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)

Thursday, May 29, 2014

Morning Sitting

Volume 14, Number 4

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

THURSDAY, MAY 29, 2014

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Speaker's Statement

RETIREMENT OF
SERGEANT-AT-ARMS STAFF

Madame Speaker: Hon. Members, the end of this session will see the retirement of two Legislative Assembly Protective Services members. After enduring rain, snow, diving crows, night shifts, protests and celebrations, Special Const. Murray Kennett and Special Const. Dan Lovasz will be retiring from the Sergeant-at-Arms branch to pursue more peaceful undertakings. They have truly made this place the people's House. Please help me wish both Murray and Dan a long and healthy retirement.

Introductions by Members

Hon. C. Clark: Well, whatever our political differences, all members of this House will certainly agree — and we've heard members on the other side speak in glowing terms as well — about the people who support them every day here. They tell us that herding MLAs is harder than herding cats, but I think that herding MLAs must be certainly more fun.

The young men and women who can answer the questions that all of us have every day are here. They are our legislative assistants. In the newly established tradition of exceptionally long introductions, I'd like to take a moment. Suneil Karod, Derek Robertson, Heidi Scott, Kadagn Klepsch, Emily Phillips, Chantel Elloway, Janta Quigley, Kristen Blake, Marissa Olson, Mona Ying, Gary Nagra and Simran Sahota.

I know that wasn't as long as I promised. I could get up and do another introduction, though, if we'd really like to carry on the tradition, although I'll end it now. I ask the House to please make all of our assistants very welcome.

J. Horgan: I will try and be as brief as the Premier with her introductions. We have, on this side of the House, an able group of staff as well. But I want to draw attention to one in particular because she's going to be leaving us. That's my assistant, Amber Nash.

Amber has been here for seven years. I was in the Speaker's office earlier this week, and her staff appealed to me to table a petition calling on all of us to find a way for Amber to spend less time here and get more pay. We weren't able to do that, but Amber is beloved not just by the NDP caucus but by all of the people who work in this precinct. She's a wonderful woman. She's going to be spending time with her beautiful daughter. Good for her. Families first, as I look across at the Premier.

Goodbye, Amber. I know you're watching on that big honkin' TV. It's about that big. We're really going to miss you. See ya later.

Hon. S. Anton: There's a group in the House today who all of us rely on. Every member of this House has had in his or her hand a proclamation which they have handed to a community group or been with a community group all around British Columbia. These proclamations come from quite a lot of hard work — input from the organization, but of course, there is a whole team here that builds the proclamations, gets them ready for us, gets them signed and gets them out again.

These key team members are: Barb Emerson, manager of the order-in-council office; Doris Dardengo, who is an OIC clerk; Sylvia-Anne Farnden, commissioner clerk; and Jennifer Conklin, authentication clerk. Next time you have a proclamation in your possession, in your hand, that you're giving to someone, this is the team. May the House thank them.

K. Corrigan: It gives me a great deal of pleasure to introduce Louis Wang, who is in the gallery today. Louis is a graduate student at Simon Fraser who is doing a master's in health policy. He's working with me for a couple of months doing a practicum. Will the House please make Louis feel very welcome.

[1010]

Hon. N. Letnick: If you'll indulge me, I have a few introductions to make.

First, on behalf of the Premier and the Minister for Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, I'd like to introduce a visitor here from Kelowna. Marjorie Mitchell is visiting the Legislature today, along with her friend, also from Kelowna, Larissa Macklem. Both are librarians at UBC Okanagan. Marjorie is also known as one of the best volunteer stage managers that Shakespeare Kelowna has ever had. I hope all the members can join me in making them feel very welcome.

Speaking of Kelowna, today I also welcome my administrative assistant, Sarah Britton, who is up there in the gallery. She'll be leaving us this week. Sarah started working in the building in May 2012, and in that time, worked with a number of past and present ministers in this House as well as a variety of ministries. The reason why I say speaking of Kelowna is that Sarah's moving to Kelowna.

Hon. C. Clark: Yay.
[ Page 4406 ]

Hon. N. Letnick: That's right — my riding, Premier.

Will the members please join the Premier and I and the Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations. Sarah, thank you very much for all your hard work.

Last but not least, because an army travels on its stomach, today is B.C. Beef Day. I have the privilege of welcoming, on behalf of everyone here, the new president, Lary Fossum; David Haywood-Farmer, our past president; Doug Fossen; Larry Garrett; Mark Grafton; Erica Strand; Werner Stump; Bonnie Haywood-Farmer; Erica Folson; Kevin Boon, the general manager; Andrea White, public affairs and market programs coordinator; and Rick Mumford, land stewardship coordinator — all here to watch us through our QP and, of course, to help us eat at lunchtime.

Would the House please make them feel very welcome.

B. Ralston: I want to recognize a group of young people who have done a great job this session, assisting members of the opposition as opposition interns. They are Carly Aasen, Elyse Goatcher-Bergmann, Esther Rzeplinski, Ethan Plato and Johanna McBurnie. Would the House please congratulate them and thank them for all the work that they have done this session.

Tributes

WERNER BRAUN

Hon. T. Lake: I rise today on behalf of the Minister of Transportation and myself to recognize the passing of Werner Braun at the age of 81 years. Werner and his wife Christa came from Germany in 1958 and settled in Kamloops eventually. Werner Braun was known as a tremendous painter. He catalogued almost every iconic scene in the city of Kamloops. When I was mayor of Kamloops, I asked him to paint a picture of the city hall for me, which he did. It's the only one in existence.

Werner just had a way of capturing what was special about the city of Kamloops and the surrounding area, and he'll be sadly missed. I would hope that all of us would send condolences to his wife, his family and his grandchildren.

Introductions by Members

L. Krog: I know they're in the precincts today. I saw them earlier — two very capable gentlemen, both here, I suspect, to shake down a cabinet minister or two. Firstly, George Hanson, who is with the Vancouver Island Economic Summit, and accompanying him is a very healthy and happy-looking Ron Cantelon, former member for Parksville-Qualicum. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. A. Virk: I'm joined today here by my newly minted constituency assistant. She spent a lot of time on the Island doing her masters at Royal Roads. In her spare time, she works with youth and teaches seniors dance.

Would the House please make Samantha Schaap welcome.

S. Hammell: I would like to introduce Rimmy Riarh, my new constituency assistant. He is a political graduate and very keen to learn the more practical aspects of politics. He's here to watch us finish the session today. Could the House please make him welcome.

J. Yap: I have one introduction of a good friend and constituent in the gallery today — Peter Boddy. Would the House please welcome Peter to the Legislature.

[1015]

K. Conroy: I actually have two introductions today — one who is here. Don Foder is a retired USW member from the Kootenays. He is also a great supporter of ours and has been doing the support for a long, long time, so please join me in making him very welcome.

I'm really pleased to announce an addition to our family. Our newest grandchild was born last night at 9:54, weighing in at seven pounds, 11 ounces. Little Moss Conroy Jones is the first child to our oldest son, Wyllie, and his wife, Jayme, and the seventh grandchild for Ed and me. The mom and son are doing great, so would the House please join me in welcoming little Moss.

Hon. T. Lake: I would like to recognize my executive assistant, Dayna Dobrowolski, who is leaving the precinct. We have lost her to the private sector after this session. I just wanted to personally thank Dayna for all of her hard work helping MLAs from both sides of the House with their constituent issues and wish her the very best of luck in the private sector.

D. Donaldson: Visiting the Legislature today is a grade 7 class from St. Joseph's School in Smithers, in Stikine. We had a great visit in my office. I know that the members know that it takes a long time to drive from Smithers to Victoria. On this particular trip, they told me, their bus broke down in Quesnel, and they had to spend extra time on the road getting here. I would like the members to join me in making them welcome to the Legislature today.

E. Foster: It is my great pleasure today to announce the birth of my first grandchild. I would like to thank the member from the Kootenays, because I forgot to do this. I just saw her on TV, and I thought: "Holy cow, I'd better get in there and do this."

Our first granddaughter, Gabrielle Joan Foster, was born on May 18 in Edmonton to our son Nathaniel and his partner, Amber, and we are just thrilled.
[ Page 4407 ]

S. Simpson: We've heard from both sides today, and on the last day of the session it makes sense — a lot of recognition and acknowledgment of the staff who work hard for all of us. I know we count on our legislative assistants and our communication and research staff, not just the ones who are here but the ones for us who are also located in Vancouver in the caucus office there.

I want to welcome one of those communications staff who is here visiting with us today from the Vancouver side, Caroline Skelton. I hope you will all make her welcome for the contribution she makes to all the work we do here.

N. Simons: I would like to join all my colleagues in congratulating them on all their grandchildren. I don't have any yet, but stay tuned. You might be waiting awhile. At the same time, Madame Speaker, I acknowledge that a lot of work we do here is for the grandchildren and for their grandchildren.

In that light, I'd like to welcome the cattlemen, who have been instrumental in making sure the voices of ranchers and farmers are heard and for their principled stand on many important issues. Thanks for being here, and we are looking forward to Beef Day. Welcome to the House.

M. Bernier: I am pleased to welcome today a city councillor from the city of Dawson Creek who came down here. He has the distinction, I believe, of being the youngest elected official ever in British Columbia. Shortly after he graduated high school, shortly after he turned 18 years old, he ran for city council in Dawson Creek and was successful. Will the House please welcome Mr. Duncan Malkinson to the House.

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

EARTHWISE SOCIETY IN DELTA

V. Huntington: Delta's Earthwise Society has led community sustainability initiatives since 1979. In 1988, under the original name, Delta Recycling Society, they established the first recyclables collection program in western Canada, and from its very earliest days the society linked its employment opportunities to people with disabilities.

[1020]

In 1995 they raised public awareness about backyard composting and ecological landscaping by building the Earthwise compost demonstration garden — again, the first of its kind in B.C.

In 2007 Earthwise created the Boundary Bay Earthwise garden and farm, where residents from across our region learn about community gardening and small-scale agriculture.

From their farm Earthwise coordinates the Delta Food Coalition, a community network that works to address food security issues in Delta. Families in need of healthy food can join the family harvest box program, which teaches families hands-on skills to grow their own food and provides them with a weekly harvest box of fresh produce.

To avoid waste, their shared harvest program connects volunteers to surplus backyard produce that might otherwise decay. Much of the harvest is then taken to the pocket markets, monthly farmers markets that bring fresh local fruit and vegetables to seniors homes in Delta.

Recently Earthwise has been working with the Delta Chamber of Commerce to address the collapse of bees, a serious issue in any agricultural community. Their Feed the Bees education campaign promotes bee gardens and bee-friendly decisions for individuals, businesses, schools and local government.

For nearly 40 years Earthwise has led environmental education and community stewardship initiatives in Delta. I would like to thank the dedicated workers and volunteers of the Earthwise Society for their commitment to our natural environment and for their contribution to community sustainability.

B.C. BEEF DAY AND RANCHING INDUSTRY

D. Barnett: I am proud to stand in the House today to celebrate May 29, B.C. Beef Day. This day commemorates the ongoing partnership of B.C. ranchers, the B.C. Cattlemen's Association and our government.

Ranching is tremendously important to rural B.C. and my constituency of Cariboo-Chilcotin. I admire the hard-working men and women of the ranching industry, who work tirelessly raising cattle. It sometimes requires waking up in the middle of the night to treat newborn calves or herding cattle to pasture on horseback, among many other difficult tasks. It's a tough job but one that is a way of life passed down through generations for many British Columbians.

B.C. ranchers take pride in their work. This day is fitting in recognizing their contributions to the history, environment, economy and future of British Columbia. Ranchers are stewards of the land and respect the environment they depend on to raise their product. Ranching contributes over $600 million annually or 0.25 percent of the provincial GDP every year, and feedlots, pastureland and ranchland can be found in almost every region of our province.

Thanks to the partnership with the B.C. Cattlemen's Association, local community barbecues are being held today to raise awareness of B.C. beef and the delicious impact it has on our province. Over lunch here at the Legislature, prep crews are getting ready to set up a wonderful barbecue right on the precinct grounds. Join me in celebrating B.C. Beef Day and the great contributions that our ranchers do to bring our food from farm to plate.
[ Page 4408 ]

COMMUNITY FACILITIES PROGRAM
IN BURNABY

K. Corrigan: It gives me a great deal of pleasure to say that I attended the May 2 official opening of the new Brentwood Community Resource Centre, which provides space to local non-profits at reduced rents.

This area — and a beautiful, spacious centre — is the second such facility developed by Burnaby city hall as part of its community amenity program. The city negotiated with the developer, Embassy Development Corporation, to provide community space in exchange for receiving additional density at its Vantage highrise condo project.

The four organizations which are going to be located there — in fact, are located there now — are Burnaby Community Services, Burnaby Meals on Wheels, MOSAIC and the YMCA of Greater Vancouver. These groups will work together to offer programs and resources to support children, youth, seniors, newcomers and families.

[1025]

The city of Burnaby now has three such resource centres that provide office and program space to 15 community organizations at much-reduced rates. In addition to the new Brentwood facility, others are at Holdom SkyTrain station and at Edmonds Street.

Through this program, the community benefit bonus program, the city has been very successful in providing numerous facilities that have made a substantial contribution to community life in our city. As communities develop — and there is a substantial development in Burnaby — the city closes gaps in social services and steps up to make sure that communities are complete.

In addition, the city has protected a school site for Brentwood, since provincial policy doesn't provide for planning for the school sites until students are actually in the area.

I want to congratulate Burnaby city council for this progressive program, and Embassy Development and all the non-profits who worked together to bring this initiative to completion.

PHYSICAL ACTIVITY
AND HEALTHY LIFESTYLE

Michelle Stilwell: British Columbia is recognized as a Canadian leader in healthy living and physical activity. Still, we can and must do more.

We know that chronic disease is the largest contributor to B.C.'s health care costs and that cardiovascular disease and obesity are some of the highest preventable causes of deaths among British Columbians. If each person in British Columbia were physically active for at least 30 minutes a day, achieved and maintained a healthy weight, followed a healthy pattern of eating as recommended in Eating Well, along with Canada's food guide, and refrained from smoking, we could reduce our risk of most chronic diseases by up to 80 percent and could avoid over $3.8 billion in economic and health care costs each year.

I am a firm believer that even the small changes like a daily walk or choosing to eat a healthy breakfast can make a real difference. We're committed to making a healthier choice the easier choice, and we want to support and encourage British Columbians to make healthy choices where they live, work and play.

This year the province of B.C. will recognize the first Saturday of June as national health and fitness day by provincially proclaiming June 7 as B.C. Health and Fitness Day. We want to support all British Columbians to increase their daily physical activity, and we hope that by proclaiming June 7 B.C. Health and Fitness Day, we can work together to raise awareness in our communities about the importance of moving and getting your heart rate up every day.

Park the car a few blocks away from your destination. Ride your bike or take advantage of the recreation centres and fitness facilities in your neighbourhood, or maybe just enjoy British Columbia's amazing mountains, oceans, lakes, forests and parks. Try something new. Just get your heart rate up.

To all those in the House and those around B.C.: make a commitment on June 7 to incorporate a healthy habit in your life that will contribute to your overall health and fitness level, and encourage your friends, families and neighbours to do the same.

HUB CYCLING ORGANIZATION
IN VANCOUVER

G. Heyman: Picking up on the theme of a fitness day, why wait until June 7? This week — until June 1 — is Bike to Work Week in B.C., a week when commuters across the province are encouraged to leave their cars at home and take their bike to work.

In Metro Vancouver we're fortunate enough to have a very dedicated and active cycling advocacy group called HUB: Your Cycling Connection that works to promote cycling initiatives. They offer the people of Metro Vancouver education courses for beginners learning how to ride a bike, as well as for more experienced cyclists to learn streetwise biking and bike maintenance.

HUB also offers workplace cycling workshops for businesses aiming to become more bike-friendly organizations. This includes the rules of the road and route planning.

Since HUB is located in the very wonderful constituency of Vancouver-Fairview, I've had the privilege of meeting with their executive director, Erin O'Melinn, to talk about what the province can do to support and promote cycling as an activity, as well as cycling infrastructure. She has talked to me about how important it is that
[ Page 4409 ]
TransLink keeps up their priority of creating a better cycling infrastructure throughout Metro Vancouver.

Since HUB's first Bike to Work Week events in 2007, the number of people who have chosen a bicycle as a transportation option has seen a 200 percent increase, and over 8,000 people have tried cycling to work for the very first time. It's a pleasure to see bicycles tied and chained to the stands outside this precinct, as well as in the offices of many of my MLA colleagues.

[1030]

According to data from the Canadian Automobile Association, vehicle owners spend, on average, $10,000 a year on their cars, whereas bike commuters spend less than 5 percent of that amount, leaving extra cash on hand to be spent at local businesses.

Please join me in thanking HUB and supporting HUB for the important work they do.

LEGISLATURE STAFF

D. Ashton: I stand here today to pay tribute to some of the individuals who make the operation of government and this Legislature possible. This place is a lot more than just those of us within this chamber. We are merely the cogs of democracy, but we rely on many to fulfil what we do.

I would like to share with you some of the true stalwarts of the British Columbia Legislature, the men and women who work here day in and day out, with no involvement in the politics of this place, who contribute their working hours to the significance and the importance of this beautiful icon of free speech — the men and women who make up the security staff, the cleaning staff, the maintenance staff, the gardeners, just to name a few.

These are the people that make a difference to where we work and make it very enjoyable. These are the people with their friendly faces and cheerful attitudes, people like Sam Chaggar, Irfan Khan, Balvir Minhas, Joan Johnson, Arturo Valencia, Libby Sorenson and Curtis Daley.

This is certainly not everybody. There are many, many more that work in this establishment. They are definitely some of the unsung heroes of the British Columbia Legislature, whose unwavering pride in their work make this such a great place to be.

Their pride is reflected not only in their work but sometimes in more permanent ways. I give you Curtis Daley. Mr. Daley has worked in the Legislature for 21-plus years. He is proud of his workplace and his work — so proud that Curtis now takes his work with him everywhere he goes in the form of a tattoo of this very building, emblazoned on his arm commemorating this incredible place.

Let's not forget the Sergeant-at-Arms staff, the sessional officers — many are here today. These wonderful folks in this chamber make everything run so smoothly, and they quench our thirst continually. By the way, did you know that sessional officer Dan Dunaway — and I don't see him in the chamber today — is a three-time Ironman finisher in Penticton? As well, I want to thank Polla Savage and Sally Lee, who do such a wonderful job of running the Legislature gift shop.

I want to thank all these individuals who make the operation of this place and do so with such personal pride…. To all the members, please remember to say hi to these incredible individuals as you pass by when they're doing their work in the building.

To each and every one of you: have a wonderful summer. Travel safe, and I look forward to seeing each and every one of you this fall.

Oral Questions

CHILD POVERTY
AND INCOME ASSISTANCE POLICY
ON CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENTS

J. Horgan: For single parents living on income assistance programs, every nickel counts. That's why it's unconscionable that in this day and age the government of British Columbia is clawing back court-mandated child support payments from children that are living in poverty.

They're taking away money from vulnerable children at the time the summer begins. Many other children will be going on summer trips. They'll be going to camp. They'll be enjoying themselves. Because they have access to resources and funds and supportive families, they'll be able to do that. But with the clawback, many children won't be doing that.

My question, again, to the Premier is: will she review this program, reverse this program and get that child support payment that's mandated by the courts into the hands of the children that deserve it?

Hon. C. Clark: It is a terrible thing to live in poverty anywhere in a country as wealthy as Canada, a province as wealthy as British Columbia. The tragedy of parents raising their children in poverty is even greater. There is no question about that.

That's why, as I've said all along, we need to grow the economy. We need to ladder people up into the workforce as much as we possibly can, make sure that British Columbians have the training and the support that they need to be first in line for those jobs of the future.

[1035]

As those people are finding their way back into the workforce, social assistance is there to support them. I've been very clear that as we can afford it, we do believe we need to increase support for people that are at the bottom of the income scale, living on social assistance.

Unlike the NDP, we don't believe we should be spending money before we have it. We will make changes to the
[ Page 4410 ]
social assistance system as we can afford it, but I would also point out that we have seen the biggest decrease in child poverty over the last 12 years as a result, not of changing social assistance, of growing the economy, as a result of putting more people to work, as a result of making sure that more people can find their way to the dignity of a job, being able to set examples for their children and being able to lead the fulfilling lives that every citizen deserves to live in this great province.

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

J. Horgan: It's odd that there would be a rousing round of applause from the Liberals on the other side when the Premier stands and defends taking away child support payments from the poorest people in British Columbia — absolutely appalling.

British Columbia has the highest child poverty rate in Canada and has done so for the past ten years, and it's a direct result of B.C. Liberal policies. Amendments to income assistance programs that started in 2002 meant 26 percent reductions in services to those families, and now we have a $17 million gap — $17 million in child support payments.

The Premier had an opportunity to find that type of money for a jobs plan advertising program last year, she had time to find that money for a Bollywood awards program, but she doesn't have the time or the inclination to find it for children living in poverty.

We've been raising this issue for the past number of months — my colleague from Nelson-Creston and I. I asked the Premier yesterday in estimates if she had done anything, done any investigation on how we could improve the quality of life for those people who are getting $17 million worth of child support taken away from them, and the answer was: "I've done nothing."

My question now is to the Premier. You've had two months to think about this. You had a convention resolution from the member for Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows calling on the government to make a change. It happened in your convention in Kelowna on the weekend. Why won't you do something about the people living in poverty in British Columbia? You could do it today.

Hon. C. Clark: Again, being misquoted by the Leader of the Opposition is a common occurrence in this House, so I won't point it out in particular today, but I will say this. We are working to grow the economy in our province. What we've seen, over the last little more than a decade, is 70,000 children lifted out of poverty — 42 percent fewer families living in poverty.

Over the last 12 years we have seen the largest reduction of children living in poverty in the last 25 years. That's because our government has pursued a deliberate policy of trying to make sure that there are jobs available — good-paying, family-supporting, long-term jobs available — for people who want to go to work. The reality is most people who can work want to go out and work.

The question is: do we decide to grow the economy? Do we decide to grasp the opportunities for growth? Or do we do what they did in the 1990s, where they shrunk the economy, where they decided they wanted to manage decline, where they ran out of money to support the social programs that are so important. More importantly than that, and on point to this question today, what they also did is they drove thousands and thousands of families and their children to the desperation of poverty. We are determined to lift them out of that, and we are doing it.

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

[1040]

J. Horgan: Inconceivable that the Premier could resort to a response like that.

Yesterday I asked her in estimates if she had asked any of her staff, if she'd asked the Minister of Children and Families, the Minister of Social Development, the Attorney General to look at ways to get around this policy.

This money is mandated from the courts to go to children, so we could simply say that this is not income for the parent. It's income for the child. It would not be clawed back. Simple — easy-peasy, as the kids say these days, even living in poverty.

We know our good friend from Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows tried to raise this issue at the B.C. Liberal convention last weekend. And we also know that our good friend on this side of the House, most of the time, the member for Vancouver-Langara's executive member said: "The issue of kids in need — the whole file is embarrassing." These are Liberals that are saying these things, not New Democrats.

Again, my question is to the Premier. Rather than go into rhetorical flourish about times gone past, why don't we worry about today, the kids living in poverty today, and why don't we do something about it? Let's change this policy and help somebody out for a change.

Hon. C. Clark: The reason we sometimes talk about the 1990s, over the objections of the members opposite, is this: because not a single member on that side of the House has been willing to stand up and say that the policies they made then are wrong for today, that they made a mistake, that they are filled with regret — that they regret the fact that 70,000 more families lived in poverty because of their failed economic policies in the 1990s than do today.

We have been able to close the gap on child poverty, but it has taken longer than we'd hoped, partly because we were in such a deep hole by the time they had finished
[ Page 4411 ]
destroying jobs in our province and making it impossible for people to work, by the time they'd run out of money to support social programs. If one member over there would get up and express an ounce of regret for their actions of the past, we could be assured that they would be less likely to repeat their mistakes.

Alas, we have no such assurance. Instead, we still have a party of people led by a man who wants to embrace economic decline. On this side of the House we say that we want to grasp growth.

Madame Speaker: Thank you, Premier.

Hon. C. Clark: We want to create jobs. That's how we will eliminate poverty, and that's how we will create a bright new future for every British Columbian.

INTEGRATED CASE MANAGEMENT
SYSTEM ISSUES

G. Heyman: When the PlayNow website went down four years ago, it took only four days for the Lottery Corporation to order an independent assessment and 12 days to complete it and report the results. Integrated case management system users have suffered weeks of serious malfunction after years of significant issues. Yet even after spending $200 million, we've heard of no similar plan to get to the bottom of the problems with the system. Apparently, it means more to this government when people can't play the lottery than when B.C. children and families are at risk.

To the Minister of Citizens' Services, when will he outline the steps that he will take to comprehensively assess what went wrong with this system and what steps he will take to permanently fix it?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: It's most interesting that the members opposite, at the end of the session, try to resuscitate something that they tried to manufacture into a crisis three weeks ago. This turned out to be a minor matter. Our most vulnerable citizens were served. For weeks now, the system has been operating as it's intended to. We keep an eye on it. Things are getting done; people are being served. The workers are signed on. More than 3,000 workers in the province are signed onto the system right now. It works.

[1045]

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

G. Heyman: Perhaps the Minister of Citizens' Services could talk to his colleague from Social Development, who said just today: "I'm not going to be able to say it's been perfect yet, and hopefully this isn't as good as we can get." This is, by the way, a system that was designed for 6,300 users, and we're nowhere near that yet.

The system has been plagued with problems since it was first turned on. The minister can't tell us why, even after taxpayers shelled out $200 million for this system. How can we tell that the system won't fail again when we don't know why it failed in the first place? We know the service is hit-and-miss. The environment is clearly not stable, and new problems can arise at any time.

Perhaps the minister can tell British Columbians what penalties, if any, have been imposed on a contractor who received $200 million of taxpayers' money and delivered a faulty product.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The member alludes to the 6,300 eligible users for the system. Well, those users are there in case of backup, in case of problems. The system is working so well that we don't need to have that many users on the system because there is no problem with the system. It's actually running very well. The social services cheque run distribution is going as normally as we expect it to. We are not aware of any significant problems.

The member opposite is so busy trolling for suckers that he seems to have dropped his fishing rod.

FUNDING FOR
MID-MAIN COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTRE

J. Darcy: Let me continue on the issue of high-risk IT programs that this government is investing in and its consequences for real people. This government recently cut $400,000 from the Mid-Main Community Health Centre budget, which puts in serious risk chronic disease management programs for patients with diabetes and with congestive heart failure, as well as potentially ending medical home visits for the frail elderly.

The budget for Vancouver Coastal Health's five urban community health clinics costs just 0.001 percent of Vancouver Coastal's budget, yet the minister refuses to find the money to keep these primary care clinic services going. But at the same time this government finds $840 million for a high-risk IT program, the clinical and systems transformation project.

How can the minister spend nearly $1 billion on a high-risk IT program and not find $400,000 to continue high-quality programs for 3,500 high-risk patients at the Mid-Main clinic?

Hon. T. Lake: The high-tech solution for the Lower Mainland is about providing the right resources to the right patient at the right time, as everything we do in health care is.

The member refers to the primary health care system in Vancouver Coastal, and we canvassed this extensively in estimates yesterday. In actual fact, there are more resources — $1 million more — going into primary health care in Vancouver Coastal.
[ Page 4412 ]

I know the members opposite have a little bit of difficulty with math sometimes, so I'll go through it slowly. The Raven Song Community Health Centre will now be open eight, seven…. Sorry. I'm going to get this right.

Interjections.

Hon. T. Lake: I was so excited about their math that I was getting a little bit confused with mine.

[1050]

It's going from five days a week to seven days a week and going from eight hours a day to 12 hours a day. That is a total going from 40 hours a week to 84 hours a week. Even I know that is a 110 percent increase in services for the most vulnerable people in Vancouver Coastal.

OPHTHALMOLOGY SERVICES IN
RURAL AREAS FOR SENIORS
WITH RETINAL DISEASE

K. Conroy: Seniors in rural B.C. who suffer from retinal disease have some options for treatment. They can wait until a retinal specialist comes to town and they can be fit in, often putting their sight at risk. Or they can have the local ophthalmologist administer the needed drugs at cost. Here's the difference. Both are trained to stick a needle in your eye to inject the drugs. Both have exactly the same skills, but one has to charge you for the drugs.

If you can't afford the 300 bucks every four to six weeks, you have to wait for the injection, putting your sight at risk even though there's a doctor who could actually perform the procedure. There are only 20 selected ophthalmologists in the entire province who don't have to charge the 300 bucks. One is from Edmonton. I don't know what that has to do with anything, but one's from Edmonton. There are none in the Kootenays.

This is a problem across all of rural B.C. — a problem with a very simple solution. The minister could fix it today, could make a lot of seniors in this province very happy. He could have all ophthalmologists — all who have the training…. Every one of them has had the training to stick the needle in your eye, give you the drugs — every one of them. They could all be allowed to do the procedure without having to charge seniors in this province.

Why does this minister, why does this government, continue to charge seniors more than they should have to be charged, continue to make them pay extra to get health care in this province?

Hon. T. Lake: I understand the member's passion for seniors care, and I share that passion. Vision loss can affect a person enormously. We know that. That's why we've expanded the services available for people with eye diseases. They can now be treated with drugs like Avastin or Lucentis at absolutely no charge. Patients with age-related macular degeneration will also continue to be covered by Visudine.

Retinal specialists offer these treatments throughout the province in all health authorities. This expanded program, I'm pleased to say, offers excellent, safe care to patients and is also very cost-effective for the health care system.

FUNDING FOR CONTROL OF
INVASIVE MUSSEL SPECIES

N. Macdonald: Zebra and quagga mussels are establishing in Manitoba. They first were identified in October. The Manitoba government is in the midst of some extreme measures to try to deal with the infestation.

If these mussels were to become established in British Columbia, it's estimated that the cost for B.C. Hydro power stations alone would be $15 million. My understanding is that additional staffing of five permanent employees and 25 seasonal positions above current levels is needed for any serious effort to prevent this invasive species from entering British Columbia.

However, in estimates the minister responsible for this file said that no new money is coming for this work. The question to the minister responsible is: why is the government not taking this significant threat to our waters and our economy seriously?

Hon. M. Polak: In fact, we take this issue very seriously, seeing the kind of economic devastation that has taken place in other jurisdictions. Since 2012 the B.C. government has provided the Invasive Species Council of B.C. with $3 million. Of that, $2.1 million is specifically for actions to prevent zebra and quagga mussels from entering B.C., public awareness campaigns and 15 full-time-equivalents working on invasive species. We also have a partnership with the Columbia Basin rapid response plan — works with the federal, tribal and state agencies from Washington, Oregon, Idaho and Montana.

[1055]

During the summer months we have trained "Clean, drain, dry" program personnel. They are present in all high-risk areas and at selected boat launches. They provide guidance. They answer questions. And the member will know that just recently the success of that monitoring and vigilance was shown when an incident was prevented as a result of a ship being captured at the border that had not been properly cleared. Our conservation officer service came out and ensured that that boat did not enter British Columbia's waters.

Madame Speaker: Columbia River–Revelstoke on a supplemental.

N. Macdonald: What the minister knows, what the minister understands — the minister responsible for this — is that they do not have in place what is needed to deal with this properly. That is what his staff is telling
[ Page 4413 ]
him. That is what those responsible for the programs are telling this government, and it needs to be dealt with.

As the minister who answered this question said, if these invasive mussels get in, they directly impact salmon fisheries. They impact hydro generation. They impact agricultural irrigation, surface water sources, recreation opportunities. The Okanagan Basin Water Board has estimated a cost of $43 million for the Okanagan alone. That's the impact.

Now, the members who attended the Liberal convention know that the B.C. Liberal party dealt with this and passed a motion for more resources on this issue. The only sensible response is to prevent an infestation. But the budget to properly respond is one-fifth of what the minister has been told is the responsible budget. That's the fact. The question again: when is this government going to act properly to deal with this issue?

Hon. M. Polak: There's no question that staff in my ministry, Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations and all our partner agencies take this issue very seriously. We're proud of the fact that, to date, there have been no live zebra or quagga mussels found in British Columbia, but we know that our success depends on continued vigilance.

Let me share with the member some of the other measures that are taking place. Our dreissenid mussels early detection and rapid response plan is being finalized for action this summer. Reports of mussel-affected boats or equipment can be submitted through our conservation officer services' report all poachers and polluters' hotline. There are community efforts like the Don't Move a Mussel program. No invasive zebra or quagga mussel, alive or dead, is allowed to remain on boats or related equipment.

We now have public education materials going out. We have lakeside stewardship groups, regional invasive species committees, a program to encourage boaters to use proper techniques. If a boat or other water-based recreational equipment has come from a known or suspected mussel-infested area, it has to be cleaned with hot water, totally drained. All of these programs are taking place in high-risk situations where we have three high-pressure washing stations available at designated boat launches.

REPLACEMENT OF STEVEN POINT ON
ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR MISSING
WOMEN INQUIRY RECOMMENDATIONS

M. Karagianis: Coming out of the Missing Women Inquiry, Justice Wally Oppal emphasized the need for a champion to oversee his recommendations right to the end. Now, the government appointed the Hon. Steven Point, but he resigned over a year ago. At that time, he urged the government for a speedy replacement.

Now, I've asked the minister responsible, the Justice Minister, on numerous occasions, including in estimates the other day, and I have always had a very evasive answer on this.

I'd like a very clear answer today in question period. Does the government intend on replacing Steven Point — yes or no? Very simple.

Hon. S. Anton: Following the report from the Missing Women Commission of Inquiry, government took that report, and we have worked with the recommendations in that report, because we are determined that a terrible incident like that, a terrible tragedy, a terrible series of tragedies like that, should never happen again in British Columbia. That's why, immediately upon the release of the report, Steven Point was hired. He did a terrific job for us, consulting around British Columbia.

[1100]

Now we are in action phase. We have compensation for the children of the victims. We have improvements to policing. We have support for vulnerable women. We have missing-persons legislation. We have taken those recommendations very seriously — indeed, so much so that we have completed or have underway over three-quarters of the recommendations from the Missing Women Commission of Inquiry.

IMPLEMENTATION OF
BUS SERVICE ON HIGHWAY 16

J. Rice: Commissioner Oppal said the need for a bus along the Highway of Tears is clear and the support for these services "is so broad and undisputed that no debate or further discussion is needed."

I have asked the Justice Minister this straightforward question ten times this session, and every time she has sidestepped. The minister's refusal to simply answer the question is a disservice to every missing woman, to their friends, to their families and to the countless women who can be kept safe in the future if bus services are in place along the Highway of Tears.

To the Minister of Justice, for the 11th time this session and on behalf of the victims, their friends and their families, will she implement safe and affordable bus service along the Highway of Tears? Yes or no?

Hon. S. Anton: The Missing Women Commission of Inquiry went to the north in British Columbia and heard from people in the north. It heard about the need for safety on all of the northern highways, because there were tragedies for women in many northern highways. That is why the recommendation is for safer transportation options on northern highways in British Columbia.

That's why it has to be looked at from two sides of that question. One is how much transportation and what kind of transportation. The second is: what about safety on the highways the rest of the time?
[ Page 4414 ]

Indeed, there is transportation on Highway 16. There's bus. There's train. There's a health bus for people who need appointments. But more important, all the rest of the time….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members. The members will come to order.

Hon. S. Anton: That is why it is important to have safe highways. That's why there is a partnership with Telus to have increased cell phone coverage. Now 70 percent of that highway has cell phone coverage. That's why our police in British Columbia have better communications between themselves than any other police department in North America — because it is safety at all times on those roads which is important.

[End of question period.]

Petitions

C. James: I rise to present a petition of over 300 signatures calling on the provincial government to act now to pass a law preventing the sale and distribution of shark fins in British Columbia.

G. Holman: I'm pleased to present a petition today requesting the Legislature to reverse the decision to allow residential construction on a First Nations cemetery on Grace Islet, to designate Grace Islet as a heritage site and to commit to working with the owner, First Nations, local and other elected officials to identify and protect other sacred and burial sites such as Grace Islet throughout British Columbia.

J. Tegart: I'd like to present a petition on behalf of the Yalakom valley residents, with 203 signatures regarding the Yalakom valley logging plan.

J. Darcy: I'd like to present a petition calling on this House to keep B.C.'s agricultural land as a sacred trust, one that should be used for food production, to benefit British Columbians for generations to come.

[1105]

S. Robinson: I, too, have 334 signatures asking this House to keep B.C.'s agricultural land as a sacred trust, one that should be used for food production, to benefit British Columbians for generations to come.

Tabling Documents

Hon. M. de Jong: I present the Public Service Benefit Plan Act annual report for fiscal year ended March 31, 2013, in accordance with the Public Service Benefit Plan Act, part 1, section 8.

I also present the 2012-2013 annual report for the gaming policy and enforcement branch, in accordance with the provisions of the Gaming Control Act.

Further, I present, pursuant to the Financial Administration Act, the reports for fiscal year ended March 31, 2013, on all amounts borrowed by government and all amounts loaned to government bodies. These are reports to provide an overview of the province's borrowing activity in fiscal year 2012-2013.

Finally, I present the guarantees and indemnities authorized and issued report for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2013, in accordance with the Financial Administration Act.

Hon. C. Oakes: Hon. Speaker, I have the honour to present the annual service plan report for the British Columbia Assessment Authority for 2013.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: Before I call the business of the day, our capable staff would want me to encourage all of us to clean out our desks and spare them the difficulty, the challenge, of doing so.

With that reminder, in this chamber, Madame Speaker, continued second reading of Bill 24; in Section A, Committee of Supply, the ongoing estimates of the Ministry of Health; and in Section C, Committee of Supply, the continuing estimates of the Office of the Premier.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 24 — AGRICULTURAL LAND
COMMISSION AMENDMENT ACT, 2014

(continued)

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

On the amendment (continued).

N. Macdonald: Just to pick up where we left off yesterday afternoon, we're continuing with debate on Bill 24, which is the Agricultural Land Commission Amendment Act. We're on the reasoned amendment to Bill 24, put forward by the member for Surrey-Whalley. In the time that I have left, I'd like to just get the context right for this.

First, where we need to begin with Bill 24 is we need to remind ourselves of the mandate that this government had coming into power. The written position of the Premier and the B.C. Liberals prior to the last election was this.

They asked a question specifically: "What is your position on the agricultural land reserve?" This is the ques-
[ Page 4415 ]
tion that the B.C. Liberals took to voters as they sought a new mandate. "B.C. Liberals promise to work more closely with farmers, ranchers and agricultural organizations to preserve agricultural land and maintain the relationship with the Agricultural Land Commission." That's the stated position of the government.

Then they came in with Bill 24. When they introduced it, it was exactly the opposite of that. It could not be more opposite to what they'd promised to do mere months before.

[1110]

The recent leaked e-mails that came out yesterday, as well as previously leaked documents, show the true intent of the legislation, which, again, is the exact opposite of the B.C. Liberal promise, commitment — the exact opposite, as well, of the rhetoric that we hear in here.

The Minister for Core Review and the member for Kootenay East admitted that they did a very poor job consulting. He accepted blame. "Mea culpa." So on the first commitment made — that they are going to work closely with farmers, ranchers and the agricultural organizations that represent them — the minister responsible for this has admitted himself that they didn't do that. It's clear that that first commitment wasn't followed through on.

He promised to work more closely with these organizations. In reality, what the B.C. Liberals did was what they do so often. It was a backroom deal. It was deliberate that these organizations were excluded. That was not by accident. That was deliberate. There was every opportunity to include them. In fact, there is opportunity still to include them. There is no rush to do this. But the intention was never to include these groups. That's the fact of it.

What we've seen since the bill has been introduced is the government using its significant resources to try to perpetuate the argument that this is about something that it simply isn't about. The e-mail exchange between the minister of…. It includes a number of ministers here, including the Minister for Core Review, the member from East Kootenay. It includes the former Agriculture Minister, the member from North Peace. It also talks quite a bit about the Agricultural Land Commission.

Remember the promise the Liberals made to maintain that relationship with the Agricultural Land Commission? Well, if you set aside the racist comments included in the e-mail exchange between the Minister of Agriculture, who helped put together Bill 24, and the Minister of Core Review, the member for Kootenay East, the other person responsible for Bill 24, and you look at their discussion of Mr. Bullock…. The government's stated position is that they are going to build that relationship. In fact, when the minister introduced this bill, that was one of the points that was made — that we're going to build on that relationship. We're going to keep it as an independent body.

Listen to what is said in the e-mail, which is where these members are actually talking outside of the box and where you get the real insight into the thinking behind Bill 24. "Every time I try to contact Mr. Bullock, I am told he is an arm's-length body and for me to get the hell out of his hair."

I doubt very much that Mr. Bullock would have been so unprofessional as to say it that way, but I've no doubt that Mr. Bullock would have understood his role as an independent officer, as it stands now, telling the member responsible, especially once he became the Minister of Agriculture, that he had no business personally lobbying him on some of these issues.

Do we see in the e-mail any respect for the position? Do we see an attempt to strengthen the independence of the land commission? This is all about removing that independence. This is the co-creator of the bill expressing frustration with the independence of the ALC. He wants it to be what this bill will create, which is a politically controlled group that will make exclusions that will create a tremendous amount of money for certain individuals and. It will no longer be independent with this bill. It's going to be politically controlled by B.C. Liberals.

He goes on to say: "Who the hell is running our province anyway? This is a perfect opportunity to actually muster up some support for our team." Of course, he means the B.C. Liberal team. After that, there is a bit of an anti–First Nations, racist rant that is disturbingly unrelated, actually, to the topic and seems to be casually accepted by others that are on the e-mail stream, so that's a problem unto itself.

[1115]

When the government says that the purpose of this bill is to strengthen the independence of the Agricultural Land Commission, that is not what Bill 24 does at all and it is not what Bill 24 was ever intended to do. The two ministers who pushed this never intended to do that.

They intended always to do the exact opposite, which is to undermine the independence of the Agricultural Land Commission and instead take that role — which for a very good reasons is supposed to be independent — and put it into the hands of regional boards that will be filled with B.C. Liberal cronies, to make decisions that will make somebody a lot of money. A system set up for abuse — purposefully set up for political abuse, set up for financial abuse.

The problem for Kootenay East and the Peace River North and, presumably, the rest of this government is the actual independence of the commission, even though 75 percent of the applications for exclusions in the Kootenays are actually successful. So what is the big problem with having an independent commission? It's not as if you can never get land out. In fact, 75 percent of the time these applications are successful.

Still, B.C. Liberals, through this bill when it's passed, will get complete discretion on exclusions based on very nebulous criteria, in zone 2anyway. And remember that zone 2 is 90 percent of the agricultural land. Although
[ Page 4416 ]
the members opposite often talk about the supposedly poor quality of the 90 percent of land that is protected by the Agricultural Land Commission, zone 2 has more class 1 land than zone 1.

We are talking about important agricultural areas that will now be open to exclusions, that decision being made by a bunch of B.C. Liberal political hacks on criteria that is completely nebulous — to the extent that there's even a provision to add whatever else the cabinet wants to add. It could be economic. It could be social. It could be anything.

What ability does anyone have to say, "No, that land shouldn't be removed," or that there's something wrong with the process? It is absolutely set up, as I've said before, for abuse.

The leaked e-mails also speak to the lack of interest in growing food, for these two B.C. Liberals — and presumably, for the rest of government, since they're proceeding with this.

A rancher in Kootenay East who supports protecting the ALR is, according to the member for Kootenay East…. And this is a quote. This is a more polite way. Usually e-mails from Kootenay East describe his constituents in much more colourful terms — American spies and other things — but this, thankfully, has less invective. Still, listen to this.

A long-time rancher is described by the member for Kootenay East as "the most negative rancher in southeastern B.C." How did that person earn that? They simply were opposed to the idea of developments on Koocanusa Lake that removed ranching areas. So if you don't go along with what the member for Kootenay East wants, then you're the most negative rancher in southeastern B.C.

The same vitriol, of course, is applied to Richard Bullock, who is, in his position at the ALC, doing his job — which of course this bill will negate in short order when the government pushes it through.

There's not much there about the importance of agriculture — not when they're really discussing this bill in the back rooms, in our insight into the back rooms, of B.C. Liberal decision-making. They're not talking about food there, are they? Not talking about agriculture there.

In fact, I'll quote again. "An RV development is a model of how to do it right." There you go. That's perfection for our food policies.

That's my opportunity to speak. I turn it over to my colleagues, and thank you for the opportunity.

[1120]

M. Karagianis: I'm very happy to take my place — and, specifically, to take my place right after my colleague from Columbia River–Revelstoke. I think he has outlined some very, very cogent arguments here that talk about what is really behind Bill 24 and the attack on the agricultural land reserve.

But I want to speak very specifically in support of the amendment that was tabled by our House Leader yesterday, because I think in the very specific wording of the amendment are some very key messages that, once again, I hope do not fall upon deaf ears on the other side of the House.

We have tried and attempted time after time here in the Legislature to try and get the government to see some sense on this, to perhaps pause for a second consideration on the ramifications of Bill 24, but also to go out and do a real consultation with British Columbians on this bill.

The first opportunity that we took in the House to try and seek that — with a motion amending the bill and asking for the government to pause, to go out and to seek consultation with British Columbians — unfortunately failed. It's surprising to me that it did, because, in fact, that's exactly what's needed with this bill — sober second thought.

You know, despite what I think have been extremely profound arguments and thoughtful arguments put forward by opposition members, the government continues to just turn kind of a deaf ear to common sense on this.

The motion that was put forward yesterday by our House Leader — I think the language in it contains yet one more opportunity for the government to seize on some good, thoughtful opportunity to rethink their position on this. I would just like to say that in the wording, where Bill 24 would be amended to remove wording after "that" and substitute that "it is not in the best interests of agriculture, food producers, the public, nor those of future generations of British Columbians for the government to change the legislated protection that exists over land in the agricultural land reserve without first determining the possible impacts of those changes to agriculture in our province…."

Now, those words…. That particular worded motion was crafted very specifically because each and every part of it contains very strong opportunities, very strong language for the government to pay heed to. I'd like to talk about that and some of the evidence that we have that supports that.

The amendment speaks to the importance of longer-term consideration of the impacts of this legislation on future British Columbians, and I spoke about that previously when speaking to the motion to refer this to a committee. I think that at the heart of this is this rash change that we are making to a longstanding 40-year institution in the province, which is the agricultural land reserve, which has been very successful for very specific reasons.

It was put in place with great foresight by the government of the day for the long-term future of this province — not for the short term, not for immediate political purposes or any other reason than looking at the very long-term perspective for British Columbians around agricultural land, around food production and around the protection of that.
[ Page 4417 ]

Now, at this stage in the history of British Columbia we're at a turning point, where we have an opportunity to determine what the next 40 years or beyond are going to look like in British Columbia for agricultural food production at a time, hon. Speaker, which I will argue is very critical. There is very critical timing here.

My colleague from Columbia River–Revelstoke laid out a very cogent argument around the politicization of the agricultural land reserve under Bill 24 and the various symptoms that led to the government making this determination. We have seen from leaked e-mails that there has been an effort, there has been discussion going on, among two very key individuals who have now had responsibility for bringing forward Bill 24. There has been a history of their disdain for the land commission, of their disdain for the protections of the land reserve and of their pursuit of financial and political interests over the long-term protection of food production for future generations.

[1125]

I think that has been very clearly presented. That has been very clearly argued and demonstrated and debated from this side of the House. It seems to me that the threat of e-mails that we have seen definitely plays into a scenario that was set in this province leading into the last election just over a year ago. At that time very specific questions were put to the B.C. Liberal Party leading into that election about this very topic — the agricultural land reserve and its long-term protection and preservation.

In fact, the question that was put in Country Life, in writing, from the B.C. Liberal Party…. I'm going to read that into the Hansard, because I think it is important for us to understand. We've seen a thread of e-mail that tells us there was a certain kind of sentiment that was not in any way contradicted by anyone on the e-mail thread. There are indications that there were discussions that were had at the B.C. Liberal cabinet table before the last election as well, so some complicity there in that. No contradictions were put forward to that.

In fact, the question that was put in Country Life to the B.C. Liberal government was very clear. It asked the very, very sensitive question around this, so when the government was asked if they were about to make any kinds of changes to the land reserve they had a very, very clear answer to that that should have been reassuring to British Columbians. In fact, leading into an election it was very reassuring for British Columbians on this topic.

They put in writing in Country Life, "Yes, we will maintain the excellent relationship we have built with the ALC," the agricultural land reserve. The party also said it would increase funding to the Agricultural Land Commission and would "work more closely with farmers, ranchers and agricultural organizations to preserve agricultural land."

Well, we have been in a debate for many, many days here in this House, because in fact those words turned out to be untrue. You could not believe that. You cannot believe those words. You couldn't believe them then; you can't believe them now. In fact, we have been in debate here for many, many days over Bill 24, because Bill 24 was introduced and clearly contravened what was said and promised leading into the last election.

I did, in my remarks on the motion to refer, canvass the political jeopardy that the B.C. Liberal Party find themselves in now, much the same as they did with the HST. They made a promise prior to the election that they are now blatantly breaking. Now, I know, because I have heard some of the debate from the Liberal side of the House on this, that this is much more insidious and stealthy, the language within Bill 24. It's certainly not as overt as the kind of tax betrayal that occurred with the HST, but, nonetheless, I think the ramifications are deeper and will be felt for longer, and that's a big concern.

The amendment here gives us an opportunity to again look in depth at the long-term consequences of the language within Bill 24 and what it will in fact do and put into effect for the long term.

As I mentioned in my previous debates, it's not as if once you make these changes to agricultural land, you can take it back. It's not like you can say, "Well, we'll allow industrial use on it for ten years, and then we are going to take it back and produce food on it," because that doesn't happen. We can see that. Anywhere in the Lower Mainland and along the delta you can see that urban sprawl ate up acre after acre of food-producing land, and we will never get that back. You're not going to buy up areas of housing and urban areas and plow them under and plant vegetables.

The same thing will happen, certainly with the zone 2, if this land begins to be industrialized. Some of it is clustered around areas that have extreme growth going on. There will be extreme pressures to industrialize some of these areas and to slowly steal away acres here and there. You can't get that land back. You can't reuse that land. We will never recapture that.

I'm going to talk a little bit about some of the jeopardy that we face for the long term, the long future ahead of us, which is changing. It's changing even as we stand in this Legislature debating.

[1130]

This amendment that has been proposed is a trigger for the government to stop and think about that and, in fact, have a sober second thought and a wider consultation on this.

It is apparent to me from the e-mail chain that was publicized yesterday that some of this is being driven by very specific political and economic interests in an area of the province — again, with no consultation, with no wider consideration of what the implications will be on that agricultural land and the productivity of that agricultural land for the long future ahead of us.

Now, there have been a number of things that have
[ Page 4418 ]
been written here. A number of organizations very germane to this discussion have in fact notified government of their concerns, as well, and of their opposition to this bill, and it's sad that the government has taken so little notice of this or has simply been prepared to ignore or steamroll over these views.

The B.C. Cattlemen's Association. One would think, given the fact that a lot of this land that is now being jeopardized under Bill 24, in zone 2, has direct implications to the B.C. Cattlemen's Association…. Their president, David Haywood, wrote to the minister, and this is what the Cattlemen's Association said. "We encourage you to take a slow approach with drafting and passing Bill 24. We kindly request that the minister delay any decision on Bill 24 until further information is provided and consultation can be had with the farming and ranching community."

Well, that was only a few weeks ago, and we haven't seen any attempt by the government to take action themselves to delay a decision on Bill 24. They certainly have not taken advantage of the opportunities that opposition members have offered up in the way of a motion to refer.

The motion to refer this to the Finance Committee was the perfect solution, because the bill would stay on the order papers, it would be suspended, we would send it to the Finance Committee, and they, in the process of their usual annual deliberations and consultation around the province, could then take this out and speak with organizations, with communities, with stakeholders like the Cattlemen's Association and have that information to help educate this debate.

But the government has not seen fit to take that opportunity, and that is sad. In fact, this organization has called for the very same thing, and the government has ignored that — that very direct request to delay any decision on Bill 24. Later in my comments we'll get to what's really going to happen with Bill 24, because despite this debate, we're going to see, once again, democracy kind of steamrolled and circumvented later on today here in the House.

The agricultural industry is almost universally opposed to splitting the agricultural reserve into two zones, restricting the Agricultural Land Commission's independence and their mandate and allowing unspecified non-farm use on agricultural land. Again, why the government chooses to ignore this sends a very clear message.

You have to read a little bit behind the scenes on that, but this Bill 24 is being driven not by the industry, not by stakeholders in the agricultural community, not by people concerned about food production and farming and agricultural use; this is being driven by a political agenda and, as my very able colleague from Columbia River–Revelstoke laid out, by financial interests. There is money to be made in industrial use of land, and that seems to be behind this.

Now, the B.C. Agriculture Council…. I know that the members on the other side of the House, whenever they do deem to stand up and defend this bill, often say: "The B.C. Agricultural Council is with us." But in fact they represent 1,400 farmers and ranchers, and they are opposed to breaking the agricultural land reserve into two zones. They have made that very clear. Members on both sides of the House have met with them recently. They were not equivocal when they spoke with me about their concerns about what Bill 24 does in breaking up the land reserve into two zones.

[1135]

The potential, then…. The language certainly is very, very concerning around what will happen with the largest zone in the province, which affects the cattle ranching in other areas of the province. That language in itself sends an alarm signal.

Now, because the government refused to take the opportunity to refer this to committee, I want to talk a little bit about this lack of consultation. It strikes me that the government is so anxious to push this legislation through. They are so concerned about their own ability to go out and defend and support this bill that they do not want to see public consultation.

We heard a promise from the newest minister in charge of the agricultural land reserve — initially, some interest in going out and consulting, but that got curtailed very quickly. Suddenly, his idea of consultation was just reading all the letters coming in. Well, we're all reading the letters coming in. There are thousands of them, and predominantly, they're saying one thing: stop Bill 24. So even by their own narrowest definition of consultation — their new revised definition of consultation is we're going to read the letters…. Even that information coming to them says that this is a time to stop and delay the passage of this bill.

There have been some really great, experienced and professional opinions on this — stakeholders, obviously, who know the industry much better than some members of this House, certainly. But there have been some very strong and very compelling arguments made, and I want to talk a little bit….

I alluded earlier to the implications and the timing around Bill 24 and around the government's lack of responsibility to halting this process and to consulting and to thinking long term about agricultural use. I've talked about it before. Again, the government never seizes upon this topic to reply in any way.

It's as if this doesn't exist, but south of us there is a huge drought taking place. It's not a six-month drought. It's not a temporary drought. It's not a drought that can be resolved by a couple of good rainfalls. It is a longstanding, deep drought that's going on in California. It's in its third year, and the implications to us in British Columbia are tremendous. I want to talk a little bit about that.

One of the things that's occurring here, in this drought, is that it's actually a bit of a harbinger for things that are
[ Page 4419 ]
to come, because by all reports, all scientific-based reports, this is not a drought that is going to go away in the foreseeable future. Again, I want to talk about this idea that protection of the agricultural land reserve is about generations ahead. It's about the next 40 years, 50 years, 60 years. We have not got any of that long-term thinking going on in this Legislature around Bill 24. It's all short term. It's all immediate. It's all about political and financial gain. Yet, predictions are, right now, by very renowned and respected scientists, that the drought in California could have another ten years in it.

Currently, today in California there are 800,000 acres of land that are not producing food, that used to produce food and are not producing food now, food that finds its way up the coast into British Columbia, because, in fact, British Columbia is not self-sustaining in any way. Almost half of our food comes from California — 800,000 acres of land that is not producing food right now and not likely to produce food for some time.

It seems to me that at a time when we should be going out of our way to explore ways of protecting our farmland, protecting food production for the next 30 or 40 years, having the same kind of vision that was put in place when the land reserve was created in the 1970s, we should be responsibly having that kind of discussion here in the House. Instead, we're having the very opposite.

We're talking about taking apart and jeopardizing the land reserve, breaking it into pieces, taking the independence of the Agricultural Land Commission, breaking that up and making regional boards responsible for decisions. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to see how easy that is to immediately people that with political cronies.

[1140]

Now, suddenly, it's easy to get farmland removed and turned into industrial land or to be used for sprawl. At the very time when we should be going in the other direction, we are taking the most irresponsible steps possible here with Bill 24.

This continued call — by stakeholders, interested people across this province and those who are in the industry — for the government to delay this bill is right and appropriate. That is exactly what should be happening here.

Now, I want to talk a little bit about this issue of the long-term viability of our land reserve if this legislation passes. And let's be realistic. The government is going to pass this one way or another. They're even going to shut down debate on it later today, so they're not taking the opportunity to let us continue to debate.

There is no hurry. I don't see any reason why we are rushing into passing Bill 24. Because they haven't consulted, because they promised British Columbians before the election that they'd protect the reserve and now they're doing the opposite, I think, if anything, this could certainly wait until the fall or longer. The government should take the opportunity to go out and pursue some better consultation on this and to listen to the industry.

There is an article that appeared in the Globe and Mail on May 18 which I think is very pertinent to this. The government should take heed of this. This was written by Mark Hume, an excellent writer. It's well researched, balanced. He talks in this article about the provincial government "stripping the Agricultural Land Commission of powers that it has used for 40 years to protect farmland," right at a time when we need more protection, not less.

He does quote someone whom I respect very much: Dr. Lenore Newman, who has been very, very cogent in her views on what is going to happen in the future. Here she is the Canada Research Chair in Food Security and the Environment at the University of the Fraser Valley. She's working in the field, very close to this, right in the front lines, and has a very deep understanding of the ramifications of this.

She talks about the fact that the provincial government is stripping the land commission of its powers and breaking up the land reserve at a time when we should be protecting land rather than stripping this away. She says here that these changes — the zoning changes in the agricultural land reserve — "together with a structural realignment of the Agricultural Land Commission…will put land use decisions into the hands of local boards," and this is a big worry for her.

She says:

"It's hard to see how it's going to help farmland. I think what we're going to see happen is loss of land for urban development, especially around Kamloops. I can't understand why that's being put into zone 2. It's excellent land, very valuable as farmland, and it's going to be turned into urban development because there's incredible pressure all across that region."

Dr. Newman says the impact on B.C. will not be immediate. But in fact, over time we will see prime farmland lost to urban sprawl and industrial development. Therefore, the ability of that land and for the province to grow its own food will be diminished.

Of course, she talks about the fact that these small local boards, under the legislation, will have an enormously hard time holding the line. Anybody who has been in local government knows what that's like. Your constituency is right in your face. The pressures around land development things are enormous. It doesn't take too many people appointed to these boards that are pro-development for the land reserve to suddenly slip away.

Dr. Newman says:

"There's so much pressure on the land reserve right now. The one amendment I'm most worried about is the change to take this back to the regional boards of control. It's hard to say no at the local level. You are under a lot of pressure from people you probably know well who want to take the land out."

That's the reality. It paints a very true picture.

She goes on in this article to say…. And I think this is important. This is the piece that speaks very much to the reasoned amendment that we have put forward here in the House around determining the possible impacts of the changes to the agricultural production in our province long term.

[1145]

"All around the world people are waking up to the fact that we are…at peak farm. There isn't any new land being brought into production, and we're losing land. If you look at what's happening in California, where drought has put 800,000 acres out of production, that has massive implications for B.C. and Canada.

"The drought…is unprecedented. We have never seen anything like it. It's unlikely that California will ever recover to previous levels of production."

"Ever recover," hon. Speaker, "to previous levels of production."

"With that happening, we've got to be saying to ourselves: 'Okay, this is our chance where we can actually become a real producer. It's getting warmer every year, and we'd better protect that land.' Instead, the land is getting less protection."

I think that what's really at the crux of this is that for political and financial gain we are jeopardizing something so precious that future generations will look back and say: "How could this have been allowed to happen?" It is stealthy. I think that Dr. Newman says it very quickly. You're not going to see this happen tomorrow.

The bill…. The B.C. Liberal party, the government, has brought in a closure motion so that debate will be curtailed today. Regardless of whether we have canvassed every option, regardless of the fact that we have not gone out and consulted with the public face to face, regardless of the warnings and the pleas that have come from scientists, from experts, from stakeholders, this afternoon just after five o'clock, this bill is going to pass into law.

What happens after this will be away from public scrutiny, because the reality is that it will be stealthy. It will be one small parcel of land at a time. These regional boards, these local boards, will be beseeched by local land developers and industrial users to just sneak a little land here, change a little bit of use over there.

Pretty soon we'll look back, ten years from now, and say: "How did we allow this to happen? The growing drought around us has diminished our food access here in British Columbia." Or we will have to access food from further away, that's more expensive, with less protections.

We'll look back. Future generations will say: "What were they thinking in the Legislature in British Columbia in May of 2014 when they passed such a backward act at a time when they could have been visionary and they could have strengthened the agricultural land reserve. They could have invested in agriculture, in farming." We could have protected the very things that, I believe, are going to be destroyed.

Now, there is another really excellent article. This is Forever Farmland: Reshaping the Agricultural Land Reserve for the 21st Century. This was written by the David Suzuki Foundation. They've got a number of recommendations in here. Again, with great foresight for what future generations need to have from us, they have recommendations in here, four of which are very specific and germane to the debate we're having right now.

One: "The Agricultural Land Commission Act and the Agricultural Land Commission's annual service plan must be revised to ensure they are consistent and clear in their commitment to protect agricultural land from other forms of development."

Bill 24 is doing the very opposite, and the language we saw in the leaked e-mail gives us a peek behind what is the driving force of this. That is industrial development and non-food-production use of farmland. That is very evident — the very opposite of what this document is talking about, what 21st century policy should look like.

Next: "The provincial government must undertake and facilitate authoritative research on a wide range of factors likely to impair the viability of farming now and in the future." That is what we should be spending our time doing — that kind of wide-ranging thinking and research — because the drought south of the border is an alarm bell going off, and we are not heeding it.

Next: "The provincial government must develop policies to support farms and farming practices…."

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.

M. Karagianis: Again, it's the very opposite of what this is doing.

I urge the government to vote in favour of this amendment.

[1150]

Hon. D. McRae: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Hon. D. McRae: Today we have two residents from the Comox Valley in the gallery. We have Caroline and Ole Edliq. Ole has been a volunteer for search and rescue in the province of British Columbia for the past 35 years and has dedicated his service to the North Shore and the Comox Valley. He recently received the Attorney General's award for lifetime achievement, and the Comox Rotary Club recently sponsored him to become a Paul Harris Rotary award winner as well. He has done so much for British Columbians across this great province in times that are very trying, in the middle of the night.

He is joined by his wife, Caroline, who I mentioned, who is a passionate fine arts supporter. She is an elder college volunteer, and she is a great singer. Would the House please make them very welcome.

Debate Continued

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: I'm actually pleased to respond to the minister's question there, before I start the bulk of my remarks. I know that the bulk of my remarks are going to have to come after we break for lunch, but the minister
[ Page 4421 ]
asked if I was speaking again on this particular piece of legislation. I am happy to tell him yes, I am going to be speaking on this particular piece of legislation, because it is an important piece of legislation that is before the House, on this final day of the session.

It is dealing with Bill 24, for people who may not have been following the legislation process. This is dealing with the agricultural land reserve, specifically the Agricultural Land Commission, and changes that are being made to it. There has been considerable debate around this in this House, both inside this House and outside the House.

It's a piece of legislation that will take some 40 years of public policy and make the most significant changes to that public policy that we have seen since its introduction in 1974. It's a piece of public policy that has stood the test of time under NDP, Social Credit and Liberal governments.

There is considerable opposition to and concern about the changes in this particular piece of legislation, particularly around the splitting of the land reserve into two zones: zone 1, which is very much centred in the Lower Mainland and the Okanagan, and the rest of the province, which will be in zone 2. Especially, concerns have been raised around the Kootenays as to why they're included in zone 2, if there is going to be a zone 2 at all, which this side of the House feels should not be in place. In fact, most of the agricultural community is extremely upset with this bill and not happy with it at all.

Just so that the people who are watching from the gallery and those who are watching at home can fully understand this particular point of the legislative debate, this is the third amendment that the opposition has made to this particular piece of legislation. The first was to refer to a committee, the second was a hoist motion, and this is a reasoned amendment motion.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Just so that we are aware of the motion, it reads as follows: "That the motion for second reading of Bill (No. 24) intituled the Agricultural Land Commission (Amendment) Act be amended by deleting all the words following the word 'that' and substituting therefore the following: 'it is not in the best interests of agriculture, food producers, the public, nor those of future generations of British Columbians for the government to change the legislated protection that exists over land in the Agricultural Land Reserve without first determining the possible impacts of those changes to agriculture in our Province.'"

That is a very important amendment and requires some discussion, which I will be more than happy to continue after our return at 1:30. I look forward to the opportunity to talk about in greater depth the ways in which we need to accomplish the passing of our amendment.

With that, I will reserve my right to continue after lunch and adjourn debate.

M. Farnworth 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 resolution, 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 this afternoon.

The House adjourned at 11:55 a.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HEALTH

(continued)

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

The committee met at 11:16 a.m.

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

Hon. T. Lake: I would like to read into the record some follow-up items from earlier estimate debates. We committed to getting back to the hon. members who asked questions. There are a few here that I'd just like to go over.

One item was about maternity care on Haida Gwaii. We've since been provided with an update that there is a midwife working collaboratively with general practitioners on Haida Gwaii. There are births at Queen Charlotte Islands General Hospital, and in 2013-14 there were 12. There is no caesarian section capacity at the hospital, so women who require that surgery are flown to Prince Rupert for emergencies. There were also 13 home births that year supported by the midwife.

In order to maintain clinical competence, a midwife needs to have a certain number of births that he or she is overseeing and then needs to come to Vancouver a couple of times a year to increase the number of births in
[ Page 4422 ]
which they assist to maintain their registration.

Industrial camps in the north was another subject. Northern Health Authority provided the following information. With the projects currently underway in the north, there are estimated to be 150 camps. The 100 number was from 2012, so definitely an increase in a couple of years. We expect that to peak to 200 camps over the summer with 12,000 to 15,000 workers.

We were asked, too, about temporary foreign workers throughout the health authorities, so we canvassed health authorities on this question. It is under 200 across the six health authorities, so it's a very, very, very small percentage of the number of workers in health authorities. In fact, it represents less than 0.002 percent.

The information provided by health authorities is approximate. These are provided by FTEs, and some of them are casual positions. In Fraser Health there are 12 FTEs; Interior Health, eight FTEs; Northern Health, approximately 25 FTEs; Provincial Health Services Authority, 62 FTEs; Island Health, approximately 35 FTEs; Vancouver, ten FTEs; and Providence, which is under Vancouver Coastal, another two FTEs.

The positions are primarily registered nurses, both general duty and speciality nurses, and a number of other health sciences professions like physiotherapists, occupational therapists, medical lab technologists and pharmacists.

[1120]

For the temporary foreign worker, of course, employers have to go through a labour market opinion process with the federal government in order to have that approved. Hopefully, that is helpful for the members who asked about that.

Another question was about pay for performance and whether or not it has created any financial savings or led to better performance and patient outcomes. It's important to note that pay for performance is not intended as a methodology to save funding or reduce cost. It's to try to incent health authorities to improve performance outcomes and also, of course, have better patient outcomes and more timely procedures.

The results the ministry has been tracking have been mixed, to be frank. Health authorities showed some improvement in some outcome measures, for example. Although health authorities did not fully meet the 2 percent target for patients waiting longer than 52 weeks for elective surgery, health authorities partially achieved targets in the area. Vancouver Coastal reached 2.5 percent; IHA reached 3.2 percent. Fraser Health Authority and Vancouver Coastal made improvements in reducing nursing-sensitive adverse events compared to the previous year's baseline, while IHA remained the same.

The other question was around collection and assessment of data to determine performance. Did the ministry determine the 2010-11 model was not working? The response is that the ministry has evolved its approach from more of an activity-based funding model used previously to what is called pay for performance. It's not that the activity-based funding model wasn't working. Some of it was approached well. For instance, additional funding to HAs to deliver more MRIs was activity-based funding that was very productive. In fact, MRI volumes increased by an additional 30,703 over the baseline. Elective surgical volumes also increased by 6,650 in 2012-13 over the prior year.

The ministry now is shifting its focus from incenting additional volume to focusing on patient outcomes, and the P4P, or pay for performance, methodology is one methodology used to incent this kind of change.

The ministry introduced pay for performance in 2013-14 as a transitional year. We're continuing to work with health authorities to fully develop and implement this through '14-15. We don't have an evaluation assessment at this time. It's an ongoing work in progress in terms of improving the incentives to improve patient outcomes and volumes.

Two more updates. One was on the transcription service that is provided by M*Modal. This is the voice-recognition software and transcription of physician notes. We were asked about the service level comparison before the project and after the project. In Fraser Health the average number of days from dictation to transcription in 2012-13 was 15 days. In 2014-15, so far, that average is down to one day. So we've seen a significant improvement.

At Providence Health Care we've gone from an average four-day wait from dictation to transcription to one day — again, a significant increase in performance. B.C. Cancer Agency went from four days down to three days. So some improvement there, but the deployment isn't fully active there. Children and Women's has remained at 11, but again, the deployment there is not complete. Lions Gate Hospital went from 25 days from dictation to transcription down to one. A number of other hospitals in the region went from 15 days down to one. So we have, where it's been fully deployed, seen a tremendous increase in terms of the decrease in wait time from dictation to transcription.

Finally, I want to make a correction on the topic of Island Sexual Health Society that was discussed on May 27. I indicated at that time that a meeting was scheduled for that day between Island Health, the Provincial Health Services Authority and Island Sexual Health Society. A meeting was scheduled that day, but it did not include Island Sexual Health Society. The topic was discussed between Island Health and the PHSA. Those are ongoing dialogues. A meeting between Island Health and Island Sexual Health Society has now been set for June 5.

Hopefully, that provides the information updates for the members.

[1125]

S. Hammell: I have a question from a constituent around the Centre for Concurrent Disorders in Vancouver.
[ Page 4423 ]
The assertion from the person is that it has been closed, and a quarter of the staff have been moved to a small place at St. Paul's Hospital. I will read the letter.

This is a letter from the person.

"I believe that about a quarter of the staff have been moved to a small space at St. Paul's Hospital, which will presumably serve the most severe of people who are suffering from dual diagnosis of mental illness or disorder and an addiction. However, there were 80 referrals a month to this centre, which was only opened less than ten years ago but has provided a vital service. In fact, the help offered there should have been at the heart of the integration of mental health and addiction services."

I and this person would like more information about this closure.

Hon. T. Lake: The member was asking about the concurrent disorders program. This, again, is a redesign to address the changing nature of the population whom this service is designed to support. This is an integration with Vancouver General Hospital, so the clients will now have direct access to the physician supports they do require.

Previously, clients of the community-based cross-cultural team were not supported as part of an interdisciplinary team, which included physician support and medical care. This redesign supports the changing client base, which includes a growing population of clients with concurrent disorders.

At Vancouver Coastal Health it's not unusual to review the services and ensure that they continue to meet the changing and increasing complexity of the client base that they serve. The goal of the design is to free up resources to create greater access for more clients, improve coordination and integration between our mental health and addiction services, and provide more evidence-based intervention for clients.

For example, clients with concurrent disorders now have actually improved access to psychiatrists at Vancouver General Hospital. The change did affect ten FTEs, all of whom successfully found positions within Vancouver Coastal Health.

[1130]

This is not a reduction of services. There is no reduction in supports but an integration to provide, as we have all been talking about, a greater integrated, interdisciplinary approach to vulnerable clients.

S. Hammell: The number of FTEs that are actually providing this service has been reduced. If they had been placed in other places, then the service they were providing has now disappeared through this integration. So the FTEs for the service have been reduced and placed in other areas within Coastal.

Hon. T. Lake: I will go through the FTEs and how they are impacted. In the concurrent disorders program, FTE reinvestments of four FTEs included the transfer of the following: 1.5 FTEs to out-patient psychiatry, 0.5 FTE to West End Mental Health, 0.5 FTE to youth addictions, 0.5 FTE to early psychosis, 0.5 FTE to a new addictions day program and 0.5 FTEs to the existing Vancouver Coastal and Vancouver police department assertive community treatment team.

There was a reduction of 0.5 FTE administrative support and transfer of 4.5 FTEs — including health care workers, occupational therapists and other clinicians, as I mentioned. They found other positions within the system.

The realignment will not impact cross-cultural services or overall service capacity but does support the overall integration across mental health and addiction services, which will lead to improved coordination and integration and will improve access. All funds will remain with mental health and addiction services.

S. Hammell: Minister, I'd like to just quickly review some of the numbers that we were speaking about yesterday. Again, I'll just go over. First off, let me say I assume you can break down the big numbers into the smaller pieces that you gave me yesterday. For example, you gave me in-patient and acute at $218 million and then went down a number of places that that money was found. I'm assuming that you can identify how much money is spent underneath one of these categories, so I'd like to ask you to do that.

Of categories that you gave me, one of them is in-patient and acute, at $218 million. Community services, at $595 million. Physician services is all right, because you have, in fact, broken that down fairly clearly.

Drugs — I have some understanding but not completely. Then you have $86 million…

The Chair: Member, through the Chair, please.

S. Hammell: …in prevention services.

Do you want me to look at you?

The Chair: Address through the Chair, please.

S. Hammell: And then in prevention you have $86 million. I was just trying to get a better sense of where that money, specifically, is going.

Hon. T. Lake: I'm happy to go through this list, which is a fairly extensive spreadsheet, or I'm happy just to provide it to the member, whichever you would prefer.

[1135]

For instance, acute and tertiary, we said that there was, in 2012-13, $218,462,647. Of that, acute care services for mental health made up $109,127,675. Acute care services for addictions was $12,071,700. PHSA specialized services for mental health and addictions, $97,263,272.

If you look at community-based mental health and addiction services…. That's $595,302,081. Again, that's
[ Page 4424 ]
community-based mental health and addiction services. It's not broken down by each specific service, as they are community-based.

We mentioned $283,071,351 on physician services, of which $229,627,263 was fee-for-service. The balance of $53,444,088 was salaried and sessional. I think we canvassed PharmaCare quite extensively; that total was $168,297,741.

When we look at health promotion and prevention, the total there is $86,751,051. That comprises HIV/AIDS programs at $23,213,377. Methadone PharmaCare costs, $43,108,875. Methadone treatment fee-for-service, $12,886,952. Drugs of abuse laboratory screening, $7,116,847.

If we look at prevention and wellness, the alcohol and drug information line is $225,000, and the Centre for Addictions Research of B.C. is $200,000. That, I believe, is the total of all the components.

S. Hammell: Thank you, Minister. I would appreciate those numbers. Sometimes you just can't catch them all, so I would appreciate it.

I'd like to just focus for a minute on the mental health and substance abuse housing support. I'm not aware of how much you're spending on that item. Again, can you review that for me?

Hon. T. Lake: If I could just seek some clarification. We have the community-based mental health and addiction services, and we work with B.C. Housing to support efforts to help provide services to folks in housing. But I'm not entirely sure of the specificity of the member's question in terms of when she says "housing supports" — what she's referring to.

S. Hammell: This is one of the items you gave me yesterday. You said that under community services, $595 million. There was the Burnaby Centre for Mental Health and Addiction. There were assertive treatment teams, mental health and substance abuse treatment and intervention, and mental health and substance use housing support service.

[1140]

Hon. T. Lake: To the member, my apologies. Under the community-based services, we gave examples for program expenditures. Again, it was a reflection of what our community-based service is — including the Burnaby Centre for Mental Health and Addiction, the assertive community treatment teams, mental health and substance use treatment, use interventions, and mental health and substance use housing with supports.

I don't have the specific amount that is spent on mental health and substance use housing with supports, but my staff have committed to trying to get that number for me as soon as possible.

S. Hammell: There was a promise that there would be 500 additional beds by 2017 in addiction services. How are you planning to spend or execute that promise? I would assume that it would be 125 new beds every year or somewhere around that. Have you got a program for those 500 beds?

Hon. T. Lake: We have, as the member mentions, committed to create and implement an additional 500 substance use beds by 2017. The planning for these additional spaces is underway. It includes the involvement of health authorities and the non-profit sector.

As of March 2013 there were 2,617 health authority–funded substance use beds in B.C., of which 1,104 provide substance use treatment and intervention services. The remaining 1,513 provide supported housing for people with identified substance use problems.

The 500 new beds increase the number of treatment and intervention beds by almost 50 percent, bringing that from 1,104 to 1,604. Since the commitment was made, we've increased the number of treatment and intervention beds by 26. As of March 2014 we now have 1,130 beds.

Health authorities are submitting their plans to Ministry of Health. Those plans indicate approximately 20 percent, or 100 beds, will be achieved this fiscal year, so we are starting to see the results of that commitment. The type and location of the beds in each health authority will, of course, depend on the need and other community resources. Health authority planning will include involvement from key stakeholders such as non-profit sectors.

As I mentioned, that's the first phase: health authorities identifying the needs in their region. In phase 2 and phase 3, health authorities will undertake a system-planning approach for substance use beds and, engaging the input from key stakeholders, will meet this commitment of 500 new beds by 2017.

S. Hammell: The budget for this area is $595 million. There's the Burnaby Centre for Mental Health; the assertive treatment teams — I believe there are ten or 13; the mental health and substance use treatment and intervention support system. Then there's this housing.

Is the bulk of this $595 million for housing? How does housing for people with people with addictions and substance abuse differ from the housing that is done through the Housing Ministry or B.C. Housing? Is there any overlap? Do you actually see the housing as part of the health care system, as treatment, or is it seen as support?

[1145]

Hon. T. Lake: The health authority–funded substance-use beds are broken down into two categories. The first category of beds provides substance-use treatment, intervention and support recovery — a little more intense
[ Page 4425 ]
kind of treatment. There's that category of beds. The second category of beds is supported housing for people with identified substance-use problems, but treatment is not provided on site.

We work with B.C. Housing to ensure that the services are connected to the folks that are taking advantage of the B.C. Housing spaces. To give examples, in a city you may have the Canadian Mental Health Association. You may have — another example — Coast Mental Health, a non-profit that is contracted with the health authority to ensure that those folks that are in supported housing are connected to the services that are provided by the health authority.

ACT teams are a good example of where teams are assigned to individuals — with social workers, with psychiatrists, with physicians — and are connected to B.C. Housing to make sure that all of the supports are in place to support that particular vulnerable patient. So hopefully…. It is an integration of services with B.C. Housing and Health. In fact, we are endeavouring to ensure that that integration becomes embedded, and in our service plans for B.C. Housing and the health authorities we talk about working with B.C. Housing and health authorities.

That's embedded in their service plans so that they know that that's an obligation they have — to ensure that there is integration of services between B.C. Housing and the health authorities, often through the non-profits that are under contract to either B.C. Housing or the health authorities.

S. Hammell: Some of this is just trying to understand whether, when the Housing Minister talks about how many housing spaces have been created and then over here we have other housing spaces being created, we're double-counting or whether we're counting on one side and then counting again and whether, in fact, when we say "We've spent $1.3 billion on mental health," that is also including the housing — which, clearly, it is, from your explanation of the budget.

Some supportive housing is in the mental health budget. I don't have a quarrel with that. I'm just trying to be absolutely clear about what you're saying when you say "treatment for the mentally ill and those with substance abuse issues."

[1150]

Hon. T. Lake: As I mentioned, we work very closely with B.C. Housing. Health authorities will fund beds and work in conjunction with B.C. Housing to provide the funding to support those beds.

I'll give you an example. Canadian Mental Health — Emerald House in Kamloops. There are beds in that facility. It is run by the Canadian Mental Health Association in a partnership with B.C. Housing to renovate an existing building to provide that housing. Then the clients who are served by that housing…. A lot of their funding comes from Interior Health Authority, in this case, for the beds. The non-profit group then will connect them with health care in the community, whether it's social workers, whether it's primary care physicians, nurse practitioners, pharmacists.

So we work together. It's fair to say that B.C. Housing creates these spaces, but then, of course, it is supported often through the health authorities and the money identified by the member.

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

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:51 a.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
BIRCH ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: OFFICE OF THE PREMIER

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section C); G. Kyllo in the chair.

The committee met at 11:12 a.m.

On Vote 10: Office of the Premier, $9,008,000 (continued).

Hon. C. Clark: I will start by introducing the folks who are with me today, if that's okay with you.

John Dyble is the Deputy Minister to the Premier, cabinet secretary and head of the public service. Kim Henderson is the deputy minister for corporate initiatives. Neil Sweeney is deputy minister, corporate policy. Cheryl Wenezenki-Yolland is associate deputy minister with the Ministry of Finance. Michelle Leamy is director, executive operations, in the deputy minister's office. And with me now is Pierrette Maranda, who is the associate deputy minister for the Intergovernmental Relations Secretariat.

V. Huntington: I'm pleased to see the Premier. It's my first time asking the Premier questions in estimates.

What I'd like to canvass today are a couple of issues regarding legislative reform. As the Premier knows, since my first days in the Legislature I've been very interested in issues of democratic reform and ways in which the Legislature can be made more accountable to the people and more useful to the members and government at large.

As the Premier will know, the fixed fall election date has been the subject of a lot of discussion. Many of her
[ Page 4426 ]
members over the years have indicated their support for a fixed fall election date. The Premier, I think, herself has indicated that she recognizes that the fixed fall election would be a better way to go.

[1115]

As we all know, the spring election date interferes with the budget cycle. It doesn't enable an appropriate debate in the House. It doesn't allow the Auditor General to issue his report. It doesn't allow the government to issue its quarterly report. The people go into an election without knowing the actual state of the books of the province. I think it is a serious omission in how we conduct our elections in this province.

Seven jurisdictions in this country plus the federal government have fixed fall election dates now for that very reason. Only B.C. and Alberta have the spring election date. I'm wondering if the Premier — because this is obviously a question of leadership — will give a mandate to the Parliamentary Reform Committee to review the fixed fall election date and make recommendations to the Legislature on same.

Hon. C. Clark: Thanks to the member for her question. We've had this discussion in the past as well. I do know that there are strong arguments on both sides of the slate on this.

In addition to the arguments that she presented, which are legitimate, is the view that a fixed election date in May allows us to actually debate the budget that was presented in the course of an election, or in an April-May date, which is what we were able to do last year and which I thought was a very, very valuable process to really allow the public to vote on the budget that was presented.

It's something that I'm open to considering. I am reticent, though, to monkey with something that's been established, that has worked overall very, very well for the province. People now expect their elections to be in May in this province. I think that expectation and fixing that date and fixing people's expectations around the date has got to have a positive impact on voter turnout.

I'd be happy to consider her suggestion. I don't have a final answer for her today, though, just simply because I do see merits on both sides of the argument.

Having just been through this last process, it did seem like an April call and a May date turned out to be both beneficial for turnout and helpful because the public, the voters of the province, were very much focused on the budget that was before the Legislature and had a chance in the election process to decide whether they were going to accept or refuse the budget and ask that another one be introduced after the election campaign.

V. Huntington: With great respect to Madam Premier, I don't follow her logic at all. The people want to go into an election knowing what the state of the finances are in the province. They don't want to be looking at something that is a tool for either side during an election campaign.

The government can present whatever it wants in a budget that isn't going to be debated or passed. The opposition can say anything it wants about a budget that means absolutely nothing.

I think the people…. Whether they know exactly what the state of the budget actually is going into an election doesn't really matter. It's what we as legislators know is the case and what we as legislators know is being presented to the people. Is it honest, or is it dishonest? I believe the process is dishonest at the moment, and I think we have a duty to correct it.

Also, it was recognized in 2005 by your government — or by your government, Mr. Chair, or the government — and the former Premier that they had not considered the issue of the budget cycle when they moved to the fixed spring election. It was your government that brought in the fixed spring election, and it was an acknowledged error around 2005.

I think the Premier should examine this, look at the recommendations of her own Budget Process Review Panel, which recommended that the fixed fall date be instituted, and truly consider the merits. Most other provinces have. The federal government has. I think it's time that B.C. should.

[1120]

Hon. C. Clark: Well, I certainly recognize the member's passion around this. She's been consistent in this as well.

The budgeting process in British Columbia, I would argue, is more than a political tool. A budget is the agenda that guides government over the course of a year. It is something…. It is the fundamental building block of all that we do. In order to ensure that the public and voters, citizens, taxpayers know that the budget is on track, we issue quarterly reports, which are prepared by Finance professionals, not by politicians. We are held to account for those quarterly reports. A Finance Minister issues them four times a year, obviously, and one in conjunction with the budget.

So there are a whole number of other measures to keep the budget on track over the course of a year and ensure that the public knows where we're at. If the government is wildly off track in September or in the fall, the public will learn about that quite quickly through Public Accounts and through a quarterly report — equally so at other times of the year when the quarterly reports are issued.

We have come a long way in terms of transparency and accountability on the budget throughout the course of the year. I know that all of those tools are very, very useful for the public, for the media, for the Legislature in ensuring that the government is doing what it says it's going to do and that the government is living up to the promises that it made in a budget. As over the course of a year, spending sometimes is adjusted and changes.
[ Page 4427 ]
Government is required publicly to account for that, and that's what we do.

V. Huntington: The issue here before us and my question is the issue of a budget that takes us into an election, not the budget cycle when it's operating properly and as it should be operating, which is why the push to move to a fall election date so that we can get an honest budget cycle in front of the public.

I just wanted to say that I don't follow the Premier's logic on this. The issue, if it is the fundamental guide and tool of government….

The Chair: Member, I just remind you to direct your questions through the Chair, please.

V. Huntington: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

If the budget is the fundamental tool and guide to government, which we all know it is and which we spend so much time reviewing, it needs to be before the people so that they understand the full ramification of that tool and guide. That's why we need to go, I believe, to the fall election, and I encourage the Premier to review the issue.

My second question revolves around committee reform. I know this is of interest to members on both sides of the House. It's been before the Parliamentary Reform Committee many, many times. It, again, is the issue that is going to take, obviously, leadership from the Premier's office in order to make it happen.

Right now our committees do not function properly. They are done in very minimal fashion compared to most other jurisdictions in the Commonwealth. The Premier knows this. She has spoken to me personally about the issue.

We last did a formal review of the committee process in 1996. There have been other attempts to look at it, and I would like to know if the Premier would provide the Parliamentary Reform Committee with a mandate to provide recommendations on how we might strengthen the legislative committee process.

The Chair: Member, I'd caution you again to please direct your questions through the Chair.

V. Huntington: Well, I sort of am. I'm not…. I'm looking at the Premier, but I shall continue to do that. Sorry.

The Chair: Thank you.

[1125]

Hon. C. Clark: I certainly recognize that there are issues with the committee process. I think that a lot of us in this chamber who have been here for a long time would think that the estimates process could probably stand a little bit of reform. I know that many governments of all stripes have, over the years, thought about trying to reform the estimates process without a whole lot of success. I don't know if there's still room to do that.

It would be, I think, good if we could find some reforms, for the estimates process in particular. I'd be happy to consider what the member is asking, in consultation with the House Leader for the government and the House Leader for the opposition as well.

I do want to go back a little bit and just differ with the member about this. In terms of budgeting and budget transparency, there has never been more transparency in budgeting than there is now. That includes the quarterly reports. It includes the Economic Forecast Council. It includes a quarterly report that is a professional checkup on how the government has done on budgets over the years, at the same time that the budget is presented to the House.

The budget document in addition to being a guide for government is also a statement of where government wants to take the province. In that respect, I suppose it is a political statement that we ask people to choose on, but I would take issue with the member's view that a budget cannot be proven to be honest until you get to the fall. I don't think that's accurate. I think that the quarterly reports, government's history of budgeting, the guarantee that it will be done by professionals, the public nature of the Economic Forecast Council all work together to ensure that the accuracy of the budget is verifiable by the public.

Again, as I said, I do think that there is merit in putting a budget before the people every four years and allowing them the chance to have a say on whether they agree with the direction the government has chosen and set out in that fundamental document. Rather than just leaving it to politicians here to make that decision, I think there's merit in allowing the public of our province to have a say in that every once in a while.

V. Huntington: Well, I, too, will take the opportunity to reply to that. The issue is before us and in this question — the fact that we do not put a budget in front of the people before our elections. We put an estimate in front of the people who do not receive the merits of the debate, who do not see the Auditor General's report, who do not see a quarterly report — which if we move to a fall election date, they would. And the Premier's comments would make sense at that point. But the issue on the fall election date is having a budget before the people, which presently we do not have.

With that, I conclude my questions.

Hon. C. Clark: Just to close that off from my end here as well and to add that according to subsection 7(d) of the Budget Transparency Act, a deputy minister must attest to the accuracy of the numbers in addition to the other safeguards that are there to ensure the accuracy of the budget.
[ Page 4428 ]

I don't know if there is a better way to set out the government's policy than in a budget and where we intend to spend money. I don't know if there's a better way to depict for the public exactly where we intend to take the province. Rather than saying, "Here's where we intend to take the province," moving in that direction for perhaps half a year and then having the public decide on it, allow the voters and the taxpayers of this province to make that decision at the beginning of the process when the budget is being debated in the House and before many, many months have passed of executing on the direction that the budget takes.

I think that there's merit in that. On the other side of the argument, I think it makes some good sense to give the public a say, as I said, in deciding what budget, what vision, what future, what path they would like to take before the budget sees itself six months down the road.

[1130]

B. Ralston: My question relates to the Intergovernmental Relations Secretariat and, in particular, the protocol and events branch. The Premier will know, as part of her ongoing responsibilities, about the importance of protocol, particularly in dealing with the diplomatic service.

I note that in the protocol and events branch they are responsible for liaison with the British Columbia Consular Corps. Can the Premier advise the House what advice on protocol she takes when dealing with domestic — that is, within British Columbia — diplomatic events?

Hon. C. Clark: I'd ask the member to be a little more specific, if he could.

B. Ralston: Well, perhaps I can give an example, then. I don't give this example as an example of harsh treatment of myself, particularly. I've got thick skin. But I think it does reflect upon the office in a very unfavourable way and on British Columbia's international reputation.

At the Emperor's Birthday reception on December 17, 2013, the Premier was there, invited by Consul General Okada, and gave an address. There were a number of members of the Legislature there, but the Premier chose to recognize the member for Burnaby North, the Minister for Small Business, the Minister of International Trade and also the member from West Vancouver. Those are all Liberal members.

But also in the crowd — and I was, in fact, standing shoulder to shoulder with the member from West Vancouver — there was the member for Vancouver-Hastings, the member for Port Coquitlam, the member for Burnaby-Edmonds. We were not recognized.

Now, I know the Premier tends to be hyper-partisan about these matters and tends to want to ignore members of the official opposition at any event that we attend along with her. But in this context, in a diplomatic context, it was commented on. I received comments from other diplomats there who were shocked by that treatment of members of the opposition.

So I'm wondering what advice the Premier does receive from the protocol and events branch, because it seems to me that's not the way that a Premier should conduct herself in these sorts of diplomatic situations.

Hon. C. Clark: Well, I can assure the member I have also received complaints from members of my own caucus when I have neglected to introduce them at events as well.

I do make an effort to try and introduce MLAs who are there. I sometimes miss some. I know that in the past I've also introduced…. There are examples of introducing NDP MLAs, independent MLAs and Green MLAs at events as well.

My apologies to him — the same apologies I've offered to members of my own caucus when I've made a similar mistake.

I know that members of communities very much appreciate the attendance of all members, many members, of the Legislature who come to appreciate the contribution that these cultural communities make to our province — and their hope and desire that we can continue to increase our trade with those jurisdictions, increase our connections. We are in such a terrific position to do so because we are blessed with a diverse society. We should leverage that strength.

Again, to the member, my apologies to him if I slighted him. As I said, it's a mistake I've been accused of making with members from the government side of the House as well, and I've apologized to them when that's happened as well.

B. Ralston: I accept that. It's not really about my feelings. There's no necessity to apologize to me. My concern is the reputation of the province — the Premier representing the province — on an occasion which is a politically neutral setting where important relationships are being made and the reputation of the province is on display. Frankly, diplomats there were shocked.

This also took place at the Korean National Foundation Day, a similar occasion — the national day of an important trading partner. The Premier introduced Liberal MLAs and neglected to introduce a number of NDP MLAs who were there as well. That was South Korea, not North Korea where there's a one-party system.

Really, I think that what I'm looking for is a commitment by the Premier not simply to apologize for what's happened in the past but for an understanding and an assurance that protocol and events branch is giving advice about the way in which these particular kinds of events should be conducted here in British Columbia in order to put the best of British Columbia on display.

[1135]

Hon. C. Clark: I always will continue to do my best to ensure that every member of the Legislature is introduced at these events. We don't always know who's there, for one thing, but we'll make a better effort to make sure there is a complete list of every MLA that's in attendance before I get up and speak.

I do hope, though, that rather than focusing on this, which I appreciate is a legitimate concern for the member, we can talk about some of the more pressing intergovernmental affairs issues facing our province — namely, our relationship with Ottawa; some of the work that we did on the Canada jobs grant in trying to successfully come to an agreement; the work that we're doing between Premiers on health care, an example of a real improvement in the way we're approaching health care across the country, working together with Premiers.

Also, there are the trade missions that we've undertaken — there have been five since I've become Premier — and how that is working; the relationships that we are building with the consular staff; the agreement that we've signed with the Chinese consul general to work directly with her to work together on emerging opportunities between British Columbia and China.

There are so many areas of intergovernmental affairs where we have made major progress. We have a lot more to do. We are establishing a really strong relationship with Singapore, which isn't a jurisdiction where we've had deep relations in the past, and Malaysia, as well, led by Petronas as a major investor in our province. I met with the Prime Minister of Malaysia recently.

Intergovernmental affairs have been a significant focus for our government. It has taken up a great deal of my time as we've worked hard to expand our trade relationships all around the world. Perhaps we could talk a little bit about doubling the number of boots on the ground in China and in India, increasing our presence in Hong Kong, increasing our presence in Japan — all of those very important areas for us.

All of those areas of intergovernmental affairs are crucial for building our economy, for growing jobs. I'd be delighted if we could focus a little bit on that in the time that we have left.

B. Ralston: I want to, indeed, focus on that area. My question is about the relations of the government of British Columbia with Taiwan. The Premier will know that there's a very active Taiwanese expatriate community, a very active business community. Taiwan is also a very successful economy — $600 billion in hard currency reserves — and in recent years increasingly integrating into the People's Republic of China in an economic sense.

Obviously, there are delicate political issues in the relations between Taiwan and the People's Republic of China. I don't propose to enter into those. But I do note that in the Premier's recitation of the travels that she has undertaken, she has not mentioned Taiwan. I believe a couple of years ago some government backbenchers — led by, I think, Dave Hayer, who was then the MLA for Surrey-Tynehead, and some other Liberal backbenchers — undertook a visit to Taiwan.

I'm wondering: in the Premier's plans for the forthcoming year and within the estimates and the financial budgeting of her office, is there a plan for her to visit Taiwan?

Hon. C. Clark: I have not visited Taiwan. I've been to China, I think, on all but one of the trade missions that I've taken — maybe all five.

Taiwan is a very important part of our cultural makeup here and an important economic partner for British Columbia. We're very proud that Jack Lee, the founder of T&T Supermarket, a great B.C. businessman, is now the president of the Taiwan overseas association, so we are extremely well represented, by people of Taiwanese descent here, all around the world. That has meant that many, many people from Taiwan, or people who are originally from Taiwan, are visiting British Columbia as a result.

An important economic partner, an important cultural partner for us. Many people of Taiwanese descent have made huge contributions, and continue to, to our province.

[1140]

We do not have, as the member noted, official government-to-government relations with Taiwan. But there is the flexibility for us to develop non-official contacts in the areas of mutual interest. We're continuing to do that. I don't have a plan to visit Taiwan on the next trade mission that we'll do, but we'll see in the future.

B. Ralston: One of the differences between British Columbia and Alberta in their dealings with Taiwan is that the government in Alberta has an annual economic conference to which diplomatic representatives are invited. I understand the unique diplomatic status of Taiwan in the sense that they're not officially recognized as a consular service here in Vancouver or here in British Columbia. Nonetheless, there is an office that conducts affairs on behalf of the Taiwan jurisdiction here.

At that economic conference in Alberta…. I raised this last year with, I believe, the minister for LNG, who was standing in for the Premier at the estimates last year. Would the Premier be prepared to consider a similar invitation to representatives of the Taiwanese service here to participate in more economically oriented government events in British Columbia, given — as the Premier has acknowledged — their important economic contribution and, really, the vibrancy of the Taiwanese economy?

It is, I think, well known throughout the world for a relatively small jurisdiction — many, many companies; much capacity for foreign investment; and economic dynamism in general.
[ Page 4430 ]

Hon. C. Clark: In British Columbia — he's quite right — because it is not a consul officially, they're not included in that consular briefing. But he's quite right. People of Taiwanese descent here and the connection that they create between Taiwan and British Columbia is really important for our economy, for our culture. They make tremendous contributions.

As I said, Jack Lee — I don't know if you've ever met him — is a dynamo and very representative of people of Taiwanese descent and the kind of contribution they've made here in our province and in our country. We are very, very proud of that contribution.

I'm informed, though, that officials do meet reasonably regularly with representatives from Taiwan to talk through some of the issues. That does happen at the officials' level. It's a little bit different from the way Alberta approaches it officially, but in substance it does render essentially the same result.

J. Horgan: I'd like to talk to the Premier about strategies for adding value to our resources. I listened at length to references to adding value to our gas resource. As I've said many times in this place and outside of this place, I support that initiative, assuming that we can get a benefit to the Crown and a benefit to the people of British Columbia, the owners of those assets.

I'd like to ask the Premier: in her fixation on that sector, has she also started to diversify her interests in the economy and adding value to our resources, specifically with respect to our timber supply?

I know that there's been a massive increase in the export of raw logs from the coast and an increase in the export of raw logs from the Interior. At the end of the last century about a million cubic metres would be exported annually, usually from private land. There were restrictions in place. The federal government was involved in many cases. Now we're up to six million cubic metres, mostly from Crown land. Those are assets that belong to the people of British Columbia, and we're not getting every job out of those logs that we possibly could.

I'm wondering if the Premier…. When she's not contemplating natural gas, is she thinking about the foundation of our economy historically? That would be our forest sector.

[1145]

What steps is she taking, as the leader of the executive council and the leader of the government, to protect those assets that belong to all of us and to get as much value in the form of jobs and revenue as possible?

Hon. C. Clark: As I have said many, many times, we would very much prefer that all logs that leave our province are manufactured first before they leave, but the reality is different from that. We also want to make sure that we support jobs in our forests. Recognize that of the many, many jobs — particularly in the north Island, places like that, that come in the lumber industry — more of them happen in the woods than happen in the mill. We need to also be cognizant of those people's jobs, recognizing that they, at some times, depend on log exports to be able to keep working and able to keep putting food on the table for their kids.

We have to try and find that balance between the two, because we certainly want to create more manufactured products of all kinds in our province. Liquefied natural gas is one of those.

We also have this year announced $5 million to support the aerospace industry. It could be a huge manufacturing base for us here in British Columbia where we've developed a high level of specialization, particularly in the Fraser Valley. We're trying to grow that and support that.

Working on the shipbuilding contract, for example — working with the company to land that procurement from the federal government — also adding to our manufacturing base here in British Columbia.

The technology industry doesn't just hold huge promise; it's an incredible current generator of wealth in our province. We have tremendous opportunity. The member will know we recently announced Microsoft U coming to British Columbia. We hope we can replicate that across the tech industry to bring the best and the brightest to our province. Again, another area where we can really focus on growing our manufacturing base. We are very much focused on this.

Liquefied natural gas is not the end of it. I want to note this, as I like to do with the member opposite, the Leader of the Opposition. He always says he supports a liquefied natural gas industry, but, but, but…. That is not how you will get to yes. The way you get to yes is to say: "We support it. We recognize there are obstacles, and we are determined to overcome them." That is how we are going to get to yes.

The Chair: Leader of the Official Opposition, and noting the hour.

J. Horgan: I will note the hour, hon. Chair. Thank you very much.

I loved the way the Premier pivoted on there. "We support this, but, but, but…" she said, just after saying I said the very same thing. I guess we're in agreement again, Madam Premier, through you, hon. Chair.

I'd like to go back to the raw logs, though. I mean, I want to see shipbuilding jobs increase here, but the only way that's going to help the forest industry is if we're making three-masted schooners, and I don't believe that's what we're going to be doing.

So 70 mills have closed in British Columbia on the B.C. Liberal watch, and 35,000 jobs in the forest sector have disappeared during that time. I don't disagree that we need to keep people working in the woods, but the mills
[ Page 4431 ]
that the Premier referenced have been closed while her government has been in power.

Again, does the Premier have a plan, at all, to address the dislocation of rural communities that will result from further closures, in Smithers, in Quesnel and other parts of the interior of British Columbia, as a result of a policy that's allowing our raw logs to leave this province without adding any value, without any benefit to communities that have benefited from this activity in this resource industry for generations?

Hon. C. Clark: Well, I mean, log exports went up under the NDP government that he advised all those years. He's suddenly had a conversion on the road to Damascus, apparently, on this front.

Yes, as I said, we're trying to find a balance when it comes to that. I won't repeat what I just said, but I will also say that the B.C. forest sector is predicted to grow by 15 percent this year, at 10 percent in 2015. B.C. Forest Products exports had a 14.2 percent increase. That's $10.16 billion. Softwood lumber exports, lumber exports, to China broke a new record in 2013, exceeding $1.4 billion.

The devastation of the pine beetle, the downturn in the United States and other factors have had an impact, no doubt, on the forest industry, but today, after a lot of hard work with the industry, we have created what I believe is the most sustainable, most competitive industry you'll find anywhere in the world.

[1150]

We have more work to do, as we always do. It is the bedrock industry of our province. It puts a lot of people to work. We need to continue to support it, and we certainly will in doing that.

Here's the thing. You can't create resource development if you are always throwing up obstacles and trying to find reasons not to do it. The member says he supports LNG, for example, but he wants a moratorium on fracking. He says he supports LNG, but he's concerned about the way we're going to transport it. He says he wants LNG, but…

Interjections.

The Chair: Members.

Hon. C. Clark: …he says we want to make sure that the taxes are at a level that he sets, rather than one that will necessarily be competitive.

The member stands up every day and says he supports resource development, and then the next day he stands up and says: "But we have to do this first; but we have to do this next." If we don't do all the things that the NDP says, if we don't throw up all the obstacles that they would like to throw up, they don't want to have it. The member stands up one day, says one thing…

Interjections.

The Chair: Members.

Hon. C. Clark: …and then he stands up the next day and says absolutely another.

On this side of the House we are committed to economic growth. On this side we believe in trying to find ways to get to yes. That means rather than approaching these things ideologically, we approach them from a practical perspective, and we find a way to make things happen.

That is how you get to yes. That is how you create resource development opportunities. That is how you create jobs for the people of this province. And that is, as I said in question period, how we are going to create a bright future for British Columbia.

Vote 10: Office of the Premier, $9,008,000 — approved.

Hon. C. Clark: I move that the committee rise and report completion of the resolution and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:52 a.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

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

TV channel guide • Broadcast schedule

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