nilly by the government through any means at its disposal without some long and involved and genuine discussion with the British Columbians who will be impacted by this — not just this generation of British Columbians, not just British Columbians in this term of office of this government but British Columbians and our children and our children's children far into the future.

Of course it is a pleasure to stand and speak, but it's not a pleasure to have to speak on a bill that I think is so fundamentally dangerous to the interests of British Columbians and a process that I believe is profoundly disrespectful of what British Columbians expect from a democratic process and a democratic government, which has no bearing whatsoever on the issues on which the government campaigned.

[1620]

Now, I understand that issues arise that government has to address that can't be foreseen in an election campaign or addressed directly in the platform on which a party runs during the campaign. But an agricultural land reserve and the commission charged with overseeing and implementing a process by which decisions are made about agricultural land and applications for exclusion surely, surely cannot be characterized as an emergent situation that could not have been foreseen.

In fact, when questioned by Country Life magazine on their platform going into the campaign, the government party clearly stated that its commitment was to protect agricultural land, to work toward greater preservation of agricultural land, to support the Agricultural Land Commission and to give the Agricultural Land Commission more resources with which to do its job.

Now, maybe the ministers opposite, who are charged with being in this House to listen to our party raise the concerns of British Columbians about this particular piece of legislation, think that they're actually carrying through that platform commitment.

Hon. Speaker, I can assure you that British Columbians by and large — whether those that are assessed by polling or those who have written letters to my constituency, to other MLAs, to the minister himself — certainly don't believe that. The associations representing people involved in the cattle industry and in agriculture don't believe that. People who are responsible for supporting the local food industry, whether it's the farmers markets associations or people who work on food policy, don't believe that.

Another reason that it's a good time for me to be standing in this House today and addressing this issue is because across the aisle is the Minister of Transportation, with whom I've had many exchanges over the previous few months. The lines that the Minister of Transportation used repeatedly to explain why he was pursuing other pieces of legislation were essentially twofold: he and his government believed in democracy and in consulting British Columbians. This was with respect to a referendum on TransLink in the Metro Vancouver region.

The other thing the Minister of Transportation said frequently was: "When we make a campaign promise, we keep it, and we promised a referendum." Well, I would say to the Minister of Transportation but, perhaps more importantly, to the absent Ministers of Agriculture and the Minister Responsible for Core Review….

He appears to be the real driving force behind this legislation, not just in his role as Minister Responsible for Core Review but as a minister with a long-held reputation for being annoyed by the agricultural land reserve and commission because it stood in the way of development proposals that he wished to see proceed.

I would say to these ministers that when you say — in response to a question about your party's commitment to agriculture in this province, to the Agricultural Land
[ Page 4241 ]
Commission, to the preservation of the agricultural land reserve — that you are committed to preserving and strengthening the agricultural land reserve and then bring in a piece of legislation like Bill 24, the most that the government has claimed is that it will not weaken the reserve, and most commentators say it will significantly weaken the reserve.

What you owe British Columbians, at a minimum, is consultation and review and time to think this over and understand the proposal.

Because perhaps — although nothing in this session of the Legislature leads me to believe that it's true, and nothing in any of the other bills that we've seen or any of the other reasonable amendments that have been proposed leads me to believe that this is true — following consultation and review and testimony from experts and testimony from people in the farming and food communities, this government might actually see that this legislation is ill-advised and choose not to proceed with it.

[1625]

That is precisely why we on this side of the House have moved to refer this bill to a committee, a committee that has sadly not been utilized or thought important enough to have any significant role under this government.

We have proposed that this legislation be referred to committee so it can be studied and so that British Columbians have a chance to bring their voices forward and experts have a chance to talk about what it would mean, in their view, to make these changes — what it would mean to the agricultural industry, what it would mean to food processors and the people in British Columbia who market food, what it would mean to the future interests of British Columbians in a time of climate change to take chances about how much agricultural land we will need today and in the future, as well as which agricultural land might actually be suitable for which crops as we experience changing climate north of the 49th and in northern British Columbia.

A government that cared about the future of British Columbians' food security wouldn't hesitate to allow this bill to go to consultation, to go to committee, to be reviewed further. What's the rush? We're coming back in the fall. We're coming back in the fall to discuss a tax regime for the liquid natural gas industry. That's important enough for the government to call the House back, as they should. The standing orders call for a fall sitting, notwithstanding the fact that we haven't seen too many of them under this government.

But what would be the flaw or the harm to British Columbia, to the agricultural industry, to farmers and, most importantly, to people who rely on food as the staff of life, to review this legislation and bring it back in the fall for further debate?

I believe nothing is lost except perhaps the government's ability to ram this legislation through and hope people forget about it over the summer, and they don't have to deal with the fallout and opposition that is engendered throughout British Columbia as people learn about what this government says before an election and what it does after an election, what they claim to believe about food security and what they actually do, flying in the face of the opinions and statements of experts of the agriculture industry and of food producers, processors and marketers.

This is legislation that deserves further review because it's legislation that endangers the economy of British Columbia, the security of British Columbians and the ability of British Columbians to feed ourselves for generations to come. That's why something so critical, so fundamental to our well-being, so fundamental to life itself in British Columbia should not be pushed through, should not be subject to the kind of forced vote through time allocation that we saw brought in today, should not be rammed through, because there is no need to do so.

What's the rush? Why won't we take the time? Why won't we take three or four or six months to ensure that the decisions made in this Legislature that will so profoundly impact the security of British Columbians and our ability to be self-sufficient in food long after every single member who sits in this chamber has gone from this planet…? Long after, the legacy that will be left will be shaped by the decisions that are made here over the next two days unless this government takes a step back and understands that this isn't a game of chess between government and the opposition.

This is a legitimate discussion between members on this side of the House, doing what our role is as the official, loyal opposition, which is bringing the concerns of British Columbians about a very, very significant piece of legislation, significant because it goes to our very ability to feed ourselves.

[1630]

We have seen what happens in other parts of the world when there is drought, when food prices rise, when there are food shortages and scarcity. The very elements of the social fabric begin to be unravelled. Conflict arises, and it's understandable, because what is more fundamental than the ability to be fed, than the ability to have enough food on the table for one's family, to have the strength to go out and work and play and not have to worry about where the next scrap of food is coming from?

That is why scientists, why people in the agriculture industry, why people involved in markets have stepped forward and called for the government to withdraw this legislation and to consult more broadly. This is a government that in other areas has claimed that there is no level of consultation that is too great for their democratic commitment. You can't apply that standard to one area of governance and turn your back on it in another. It's not consistent. It's not good governance. It's not keeping the promises that have been made to British Columbians, particularly when you are refusing to consult on some-
[ Page 4242 ]
thing that was never even whispered about in the campaign platform or the campaign that a government ran on.

It's just simply wrong. It's wrong to expect British Columbians to put up with that kind of treatment. It's wrong to expect us on this side of the House to pay pro forma attention to a debate on a bill and not to use every single tool available to us to hope that this government, in the course of the debate, will listen to the opinions of British Columbians, take a step back, consult, and hear from experts.

Interjections.

G. Heyman: Obviously, the members at the end of the row who are making so much noise don't want to even hear the debate that's going on in the House, but I will do my best to speak over their voices.

Let me remind the government of some of the information that has come out from its own reviews of its own ministries. Members opposite oftentimes have said to us on this side of the House that we don't respect the opinions of public servants. That's not true. We know they are hard-working, and we know, particularly, that people who express scientific opinions, when asked to do so by government, do so with a firm belief that the trust that is placed in them is a trust of all British Columbians and that they have to give unbiased and honest advice.

Let's listen to a couple of points that are contained in the B.C. government's own agricultural climate action plan, 2010 to 2013. What they pointed out is that "between 2010 and 2039, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change projects average warming of 1 to 3 degrees centigrade across much of North America and beyond this period."

They also point out in this B.C. Agriculture and Food Climate Action Initiative that there are a number of broad changes identified for B.C. in the report, including increasing climate variation and more extreme weather events; shrinking of glaciers, with many expected to disappear, which will result in serious impacts on water availability; reduction of snow accumulations, particularly at lower elevations; warming by anywhere from 2 to 7 degrees centigrade by 2080 that will impact sea levels, precipitation patterns and ecosystems; increasing frequency and severity of wildfires; increasing frequency and severity of pest, disease and invasive plant outbreaks.

[1635]

Let me return to one of these changes: warming by 2 to 7 degrees centigrade by 2080. That is 66 years from now, and 66 years will be long, long past the impacts of any development proposal that shortsighted proponents might make for immediate short-term gain. But it's well within the range of a time frame that we seriously need to consider when we're talking about the ability of British Columbians, whose population will have grown significantly by that time because of massive influx of immigration by people who will see British Columbia as a province with both an environment and a climate that has been less severely impacted than other jurisdictions in the world….

What the climate action initiative for B.C. agriculture and food goes on to say is that "these changes are likely to have consequences for food production through impacts to health and quality of crops, pasture, forests and livestock. The biophysical changes are anticipated to result in socioeconomic impacts which could also be felt in B.C., even if the more dramatic changes are occurring elsewhere."

The impacts include "declines in yield and production, fluctuation in world market prices for food, changes in geographic distribution of trade regimes and an increasing number of people at risk of hunger."

Now, a couple of things stand out for me from this report and that particular statement. One is that, as other speakers have pointed out, we're already seeing a significant curtailment of food production through massive drought that has been going on for three years south of the border, in California as well as in other parts of the United States, on which British Columbians have relied for food.

If that's what is happening today, two things will happen to us. It will get worse as the climate changes, as drought gets worse, and California will raise the prices of any food it exports or simply decide that it needs every scrap of food it produces to feed its own people or to feed others in the United States.

We should learn from that lesson two things. One is that land that we think of as less productive today may well be more productive tomorrow and may well be suitable for more, and a greater range of, crops. Another thing we should understand is land that we think of as greatly productive today in and around the Lower Mainland may not be so productive in the future because of global warming and may not have access to the water that it needs to grow the food that we now depend on.

We should also understand that the ability to feed British Columbians with British Columbian–grown food is only going to increase and that, in fact, that is the development opportunity we're not grasping. That security for the future to feed ourselves is in fact the economic and social opportunity that we cannot let slip through our fingers from the kind of shortsighted decisions that are contemplated by Bill 24.

If it isn't the intent of Bill 24 to remove farmland from production to meet the pressures of people in regions around British Columbia who have some short-term development idea to make a profit, then what is the bill for? That's exactly what it's for, and that's exactly why people around British Columbia are opposing it. That's exactly why this government should keep its commitment to protect farmland and should keep the commitment, which
[ Page 4243 ]
it's crowed about in other situations, to consult British Columbians, to listen to British Columbians and to let British Columbians have a voice.

I say, as the Minister of Transportation has said to me, let democracy flourish, and let this bill be referred to a committee for genuine consultation, to hear from experts, to hear from farmers, to hear from British Columbians and to ensure that if this bill or some form of it were to go forward in the future, in the fall — because there is no rush — it will have been thoroughly discussed and debated, and British Columbians will have had a chance to hold the government's feet to the fire on this plan — to explain itself and to demonstrate how Bill 24 improves and preserves farmland and provides greater resources to the Agricultural Land Commission, as this government said it was going to do, or, at the very least, has no negative impact whatsoever.

[1640]

If the government is concerned about this, if the government believes that the commitments it made in the last election are the commitments that are embodied in this bill, it should have no fear about consulting.

The Minister Responsible for Core Review, in fact, said: "It's my mea culpa." Or "the mea culpa is on me," I think, were his exact words for not holding a consultation. Well, if you didn't do it then, do it now, because that's what British Columbians expect. That's the lesson that should have been learned.

That's the lesson that should have been learned after the last election, and I call on the government to let democracy flourish. Refer this bill, and let's have a full discussion of this so-important issue with British Columbians before we make decisions geared to the shortsighted profit of a limited number of individuals that compromise the future ability of our children and our grandchildren to feed themselves.

The climate action initiative for agriculture and food went on to say: "Land continues to be removed from the reserve, and 86 percent of the land excluded since 2002 has been in regions with the highest concentration of prime farmland." It went on to say: "While there is value in assessing future crop suitability, such work must also include a realistic evaluation of possible changes in precipitation and hydrology as well as the current socioeconomic context of agriculture in B.C."

If we were actually to do this, we wouldn't allow any changes, certainly, in the next three or four months, which means: why not refer the bill and have a consultation? Let the committee do its work before irreversible mistakes are made. There is great risk in this legislation, great risk.

The Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions says: "The common assumption that a warming climate will be a boon for agricultural production in northern climes is now recognized to be false. The full suite of projected changes indicates that the risks to agricultural viability are substantial. To the farmer on the land, this means that the past is no longer a sufficient guide to the future."

What does this mean to the Minister of Agriculture or the Minister Responsible for Core Review when they claim that there is land that is less viable for agriculture and that's the land that's being considered for change? What that means is that they have no way of knowing. None of us have any way of knowing.

What that says to me and to members on this side of the House and to British Columbians is that we need to know. We need to take the time to know, and we should not be passing this bill today.

What we should be doing, as the Institute for Climate Solutions says, is conducting "collaborative applied research," risk assessments, variety trials. We need to "build the long-term capacity of the agricultural industry by enabling new entrants." We need to continue to protect farmland, not create new mechanisms for removing it."

My time is coming to a close, but let me close by quoting from a letter to the Premier by a group of soil scientists. They said: "With Bill 24, we will not only lose ground in the literal sense but also in the public policy sense."

This is from Dr. Art Bomke, the professor emeritus in the UBC faculty of land and food systems:

"The agricultural land reserve was established because local and regional authorities could not be relied upon to protect our scarce and irreplaceable farmland from non-farm development. The six-panel system contained within Bill 24 potentially takes us right back to the 1973 situation that gave rise to the establishment of the provincial ALR and the Provincial Land Commission in the first place."

[1645]

Dr. Dru Yates says: "Where is the evidence that Bill 24 will help the ALC preserve agricultural land and encourage farmers to farm it? I think the evidence points to the opposite."

That's what scientists say. Let me simply say — like every member of this House and, I hope, every member on the opposite side of the House and the Minister of Agriculture — there have been many letters and e-mails from people concerned about what's happening to the Agricultural Land Commission or what might happen through Bill 24. In the last few days alone, since Saturday, we've had 22 e-mails in my constituency office alone. Let me give you a sample.

They say: "Thanks to the ALR, British Columbia has maintained a steady number of farms, while the rest of Canada has lost about one-third of its farms over recent decades. I call on you to defend B.C.'s farmland and reject this dangerous bill."

The B.C. Association of Farmers Markets board of directors is opposed to giving regional panelists the authority to make initial decisions. They say that B.C. voted for a Liberal government with a campaign promise that said: "Yes, we will maintain the excellent relationship we have built with the ALC" and "We will work more closely with
[ Page 4244 ]
farmers, ranchers and agricultural organizations to preserve agricultural land."

If that is the Liberals' commitment, refer this bill to committee for further consultation. Listen to British Columbians. Give them a chance to voice their concerns.

I support this motion to refer, and I call on all members of this House in the interest of democracy, in the interest of keeping campaign commitments to do the same.

Deputy Speaker: The ambient noise in the House seems to be increasing, so I'd ask the members to give leave to the member who has the floor and keep their private conversations in as low a voice as possible.

J. Shin: I'm happy to take my place in this debate on behalf of Burnaby-Lougheed in support of the motion to the House that Bill 24 "not be read a second time now but the subject matter be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services and further that the committee be empowered to invite witnesses to appear before it to assist in its deliberations."

The level of grievance about Bill 24 is severe. It has been expressed, I think, both intelligently and emotionally by British Columbians from all walks of life since it was introduced last month. I believe that many members in this chamber have echoed the case at length, myself included.

I would like to thank the member for Nelson-Creston for this very important amendment, as we have continued to urge the government to consider the facts, the science, and the testimonies against Bill 24 fully and soberly with the public before proceeding.

Now, last month's press release from the Pacific Regional Society of Soil Science, a non-profit organization for professionals and students in soil science and land resource management, is worth revisiting. I know it has been quoted a number of times, but I would like to also bring that up and discuss it once again.

I think the obvious importance of evidence-based decision-making and the concern around the way in which Bill 24 was formed and tabled really couldn't have been articulated better. I will quote:

"Themed on the intergenerational transfer of knowledge…soil scientists from around the province discussed the complex issues related to land use management and soil science, with a particular focus on the ALR…. Dr. David Connell, a professor in the School of Environmental Planning at the University of Northern British Columbia, spoke about the challenges of integrating public priorities, making particular note of food sovereignty" — and "food sovereignty" is a word that I will come back to later on — "as a growing part of the political landscape….

With the introduction of Bill 24, he says "there were serious concerns expressed by several senior professionals that the splitting of the province into two zones, one of which would receive less protection than the other" would be a real problem.

[1650]

"'With Bill 24, we will not only lose ground in the literal sense but also in the public policy sense,' said Dr. Art Bomke, professor emeritus in the UBC faculty of land and food systems.

"'The ALR was established because local and regional authorities could not be relied upon to protect our scarce and irreplaceable farmland from non-farm development. The proposed six-panel system contained within Bill 24 potentially takes us right back to the 1973 situation that gave rise to the establishment of the provincial ALR and the Provincial Land Commission in the first place.'"

The report goes on.

"Criticisms of Bill 24 came not only from established soil experts but also from students and young professionals. 'The reduced role of science as the basis for protecting farmlands within the ALR is deeply troubling…. Where is the evidence that Bill 24 will help the ALC preserve agricultural land and encourage farmers to farm it? I think the evidence points to the opposite.'"

This is what was expressed by Dru Yates, a soil science graduate student at UBC.

Carolyn King, the communications director for PRSSS echoes the same with a quote.

"The majority of our 140-plus members are natural resource and soils students or young professionals, and they know that government policy decisions taken today will affect their lives in the future. We are the ones with the most at stake in the maintenance of sound, science-based policies for land use decision-making, such as the ALR."

The last quote says:

"The dominant feeling at the workshop was that the soils that are represented by the ALR are unique in their productivity. They have been protected by the ALR for 40 years, and Bill 24 threatens the degradation of both these soil systems and the food production dependent on them."

We have scientists choosing vocabularies like "food sovereignty," which is different than the term "food security," even though the two terms are frequently used interchangeably. While food security refers to the community's ability to access food; food sovereignty, on the other hand, involves a sustainable, long-term process in which a community can actually establish its own food systems and produce its own local products without being subject to the fluctuating international markets or being dependent on external sources for acquisition.

Food sovereignty considers the political, geographical and environmental aspects of the community and its plan for action in response to the problems or shortages or needs as they may arise. For this particular debate, I think it's entirely relevant and actually imperative that we zoom out a little bit and look at the big picture to put things in perspective. Why is this motion on the floor calling for a consultation for this Bill 24?

In this global economy we can't be just dissecting the microcosm of what we have and what's happening right here in B.C. From the climate change to the price of world food commodities, we need the government to consult. We need the government to consult the history, the trends and the trajectories not just locally here but also globally, in order for us to know what the short-term and the long-term consequences are for this Bill 24. The
[ Page 4245 ]
motion is calling for the government to allow its committee to do just that.

Let's first take a look at what a city is. I went back and spent a lot of time researching so that I can get a better perspective on all this. Our urban cores — like the Lower Mainland, for example — alone holds 2.6 million people. That's accounting for 59 percent of our entire provincial population, which must have grown, because this is based on the 2011 census.

A modern city can be thought of as this gigantic creature that depends on local or global resources feeding into it to sustain it. For B.C., we rely much more on imported goods than locally produced goods, even if we have the capacity to produce our own, which is interesting.

Our agricultural potential here is not fully realized nor leveraged at this point, which is a whole other story. But with that in mind, in the future — I don't think they are talking about distant future here; we are talking about the future in progress right now — we know the global supplies of food cannot be guaranteed, and it's getting rapidly expensive.

[1655]

What happens if and when there is a glitch or there is a stop in the external supply in transportation of our resources? Most cities, as you would imagine, would descend very quickly into absolute anarchy, but how quickly? I was surprised when I found this out. It's only going to take 48 hours for our cities to collapse completely without having that constant feeding in of food and energy and clean water.

We know that these gigantic creatures of consumption were largely created back in the 19th century during the Industrial Revolution, when we saw massive migration of people from the countryside into the city. Those who remained on the land, in the countryside, then had to come up with increasingly intense farming practices and methods in order to produce and meet the requirements of urban dwellers who can't feed themselves.

Canals, railways and roads allowed the first industrial cities to be established and to be supplied regularly with their daily nutrition and get them delivered. The problem with that is that this resulted in the establishment of a food chain that is dependent not just on the complex transport infrastructure and the fuel to power that but also modern fertilizers to increase shelf life and survive the storage as well as the travel that was required of these resources.

As a consequence today — this is an interesting fact — for every one calorie of food that we eat, that's on our dish, we have to use ten calories' worth — that's ten times as much energy — in petroleum in order to get that delivered and powered.

In 1998 food travelled by truck 1,500 miles in order to reach our plate, which is a 22 percent increase since 1981. So in 17 years, food is travelling a distance of 300 miles longer to get to the consumer from the field. I think soon enough this type of addiction of the modern city to petroleum is not sustainable.

It is evident — we have all the signs and the signals — that food, energy, water supplies are uncertain if we continue to rely on them externally. The global population of city dwellers continues to increase. As someone in her early 30s — I mean for me, I hope to have a good 50 more years of life. I can't even foresee what life or what this world will look like for me when I'm grey-haired, let alone worry about what the next generations will have to face.

I'm probably as optimistic as they come, but when I look at the prospects, it looks worse and worse. Especially when I'm facing legislation like Bill 24, it's hard not to be pessimistic about the future outlook. I don't think the description is shortsighted. It expresses the gravity of this bill.

I don't know how it is that we are sitting here in this people's House, on the taxpayers' dime, even wasting a breath debating a bill like this when we should be discussing every possible way for our society to become greener, leaner and more self-sufficient.

Now that I've talked about the state of our cities and what it really takes to sustain the populations that are in them, I think the next natural consideration is for us to review the current sources of the supplies, their availability and our ability to access them, and all of this in the global context of what is happening with the legislation and policies of other jurisdictions and also in respect to the extreme weather events which are being exacerbated by climate change, as we know.

The first place that I would like to point your attention to is looking at the price of the world food commodities from the United Nations index. If you assign the base index of 100 units on a scale of food prices in 2005 — so if 100 is the base unit, going back ten years — where we are today is at 180 units. What that means is essentially the price of food has nearly doubled in less than a decade.

There are two big reasons for this, the experts say. The first has to do with the production of ethanol in the U.S. under the George W. Bush administration, which was passed in 2005 and 2007. The two legislations were designed to increase the ethanol production for a gasoline additive — in other words, as a biofuel substitute for petroleum.

[1700]

I'm using this as an example to show how some of the legislation that comes into effect without full consideration, without full consultation, can lead to some devastating unforeseen results.

In order for the U.S. to produce these very large quantities of petroleum derived from corn, essentially, and the number at that time…. They were looking at 57 billion litres per year by 2022. That's according to the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act. They used corn
[ Page 4246 ]
as their substrate. Corn can be fermented into alcohol, so that was their pathway into producing oil. Over 40 percent of American corn production went to ethanol production. In order for them to do this, the government provided very generous subsidies — 45 cents a gallon.

While the rationale at the time was that the government was trying to rid themselves of as much dependence on the imported Middle Eastern oil — I'm not here to comment on whether that was a good objective or not — the problem there was that by diverting such a big portion of corn crop to fuel production instead of food and livestock production, the world price of corn shot up globally because the U.S. is the major supplier of corn to the world. From $100 U.S. per tonne in 2005, the price went to $300 U.S. per tonne in 2008. So within three years the price tripled.

Of course, when you see money like this, this led to many farmers choosing to look at corn as their next agricultural gold mine, and they allocated more and more of their land and operation towards exclusive corn production.

With the increased production of corn, the supply was starting to meet the demand, and that somewhat put the price point in check. The price did adjust a little bit, but it never came back down fully. It stabilized at about $160 U.S. per tonne. So from $100 it went to $300, and then it stabilized at $160, which means it never went fully down to the $100 that was it was before.

Of course, when things are 60 percent more expensive than they were, the direct net effect of that was that livestock that were previously fed corn needed to be fed cheaper alternatives than corn, so that was wheat and barley. There was now more demand for wheat and barley, so what happened next is, in turn, it would shoot up the price of those grains in the world market once again.

This domino chain ultimately backlashed in global economics, and we saw various food riots around the world — the tortilla riots in Mexico. There was a riot in West and East Africa and most recently in Egypt in 2011.

We're not talking about the level of butterfly effect here. I think this is just a logical, linear, cause-and-effect consequence from legislation rolled out without full consideration, without full consultation.

Now, the second contributor to the increased food costs is the extreme weather events due to ongoing global warming, as a lot of the members know. We hear the terms "global warming" and "climate change" so often these days that I'm afraid we've become almost numb to the real severity of this problem. But I would like to face the reality. It's something that I'm going to have to continue to face for the next 50 years of my life.

There's no denying that we have been seeing an increased number of intense heat waves and droughts as well as intense rainfall and floods. This is not going back too far. In the summer of 2010 there was a heat wave that began in Russia, which I would like to focus on here.

This heat wave sat parked for 62 straight days, setting record temperature highs over the entire western block of Russia. What does that mean? Is it just big air conditioning bills for everybody, sunblock selling like hotcakes? That's not just the net effect of it. As a result of this hot and dry spell, Russia lost one-third of their entire wheat crop for that year — one-third.

[1705]

What that meant is that the Russian government had to close its borders on the wheat export just to meet its internal demands. Given that Russia is a large provider of wheat in the global market, when they shut their doors, what that means is that obviously it's going to affect the overall availability of the crop in the global market. That meant that not only did Russia lose $15 billion worth of GDP for their economy, but this also decreased the wheat availability, shooting up the price globally from $180 per tonne to $350 per tonne in a year. In one year the price nearly doubled, and that was the net effect of just one climate event in Russia.

It's interesting to note that at the same time, in the same year, the Canadian Prairies also got an intense record rainfall in Saskatchewan and southern Manitoba. What happened with that rainfall is we lost 1/5 of our Canadian wheat production that year. And we don't stop there. Pakistan had record monsoon rains in that same year. In that same year Queensland, Australia, got hit by another record cyclone. It was a record because the Coral Sea, immediately east of Australia, was at a record high temperature, and that added more energy to the cyclone. Of course, that cyclone devastated the agriculture industry in Australia as well.

So we have extreme weather events that we saw clustered up all in one year in Canada, in Pakistan, in Australia and in Russia. These are just some of the string of extreme weather disasters that occurred around the world since 2010.

When you put all these events together, between 2011 to 2012 the price on the food index went from 135 units to 190 units. That's an extraordinary rise in the world commodity food price, and it is directly attributed to these extreme weather events.

That takes us to the next critical point, which is the fact that the price has not come down since. It hasn't come down. As of today it is still up in the 180s. It went from 135 to 190, and it's at about 180 now. There's no prospect of this coming down. The world population keeps increasing. The demand for food and livestock keeps increasing, and the demand globally has doubled in the last decade.

I've heard many members throughout this debate referring to the drought in California. It's a good thing they bring that to the attention of the House, because a drought in California isn't just a problem for the Californians. Their problem is having a serious impact on us here in B.C., because the vast majority of our fruits
[ Page 4247 ]
and vegetables come from the Central and Imperial valleys of California.

Their production is way down this year with no water. Of course, they will get rain at some point, so the drought will end at some point. But the point here is that the probability of such drought in the future is becoming increasingly intensified, and it's increasingly likely.

Floods, droughts and other natural disasters have always been with us throughout history, but we need to just remember that these natural disasters are not so natural any more. In fact, with global warming these things are happening on an unnatural epic scale — more intense, more prolonged and more frequent — which means we can't and should not be relying on or continuing to rely on external land — what's being produced in the U.S. or what's being produced overseas. We shouldn't be relying on those to feed our cities here, to supply our cities here.

Of course, the transportation of goods is getting more and more energy-intense and expensive. That makes our agricultural land reserve today in our province an absolute. It's not an option. It's an absolute; it's not an option.

[1710]

I think the world commodity food price index that I've just laid out shows how ethanol acts in the U.S. skewed the world food price in the mid 2000s and how the extreme weather events, of which we can expect more in the future, drove the food index very high from 2010 onwards with no signs of it going down.

So we've entered this new era of more expensive food in real terms. Who gets hurt first and foremost will be those people that are least able to pay. That's further and further imposing more and more hardship on those in society that I think we have the responsibility, as a collective, to empower, not further punish.

We need to do what we can at the provincial scale to buffer these changes afoot in the rest of the world and preserve that tiny fraction of land in B.C. upon which we can grow food. I think that's a really important, critical step that we need to continue taking in that direction.

One of the things that I kept thinking about as I was preparing for my response to this motion and for the discussion of ALR at large is I kept asking myself: where is our sense of urgency? For many members, for my parents, maybe, it's not going to be in their lifetime that they see some of the disastrous consequences of this, but for me and for the children that I don't have yet, I think these will be real difficulties that we're going to have to struggle with. I'm going to get teary-eyed just thinking about it, so I'll stop there.

With all that said, there are three reasons with which I would really like to appeal to government, that I would like to beg the government to pass this motion and seek comprehensive consultation on Bill 24.

The first reason is that the premises on which Bill 24 were built are weak and flawed at best. The scientists and the subject matter experts must be consulted for their evidence-based rationale that they have, which will prove that that is the case — that Bill 24 is based on weak premises.

The second reason is that I believe there are many other green, pro-economy and forward-thinking policy improvements that we can pursue instead, with much better prospects.

The last reason is that the government needs to earn the social licence with the public, with the people of British Columbia — both the generations who established the ALR for all the right reasons and who fought hard for it for decades and, of course, the generations to come who will suffer the consequences of this Bill 24.

On the first point, on the various flaws of Bill 24, I would like to highlight a few examples. One of them is the false perception of ALR growth over this past decade. I think the David Suzuki Foundation did a fabulous job with that when they released a report with several recommendations.

The report suggested that the so-called growth of ALR land to an all-time high of 4.7 million hectares, which sounds great…. It sounds like it's going in the right direction. But it points out that this was, in fact, mainly due to adding less productive land in northern B.C. The report goes on to further criticize that this masks the loss of land in more fertile areas.

Although there has been a net gain in the ALR lands over the years since the B.C. Liberals have been in power, many of the province's most agriculturally productive regions have actually lost ALR lands during the period of 2001 to 2012. So while Bill 24's proposed zone 2 has seen a net gain of 42,000-some-odd hectares since 2001, the proposed zone 1 has seen a net loss of nearly 4,000 hectares.

So 4,000 hectares — I can't draw that picture in my mind, so I like to convert it to something that I can relate to. So 4,000 hectares is about 7,600 football-field-size lands for agriculture in zone 1 that is now gone — just gone. So that's one of the false perceptions.

Now, another example of the flaws of Bill 24 is the false assumption of the bill about the ALR zone 2 arability. When the government speaks of some land within ALR that may be deemed inadequate for agriculture, all of them can be addressed with the current powers of the commission to undertake those boundary reviews.

[1715]

Scientists are calling out that these assertions of lower-quality agricultural lands and climate in zone 2 that merit, supposedly, a possible removal or rezoning…. This claim is patently false when examined in the light of objective soil science data and agriculture capability ratings, ratings that incorporate the substantial body of climate data gathered during the Canada land inventory.

We have Bill 24 saying that the land in zone 2 could be compromised. It's okay. But we have scientists that are saying the exact opposite. In fact, they use very strong
[ Page 4248 ]
words. They are saying it's patently false when examined in the light of data.

It is also important to note that the lower capability soils, even those that are classified rightly so, are actually more productive depending on the type of crop and can be more suitable for livestock production. This government's claim that the land is less productive in zone 2 has been entirely refuted by the scientists. I think if the government would take the proper consultation with these experts, they would find it to be agreeable.

Now, the next example of the flaw of Bill 24 is its false claim of the support for farmers. I think this has been raised and quoted a number of times by colleagues in this House, but I really can't think of any other way to better articulate this point than how Andrew Bennett, a young farmer in Rossland, has said it.

"We do not have the finances to own farmland, so we operate entirely on leased parcels. Your ALR proposal is a disaster waiting to happen. My farm depends on the well-to-do folks who have bought farmland for an estate but with no plans or knowledge for how to use it. Not being able to develop on it ensures that they are willing to cooperate with farmers such as myself.

"Of course, they would like to develop it. They would make more money. If you allow them building and subdivision rights, will they be willing to cooperate with me to continue leasing? No. Farmers like me all over the province will lose any chance we ever had of owning a farm, because farmland will not only crumble into postage stamps, but prices will skyrocket."

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.

J. Shin: Am I done? Oh, wow. Okay. Six more pages.

K. Conroy: That 30 minutes does go by quickly when you're talking about a passionate topic.

I, too, rise to speak in favour of this motion: "That Bill (No. 24) not be read a second time now but the subject matter be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services and further that the committee be empowered to invite witnesses to appear before it to assist in its deliberations."

I have gone through so many of the e-mails and letters that I have received and information that I'm going to be referring to as I talk for the next 30 minutes, but I had one that struck me. It was a letter from the Peace River District Women's Institute. A woman named Ruth Veiner, who is the chair of the Women's Institute, is talking about the agricultural land up in the Peace River, one of the areas that will be taken out of the ALR and will be partitioned off into class 2 land. She talked about how valuable agriculture is to the area and what they do up there.

Now, Ruth and I had a former life together. We were both involved with early childhood education and sat on a provincial committee together. We both were in cattle ranching. Her family, actually, up in the Peace country, produced wheat, I believe it was, and hay. The fact that she's writing this letter in reference to the bill and ultimately asking for more consultation reminded me that people forget what farmers have to go through.

The one personal story I will tell is, as we talked about our various interests in the cattle business, we were quite excited because we had just gotten to the process where we had started to sell embryos. Then we were also able to sell and export some semen. We were talking about this at our provincial child care meeting.

Ruth and I were quite excited about it because it's rare that a little ranch from the Kootenays would be able to export semen overseas, actually. We were talking about it, and one of the women from Kitsilano, in fact, had come into the tail end of our conversation.

[1720]

She leaned over, and she said: "I have to ask you, Katrine: what is so special about Ed's semen?" Ed, of course, is my husband. We had to explain to her that, in fact, we're ranchers. We're talking about our bulls. That just goes to show that the people in the province forget about what you can do as ranchers, what you do every day, what we live with as farmers.

That's what this bill is about. It's about those of us here in this province that are providing the food for the province. That's why this motion is so incredibly important: so people like Ruth from the Peace River country and the women's institutes, organizations from across the province, can talk to this bill and say why the agricultural land is so important to them and why it's so important in this province. That's why I support this bill.

It was really disillusioning today to sit in this House and listen to the minister bring in the closure bill — from a minister who actually said he wouldn't bring in closure. Now we have closure on this motion so we're not going to have the opportunity to consult. People will not have the opportunity to talk about what is wrong with Bill 24, why they think that this motion should pass. We know that there are a few people that are in support of the bill, but we know there are hundreds and hundreds of people that are opposed to this bill, opposed to Bill 24 being passed, that support this motion, support the opportunity for people to consult.

It just begs the question. I'll be agriculture again — it's like putting the cart before the horse. The damage will be done. Bill 24 will be introduced, and I think the developers can have at it. They can do as they want with agricultural land in this province.

I think maybe we shouldn't be calling the bill an agricultural bill. It should be the developer's dream bill, because this is exactly what will happen if we don't pass this motion. This is what we will end up with. We will end up with an opportunity for developers in this province to get the little bit of prime agricultural land that we have left, the 5 percent that we have left. They will have the ability to take that away, to do what with. Well, you can be assured they won't be growing food on it, and that is just why this motion needs to be passed.

If the government chose to act on this motion, it would
[ Page 4249 ]
give the opportunity to engage in real consultation, and it would just be a real message to the people of B.C., a message that B.C. believes in agriculture, that B.C. believes in growing our own food, raising our own meat, poultry and dairy, grain and hay for our animals, ensuring that farmers are supported to undertake the valuable work that they do.

Is that going to happen? I'd say, not a chance. Not a chance with this government. No consultation with so many groups who've asked for consultation — so many groups, in fact, that, actually, the government trotted them out, saying they were in support of Bill 24, only to have to do a retraction to say that well, actually, they don't really support the bill.

What do the people want? They want consultation. The very groups that have been raised a number of times in the House, like the B.C. Cattlemen's Association — they want consultation. The Agriculture Council — they want consultation. The B.C. Food Systems Network, soil scientists, B.C. Fruit Growers Association, the National Farmers Union, the Certified Organic Associations of B.C. and so many others — they're all asking for consultation prior to this bill being passed.

At a recent event where there were a considerable number of Liberals present, there was a local regional district chair, John Kettle. He was quoted in the media about his support for the government's bill, Bill 24. Now, John is a well-known Liberal supporter in the Kootenays. He's a good friend and supporter of the member for Kootenay East, and I'd even say that John and I are friends. We agree to disagree on our politics, but, you know, we get along. I did find it odd, though, listening to his comments in the media, as the regional district that he chairs has a very different opinion.

In 2011 the regional district of Central Kootenay released an agricultural plan for the regional district. This plan was a considerable undertaking with much consultation, which is just what's being asked for in this motion. I want to quote a bit from this report because it's extremely well done. I think it kind of hits the nail on the head.

[1725]

It was the first step by the regional district to improve the quantity and quality of agricultural production in the region. One of the core goals of the plan was "to identify priority actions necessary to support the viability of farming in the district."

They did regionwide and extensive public consultations that were undertaken to determine what the priorities would be. I mean, they held meetings across the region. They targeted surveys to producers, consumers, realtors, restaurateurs. They interviewed key farmers, informants. They did steering committees. They did a web plan so that they had a website. You could do input into a website, phone-in informal meetings. The consultation was just incredible that the regional district did. It seems strange that a provincial government couldn't undertake the same process with such far-reaching implications provincially.

The public consultations elicited numerous issues from farmers and food producers in the region. They enabled the collection of key information and input from area residents, but it also engaged people in the process. They were amazed at how many people actually got out, the excitement about an agricultural plan in the Kootenays. It was tangible at all the community meetings. They said that quite often they had to ask people to leave the venues because the consultation was going on and on and it was over when the meetings were over.

A high number of participants from on-line surveys also demonstrated a high level of community engagement. It also managed to bring in further research, additional research about the use of the agricultural land base, what was happening in the region, the history of the area. It brought it all together in a background report. Then it also came up with three core goals.

With all this consultation, they were able to come up with three core goals:" to identify priority actions to support the viability of farming in the district, to ensure that the agricultural capability of the area is realized and to create a secure food supply for the region."

I want to talk about one of those priorities, because it's just so key around the whole issue of the agricultural land reserve. It says that it wants to ensure that agricultural capability of the regional district is "realized and protected." It talks about farming in the area and how important it is. But one of the key things that came out of the community consultations in the Kootenay area was to maintain the farmland and the agricultural land reserve. This is in an area where they want to take away the ALR land from the land reserve. That's what Bill 24 would do.

The regional district also recommended that the regional district bring in land use planning tools "to discourage subdivisions of agricultural land and to encourage the consolidation of contiguous smaller agricultural lots, provided they do not result in additional residences," which makes it difficult to farm on that land and to sell it as farmland. It recommended that they bring in protection of agricultural land as part of the official community plan.

They were just so common sense. The ideas made sense, and they go to show that the ALR is so important in the Kootenays. It showed that this planning exercise, this consultation with hundreds and hundreds of people in the regional district of Central Kootenay brought about a long-term vision, a vision for agriculture — something that you don't see with this government. You don't see them supporting agriculture. That a regional district can do that and a provincial government can't — that's a sad state of affairs.

There was a recommendation not to encroach on to agricultural land, not to encroach with residential buildings or related activities that would not help to preserve
[ Page 4250 ]
available land for farm production. It's amazing what they did with this study.

I think it's amazing that a director of this very district would speak in favour of Bill 24 without remembering that his own regional district would speak against that, that it would not agree with that. I think it's amazing that this has come out, that it's there. I think we have to remember that this is a really well-done report. It's a representation of how people in the Kootenays feel and how people in the Kootenays support the motion that we're putting forward, the motion to consult.

[1730]

Another Kootenay group that opposes the bill — in fact, it is asking for more consultation, just like our motion — is the Association of Kootenay and Boundary Local Governments. That's made up of municipal politicians from throughout the Kootenay-Boundary region, representatives from communities like Cranbrook and Fernie, Grand Forks and all of the communities in my constituency, in Nelson-Creston, Columbia River–Revelstoke and, in fact, Kootenay East — the very constituency where the minister who is responsible for the bill actually lives.

The resolution requested that the government undertake consultation with the public, local governments, the Union of B.C. Municipalities and affected parties and that Bill 24 not be brought into force until such consultation is complete. Again, a group from the Kootenays saying: "Please do not do this. Engage in consultation."

The village of Nakusp also passed a motion, supports the preservation of farmland and calls for a longer consultation period.

I also got a letter from Leah Main. Leah is a councillor from the village of Silverton. She's the director for the regional district of Central Kootenay. She's the chair of the Slocan Valley Economic Development Commission, and she's a gentlewoman farmer — what she calls herself. She expressed her deep interest in food security and local regional agriculture and how she has been working with various groups in the Kootenays towards healthy communities with strong economies, including the agricultural sector.

She said:

"The ALR has been the flagship protection of farmland in our province for many years and has served well to do this. We have been the envy of other provinces and territories as well as receiving notice around the world for such a forward-looking policy. To abandon it now or to change it to allow other interests supremacy over agricultural uses is ill-advised and totally unacceptable."

She talks about the people throughout the Central Kootenays as well as other regions of the province who are opposed to the bill and who support consultation, who support bringing in this motion that we are bringing in — trying to bring in — to bring about some sort of consultation.

It's hard to believe. I just find it shocking that a bill like this with such far-reaching consequences in the entire province…. Because it's not just those of us in area 2 that are going to lose out; it's the entire province that's going to lose out if this is implemented.

Is it because an MLA said that he's been talking to people for 13 years, that he got input from a few people in his constituency, and the entire province has to change the way it does its business? The entire province has to change the ALR, something we have been proud of for….

Interjection.

K. Conroy: Forty years, my friend from Vancouver–Mount Pleasant says.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

It just doesn't make sense. We have had so many letters from across the province. I've had letters from Kootenay East as well as other places — and we know the current minister has, as well as the member for Kootenay East — really worried about the sustainability of agriculture and what's going to happen in this province.

I thought this letter was really interesting. It's from a young fellow that lives in Rock Creek, which is in the Boundary-Similkameen constituency. He wrote about Bill 24. His wife and children moved to farm in southern B.C. last August after selling their ranch in Alberta. They chose to buy in B.C. because of "the province's long history of protecting its farmland, cherishing its farmers and being a friendly marketplace for direct marketers like us."

"Now, just eight months after calling this beautiful province home, the government is looking to pass legislation that will open up ALR land to further development options. To call this advantageous for landowners is ridiculous, unless you are wanting to sell your land and cash in. This, however, only serves to drive up already inflated land prices, making it harder for existing farmers to expand.

"Coming from Alberta and working off-farm as a pipeline consultant for companies like Enbridge has given me an enlightening perspective from all sides of this debate over the years."

He goes on to talk about how farming is a lifestyle and how he's amazed with what the ALR has done for farming in B.C.

[1735]

He says:

"I intend to raise my family and my food for the betterment of my community, my province and my country. I do this with pride and passion, knowing that our organic and holistic management practices will improve the land for the next generations to come. I ask that you do your part by stopping Bill 24 and securing the future of our farmers and food system in this province.

"Please consider that, as Agriculture Minister, with this decision you have the opportunity to build relationships with the farmers of this province unlike any Agriculture Minister in recent times. You can help us or hinder us."

This is from Darcy Goodrich. He has an interesting logo for his farm. It says, "No farmers, no food, no health" — as in n-o farmers, n-o food, n-o health. Then he goes on to say, "Know farmers, know food, know health," as in k-n-o-w farmers. It's an interesting…. I mean, it just
[ Page 4251 ]
hits the nail on the head, as I said earlier, of why it's so important that we support this motion, that we listen to so many people across this province that are asking for consultation.

We have to try and reach out to them to explain to them how this process works. I thought I'd add some parliamentary procedure and explanation for those people that are listening — I'm sure there are hundreds of people out there listening — who aren't familiar with the process.

Now, a referral motion calls for a referral of the subject matter of a bill to a select standing committee of the House. A referral is "for the purpose of obtaining an opinion or observations." I'm quoting from, of course, Parliamentary Practice in British Columbia, written by our illustrious and well-respected former Clerk of the House, Mr. MacMinn. If the House agrees to refer the bill, the bill remains on the order paper for second reading but is not proceeded with until the standing committee has considered and reported on the matter.

The House adjourns on Thursday — this Thursday, in two more days. We are supposed to be back in the fall. The committee is already established, the Finance Committee, which is what the motion recommended. It could travel around the province. It could take the time and get around the province, get input, hear what the best things to do for agriculture are in this province.

They could proceed with the bill in the fall, if they hear that that obviously is what people in the province think is the best thing to do for agriculture. Or if they hear it isn't the best thing to do for agriculture, which we're pretty sure they're going to hear…. If they had the courage to take on this motion and actually go out there, get the standing committee to go out there and hear what people had to say, I think they would have to feel that they would have to pull this bill in the fall when we come back to sit, if we come back to sit. Apparently, we're coming back to sit. We'll see in the fall.

The Finance Committee. We know that they have the time and support to ensure that proper consultation is carried out, something that this B.C. Liberal government hasn't done. There has not been proper consultation with people.

You know, the committee meets regularly with the public, and it gathers stakeholder input and information on other issues. It would be ready to go and hear what people's issues are and better understand the detrimental effects of the proposed changes or hear, as I said, that there might be some good changes. I find that hard to believe, but there might be.

They could actually hear from those who oppose this bill, something we haven't heard much of. I mean, we've barely heard from members on the other side of the House, from government members, telling us why it's such a good reason to be passing this bill. We've barely heard from any members on the other side of this House saying why they shouldn't pass this motion.

I mean, it's absurd that we're spending this amount of time on this incredibly important bill for the people of this province, and we hear very little from the government who's pushing this bill, who's saying that the province has to have the bill but are giving no rationale for it. Very minimal rationale.

I think we really need to get out there. We need to give those people that support the bill the opportunity to speak about it and also give the people who don't support it the opportunity to say why they don't support it, to say why it affects them, how it affects their livelihood, how it affects agriculture in this province.

We know that that's probably not going to happen, because we know that with closure, the bill is going to get rammed through the House without democratic process. There won't be the opportunity to ensure that this motion goes through. There will not be any discussion on it.

[1740]

We know that the government might say: "Oh, we've given you X number of days, and that's plenty to discuss it." But just to show how shortsighted that is, I think….

I'm not sure "shortsighted" is the right word when referring to the government's actions. I think "disingenuous" would be a better word, as they aren't listening. They're not listening to the thousands of people across the province who are saying: "Why is this happening? It shouldn't be happening. We want some input into a bill this important to our province." That's why they think this motion should be passed.

People have to ask. There was absolutely no mention of the ALR in the 2013 Liberal election platform. In fact, in the May 2013 questionnaire from Country Life in B.C. magazine…. It's a magazine that is well read by anybody involved in the agricultural industry across this province. People read Country Life. The B.C. Liberal Party was asked if it would "work with the ALC to ensure agricultural land continues to be available for agriculture and not used for ports, dams and transportation, industrial and residential development." The Liberal Party's response was yes.

One message before the election and an entirely different message after the election. No consultation, no working with people, no working with the groups that are involved in agriculture in this province. We're just bringing in this bill because a few people have said they thought that was a good idea and have been saying that to a certain member for 13 years. It just begs the question.

Now, it's funny, because the member for Kootenay East did promise to bring in consultation on this. He promised that if there were changes to the ALR as part of the core review, he would bring it in and "the public will have an opportunity to provide input to core review as part of the Committee on Finance and Government Services budget consultations." That was last September, 2013. The minister is quoted as saying that.

It was interesting that as the Chair of the Committee
[ Page 4252 ]
on Finance and Government Services, the member for Penticton had no idea that consultation on the core review was part of his committee's mandate or terms of reference or that the Agricultural Land Commission or reserve was going to be discussed at his committee.

When the bill was introduced in March of this year, the member for Kootenay East — not the Minister of Agriculture but the member who's promoting this bill — said: "I know that we could have done a better job of consultation, and I take my mea culpa." Well, mea culpa just isn't good enough. Pulling the bill would be good enough. Mea culpa doesn't cut it for the hundreds of thousands of people in this province who don't want to see this bill passed.

The agricultural industry is almost universally opposed to this bill and to splitting the ALR into two zones. It will also restrict the ALC's independence and mandate and allow unspecified non-farm use on ALR lands by future regulation. How many more gravel pits do we need on ALR land? You can't grow food in gravel pits. You can't raise cattle. You can't raise any kind of stock in gravel pits.

You have to ask: why does the government feel this is so darned necessary right now? It just doesn't make sense. It doesn't make sense to the B.C. Agriculture Council, who asked for more consultation and who support our motion. They want more consultation, and they are opposed to fractioning this province into two zones. Referring this bill to the standing committee will allow further discussion and consideration of this impact.

Bill 24 would actually remove protections for 90 percent of the land in the ALR, because 90 percent of the land in the ALR is in the Interior, the Kootenays, the north. It's not in the Lower Mainland, where you see all those gorgeous, big huge farms. It's not down there. It's in the Kootenays. It's in the north.

I want to refer to a Kootenay resident. She's the co-chair of the B.C. Food Systems Network, Abra Brynne. She raises a number of concerns, like ensuring that the Agricultural Land Commission continues to be the body that makes the major decisions that affect farmland in the Kootenays and elsewhere in the province. She notes the political pressure by developers and other parties with interests outside agriculture and that local governments that might not have the ability to anticipate agricultural needs and see the long-term perspective.

[1745]

"It's about resources," she says. ""It's about appropriate, skilled staff and the political pressure that's part of smaller communities, relationships and competing priorities. When something is as scarce in B.C. as our agricultural land, which is less than 5 percent of the land base" — 5 percent of the land base, Mr. Speaker — "I don't think it's fair to off-load that decision-making to groups that are already loaded and challenged. It helps to have an organization with a provincial mandate and long-term perspective making those decisions."

She goes on to talk about how local agriculture is vital for food security, community resiliency. Now, as of 2007, there was a total of 571 square kilometres of agricultural land reserve land in the regional district of Central Kootenay. That's just part of Central Kootenay. This scarce agricultural land in the West Kootenays — combined with the region's isolation and capacity to be easily cut off from the outside world by major weather events like avalanches and landslides, which may increase in severity and frequency as climate change progresses — makes local food production and good decisions about agricultural land use in the area even more important.

She goes on to say:

"The more we have within reasonable access of where we live — the basics of food production, which are maintained and supported, including farmers on the land — the more resilient our community can be in the face of whatever challenges might come our way."

She also says:

"If we have food production within a reasonable distance of our communities, we have a better ability to safeguard ourselves against natural disasters in the future."

We know that there are many people in this province who want to provide input into this legislation. I don't understand why we can't have proper consultation before this bill is rammed through the House. Why can't citizens have a chance to say how they really feel about it?

I know that members from Oliver, Comox and Peace River North are going to go home to their communities and try to justify this bill. They're going to have to justify it, because they have constituents in their constituencies who are not happy about them kowtowing to the bidding of a single minister.

I wonder: what's the rush? We know that across this province, people want to have a dialogue about the ALR. What is the real reason for the haste? Does someone have irons in the fire or a secret promise that they said they would have to keep that they haven't told anybody anything about? What could possibly be hurt by real consultation, a real consultation process, unless there is a development somewhere in this province?

Possibly the member for Kootenay East or somewhere else in the province promised somebody that they can come in and develop that ALR land. They can come in. They'll promise them that they can make it happen by this summer.

I ask the minister: what is the rush? Why can't we consult? Why can't this motion pass?

J. Kwan: I'm very delighted to enter into this debate around the referral motion on Bill 24.

Now, the public might be wondering: what does a referral motion mean, and what exactly are we talking about? Let me just backtrack for a minute here.

A referral motion, just for the record, means that whenever we are debating a bill…. Usually it is put forward by the opposition for consideration when the bill is of significant importance. In many ways, in this sense, when the bill is put forward for debate in this House, there has been deficient or insufficient consultation and
[ Page 4253 ]
input from the public.

In this instance, we are talking about a significant bill, a bill that I think will change the face of agricultural lands in British Columbia forever. That is what we're faced with. We're talking about a bill that the government wants to rush through, even though before the election they said — in fact, they said on the public record — that they would protect agricultural lands. But of course, during the election there was no talk about bringing forward this bill.

This version of how the government would protect agricultural lands — there was no talk of that. In fact, there was no mention of the ALR in the Liberal election platform in 2013.

[1750]

In May of 2013, during the election, there was a questionnaire that was put out and publicized. It is on the public record, so the public can see this, and the government needs to be held accountable to it. That is an article that has been put out by the Country Life in B.C. magazine.

All the parties were asked to answer the question, to provide a response. The Liberal Party, on behalf of all their candidates, in fact, did provide the response to this question. The question is: "Would you work with the ALC to ensure agricultural land continues to be available for agriculture and not used for port, dam, transportation, industrial and residential development?"

The answer, the response, from the Liberal Party on behalf of all the candidates — that is to say, then, all the elected MLAs from the Liberal Party side that are sitting here in this Legislature, in this assembly — was yes. Now, people actually trusted that and believed in that, and people actually voted in some instances based on that answer. We got letters. I know I've got letters. I know that the government members got letters.

We all got letters from the public telling us about the importance of the ALR. In fact, I just read another letter from an individual who says that they would not have supported someone who did not support the ALR.

I think these are important issues here as to why, at least one reason why, the government ought to support this referral motion. In doing this referral motion, all that it means is for the motion to be sent to a committee — there are a number of different committees in this assembly — where people go out then to talk to the community about this very bill to get their input, to listen to them about their input on all sides, whether they support it or oppose it or have any views around it. It's to invite that input and to consider it before a final decision is made.

That's all that we're asking for, not for the government…. Although, I would say, we would love it if the government would just kill Bill 24, but that said, we will accept the approach where the government would just take a step back, respect the voices of British Columbians and allow for them to provide input into this important bill through the committee before it's being voted on, before any final decision is made.

Who knows? Just maybe in that process the government members might actually hear something from the public that they hadn't thought about. They might actually see some value in considering the opinions of British Columbians on the future of British Columbia's agricultural lands, an important part of B.C.'s economy, an important part of our landscape that contributes to food production and food security in British Columbia.

Maybe we'll all learn important lessons, and maybe all of us who have a point of view about agricultural lands will actually see something different and be enlightened with information that we hadn't thought about.

Wouldn't that be something? To actually take that time, invite input from the public, listen to that input and create, out of that process, better legislation for British Columbians on behalf of British Columbia. I would argue that that would be the way to go. I would argue that this is now the opportunity for us to do exactly that.

The referral motion, of course, is not being called for just by MLAs. I know that the government members may well say: "Well, yeah, you know, you guys are in opposition, so of course you want to oppose everything, so of course you want to delay everything, and that's why you have this referral motion on the table."

[1755]

But interestingly, the most important people that I think the government failed to listen to around the future of agricultural lands are the very stakeholders themselves, the very people whose livelihoods depend on it, the very people who have invested their lives and continue to invest in this industry for the future. They have opinions that they want the government to consider as well. They want the government to step back in the passage of Bill 24. They want the government to listen to them and to consider their opinions before this bill is passed.

Now, who are some of those people? There's a long list of them. I will put some of their voices on the record here so that the government can get a glimpse of what the stakeholders are saying, what constituents are saying around Bill 24 and why they want to see the bill be referred to committee and for the government to slow down the process in its passage.

Before I do that, though, I also want to just point out this issue as well. The government, you will recall, after the 2013 election said they were going to embark on a core review. One of those big processes was to invite people and for the government to examine the process of how they are going to find savings within the system — within the government services and the programming.

The minister responsible for the core review had said: "The public will have an opportunity to provide input to core review" as part of the Committee on Finance and Government Services budget consultation. Interestingly, the Chair of the Committee on Finance and Government Services actually had no idea that the consultation on the core review was part of his committee's mandate — or
[ Page 4254 ]
terms of reference, for that matter. That said, the Minister Responsible for Core Review said that that's what they were going to do.

Through this process, the core review process, we now actually have Bill 24 being debated and tabled in this Legislature. The Minister for Core Review, by his own admission, said: "I know that we could have done a better job of consultations, and I take my mea culpa." He actually said that on March 28 in the print media, in the Vancouver Sun, as it relates to Bill 24.

Even the government minister who is responsible for the core review, who claims that the Finance Committee was going to be doing work around this, admits that the government has not done its job in terms of consultation related to Bill 24. Yet here we are in this House debating Bill 24, and the government is in a big hurry to push Bill 24 through and have its passage dealt with before this session of the House adjourns.

The government, in fact the minister responsible for the core review, if he was true to his own statement about taking his own mea culpa…. Wouldn't he actually show that with genuine sincerity by stepping back…?

An Hon. Member: Contrition.

J. Kwan: Contrition helps, but with sincerity as well. The way to show contrition and sincerity is to actually not only admit he was wrong but to take action to rectify that very mistake. His opportunity is right here and now to support this referral motion to allow for that to happen.

The member for Vancouver-Quilchena is absolutely right. Contrition here is something that the minister for the core review can take to heart. There is an opportunity for him to display just that by supporting this referral motion and allowing for further debate and consultation to take place in the broader community — the very people that the government themselves, by their own admission, neglected to invite to the table, to consult with and to hear their points of view around what should be done with respect to the future of the agricultural land reserve in British Columbia.

[1800]

The importance of this debate centres around not just credibility for the government and for the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister for Core Review and the Premier, but it centres around the future of British Columbia. Just think for a moment what this land means and the value of that land. Is it simply to develop on this land for short-term gain, or is it much more than that?

Many people, including those of us on the opposition side, would argue that it is much more than that because once you lose that prime agricultural land, the important agricultural land — which is only, by the way, 5 percent of the land base in British Columbia — you may never get it back. If you don't get it back, so much for your opportunity as a province to ensure our food safety and security. We will have lost those opportunities forever. That's what is at stake here.

There is a reason why the agricultural land reserve, which was brought to this Legislature 40 years ago, has lasted all these years. There is a reason why it has such broad support in the community across partisan lines on this issue. It's because everybody values agricultural lands.

People know in their heart of hearts what those lands mean to us as human beings, who rely on food and the production of food, and for our economy, which relies on long-term, sustainable economic opportunities into the future. That's what agricultural lands contribute to British Columbia. It is so much more than a short-term gain for the purposes of development. It is so much more than that.

I was talking earlier about the people who support the agricultural lands or the people who argue and are urging the government to take a step back and slow down in this process with the passage of Bill 24. In my own community, and I know…. Well, minus community gardens, I would venture to say that in Vancouver–Mount Pleasant we don't have acres and acres of farmland. I accept that.

I live in an urban centre. I accept that. We try the best we can by creating community gardens. We do that as best we can, even using roof gardens on buildings to try to grow some food. We use school grounds to grow some vegetables and fruits for the children so that they would have a food product they can take home but also in that process, a very important process, learn about food production.

As the former Minister of Agriculture often says to us urbanites: "You know, the package of meat that you get from Safeway doesn't come from Safeway, as an example." He often says: "The bags of apples that you buy out of the supermarket didn't grow out of the counter in the supermarket. They come from farms all throughout British Columbia. The milk that you drink didn't just magically come in a carton. It comes from farm animals on a farm." That's where it comes from, and it is about time we urbanites — I admit it — and the youth, the young people in our communities, learn about that.

[1805]

In my own community I fully recognize that we don't have big farms, and I acknowledge it. But even then the people in Vancouver–Mount Pleasant understand the importance of agricultural lands and why we need to preserve them. In this last couple of weeks, as Bill 24 has been brought to the floor for debate, in my office alone we have received over 220 letters or e-mails urging me as their MLA to represent their voices in this very chamber, to save and protect agricultural lands and to say no to Bill 24.

Some of the folks have said that, at the very minimum, what the government's got to do and what you've got to try to convince the government to do is take a step
[ Page 4255 ]
back, slow down the process and hear what the people in British Columbia have to say about agricultural land and why they value it.

I want to just put some of their voices on the record here in this Legislature. One letter from an individual says:

"I'm gravely concerned by Bill 24, the Agricultural Land Commission Amendment Act. This bill proposes fundamental changes to the ALR that could result in the permanent loss of protected B.C. farmland. B.C. farmers, ranchers and fruit growers have made it clear that they oppose this bill because it is not in their interests. It's being pushed through with no public consultation with the agricultural community, the Agricultural Land Commission or the people of British Columbia.

"Thanks to the ALR, British Columbia has maintained a steady number of farms, while the rest of Canada has lost about a third of its farms over recent decades. I call on you to defend B.C.'s farmland and reject this dangerous bill."

This is just one example of a letter that's come into my office urging us as legislators to say no to Bill 24.

We have an opportunity to slow down the process, give voice to British Columbians and let them have a say about what they think about Bill 24. Let them have a say about what changes should be made to Bill 24 or, for that matter, if Bill 24 should be scrapped, that we sit together as a community united from Vancouver–Mount Pleasant all the way through the entire province to say what our vision is for agricultural lands in British Columbia and how we can go about protecting this valuable resource we have inherited from previous generations.

Wouldn't that be something if we were able to do that — set aside partisan lines and for a change do something for British Columbians to respect their voices, a process that is respectful of the people of British Columbia? That's what this referral motion would allow the government to do.

I have no doubt that every single member of the opposition, whether it be the independent member or the Green Party member or the official opposition members, would all join with the government in that process. We would work hard to make sure we get it right for the people who elected us here and to ensure that agricultural lands are protected for generations to come so that your children and your grandchildren and their grandchildren can benefit from this resource that was passed down from our ancestors so many years ago.

The people of Vancouver–Mount Pleasant have sent me many, many letters, but let me just put on the record this plea from the Association of Farmers Markets. Now, we don't have acres and acres of farmland, and we are in the process of understanding, of course, and valuing agriculture and what it means. One of the things we get to enjoy in an urban setting is farmers markets, these beautiful markets where farmers come and set up their produce and their wares in our community. We get fresh farm produce right out of their farm fields. It's all throughout different parts of urban settings.

[1810]

Here's what they have to say.

"The B.C. Association of Farmers Markets wants to convey their concern regarding the lack of public consultation leading up to the announcement of Bill 24 and the resulting impacts on B.C.'s agricultural land reserve. British Columbians are stakeholders in this decision, and our opinions and concerns regarding food, farmers and farmland must not be underestimated or overlooked in this consultation process. We're urging you to seriously consider the points that we have outlined below."

Let me just put on the record some of their points.

"As an organization representing 125 farmers markets and 1,000 small-scale farmers selling at markets across B.C., we're concerned that our provincial representatives have not considered our members' views in opposition to Bill 24. B.C. farmers markets work tirelessly in all corners of the province to strengthen local economies and provide British Columbians with fresh, healthy, local agricultural products. Our ability to continue to deliver these benefits into the future, however, is tied directly to the availability of agricultural land throughout the province.

"As one of our members stated, 'Protecting the ALR is central to protecting and enhancing what our local farmers markets exist to support: healthy and strong communities and food systems.' Our member farmers markets in the north and Interior specifically have expressed concern that Bill 24 will directly threaten their regionally focused agricultural initiatives and thereby threaten the very viability of farmers markets in their area.

"B.C.'s farmers markets are a rapidly growing sector that contributed $113 million in direct sales to B.C.'s economy in 2012 — a 147 percent increase from $46 million in 2006. The proposed changes in Bill 24 not only threaten the viability of farmers markets; they threaten the economic and social benefits that markets deliver to the communities they support.

"The B.C. Association of Farmers Markets is opposed to giving regional panelists the authority to make initial decisions on ALR applications as proposed in Bill 24, since this government structure was used from 2002 to 2010 and considered less effective than the current centralized administration and vetting of all ALR applications by the ALC, which ensures strong and consistent centralized authority.

"British Columbians voted for a Liberal government. A campaign promise included: 'Yes, we will maintain the excellent relationship we have built with the ALC.' The party also said it will increase funding to the Agricultural Land Commission and would work more closely with farmers, ranchers and agricultural organizations to preserve agricultural land. We regret that these promises have not been followed through.

"In an era of climate change, significant urban expansion, concerns about local food supply, food safety and sustainability, the B.C. government and Agricultural Land Commission must look at ways to encourage farming. Permitting non-agricultural industrial activities on ALR land will only fragment and degrade remaining viable land, leading to greater challenges for farmers in accessing agricultural land. That being said, we support changes that will specifically help farm and ranch operations to be financially successful.

"With the dramatic increase in popularity of farmers markets by 146 percent from 2006 to 2012, our farmers markets need more farmers, not less. They are the primary reason that markets exist. This is more than just a farming issue, and our farmers markets are at the centre of it. The B.C. Association of Farmers Markets requests that the government not vote to enact Bill 24 and its amendments and that changes to the ALR take place in consultation with the agricultural community as a whole."

This is a letter that came from the B.C. Association of Farmers Markets, and it was signed by the president, Jon Bell. This letter has been sent to all MLAs, including the Premier, so everyone has a copy of it. I think that they have highlighted all the key points as to why the govern-
[ Page 4256 ]
ment should support this referral motion, why we should step back and not ramrod through Bill 24.

I was dismayed earlier today when I heard from the House Leader that not only has the government already determined that they would not support this referral motion; it appears to me the government is intent to actually bring in closure of this bill.

Hon. R. Coleman: Absolutely.

[1815]

J. Kwan: The Deputy Premier is saying absolutely that is their intent, and it goes to show that the minister and the government are actually not paying any attention to what British Columbians have to say. It also goes to show that the government doesn't care. They don't care about the very fact that they did not do proper consultation on Bill 24. They don't care about the very fact that before the election and during the election they promised that they would actually protect agricultural lands. They actually answered yes to a questionnaire, with respect to this question.

They don't care about any of those things. They don't care that British Columbians want to be heard and be respected about this. They don't actually care that British Columbians want to be consulted on the future of agricultural lands in British Columbia. Somehow to the minister and to this government, that is democracy. Somehow, this is how the government wants to set the tone of how they want to do business for the next three years going forward in the province of British Columbia.

I would ask the minister to step back and take a sober second thought around that. It's not just us urbanites who are opposed to Bill 24 and want the government to support the referral motion. Other organizations, too, like the B.C. Cattlemen's Association, want the government to take a step back. That is actually not an urban centre at all.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

When I talked about the pack of meat that we go to a grocery store to buy…. The meat didn't just magically appear on the shelf. It comes from the Cattlemen's Association and their hard work and all the farmers and the ranchers and all the people who invest their life in that industry, in creating this food source. They want the government to step back, to do this.

If the government doesn't want to listen to us, so be it. I accept that from time to time. I really do. But I would ask the minister to consider the voices of British Columbians that go far and beyond this chamber, more than the minister's few points of view that they have heard.

I know that the Minister for Core Review is pushing this through come hell or high water. But I would urge the minister to step back and to just take a sober second thought in this process — to step back and stand down on ramrodding through this bill. Step back, and accept the referral motion. Let us work together in a collaborative way, in a respectful way, to hear the voices of British Columbians.

Let us together bring forward a bill that will truly reflect the wishes of British Columbians around the future of agricultural land for generations to come.

With that, I'm going to take my place. I will await the Deputy Premier to stand up to speak to this bill, because I would love to hear his voice on the record.

J. Rice: I'm pleased, too, to take my place this afternoon and to debate the motion into the void of the chamber — I mean, to debate the motion that Bill 24 "not be read a second time now but the subject matter be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services and further that the committee be empowered to invite witnesses to appear before it to assist in its deliberations."

This proposed amendment is crucial to maintaining the democracy of our province. I've just completed my first year as a new MLA. One of the reasons I became involved, first, in local government as a city councillor for the municipality of Prince Rupert and, most recently, in provincial politics as the MLA for North Coast, is that I was witnessing an erosion of civic participation and engagement in decision-making, particularly among young potential voters.

Many of the non-voting population that I engaged during my election campaign — of any generation — stated that they felt their vote didn't matter. I feel that when governments fail to listen to their constituents, we witness a disengagement, and an erosion of democracy ensues. Failure to consult on this crucial piece of legislation is an oligarchic move, in my opinion.

[1820]

My hope would be that we encourage, not discourage, civic participation. It's the fair and the just thing to do.

I must clarify that that trusty resource, Wikipedia, defines "public consultation."

"Public consultation, or simply consultation, is a regulatory process by which the public's input on matters affecting them is sought."

I think that this particular piece of legislation would constitute a matter that is affecting the public.

I'll continue the definition of that trusty resource.

"Its main goals are in improving the efficiency, transparency and public involvement in large-scale projects or laws and policies."

Now, I feel, too, that Bill 24 would fall under the definition of a large-scale law or policy. Again, it too would deserve due diligence and public participation. It continues.

"It usually involves notification, to publicize the matter to be consulted on; consultation, a two-way flow of information and opinion exchange; as well as participation, involving interest groups in the drafting of policy or legislation.

"This process is typical of Commonwealth countries, such as the United Kingdom, Canada, New Zealand or Australia, though most
[ Page 4257 ]
democratic countries have similar systems. In the United States, for example, this process is called 'public notice and comment.' Some organizations such as the OECD also use such processes. In Canada the word 'consultation' has a special meaning among some First Nations groups: 'It is the duty of the Crown and third parties to consult with First Nations who have asserted, but not proved, aboriginal rights or title.'

"This is great variation of public consultations. In some countries there is a list of all consultations, or consultations are mentioned in normal news feeds. Depending on the country, there can be national or regional public consultations.

"Ineffective consultations are considered to be cosmetic consultations that were done due to obligation or show and not true participatory decision-making."

We haven't even received that. The government hasn't even faked it. I know that this quote has been mentioned numerous times recently in this debate, but I mean, it just summarizes the lack of consultation and the complacency around the unfairness to the general public. From the Minister for Core Review: "I know that we could have done a better job of consultations, and I take my mea culpa." I'm sure I'm the 99th person that's read that into the Hansard today.

Interjection.

J. Rice: Well, I mean, I'm sure it's been mentioned….

Interjections.

J. Rice: We've all spoken more than once, yes.

The Chair of the Finance Committee is quoted as saying in September: "I'm quite sure there are going to be lots of opportunity for input." Again, the Minister of FLNRO: "The specifics of all those opportunities" — and this is in regard to consultation — "will be developing consultations with the agricultural community and with the land commission and with local governments, and we're committed to consult with all of those groups in the process."

Again, back to consultation, I just cannot see how we are even making a mockery of consultation. At the very least, I would almost request that. I think one of the people I'd love to….

Interjection.

J. Rice: Madame Speaker, I move adjournment of the debate, and I reserve my right to continue tomorrow.

J. Rice 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. R. Coleman moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 6:25 p.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 1:38 p.m.

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

K. Corrigan: Just before lunch I was mentioning a specific case of an individual who had been coded as a code 2 and went into cardiac arrest. I'm just wondering if the minister has had a chance to find out anymore about that case over the break.

Hon. T. Lake: This is considered a critical incident review, and that is done under what's known as section 51, which is why I didn't know about it. It is a confidential review. That is to encourage very frank discussion of those involved. So it is still currently in that section 51 review. I don't have any details that I can share with the member at this time.

K. Corrigan: Well, I'm glad to hear that the case is being reviewed as a critical incident. I do want to point out, though, that these are the types of cases that the minister has called a care and comfort call and has advised that it doesn't make sense for firefighters or anybody else to attend. Does the minister know what happened to this person in this case?

[1340]

Hon. T. Lake: I take extreme exception to me characterizing this particular incident as a care and comfort call. I never did. I would like the member to recognize that I did not call this a care and comfort call at all.

What I've said is that this is being treated as a critic-
[ Page 4258 ]
al incident review, and it is confidential, which is why I was not aware of it. The member should not prejudice this very confidential critical review by her comments here today.

K. Corrigan: I don't believe I am in any way compromising a review by comments that I make. I said nothing about the minister characterizing this particular call. What the minister has said in the past and what I have pointed out is that the minister has repeatedly characterized code 2 calls that previously would have been a code 3 as comfort calls or care and comfort calls.

The minister and others in the ministry have repeatedly publicly questioned why it is that even first responders would go to code 2s. I have not said, I don't believe — if I did, I apologize — what the minister specifically said about this case. This is one of many cases, I believe — one that I'm aware of in my community — where there was a very critical incident that was classified as a code 2, where the advice would be for firefighters not to — nobody — respond and where the outcomes have been grave. It is my understanding that the person did not survive that day.

J. Darcy: I just do want to underline what the member for Burnaby–Deer Lake has said. She raised the specific case in the Legislature on May 14 and gave most of the details, if not all the details, she shared today. The minister's response was: "It's important that we use our resources in the best way possible to make sure that the patients who need us — and need us urgently — get that kind of service. Now, first responders may decide to go to what they'd consider comfort calls."

That was in direct response to this incident being raised in the Legislature of British Columbia.

The Chair: Member, was there a question?

J. Darcy: Well, I was responding to the minister's assertion. I want to raise a couple of other situations, and then we'll move to another area.

In my own community of New Westminster the fire chief has presented to city council and has also forwarded a number of these to the B.C. Ambulance Service and has notified them about the concerns. They include a case in March of this year. A patient collapsed. Assessed vitals, breathing rate eight breaths per minute, pulse weak, vital signs deteriorating from original 911 call. Called to get it upgraded. It took another 23 minutes.

Another example. A patient who had previous congestive heart failure and swelling of her lower extremities was complaining of extreme leg pain. Again, attempt to upgrade it took 25 minutes.

There are other examples like that. Port Coquitlam — a man whose ankle was crushed in a forklift accident waited 30 minutes; an 88-year-old woman with a fractured hip had to wait an hour and 33 minutes for an ambulance.

My question to the minister is…. I understand that he thinks that, generally speaking, this move to downgrade 74 types of calls from code 3, lights and sirens, to code 2, routine, is acceptable and the right thing to do. But I want to ask the minister again: will he take seriously investigating issues that are brought before him by fire chiefs, by municipalities and by members of this Legislature?

Hon. T. Lake: We have said repeatedly that we will in fact look into all cases where there is cause for concern on the part of first responders or others. But we need to get that information. If we don't get the information, we can't investigate them.

[1345]

Let me just give you a sense of context. Since the resource allocation plan changes for ambulances came into effect in late October of last year, B.C. Ambulance Service has responded to over 211,000 pre-hospital medical calls, 85,000 of those using lights and sirens and 126,000 responding without lights and sirens. Of those 126,000 without lights and sirens, we've had 131 calls of concern. Out of those 131, all but 16 have been reviewed and have determined that the change in the resource allocation plan did not have an adverse effect on patient outcome.

There are 16 that are still being reviewed. When you look at 16 calls out of 126,000 that are going without lights and sirens, it's a very, very small number. I'm hopeful that we will complete the review of those 16 calls. But we're always willing to sit down and discuss with first responders their concerns. In fact, that is why I said earlier that there is a need to share data, to have an agreement with first responders to ensure that we all are working from the same information.

All of us, whether it's first responders working for local government or B.C. Ambulance Service, want to make sure the right resources are appropriately placed to the right patient at the right time.

J. Darcy: We're now going to move on to discuss rural health issues, and our member for North Coast is going to pick it up from here.

J. Rice: Thank you to the minister and all his staff. There are quite a few of you here today to make yourselves available.

Today I'd like to start with some questions on the human health risk assessment in regards to the oil and gas in the northeastern part of our province. During the public engagement phase the Fraser Basin Council received over 300 submissions from stakeholders outlining their health concerns as a result of oil and gas development. Of these, several questions were raised about gas flaring, as these pollutants can wreak havoc with human health.

A Finnish study found an increase in spontaneous abortions among populations chronically exposed to
[ Page 4259 ]
low dosages of H2S, and multiple studies have found that chronic exposure is linked with depression, fatigue and reduced mental function.

My question is: how will the Ministry of Health work with the Ministry of Natural Gas to address these health concerns directly related to flaring?

Hon. T. Lake: The northeast oil and gas human health risk assessment project is led by the Ministry of Health. It identifies, explores and assesses concerns about human health risks that may be related to oil and gas activities in the northeastern part of the province. Obviously, that's where most of the extraction is taking place and certainly will increase with the development of liquefied natural gas.

The first phase was completed. That engaged the public and other stakeholders to identify what their concerns were and sort of set the table for phase 2, which is underway now. Phase 2 focuses on potential health impacts of exposure to chemical contaminants and includes the human health risk assessment, a review of the regulatory framework, and recommendations for monitoring and managing any potential health impacts.

That phase is underway. We expect that work to be completed and analyzed towards the end of summer into early fall. Then it will go on to the third phase, which will report out on the findings and any suggestions for improvement that may be found in the human health risk assessment.

[1350]

J. Rice: Well, how will the ministry work with the other ministries to address the widespread systematic issues that arise from this industry? For instance, we know that there is an increase in prostitution catering to cash-rich oil and gas workers in these communities, and we know that the shift work can severely disrupt family life and lead to an increase in domestic violence, strain on children, marital breakdown and so on.

How will the ministry work with other ministries such as the Ministry of Children and Family Development or the Ministry of Justice to address these widespread effects of the oil and gas industry in northern B.C. communities?

Hon. T. Lake: I want to ensure that the member isn't suggesting that all oil and gas activity is directly associated with some of the social ills that she mentioned. I do appreciate that there are concerns in terms of the social network, the social consequences when you have a large increase in economic activity in a particular area, so I appreciate the nature of the question. I think I understand what the member is concerned about.

I can speak a bit about the Ministry of Health and broadly about government initiatives in this area. Firstly, Northern Health is working very hard to look and foresee the impacts of increased oil and gas development in their regional health authority. They're looking at the impact of work camps, for instance, and the need for primary care and also the other ancillary parts of primary and community care, whether that's social workers, addiction services. They are doing that work now, and I know they're working very hard at that.

We mentioned earlier, too, that through our agreement — hopefully, to be ratified shortly — with the Facilities Bargaining Association, including paramedics, we're looking to utilize paramedics more in rural areas to do paramedicine, which is to assist in terms of home and community and primary care in more rural areas. That will be part of, I think, the future for some communities that are affected by this development.

Local governments in the area have been very engaged with our Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development, and in fact we have a northwest community readiness initiative through that ministry in which the social ministries involved are working together on a pilot to look and try to project what some of the social ramifications are that the member has alluded to and how we can best respond to the potential for those social needs to develop and how we can help folks through that.

Also important, we mentioned earlier in estimates about the First Nations Health Authority and the role they play. There's a great collaborative working relationship between regional health authorities and the First Nations Health Authority.

[1355]

I think, as we look to the north with increased demands, that the First Nations Health Authority will be an important partner in ensuring that there is the health and social framework necessary to support people through this period of economic activity that's going to happen in the north.

J. Rice: I certainly understand or am clear that the various social issues that I have acknowledged occur regardless of oil and gas activity or not. I certainly acknowledge that there are many benefits to the oil and gas industry. So that wasn't a slight towards the industry whatsoever.

Some of the comments that you have made actually lead me into questions further along on industrial camps and community paramedicine. But I'll just ask about phase 2 of the risk assessment. It's led by the Calgary-based Intrinsik Environmental Sciences consulting firm. I'm just curious. Why was Intrinsik chosen for phase 2? Will Intrinsik's recommendations be made public when they are submitted to the Ministry of Health this summer?

Hon. T. Lake: Phase 1 was conducted by the Fraser Basin Council. As the member mentioned, phase 2 is currently underway and was awarded to Intrinsik Environmental Sciences through a competitive procurement process. I should mention that that team is
[ Page 4260 ]
composed of specialists in toxicology, epidemiology, medicine, air quality, water quality and emergency response planning.

In addition to Intrinsik, the companies that make up the team include RWDI Air Inc., Matrix Solutions Inc., Skystone Engineering Inc., McDaniel Lambert Inc. and Borden Ladner Gervais law firm.

The team includes a three-member advisory panel, which will provide an independent perspective on the design and approach of the phase 2 assessment and the interpretation of the results. As I mentioned, that work is ongoing, and we hope to have that work completed and analyzed and released for the public by the fall.

J. Rice: I'd like to just move on to some questions around industrial camps. I'm curious to know if the minister actually knows how many industrial campsites are currently active in northern British Columbia.

Hon. T. Lake: As the member notes, there's a lot of activity going on in the north.

[1400]

Back in 2012 there were 98 existing or proposed major projects in the north. We've seen some, around Tumbler Ridge, for instance, that are on hold and others that are coming forward. So that number is probably still fairly reflective of the activity going on there.

There are 11 operating mines and 27 proposed mines, which will likely need industrial camps. So there are probably about 100 projects that may employ industrial camps in the north. My understanding is there are about 48 industrial camps currently active.

Northern Health is doing a series of papers to look at the resource-based economy and look at the mobile workforce that is integral to those operations. I believe the first paper was completed, and they are working on the second paper, which is Understanding Resource and Community Development in Northern B.C. That paper I don't believe has been completed.

There is a series of three papers. I should say that the first paper was entitled Understanding the State of Industrial Camps in Northern B.C. It used a health-promotion approach to provide preliminary background information on industrial camps. It included a profile of industrial camps as of March 2012 and identified some related health issues and best practices regarding health promotion and industrial camps.

The second one, which I just mentioned, dives deeper into the broader political and economic factors that have influenced community growth and development. It also will explore the impacts on how Northern Health can begin to prepare and plan for changes in activity.

The third and final paper is currently in the research, data analysis and writing stage. That will include a more detailed overview of communities and resource development in the northeast health service delivery area of Northern Health and will attempt to provide a profile of a transient workforce, related health issues and challenges and the impacts of the population on health services utilization.

So a lot of work is going on in Northern Health. As the member indicates, this is a transformational time for the north of British Columbia, and we do have to consider what the health and social needs of those changes will be.

J. Rice: I'm wondering if the minister knows how many workers are at these sites. Does he have a breakdown of the regional distribution of workers and camps?

Hon. T. Lake: No, I apologize. I don't have that specific information. We will ask our staff if they can compile that for us and maybe even have it before the end of the day. If not, tomorrow.

J. Rice: In June the minister noted it was impossible to predict how many facilities will be required for expected camps. Does the minister have a better idea now of what will be needed?

Hon. T. Lake: Of course, we are optimistic that we will see final investment decisions on liquefied natural gas perhaps later in 2014, or hopefully in 2015. Until those final investment decisions are made, it is very difficult to know exactly what the scope of development will be. That's why we're doing this work. You know, they will take a scenario — a low-range scenario and a high-range scenario — and try to determine what the needs will be. It is an estimate, for sure, until those final investment decisions come.

We all know that the world changes quickly these days, as we saw in 2008-2009 with the financial collapse that occurred all around the world. I'm very optimistic that we are through that and that we will in fact have a lot of activity in the north. In terms of specifics, we are still in the estimate stage at this point. Hopefully, as time goes by, we'll be able to nail down some of those needs with more specificity.

J. Rice: I'm curious to know how many forestry operation contractors alerted their local health authority of their establishment in the last year.

[1405]

Hon. T. Lake: I don't have that level of detail in terms of forestry camps. As the member knows, forestry occurs all over the province of British Columbia. Some of these camps would be very temporary in nature, with others lasting longer. There is the industrial camps regulation to protect the environment, and the health authorities are responsible for enforcing some of those regulations around the type of treatment for sewage, etc.

I don't have those specific numbers. Again, I'm not
[ Page 4261 ]
sure if they're available. I wouldn't be surprised if, at times, there are camps that are relatively transient in nature that do not go reported to health authorities — something that we recognize as a challenge. Needless to say, I have not been made aware of concerns in terms of forestry camps and access to health care services.

J. Rice: My understanding — and I might need clarification — is that in the case of forestry operations, contractors established in camps are required to provide the location and contact information of all camps to the local health authority 72 hours before establishment. However, camp operators in other resource development sectors are only encouraged to contact the local authority at the earliest possible stage.

I guess I'm just trying to get a better understanding of how informed the Ministry of Health is on camp development in the province and just identify, maybe, that this is something that we need to get better informed of.

My subsequent questions were along the lines of: in the past year how many operators of other types, from other industries, have informed their respective local health authority of their camp developments? How many of them have notified the health authority of their camp closures? My question would be: how can the industrial camps regulation be enforced if the ministry is unaware of a camp's existence?

Hon. T. Lake: The industrial camps regulation has been in place since 1983, so you can see that it is probably a little bit out of date. We recognize that.

The Ministry of Health is currently undertaking a review of that regulation with the goal to replace it with a new work camps regulation that will be in line with current requirements under the Public Health Act. We'll put in processes and health authorities to create operating guidelines to support that regulation.

In December of 2013 a final draft of the operating guidelines was circulated to health authorities as well as key industry stakeholders, requesting their feedback by the end of January 2014.

In addition to the health authorities, feedback was also requested from the Ministry of Natural Gas; Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations; Energy and Mines; Environment; Agriculture; operators of work camps; industries, such as the B.C. Fruit Growers Association, B.C. Oil and Gas Commission, B.C. Mining Association and others; as well as WorkSafe B.C. We're gathering all those responses to form the foundation for updating the existing industrial camps regulation.

We hope that by the end of the spring, which is coming soon — hard to believe — we will have the new regulation ready. That is entitled the work camps regulation. I think, if I may, that that will go a long way to addressing the concerns that you have identified.

J. Rice: That was my next question, which was: what is the status of that review? I'm just curious if he could actually comment on any of the changes being considered at this point and why.

[1410]

Hon. T. Lake: I'm told that some of the things that will be looked at in this review are things like sewage systems that we mentioned earlier; drinking water systems; accommodation — that's the amount of space, the heating arrangements, drainage, ventilation, lighting, overcrowding, things like that; sanitary facilities, such as number and location of toilets, showers and wash basins; issues around food — kitchen facilities, food handling, food control and equipment; refuse disposal; as well as communicable diseases.

Those are some of the factors that are being looked at in this review. As I mentioned, hopefully, we'll have that complete by the end of spring.

J. Rice: Recently a cruise ferry from the Baltic Sea has been rebranded. I think it's called the Silja Festival. It was a cruise ferry from the Baltic Sea that's been rebranded the Delta Spirit Lodge. It's located just outside of Kitimat. It's to house over 600 workers needed to complete the aluminum smelter upgrade. I'm curious to know: how is the safety of cruise ferries and other ad hoc accommodations regulated?

Hon. T. Lake: This obviously is a huge project in Kitimat, and I know that the needs of the industrial workforce had to be met in solutions which are a bit elegant. I think this was one of them, bringing in a repurposed vessel to house workers. It would be treated like any industrial work camp or other facility that houses and has cooking facilities and wastewater facilities. Health inspectors would inspect and identify any concerns and have them addressed by the operator.

J. Rice: I'm not sure if…. You probably covered this. You were talking about the camp regulations being from, I think you said, '83. I think I was nine at that time. Sorry. I'm always rubbing it in with the ageist comments.

Interjections.

J. Rice: We were nine and ten. Okay.

The ministry was accepting feedback and guidelines to assist the camp operators and regulators in interpreting the regulations. I don't know if you answered this. Were the guidelines developed, and will they be redrafted to coordinate with the updated regulations?

Hon. T. Lake: I was having a flashback to 1983 for a minute. The answer is yes, they will be.
[ Page 4262 ]

J. Rice: I'd like to move on to some questions just around northern maternity care. In a study by the Rural Physicians of Canada, which looked at four rural northern B.C. communities, it was found that "maternity care can affect the physical, cultural, spiritual and economic makeup of a community" and that "it is not a service that can be removed or altered without having some effect on a variety of other sectors of the community."

My question is: what is the ministry doing to address the worrisome trends of a decrease in maternity care providers and an increase in birth rates in the northern B.C. communities?

[1415]

Hon. T. Lake: There are a number of initiatives going on. The member identifies a really important area, because with an increase in the birth rate and the need for high-quality and accessible primary maternity care, we need to ensure that, again, we are addressing that need.

In February 2014 we completed a paper called "Primary Maternity Care, Moving Forward Together," which builds on a number of different plans and consultations that had already occurred with a focus on what needs to change to adapt to the situation we find ourselves in today.

The document outlines action across a number of key areas, including leadership and policy, models of care, scopes of practice, education and human health resource development, insurance and liability, compensation, supports for regional and local solutions and support for women and their families.

This is a collaborative effort that does involve Northern Health, for instance. It involves midwives in the province of British Columbia. It also involves the physicians through the Doctors of B.C. and the General Practices Services Committee. We've extended the maternity care for B.C. funding criteria to family physicians, which will help them train in home birth. So that's going forward.

We are increasing the number of midwives that are being supported in the province of British Columbia and also, with a partnership with First Nations Health Authority, training doulas, who are, particularly for First Nations future moms, very important support through their pregnancy and delivery.

J. Rice: The Midwives Association of B.C.'s recommendation to increase the number of midwives by 16 percent a year is consistent with the government's approach to double UBC-trained graduating midwives from 10 to 20 by the year 2017. Will the ministry also support the recommendations requirement of an investment beginning in 2014-2015 of approximately $3 million annually, or $225 per birth per year based on the projected annual number of births?

Hon. T. Lake: We have been very supportive of midwifery in the province of British Columbia. Our investments include $1.9 million over two years for midwifery services; $500,000 to support an increase in home births, which helps pay for a second attendant at home births and the necessary supplies; $130,000 to support midwives in establishing practices in rural communities; $300,000 to develop a rural local program; and $50,000 to develop and administer a midwife emergency skills program.

We've made significant investment, and we are currently in discussions with the Midwives Association of B.C. Those discussions are ongoing, and we have not got a conclusion at this point. I can't really fully answer the member's question until those negotiations are complete.

J. Rice: Seventy percent of midwifery clients still give birth in hospitals rather than at home, meaning women and families are still travelling hundreds of kilometres to give birth. What is the ministry doing to address this issue specifically?

[1420]

Hon. T. Lake: I mentioned some of the investments that we've made. Developing and administering a midwife emergency skills program is important to support midwifery. We talked about the maternity care for B.C. program, which is training family primary care practitioners in home birthing. So we hope that there will be supports in place to support the practice of midwifery.

Of course, there are times when an assessment is made and, for the health of the baby and the mom, that care must be provided at a hospital. So those decisions are made by the clinicians along with midwives, and I think that's best left with them to make those decisions. We are doing all we can to support midwifery in community but at the same time recognize there are times when the acute care system is needed to ensure the health of the mom and the baby.

J. Rice: So many of the issues around northern and rural health actually stem from transportation or challenges around transportation. I'm going to figure this out myself this summer, but I'm curious if the minister could comment specifically on how birthing and maternity care are dealt with and provided on Haida Gwaii specifically.

I understand that the government invested in quite a midwifery program a few years back, a robust program, but we're still experiencing challenges on Haida Gwaii. I'm still getting constituent letters about mothers that are being encouraged by their doctors to head over to Prince Rupert well in advance of their birthdate. I'm wondering if you could comment specifically on the challenges and opportunities on Haida Gwaii when it comes to maternity care.

Hon. T. Lake: I'm just looking for any specifics around Haida Gwaii in terms of maternity care. I apologize. I
[ Page 4263 ]
don't have specific information about Haida Gwaii. I can say, of course, that we're making a $50 million investment in a new hospital on Haida Gwaii. I was very happy to be at the groundbreaking ceremony. I understand things are moving nicely there.

Of course, we have expanded the nurse practitioners for B.C. program. I mentioned the maternity care for B.C. program. There are all kinds of incentives for practitioners to look at underserviced areas, more rural areas of the province, to locate and thrive in those communities. All of those factors will support care in Haida Gwaii. But I'm sorry. I don't have any specifics about maternity care on the Queen Charlottes.

J. Rice: Local governments, regional districts and paramedics themselves have been calling for solutions to paramedic shortages in rural and remote communities with new models of service delivery, such as the community paramedicine model that the minister mentioned earlier.

[1425]

Can the minister provide an update to the government's intentions when it comes to community paramedicine?

Hon. T. Lake: The member identifies very well, I think, the challenge of providing services in more remote areas of the province. I know in my riding I have areas that have been a challenge in the past. What we have talked about — and, I think, successfully dialogued with the B.C. Ambulance Service and the paramedics — is a community paramedicine model.

What we would want to do, if the agreement is ratified, is work with the paramedics union in the development of this model. Some of the challenges, of course, in rural areas are that paramedics are on call. If they're not being called, they are wearing a pager and being paid a nominal amount of money to be ready to be called. Once they are on a call, then of course, their remuneration goes up appropriately. That makes it difficult to recruit and to retain professionals in paramedicine.

What we are looking at are models similar to what we see in Ontario, Nova Scotia, other parts of North America and, in fact, other parts of the world with paramedics, as they are highly trained. There are different levels of paramedics, of course. They are very well trained to assist as part of the health care team in more than just a pre-hospital service.

In various models, you see paramedics doing home calls — seniors that are on a home care plan, for instance. This is really valuable in ensuring that seniors are not experiencing difficulty with their medications, with any physiotherapy or with any physical needs that they may have. This has been shown to significantly reduce emergency department visits by seniors that are still maintained at home.

There may be a role for paramedics in long-term residential care settings to assist with the health care team in those settings as well. This will require some flexibility of stakeholders on the health care team — in terms of doctors, nurse practitioners, nurses, administrators — to incorporate paramedics in the community health care setting.

We are looking forward to that. In fact, CUPE, which represents the paramedics in British Columbia, commissioned their own paper that looked at paramedicine. Some of the very same features that we identified as a positive attribute of community paramedicine were identified in that paper.

I'm very optimistic that moving forward we will see…. We are committed to supporting that from a fiscal point of view, to ensure that we can develop a community paramedicine model that will, I think, fill a lot of gaps in some areas of the province where we know that it's been difficult to provide some health care services.

J. Rice: The primary care paramedic program was scheduled to begin February this year in Prince George and Cranbrook for 15 students each. Can the minister answer what the enrolment is for each of these communities?

[1430]

[S. Sullivan in the chair.]

The Chair: Minister.

Hon. T. Lake: Hon. Chair, welcome to the proceedings.

I don't have the specifics of the enrolment of those two centres. We will endeavour to get that information. I can say that since October 2013, 21 new staff have been hired across northern B.C. So we are making some gains in the paramedic workforce in northern B.C. But we'll endeavour to find the enrolment. It was Prince George and Cranbrook? Okay.

J. Rice: How was the student demand for paramedic training assessed prior to the announcement of this program?

[1435]

Hon. T. Lake: There are different levels of paramedics, as the member understands, I'm sure. The first level is emergency medical responder. Whenever we have a community where there is a minimum of six people that are interested in training, we will put on a course and train emergency medical responders.

We monitor the number of full-time, part-time and casual people that we have in all of our facilities and will respond, obviously, to demand from local communities in terms of the need to train more. What we do is….

Obviously, we have a website where people can express interest. Our human resources is located in Prince George, and we regularly run newspaper advertisements
[ Page 4264 ]
and posters and do community events, job fairs and stakeholder engagement to identify those people that may be interested in training as paramedics.

As I mentioned, this new system that we are developing will likely change the way we staff, particularly in rural areas. It will be interesting to see the evolution of the training and hiring process that will be necessary as we, hopefully, evolve to that community paramedicine model.

J. Rice: As you've just identified and stated previously, should the community paramedicine model be ratified, that may be a solution to some of the ongoing challenges we have in rural B.C.

The mayor of Stewart reported that B.C. Ambulance was unable to recruit a single new worker in a training course held last September, despite the town having a extreme shortage of paramedics. Other than this community paramedicine model that we've been talking about, how has the ministry addressed these position vacancies that are often caused, as he may well know, by the low wage and the inconsistency of work in rural British Columbia for paramedics?

Hon. T. Lake: I'm pleased to report that 24-7 ambulance coverage has been available nearly 100 percent of the time in Stewart since July of 2013. We've met with councillors from Stewart and spoken with them extensively about this challenge.

Following up, between October 1, 2013, and January 7, 2014, B.C. Ambulance Service hired two emergency medical responders in Stewart, and two existing driver-only employees — their duties were just limited to driving — took extra training in December and are now licensed emergency medical responders. So we have increased capacity in Stewart.

If I may, an earlier question about Haida Gwaii…. B.C. Ambulance Service and Northern Health Authority have developed a response plan to manage the transfer of high-risk maternity patients on Haida Gwaii. All calls are assessed and triaged for acuity and then prioritized in the BCAS dispatch centre, with the closest available resource being assigned to the call.

They are proactively planning how patients in rural areas will be transported to a higher level of care to ensure that they do acquire the services they need in a timely manner. Certainly, Northern Health and B.C. Ambulance Service are aware of the concerns expressed in Haida Gwaii and are working with the community to fill those needs.

J. Rice: That's great news for the community of Stewart. It's still an ongoing challenge in other rural and remote communities — staffing qualified paramedics. In particular, a doctor on Haida Gwaii today told me that paramedic coverage is only about 50 percent of the time.

[1440]

I'll make some comments a little later in regards to paramedics and maternity care on Haida Gwaii.

I guess I'm going to move on to some transportation ferry issues, which are so interconnected to health care along the coastal communities that I represent. Can the minister confirm that the mobile screening mammogram program that services Bella Coola and the central coast communities will continue, despite the loss of the route 40 ferry?

Hon. T. Lake: If I may, in answer to an earlier question about the intake of paramedics in Prince George and Cranbrook, I'm told that there are two intakes of 15 students each.

In terms of the Bella Coola–Bella Bella mammography screening program, I'm certainly aware of the concerns expressed by the community about mammography screening services. That's to do with the announced ferry schedule changes. B.C. Cancer Agency will be able to continue to provide mobile screening services in the community.

The Ministry of Transportation has extended the current winter connector service by the MV Nimpkish all year round so that Ocean Falls, Shearwater and Bella Coola remain connected to Bella Bella as well as the north-south Prince Rupert to Port Hardy service. We have confirmed, through to the member — because I know this is a concern for her — that the mobile mammography vehicles will, in fact, fit on the Nimpkish. And while this is a longer trip, the B.C. Cancer Agency will provide services through this ferry route. So we will continue to be able to provide that very important service.

J. Rice: The United Church Health Services Society — which I don't believe services the central coast anymore, with some recent changes to the First Nations Health Authority — have commented that they anticipate the loss of the ferry service "will significantly impede efforts to recruit and retain health care professionals for Bella Coola." Given recruitment is already a challenge for small rural communities, how will the ministry ensure health care professional positions are filled in these regions?

Hon. T. Lake: As I mentioned, the ferry service will continue, and it, in fact, will provide year-round service. In many ways, the ferry service will provide more reliable service than previously. I did give an example of how, in this case, B.C. Cancer Agency has ensured that that service will continue. In the same way, Northern Health Authority, other health authorities and the Ministry of Health will continue to ensure that services are available to meet the needs of that population.

J. Rice: Can the minister comment on how the recent ferry service cuts have impacted health service provision on Haida Gwaii?
[ Page 4265 ]

Hon. T. Lake: We have had no correspondence that I'm aware of expressing concern of any change in health care delivery at Haida Gwaii.

[1445]

J. Rice: While I do not want to take up too much time here, I would love to share a letter with you from a doctor, a physician on Haida Gwaii. Now, she didn't specify who she's contacted, but she is feeling very stressed and strained with the concerns around ferry service and health provision.

She states: "The Masset and Queen Charlotte ambulance is only covered about 50 percent of the time." Now, I know you've been to Haida Gwaii, Minister. Sandspit is on the lower island, and Queen Charlotte is on the bottom part of the upper island. I'm just clarifying for everyone's sake, because many people have no idea where these regions are.

"The ferry service between Queen Charlotte and Sandspit now ends at 6 p.m. B.C. Ferries assured us that their schedule changes would not affect safety and health care, as they would be on call overnight for ambulance calls, as before.

"However, this is not true. By Transport Canada regulation, the ferry employees must have six hours rest after a 12-hour workday. So there is no ferry at all from 6:10 p.m. to about 1 a.m. This means no transport to the airport for urgent medevacs."

And if I could just add, the airport is in Sandspit, on the bottom, on Moresby Island.

"It means no transport to hospital for Sandspit residents. It means that if the Sandspit ambulance has to come over to cover Queen Charlotte to cover for lack of Queen Charlotte ambulance service or to transport a Sandspit patient, either they must decline late afternoon calls or they will get stranded over on the Queen Charlotte side overnight and have to find accommodations.

"The same is true for Sandspit patients whose medical care does not allow them to get to the ferry dock by 6 p.m. They will have to find somewhere to crash in Queen Charlotte or Skidegate.

"The same is true for doctors and nurses, who not infrequently have to ride along with critically ill patients due to inadequate BCAS staff qualifications. Now there is a much higher chance of getting stranded in Sandspit for the rest of the night, as there is no ferry back.

"Because the ferry schedule is so inconvenient, accommodations in Sandspit are basically booked up, as tourists have given up coming over to Graham Island. We do not know where we will sleep when we get stranded in Sandspit. Maybe on a stretcher in the clinic. It also takes a doctor off call, and the other MDs must fill in, which is a major difficulty when we are already covering 24-hour call shifts every third day."

Now, I understand that. I hope that's clear to yourself and to staff — how someone would have to fill in on Graham Island if someone is stuck down on Moresby.

"The Coast Guard is covering urgent patient transfers from 6 p.m. to 1 a.m., but as they cannot load the ambulance onto their boat, they must carry the patient on and transport them across to be met by the ambulance service on the other side, if there is one.

"Loading patients on and off the boat could be pretty problematic if someone were critically ill, immobilized or in labour. This service is also dependent on the Coast Guard boat actually being in Sandspit. I do not think staying in Sandspit from 6 p.m. to 1 a.m. every night to cover medical transports was part of their duty plan.

"The ferry schedule to the mainland has totally destroyed the ability for our patients to get care in one visit in Prince Rupert."

Now we're talking about Haida Gwaii to Prince Rupert care.

"They have to arrive on Tuesday, leave on Thursday. And since rarely can both a consult and surgery be done on the same day, they will either have to come back another time, or they will have to stay Thursday through Tuesday and hope their consult and work-up can be done on Friday, then the surgery Monday, which does not seem possible with Prince Rupert OR times and leaves the patient on the hook for at least four nights' accommodation in Prince Rupert.

"Moreover, the ferry has been fully booked all month and remains so up through mid- to late June, when the schedule improves transiently for summer. Many patients have had to cancel their May and June medical appointments, as there is no room available on the ferry and they cannot afford to fly.

"So we have complained to everyone we can think of, as has the surgeon in Prince Rupert on behalf of the specialists there. We have written letters, showed up at meetings — all for naught. We do appreciate your interest in advocating on our behalf — more importantly, on behalf of our patients.

"This is a very stressful and generally inappropriate and unreasonable situation for Haida Gwaii residents. I have gone over this with my physician and hospital admin colleagues here, and they concur."

So I guess my question to the minister is if there is a plan in place to address some of these transportation challenges when it comes to health care on Haida Gwaii.

[1450]

Hon. T. Lake: I think the description is emblematic of the challenge of providing services to areas that are remote in British Columbia. The nature of the challenges in Haida Gwaii is significant. In other areas of the province — in the Kootenays, for example — there are times when ambulances can't get through either because of weather, the challenges of terrain.

That's why we have air ambulance and helicopter service to try to fill those gaps. It's not ideal, and weather plays a role there. It may not be available. I recognize the challenge.

Staffing ambulances in remote communities is very difficult. It would be ideal to have sufficient staff on both sides so that you don't have to depend on that linkage, whether it's a highway that could be snowed in or a ferry that has a limited amount of service because of the extremely low volume that would be transported.

That's why I think it's really important that we continue our efforts to recruit paramedics. I can just say that in the past several months the B.C. Ambulance Service has recruited several applicants on Haida Gwaii — one in Port Clements and four in Queen Charlotte city.

We've also been working closely with the Hecate Strait Employment Development Society in Queen Charlotte city to identify ten potential recruits who have expressed an interest in working with the Ambulance Service. We'll continue to work with candidates to support them through the application and recruitment process for placement both in Queen Charlotte city and in Sandspit.

As I mentioned, I think that as we move to this new community paramedicine model, it will be much more
[ Page 4266 ]
attractive for people to look to this as a career. I think our recruitment efforts will be much easier and have greater results when we move to that community paramedicine model. Then people can make a real career commitment to paramedicine and know that they have a job, rather than the on-call system that is really difficult and not that appealing for some people to recruit into.

J. Rice: As you've identified, even with a new…. You said one recruit in Port Clements and another in Queen Charlotte. It still does not address the need. This is not a viable career for most people.

On Haida Gwaii paramedics are essentially volunteers. If there are other job prospects in other parts of the island or other parts of the province, it's a huge challenge to try and retain any sort of consistency or quality of ambulance service on the island.

I just have a couple more questions. It's sort of a broad question, but it's such an important question. I feel I just can't not talk about the fact that in rural and northern British Columbia we have a recruitment and retention issue, not just with doctors but with other health care providers.

It's been communicated to me that, for example, lab technologists who will make $10 an hour more in the province of Alberta are leaving our province. They're getting educated in our province, and they're leaving to have a more prosperous career in other provinces.

Other physicians in the north are feeling overworked, stressed and burdened because they don't have a complete care team. They're there, but they can't rely on a technologist to provide the X-rays or whatever service they need.

The monetary factor is important in retaining and recruiting health care providers. It's also been really clear to me that having a fulfilling career — where you're working to your full scope of practice, you're not necessarily overworked and burdened, and you're enjoying your life — is so crucial and just as important as financial compensation.

[1455]

Saying that, it's very clear to me that we have current retention and recruitment issues existing, particularly in my part of the province, which has been part of the boom-bust resource sector for quite a number of years and is now looking at, hopefully, an upcoming boom with 12 to 13 LNG proposals between Kitimat and Prince Rupert.

My question, really, is: looking at Fort St. John recently, where they've gone from three community clinics down to one and they're having a hard time retaining physicians, what is the province doing to prepare for an upcoming boom in the northwest, when we are currently not meeting our existing health care needs?

Hon. T. Lake: I appreciate the question. It is a broad question. It is a real challenge not just for British Columbia but for many areas of the industrialized world — recruiting and retaining all kinds of professionals to rural areas of jurisdictions. As I mentioned, my riding includes rural areas, and we face those same challenges.

If I may, I can talk about…. I've talked about this in the House before, so I won't spend a lot of time. In fact, we're doing a lot to address the rural challenge in terms of not just physicians but nurses. As you know, we've more than doubled the number of physicians training in B.C., from 120 to 288. We're training 45 nurse practitioners.

We have incentives. So if you are a nurse or if you are a physician and you have a student loan, we will pay off that student loan for you with a three-year commitment to an underserviced area of British Columbia. Quite a few of our health care professionals take advantage of that.

Last year we announced $2 million in funding for the rural physicians for B.C. program. We've already recruited nine new physicians in Terrace, Chetwynd, Bella Coola, Hazelton, Clearwater, Princeton, Nakusp and Port Hardy. I know from personal experience…. I've met Dr. Broadbent in Clearwater, and this was an integral part of the reason that he and his wife, who is a nurse, decided to locate in the beautiful community of Clearwater.

The GP for Me program has matched more than 9,000 patients with doctors in the three community pilot programs — Cowichan Valley, Prince George, White Rock–Surrey.

Having said all that, it's important to know that according to the last available statistics from the Society of Rural Physicians of Canada, B.C. has 842 rural residents per family physician. The Canadian average was 1,214 rural residents for each rural GP. So compared to the Canadian average, we're actually doing well. Is that good enough? No.

We need to continue to recruit and retain health care professionals — and not just doctors and nurses but, as the member mentioned, lab technologists and accompanying health professionals, physiotherapists, occupational therapists, respiratory therapists — to support rural B.C.

We mentioned the paramedicine program, which I think will be an important component of this. We are working and putting all of this into a comprehensive document, a rural health care strategy for B.C. That work is underway. We hope to have that work completed by the fall, and we will incorporate that into our service delivery models.

J. Rice: I guess I just have concerns. With all of the rural communities you listed off, Fort St. John was not listed as one of those communities. I understand that 6,000 people will lose their family doctor, and there are currently about 18,000 residents that don't have a physician.

A couple of the letters I received from folks in Fort
[ Page 4267 ]
St. John…. We're a wealthy, booming community, and if we can't provide basic health care here, is that acceptable? How do we retain and keep the young families that we want in communities such as Fort St. John to do the work that's needed when it comes to a natural gas development?

Hon. T. Lake: Fort St. John is experiencing a shortage of physicians. There's no question. I can say that the city of Kamloops is facing a physician shortage. It's one of the most common concerns people express to me in my constituency office.

[1500]

This problem is not solely attributable to the north. It happens in many areas of B.C. In fact, interestingly, we have more doctors per 1,000 Canadians than ever before. Doctors today practise differently than doctors of the past, and there has been a tremendous feminization of the profession, which is very much a good thing. Having three daughters, I can say that. It's not surprising that many of those physicians take time out to have babies, raise families and support their families. Even other physicians, male physicians, don't work the same number of hours as people that graduated in the '80s did.

We do see that even though there are more physicians, access to physicians has actually been a challenge in many areas of the province. We are trying to address that with incentives to attract people to underserviced areas of the province. I outlined some of those programs earlier.

Also through the divisions of family practice. This A GP for Me program is really important. I'm currently, as an MLA, working with Kamloops-Thompson Division of Family Practice. That is identifying what the needs of the community are and ways to attach patients to physicians and ensure that physicians are supported. We've done a lot of different things in terms of the fee schedule to help patients get attached — to reward physicians that are taking on complex patients, for instance.

In the case of Fort St. John, I met with the mayor of Fort St. John, Mayor Ackerman, to discuss this issue. Northern Health was very, very responsive. They're doing an active recruitment, and they are also doing an unattached-patient clinic. They're developing that as we speak, to provide ongoing services to those patients that the member mentioned that find themselves without a family practitioner.

We hope that that new clinic will be open in July. It is, in fact, a model based on the Blue Pine Clinic in Prince George, which saw about 4,000 patients, I think, that were previously unattached become attached. I had a chance to visit the Blue Pine Clinic in Prince George recently, and they're doing a remarkable job.

I'm hopeful we'll have the same success in Fort St. John. I know Northern Health and the division of family practice there and local government are working together to address this very real need for family physicians.

J. Rice: I realize that the solution is not necessarily just a one-answer solution and that it's really complex. I think part of the challenge, when we have a sort of blanket model that we try and apply over a large geographic area, is that it works in the urban environment and doesn't necessarily work in the rural environment.

I guess one thing that I've learned from living in the north for the last 14 years is that due to the remoteness and rural nature of our communities, we have to be really flexible and really resourceful. We are a resourceful bunch. Sometimes that is really what the solution is: working with the individual communities and finding the solution that best works in that community. No doubt, that's an ongoing challenge, and I don't envy having that position to try and resolve that.

I just have a couple more questions. I was happy to hear that the minister was promoting the use of nurse practitioners and that there's training for 45 currently, as he just stated. My colleague has a lot more questions around the nurse practitioner program, but I just wanted to know if he could tell me how many nurse practitioners are employed in northern British Columbia. If that is too broad of a geographic area, starting with just how many are employed within the Northern Health Authority.

[1505]

Hon. T. Lake: I can say that there are 252 nurse practitioners registered with the College of Registered Nurses of B.C. In May of 2012 we announced we were funding 190 nurse practitioner positions over the next three years. That's the nurse practitioners for B.C. program.

I can tell the member that 15 of those positions are allocated for the Northern Health Authority. I don't have the total number of nurse practitioners that are employed in the Northern Health Authority — only that 15 additional nurse practitioners will be added through the nurse practitioners for B.C. program.

J. Rice: I'm getting near the end here. I'm almost ready to conclude. The Ministry of Health service plan states that the ministry will "examine the use of other health professionals in team-based care, including the use of physician assistants, to supplement available medical services throughout the health system." My question is: what exactly will this examination involve? What is the timeline for this assessment? Can the minister comment on the status of this?

Hon. T. Lake: That was to reflect our ongoing desire to look at practices around the world. Many people have said there are some very good things happening in health care in different jurisdictions. That statement was to reflect the fact that we are going to turn over every stone to look at how we can meet our goal of the Triple Aim — which is to improve population health; to provide a better patient experience, including better outcomes; and
[ Page 4268 ]
value for money.

There have been discussions over the years about physician assistants — or physician extenders is another term that is often used — and nurse anaesthetists. These are positions that are used elsewhere in health care that certainly have some attraction in terms of at least looking at the model.

I know it sometimes causes concern for some people in health care that are already involved. There's always a concern that it's replacing one type of professional with another type of professional. Again, it comes down to appropriateness and making sure that we get the right person for the right patient at the right time and accomplishing the goals of the Triple Aim.

We will continue our discussions, continue our investigations. There are no firm plans at this time to institute physician assistants. But we reserve the right — I think that statement is saying — to look at all different kinds of models to provide the very best health care at the very best value for the citizens of British Columbia.

J. Rice: Well, I understand where he's saying…. I, too, would not want to appear to be advocating or promoting displacing one profession with another. I guess my concern is that I live in the north, and we have such a problem in the north with rural health care. For example, there are physician assistants that live in remote northern communities. There's one in Bella Coola, for example, who's travelling outside of the province to practice his profession.

[1510]

I'm just curious to know. I think I understand the answer from your statement, but I'm just clarifying: does the ministry consider physician assistants as a possible solution to chronic physician shortages that affect B.C., especially in the rural and remote communities?

Hon. T. Lake: I don't know the answer to that, to be quite frank. I think we should not restrict ourselves when we're looking for solutions. The community paramedicine model — I'm sure there will be some people concerned that we are replacing people with other people. That is not the intent. The intent is to provide the best service and increase the supports, particularly in rural areas.

As I say, I reserve the right to look at all of the different options available to us and what…. You know, as the member said, we have to be flexible. We need to reflect the needs of the community, which will be quite different in Haida Gwaii than they are in downtown Vancouver. The spirit, I think, that the member is reflecting is similar to the spirit I have, and that is to ensure we look at all different kinds of models to meet the needs of patients in British Columbia.

J. Rice: That concludes my questions, but I just wanted to take the moment to thank the minister. I appreciate the time that I've had here today with him and his staff.

R. Austin: I had a question for the minister. It's a little bit long and convoluted. I attended the Nisga'a Lisims Government assembly about a month ago, and there were lots of comments there around the challenges of delivering health services in the Nass Valley.

What I wanted to ask the minister was…. I'm aware that under the Nisga'a treaty, the Nisga'a Lisims Government, the NLG government, pays the premium directly for MSP for Nisga'a citizens. But my understanding is that there are also dollars that flow from the provincial government to enable the Nisga'a Valley health board to provide other ongoing health care services, such as care for seniors, etc.

My understanding also, in looking at the Nisga'a treaty, is that even though the Nisga'a have their own treaty, it did not absolve the federal government of their longstanding fiduciary responsibility towards health care for First Nations people.

There's an element since they got treaty, and they're 12 years in, where my understanding is there are some dollars that still come from the federal government, but the majority of it comes from the provincial government. Obviously, Nisga'a citizens who have any serious illness go to Terrace and avail themselves of the Mills Memorial Hospital, because there are limited health care facilities in the Nass.

My question to you is…. If you could perhaps comment on any negotiations that are taking place to resolve any challenges between this funding model, between what the province has to give to the Nisga'a Valley health board in order to deliver their own home-based services…. And if by any chance the staff are not here who've been dealing with this file, I understand that. Perhaps if they aren't here to avail the minister of a specific answer to this question, maybe he could just write to me or get his staff to write to me and contact me and let me know what's happening with this.

I know that it is a cause of great concern. Like a lot of First Nations communities, the health care outcomes, of course, are not anywhere close to where we would like them to be in terms of the average for British Columbian citizens, so this is something that needs to be dealt with in a very timely manner.

[1515]

Hon. T. Lake: We had an opportunity to discuss, earlier in estimates, the tripartite agreement among the federal government, the provincial government and First Nations Health Council here in British Columbia — really groundbreaking work, the first of its kind in Canada, whereby the commitments from the federal government for First Nations on reserve were transferred to the First Nations Health Authority.

My understanding is that the same applies to the Nisga'a in terms of a treaty First Nation, that their fed-
[ Page 4269 ]
eral funding is now managed by the First Nations Health Authority. Each regional health authority — in this case, Northern Health — has key personnel that are charged with interacting with the First Nations Health Authority to integrate programs and services, because every resident of British Columbia is entitled to provincial health services, as the member mentioned. Acute care would be provided in Terrace through Northern Health.

We are working very collaboratively with the First Nations Health Authority to make sure that they are well connected with the Provincial Health Services Authority, Northern Health Authority, all the regional health authorities.

I'm not sure if the member has had an opportunity to meet with Joe Gallagher, the CEO of the First Nations Health Authority. I certainly would recommend it. He's doing just an amazing job of bringing that group together and providing those services. I would encourage the member to sit down with Mr. Gallagher and if there are concerns expressed by Nisga'a, to canvass those with Mr. Gallagher.

I can say of the system that while it's still in the infancy, I have great optimism. But there will be some growing pains as we move forward with this new model of health care for First Nations in British Columbia.

G. Holman: A couple of questions and comments on the issue of doctor shortages and a couple of other issues as well. You've already had a discussion of this with my colleagues. By the way, I want to thank our critic for allowing me time to ask these questions.

I did want to just read a couple of comments from my constituents in Saanich North and the Islands. It's partly rural but fairly close to urban centres, and it's still an issue. It's an issue on Saltspring. There are, as I understand it, no doctors taking new patients — and the same on Saanich Peninsula.

I just wanted to quickly read…. This is from Ron Cawthra. Their physician just informed them that they were retiring. "I subsequently e-mailed Terry Lake, VIHA, College of Physicians and Surgeons and the Minister of Health. All gave me the same general response of apology. 'But here's a link to find a physician''' — in caps — "'and hope you find one.' That has proved a bust." So they're finding it difficult.

Other correspondence from a Ms. Sluggett, also saying: "A large number of GPs will be retiring in the next few years — mine in three years, with nobody willing to take over the practice. We already have a serious shortage. Are you going to let it get worse or deal with it now?"

I know this is a work in progress. I know government is doing a number of things to try and address it. But just to let you know — and I felt a responsibility to read some correspondence from my constituents about the issue — it's not astrictly rural issue.

[1520]

I did have one specific question — well, I guess two — in terms of Mr. Cawthra's correspondence. He's indicated that in Duncan there are at least 14 physicians taking on new patients, according to him, and he asked: "Can you explain to me how a community of 5,000 has the availability of health care such as I found for Duncan, and our community of 450,000" — I don't think he's got the population stats quite right but, you know, ballpark — "doesn't have one doctor available?"

There is this issue of distribution. There are the overall ratios that you were describing for British Columbia and for rural areas. But there appear to be distributional issues within even smaller geographies. That's a concern he's pointing out.

He is getting an interview, as he puts it, by a physician. I did have a specific question about that. I don't know if you wanted to make a comment about the distributional concern before. I was curious about this interview. Do GPs get to sort of pick and choose who their patients are? One could understand particular health concerns that might require a specialist or particular expertise. But in general, do GPs get to interview their patients, or is it kind of first come, first served? That's the specific question I had. I don't know if you had a comment about the distributional concern.

Hon. T. Lake: It is a conundrum sometimes when you look at the distribution of primary care. Attempts to address that have been tried. They were tried in the 1990s with MSP billing numbers essentially determined by where you were practising. You didn't get a billing number as a new physician unless you went to an underserviced area of the province, which sounded like a pretty good way to address the distribution problem in the rural recruitment and retention problem. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional.

Physicians are self-regulated professionals. The member is aware of all of the things we have talked about in terms of the changing demographics of the profession, in terms of all of the incentives that we have to try to encourage physicians and other family care practitioners to locate in underserviced areas, but we can't force them to do that.

In terms of picking and choosing patients, we try to encourage patient attachment by changing the fees that are charged so that if you commit to a patient, you get a certain amount of dollars per year for a patient attachment. If you have a patient that has complex needs, you get more to spend more time with that patient than you would someone coming in that's relatively healthy and has a relatively simple problem.

In terms of interviewing patients, it's certainly not something that I would say is endorsed by the Ministry of Health, but we do not directly regulate physicians. They are regulated by the College of Physicians and Surgeons. So that would be a question to take up with the col-
[ Page 4270 ]
lege. Is that a practice that is endorsed by the College of Physicians and Surgeons or not? But as I said, they are self-employed professionals that bill the province for their services, but we do not directly tell them how to practise.

G. Holman: Thanks for the response from the minister. A quick issue I wanted to raise about an opiate prescription in the Saanich Peninsula Hospital resulting in a death — that's something that I would take up with you off line. I don't want to get into the specifics here.

But I had one other question on behalf of our ferries critic, Claire Trevena, who's now in the Ukraine supervising elections. I hope she has a bulletproof vest.

D. Donaldson: It's all good.

G. Holman: Is it all good?

This is regarding the travel assistance program for B.C. Ferries, the TAP program for B.C. Ferries. Several questions. I probably can get them all out, and I suspect you can answer them all. Have there been any recent changes in the TAP program in terms of what it will fund, the funding criteria, eligibility for the kinds of procedures? That's one thing. Have there been any recent changes in the program?

[1525]

The other question, and this is specifically Claire's, is wondering whether, in terms of the…. My understanding is the way it works is that the province — or the Ministry of Health, I guess — reimburses B.C. Ferries when there is a resident using the TAP program. Claire's question, specifically, is whether they are reimbursed at the full fare, which we think is the case, or whether they should be reimbursed with a convenience card, which, of course, would be a lower cost to the ministry.

The concern there if it's full fare reimbursement is that that might result, ultimately, in concerns about costs and maybe ratcheting back the program. That's the second question.

Then, I guess, the third question I have is…. My understanding is that TAP is essentially applied to specialists and special procedures. But, for example, on Salt Spring you've got a situation where there are no physicians taking on new patients. People on Salt Spring — a number of them don't actually have a GP.

So it's not a specialist. Wouldn't it be appropriate for TAP to apply to a GP in a case where a resident on a Gulf Island or any island — any area served by a ferry — didn't have access to a GP on the island?

Three questions there. I hope that's not too confusing.

Hon. T. Lake: I should say that the member that you mentioned, North Island, I'm not allowed to mention her name. I know you aren't either, but that's okay.

It's good to hear that that member is in the Ukraine, along with another member of the opposition, Nelson-Creston. I couldn't get leave to go, but I've been following what's going on in the Ukraine very closely. I wish them safe travels and commend them for their work.

The travel assistance program is to help alleviate some of the transportation costs for eligible B.C. residents who have to travel for non-emergency medical specialist services. That's the design of the program. It was designed back in 1993. It was designed for access to specialists.

Now, exceptions are made for the reasons mentioned by the member, where there is a lack of available primary care. There have been exceptions made to allow them, for primary care. But it must be a genuine request, not just a preference — that you prefer to see a primary care practitioner in one community versus your own community. If there's availability there, then the exception is not allowed.

Having said that, that has caused us to exceed our budget in cases. In 2012-13 the program budget was $8.1 million, but we spent $10.5 million. We've been, I think, very lenient and accommodating, knowing that this is a real challenge for people in remote communities that need to travel by ferry.

In terms of the member's comment on other approaches, certainly, we're always willing to talk to the Ministry of Transportation, but of course, there is only one taxpayer. If the cost is reduced on one side, it's made up on the other. The net benefit to the taxpayer may not be there.

It is an important program, and it is well utilized. The number of approvals increased almost 1 percent between 2012-13 and 2013-14, while increases of expenditures year over year are increasing just over 3 percent. Certainly, it is a program that is helpful, but it comes at a cost that currently exceeds the budget that we have allocated for it.

G. Holman: Thanks to the minister. My apologies to my colleagues for using my colleague's name there.

Just a question, though. Have there been any changes in the funding criteria for the program? I take it not, but I just want that confirmed.

Hon. T. Lake: No change in policy. I think there probably has been a little bit of tightening up on the flexibility that has been allowed in terms of primary care, because this was supposed to be for specialists.

[1530]

[M. Hunt in the chair.]

I think people feel…. I mean, the people that make this decision in the ministry have compassion for the people that they're dealing with. Because of the increase in the expenditures exceeding budget, probably what you're seeing is that they're following the criteria perhaps a little more closely than in the past.
[ Page 4271 ]

D. Donaldson: Thanks to the critic for allowing me a few minutes of time here. I have a question. It's a rural health issue that's related to PharmaCare. There are a couple questions, and I'll roll them into one because I know we're always time constrained, especially in Health estimates.

It's a specific case, but I think it has implications around overall policy. The question will be whether the minister will use resources under this budget, or this fiscal plan that we're considering, to investigate and perhaps rectify the situation.

The specific case is a constituent of Stikine who came to our offices — Jane Petras. She's a widow, and she's on a widow pension, so she qualifies for PharmaCare. She's below the annual income threshold.

She came to us with an interesting situation where she's already paid this year — and this was within a few months of the new calendar year — $700 in payments towards PharmaCare. From what we understand, there's a $525 deductible for PharmaCare as the threshold for her. We were curious as to why…. She brought in her receipts, and she had already paid over this.

With some good legwork my constituency assistants — with the Ministry of Health, who was very responsive — looked into this. What we could decipher is that PharmaCare will accept the manufacturer's cost for the drugs that she has required — or any drugs, I guess, that are on the list — plus an 8 percent markup and a $10 dispensing fee.

I just wanted to confirm with the minister that that was the case. The reason she has paid out of pocket $700 is because she hasn't hit — with the manufacturing cost and the 8 percent markup and the $10 markup — the $525 mark yet. Either the markup is greater than 8 percent or the dispensing fee is greater than 8 percent. She's paying out of pocket for those even though she's spent more than $525, if you get the gist of the situation.

I just want to confirm that the 8 percent and the $10 dispensing fee and the manufacturing cost, as set by PharmaCare, is what's covered. Above 8 percent, if a pharmacy charges that, or if the pharmacy charges above a $10 dispensing fee, then that would be the case where this constituent is actually paying $700, so far, out of her own pocket — because she hasn't hit the $525 at the manufacturing costs, the 8 percent and the $10 fee.

The policy implication for me is that in rural areas there's often not a lot of choice. To me, it's a question of fairness. I certainly don't want to see rural communities losing pharmacy services. In fairness, then, to the rural client, would the minister look into and investigate and perhaps rectify the situation where there isn't a choice in many rural communities and consider elevating those two categories — the 8 percent and the $10 dispensing fee — for circumstances where a person living rurally doesn't have the choice to find other options?

[1535]

The Chair: Minister.

Hon. T. Lake: Thank you, hon. Chair. Welcome to the proceedings. If I may, through you to the member, request when he has finished his questions that we could take a short break, if that's possible.

Back to the question at hand, which is about the deductible that someone would pay. The deductible is based on, as the member mentioned, a maximum $10 dispensing fee and an 8 percent markup on the drug, so that once you reach $525 at those price points, then you would be on a full payment reimbursement.

What the member is outlining is that some pharmacies will charge more than 8 percent as a markup or a higher dispensing fee than $10. This does occur in metropolitan areas, as well, which is why we encourage people to shop around and look at dispensing fees. But the member's point is that someone in a rural area doesn't have that same opportunity for the competitive market.

Now, pharmacies are independent businesses, so we can't force them to charge a certain amount for a dispensing fee. And it's important to note that in order to sustain a business in a rural area, sometimes you have to charge more because your costs are higher. That is one of the challenges of rural B.C., as the member is aware even more than I am.

To try and counter that for rural pharmacies, we have a rural incentive program, which assists low-volume rural pharmacies to continue providing services by paying a subsidy for each prescription dispensed. We try to support rural pharmacies so that they don't have to do this to be sustainable.

I would suggest that perhaps a conversation with the B.C. Pharmacy Association might be in order on the part of the member and his constituent, and certainly, we can have that discussion to outline the concern that the member has pointed out to us today. But as I say, we do try to support rural pharmacies so that they can provide service at a reasonable cost to the residents.

The Chair: And then I will call a recess for a few moments, and we will come back.

The committee recessed from 3:39 p.m. to 3:51 p.m.

[M. Hunt in the chair.]

J. Darcy: I have a question that I think I'll put on the record and ask if you could share it with me in writing, since it would probably take a long time to discuss here. It has to do with health human resource planning. I was pleased to see in the briefing notes that we were able to obtain from last year's estimates a recognition on the part of the ministry that it was time to move beyond silo-based planning for Health human resources.

I certainly recall being part of some of these discus-
[ Page 4272 ]
sions with the ministry going back…. Well, I think it refers here to discussions in 2007-2008 about the need to have a more comprehensive Health human resource strategy that deals with forecasting, training, recruitment and retention across a wide range of health care providers.

I note that in the document prepared for the minister last summer, it talks about physicians, RNs, LPNs, pharmacists, occupational therapists, physiotherapists, medical radiation technologists, medical laboratory technologists, perfusionists and ultrasonographers — to which I would add that there are, no doubt, also issues regarding ambulance paramedics and pharmacy techs and care aides.

But my question is: is there, in fact…? It was identified last summer, and has been identified many years running, the need to have an integrated Health human resource strategy that really projects into the long run. I wonder if the minister can say whether or not such a plan has been developed, and is it something that he can share with the official opposition?

[1555]

Hon. T. Lake: The member makes a very good point about the need to have a comprehensive strategy. And, I think, a reflection of our commitment to a comprehensive approach is the creation of a division within the Ministry of Health called the health sector workforce division. So this division — its responsibility is to develop and implement an integrated health sector workforce strategy, a strategy that's patient-centered, interprofessional and built on a foundation of rigorous research and analysis.

The division's activities will focus on five core areas in support of the ministry's broader strategic priorities for the health care system. The first is workforce planning and management. So that's looking at labour market forecasting and modelling for the health sector in the development and implementation of education and training, as well as recruitment and retention strategies to ensure that the appropriate supply and mix and distribution of health care professionals and support workers meets patient and population needs.

Workforce optimization to provide strategic oversight for the research, design, implementation and evaluation of interprofessional, collaborative and patient-centred care models that will ensure health professionals work to their full scope of practice and meet patient and population health needs in a cost-effective manner. Professional regulation and oversight also falls under this division as well as compensation and negotiations. And importantly, the workforce research and analysis branch under the health sector workforce division will support these strategies with a robust analytical approach to planning and management, looking at all partners in the health sector.

As we go forward with the development of these strategies, we'll be happy to share that information, and I certainly can provide the oversight that I mentioned to the member.

J. Darcy: I'm pleased to hear the minister talk about people working to full scope of practice, because that is certainly something that's absolutely critical to, as the minister has said repeatedly, having the right health care provider for the right patient at the right time and also critical as far as long-term sustainability of our health care system. I think that certainly applies all the way down the line, up the line — however you want to describe the hierarchy that exists in health care. And team-based care and interdisciplinary care are certainly absolutely critical to that as well.

I want to explore a few different areas that relate to health care providers, health human resource issues. I'd like to begin with the recent Attorney General's report on physician services.

Hon. T. Lake: Auditor General?

J. Darcy: Auditor General. Did I say Attorney General? My apologies to the Attorney General and the Auditor General.

Let me first acknowledge what we all believe. That is, that physicians and doctors of all kinds are absolutely essential to our health care system, and they do fabulous work on behalf of patients and communities every day. That's something, as it is with the entire team of health care providers…. It's difficult of course, to determine the value of some of those services in monetary terms because they are invaluable. However, as the minister has said repeatedly and when we've explored various areas of spending, it is the minister's responsibility to manage health care spending, and given the limited amount of funding available for health care and the government's duty to enhance and protect the health care system, obviously the government must make evidence-based decisions as it relates to funding and show good value for money.

The recent Auditor General's report, as the minister knows, found that, in fact, quite the opposite is true. I want to quote from the Auditor General's report. "Overall government does not know if physician services are high quality and offering good value for the money spent. This calls into question government's ability to make informed decisions regarding physician services."

Another quote: "Government does not have a consistent, overall system for assessing and managing physician performance, which is important for identifying training and development needs…."

[1600]

And further:

"Government is also unable to demonstrate that compensation for physician services is offering the best value because it hasn't defined what 'value' or 'cost-effective' mean as it relates to physician services.
[ Page 4273 ]

"In addition, government's current physician compensation models and processes limit the ability to ensure value for money. This is specifically a concern given that the minister is accountable for ensuring the best possible value for taxpayers."

Now, the day that that report was released, the minister said, "I think some of the recommendations there are just not based on reality," which actually conflicted with what the representative of the Doctors of B.C. had said, which was he agreed. He said: "We agree that many of these things not measured should be measured" and "Mr. Jones, the Auditor General, is challenging us to break down silos and work together in the same sandbox."

Does the minister stand by his comments about the AG report and its recommendations, that they're not based in reality? And can the minister explain what the overall philosophy and general policy is that guides the payment and oversight of physician services in British Columbia?

Hon. T. Lake: Context is everything, of course, so taking one sentence out of context certainly can make a point if that is the purpose of the member's comments. I said to the Auditor General when I met him that I thanked him for the report, because it did highlight the difficulty of assessing value for money in health care, particularly when it comes to a self-regulated profession that, by and large, is based on a fee-for-service model.

Some of the recommendations, I said, were extremely difficult to implement under the current system we have. It doesn't mean that we can't work collaboratively with physicians and the College of Physicians and Surgeons and the Doctors of B.C. to investigate ways in which we can evaluate and look at value for money.

That would be good in many professions — nurses, teachers. Wouldn't it be great if we could reward the really good members of a profession and help mentor those that needed assistance in terms of quality and evaluate…?

A Voice: Politicians.

Hon. T. Lake: Yeah, well, politicians get evaluated at every election. But we don't get paid more once we're here, even if we do a really good job.

I agree with the sentiment, and I thanked the Auditor General personally for his report. But it is challenging with a self-regulated profession. That doesn't mean that we're not working with the College of Physicians and Surgeons and the Doctors of B.C. through the physician master agreement. That's an opportunity to look at some of the recommendations and see if we can work towards implementing those through the physician master agreement.

We're also developing a three-year plan of action to refresh our strategic agenda. I mentioned that earlier, the priorities. That's an opportunity there. In fact, in that priorities document we talk about building a clear performance management accountability framework that's built on public reporting and clarity around roles and accountabilities for the ministry, for health authorities, for physicians, nurses and allied health workers. So we are working towards that. Strategy 3 is to enable quality improvement capacity across the system.

I don't want to dismiss the Auditor General's report. But I did certainly say that to go from where we are today to the recommendations that he made in his report is a very, very large leap, and we won't get there in one step. We'll have to evolve and continue to work towards the recommendations and the goals outlined in his report.

J. Darcy: Yesterday when we were talking about hydro rate increases, the minister made a point of saying that they were 0.002 or whatever. But in this case, the physician services, we're talking about 9 percent of the entire provincial budget. Not 9 percent of the Ministry of Health's budget; 9 percent of the entire provincial budget — approximately $4.22 billion. That's billion with a "b." Since 2001 payments for physician services have increased by 88 percent.

[1605]

The Auditor General said: "We found that government is not ensuring that physician services are achieving value for money." This is $4.22 billion for which we cannot determine value for money. How does the minister define value for money in the delivery of physician services?

Hon. T. Lake: An interesting statistic that the member mentioned — that since 2001, an 88 percent increase in compensation to doctors in the province of British Columbia. I noted yesterday that the health care budget has increased more than 100 percent in that time. So you could say that doctor services are disproportionately lower than the other increases in health care and certainly not out of line with other increases, whether they be to nurses, other allied health professionals, administrators — all the other costs that drive our health care system.

We have increased the health care budget over 100 percent since 2001. Physicians have seen an 88 percent increase since 2001 — so below the average for the entire health care system.

There are ways of gauging quality. We know that on a population level B.C. has very high-quality outcomes and very cost-effective health care. We are the second-lowest in per-capita health care spending and yet have among the highest outcomes in all of the country. Citizens here live longer, have better cancer survival rates, lowest heart attack rates. That is, I think, indicative of the great work of not only doctors but of nurse practitioners, nurses, other allied health care professionals and the delivery of health services. But certainly doctors are a big component of that, so I think they certainly can take their share of credit for achieving those very, very positive health outcomes.
[ Page 4274 ]

J. Darcy: The Auditor General was very, very forceful in saying — and making one of his key recommendations — that it is absolutely essential to improve accountability and oversight over these payments and that it is the Minister of Health's responsibility, surely, to ensure oversight of all health spending, including spending on physician services.

So my question to the minister is: what will be done differently in the next budget cycle to ensure that there is greater accountability and to ensure that the minister is able, in the future, to say, "This is the value for money that is being achieved" in light of the Auditor General's report?

Hon. T. Lake: First of all, I'd love to find the jurisdiction that has the complete answer to this challenge, because British Columbia is not unique. Most western countries rely on a fee-for-service model — not all, but a lot of them do. Switching from a fee-for-service model into an alternative payment model, with performance goals incorporated is, as I said, a very large leap. We certainly could not impose that on physicians in British Columbia. We have to work with them to get to there.

Let me just outline some of the strategies and responses to the Auditor General's recommendation and again thank the Auditor General for this work. I think it does point to one of the weaknesses of a system that has evolved very little since the 1960s, when medicare came into force in Canada. It points to the need for us to challenge some of the dogma that has been in place in health care.

Recommendations 1 and 2. "Government's three-year plan will include a clear performance management accountability framework built on public reporting and…a clear understanding of roles, responsibilities and accountabilities of…individuals and organizations involved in the delivery of health services." I mentioned that earlier. We will work on physician performance management through the Physician Quality Assurance Steering Committee that we have with the physicians.

Recommendation 3. Government will collaborate with Doctors of B.C. on a new relationship agreement with physicians — this is the physician master agreement — that will include consideration of new models for physician compensation that are patient-centred and focused on clinical outcomes.

Recommendation 4. Government will work in consultation with the health authorities and Doctors of B.C. to re-energize alternative funding mechanisms and better utilize existing processes for the review of physician fees. Alternative funding mechanisms are a way of paying physicians not based on each service that they perform but, essentially, for a basket of services or time.

[1610]

Recommendation 5. Government will develop "a provincial engagement, influence and accountability framework in collaboration with health authorities, professional associations and unions to support an inclusive, vibrant and healthy workplace."

I've mentioned to the nurses association that we met with recently — psychiatric nurses, nurses and nurse practitioners — that we look forward to working with them on those strategies.

Recommendation 6. We are building on the efforts of groups such as Physician Quality Assurance Steering Committee to review legislation and regulations so that we can modernize health service legislation to reflect current and future directions for physician and health services delivery.

We certainly have plans to respond to all of the recommendations. It will be an evolutionary process, but I know from our discussions with the Doctors of B.C. that they are eager to make some progress as well.

J. Darcy: To the minister: you mentioned fee-for-service and an alternate payment plan. I wonder if the minister could provide a breakdown out of that $4.2 billion that goes for physician services. Can you say what percentage is fee-for-service — that is, volume-based — and what percentage is salary or other forms of an alternate payment plan?

Hon. T. Lake: The Medical Services Plan, according to this document, totals $3.982 billion. Of that, $2.4 billion goes for fee-for-service. Roughly 55 or 56 percent is on a fee-for-service.

There are different types of payments, apart from fee-for-service. I'll just give a couple of examples. Alternative payments we've talked about. MOCAP is to ensure that specialists, in particular, are available on call for hospitals.

There are supplementary benefits. There are the rural health programs, midwifery services, nurse practitioner integration and a whole host of other things. But by far, the bulk, the largest basket, is the fee-for-service basket, followed by alternative payments.

J. Darcy: Can the minister please speak to what are the trends in this proportion compared to previous years? Is fee-for-service growing as a percentage of physician services, compared to alternate payment plans? What is the planned distribution for the coming year, and will it be different from previous payments?

[1615]

Hon. T. Lake: Just a point of clarity. When we talk about the Medical Services Plan, we've got fee-for-service and then a lot of the other categories. I just wanted to mention that one of the large categories that we do have…. We mentioned alternative payments. Laboratory services: $318 million. This is billed by doctors, but, of course, it essentially is billed on behalf of the laboratory company that employs the physicians. It doesn't go dir-
[ Page 4275 ]
ectly to physicians working for labs. I wanted to make that point clear, otherwise I'll get some angry e-mails.

In 2013-14 fee-for-service was about $2.4 billion. We expect that in 2014-15 it will be $2.48 billion — so a growth rate which is going from 2.4 to 2.48. I can't do the quick math, but I understand that the entire MSP is growing at a rate of about 2.3 percent. Fee-for-service is about 60 percent of that. There doesn't appear to be a definitive trend over a two-year period, but two points, of course, don't indicate a trend. We'd have to go back further, and I don't have those earlier figures to compare. Happy to do that to see if there is in fact a trend away from fee-for-service.

I can tell you that things like MOCAP, for instance, didn't exist 15 years ago. It's relatively new. Certainly when I talk to physicians — and this, again, is anecdotal — there tends to be a greater interest in working on alternative payment rather than a fee-for-service model.

I'd be happy to go back in time and see if there are any trends and can supply that to the member at a later date.

J. Darcy: Yes, I would very much appreciate that. You don't lose me on many acronyms, Minister, but that last one — MOCAP?

Hon. T. Lake: Apologies. That's the medical on-call availability program — again, ensuring that specialists are available 24-7.

J. Darcy: One of these days, maybe, I'll get the minister on an acronym. We live in hope.

You clarified about laboratory services. The briefing note from last summer that speaks to alternative payment plan talks about the alternative payment plan budget for 2012-2013 being approximately 11 percent of the Minister of Health's medical services program budget. I wonder if you could…. You've said 55 percent fee-for-service. Could you break down the other percentages in there that add up to 100 percent?

[1620]

Hon. T. Lake: I'll give you our 2014-15. That's the year that we're in at the moment. Our Medical Services Plan budget is $4,061,800,000. Fee-for-service comprises $2,488,900,000. That's 61.3 percent. The next largest category would be alternative payments at $449.3 million, or 11.1 percent. Laboratory services, $334.9 million, or 8.2 percent.

Then that would be followed by General Practice Services Committee payments, $269.8 million, or 6.6 percent. Again, this is a committee with the Doctors of B.C. that is used to help educate, train and incent physicians in general practice.

I mentioned the medical on-call availability program, $130.7 million. That's 3.2 percent. Then it would be the physician benefits plan, $105 million, or 2.6 percent. Supplementary benefits, $77.7 million, 1.9 percent. That makes all the significant contributors. The rest are less than or about 1 percent of the MSP costs.

J. Darcy: The minister spoke earlier about more and more physicians wanting to seek alternative ways of practising and more and more team-based care. Certainly, medical students that I've had the opportunity to speak with, coming out of UBC or wherever, are more and more attracted. And the medical students who came to visit me and, I think, visited the minister a month or so ago — certainly, part of their training and their desire, as well, is to be involved far more in interdisciplinary care teams.

I wonder if we could just pursue the alternate payment plan a little further. Do you have a breakdown of what percentage of those physicians practising alternative payment plan are in primary care? I know that there are a number that are in a number of very specialized fields, including the B.C. Cancer Agency, and being able to help to develop centres of excellence. Anyway, it varies — oncology, emergency room, psychiatry, pediatrics, and so on. I wonder if you have the breakdown for the APP.

Hon. T. Lake: We don't have the breakdown of how many primary care physicians are on alternative payments versus specialists or hospitalists, who are physicians who work in hospitals. It's interesting. I've had those same conversations. Younger physicians certainly seem interested in a team-based model and an alternative payment plan.

[1625]

I've had some interesting discussions with doctors, though, in terms of fee-for-service and the arguments for fee-for-service in terms of value for money. Certainly, the argument is made that a fee-for-service model will allow more patients to be seen. There's incentive to see more patients, which is a good thing and a bad thing, as we know, if the number of patients seen is too much and not enough time is spent with each patient.

This is why we've worked with the Doctors of B.C. to institute billing codes which reflect the needs of the patient, in many cases. For someone, as I mentioned earlier, that has complex health care needs, the physician would be reimbursed at a higher rate, encouraging them to spend a longer period of time. We have a telephone consultation fee that allows physicians to have more contact with their patients in terms of continuity of care.

There are arguments both for and against fee-for-service, for sure. I think we need to explore all these opportunities to get the best service for our patients, and that may be a hybrid of alternative payments and fee-for-service.

Capitation is one model that's been looked at. Certainly, we do have some form of capitation in that after so many patients, the fee for seeing a patient is reduced. That way, we encourage physicians to see a reasonable number of
[ Page 4276 ]
patients each day.

You will hear physicians say that the alternative payment is not as value-for-money as a fee-for-service because there are just not enough patients seen on a per-day basis. There are arguments both for and against.

We don't need a one-size-fits-all. We need a system that is flexible, that does reflect the needs of patients. Primary health care on alternative payment, for instance, with a team approach, as the member has alluded to, is certainly advantageous when you're dealing with complex, vulnerable populations. That's where they have their greatest strength.

J. Darcy: Well, I was not initiating a debate at this particular moment. I'm surprised, though, that it's not possible to get a breakdown of how many of the physicians who work on an alternative payment plan work in acute care hospitals, for instance, or in B.C. Children's, B.C. Cancer, as opposed to primary care.

I'm a bit puzzled. Can the minister explain why that information is impossible to get? Is it just not gathered at this time? If it's not gathered at this time, will the minister undertake to gather that kind of analysis?

Hon. T. Lake: I didn't say that it was impossible to gather. I said I didn't have it available. Certainly, we'll make an effort to get that information for the member.

[M. Bernier in the chair.]

When you look at alternative payment programs, there's a mix of funding. Health authorities are responsible for some of that funding, and the MSP is responsible for others. We certainly can work at trying to get that breakdown for the member.

J. Darcy: I certainly would appreciate that, Minister, if you can provide that. It seems to me that it could be valuable from many perspectives about how we go forward in health care in British Columbia.

The minister talked about health authorities, and so on. I have a couple of further questions related to alternative payment plan funding.

I understand that the ministry provides commitment letters to health authorities regarding annual alternate payment plan funding. Then the ministry enters into funding agreements with health authorities to further specify service objectives that are aligned with the government's strategic health care objectives.

I wonder: could the minister please explain what the Minister of Health's alternative payment plan commitment is to each health authority?

[1630]

Hon. T. Lake: The alternative payments plan contract and sessional budget allocations are distributed as follows. I should say that contract and sessional are two different categories. A contract is, essentially, purchasing a service from physicians — a block of services, if you like — whereas sessional is looking at time. Or have I got that backwards? Sessional is a block of time, and contract is a block of services. I think I did have that correct.

For Fraser Health Authority, just under $40 million — $39.98 million to be exact. Interior Health Authority is $24.74 million. Northern Health Authority….

Interjection.

Hon. T. Lake: Oh, sorry. I beg your pardon.

Fraser Health is $39.98 million. IHA is $24.74 million. Northern Health is $18 million. Provincial Health Services Authority is $146.41 million, and that, again, is representative of the specialized services of the PHSA. Vancouver Coastal and Providence Health together are $113.23 million — again, a lot of specialized services that are provided by that health authority. Vancouver Island Health Authority is $45.6 million. And others are $13.54 million, and others include: Nisga'a Valley Health Authority, Inspire Health, University of British Columbia, Ministry of Children and Family Development, Ministry of Justice and Community Living B.C. commitments. That's for a grand total of $401.5 million.

J. Darcy: Just one other question in this area. I understand that health authorities have to ensure that the arrangements that they enter into with physicians are both compliant with the physician master agreement as well as the ministry policies and directives applicable to APP, alternative payment plan, funding. Could the minister please explain what these policies and directives are that the health authorities must comply with?

Hon. T. Lake: The policy is available on the ministry website, so it is a public document. As the member mentioned, it has to be in line with the physician master agreement, and that's mostly around sort of the price of the service.

[1635]

The policies include such things as reporting requirements that the health authorities have to follow and the way in which they classify physicians according to the credentials of the physician as well as administrative mechanisms that are required. And as I mentioned, that is a public document available on the ministry website.

J. Darcy: If we could move on and talk about nurse practitioners. I don't know if that involves a shift change or not or if the team is in place.

My first question. I wonder if the minister could provide the most current number that he has of nurse practitioners in British Columbia.
[ Page 4277 ]

Hon. T. Lake: We canvassed this earlier, but I'd be happy to repeat that currently there are 252 nurse practitioners registered with the College of Registered Nurses of B.C.

J. Darcy: I understand, from discussions with nurse practitioners and also from some of the minister's own documents, that nurse practitioners continue to encounter some significant barriers to practise and that there are important numbers of them — I'd be interested to know what percentage of them — who are not actually practising in their profession but are practising in other ways in health care. I wonder if the minister could indicate how many of the 252 registered nurse practitioners are presently practising. Or is that, in fact, the number?

Hon. T. Lake: I mentioned there were 252 nurse practitioners. I think earlier I said that was the number. Those are actually nurse practitioners that are in the family category of nurse practitioners. There are three categories of NPs that are recognized: family, adult and pediatric. As of January of this year, we have 285 practising or provisionally licensed NPs — 252 family, 23 adult and ten pediatric.

[1640]

The college of nurse practitioners provides the information about who is practising or who is licensed. Some of those NPs may not be currently practising, and we don't have that information available to us. If someone leaves the profession or moves out of the province, they don't necessarily notify the Ministry of Health. But the information we have is that the vast majority of those nurse practitioners are in practice here in B.C.

J. Darcy: I'd like to ask the minister if he could please discuss some of the barriers to a nurse practitioner's practice in British Columbia. His briefing documents from last year refer to key policy issues that need to be resolved, including: how will they be funded in the future? What are the best models of care for utilizing nurse practitioners? Also, the most consistently cited barrier to full nurse practitioner implementation is the lack of funding. I wonder if the minister could speak to that.

I know that one of the barriers that I've heard from both physicians and nurse practitioners…. I mean, there are issues about being able to establish their own practice, to be hired by health authorities, but also for physicians to bring them into their practices, because while they are increasingly encouraged to do so, there is no overhead provided for those nurse practitioners. Therefore, it creates an additional burden for a physician's practice. I wonder if the minister could speak to those barriers and what steps he thinks are needed to overcome them.

Hon. T. Lake: Well, as the member is aware, we have done a lot of work to ensure that nurse practitioners can practice to their full scope. This session we have addressed some of the issues in the nurse practitioners statutes amendment act, as well as other amendments, to allow nurse practitioners to increase their scope of practice and break down some of the legislative barriers that were there in terms of their duties.

In terms of the funding, we have dedicated $190 million, I believe the figure is — I'm just going to double-check that — for the nurse practitioners for B.C. program. Sorry, it was 190 nurse practitioners that will be funded under that program over three years. We have had two rounds of the nurse practitioners for B.C. program, and there's one more that is shortly going to be rolled out. This allows nurse practitioners to be paid and working in health authorities, including First Nations communities as well.

And 45 proposals were approved in the first round. Fourteen of those support primary care for First Nations. Forty-two FTEs were approved in the second round, ten of which support primary care for First Nations. Again, we're waiting for that third call. To date I think 89 new FTEs have been approved, 24 of which support First Nations communities. So we have had the funding there in the nurse practitioners for B.C. program.

What we want to do over the longer term is represented in our strategy document, Setting Priorities for the British Columbia Health System — that is, to have health authorities look at primary and community care to relieve the pressure on acute care. By doing so, that will enable them to take resources that would have to be used up in the acute care system and free up some of those resources by taking the pressure off the acute care system so that they can dedicate those resources to the primary and community care systems.

There is direction and policy that guides health authorities to a stronger primary and community health care system, which would of course include, importantly, the use of nurse practitioners.

J. Darcy: The policy that the minister is referring to is the priorities for health care, the February 2014 document? Yes? The minister is nodding. I know that there were some changes made that affected scope of practice in the current legislative session.

[1645]

There were also a number of other areas that I know the B.C. Nurse Practitioner Association has raised with the minister and that I raised with the minister in the course of the debate on — was it Bill 7? — the miscellaneous statutes amendment act that included the amendments to various acts that govern practice for nurse practitioners. They certainly feel, and I think that they make a good case, that there are several other areas in which nurse practitioners could be employed.

I don't know if the minister is familiar with stats from other parts of the country, but I did a bit of checking last night. There are roughly 3,600 nurse practitioners in
[ Page 4278 ]
Canada. While we are making progress, we have about 8 percent of the nurse practitioners in Canada — with about 15 percent of the population, I would guesstimate.

In various other provinces we see nurse practitioners…. For instance, in Ontario, which has about 60 percent of the nurse practitioners in the country, a very significant number are working in primary care, and also, a very significant number working in acute care hospitals, including the emergency room.

I wonder if the minister could speak to plans for the future that would see an expanded use of nurse practitioners in each of those different areas of health care, from acute care to residential care to community health centres. In Ontario there are even some nurse practitioner–led clinics that I think that the minister would be interested in.

Hon. T. Lake: We certainly want to look to other jurisdictions for best practices. There are nurse practitioners operating in the acute care system. There is reason to believe that that could be expanded, so we will look at opportunities where those are available.

Nurse practitioners are relatively new to the province of British Columbia. I believe the first class graduated in 2005. It was this government that introduced training of nurse practitioners and has expanded it from 30 nurse practitioners graduating each year to 45.

When we look back to the 1990s, there were no nurse practitioners being trained and less than half of the number of doctors being trained. If we had been training nurse practitioners and added seats to the physician training in that decade, we would have 1,000 more doctors in the province of British Columbia and quite a few additional nurse practitioners.

We have expanded greatly. This government has recognized the value of nurse practitioners. We support their practice, and that's evidenced by the changes we have made and the NP4BC program. We certainly will look at opportunities, going forward, for increased use of nurse practitioners in all kinds of settings, primary care as well as acute care — residential care as well.

J. Darcy: Just one last question regarding nurse practitioners. Can the minister provide a breakdown of the various sectors within health care — the percentage of nurse practitioners working in each of the different sectors within health care?

[1650]

Hon. T. Lake: We did talk about this earlier. We can talk about the number of nurse practitioners that have been allocated to the regional health authorities in the nurse practitioners for B.C. program, but we don't have a breakdown to that level of detail of all of the nurse practitioners and the environments in which they're practising.

J. Darcy: Sorry, perhaps I missed that. My apologies. You said that you can do it according to health authority? Did you do that breakdown earlier? If you did, I apologize. But if not, if you could provide it at this time.

Hon. T. Lake: My apologies for the time to find the information. I'll just talk initially about the NP4BC program. This is the program we've talked about where two rounds have been filled, and now we're filling the third round. The Interior Health Authority has been allocated 18 of those positions; Fraser Health Authority, 30; Northern Health Authority, 15; Providence Health Care, six; PHSA, ten; 22 for Vancouver Coastal; and 21 for Vancouver Island Health Authority. That's specifically to the health authorities for the NP4BC program.

There was a survey of nurse practitioner practice patterns that was recently completed in January of this year by the University of Victoria, by the Michael Smith Foundation for Health Research, which, of course, is supported by the ministry. That survey shows that of 89 nurse practitioners that responded, 55 percent are practising in a metropolitan area, 23 percent in towns less than 10,000 and 22 percent in towns 10,000 to 100,000.

[1655]

If we look at the practice settings, again, of those respondents, which is not a bad return rate and so probably a pretty good reflection of the practice, in community and primary health care we had 50. That represented 56 percent of the respondents. In an ambulatory clinic or outpatient department, we had 13, which represented 14 percent of the respondents; in a physician's office, ten, which was 11 percent; aboriginal health centre, ten, which was 11 percent; hospital in-patient — and this is the acute care setting the member was referring to — ten, which represents 11 percent.

Long-term-care facility — residential care — seven, which represents 8 percent; emergency department, five, equivalent to 6 percent; public health, five, again about 6 percent; home care, three, which represents about 3 percent; and outpost nursing health centres — a rural station — three, which represents 3 percent of the respondents.

If you look at the members of the health care team that are co-located with a nurse practitioner, 88 percent of them were medical office assistants, 73 percent were physicians, 57 percent registered nurses, 39 percent social workers, 39 percent dieticians, 25 percent pharmacists, 24 percent physiotherapists, 22 percent LPNs 18 percent occupational therapists, 9 percent paramedics and 1 percent midwives. There were three midwives.

Hopefully, that gives a reflection, hon. Member, of the distribution of practice.

J. Darcy: Yes, and thank you to the minister. I gave up scribbling because, as the Chair reminded me, it will be in Hansard. All the figures you were referring to are from the Michael Smith Foundation? Okay.
[ Page 4279 ]

I have one last question. Several MLAs are chomping at the bit to ask their questions.

I had the opportunity — I think just last week, in the week when we weren't here — to meet with a group of internationally educated nurses who came to see me in my constituency office. They came from different parts of the world and had all come here with the appropriate papers, understanding that they were coming to apply to be nurses in British Columbia.

My understanding is that when they apply, there is a set of requirements that the College of Registered Nurses of B.C. sets out. It could include a number of courses, including on-line courses, as well as a 250-hour clinical placement — a practicum, in other words.

Certainly, they have all of these internationally educated nurses. They've formed a group, and they've got a Facebook page, and they're working together to advocate for themselves.

These nurses had all done the on-line credits, the courses that they needed to take. But the big challenge they encounter is when it comes time to do their clinical placement, their practicum. Essentially, they all have to go through Kwantlen College, and there appear to be far too many to be able to be placed.

There will be 40 who apply to Kwantlen College in one term. Kwantlen, which is, I gather, the university through which the placements occur, was only able to take a limited number — in this case, ten out of the 40. The principle reason that's given is that many hospitals aren't taking on nurses in practicum positions, either because the nurses are new — and therefore not in a position to be the more experienced nurses who can train newer nurses — or because they say their workload is too great to be able to do this.

It appears from what these internationally educated nurses explained to me that this left over…. There is a growing wait-list, so to speak. Out of the 40 who applied, 30 — even though they completed everything else — were not able to be placed. That's 30 left over out of one intake, potentially, of 40, and then there's a backlog.

[1700]

In some cases they have been here for a considerable period of time. Their money is running out. Their ability to stay in the country is running out. They would have to leave and then come back and reapply. It's very costly for them in some cases. One single mum had relocated with three kids. But a key issue appears to be this issue of lack of sufficient spaces for clinical placement for their practicums. Therefore, this backlog continues to grow.

I wonder if the minister is aware of this issue. I will write to the minister, and I will share with him all of the information that these internationally educated nurses shared with me. But I wanted to take the opportunity of estimates to flag this issue with the minister and see if he's able to give a response at this time. Otherwise, I will follow up with him subsequently.

[J. Sturdy in the chair.]

Hon. T. Lake: Internationally educated health professionals are a critical component of our health care workforce in British Columbia. Without them, we would have difficulty meeting the demands of the health care system.

Just for context, when we look at physicians, 29.5 percent of physicians are internationally educated. When we look at pharmacists, it's 8.2 percent. When we look at registered nurses, 15.2 percent. So it's a large number. Licensed practical nurses, 2.4 percent. Registered psychiatric nurses, 13.4 percent. We depend…. When we look at LPNs and registered nurses, there is a large percentage that are internationally educated. Without them, we would have difficulty filling the gaps.

Our ministry has recognized this challenge that the member has identified, and that is the clinical placements. They're competing with Canadian-trained nurses, and health authorities have to enable the clinical placement of both domestically and internationally trained nursing students.

[1705]

As part of our health workforce division and our health human resources planning strategy, we will be looking at the continuum of education, from graduation through clinical placement through continuing education while in the profession, in order to have that comprehensive approach.

I'm happy to follow up with the member in the future on this issue, but it is flagged by the ministry as an issue of concern and something that we will be addressing through our health workforce division.

J. Darcy: Yes, I appreciate that, Minister. I will put in writing everything that they explained to me. Certainly, they are eager for me to get back in touch with them and let them know. They are literally people who are in the country with the expectation that they were going to be able to take their coursework and have their practicums so that they could work here. Their futures, of course, are riding on it.

I see that we have a couple of MLAs who have joined us — the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant and then the member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

J. Kwan: I only have ten minutes, so I'm going to get right to it.

I'd like to ask the minister some questions that relate and cross over to the CLBC ministry. This is a crossover where clients are needing services between both ministries, and there is a bit of transition related to that. This might be a bit complicated, and if I don't get all the answers today, that's okay. I can get that from the minister afterwards in writing. I just want to get the questions on the record.

These questions were put to the minister for CLBC, and because it crosses over, I want to bring it here to the minister as well. It relates to the collaborative service delivery model, and the issue here is this. Individuals
[ Page 4280 ]
have written to me, and they say that their families and other families affected need to know why their children's combined CLBC health funding, using the 2010 collaborative guide process, results in consistently less funding than what their children would be entitled to if they were strictly a Health-only, high-intensity-needs client.

Just to quote a passage that some of the families have written, they say:

"The impact of this so-called collaborative service delivery is that our children do not now have equal access to health care and/or the community living services that they're entitled to. Families are left with the full weight and negative results of their children being discriminated against solely because they have a developmental disability in addition to their high-intensity health care needs.

"CLBC and VIHA's failure to develop formalized policies and procedures as outlined in the 2010 collaborative guidelines have resulted in funding allocations being subjective and arbitrary. Why would CLBC, being the designated case coordinator for collaborative service delivery, develop and allow for contracts for their already marginalized contracts that blatantly discriminate against them in the provision of services?"

As you can see, these are the issues that cross over to CLBC but have a significant part of it, I think, involving the Health Ministry as well.

In a separate correspondence the families have been advised that the guidelines for the collaborative service delivery is work that is underway. It is documented that CLBC and VIHA used to discuss, manage and implement plans when joint funding is required to address health concerns and that at this time there are no plans to develop specific policies or procedures with VIHA, given that the services for adults with developmental disabilities committee is working across government to improve supports to the people CLBC serves.

This includes ongoing discussion at the provincial level about collaborative service delivery with the Ministry of Health, and this work may impact other policies and so on.

Related to that, aside from the funding issue, I'm also wondering: when will this work be completed? At what stage could the community actually receive these guidelines so that they have clarity on what they can expect from the ministry per the guidelines for the families? I'm going to park that one and then segue right into another round of questions for the minister, because I'm pressed for time.

[1710]

Related to this is the issue around elimination of a health care program that used to be funded by the Ministry of Health. Again, it ties into CLBC. It is a program where the Health Ministry used to train family members in nursing functions, such as tube feeding, seizure management and so on.

That program is now gone, and a lot of these families are really stuck in a difficult situation. Their children are, for all purposes, being institutionalized, usually in a hospital setting at a much higher cost to the taxpayers, because they don't have the knowledge base to provide the supports that they need for their children with developmental disabilities at home, amongst other things. But that is also a core issue.

I'm wondering if the minister will work across ministries with the minister of CLBC to try to come up with some solution on that. I think it would be in everybody's best interest if we could find some way. Whichever ministry provides that support, I don't really care, as long as someone does so that the families have the capacity to meet their needs in that vein. I'm going to leave that with the minister as another question.

This is the third round of questions that we raised last time. I'm happy to provide all of this to the minister in writing afterwards, if we need to do that. From the last set of ministry estimates, I raised the issue of photo ID and the B.C. Services Card. I brought these questions first to the Minister of Transportation, thinking that it was ICBC. Then, of course, the minister advised that it was actually the Minister of Health who is responsible. So again, there's some crossover because of this complication of how the photo IDs are being provided.

Since that time, I have actually gone out into the community. In my office we have met with lots of folks, advocates and individuals, who ran into problems with ID. These issues range from ICBC no longer accepting photo ID from MSDSI files, as an example, creating problems for individuals in the provision of ID. And of course, there's a question as to why that would be and why there is that change.

Birth certificate costs and process. As the minister could well anticipate, it costs a lot of money for people to get their ID replaced. While there is a fee waiver that some people can access from time to time, that's actually not widely known. Therefore, a lot of low-income and marginalized individuals would find it really difficult to access their ID.

I'm wondering whether or not the ministry could find a way for low-income constituents to access assistance for paying the cost of replacing birth certificates, such as through an MSDSI supplemental grant — or to remove this barrier to obtaining this form of primary proof of ID to allow people to obtain a photo B.C. Services Card. That would be the component that falls into this ministry in relation to that.

Another issue that's been identified is the non-Canadian-born B.C. residents. They actually face huge challenges when attempting to replace their photo ID, again particularly if they are low income as well. The question that I have for the minister is: ICBC has had the option of opting into an electronic system that would verify the validity of these certificates, so why was this option not used, then, in the past or now, as one measure to verify identification — whether or not, through this system that the ministry is administering, it would actually allow for that?

There's also another question related to that, of course.
[ Page 4281 ]
It's on individuals changing from their maiden names to married surnames. That creates yet another layer of problems in terms of accessing ID as well. I have a whole bunch of other commentaries from constituents and advocates related to ID, which I have listed here in a document for the minister to consider.

I won't go on to read all the issues on the public record here. But what I'll do is pass this document to the minister that lists all these issues. I have even created a chart and a table of some of the samplings of the problems related to ID, for the minister's review and his staff's review.

[1715]

I wonder if the minister, then, after reviewing this documentation and letters, will commit to have staff engage in a discussion with my office and myself to see how we can work through the process of resolving ID problems for very many individuals in our community.

Last but not least is an actual case that I want to bring to the minister's attention. This has to do with a family who had left Bella Coola because they were in need of cancer treatment here in the Lower Mainland. They weren't able to access that treatment. That's why they were being sent down here. They left their home and packed up their five kids to come down here.

In that process they were able to access some support from the ministry for the expenses that they had incurred, but since then those dollars have run out. They are now staying at the father's sister's place. In that place they've run into all kinds of problems, not the least of which is, of course, the place is infested with bedbugs, so there have been fumigation issues that had to take place.

But the most important issue is that the family now needs to be out of this suite that they're sharing with the father's sister for two more days. Otherwise, they would face an eviction from B.C. Housing because they're now overhoused in that unit.

I won't go on, because now I'm getting a note to tell me to sit down and pass the floor to someone else. But I want to pass this case to the minister, if he would commit to looking into it and finding a way to work on this with the Minister of Housing and the Minister of Social Development to help the family. If she doesn't get housing for her family, she's going to have to abandon her treatment to go back to Bella Coola. Without getting the cancer treatment, of course…. I can't imagine what that option would be like for the family. Can I just get a confirmation, please?

Hon. T. Lake: I will be happy to follow up on all of the issues that she has brought forward. Just to say that the situation of someone having to travel to an area of specialization for services is not an unusual challenge in a province like British Columbia, where we have huge distances and a sparse population. I have great sympathy for a family that faces this challenge. It is a challenge that is faced by many families throughout British Columbia. We do provide some travel assistance. We talked about that program a little bit earlier.

There are certainly communities that rally around individuals facing these challenges. It is not government policy to provide living arrangements for families in this situation, although we certainly try and work with MLAs that are passionately working on behalf of their constituents to look at all avenues of government programs to assist.

I'll certainly be happy to take a look at the case and give a response.

D. Eby: Two of my constituents, Kerstin and Jens Locher, have written to my office with a proposal that they have for a pregnancy and infant loss awareness day. The Lochers have had a very sad experience with losing an infant, and they wish to turn that sorrow and grief into some positive action, both from a public health perspective, educating people about ways in which they can minimize the risk of miscarriage and sudden infant death, and also as a compassionate outreach to parents that have been in this scenario.

They propose the day of October 15, 2014. I've written to the minister with their correspondence, and I'm hopeful that the minister on the record today will confirm that he's willing to look at having the government officially declare October 15 pregnancy and infant loss awareness day so that the Lochers can move forward in their efforts to educate the public about this very serious and important issue.

Hon. T. Lake: Certainly, our hearts go out to any family that suffers through such a loss, and we are always willing to work with people that are helping educate and make people aware of the concerns, the dangers and steps that we all can take to prevent such loss.

[1720]

We'll be happy to work with the member's constituents and go through the process of evaluating. In the vast majority of cases, these types of proclamations are approved and do help to spread awareness. So we'd be happy to look at this particular one.

M. Karagianis: I have three questions. They're all pretty straightforward. I'll list them off and give the minister a chance to respond.

The first question, and I've asked the minister this before, is with regard to the View Royal women's clinic, an abortion clinic that has requested an increase in the bubble zone around the clinic. Their request is supported by VIHA, now Island Health. I'd like to know what the status is of granting an increase in the bubble zone around this clinic.

As the minister will know — I'll remind him — there have been some pretty aggressive protests around there. I've heard complaints from neighbours in the area as well as women accessing services from that clinic — not all abortions, of course. Many other services, including….
[ Page 4282 ]
Failed pregnancies and other things are treated at that clinic. The bubble zone really is needed, and it is supported by Island Health.

The second issue I would like to ask the minister about is the very hot topic of parking fees at Victoria General Hospital in my constituency. The parking fee issue is a hot issue because many people go there, end up spending a longer time in emergency or with treatments or with family crises and things, and are, first of all, paying exorbitant fees and then are being fined — or other. So there has been a lot of concern, and I think there has been a plea forwarded to the ministry about doing something about these kinds of fees.

And then the third one. I've had numerous constituents continue to contact my office about their inability to access a family doctor. I just wanted to get an update on the status of A GP for Me. I've had a presentation about that.

Am I repeating a question that's already been asked? I'm sorry if I am. I wasn't in the earlier question. It'll be easy to answer if you've already answered it once.

Just the status so I can reassure my constituents as to what the future options are for them.

[1725]

Hon. T. Lake: The member and I have had this discussion about bubble zones. This is a balance that government has to strike between freedom of expression and protection of providers and patients, obviously. I have sympathy if patients or providers are feeling endangered.

Historically with the View Royal facility we have not seen that escalation where we would be concerned about patient or provider safety. That is the reason that we have not acted to increase the bubble zone at this time. Again, it's a balance between freedom of expression and….

I've seen this in communities around the province — recently in Kelowna on the weekend, actually. I know this type of activity that the member is speaking of and certainly would want to ensure that patients and providers are protected. If we do find that there is any type of escalation, as we have seen in other areas of the province — in the Lower Mainland, for instance — then action can be taken to address that.

In terms of parking fees, this is always an interesting one for the Minister of Health, and Ministers of Health across Canada deal with parking issues. I know it's very stressful when you are going to the hospital for an appointment or to visit someone. First of all, to find parking — that can be a challenge. It certainly is a challenge in my home community, which is why we're working on that problem with the capital plan at the moment. And then secondly, to pay parking fees, especially if you go over and get a ticket — that's even more stressful.

Again, it's this balance between providing available parking…. There's nothing worse, when you need to get to a hospital to see someone or to have a service provided, than finding there is no parking available. Without parking charges, this would be a real problem. Particularly in more metropolitan areas where there is a demand for parking, if you reduce the parking rate below the market rate, you will find people parking there that aren't using the hospital, that work close by and will use that as the lowest-cost alternative.

I know that the member is familiar with the strategy of parking meters in downtown places. It's not about revenue as much as it's about available parking, because if you don't charge, the places get filled and blocked, and they don't get turnover.

Again, it's that balance between availability and affordability. If you don't go at the market rate, you will find the availability decreases, unless, of course, you put extra dollars into enforcement, and those extra dollars can only come from one place, and that's front-line care.

I, again, have sympathy, because we've all been there. But this is not a priority for the Health Ministry. Because we are striking that balance, that is essential, and we don't want to take dollars from health care front-line services to support the enforcement that would be needed if the parking rates weren't at market.

In terms of primary care and the GP for Me program, this has been a very successful program. The three pilot communities — Prince George, Cowichan…. And the last one has run out of my head immediately. We saw over 9,000 patients become attached to physicians through the GP for Me program. This is a program funded by the Ministry of Health and is a partnership with the Doctors of B.C. It helps support what are called divisions of family practice. So in Victoria there's a Victoria division of family practice as well as a south Island division of family practice.

[1730]

It brings primary care practitioners together, working with other stakeholders, and the money that comes from the ministry-funded program supports the hiring of staff to support the work of the divisions.

They go through, first of all, an assessment and planning process, and both the South Island and Victoria divisions are at that stage. Then they move into the next stage, which is where they incorporate what they've learned from the assessment and planning activities. In my home community of Kamloops, the Thompson Division of Family Practice is undergoing this at the moment.

As I mentioned, we've had tremendous success in the three pilot communities. Now it's rolling out across the province and I think will result in greater attachment of patients, greater continuity of care and better outcomes for patients. I'm happy to report that both of those divisions are well on their way through that process.

M. Karagianis: Great. Thank you very much.

One further question. My colleague from Victoria–Swan Lake may come and ask the same question. He was expected to be here.
[ Page 4283 ]

The minister and I had a conversation not that long ago about Island Sexual Health and about the challenges around their funding, and the minister had assured me at that point that there was some progress being made. Certainly, I'd like an update on that. The situation is kind of dire and critical with that organization, and once again, it's women's services primarily being affected. I'm hoping the minister has resolved whatever the challenges were around their funding and that we can hear, maybe, a good-news response on the progress he's made.

Hon. T. Lake: Island Sexual Health does provide important services. They have experienced growth in their expenses following a move to a larger location on Quadra Street. It may be a case, from the information that I've seen and the conversations I've had, of getting a bit too far ahead in terms of the funding that was available for this non-profit organization that was relying in large part on a fee-for-service model.

I understand there were discussions today between Island Health, the Provincial Health Services Authority and the Island Sexual Health Society, talking about a different mix of funding. We don't have a final result from those conversations. I know that there has been discussion about moving away from a fee-for-service model to an alternative payment plan model, perhaps involving nurse practitioners. That was one suggestion.

[1735]

I know that the discussions are ongoing. Island Health, PHSA and the Island Sexual Health Society are all talking with each other to look at the best way of supporting the health care needs that are being provided in a sustainable funding model. I'm optimistic, but we don't have a result at this point.

V. Huntington: I recognize that the member for Victoria–Swan Lake was to follow up, and perhaps he can interrupt me when he comes in. I have two or three questions, and as time permits, I'll try and get through them.

Firstly, as the minister knows, the Provincial Health Services Authority owns and manages the MMU, the mobile medical unit, B.C.'s own hospital on wheels. Because it's stored in Delta, I've had the opportunity to inspect the equipment. It's a pretty impressive piece of equipment. I'm not sure if the minister has seen it yet or not. I think it was first used in Whistler during the Olympics and most recently up in Kitimat, I believe.

Anyway, in the fall of 2013 the MMU was deployed for a short time adjacent to the Tsartlip Nation Health Centre. It provided pediatric asthma and adult COPD services and assessments outreach to four First Nations communities. Over 30 children were scheduled for the respiratory assessments in addition to all of the adults COPD assessments and multitude of drop-in services.

It was such a success that there's been some consideration among those involved whether or not the ministry might properly consider dedicating the MMU to First Nations health authorities, or an MMU to First Nations health authorities, or certainly deploying it more often in First Nations communities. I think from my own experience of First Nations communities, there would be a definite uptick in health assessments and preventative work should it be used in First Nations communities more often.

I wonder if the minister could tell me whether it's been deployed since 2013 and whether the minister has given any consideration to it.

Hon. T. Lake: Yeah, the mobile medical unit is a great piece of equipment. As the member mentioned, it was built for the Olympics. It's still used for large events — the Sun Run or a large concert. As well, it is needed when facilities are being renovated — Kitimat. Cranbrook, I believe, was another situation. It is a very expensive and specialized piece of equipment on wheels.

[1740]

The screening that the member is discussing — certainly, mobile units to do screening for any number of different conditions is a great way to provide that service. There are a number of mobile screening devices and units that are used. I believe respiratory therapists sponsor a screening unit that is mobile. I've learned that we have a mobile mental health unit that is also used in a similar fashion.

I guess the point is that I don't know if we need such a specialized unit to do public health screening and specific disease screening. I don't think we need an operating room on wheels for those types of things. But the member makes a very good point that providing services in a community can be done with mobile units.

We talked earlier about the First Nations Health Authority. With this landmark agreement with the federal government, First Nations and the provincial government, the responsibility for the provision of health services on reserve has been transferred from the federal government to the First Nations Health Authority. Also, we are very collaboratively working with the First Nations Health Authority to look for partnerships.

This, I believe, would be an excellent topic for discussion with the First Nations Health Authority — collaborating on some of these mobile units that could service First Nations communities and other rural communities. It is a great point that the member makes, and we certainly will follow up and look for opportunities.

V. Huntington: I thank the minister for that response. I think it is an opportunity, and I know it would be of enormous benefit to the more isolated communities especially.

A situation that is arising in Delta at the moment — very recently we've had a number of complaints that have arisen about Fraser Health Authority's short-term transition centre for seniors or people coming out of medical health or seniors that have vacated acute care beds and are waiting for a long-term-care facility at the Yale Road
[ Page 4284 ]
Centre. The concept is a good one. However, what's starting to happen, apparently, is that some seniors are being left in this facility for extended periods of time.

In one recent case that's come to our attention, this individual — it was ten weeks before they received an assessment. They're just now receiving their assessment. That's three months. The individual went in able to walk with her walker. She was confined to bed. There wasn't enough staffing to help her walk or move her to the bathroom, so she was confined to her bed. She's now increasingly fragile. There is no physiotherapy. She is changed twice a day — once in the morning, once at night — and has a bath once a week. Her health has deteriorated to the point where her family is extraordinarily concerned.

This is the second time recently we've had this concern expressed to us. I'm just wondering if the minister would consider having the situation reviewed. The individual that's been there now three months is 42 on an 86-person waiting list, so they anticipate another four months before she leaves the facility. It's really not doing what it's designed to do, and in the interim, the health care is less than she would be getting at an extended care facility.

I wonder if the minister would agree to have this discussed among his staff and look into the situation with Fraser Health.

Hon. T. Lake: Always happy to work with colleagues on individual cases like this and following up with the health authorities on specific cases.

I would remind the member that the patient care quality office of each health authority is a venue as well. I would encourage her to counsel her constituent to express her concerns with the patient care quality office in Fraser Health. But we would be happy to follow up on this specific case, if the member can provide the details. We will have a conversation with Fraser Health to understand the situation and try to assist in any way we can.

[1745]

V. Huntington: I'm giving the specific situation and case as a descriptor of some of the stories we're starting to hear. Yes, I'll certainly be glad to follow up. We've had tremendous conversations, really good conversations, with Fraser Health liaison. We're very pleased with that relationship. It's just that I'd like to see if a potential problem could be nipped in the bud with a facility that is supposed to be short term and is ending up long term and simply doesn't have the staff to do the proper care entailed with long-term stays. So I will follow-up with the minister.

My last question, then, has to do with the voice recognition transcription services that the ministry contracted out in 2012-2013 to M*Modal. You went from employing, I think, around 130 individuals to contracting it out as a private service provider. At the time, there was to be a $7.7 million annual savings and no impact on patient care, and productivity was expected to double following the adoption of M*Modal's voice recognition software.

My office, and I'm sure others too — I can't be alone in this — have been receiving a number of complaints recently about the delays in getting the physician-patient reports transcribed, and they are starting to reflect delays in hearing patient results now.

I'm wondering if the minister can tell me whether that voice recognition software is working as it was intended or expected to do. What is the transcription turnaround time now as compared to this time last year? If he could give me an idea of whether the ministry is aware of this situation.

[1750]

Hon. T. Lake: Thank you to the member for her patience. I do have some information about M*Modal. This is a contract that Providence Health Care has with this transcription service. Through Providence Health Care, M*Modal provides that service to the Lower Mainland through the Lower Mainland consolidation project.

While I can't answer specifically the member's question on the service levels or any changes in service levels, I can say that M*Modal Canada provides medical transcription services to many health care facilities throughout Canada, including Trillium Health Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre and St. Michael's Hospital, all of which represent complex multi-hospital systems and labour implementation. This is a company with a proven track record across Canada.

I will endeavour to find out if we have any information in terms of performance evaluations in the recent past, and we'll provide that to the member.

V. Huntington: I thank the minister, and I can perhaps provide a list of questions. I certainly didn't mean to catch anyone off guard on that side. Perhaps, too, as he's looking into this….

In March apparently M*Modal filed for bankruptcy, and I'm wondering if that financial situation had anything to do with the delivery of the transcription services. Maybe, too, I can get an idea of how the transcription services are continuing to be provided in other parts of the province.

Hon. T. Lake: We did canvass this in the House. It was a concern, obviously, when the M*Modal U.S. company did file for chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, but it affects only M*Modal's U.S. operations. We've been assured that worldwide operations will continue as normal through that restructuring process.

Providence Health Care, who manages this contract with M*Modal Canada, has an agreement that covers ownership of records and personal information. It includes safeguards in that process to ensure that those records are kept whole. Providence has looked into this, and they have assured us that there will be no impacts to transcription services here in B.C. We will continue to work closely with M*Modal Canada to monitor the situation.
[ Page 4285 ]

Perhaps as part of this response, the more fulsome response will be included as a follow-up to the member.

K. Corrigan: Recently we had an Auditor General's report that said that we in British Columbia are not prepared for an earthquake or other natural disaster, particularly focused on preparedness — not necessarily on responsibility or recovery ability but certainly in that area of earthquake preparedness. It said that neither are we prepared for an earthquake, nor have we told people in this province, let them know that we're not prepared for an earthquake.

I noticed in reading the 2008 earthquake plan that there is a role for the Ministry of Health in the case of a major disaster, a natural disaster like an earthquake. I'm wondering if the minister could let me know about what kind of work and what kind of preparation there is for an earthquake via the Ministry of Health.

[1755]

Hon. T. Lake: The report that the member refers to noted that preparing for a catastrophic earthquake is a shared responsibility, and a sustained commitment would be required by all stakeholders, including individuals, to minimize the loss of life and other devastating impacts expected from a catastrophic earthquake.

I am lucky to be living in Kamloops, some of the time, and that is where we store a lot of our data. One of the reasons is because of the seismic stability of that area.

However, we know that in British Columbia, particularly the coastal areas of British Columbia, there is a risk associated with potential earthquake. The B.C. health system has a comprehensive emergency management program in place to increase preparedness for a variety of hazards, including, of course, earthquakes. The emergency management unit in our Ministry of Health works closely with emergency management programs within the health authorities. That's the newly formed health emergency management B.C.

We also work with the B.C. Ambulance Service, the B.C. Centre for Disease Control as well as various other stakeholders, ministries and jurisdictions to develop and exercise emergency plans and enhance health system readiness.

A number of initiatives have been completed or are currently underway to continue to increase the Ministry of Health and the health system's readiness. I'll just give a couple of examples. I can provide all of them to the member, if she so wishes.

The maintenance and testing of the Ministry of Health's Health Emergency Coordination Centre…. It acts as the overall provincial health coordination centre in the event of a multi-region disaster impacts, and it serves as the community link with the provincial emergency management structure, the federal government and neighbouring jurisdictions.

The EMU has worked with divisions across the Ministry of Health to increase staffing capacity of the health emergency coordination centre. We do regular exercises, with the most recent done just last month.

So there are a number of different initiatives, but needless to say, we are working closely with Emergency Management B.C. on broader initiatives aimed at increasing our capacity to respond, including updating the B.C. emergency response management system to incorporate lessons learned from previous emergencies, working on the development of our provincial logistics strategy for use during a catastrophic disaster and work on updating the B.C. earthquake plan.

I didn't mention it in this, but our hon. member from Delta did mention the mobile health medical unit that we have, which would prove to be extremely important equipment and facility in the event of a disaster as well.

K. Corrigan: I only do have a couple of minutes. I guess I would ask: where is the Health Emergency Coordination Centre located? The second question would be: would the health authorities or the Ministry of Health, and agencies or individuals within the Ministry of Health, take the lead? One of the things that we know in the case of a major earthquake is that communications and decision-making systems can certainly break down quickly. Where is the lead, and where is that Health Emergency Coordination Centre?

[1800]

Hon. T. Lake: The Health Emergency Coordination Centre is actually people rather than a facility, although the equipment and fit out is in the basement of 1515 Blanshard Street in Victoria. However, if that were to be affected by a seismic event, there is another facility at Keating Cross.

The people involved and the portable equipment can be moved to anywhere in the province should that be necessary — into the Interior, into Lower Mainland. Again, the emergency coordination centre is really a group of people that are trained, that do regular exercises, that are ready to mobilize.

The first location would be in the basement of the Ministry of Health offices on Blanshard. If that were not to be feasible, other centres can be utilized — and then, of course, a close relationship with Emergency Management B.C. in terms of satellite phone communication and other equipment that is necessary for communication and management purposes.

K. Corrigan: I believe the taskmaster, my colleague to the right, has said that this is my last question, so this is my last question.

One of the things that can happen in the case of a major earthquake is not only that casualties require immediate access to medical care but that there can be fallout from the fact that there can be damage to water supplies. I think we forget in this day and age how important clean
[ Page 4286 ]
water is to water supply, food supplies, hygiene, waste disposal and so on.

In that regard, would the coordination come from those at the health emergency coordination centre, or is it expected that those kinds of medical responses are more dispersed? Is that kind of specific response to certain types of outcomes — not necessarily immediate but even longer term…? Are those responses ones that would be more decentralized, and is there a plan for those kinds of responses as well?

Hon. T. Lake: Here's another acronym: the HECC — Health Emergency Coordination Centre. You can say, "What the HECC," and that's what it is — the Health Emergency Coordination Centre, which, as I mentioned, is a group of people that are connected to equipment when needed and carry out coordination, working closely with Emergency Management B.C.

Importantly, as the member notes, there would be a need to ensure safe drinking water. We also have working relationships with health authorities and local governments. We also have agreements with St. John Ambulance and GlobalMedic.

We have mutual aid agreements and ongoing collaboration with various jurisdictions through the Pacific Northwest Border Health Alliance and, of course, the Canadian Red Cross emergency response units as well as the federal government. These mutual aid agreements are in place. The operational framework for mutual aid requests is a federal-provincial-territorial arrangement, and that was first tested, actually, during the 2013 floods in Alberta.

We can learn from the terrible natural disaster that happened in Calgary in 2013. Lessons learned from that would certainly inform that operational framework for a mutual aid request process.

It's a good reminder — while I have the opportunity, with the indulgence of the member — to remind everybody in British Columbia that they should have a supply of food and drinking water to last them three to four days in the event of such a natural disaster here in B.C.

[1805]

We certainly understand the responsibility for clean drinking water and for safe waste disposal and work with engineers throughout the health authorities to access their expertise, as well as those of local governments.

J. Darcy: I'm going to try and get in two or three more questions, if we can, before I'm told that we should be noting the time.

On Fraser Health. If we could speak, please, about the delays in surgeries in Fraser Health. Certainly, I've had constituents come to my office and raise this issue, and it has also been the subject of media coverage recently that, I believe, the longest wait times in any of the health authorities are in Fraser Health. The two facilities that have…. Well, Burnaby seems to be the longest of all, with Surrey Memorial not too far behind.

The director of the surgical program for Fraser Health was quoted as saying that they were going to have to curtail surgeries because of budget reasons, that they had already reached their budget or had exceeded their budget. But as the minister is well aware, if the number of surgeries has to be reduced because there isn't the budget to provide for it or sufficient operating room capacity, it doesn't mean that the problem goes away; it just means that the waiting lists are longer in the next budget year.

I wonder if the minister can please explain to those people, patients on wait-lists in Fraser Health, in particular on the wait-lists at Burnaby and Surrey Memorial, what the problem is there and what the solution is to the problem.

Does the minister expect that there will be additional funding allocated in the next budget year in order to shorten these wait-lists? Also, can the minister please indicate whether there is unused operating room capacity in Fraser Health that can in fact be used in order to shorten those wait-lists in the next few months?

Hon. T. Lake: Just a bit of background on wait times. The patient prioritization initiative is one of the innovations that allows surgeons to monitor patient wait times in five priority levels, so it is important.

I should note for the record that there are no wait times for emergency surgeries in British Columbia. That's important to note. We're talking about elective surgeries.

There are cases in all hospitals across the province in which elective surgeries are delayed due to emergent conditions which have to be addressed. I know that I have experienced and certainly have been told by patients and providers that our health care system provides excellent acute care for emergent conditions.

Generally speaking, British Columbia does fairly well with wait times. The Canadian Institute for Health Information does a report called Wait Times for Priority Procedures. It lists B.C.'s wait-time performance in priority areas from April 1, 2013, to September of 2013.

[1810]

So 76 percent of all hip joint replacement surgeries were completed within 26 weeks; 65 percent of all knee joint replacement surgeries were completed within 26 weeks; 81 percent of all cataract surgeries were completed within 16 weeks; and 83 percent of all hip fracture fixations were completed within 48 hours. Often that's frail seniors, so it's important to do it as quickly as possible.

That's the general. You can look at different hospitals and see different wait times for different surgeries at different hospitals. Again, that will be a function of the flow in the hospital at times. It will be a function of the number of anesthesiologists that are available, a function of the surgeons that are available. I know that there has been a concern at Fraser Health with some of the surgery wait times.

Fraser Health has a slightly different service delivery
[ Page 4287 ]
model than other health authorities in that rather than managing each site individually, they manage services across the system, which has certain strengths, but there are some inherent challenges with that, as well, which we have discussed with Fraser Health.

All I can say, again, is to reiterate that we are currently in the process of doing a review of Fraser Health. The types of issues that the member is bringing forward form part of that review. We will see the results of that review in the operational and strategic plan in the near future.

J. Darcy: My next question is going to be about the Fraser Health review, but I suspect that will lead to several questions. I don't know if you want to conclude, or should I talk out the clock for the next three minutes?

The Chair: As you wish.

J. Darcy: I'm told it's six. Okay. I will. I don't want to waste….

The Chair: Till 6:20, I think. We need to be in the House at 6:20.

J. Darcy: I'll put the question, and then the minister can be….

Hon. T. Lake: I'll have a very short answer.

J. Darcy: Or a more fulsome one when we meet again.

The Fraser Health operational review was announced in October, I believe it was. The meetings were supposed to be happening…. The first meeting of the committee was going to be happening within — I believe the minister said, at the time — six weeks. The first meeting didn't happen until sometime into January.

I know that, certainly, many people, including myself, urged the minister at the time that this review should hear from patients as well as front-line health care providers in order to have a really full sense of what was happening on the ground out there. That was a recommendation that the minister, I think, unfortunately rejected.

It is now eight months since the review was first announced. I understand that the review is to report shortly after the session adjourns — I'm not sure if that's the case or not — in early June.

I wonder if the minister could speak to…. The minister said that this issue of wait-lists for surgeries is one of the issues that will be addressed. There are a number of other issues that I'd like to raise with the minister about whether they will also be covered — the issue of alternate-level-of-care beds, which has been a big problem. It's a big problem in all health authorities, but my recollection from estimates last year is that Fraser Health had some of the highest alternate-level-of-care beds, which in turn leads to huge problems in emergency rooms because there are no beds for people to be moved into.

Will it also be addressing sort of the entire continuum of care that can help to take pressure off acute care hospitals, like increased home support, residential care, community mental health services and so on?

Hon. T. Lake: To correct the record, I said that the first meeting would be before the end of November, and the first review committee meeting was held on November 25. I just want to correct the member there.

The committee met several times, of course, and have continued their work, which is ongoing. That work is ongoing, so I really won't comment on the specifics of the review because I'm waiting for those results. The results will be incorporated into an operational and strategic plan.

The review committee is working with the board of Fraser Health to take the findings and incorporate those into the operational and strategic plan. Essentially, the results of the review will find their way into that plan. There won't be a document saying: "Here is our review." The review will inform the operational and strategic plan presented by Fraser Health.

I have appointed Mr. Wynne Powell, who is chairman of the Provincial Health Services Authority, to take over the board chair of Fraser Health. He is providing very strong leadership and working very hard with the committee and the Fraser Health board to develop the operational and strategic plan, which I look forward to having in June.

With that, hon. Chair, I move that the committee rise, report progress and seek leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:15 p.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 1:40 p.m.

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

H. Bains: I just want to have one last question about where we left off before the break. The minister talked
[ Page 4288 ]
about crime going down overall and about the different committees looking at community court and the fact that Surrey has asked for more police. All those issues are there.

My question to the minister is this. Can the minister give us some timeline on when we can expect, actually, final results — No. 1, for community court; No. 2, more police officers for Surrey; and for mental health and addiction services? In each of those areas, when can the minister give us a timeline? When do you expect that process to be completed, and when would we have all of those four different areas in place to fight crime in Surrey?

Hon. S. Anton: In terms of the police, the request…. I'm told that the Surrey council has formally concluded that it would like to have the additional police. It's now a process question.

[1345]

That request comes to our director of police services, who has not yet received it. But when it's received by us, we then send it forward to Canada, because it's RCMP. Then the officers need to be trained and transferred here. These things do take time, but the request normally works its way through the system. I hope that it results in more officers.

On the court, there's a committee established, as I mentioned earlier. It is doing a needs assessment, and it will report back by the end of the year with the needs assessment and the timelines. I would like to emphasize, though, that there is no foregone conclusion coming out of that report as to what the best configuration of the court should be. That's what that committee will be looking at.

In terms of health and addictions, that's mainly a Health question. However, I did mention earlier that on the recovery houses there is a multiministry group having a look at that, and they will come forward with their conclusions in due course. I don't have a timeline on that either, but it's an active committee. Each of these things has an active committee and will be coming forward.

H. Bains: I will move on because of the time constraints here, but this particular one, for the information of the minister — perhaps the minister could comment on it when she stands up for the next question — is on the committee to look at the community court.

You mentioned a number of people on the committee, but there isn't one from the community — not a single person from the community on that committee. Perhaps the minister could comment on why, that aspect. I mean, it's the community, at the end of the day, who is worried about…. They need to have some say. They want to have a say in what kind of community court is being established there. I would like to ask the minister why no member of the community was appointed on that.

I want to move on to another area. I had a discussion in this building with the Minister for Labour first, during those estimates. It is about workplace accountability, people who die at workplaces. Since the Westray bill, section 217.1 of that bill clearly put a responsibility on those who are responsible for the health and safety of the workers. If they fail to provide health and safety and, due to their negligence, someone dies, then they will be held criminally negligent.

The fact, though, is that since 2004 over 1,350 workers have died in B.C. and not a single charge has been laid criminally. No criminal charge under 217.1 has been laid in any of those, never mind conviction. That's why there is a proposal by the B.C. Federation of Labour to put some process in place and give tools to police, to the Crown and to WorkSafe B.C. so that that part of the Criminal Code can be actually brought in and people can be charged if they are found negligent in their duty to protect the health and safety of the workers.

What they are proposing — and I have introduced a private member's bill here as well — is: (1) to have a dedicated Crown prosecutor to deal with workplace fatality and serious-injury cases. That prosecutor will become an expert in reviewing these investigations against section 217.1 of the Criminal Code and, therefore, more equitably determining the likelihood of conviction.

(2) The training of police officers, the police services, on section 217.1 to ensure that the police understand the law and know what to look for in workplace fatality and serious-injury cases in order to collect the best evidence to support the Crown counsel decision-making.

(3) Make mandatory police investigation of all workplace fatalities and serious injuries. These investigations must be separate from the occupational health and safety regulatory investigation but can be done in collaboration.

(4) Train WorkSafe B.C. inspectors on section 217.1 to ensure WorkSafe inspectors conduct investigations into workplace fatality and serious-injury cases and collect the best evidence to support the Crown counsel's decision-making.

The last one is: Crown and police to develop a specialized policy for workplace fatality or serious-injury cases similar to a policy that we have, as I'm advised, on domestic violence.

[1350]

My question to the minister. This is long overdue. The Westray bill — C-45, I believe it is — and the subsection 217.1 is on paper. It may have worked elsewhere in other jurisdictions, but not in B.C., since the bill was enacted in the Canadian Parliament.

So my question to the minister is this. How will you make that bill work in British Columbia to ensure that those who are responsible for the health and safety of the workers and they failed, and due to their negligence people get killed or seriously injured…? These are the five points that many people who are stakeholders are
[ Page 4289 ]
suggesting will actually put some teeth and put that procedure in place in order to bring the successful convictions in those cases.

My question to the minister is this. When will you consider these? And when will you have these changes instituted so that at least on the deterrent side, a message is clearly sent out that you cannot continue to consider workers' deaths, just through the regulatory fines, as the cost of doing business, so that they will be held responsible and will be held criminally responsible for their inaction which caused death? When will the minister take action?

Hon. S. Anton: Some of these questions that were raised are part of the private member's bill which is currently before the House. I won't go into debate on what they are. But what I can tell you is what we are doing.

First of all, workplace safety is taken extremely seriously. I know the House has heard from the Minister of Jobs frequently about how important it is that families can rely on their loved ones coming home at the end of the day and how important that is to all of us in British Columbia.

So much so that my predecessor, the current Minister of Jobs, took this matter to the federal-provincial-territorial meeting and asked that group to reconsider the legislative structure — section 217 — and whether or not it was sufficient.

The conclusion of that group, after establishing a working group and looking at it…. They came back a year later, and the conclusion was that the Criminal Code provisions are sufficient. It's not a change to the Criminal Code which is needed.

In terms of the prosecution services, the criminal justice branch does have a senior prosecutor who is dedicated to workplace fatality and is trained. We also have other senior prosecutors developing expertise in this area. They are very expert and very knowledgable.

[1355]

With each case that is brought to the branch for charge assessment, Crown counsel do understand the public interest in prosecutions for workplace fatalities and for serious injury. There is a very strong public interest. Members will know that there are two things that the Crown considers in main. One, is there a public interest in proceeding? And is there a substantial likelihood of conviction?

Certainly, the public interest in these cases is a standard which is probably…. I wouldn't want to say there is always a public interest, but there is generally a very strong public interest in pursuing workplace fatality cases. I wouldn't say that on a case-by-case basis, but generally, there is a strong public interest.

The other questions, I think, that were raised are really part of the bill. But these are the things that we are doing right now.

A. Weaver: I was just hoping to pass a number of questions that I've written up on to the minister with the hope that the minister will be able to get the answers back to me in written form at some point in the not too distant future.

Hon. S. Anton: I would be glad to send a response to the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head as to his questions.

A. Weaver: Thank you.

K. Conroy: In the estimates for the Ministry of Environment I raised an issue around the Lemon Creek spill, and I suggested to the minister that it would probably be in the best public interest for not only the government but for the people of the province if the government settled the claims with the people of Lemon Creek. She said that the government was unable to do that.

On further investigation, I find that the government, in fact, is able to do that. I find that if the Attorney General…. By law, the Attorney General can determine that if the case is in the best public interest of the province and of the claimants, the Attorney General can, in fact, take it upon themselves to settle the claim.

I'm asking the Attorney General if she would consider taking this on, as it is in the best interest of not only the people of the Slocan Valley but of the province. I think it establishes the responsibility of the government as to how they're going to deal with future spills. It's a dire issue right now in our province, and I'm hoping that the Attorney General can speak to that.

[1400]

Hon. S. Anton: I'm told that the province is a respondent in the legal action taken by the residents of Lemon Creek. As a general proposition, I will say that if the province is sued, the province as a respondent can settle in a lawsuit. However, that is a general proposition. I make no comment on this particular case, and I do emphasize that the matter is before the courts, so in particular, I would not be able to make any comment on the case.

K. Conroy: Well, I just want to put it on the record, then, that while this issue is before the courts, and the Attorney General isn't willing to make a comment about it, the people of the Slocan Valley that live in that area are the ones that are hurting by this decision and continue to hurt by it. I would hope that the Attorney General, in her wisdom, could relook at the situation and, using the law that she does have available to her, reconsider her decision.

Hon. S. Anton: I'd just like to be really clear that I am not offering a decision on this case. I am simply stating…. I was asked whether, in a general way, the province can
[ Page 4290 ]
settle. In a general way, on a piece of litigation, the province can settle. In this particular case, the case is before the courts. I am offering no decision at this point.

Obviously, a great deal of sympathy was expressed by the Minister of Environment in the House today for the spill itself. But the litigation is a different issue. It's before the courts, and I am offering no position on it here today.

L. Krog: If we can drift back a little bit to the service plan and the question of specialized courts, including the downtown community court. Are there any plans afoot to either close or cease the operation of the downtown community court, or is it anticipated that funding will continue and that this will remain — how shall I say? — a pilot project for the foreseeable future?

Hon. S. Anton: It does continue to be a pilot. However, there are no plans to close it. There has been an initial study, which found two things. Well, one thing it didn't find. It did not find any additional efficiencies in the court. However, it did find a reduction in recidivism among the case management team offenders.

[1405]

L. Krog: I think it's fairly commonly believed, certainly in the legal community and in the social services community, that there are significant repeat offenders — and I've made this spiel, I think, every year for a number of years now — in the criminal justice system, repeat offenders who are suffering from some form of mental illness, who have some addiction issues, who may have all kinds of other issues, coupled often with homelessness.

What I'm trying to get from the Attorney General today is some concept of how salient this is or how important or where it fits on government's agenda. I think there is a consensus, whether or not the report bears it out. And there is criticism, as well, of the report and its conclusions, as I understand it, from various sources.

I'm trying to get some idea of the government's priority for this concept. You have a program that's working now in conjunction with several ministries. It's a pilot still. The Attorney General has indicated there are no plans to cancel it. What I'm really getting at is: is this something that is considered at ministry level in terms of deputy ministers? Is this something that's talked about lower down in the public service on a fairly regular basis? In other words, is this an ongoing topic of discussion? Is there some sincere interest in making this work?

Candidly, when you hear back from the police, who talk about the smallish number of offenders…. My colleague the member for Surrey-Newton, I think, made reference to that earlier this morning in his question. These repeat offenders take up a considerable amount of court time. Their issues are, arguably, legal in one sense — in the sense that they are committing crimes — but relate to their own issues, their background experience, lack of education, you name it — whatever the reason is.

It just seems from the public perspective, in terms of both protection of the public from the point of view of recidivism and being victimized by these people…. The crimes are often property crimes — B and Es, things of that nature.

I mean, how important is this? We've had the downtown community court running for a long time. I'll make a little joke: it's almost as silly as calling it the New Democratic Party when you're 50-plus years old. We've got the downtown community court that's been operating for a long time. At what point…?

Is there interest in the government in actually seeing this program expand and making it a serious concept to be addressed across the province — not just in the Downtown Eastside but, frankly, in Surrey and other communities where numbers and the rate of recidivism and the small number of criminals who commit the crimes exist?

I really want to hear something from the Attorney General that, frankly, gives the people who work in this community…. And by "that community" I mean lawyers and the judges and the court staff and the social workers and the medical community and the health community, etc. I think they need to hear that it's on the government's agenda. That's really what I'm asking the Attorney General. Is it on the government's agenda?

[1410]

Hon. S. Anton: The member asks about repeat offenders, mental illness, addiction. I think it's widely known that many people who commit crimes commit them with other issues going on in their lives, and crime is but one of many. Government is very focused on measures to deal with the issues behind the crimes, particularly crimes committed by prolific offenders, committed by people with mental illness and addiction.

Community corrections is having a look at that. We do have the Justice and Public Safety Council and the justice summits, which are looking at that, and it is a matter of concern for all of us. I will tell you that as the Justice Minister, I would much rather not have people in the criminal justice system. I'd rather have people healthy. It is a multifaceted approach.

In terms of the court itself, the downtown community court, we are looking at that in the context of the broader strategy around specialized courts. We do have to ensure that our resources are used for the most effective justice solutions. That's why in white paper 2 we committed to working with the judiciary and other justice partners to develop an evidence-based strategic approach for our specialized courts by March of next year.

But we need to have proper research. We need to make sure that if we move forward on specialized courts, they are in fact effective, that it is the court itself that is effective. We have a downtown community court, but there
[ Page 4291 ]
are also some other specialized courts around British Columbia. Mainly they are initiated by local areas or by judiciary. We have First Nations courts, domestic violence courts, a drug treatment court, an integrated court in Victoria.

These are all being considered. As I said, by next year we will have a report out considering the best model of courts to move forward with.

L. Krog: I'm conscious of the time. I'm going to have to shift on a little bit. There are, I think, more questions in that area that bear repeating and driving a message home. At some point the answer — I mean this with no disrespect — that we're studying or looking at or considering is the answer that I essentially have received year after year through various Attorneys General. I appreciate that it's just one ministry and one government, etc. But at some point somebody has to bite the bullet and accept that in other parts of the world, these solutions have actually been proven to work.

You may not see the savings in this year's budget or next year's budget. You will eventually see the savings. Moreover, you will see communities that are safer and where citizens are healthier.

Having said that, I want to refer the minister to the West Coast LEAF CEDAW 2013 report card, where it talks about women and access to justice. The grade given was an F. It was an F in 2011; it was an F in 2012 and an F in 2013.

Part of the focus and the reason for that F was the fact that legal aid being cut back as it is, many people are appearing in family court on their own, particularly and quite often women who will not qualify for legal aid unless there is violence and, even then, for a limited period of time. Then when you take into consideration the financial limitations on that, it wouldn't be an exaggeration to say that a substantial portion of British Columbia's women will not qualify for legal aid even though by every commonsense measure, they are poor — particularly if they live in an urban area like Vancouver, where the cost of housing is so extreme.

So my question for the minister is…. I appreciate that we've had a $2 million increase this year to be targeted towards duty counsel and other forms of assistance in the court system. But that's a drop in the bucket. Even with that increase, it still won't bring legal aid funding up to where it was 13 years ago.

I'm just wondering: did the minister formally respond to this report, particularly the F when it comes to women and access to justice? Did she respond to West Coast LEAF, and if so, what did she have to say by way of an explanation?

[1415]

Hon. S. Anton: Yes, West Coast LEAF does good work in British Columbia, and in particular, I'm just thinking of the law as it relates to women. I'm, in fact, meeting with them next week. I was actually supposed to meet today, but because of estimates, we moved the meeting until next week. I will be responding to them and their report at that time.

L. Krog: A couple of the main recommendations were that staff lawyers be placed in-house in community-based women-serving agencies. Certainly, many communities have those, notwithstanding that their funding isn't what it used to be. My community certainly does. And also: develop a "student-driven women's clinic providing free and low-cost family law services to women-identified clients."

I'm just wondering what, if anything, has the government done with those recommendations, and is the Attorney General interested in implementing them or providing the funding that would allow agencies to hire that kind of staff.

Hon. S. Anton: As the member opposite will know, the welfare of families is a strong and abiding concern of this government. In Justice, we are continuing to pursue innovative ways to improve access to justice for families in British Columbia through the family justice centres, which are in 21 communities around British Columbia, and the justice access centres, of which we have three in British Columbia.

The West Coast LEAF report did acknowledge that these are important services to help people with their family justice issues. At the same time, I would point out, as well, the additional $2 million, which was provided to the Legal Services Society this year for legal aid. But it's for innovations of legal aid.

The one area, in particular, relating to family matters is that we are expanding the Family LawLINE that provides services to British Columbians throughout the province. There's a toll-free number which people can phone to ask for information and advice. There are expanded advice services to lead to quicker resolutions of legal issues and help keep disputes out of the courts. Last year the LawLINE assisted more than 5,000 British Columbians.

L. Krog: I appreciate the efforts that are being made, but the constant refrain we have heard for the last 13 years now in British Columbia is that the sacrifices have to be made, the burdens have to be borne, etc., and at some point everybody will get their reward.

Well, with great respect, we know with the increasing disparity in wealth between the rich and the poor in this province and a shrinking middle class that if you were a person on social assistance, a single parent earning $1,500 or $2,000 a month in this province, living in poverty for the last 13 years, I suppose it would be legitimate to ask the question: "How long do I have to wait?" That's the reality of this.
[ Page 4292 ]

There was a 40 percent cut to the legal aid budget when this government came into office what seems like forever ago, candidly. As the report states: "B.C. is now the third-lowest province or territory in Canada in per-capita spending on legal aid, and our legal aid system does not cover representation for as many family law issues as other provinces."

I guess the question is: at what point does this become a priority? Balanced budgets are wonderful things, and everybody loves the concept, but if the concept of the balanced budget is based on depriving literally what is coming close to, now, a generation of British Columbians of access to justice, of access to decent social services, of access to decent housing, then the social cost of that is, frankly, just a creation of a debt to be paid by generations to follow us.

[1420]

You may be able to point to a savings today, but the fact is that you will pay that price down the road. You will see it in higher participation rates in crime by young people. You will see it in increased health care costs in those children growing up in these situations — all of those things. This isn't magic.

I guess the question is: looking at the service plan and looking at the budget for the ministry, at what point will this government make a commitment to just get us back to where we were, now, 13 years ago? At what point? It looks like in 2017 we're not planning to get back up to the funding that existed 13 years ago.

I've heard the excuses — and they are excuses, with great respect — every year that legal services is more efficient now, that we're providing different services, that we've got access to the Net and all sorts of wonderful programs. But at the end of the day, of the family law cases that make up 35 percent of civil cases in B.C. and Canada, the percentage of people who are going into court unrepresented — and, quite often, women — is a staggering number, which has its own costs in terms of court services.

I guess the question is when. When? Setting aside for the moment social assistance, all those things that don't fall under the purview of this minister, at what point do we at least get legal aid and the Legal Services Society back to a level where people will not be going into Provincial Court or Supreme Court unrepresented, in the numbers they are today?

Hon. S. Anton: The member's concern about access to justice is a concern shared in this ministry, in Justice, and it's shared across Canada. I should observe the tremendous leadership of Supreme Court Justice Thomas Cromwell and the Chief Justice of Canada, who are thinking and leading in initiatives on access to justice.

That is exactly why we are looking at innovative approaches to justice so that people can have good access to justice in British Columbia. That's why one of the things that we are strongly working on is keeping things out of courtrooms.

Yes, we have unrepresented accused and parties in courtrooms, but if they don't need to be in court at all, that's an even better solution. That's why we have justice access centres. That's why we have family counsellors and the family justice centres. That's why we have a new Family Law Act, with its emphasis on keeping family issues out of courtrooms. That's why we've got these innovations with the Legal Services Society.

By the way, I should mention the $2 million additional funds that the Legal Services Society received this year. They were one of the few entities in Justice that actually did get an increase, because it is important that there be good access to justice.

[1425]

There are many innovations going on. Some of them are incremental, and some of them are more than that — the Family Law Act, with that very strong emphasis on things not being in courtrooms. This is what gives people good access to justice. It's somewhat about lawyers and legal aid, but it's about many other things at the same time.

L. Krog: Again, I appreciate that that would be the great desire of all. But the presumption is that if you settled out of court, somehow that's occurred because there has been access to mediation services or services that in fact are fair and you got to the right answer and the right deal and a fair result is what followed.

The reality of life for many women, in particular, in poverty is that when you have a spouse who can afford counsel, then you have an incredible imbalance of power. There is no need, if you will, or encouragement or incentive to engage in many of the processes that the minister has talked about, because with those people — most often and quite particularly women — being in that position of lacking in power, their spouses will happily take them into court and scare them into the prospect.

The old language, "I have a lawyer; you don't," is still a pretty fearful thing for most people to hear. They understand that in our justice system, those who actually have access to counsel are in a position of power. Courtrooms are still intimidating, notwithstanding the best efforts of judges to make them accommodating places for people.

My point is that in all of those cases that the minister is talking about, the presumption is that these are equal parties of equal power. The reality is that if you're going into a courtroom and one of you has a lawyer and the other doesn't, chances are you may well settle. You may well not end up a statistic in terms of a judgment, but that's because you got intimidated or scared into resolving whatever the issue may be — quite often around parenting and guardianship or sometimes support as well — because you knew you couldn't win, or you didn't have a chance, or you were too scared to do so because
[ Page 4293 ]
the prospect of potentially losing in a bigger way meant you took a lesser deal.

Now, that's my point to the minister. If you don't have a legal services society that can assist people in that situation so you can equalize that imbalance of power, then justice is not being done. At the end of the day, long before we had public health care or even public education, access to justice, a functioning justice system, was seen as a pretty essential role of society.

My question to the minister is…. You've got a commitment in part 2 of the white paper with respect to family law services: "Government intends to support LSS to expand the family legal aid services it provides." There's no timeline except for 2015 and beyond.

I guess the question is: is there any contemplated time in the future when we're going to see an actual increase so that those kinds of situations where there's clearly an imbalance of power are in fact going to be remedied, where particularly the poor in this province have some hope that if they're involved particularly in a family dispute, they will have some possibility of attaining justice in the system?

[1430]

Hon. S. Anton: The issue is access to justice. As I mentioned, there are a number of innovations moving ahead now which do give people improved access to justice — for example, the pilot projects which are just starting in legal services: the expanded criminal duty counsel, the increased coordination of Victoria justice access centre, the Family LawLINE and testing a parents legal centre for child protection cases.

These are all pilots which have three years of funding and which will be evaluated. Depending on their success, and I do wish them success, then consideration will be given to expanding those around the province.

There are, in addition, parenting-after-separation courses on line and in registries around the province — not every registry; in 17 registries.

There are many different ways that access to justice for families has been improved in British Columbia and is expanding in British Columbia. As I said, some of them rely on lawyers but many of them do not rely on lawyers; they rely on the justice services offered through the justice access centres, through the family justice centres, etc.

K. Corrigan: We are going to move to questions on corrections for the next little while — half an hour, 45 minutes. I believe the minister knows the schedule, and it's by agreement. Then we're going to ask some questions about victim services, including domestic violence services and the Missing Women Commission of Inquiry recommendations. Then at 4:15 p.m. or so — I don't want to be held to that time exactly, but approximately between 4:15 and 4:17 p.m. — we're going to start with questions coming from the member for Vancouver-Hastings on liquor — to put it shortly.

I just wanted to voice my appreciation to Brent Merchant, who is the ADM for corrections. He has had a personal matter that had forced him to leave. We wish him all the best on that and our condolences but thank him for staying today and allowing us to ask these questions.

With that, I'm going to pass it over to my colleague from Victoria–Beacon Hill, who is going to ask some initial questions.

[D. Plecas in the chair.]

C. James: The government has announced the closure of the youth custody centre here on Vancouver Island. I wonder if the minister could let us know of any discussions that she or her staff had with police departments on Vancouver Island before that decision was made.

[1435]

Hon. S. Anton: I would like to introduce Mr. Brent Merchant, who is my assistant deputy minister of corrections, and thank him for being here.

On the question of the youth detention centre, that is of course, as the member knows, an MCFD responsibility. However, policing, of course, falls under Justice, which is why my director of police services, Mr. Clayton Pecknold, has been facilitating meetings between MCFD staff, local police and Ministry of Justice staff to consider options moving forward.

C. James: Just so I'm clear, I understand that facilitating discussions may be happening now. There were no discussions, then, before the decision was made?

Hon. S. Anton: The decision was, of course, an MCFD decision. I'm not able to comment on discussions they might have had prior to the decision being made public.

C. James: I actually was asking the minister about discussions that her ministry may have had around the decision. I understand that the Ministry of Children and Families is responsible for the decision. But as the minister herself said, policing is a Justice responsibility. Therefore, I certainly would have expected that discussions should have taken place. They may not have taken place, but they should have taken place before a decision was made that impacts the minister's responsibility area.

Nevertheless, it appears that those discussions didn't take place. I wonder if the minister could give an explanation, then, around what the plan is for youth who, according to the Ministry of Children and Families' plan, are going to be required to be held in jail cells before transfer to Burnaby. Yet all police departments on the lower Island have said they are going to refuse to allow youth to be held in jail cells because it's not a suitable placement.
[ Page 4294 ]
It's an issue of liability, etc., for the police departments.

I wondered what the minister's plan is, given she's responsible for policing, for the youth, given the refusal from the police departments.

[1440]

Hon. S. Anton: The situation today is that youths around British Columbia are held every day in police cells when they are arrested and held. So the real issue is on remand and the conversations which are underway now, and the goal is to transfer youths on remand as quickly as possible to Burnaby. There may be some occasions where they need to stay overnight, but coordinating the speedy transfer of youth to Burnaby is part of the ongoing discussions and the goal of these discussions.

C. James: I wonder if the ministry has looked at any liability issues of youth being held in jail cells.

Hon. S. Anton: There are many operating and policy issues which are part of the ongoing discussion. The question was whether liability is part of that discussion. Liability is always an issue, and it is always one of the many issues which are under discussion.

But I will observe again that when Victoria Youth Detention closes, there are two locations in British Columbia which have youth detention centres, Burnaby and Prince George. Youth who are arrested around other parts of the province face a similar situation to the situation that youth in Victoria will face.

C. James: I think it's unfortunate that from this ministry and from the Minister of Children and Family Development the response to the closure of the custody is: "Take everyone to the lowest common denominator, and provide everybody with poor service." That's basically the response and the answer.

Just to ask one last question, then, from the minister's point of view, because it appears that conversations didn't take place…. The one ministry is making a decision that does impact another ministry without conversations taking place and without planning being done, and discussions happening now, after the fact — which all is a problem.

[1445]

Has the minister or any of the ministry staff had conversations with the municipalities and with police boards, etc., about the additional time, cost and resources for the transfer of these young people that will be a cost in sheriff time, etc., under this minister's responsibility?

Hon. S. Anton: I can't help, as Justice Minister, but observe the good-news part of this story, which is that there are not very many youth in custody in British Columbia. Going from memory here, when this was discussed in the House the other day, I think the average is 74.

The average number in the youth detention centre in Victoria was 15. So this is a very good-news story — that we don't have youth in custody in large numbers.

In terms of how these operational decisions are made in terms of resources, sheriffs, corrections officers, court requirements and so on, those are all decisions and discussions being held between staff from MCFD, Justice and police departments. These are all operational things that are being worked out. I have confidence in all the people working on them that they will be worked out.

K. Corrigan: I'm just going to ask a couple more questions. Yes, I do appreciate that this is a decision made by the Minister of Children and Family Development. But one of the themes that we have heard from the Minister of Justice and the ministry over the last couple of years…. I think part of the reason for the merger of the Ministry of Solicitor General and Public Safety with the Attorney General's ministry was that people were working in silos and there wasn't enough integration. There wasn't enough consultation.

[1450]

Frankly, when you look at the impact on the overall justice system or the future impact, the potential impact…. We want to have a cohesive system. It surprises me when the minister says that there was no discussion. I just want to ask maybe a couple more questions about that.

Just to be clear, when did the minister become aware that the Victoria Youth Custody Centre was going to close?

Hon. S. Anton: My own awareness of the decision was…. I think when the decision was made internally, I was advised of it. Our staff did, in fact, start discussions a few days before the public announcement was made. As I said, I am very confident in the staff who are working together on these things with their partners in the community and in other related services — that they will make good decisions, operationally, moving forward.

K. Corrigan: Staff was made aware or started working on it a few days before the public announcement on April 28, 2014. The minister was made aware of it sometime internally, and I'm wondering if the minister could give me that date.

Hon. S. Anton: I don't have the exact date on that, but as I said, staff were involved in discussions a few days before the public announcement and are continuing to work through the issues.

K. Corrigan: Well, it sounds to me like the minister was aware. If staff was aware a few days ahead…. Often, staff know before ministers do. Maybe, maybe not. But I'm going to assume that the minister was aware a few
[ Page 4295 ]
days ahead.

I'm just wondering. There is the general impact, the responsibility for the justice system that the Ministry of Justice has and the minister has. But I’m also wondering if there are specific programs — for example, probation — or any other programs that fall under the umbrella of the Justice Ministry in Victoria or the Victoria area that would, in any way, be impacted by the closure of the centre.

[1455]

Hon. S. Anton: The question was around programs for youth, and those do not fall under this ministry.

K. Corrigan: I just want to make sure. There are no ministry functions that would be in any way affected? For example, probation.

Hon. S. Anton: Yes, youth probation is under MCFD. The general impact on justice…. Well, police do fall under Justice, although they are…. They report up, eventually, through to my director of police services, although they have a lot of local independence as well.

K. Corrigan: I do, again, appreciate that this is an MCFD matter, but just from the Burnaby perspective, maybe, I'll get it on the record that we have the Burnaby youth detention centre in my community. One of the things that has been said by members of my community…. I know the focus has been more, and rightly so, on the concerns on the many people in the Victoria area and Vancouver Island because of the costs, the separation and for so many different reasons.

One of the comments that has been made by the chair of the component for BCGEU, Dean Purdy, referring to Burnaby, is that it's only going to increase the tension in there, and that increases the violence. There have been many incidents of violence in the Burnaby youth detention centre, and I know these are young people and children and we need to be very concerned about treating them appropriately, but nevertheless, there have been.

I'm wondering, from a justice perspective, in terms of future impact on those kids who may be negatively affected and may possibly end up in the senior corrections system: has the minister thought about that or made any plans with regard to the impact that it might have for the future corrections in British Columbia?

Hon. S. Anton: Again, we're really in MCFD territory here. They do have programs to help youth. They will have programs in the Burnaby youth detention centre. And just going back to my observation a few minutes ago, I hope that we can take it that those programs are working, given the very low average of youth in custody in British Columbia.

K. Corrigan: I'm going to move on to questions more directly related to corrections. In 2011 the Auditor General's office published a report on community corrections entitled Effectiveness of B.C. Community Corrections. It expressed some real concern about community corrections.

The people who work in community corrections are wonderful people, I'm sure, but I think it was clear from the report that the lack of resources, the high caseloads in community corrections, meant that it was difficult to have an effective organization. I was surprised to find out that 90 percent of B.C.'s correctional population were supervised in the community as opposed to jail. That's almost 24,000 adult offenders.

[1500]

One of the findings of that Auditor General's report was that only 35 percent of interventions that are designed to reduce reoffending are ever completed. There were many other comments and recommendations. I know that there was a self-assessment follow-up in August of 2013.

I'm wondering if maybe we could start with that specifically. Does the minister know what percentage of interventions that are designed to reduce reoffending are now completed?

Hon. S. Anton: That question is not an easy one to quantify, one of the reasons being this. People in community corrections may have many issues that need to be dealt with, and what community corrections officers do is attempt to deal with the highest-risk issues. So they may complete some issues that they've got, but they may not complete all. They do, as I said, work on the highest-risk issues. For that reason, it's very tough to quantify exactly how many interventions are completed or not completed.

K. Corrigan: Well, 2½ years ago the Auditor General, in the report on community corrections, managed to find a number, and it was that only 35 percent of interventions that are designed to reduce reoffending are ever completed.

The Auditor General recommended that there be a better framework and a better understanding, a better recordkeeping. I would have thought, if that was a standout fact in the report, that the minister would have been able to give me some idea of what that number is now. Is that incorrect?

[1505]

Hon. S. Anton: Again, it's a complicated question, in terms of the kinds of programs people take and the number of programs completed. They may do sequential programs, and then they run out of probation time. I think a more interesting statistic is that 78 percent of persons in community corrections do not come back within the first two years.
[ Page 4296 ]

K. Corrigan: Recommendation No. 3 from the Auditor General was: "The community corrections and corporate programs division complete a comprehensive impact assessment to determine if there are any gaps between its staff capacity and caseload level currently and in the future." I notice in the follow-up report on recommendation No. 3 that that was "fully or substantially implemented." So is that complete now?

[1510]

Hon. S. Anton: We have, in Justice, hired 48 new probation officers since 2012 to fill in the gaps that were identified. The staff assessment tool, which was part of that recommendation, is being finalized.

K. Corrigan: Just to be clear, the 48, those would be new positions, not positions that are being filled because of retirements and so on — 48 additional positions.

Hon. S. Anton: New positions.

K. Corrigan: That's good news. That's good, because one of the problems that was identified in the Auditor General's report was that there was a very high caseload.

I'm wondering if the minister can tell me what the average caseload for probation officers within community corrections is at this time.

Hon. S. Anton: The average is 60. However, I would emphasize that that number can be quite variable, depending on the nature of the clients. It can be quite a bit higher or quite a bit lower, depending on the risk.

[1515]

K. Corrigan: In the interests of time, because I know this is probably not at the minister's fingers right now, I'm wondering if we could get those numbers later in writing for since the Auditor General's report was done, so for 2012 and '13 and now, if that's possible.

Hon. S. Anton: Yes.

K. Corrigan: I guess that since the year of the report was 2011, for 2011 as well. Is that okay?

One of the other things that was mentioned in the report was the fact that community corrections was implementing something called STICS, the strategic training initiative in community supervision, a gold-standard, evidence-based recidivism reduction program.

My understanding is that that has now been implemented. I'm wondering if the minister has any comment on the effectiveness of that program or any concerns about it.

Hon. S. Anton: The STICS program was rolled out over three years, and that three years is just completed. An evaluation of the program is underway in conjunction with Public Safety Canada. In the original study it was determined that there was a 38 percent reduction in recidivism, and we anticipate and hope for the same results in an ongoing way.

K. Corrigan: A probation officer contacted me and expressed concern about the system and said that the concern was shared by many. Officers are required to record their meetings with clients and attend monthly two-to-three-hour clinical support meetings. The comment is that this program has created more work for probation officers at a time when they are struggling to keep up with the increasingly complex clients and that with the lack of funding in the areas of legal aid and mental health resources, probation officers are dealing with much more complex issues with clients.

I'm glad to see that there is going to be an independent review, because that was what this probation officer was hoping there would be. But just in terms of a technical question, is the 38 percent reduction only for those clients who are covered by STICS, or is that an overall reduction in recidivism?

[1520]

Hon. S. Anton: First of all, on the probation officers: I've had the opportunity to meet a number of them around British Columbia, and I would like to say how impressed I have been with them. They're dedicated. They're caring. They work in a challenging job, and the work that they do makes communities safer.

There were 35 additional officers hired to augment the STICS program. In response to the question about the 38 percent, the 38 percent was for the STICS group over a control group.

K. Corrigan: The issue, then, is whether or not the resources are going to be there, because what this probation officer has said is that the workload increases significantly. If you have a program that is going to be successful but it requires a large injection of new resources, are the resources going to be there throughout the system?

Frankly, I'm wondering about the control group. Did the control group have as many clients that they were dealing with? Did they have the same amount of time for a client? Is the minister satisfied that this was a true measure of whether or not…? If we applied STICS across the system with the same resources that we have now, would we have the same results?

[1525]

Hon. S. Anton: For the probation officers, the workload is higher, initially, as they learn the new techniques, but it does level out over time.

STICS is being rolled out; it is around the province. It's increasing every year. There is a steady increase in
[ Page 4297 ]
personnel who can undertake the STICS methodology. Because I like to always talk about how British Columbia is ahead of things in the world, it is actually a Public Safety Canada program but started here in B.C. It's in B.C., Saskatchewan and Prince Edward Island and is now moving to Norway, Sweden and the U.K. Some of our staff are, in fact, going to Sweden to help them launch their own STICS program.

K. Corrigan: I'd love to talk more about STICS, but we're going to have time pressures this afternoon. I think what I'll do is I'm going to get a couple of issues on the record that have been reported to me by various probation officers, and then perhaps I can get a written response from the minister to the concerns that are raised. If the minister wants to respond to any of these now, that's fine, but it's fine if we get a written response.

One of the concerns raised is that there's a new pilot project for e-reporting that has clients reporting with their fingerprint to a computer kiosk and answering some pre-generated questions that are posed on the screen. For people who are on bail, the question is whether or not this is safe. The observation is that when a bail supervisor actually speaks to a client, they are doing a lot of assessing of how they are doing mentally and physically, and they can intervene and recognize when there needs to be a little bit more work rather than just a check-in. That's one of the concerns, that this person-to-person assessment, in some cases, is no longer being done.

There's a suggestion there, as well, that the program is not working fully — that it's not always available. It's unavailable more than it has worked.

That's one concern. The other one, and perhaps the minister could comment quickly on this one…. The observation is that the supervision of domestic violence clients, both bail and probation, has become increasingly important. In both the Peter Lee case as well as the one in Mission, the offender was placed on bail. Bail supervisors currently have caseloads of around 160 clients and above. The most dangerous time for a woman is when she leaves her partner. So that's another one.

A third concern is that the CORNET computer system — which is actually the subject of another Auditor General report — that is being used to supervise offenders is outdated and becoming increasingly fragile. Probation officers are reporting that not only is the Internet frequently failing but also that the integrity of the information is being compromised. The concern is that if the system is not improved soon, we'll have an incident similar to the ICM outages that occurred over the last month.

Those are the three concerns. I don't know if the minister wants to respond now. If the minister does, that's fine. We'll take a few minutes. Then I have a couple more questions, and then we're going to move on to a new area.

[1530]

Hon. S. Anton: On the three questions. The first question related to the e-reporting. This is a program called ICON II, where clients can come in and use their fingerprint to register with the probation officer that they are there. The officer can ask to see them, can leave a message for them, so when the client logs in, the officer can say: "You've got to come and see me."

As to its effectiveness, certainly it's effective in terms of registering people. The other kinds of effectiveness which the member was mentioning: it's safe to say that probation is always interested and concerned about effectiveness in their programs, and it's constantly evaluating them and seeing how they are working out.

In terms of the domestic violence cases and the bail clients, I will come back with a written answer on that one.

On the third question, which was the information in CORNET. This is an offender management system. It has been around for quite a while, but it's been updated a number of times. It's believed to be one of the top five in North America. It's viewed as being reliable, particularly with the way it keeps information safe. At the moment, all of the computers are undergoing a refresh, and that is being rolled out this year.

Chair, if I might suggest that we take a short break at this point — just as the member for Nanaimo got ready for his next question.

A Voice: So is the member from Esquimalt getting ready for the next question.

Hon. S. Anton: And the member from Esquimalt.

The Chair: By agreement, we will take a short recess, for five minutes.

The committee recessed from 3:34 p.m. to 3:46 p.m.

[D. Plecas in the chair.]

K. Corrigan: I want to turn now to violence statistics in B.C. Corrections. This is in-custody corrections, as opposed to community corrections. I'm wondering if the minister could just confirm — this is the ICON data; this would include on staff, inmates, inmate-to-inmate — that the total number of incidents of violence for 2013 was 1,148 incidents, as compared to 1,008 in 2012, 1,009 in 2011, 831 in 2010 and 823 in 2009.

Hon. S. Anton: The numbers I have are close but slightly different. I've got for 2013, 1,161; 1,008 and 1,009, which I think are the same; 831 in 2010; 823; and 865.

K. Corrigan: Well, that's just to get it on the record that there has been a significant increase in the incidence of violence. I also want to pass on that what I've heard from various correctional officers is that there is a real
[ Page 4298 ]
concern about the closure of some units at the same time that the inmate-to-staffing ratios are very high. There's concern about that.

Unfortunately, I'm not going to get a chance to ask any more questions. Maybe I'll put some more questions in writing for the minister. I want to give my colleague here a chance to ask some questions, before she has to go to a meeting, about the Missing Women Inquiry and about domestic violence.

That's it for corrections right now. I could have gone another hour and a half. I'm going to turn it over to my colleague.

M. Karagianis: With great appreciation to my colleague for ceding the floor to me. I have a couple of questions on domestic violence and violence against women, and then a few questions on the Missing Women Inquiry recommendations.

[1550]

I'd like to first of all ask the minister responsible. The integrated domestic violence units — who provides oversight and takes responsibility for these? I asked some of these questions in MCFD estimates and was very frustrated by the fact that the office for domestic violence doesn't, in fact, take responsibility or provide oversight for any of this.

Can you please explain to me, in a fulsome way, who is providing the oversight? What is that oversight? Who is taking responsibility for the integrated domestic violence units?

Hon. S. Anton: The operational oversight of domestic violence units is by the police agencies.

M. Karagianis: Well, that's an incomplete answer. Who's providing the oversight? Who's taking responsibility? Who reports out? Who's doing performance measures? I mean, ultimately, who do I go to, to ask questions about the progress of these integrated violence units?

Hon. S. Anton: The police are responsible for these units. To give an example, at the Vancouver police department the day-to-day work, of course, is supervised by the sergeant in charge, but ultimately, the units themselves report up through the chief to the police boards, and the police boards themselves are responsible for the performance measures of the domestic violence units.

M. Karagianis: In fact, we can't ask any questions of government. We have to go to the police boards? Is that where I go and do follow-up to find out how performance measures, any performance measures at all, have been quantified on these teams, on these units? Is that what I have to do?

[1555]

Hon. S. Anton: The performance measures relating to the performance of the team is an internal matter. These police authorities are independent authorities. Their investigation techniques, what they do, and so on — again, that's independent for Vancouver police department and the RCMP. It reports up through the RCMP.

I think the member could be more specific in the question. If she's asking about broader trends in domestic violence and how they relate to domestic violence units, I gather Vancouver domestic violence unit has done an evaluation. If the member wishes, we could get that information to her.

M. Karagianis: I would appreciate that very much, just in the overall context of the integrated domestic violence teams and successes or failures or trends or anything like that that we could learn.

As the minister knows, there's been an increasing rash of domestic violence matters and deaths that are most unsatisfactory, and we need to certainly be on top of these units and their ability to get out there and react quickly, follow through on no-contact orders. In several cases, those were in place and not enforced.

There are a whole number of issues facing women living in domestic violence that concern me greatly. The office of domestic violence — when I look at the budget here, I can't go to them and ask for any kind of data, because they simply redirect me to the Justice Minister.

I want to just ask in a little bit more detail here about a number of things in the budget. I've got down here, from the briefing information, $1 million that has been set aside — to start in 2015 — under the domestic violence plan and $1 million to help with the start-up and implementation of additional specialized domestic violence units. I'd like to know: how many are in place, what additional are planned, and what is the timeline on those?

There's also $2 million to develop and deliver programs specifically for aboriginal women, men and children affected by domestic violence. I'd like specific details on exactly how that money is being spent — the $2 million.

Another part of this same budget line: $1 million to provide support and intervention for perpetrators. I'd like to know: exactly what are the specifics around that? How are those dollars being spent and where? All of this…. Of course, this money doesn't flow till 2015, which is a big concern.

Lastly, $1.5 million in direct supports to women and children for housing and transportation in rural and remote communities. I'd certainly like to know more details about that, because the minister, of course, will know about my extremely keen interest on some kind of shuttle bus service along Highway 16.

It would seem to me that in a region where we are extracting millions of dollars of revenue — and billions of dollars of resource revenue is expected to be taken from that area in the coming years — the minor, meagrest, most penurious little investment in a shuttle bus service
[ Page 4299 ]
up there would be a fantastic investment in the social infrastructure of that area. The government has been very vague on all of this, and $1.5 million isn't going to do that, for sure. I would just like more details and specifics.

Now, whether the minister wants to give me that in writing, I would accept that, given the time constraints we have here. But I do want specific details on how that money is going to be spent. It doesn't flow till 2015, but it's vague about where those dollars will go and how they will impact very directly into those communities that need it the most. Whether the minister wants to address any of those or simply get back to me in writing, I'm fine with that.

[1600]

Hon. S. Anton: These plans are for 2015. They are under development so the details are not yet determined. I would observe, as well, they are not part of this year's budget, and of course, this estimates is dealing with the budget for 2014-15.

M. Karagianis: As tempting as it is to address that last remark, I shan't. In fact, this budget is the only one that was presented to us. Whether it's being spent in 2014 or '15 is irrelevant. That is the budget that we were given for the office of domestic violence. I'm surprised that the minister would brush it off like that. However, we'll pursue this, I guess, the next time we have budget estimates discussions.

Let me then move into the Missing Women Inquiry recommendations. First of all, I would like to ask the minister about a letter that was sent to her on April 1, 2014. This is from the coalition of stakeholders on the Downtown Eastside.

This is a letter outlining their concerns regarding the five priority recommendations that they have identified coming out of the Missing Women Inquiry. Although there were many more than five, they identified five in here that they felt needed particular, urgent response. I will ask about some of those, because I also believe they needed an urgent response.

I would like to ask if the minister has responded to this letter. This is an overture by this coalition of organizations to try and work with the government on implementation of the Missing Women Inquiry recommendations. The coalition spoke to me recently and feel that they have continued to be rebuffed by the government in their overtures to work collaboratively on seeing some resolution to these.

I'd like to ask first: has the minister responded to this organization from the April 1 letter? Secondly, what plans does the minister have for working with the coalition of organizations? Their attempts to work with government seem to have failed up to this point, so I'd like to know what steps the government is going to take to rectify that.

[1605]

Hon. S. Anton: On the missing-women report, generally it was recommendations relating to a very sad time in our history and a time that none of us want to see repeated. That is why government has taken the recommendations in the commission report seriously.

Over three-quarters, over 75 percent, of the recommendations are either completed or underway, and we will be doing a final report-out before too long on the status of all of the recommendations. Some of them we will not be doing. I'll just say that right now. There are a couple that relate to research projects that we will not be doing. But the vast majority of them are, as I say, completed or underway.

With regard to the coalition that the member has mentioned, I met with them myself in the fall. I'm sorry I don't have the exact date that I met with them. I do appreciate their interest and their interest in offering advice to government. I really appreciated the meeting that I had with them. I heard some very interesting and compelling stories that day.

Lynda Cavanaugh, the head of our victim services and crime prevention unit, has met with them, as has Clayton Pecknold, the head of police services. They have met with the group. They have committed to further meetings with them and will be consulting with them on police standards and on some of the standards under the missing-persons legislation.

I appreciate the help and advice that that group of organizations is giving to government.

M. Karagianis: I'll make a point of following up with the group to ensure that they have heard and understood the interest the government has in working with them.

I'm going to group a couple more questions together in the interest of time. I could not find anywhere in the budget documents, although I looked, any kind of budget for the office of the champion of the recommendations. Steven Point was appointed as the individual who would marshal through the recommendations and oversee them. He then stepped down, as we know, over a year ago now. I haven't seen a timeline, although I've asked in question period about when Steven Point was going to be replaced. And I couldn't find a budget anywhere for his office and for any kind of support system for that champion, that individual, to follow through. I'd like to know where that is.

I would also like to know what the status is of police training coming out of the Missing Women Inquiry. I don't think I heard very specifically around that what the status is of that piece.

As part of this, I know that the government gave some funding to WISH Society. That certainly was a recommendation, for that kind of support system, that Wally Oppal was particularly keen on.

Here in Victoria we have a similar organization, called PEERS. They've been given one-year funding but no
[ Page 4300 ]
stable core funding. I'd like to know what the government's intention is on stable core funding, as it flows out of the Missing Women Inquiry, for them and for any other organizations that serve that very unique purpose, in that they have services for sex trade workers.

Wally Oppal was very clear about those supports being there 24 hours a day, stable and secure. That was a very specific core value of the recommendations. I'd like to know how we get assurance from the ministry that that core funding will be there for PEERS and any other organizations like that in the future.

There are a couple of questions grouped there, but in the interest of time, hopefully we can get some satisfactory response.

[1610]

Hon. S. Anton: With regard to Steven Point, Steven Point did do a great job for us as champion. He accomplished his task. He did quite a large amount of consultation, and he left us well positioned to move forward.

We are exploring many possibilities, structures and formats to improve the safety of vulnerable women in British Columbia, and we are looking for advice, including from the group that the member mentioned a few minutes ago, on their perspectives and how best to move forward with help and support for vulnerable women in British Columbia. We're continuing to consult with our partners and our stakeholder groups, including MACAW, the Minister's Advisory Council on Aboriginal Women, as we move forward.

In terms of the police training question, we have cultural competency training and recently gave a $205,000 grant to the Justice Institute to work on curriculum development. Then there is an annual grant transferred from police services in the amount of $1.9 million, which can be used in a number of ways but following the priorities set by the Justice Ministry. One of the priorities is cultural sensitivity training. That is in direct response to the recommendations of the Missing Women Commission of Inquiry.

Then, in terms of support for groups that support vulnerable women — specifically, the question was around PEERS — we do give civil forfeiture money and this year gave $100,000 to PEERS in Victoria, Pace in Vancouver and Warm Zone, which I believe is in Abbotsford. All of those organizations provide drop-in and outreach services to vulnerable women involved in the sex trade.

[1615]

M. Karagianis: The minister didn't answer two of my questions. Number 1, is the minister replacing Steven Point? And the second one. Organizations like PEERS need core funding. Is the government intending on giving them core funding, not just one-offs every year so they are in jeopardy?

Hon. S. Anton: Yes, as I mentioned, the continuing consultation on the missing-women recommendations does relate to implementation. The consultation takes form depending on the topic. Part of the topic, for example, is around policing, and there are consultations around policing with the Missing Women's Coalition and other groups. There are consultations around vulnerable women. For example, again, the Missing Women's Coalition is helpful in that. There are consultations around aboriginal women, which take place with MACAW.

We are in full-scale implementation right now of the recommendations, and we're moving forward, I would say, rather quickly on them. We've got the missing-persons legislation. We've got amendments to the Police Act to develop police standards. We've got police training going on. We have the payments made, the compensation for the children of the missing women. So we have been approaching this on many different fronts. We are in action mode, and that action does include continuing consultation with our community partners to help us as we move forward.

In terms of PEERS, that was a civil forfeiture grant that is subject to availability, so at the moment it is the case that they do not have core funding from government. But obviously, they are a group that we certainly had confidence in this year, so as to give them a civil forfeiture grant. They will continue to work with community safety and crime prevention, our community safety team, to discuss funding on an ongoing basis.

[1620]

K. Corrigan: I want to talk about resources for victim services overall. I just would point out that in 2009-2010 the budget was $42.204 million. In 2010-11, $41.874 million. At this point, 2013, it's $40.210 million, and for '14-15, $40.190 million. Then it's flatlined for the next three years.

One of the concerns that many people have had is that when you come right down to it, the government is not willing to put resources into this terrible problem of domestic violence and sexual assault. My question for the minister is: would the minister agree with the supposition being made by the Ending Violence Association British Columbia? I believe that the information was sent to the minister fairly recently.

Would the minister agree that in fact, domestic and sexual violence statistics, when they're disaggregated from overall violent crime data, are either stable or on the increase?

Hon. S. Anton: Since the 2008-2009 year the domestic violence reports to Crown counsel have indeed gone up, and they've gone up by about 29 percent.

[1625]

I will observe that in 2010 the violence against women
[ Page 4301 ]
in relationships policy was revised to place a heightened focus on enforcement and on prosecution of domestic violence cases. It's a goal of Justice and, I believe, a goal of the police that domestic violence cases be treated seriously.

The second question, I think, was whether or not funding was maintained. Indeed, we have maintained funding for front-line services.

K. Corrigan: I would love to spend a lot more time on this, because it's a really important subject. I'll point out that in April and May alone we have had one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten cases of murder or attempted murder. That's since April 2, 2014. It's really a concern. I know those are high-profile incidents, but there is the increase in the number of Crown counsel cases, information that I've been provided that shows self-reporting — a whole bunch of different information.

Maybe the minister could agree to provide background information on the disaggregated information from, for example, the general social survey and other sources. If we have the statistics on crime, we should be able to have the disaggregated information, and I would appreciate getting that in writing. If the minister needs more information on that, I'll put that in writing.

I just want to finally point out that one of the most effective ways to provide a good response to sexual assault or domestic violence is through community-based victim assistance programs, and I would point out that there has been virtually no change in the funding structure for these programs over the last 20 years. These are often the one program which actually connects women and children with services when they are victims of domestic violence.

I would say to the minister that they are absolutely crucial, yet as part of the freeze or drop that we've had in victim assistance over the last several years, one of the victims of that has been community-based victim assistance programs.

Now, I believe that my colleague from Vancouver–Mount Pleasant is going to ask maybe one question, and then we're going to pass it over to the next group.

Hon. S. Anton: As to the disaggregated data, I would appreciate getting that question in writing, just so we know exactly what the question is seeking. Because it is a data question, we better be accurate about it.

On the domestic violence cases, these are very troubling. They are such tragedies. There are often children involved, and they are terrible cases. I think I can speak for all of government. Everybody in government takes these things extremely seriously. The police certainly take them very seriously. They are tragedies for the families and for the community.

On the support for vulnerable women and on the crime prevention intervention services, we spend $70 million a year. There has been no decrease in funding. It has remained stable over the years. We have $12.4 million for more than 160 victim services programs across British Columbia. There were 40,000 new clients assisted last year.

[1630]

[G. Kyllo in the chair.]

I see a new Chair arriving. Welcome, Mr. Chair.

We have $16.5 million for violence-against-women counselling and outreach and programs, with 34,000 persons referred last year. That includes 95 Stopping the Violence counselling programs, 86 Children Who Witness Abuse counselling programs, 55 outreach services programs and 11 multicultural outreach services programs. We spent $12.3 million for the crime victim assistance program and $32 million annually to support 800 spaces in transition houses and safe homes, with 18,000 women and children assisted last year, and funds for 24-7 staffing, provided since 2009.

It's a very substantial commitment by government, because you will know that one of the Premier's and government's focuses will be working towards a violence-free British Columbia. Domestic violence, violence against women, is a very significant issue for government, and we take it very seriously in terms of our government response.

J. Kwan: As the minister knows, the Carrier-Sekani Family Services is a host agency for the Highway of Tears initiative in northern B.C. Their work includes following up with the 2006 Highway of Tears Symposium report titled A Collective Voice for the Victims Who Have Been Silenced. That report came forward with 33 recommendations.

In May of last year the Highway of Tears governing body met with the Hon. Steven Point. Part of their discussion was regarding the recommendation on the shuttle bus transportation system throughout the entire length of Highway 16. Mr. Point has stated that he had been asked by the Minister of Justice to organize a formal meeting to discuss this issue and that we were to provide him with a list of stakeholders that should attend such a meeting. The commitment was made to ensure that this would happen. This is in accordance with the information provided to me from the Carrier-Sekani Family Services, host agency of the Highway of Tears initiative.

Since Mr. Point's resignation from that committee, the group has had no further communication with regards to the status of the committee or any response from the government regarding this matter. They were, of course, very surprised to hear the minister state that they "are working with communities in the north to establish safer ways for people to travel." This was actually in the House during question period from the minister. They have ad-
[ Page 4302 ]
vised that they have not been contacted for consultation since that time.

I'm wondering if the minister can actually explain to me and to the Carrier-Sekani Family Services how it is that she can say she did consultation with folks in the north when in fact that didn't take place with the very host agency who actually did the symposium and all the work and who are continuing to pursue this very important issue for the members of their community.

Along those lines, I'm also wondering if the minister can provide an answer to the Missing and Murdered Women's Coalition. When exactly could they expect a response from the minister on their letters to the minister, particularly with their five priority recommendations?

[1635]

Hon. S. Anton: As I replied to the previous question, in terms of the coalition for missing women in Vancouver, we have responded by letter. I met with them, and the member was present for that meeting. Staff have met with them again and are working with them to get their advice in terms of consulting on some of the issues around policing and around the missing-persons legislation, as I mentioned earlier.

In terms of the Carrier-Sekani, we gave them $100,000 in March, a civil forfeiture grant, to do community safety training workshops in communities along Highway 16, including addressing the safety needs of vulnerable aboriginal women residing in these communities. Our staff consulted with the Carrier-Sekani Family Services when the grant was issued. In fact, staff were in Prince George just this last week, I believe it was. We do work with them because of the $100,000, and it's an organization that I know that our staff has confidence in.

S. Simpson: So that the minister will know, we're going to move to some discussion around liquor policy at this point.

I would note — and I want to make an introduction — that we do have a couple of guests here in the gallery. Markita and Victor Kaulius are here. The minister will know that Markita, in addition to being…. She's the president of Families for Justice, but also, as we know — and I know we all would extend our sympathies — Markita and Victor lost their 22-year-old daughter, Kassandra, in May of 2011 to an impaired driver.

We're going to start our questions here at this point with some questions related to issues around safety, addictions and other initiatives that link to decisions in the recommendations of the liquor policy review. I'm not sure whether the minister has the staff here ready to go now.

Hon. S. Anton: I'll just introduce Douglas Scott, the general manager and assistant deputy minister in the liquor control and licensing branch, and Blain Lawson, general manager and CEO of the Liquor Distribution Branch. At the same time, because some of these questions may revolve around impaired driving, I also, of course, have Richard Fyfe, my Deputy Attorney General, and Clayton Pecknold, from police services, here.

S. Simpson: When the report and the review were done by the parliamentary secretary, there was a whole array of groups that he spoke to. If you read the 73 recommendations and you read the report, it becomes very clear — the impetus and the initiatives that came from those in the industry. They were looking at ways to streamline. They were looking at ways to make changes that would improve the business model for them, and I understand and appreciate that.

[1640]

However, we also know that there were a whole lot of other people who spoke to the review — the Vancouver Island Health Authority, the Canadian Mental Health Association, MADD Canada, the Centre for Addictions Research of B.C., the provincial health officer, Northern Health, Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, the Canadian Centre for Addiction, the Vancouver police, the B.C. Association of Chiefs of Police, the Victoria police, Prince George RCMP and the Families for Justice were among the organizations that spoke to the review.

In those cases, every one of those organizations, on a variety of matters, whether it was around safety, whether it was around things like impaired driving, around addictions, around other related matters, expressed their concern for public safety and potential fallout from decisions to implement this set of recommendations.

The questions that I want to ask are a couple of questions that relate to that, which I know are of great concern to our guests in the gallery here. When I read the liquor review policy, we see the government says they plan to continue to safeguard health and public safety. Yet if you read the 73 recommendations, there is no mention around resources, around funding to support that, and it's not free.

Can the minister tell us what is the expectation around funding and resource support to build and enhance those health and public safety programs to deal with potential additional fallout from relaxing of liquor laws or to simply deal with issues that we know are in front of us today from current laws that require additional attention?

Hon. S. Anton: I'd like to welcome Mr. and Mrs. Kaulius here today. I know that you came to another awareness event we did around the Jaws of Life. I thank you for your ongoing advocacy. Victims such as your daughter and your family, yourselves, are in our hearts when we do the work that we do to keep our communities safe, and thinking about impaired drivers, people drinking and driving, and also our response to the liquor and liquor use in British Columbia. So thank you
[ Page 4303 ]
for your ongoing work.

[1645]

The parliamentary secretary's report struck a balance. He worked closely, as members will know, with health and safety advisory groups. Groups like MADD, for instance, were consulted. Police were consulted. Indeed, the recommendations around health and public safety led the report.

In terms of resourcing, it will be a balance between some things that users will pay for…. Serving It Right is an easy example of that. There are additional requirements for Serving It Right, and it's generally the person taking the course who will pay for that.

Recommendation 72, though, says: "To make the required adjustment, the Ministry of Justice should develop an effective change management plan, which should include training and professional development for staff and consideration of appropriate LCLB resources." In other words, the plan and the health and safety parts of the plan do need to be properly resourced.

S. Simpson: I appreciate the answer, but the question wasn't that. The question was support. The reality is these programs don't become effective and get realized if they don't have resources. If there isn't a commitment of funding around health and public safety, if there isn't a commitment of funding around prevention programs, then in fact they don't work. There have to be resources applied to this for them to be successful.

My question, again, to the minister is: what is the funding source, and what kinds of resources are we talking about here to support these programs?

Hon. S. Anton: I believe the kinds of programs the member is asking about are the ones at the front of the report — public education programs relating to alcohol use, binge-drinking. "Identify all…alcohol-related education initiatives." Social responsibility public education material is to be posted in licensed establishments, for example. That is No. 4. Number 5 is social responsibility educational campaigns. Number 13 is: "Work with police agencies to explore implementing last-drink programs."

[1650]

I believe that these are the kinds of programs that the member is referencing.

The branch is what we call a $1,000 vote. In other words, it doesn't have voted funds. It supports itself through its own resources. The way that fees are established for programs such as these, the way that the funds are made available is, first of all, the program is identified and described, the costs are determined, and there's a funding proposal which is taken through a fee issue paper for approval of the expenditures of the funds.

I will observe that government has accepted all 73 of these recommendations, As I mentioned earlier, there is a very strong theme through the recommendations on health and public safety and a strong commitment by government to put these into practice.

S. Simpson: I think that view of a strong theme is not necessarily shared by many of the organizations that approached the ministry around this and who have looked at the review, so I don't think that's entirely accurate.

When I look at these programs and then I go and look at the service plan to see what the service plan has to say…. It has a reference around responsible alcohol consumption education and awareness and ministry efforts to continue to improve education and awareness. But when I read through, all I can find is production of a bi-annual newsletter and "in addition, the branch will continue its work on development of resources for parents of minors." That's the extent. Again, no numbers.

It's pretty easy for me to find the number that says how much revenue government gets from liquor. About $1.1 billion comes into general revenue when you include the profits and the taxes, give or take. The minister, I'm sure, is able to provide…. In here the information tells me it's $1.1 billion that we take from liquor to pay for things.

Can the minister tell me — and I don't much mind whether it's money that comes through the agency or through the ministry — how much money is being spent on programs around prevention, around health and public safety related to alcohol?

[1655]

Hon. S. Anton: On health and public safety programs. In the Liquor Distribution Branch, it's nearly $1½ million a year. It's about a $1 million a year on health and safety training, public awareness training, posters, etc., which I think we see when we go out and about. They are spending nearly $500,000 this year on the dry grad. They are spending, right now, $75,000 on the postering relating to party buses.

On the liquor control and licensing branch, it's about $5 million a year on compliance and enforcement. Then if you take other programs in government, the immediate roadside prohibition program is about $5 million a year. Policing — I can't tell you what policing spends.

The Ministry of Health obviously has a lot of programs on addictions and so on. Again, I'm not able to provide that information. But there's a significant commitment by the branch itself — the Liquor Distribution Branch and the liquor control and licensing branch — as I described, on the health and public safety initiatives.

S. Simpson: So I see about $2½ million to $3 million on what is $1.1 billion of revenue.

I've seen the minister's comments in regard to the immediate roadside prohibitions and administrative prohibitions and the minister talking about the estimates here of upwards of 190 lives being saved by the implementation of these programs and a reduction in fatalities
[ Page 4304 ]
due to impaired driving. What we do know is that there are significant numbers of immediate roadside prohibitions and administrative driving prohibitions.

I guess I have two questions. One is: could the minister tell us what her projections are as to how many of those prohibitions we have seen in the last period of time?

The other question I have is: based on the estimates of the ministry and of authorities, for every roadside prohibition where somebody is caught and an assessment is made and a prohibition is put in place, how many, is it projected, are not caught? Is it one in 50? Is it one in 20? Is it one in 75? What's the best guess?

Hon. S. Anton: The number of prohibitions from the IRPs, the 0.05s, and the IRP fails, which are the 0.08s, and the other 24-hour suspensions and so on…. The total from October 2010 to April 2014 is 29,724. That's how many were issued.

As to how many were not issued and how many could still be issued, I can't speculate on that, obviously. But what I can say is that the number of fatalities caused by drinking drivers has been reduced in that time period by 190. It is a reduced number. Every fatality is a fatality too many, and so we obviously are continuing to be vigilant to continue to try and drive that statistic down.

S. Simpson: I understand that there have been over 6,000 immediate roadside prohibitions given out to impaired drivers in the first four months of 2014. Could the minister confirm that number?

[1700]

Again, my question is: could the minister tell us what is the best estimate of the ministry and of her officials? For every one of those impaired roadside prohibitions that's put in place, how many people slipped through the cracks and did we miss? What's the best guess?

Hon. S. Anton: : I'm going to revise what I said a moment ago, and I'm going to have to ask the member's indulgence to ask that last question again, because while he was speaking I noticed that I read the chart wrong.

In fact, the number is much higher. I'd have to add these up, but it's about 24,000 plus 67,000 plus 76,000 plus 30,000 — roughly. If we add those numbers up, that's about what it is, so it's a much higher number than I initially gave.

And I'm sorry. I'd ask the member to ask his question again.

S. Simpson: That is a large number.

The question was…. It's my understanding there have been over 6,000 impaired roadside prohibitions — not administrative driving prohibitions but immediate roadside prohibitions — in the first four months of 2014. The question is: for every one of those immediate roadside prohibitions or administrative driving prohibitions — and the couple of hundred thousand, or close to it, that the minister named there — how many people, as the best guess, did you miss who made it through without being stopped? What's the estimate? The police must have an estimate about what they think the best guess is.

Hon. S. Anton: I do not have…. We're not able to answer that question. I'm not able to answer that question.

S. Simpson: I guess, then, the question that I would have is in terms of just moving now a little bit to some of the treatment issues related to expansion. When we look at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health and their recommendations, they recommend the government expand public education on health and safety risks related to alcohol use, with particular emphasis on harmful effects of binge drinking by youth and post-secondary students.

We now have 73 recommendations. These are recommendations that the expectation is will it generate additional revenues for government. Then the question becomes what additions, over and above the $3 million or so that is being provided through public awareness through the LDB…? Is there an expectation that there will be additional dollars and resources applied to health and safety, to public awareness, to treatment over and above what's expended today out of the couple of billion dollars of direct and indirect money the government gets?

Hon. S. Anton: One should never try and read a chart without spending time on the chart. I have to revise my answer yet again because there was a subtotal in there. The number of the prohibitions is about 105,000. It's 76,000 plus 30,000, more or less, in round numbers. So I'll revise the number yet again.

[1705]

In terms of what has been spent over and above what I mentioned before, there's money spent in health. There's money in policing. For the health dollars, we would have to ask Health. For the policing dollars, it's really very difficult to disaggregate what police spend on impaired driving compared to what they spend on all their other duties. It's simply not counted up in a way that I can offer to the member today.

S. Simpson: I've got just one last question, for the moment, in regard to some of these matters. It's from a report by the Centre for Addictions Research of B.C. One of the things that the report says is: "B.C. does not have an alcohol-specific provincial strategy. The issue of alcohol consumption is significant enough in terms of public health and safety and has ramifications for policy and practice across multiple sectors of government to warrant a focused and overarching guide to strategy."

Could the minister tell us: what is the strategy of gov-
[ Page 4305 ]
ernment to deal with issues related to alcohol and all of the complexity that comes with that? What is the strategy?

Hon. S. Anton: Recommendation 5 recommends that government, public health officials and industry collaborate to develop effective and meaningful social responsibility education campaigns for display in licensed establishments and liquor stores and advertising and public service campaigns. That work is underway in a collaboration between Health and the liquor control and licensing branch.

At the same time, in terms of other strategies by government to improve public safety relating to alcohol, there is, of course, the road safety initiative, which aims to have the safest roads in Canada by 2020. The IRPs — the immediate roadside prohibitions — we believe to have been very effective over the last few years in taking drinking drivers off the road and in saving lives. As I said, there's a very strong commitment by government in these different initiatives to make our roads safer and our communities safer.

[1710]

The goal of the report, the liquor policy review, was…. It had a number of recommendations around the use of alcohol, the enjoyment of alcohol, the selling of alcohol and so on. But those came with a very strong focus for health and public safety and education at the same time.

S. Simpson: It continues to be a problem. The minister referenced a number around 100,000, a little more than 100,000, that would have been affected by prohibitions and taken off the road. You've got to believe…. I think that we're all happy and pleased that the estimate is that 190 lives were saved by those initiatives. We all would want it to be more.

We also know that if there were 100,000 out there, I'm going to say that if I just pick the number of ten or 20 people who slipped through the cracks for every one that was caught, I don't think I'd be far out. Matter of fact, I'm probably conservative. That tells me we're talking about a couple of million people on the road who probably shouldn't have been there because they were drinking.

This initiative has captured some of that, and I'm not sure that you can go and do a ton better than that. But the reality is that there have to be ways to get at those other people who are doing this and putting lives at risk — their own lives and the lives of others at risk. That's got to be a consequence there.

I'm pleased to hear the minister talk about some of these matters. As I'd said, Mr. and Ms. Kaulius are with us today. They are committed to this issue. They certainly understand this issue far more than I do. And I know — they've told me earlier today — that at the federal level they've gathered 65,000 signatures to look at increased penalties and sentencing around impaired driving, to deal with under the Criminal Code. They'll be advancing those initiatives in Ottawa.

I don't have the time, and it's unfortunate I don't have the time, to pursue these matters further. So my question to the minister would be: not necessarily today, but would the minister make a commitment to sit down with Mr. and Mrs. Kaulius and some of their colleagues, parents of other children who have lost their lives — or they have family members who have lost their lives — to impaired drivers, and have a conversation with her officials and with the Kauliuses and with others around these issues so that they can ask the questions they would ask better than me and satisfy themselves that the initiatives of this government, in fact, are going to be valuable and worthwhile? Maybe the ministry will be able to learn some things from their experience and their knowledge to help create improvement around this area.

My question to the minister is: will she make the commitment that she and her officials will meet with the Kauliuses and others they're working with?

Hon. S. Anton: Mr. and Ms. Kaulius have met with a number of members of government, including my predecessor, I gather, Minister Shirley Bond.

I did meet with you informally the other day and would be glad to meet again, because we are always, in government, most interested in people who can help us with their advice and in our policy-making, as we move forward.

S. Simpson: Thanks to the minister for that commitment. I'll look forward to hearing about this meeting, hopefully, being arranged by the minister's officials and the family to happen soon so that there can be some positive work done, moving forward, to get a better handle on these things.

I'm going to move now to other areas related to liquor and deal with some specific matters. The first question. We know that there's been discussion around turning the liquor branch largely into a Crown corporation and using the Crown corp model. Could the minister tell us what the status of that is?

[1715]

Hon. S. Anton: There are some fairly big-picture items that we're working on in liquor. Wholesale pricing, liquor and grocery and those kinds of issues may somewhat change the face of how liquor is sold and delivered in British Columbia. The question of what the final governance model should be has not yet been determined, because some of these other decisions will be made in advance, and then we'll move on to that decision.

S. Simpson: It's my understanding, and the minister can correct this if it's not accurate…. We know we had the legislation that was brought this spring. It's my
[ Page 4306 ]
understanding, from the minister's officials, that there is a more substantive and significant rewrite planned for next spring. Could the minister tell us: is that in fact correct? Would we expect a change around the governance model or the structure model, if one is to occur, to be in that legislation?

Hon. S. Anton: The proposal in the spring is to change the Liquor Control and Licensing Act, which will deal with many of the things which came out of the liquor policy review. The question of governance would be in the Liquor Distribution Act, and at the moment there is no plan to change that in the spring — certainly not in a major way, in the same way that the Liquor Control and Licensing Act is proposed.

S. Simpson: Could the minister tell us: should the initiative, which I know was broached and at least mused about around the Crown corporation, go forward at some time in the future, is the minister prepared to commit that there will be a significant consultation process before the governance structure of liquor distribution is made?

Hon. S. Anton: As there have been no decisions made yet as to how to move forward, it would be premature for me to talk about what any kind of consultation would look like.

S. Simpson: I understand it may be premature to dot the i's and cross the t's, but I would have hoped the minister could say: "Yes, we will talk to people before we go and make a substantive change."

I want to move to the pricing question. The minister may well recall that I asked this question back in February 2014 of the minister in the first round. Or I should say, I asked it back…. Yeah, that's what the date would be there.

The question was: "Is the thinking about a new pricing system and a one-wholesale-price system still something that the ministry is considering, or has that gone by the wayside?"

The minister's answer was: "It would have been extremely disruptive to the industry and very complicated, so the decision was made not to go there. The question of 'should we try again at this point?' is not under consideration at this point." That was the minister's answer.

[1720]

Could the minister tell us what the position is today? Why has it changed?

Hon. S. Anton: I'm thinking that the member may be referring to the last set of estimates, which was last July. If I can get a nod? Yeah, so July of 2013.

At that time, the wholesale price was not under consideration. However, since then, we do now have Parliamentary Secretary Yap's report, and the recommendations in that report include liquor in grocery. As a result of that recommendation, we are now taking the opportunity to consider the entire system, and it's appropriate to consider wholesale pricing.

That policy work is underway, but there are no determinations yet as to what that would look like. So I cannot report at the moment as to where we will land, but there is some very active thinking going on in that regard.

S. Simpson: Well, we need to be clear that, in fact, the report of the parliamentary secretary didn't deal with this matter at all. In fact, the parliamentary secretary was very clear in saying pricing was outside of his mandate and his purview and he wasn't able to deal with that. That's a matter that fell out of the blue.

There are those of us who would believe, at the cabinet table, that the minister's predecessor, who was an enthusiastic fan of a single-pricing system and tried to do this before to no avail, probably was strongly encouraging that at the cabinet table. But I won't ask the minister that, because that would be cabinet confidentiality.

That's the challenge. The question I have, then, for the minister regarding the pricing matter is…. There are a couple of options. The option that has been talked about, the option that I have heard about from people in the industry who've talked to people in the ministry and around the branch, is that the current price does not change for the private operators and the price adjustment will be in the government stores.

If that in fact is accurate, it would appear to me we're talking about potential lost revenue, among other issues. Has the ministry done an analysis of the financial impacts of any changes to pricing?

[1725]

Hon. S. Anton: The goal of the analysis — there are indeed analysts looking at this — is to maintain revenues. It is complex. We have not settled on a model, but as I said, the thinking is underway.

S. Simpson: Well, if it hasn't settled on a model, then maybe we'll back up to a more basic question here. Has the government and has the minister settled on a one-price model? Not the specifics of what that might look like, about how the dynamics of that might work or the detail of that, but has the government settled on a one-price model?

I ask that because the government has said it's adopted all 73 recommendations and will proceed. I recall in the releases that came out that pricing was referenced. We know it was never one of the 73 recommendations, but it was added in. Is there agreement by the government that there will be a one-price model — without getting to the detail of what that one price looks like?
[ Page 4307 ]

Hon. S. Anton: As I said a moment ago, we have not settled on what the model will look like.

S. Simpson: I'll try again. I don't want to know what the model looks like. I want to know whether we're talking about a one-price model, not what it looks like. I'm asking no detail. But the government issued press releases, this minister issued press releases, saying we're going to a single pricing. If that's the decision of government, that's fine. I'm just trying to confirm: is the government locked in on one price?

[1730]

Hon. S. Anton: Yes, there have been discussions about the various models. Because we have not landed on a model, it would be premature for me at this point to say what any elements of that model will look like.

Because of the liquor and grocery plan in the liquor policy review and because of the need to maintain government revenues, which obviously is a very compelling need in this whole report, we do need to look at pricing to ensure that government revenues are maintained. As I said, it's a very active file. It's work that's ongoing right now.

S. Simpson: I guess I don't know what to make of the press release that said we got one level of pricing and a minister who can't tell me that. The minister clearly is able to tell us that 73 recommendations have been embraced — even though, when you look at the list, so many of them are shallow, to say the least, as the report is shallow in terms of any evidence or due diligence that's been done to support them.

But I accept the fact that the minister and the government have chosen to accept all 73 regardless, knowing there's a whole body of work to be done on most of those recommendations, if not all of them. Certainly on some of the key ones like grocery stores, which we'll talk about in a minute, there's a lot of work to be done.

The government didn't seem to have a problem in saying: "We're going to embrace all 73, even though we don't know what that means when we actually get to doing it." I thought the government had said, "We're embracing single pricing," at the same time, but apparently not — or maybe not. I'm not sure.

I'm going to move to the grocery stores that the minister has spoken about on a couple of occasions here. Can the minister tell us: what is the current status of the move towards the sale of liquor in grocery stores?

Hon. S. Anton: The liquor policy review was an extremely successful public engagement, as the member knows. People were very enthusiastic about going to the website. Stakeholders were very interested in meeting with the parliamentary secretary in charge of the liquor policy review.

[1735]

One of the themes that was fairly constant was that people wanted some kind of access to liquor in grocery. The policy work on that is underway: definitions of what is grocery, determining the eligibility criteria, what kind of geography we would be requiring in terms of doors, what kind of training people need to be in the establishments — those kinds of work. All of those things are underway at the moment.

S. Simpson: The report…. Clearly, I understand folks that came forward, and obviously, a number of people who were surprised by some of the recommendations — people in the industry. It was a bit of a wish list of folks in and around the industry, and I appreciate that.

The challenge comes in how to implement it, and the grocery store plan is one of the more challenging ones. Is the minister still committed to the store-within-a-store model? That has been talked about pretty consistently up to this point, where it would be a unique entity within the store; i.e., it would not be a matter of, as with many of our American friends, just loading liquor on the shelves and you come up to the regular cashier and cash out as you do with the regular groceries.

The store-within-a-store model that I know the minister has spoken about on a number of occasions — is that still the plan, some form of that?

Hon. S. Anton: Yes.

S. Simpson: Is it the expectation still at this point…? We know and we've read in the media that one of the challenges that many of the major grocery chains would have is the one-kilometre rule. I believe I read a story in the Vancouver Sun that of the 53 major shopping facilities in Vancouver, 52 of them couldn't put a liquor store in today. They couldn't put a store within a store because they are within close proximity and less than one kilometre away from another liquor outlet — presumably a private outlet — unless they purchased that outlet or that licence and moved that in.

They wouldn't be able to bring an additional licence in under the current rules. Is there any contemplation of removing the one-kilometre rule?

Hon. S. Anton: There is no contemplation of removing the one-kilometre rule at the moment.

S. Simpson: Then, if I'm to understand correctly, should a retail food chain that was determined eligible to have a liquor store want to do that, if there was another private store, for example, adjacent, they then would have to purchase that licence or whatever and make the decision to move that facility into their store in order to accomplish their objective. Would that be accurate?
[ Page 4308 ]

Hon. S. Anton: The grocery would not be able to put in its store within a store if there were another liquor store within one kilometre.

S. Simpson: Is it contemplated? I know that the thinking has been that this would look at private stores, the 670 or whatever private licences that are out there. It would involve one of the groceries buying one of those licences and putting it in the store. Is there any contemplation of moving government stores into these facilities?

[1740]

Hon. S. Anton: It is possible that the store within a store could be a government liquor store.

S. Simpson: One of the other models that's talked about and has been talked about by the minister is the VQA model. I believe that the thinking here is to be able to put VQA products, wines…. I know there has been some discussion about craft beer, the growing craft beer industry, and being able to put craft beer in as well. My understanding from what little I've been able to garner about this is that might well be a situation where that's on a shelf in the store itself — not part of the store-within-a-store permit but a unique permit that's around the VQA products.

Could the minister tell us would that be the case — that if the VQA permits go forward, they would be unique in that way in that they would allow the product onto a shelf in the store itself, regardless of whether they had a store-within-a-store liquor licence?

Hon. S. Anton: As we announced, there is a proposal that VQA could be sold inside a grocery store on the shelves and not on the store-within-a-store model.

The policy work is underway as to the relationship between VQA inside a store and nearby government stores or LRS stores and the one-kilometre rule — how that will play out. That policy work is underway.

S. Simpson: Is the suggestion here that the one-kilometre rule may not apply to these permits? Is that what's being contemplated?

Hon. S. Anton: That question is undecided.

S. Simpson: Could the minister tell us what work has been done around trade policy? The immediate question that's raised around the VQA model, because of our trade agreements with our friends in the United States and our other friends, is that if I'm a California winery and you tell me that you're going to put B.C. wine into that Save-On-Foods on the shelf and then I don't get that same access, you're breaching that trade agreement, in all likelihood.

Does the minister have a legal opinion, an opinion, on whether in fact this can be done without breaching trade agreements?

[1745]

Hon. S. Anton: The government is aware that there are trade implications, and we are taking them into consideration in developing policy.

S. Simpson: It's not just a trade matter, for that matter. I mean, the other concern here is if you look at the VQA model, depending on what's decided about size and scale…. One of the challenges with VQA — it's a challenge, certainly, if the craft beer is entertained as well — is if you were to get a number of stores.

The thing that becomes pretty clear is that should the government make the decision that the one-kilometre rule doesn't fit and that the VQA option is available and it suits the needs of those stores much more…. Most of them probably would much rather put this on a shelf in the regular store than build a store within a store with all the implications of that and the additional staffing requirements and security. The idea that they could just put it on a shelf in their store and sell it like they sell the rest of their merchandise would sound pretty appealing.

Once you do that, one of the things we know is that, first of all, VQA, the supply…. We produce a fabulous product, but we don't produce mass amounts of that product, and craft beer even more so. It's limited amounts and limited runs of that product. So you're going to have a situation where the stores may have trouble getting the product.

At the same time, are you going to be saying to Molson in Vancouver…. They will say: "We brew lots of beer right here in Vancouver. How come we can't put our beer on that shelf along with Parallel 49 and Driftwood? We produce that beer in Vancouver and British Columbia just like everybody else. You've got shelf space, because you don't have enough craft product to fill it." How does that get dealt with?

Hon. S. Anton: As the member observes, there are many complexities, and they are all in the considerations. I think the observation of the complexities will really point out why this is not a very straightforward question. That's why the policy work is underway, and that's some of the thinking that is underway on the issue.

S. Simpson: Then that kind of brings me to the real issue here and the issue that has been raised to me by numerous people in the industry, the private-store owners. The liquor store industry has raised this with me. They almost to a person say that the scenario they play out is the scenario that says you can't get a store within a store because of proximity of other liquor stores. You apply and get the VQA permit, whatever that looks like. You've got that. Not very long down the road, there's
[ Page 4309 ]
pressure around trade agreements. There's pressure from other products. Pretty soon the rule changes, and you've essentially created a liquor store because you broaden the capacity to add other product, not just VQA product.

The question I have for the minister…. She has been very clear, as has the government, that this was a unique model that would be used to advance B.C. craft product, whether it's VQA wines or craft beers, and would be limited to that. The concern now is if you can't get around the one-kilometre rule, this is a back door into liquor in your grocery stores, and maybe broader than just VQA product.

Is the minister committed that this will be VQA or craft beer product and will not turn into a back door to allow expansion to simply the creation of liquor stores that end-run the one-kilometre rule and all of the machinations of a store within a store?

[1750]

Hon. S. Anton: The scenario described by the member is not at all government's intention. As we have stated, the commitment is to look at the possibility of putting VQA wines into grocery, and in the future we could look at craft beer, although at the moment there is no definition as to what "craft beer" means.

We are, of course, mindful of the trade policy considerations, and it is our view that there may only be a rather small number of opportunities of this nature. But as I think I said a moment ago, the member is identifying a number of reasons why the answers to this are not terribly straightforward and why it's a fairly complex piece of policy which is being undertaken.

S. Simpson: On the broader policy question — because it is complex and it has a bunch of layers — could the minister tell us what her expectation around a timeline is to land on some policy here that presumably allows regulation to be written? She can correct me if I'm wrong as to whether this requires new legislation or if it can be done by regulation. But what's the expectation of a timeline here before the government lands on how to proceed, whatever that might mean, and then to put in place regulation or legislation in the fall or the spring, if that's what it requires?

Hon. S. Anton: In terms of the legislation that is in place, with the amendments recently done to the act, it is the policy work which is needed here, and the goal is to have that done by early next year.

S. Simpson: I might have missed that. Is the minister saying that now the legislation that was adopted earlier this session enables this to be done by regulation and not by further legislation?

Hon. S. Anton: It enables it to be done by policy.

S. Simpson: The question of the 670-odd licences that we have currently and the decision of this policy, which…. The minister can clarify whether in fact this has now been done by this legislation that we've adopted. It used to be…. As we know, the policy was if you bought a private liquor store, you couldn't move it more than five kilometres from its current location. So people bought liquor stores. Now it's more portable, and you can move that permit or that licence anywhere you want in the province. Instead of the actual store being what's of value, the piece of paper is now what's of value.

Could the minister tell us: is there any thought about what this does for the valuation and any thought about what this potentially does around compromising access in smaller communities that could lose a licensed facility because the potential of the value of that in a relocated, higher-population area is very real? What assessments have been done of that possibility, and how does the government plan to address that?

[1755]

Hon. S. Anton: As I stated when we made one of the announcements along the way, there could possibly be a levy on the transfer of the licences. That has not been determined at the moment.

In terms of the question as to whether or not this could compromise access in small communities, there is indeed the possibility that a licence could be moved from a small community to what was viewed as being a more lucrative market. I don't think any small communities should be, in that case, not able to have liquor, because it's likely, then, that they would qualify for a rural agency store.

S. Simpson: Is the branch monitoring sale of licences? And has there been any significant activity around sale of licences since this was announced?

Hon. S. Anton: A moment ago I said that the legislation was in place and it was only policy work. There may, in fact, be a need for some regulation changes. The legislation is in place. There may be a need for additional regulation.

In terms of the licence sales and activity, the branch knows when there is a transfer of a licence. And if it's a share transfer, if there's a greater than 10 percent change of control, the branch again needs to be notified, and there are penalties if that does not happen. At the moment, I am told, there is no statistically significant change in the transfer of licences.

S. Simpson: Maybe just for down the road here, just so I'll be able to get a handle on this, could the minister tell us: what's the range for typical change of licences in a given year? If I see it doubles or triples, I'll kind of know that's what it's done.

[1800]

Hon. S. Anton: I was hoping to get that answer fairly quickly, but it's not available right at the moment. I may get it in a few minutes. Otherwise, I will make sure that the member receives it in writing later.

S. Simpson: Just a bit of a diversion here to a specific case, a letter I received from a gentleman I know, a fellow by the name of Paddy Treavor, who's a craft beer aficionado and lives in the Powell River area. He's the president of CAMRA Powell River, which is one of the regional groups that promotes the craft beer industry.

He wrote to the minister about a month ago in relation to an agency store on Savary Island. There was an application by the Savary Island General Store and Trading Co. for an agency store status. That status was declined because the store is within ten kilometres of another liquor store. However, that other liquor store is in Lund on the mainland, so you'd need a boat to get to the other store versus the one that's on the island.

There was a letter written to the minister, I believe, around this, asking for some consideration since this wasn't simply a matter of jumping in your car and driving down the road to the liquor store. You'd have to travel to the mainland from the island.

I'd ask whether the minister is aware of this correspondence, or her officials may be aware of it, and whether she would commit to responding to Mr. Treavor and hopefully trying to find a solution.

I think what we would all agree is that if there are communities in the province that have legitimate access issues, then you should address those issues. It seems to me this question of having to get on a boat to get off the island to go and buy your bottle of wine is a bit problematic. Could there be some attention paid to that to see if a resolution can be found, either to licence this agency store or to move forward with another solution?

[1805]

Hon. S. Anton: I have an answer to the previous question as to the typical number of licences transferred in a year. It's around the range of 53 to 80. Share transfers are 24 to 33, so it's that kind of range.

In terms of the Savary Island agency store, I am aware of the request and the issue. I have asked my general manager to review the request, and he will be providing me with his recommendation.

S. Simpson: I appreciate that. Hopefully, that can happen in a timely fashion and the people on Savary Island can get their access if it's warranted.

I want to move, in the last few minutes we have here — just 15 minutes or so left, maybe — to the question of liquor distribution and the warehousing situation. Could the minister give us an update on the warehouse relocation off of Broadway, how that's going and what the plans are?

Hon. S. Anton: As the member is probably aware, the property on East Broadway has been sold with a leaseback to the Liquor Distribution Branch for three years plus renewal terms. There is a consultant working to identify the needs of a future warehouse, and the design phase is underway.

S. Simpson: We know, if we go back into not that distant a history…. Actually, I'm going to go a different place with the question.

The consultant. I believe that Sedlak is the consultant. Could the minister tell us: what exactly is Sedlak's job as the consultant? Where are they in their term? My understanding is that the agreement was that they were contracted for a year, with the ability to have a number of six-month extensions subsequent to that if it was decided that that was warranted.

[1810]

Could the minister tell us: what exactly are they doing, have they produced any reports on these issues, and why are they in place?

Hon. S. Anton: Yes, indeed, the consultant is Sedlak. They are experts on liquor distribution and on supply chain. They are in the first year of the contract with the branch, measuring future requirements, doing a needs analysis. Their contract is a one-year contract but with six-month renewals, and the timing of the consultation is on schedule.

S. Simpson: We know back previously that there was an effort to essentially privatize the liquor distribution aspect of the business. That was withdrawn, I believe, around collective bargaining with the B.C. Government and Service Employees Union. There may have been other reasons, but we know that was one of them, and we know that agreement locked in I think 185 stores, at least for the rest of the term of the collective agreement, and that at least 185 government stores would be maintained and not potentially privatized.

I don't know and the minister can maybe tell me whether there were commitments around the future of distribution as part of that collective agreement — I'm not aware of that — and what the status of that is.

Really, the key question here is that…. Sedlak, we know, has worked previously with Exel, which was the company that was enthusiastically looking to encourage the privatization model when it was in front of us. Mr. Kinsella, a good friend of some of the minister's colleagues, was doing work with them on that matter.

The question I have now is: is part of Sedlak's mandate to look at optimizing liquor distribution models, and could that model and that recommendation include revisiting the privatization of the distribution system?

[1815]

Hon. S. Anton: The contract with Sedlak is available on the website. Are we revisiting the issue of privatizing distribution? The answer is no.

S. Simpson: To be clear, I appreciate that answer. It's pretty definitive. So we can be confident that the options, whether they involve new warehouses, built to spec warehouses or whatever, will all happen somewhere and hopefully that will be a good thing. But under no circumstances, at least as of today, is privatization of the warehousing and distribution system again a live topic on the table.

Hon. S. Anton: The warehouse, as the member knows, is government-owned, and the current work that's going on proposes that it remain government-owned, and there are no plans at the moment to change that.

S. Simpson: I'll just add one short request — not a question so much as a request.

We'll be completing the liquor aspect of these estimates now. There were some other questions that time just did not permit to get to. I would ask the minister that if I was to put those questions in writing to the minister that I could expect written responses to some of those questions that we simply haven't had time to get to today.

Hon. S. Anton: Yes, I would be agreeable.

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

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:19 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

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

TV channel guide • Broadcast schedule

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