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

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 14, Number 5

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

THURSDAY, MAY 29, 2014

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Madame Speaker: Hon. Members, I have the absolute pleasure to welcome to this precinct Kathleen Scales. She and I worked together for many years around the Roots of Empathy program in British Columbia. She is joined by Michael Von Zuben. I'd ask the House to please make them welcome.

Tabling Documents

Madame Speaker: Hon. Members, I have the honour to present the annual report of the Conflict of Interest Commissioner for 2013.

Orders of the Day

Hon. S. Bond: Here in the chamber we will be continuing with second reading of Bill 24. In Section A, the Douglas Fir Room, the estimates of the Ministry of Health will continue; and in Section C, the Birch Room, we'll have the estimates of the Ministry of Justice.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 24 — AGRICULTURAL LAND
COMMISSION AMENDMENT ACT, 2014

(continued)

On the amendment (continued).

M. Farnworth: It's my pleasure to rise and resume debate on Bill 24, the Agricultural Land Commission Amendment Act. We are on the amendment that was moved by my colleague from Powell River–Sunshine Coast, the Agriculture critic. Prior to the adjournment for lunch, I read out the amendment and why it was important.

[1335]

This is the third amendment that we have moved on this particular piece of legislation. You really begin to wonder why, after two thoroughly debated and examined amendments, that the government still has not grasped that it's time to step back and to take a second look, as W.A.C. Bennett used to famously say. Take a second look at this bad piece of public policy.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

It's awkward that we have to get to this point. I mean, we have tried to…. We have talked in this House for a number of weeks now. We have talked to the government members opposite. We have badgered them. We have prodded them. We have poked them. We have implored them. We have cajoled them. We have urged them. We have nudged them. We have even hectored them to look at this bad piece of public policy, and still they refuse see the error of their ways.

Some of us have yelled at them. Some have whispered to them. Some have rallied to them to stand and come to us, to stand with us, and to go forward on a good piece of public policy by hoisting it for six months or referring it to a committee. We have pushed them to see reason. We have tried to drag them to see. We have beseeched them. We have petitioned them on numerous occasions.

We have even, in the spirit of cooperation in this House, encouraged them to see the error of their ways. Yet still that has not worked. We have tried moral suasion. We have tried good old-fashioned persuasion. We have made overtures to them, and we have advised them on the many errors in this bill, the many mistakes in this bill, and still they have not seen the error of their ways.

That's why we introduced the hoist motion. It's why we introduced to refer it to the committee: so that they could see the error of their ways. They could talk to British Columbians and find out the impact of this bill. Yet it has been to no avail. It has been to no avail even to offer them our best advice.

We have commended them to talk to experts in the field of agriculture. We have counselled them to talk with experts in the field of agriculture, to listen to the agricultural community, and still they have resisted. We have pressed them day after day. We have insisted. We have prevailed on them.

We have advocated, each and every one of us, in this chamber for this government to see reason, to listen to people in the public and communities right across this province who are saying that Bill 24 is a bad piece of legislation. We have exhorted them. We have recommended to them that they look at this bill more closely to see its mistakes. Some of us have even demanded that they do that. Some colleagues have insisted….

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: I see my colleague from Prince George nodding in agreement. Exactly. They have insisted that this government is wrong. They have insisted that it's time for this government to recognize the mistakes that it has made with this bill and to correct them.

Some of us have goaded them. We have goaded them by pointing out, through e-mails, just how bad this piece of legislation is.
[ Page 4434 ]
Some with a more legal background have entreated with them. Some have even prayed for them. But all of us have requested that this government understand just how bad this piece of legislation is.

Some have rhapsodized or soliloquized. Others have broached them on a private basis. Do you really…?

An Hon. Member: It's not a verb.

M. Farnworth: It can be made to be a verb. Shakespeare created words that way.

[1340]

Broached. Others have broached with them the idea that the amendment before this House is a good amendment, is a positive amendment — privately and silently, quietly, asking them to think about supporting the amendment.

Others more articulate than I have articulated clear and precise reasons, logical reasons, why this bill is a bad bill. Others have spouted their reasons as to why this is a bad bill. Others — and many, and I will include myself — have heckled this government.

Others have hounded certain ministers in this chamber on just how bad this particular piece of legislation is. Some may even say that they have tormented ministers on how bad this particular piece of legislation is. But all of it….

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: Oh, the minister says, "Fair assessment." He is quite right in some ways, because the opposition feels strongly about this piece of legislation, as do people in communities right across this province, that a legacy of public policy that was created 40 years ago and stood the test of time is being dismantled in a way that is not done on the grounds of what's right for the province but is done on the basis of ideology.

That's wrong. So there will be members of this House who will continue to needle this government on the error of its ways. We will continue to invoke a sense of reason and a sense of a desire for good public policy. We importune you, hon. Member, to look at this legislation not as something that must be done but rather as a piece of legislation that needs to be examined for all its consequences. We will continue to do that.

We have solicited support from outside this House. We have solicited that support on the basis that people…. If the government doesn't want to listen to the opposition, they can at least listen to the people in the industry. Yet it continues to fall on deaf ears. We will continue to woo the government members with arguments that make sense. If we have to, we will continue to obsecrate that this….

Interjections.

M. Farnworth: Not obfuscate — obsecrate.

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: No, no, no. It's o-b-s-e-c-r-a-t-e — obsecrate.

Interjections.

M. Farnworth: No, I am not in a negative mood. I am in a good mood today, so I will resist the temptation to respond to that.

But I make those comments because we are at the third of the three main motions that can be moved to amend a piece of legislation in this House. It's not often that an opposition goes to the point of using all three tools that are available to us.

It doesn't matter whether you are the official opposition or the independents; all of us in this House, on this side, are concerned about the impact that this particular piece of legislation will have on agriculture in British Columbia. We do not believe that the government has studied the impacts that this piece of legislation will have. That's why we moved the amendment.

Agriculture is such an all-encompassing industry in this province — on perhaps the richest range of soils and agricultural lands in the entire country, which only make up 5 percent of British Columbia's land mass — that it's incumbent on the government to recognize that. It's incumbent to look at how the changes are going to impact not just one sector — like ranching, for example, or dairy — but the whole range of agricultural products that we currently grow in this province and also the potential for new crops that we can grow in British Columbia, the potential that we have for future agriculture and the technological changes that are taking place in agriculture.

[1345]

It's important that we fully understand the impacts of the legislation in terms of how it will relate to communities that are both agricultural and non-agricultural. In many parts of British Columbia, as I've stated earlier, community plans and regional plans have taken into account land in the agricultural land reserve and have taken into account that agriculture is an important component to those communities and that agriculture has specific needs and requirements to it.

People engaged in agricultural activities need to have surety of things such as tenure on land and the ability to farm in a way that is not going to see the creation of a subdivision next to their land because land has been removed. It all of a sudden now puts pressure on their land not just in terms of its value and the idea that a piece next door is now out and has been built on, that this puts the pressure on the neighbouring piece, but also in the fact that the increase in population so close to a farming area can have an impact.

Many people are not happy with the sounds, the activities, the timing of activities or the smells associated with many agricultural activities. That's often a source of conflict on the urban-agricultural interface.
[ Page 4435 ]

One of the things that proper community plans can take into account, when there's a surety in terms that agricultural land is being protected, is those issues can be dealt with. But when that uncertainty is put there because it's easier to take land out or because agricultural values are somehow devalued, that raises the potential for conflict and for increasing hurdles for people engaged in agriculture.

There is existing legislation in place — the Right to Farm Act, for example. I think one of the things we have yet to hear from government is how this particular piece of legislation…. How will it impact, for example, on right to farm? Is there an impact there? We don't know the answer to those questions, and it's important that we do know the answer to those questions.

It's important that we know the impact on different sectors of agricultural production, for example. There are often different demands between the tree fruit industry and fruits and vegetables and the greenhouse industry, or the dairy industry and the cattle industry. Those are all important components of agricultural production in this province that have not been adequately addressed by the government in its response to the critics of this legislation who represent all those sectors of agriculture in British Columbia.

The ministry and the minister talk about wanting to grow the size of the receipts of agriculture in this province from $11 billion, I think he said, to a $14-billion-a-year industry. Well, how does this legislation do that? How does it propose to do that? That's not specified in it. There's no plan attached with it. There's been no rationale from the government and the minister other than to sort of say: "Trust us."

Yet the problem with that is that we have seen, in terms of e-mails prior to the creation of this legislation, that that was not the driving force behind the creation of this particular bill. That's particularly disturbing. That's why it's important that the government takes this opportunity to understand the concern that is out there, to understand the need for a thorough examination of this particular piece of legislation, and to support the amendment.

To support the amendment would not be…. In fact, I know that members on this side of the House care so deeply about this particular piece of legislation that if the government were to vote in favour of this amendment, not one member of the opposition….

[1350]

I'm even looking directly — to use the words the Minister for Core Review used once before — into the eyes of the member for Saanich South. I know that if this government passes the amendment, she would not criticize the government one bit. She would in fact congratulate the government. She would congratulate the government. I think the government needs to know that — that they would be congratulated, that they would not be criticized, that they would not be attacked. They would not be hectored any longer.

They would in fact be congratulated for stepping back and doing as W.A.C. Bennett said, taking that famous second look and sending a message that — you know what? — our parliamentary system works. When people, communities and organizations raise concerns about legislation, government can listen. I think that's something that, as I've said many times in this debate, would restore public confidence and would ensure that people have faith in our institution. And it would save the government and government members from having to listen to the opposition criticize them.

I see my colleague across the way smiling, because I think he knows what I'm about to do. I will just very quickly re-enunciate all the different ways that we have talked, badgered, prodded, poked, implored, cajoled, urged, nudged, hectored, yelled, whispered, rallied, pushed, dragged, beseeched, petitioned, encouraged, and used moral suasion, persuasion, overtures, advice.

We've commended, counselled, pressed, insisted, prevailed, advocated, pleaded, exhorted, recommended, demanded, insisted, goaded, entreated, even prayed, requested, rhapsodized, soliloquized, broached, articulated, spouted, heckled, hounded — even tormented, some would say — needled, importuned, invoked, solicited, wooed and obsecrated.

My colleague across the way….

Hon. S. Bond: It's your job.

M. Farnworth: She says it's our job. It is our job, but it's also the government's job to listen — to listen to what people have to say.

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: The minister says: "We're going to amend it." The problem, as noble as that may sound, is that if you are going to do that, it means you must have a proper process of consultation so that people can feel they have had their input listened to.

It's not a question of a minister saying one day, "We intend that every option is on the table, that we can amend the bill. We can leave the bill as it is, or we can scrap the bill altogether," and then, in less than 24 hours, a fellow minister saying, "Well, actually, we're going to pass the bill, and we're not going to change it, or we're not really open to changing the fundamentals of the bill," and then to say a few days later: "Oh, by the way, we are going to do a couple of quick amendments."

The reality is that they have not been done on the basis of consultation. They have not been done on the basis of people being able to go and talk to a committee, as we proposed in a previous amendment, nor, for example — as we had also proposed in a subsequent amendment — to hoist the bill for six months so that we would have the
[ Page 4436 ]
summer. The government could have brought the legislation back in the fall, and they could have then said: "Hey, we took the summer, and we heard what people have to say. We have made the subsequent changes and amendments, and that's what we've decided to do."

Those would be legitimate reasons to say, "Guess what. We've amended the bill. We've heard you, and we've listened, and here's why. Here's the rationale," and people would be able to say: "Yes, they listened to us." None of those have happened.

[1355]

It's fine to say that we've got amendments, but the reality is that's really not what is happening. So that's why we are trying this third option, which is what is called a reasoned amendment. The reasoned amendment says, as I said earlier, that we need to determine the possible impacts of the changes of this bill on agriculture in our province. I don't think I have too much time left. I'm told I have about five minutes, and I'm quite sure there are some in this House who are quite glad of that.

Within the five minutes that I have left remaining in my time to speak to this particular bill….

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: Actually, my colleague wants me to read the list. But I will read a different list, because the key part of the particular motion is "the possible impacts of those changes on agriculture in our province."

As I've stated earlier, agriculture is amazingly diverse. The agriculture industry is amazingly diverse in this province. As I've said earlier, I remember listening to Bill Barlee, the former Agriculture Minister, who once said that we make 74 value-added products from hazelnuts in British Columbia that are grown up the valley in the Agassiz-Kent-Harrison area. Amazing — right? — that we have that kind of diversity amongst a single crop in terms of the products that can be produced.

In British Columbia we grow carrots, beets, gai lan, parsnips and cabbages. We grow turnips, lettuce, radishes and cucumbers — greenhouse and field. We grow tomatoes — hothouse and field. We grow peppers. We grow a range of vegetables. We grow broccoli, cauliflower, kohlrabi and kale. Let's not forget kale. It never goes stale.

We grow blueberries, apples, pears, peaches, apricots, grapes, strawberries and raspberries. We grow tayberries, loganberries and gooseberries. We grow currants — black, red and white. We grow plums — Italian, damson and Japanese.

We grow flowers. We grow roses.

R. Fleming: Brussels sprouts.

M. Farnworth: Oh, Brussels sprouts. Everybody's favourite vegetable we grow.

We grow grapes — eating grapes and wine grapes. We have the most diverse and important wine industry in the country, and that's something we agree on.

We grow all kinds of apples. We grow Delicious apples — Red and Golden. We grow Ambrosia apples. We grow cherries — sweet cherries and pie cherries. We grow pumpkins and squash.

The diversity of crops in this province is unparalleled anywhere else in the country. So when there is a piece of legislation it behooves us…. And I have not even talked about the four-legged agriculture: beef cattle, dairy cattle, llamas — which my friend from Smithers in Stikine has — chickens, turkeys, ducks, geese and squab pigeons. You name it.

All are agriculture products produced here in British Columbia. One would think that in order to understand the implication of legislation on all of those industries and all of those producers and all of those crops and all of that livestock, the government would have taken the opportunity to talk to those different sectors. Unfortunately, they didn't.

Whether it's corn producers or those who grow silage or sheep or pigs, they look at this particular piece of legislation, and they go: "It's not good. It is a bad bill. It is bad public policy, and it needs to stop."

[1400]

It needs to take the time that's required to ensure that we've got good public policy. It's time to take one final opportunity to say no to Bill 24 and to say yes to this amendment that will allow the government a face-saving way to see the error of its ways.

With that, I can see by the light, and it's about to change…. I have, I think, spouted off enough. I have heckled enough. I have hounded enough. I have articulated enough. I have broached the topic enough. I have needled. I have importuned. I have invoked. And therefore, I think it is time that other colleagues of mine take the floor.

With that, I thank the hon. members for listening to my comments.

D. Donaldson: I can't say I'm happy to take my spot, but I am going to speak to this amendment put forward by my colleague from Surrey-Whalley, an amendment to the original motion that we were considering in second reading. The motion I'm speaking to today says:

"That the motion for second reading of Bill (No. 24) intituled 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 interest 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.'"

As you will know, this is what is called a reasoned amendment, in the parliamentary procedures book. It's not only a reasoned amendment; it's very reasonable. The reason I say that — I can't say I'm overjoyed to be standing up
[ Page 4437 ]
and speaking to this amendment — is that I am very, very concerned that the government will not vote in favour of this amendment and that the legislation as proposed will be passed using the government's majority.

I'd like to talk a little bit about what we're doing here. This is a reasoned amendment that would make a very valuable contribution to the bill. Earlier we had an amendment where we proposed that the bill be referred to a committee, the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services, for further consideration. That was not supported by the members on the government side.

As it turns out, at the end of the speaking I will do to this amendment I will have spoken about an hour and a half on this topic. In my five years in the Legislature I don't believe there has been another topic that I have spoken that thoroughly to, another bill, in such a short time.

We did have the paramedics legislation, and we spoke at length on that one as well, but I believe an hour and a half on this particular bill that I will have undertaken, between the refer-to-committee motion and this reasoned amendment motion, is the longest. It shows how important, from the official opposition side, we believe it is to amend Bill 24 with this reasoned amendment.

What is at the essence, I would say, of this amendment and why we're taking this time in the Legislature to talk about it and talk about Bill 24 overall…. I think what it comes down to and what this reasoned amendment boils down to is that it's a matter of trust.

The original bill was not brought before the public — it's kind of intent — before the election. It wasn't brought before the public. Since the election in May, there has virtually been no consultation done before it was introduced in the Legislature. Now we are presenting this reasoned amendment in order to give a chance for some of that consultation to occur. Again, it comes back to trust, and the government is saying: "Don't worry. This bill is in the best interests of agriculture and of farmers in this province."

[1405]

They are asking the public and they're asking members on this side of the House to trust them on this. Yet there are examples of why one would have some skepticism about trusting the government on this and some history, in the last few months, of government behaviour — why trust might not be at the forefront of anybody's words when it comes to the government's behaviours.

In relation to this amendment, and trust, we had the parks act, Bill 4, introduced by this government, again, just like Bill 24, without any inkling that this was on the government agenda before the election.

Bill 4 gave sole discretion to the Minister of Environment to approve activities in a park, feasibility studies and other industrial activities. That was under the sole jurisdiction of the Minister of Environment, without bringing it to the Legislature. So there was an issue of trust there.

There was the issue of trust around the orders-in-council that was revealed just last month, when it came to legislation — laws made behind closed doors exempting natural gas production facilities from an environmental assessment review process in B.C., with no consultation, again, with First Nations or otherwise.

That was withdrawn, subsequently, because of the uproar, but again, there was a broken trust. This is what this amendment is talking to. It's providing the ability to take a step back so the trust can be regained.

Now we have Bill 24. I want to talk a little bit about why there is, perhaps, a lack of trust and some skepticism when it comes to the government words around: "Don't worry. This is going to be good for farmers." That's why, as I said, we need this amendment to pass, because then it will give the ability to step back and try to regain some of the trust that has been lost.

The main architect…. There are a couple of main architects of the bill, as far as we can determine, and that was the former Minister of Agriculture and the Minister for Core Review.

When it comes to trust, I think you have to look at the record and the facts. The facts and the record are that, just recently, post the last election, in midsummer, late summer and then the fall of 2013, a development occurred up in the former Minister of Agriculture's constituency in Peace River North that he was directly advocating for. It was a removal of land from the agricultural land reserve to build rodeo grounds.

It was supported by the former minister, the member for Peace River North, and then after he became Minister of Agriculture, it was still supported, even though the provincial Agricultural Land Commission rejected the application as unacceptable use of valuable farmland.

Subsequently, even though it was rejected, the proponent went ahead and built the rodeo grounds on that piece of valuable farmland — all along supported by the member for Peace River North, the former Minister of Agriculture. In fact, the ALC, the Agricultural Land Commission, admonished the former Minister of Agriculture for making what they called inappropriate representations to the Agricultural Land Commission on behalf of the proponent.

This, again, goes back to the amendment, because the government is asking us and the public to trust them on Bill 24 — that it is for the good of agriculture in the province and good for farmers. Yet, we see this kind of behaviour by one of the main proponents of the bill, so that undermines trust, and it points out the real need for endorsing the amendment that's before us, and that is to withdraw this bill until we can get some determination of the impacts it will have to agriculture in our province.

[1410]

The other thing that's concerning and that relates to
[ Page 4438 ]
trust, the trust factor, is that when asked, again, in the fall, around the potential plans for the Agricultural Land Commission…. We were hearing last fall that there were some leaked cabinet documents indicating that the then Minister of Agriculture was proposing to make some changes. Again, if those changes were going to happen and it was on the books last fall, being discussed around the cabinet table, then why wouldn't the government have taken it out to the public and to stakeholders, concerned groups like the B.C. Cattlemen's Association, at that point? They didn't.

The cabinet decision summary sheet that was reported in the media from the former Minister of Agriculture said: "The Agricultural Land Commission legislative mandate is too narrow to allow decisions that align with the priority for economic development." So this was the then Minister of Agriculture, who is supposed to be the prime proponent of protecting farmland and encouraging farming, and he's advocating, through a cabinet decision summary sheet, that the Agricultural Land Commission's mandate needs to be changed so that other types of economic development can occur, not agriculture.

Again, this goes back to trust. This is why the amendment before us, the fine amendment from my colleague from Surrey-Whalley, needs to be passed. Then, this motion — or, at least this bill, this idea that the government has around weakening agricultural protection — can be taken to people and really improved, if that's what people in agriculture want to see happen.

Again, going back to trust. The comment, again from last fall, from the Minister for Core Review, who was also advocating quite strongly for changes at that point to the Agricultural Land Commission…. He was quoted in the media as saying: "There is nothing that we would contemplate that would reduce or undermine the central principle of the agricultural land reserve, which is the protection of farmland and the sustainability of farming."

Well, I would put to this House that that's simply not true. The bill before us compromises the protection that we have now for farmland in B.C. It creates two zones: zone 1 and zone 2. As we know, about 8 percent of the land in B.C. is suitable for food production. About 5 percent of that, or four million hectares, is covered under the agricultural land reserve.

A proposal is creating two zones. Zone 2 — which is primarily the rest of the province outside the Lower Mainland, Vancouver Island and some parts of the Okanagan, and would contain 90 percent of the ALR — will have less protection, and farming will be less of a priority on those ALR lands if this legislation passes. To say, as the Minister for Core Review did, that "nothing we would contemplate would reduce or undermine the central principle of the agricultural land reserve…." The bill defies that statement.

We also know in Bill 24…. This amendment I'm speaking to today would require Bill 24 to be put off until we can determine the possible impacts of the changes to agriculture in our province, again, because there were a couple of other aspects of Bill 24 that really fly in the face of the comments of the Minister for Core Review, and that is the independence of the Agricultural Land Commission.

It's supposed to be an independent tribunal. It is right now. Yet the bill contemplates establishing, by the government, performance indicators by regulation, and we don't know what those performance indicators are. It's meddling in an independent body. That, again, could weaken the ALC and flies in the face….

I'm going back to the trust issue here again. The last part of the trust issue when it comes to the Minister for Core Review's statement has to do with appointments to panels. Under Bill 24, there's more ability for the government to directly appoint people to the Agricultural Land Commission board and regional boards.

[1415]

This, again, flies in the face of the Minister of Core Review's statements in the fall that nothing would "reduce or undermine the central principle of the agricultural land reserve" as stated.

So trust. This is what the amendment is all about. The amendment is about delaying Bill 24, putting it off until we can actually go back out to the people — which was not done by this government — and the stakeholders and see what they have to contribute, what farming organizations have to contribute, in order to rebuild the trust.

Again, we're asked by the government to trust them, that they have the best interests of agriculture at heart with this Bill 24. Yet we note that the former Minister of Agriculture, before he became Minister of Agriculture, used very strong wording regarding the Agricultural Land Commission. We can see where his thoughts are.

This was recently reported in the media: "All we have seen from the Agricultural Land Commission is a complete stall." "Every time I try to contact Mr. Bullock I'm told that he is an arm's-length body and for me to get the hell out of his hair. Who the hell is running our province, anyway?" This is the former Minister of Agriculture.

Subsequent to these comments he was appointed Minister of Agriculture. So we know, when we're asked to trust the government, that the Premier appointed to cabinet a Minister of Agriculture who was hostile towards the Agricultural Land Commission before he even became the minister. I think that these kinds of snippets, these kinds of glimpses into the inner workings of the cabinet and the strategy of the Premier, are really revealing.

I'll go on to quote from the former Minister of Agriculture: "Here's an opportunity to actually muster up some support for our team, but instead, we will ignore it and go out and find some way to give the Indians more money, which doesn't get me one vote. I am getting very
[ Page 4439 ]
tired of this kind of nonsense."

Those are glimpses into the attitude — these are the facts — of the MLA for Peace River North who then became the Minister of Agriculture. The Premier knew, I'm sure — I hope she did, anyway — the attitude of this member before appointing him to cabinet. Yet we're being asked by the government: "Don't worry. Trust us on Bill 24. It's good for agriculture."

I think when we see that kind of evidence, we can understand why there is some skepticism. I mean, it's only natural. A way to counter that skepticism is to endorse and have the government side join us in voting for the amendment that's on the floor. It'll give a chance to determine the possible impacts of the changes that are being contemplated, something that wasn't done thoroughly before the bill was introduced.

Again on the trust factor, we have…. I think it was approximately two years ago that the government arrived at a delegation agreement with the Oil and Gas Commission so that when people applied for exemptions of farmland in certain circumstances, they didn't have to go to the Agricultural Land Commission. That authority was delegated to the Oil and Gas Commission through legislation, and that has enabled those farmlands to be exempted and used for industrial purposes.

For instance, a site of up to 20 hectares in the northeast, particularly, can now be used for well site development for natural gas, without going to the Agricultural Land Commission. Yet, again, we are being asked by the government to trust them on Bill 24, and this is the evidence of how they behaved in the past.

I think any reasonable person, when they are willing to give people a second chance…. The government has apologized on numerous occasions for their behaviour. They apologized — three different ministers apologized — for the order-in-council that exempted natural gas plants from the environmental assessment process.

[1420]

The Minister of Environment apologized in this House. I witnessed the Minister of Natural Gas Development apologizing in Moricetown. We know that the former Minister of Agriculture apologized for the comments that he made around First Nations people yesterday. So I know that the government apologizes, and I recognize that.

It's fine to apologize. But again, any reasonable person who looks at actions…. They look at actions. They take apologies, but apologies can only go so far, and actions need to change.

When it comes to trust…. Again, this amendment is about trust. We're offering, through this amendment, the ability for this government to regain trust with those who are concerned about agriculture in this province. I think that it would be a good move on the government side to vote with us and approve this amendment, because it's about building trust.

I'll touch on one final aspect. I know the evidence I've given so far is fairly substantial, and some of the members on the other side don't like that. It's fairly substantial in demonstrating why a person of reasonable mind would not put a lot of trust in the words of the government.

The final piece of evidence I'll talk about today is from May of 2013, when a survey was posed in Country Life in B.C. magazine before the election. The question to each of the parties was: "Will it work with the Agricultural Land Commission to ensure agricultural land continues to be available for agriculture and not get used for port, dam, transportation, industrial and residential development?"

The answer from the Liberal Party that was published is, "Yes, we will maintain the excellent relationship we have built with the ALC" — the Agricultural Land Commission. "Excellent relationship." Well, I just read some quotes from the former Minister of Agriculture and some of the impacts that the government's agenda has had on the Agricultural Land Commission and agricultural land. I don't think it was necessarily an excellent relationship.

Again, this is a survey that went out. It shows again why there is a lack of trust when the government says: "Don't worry. Bill 24 is about improving agriculture in this province, and it's not about anything else but that."

We're offering this amendment to the motion in order that the possible impacts to the changes in agriculture that Bill 24 would create are able to be discussed further, taken out to stakeholders, taken out to organizations like the B.C. Agriculture Council, the B.C. Cattlemen's Association and the B.C. Association of Farmers Markets — those kinds of bodies.

Finally, I think the body of evidence I was talking about was up to two years until the bill was introduced — the period since 2012 till now. Then we had just the recent example, since the bill has been introduced, which some of my colleagues have referenced, of two ministers, the current Minister of Agriculture and the Minister for Core Review, being quoted in the media — and in the House here, in fact — with different stories about what they see as the way Bill 24 would proceed.

One minister said everything could be considered, including removing the bill or withdrawing the bill, and the other minister said that that's never going to happen.

When you have cabinet ministers contradicting themselves publicly, what does that mean about trust? It means they can't get their story straight. It destroys trust. This amendment that we're considering today is a way to improve trust, and we're offering the government a valuable tool to do that with.

We've had a lot of letters from different associations read into the record and presented as we've been debating this bill and trying to get the government to change its mind about driving it through with their majority.
[ Page 4440 ]
But I think today…. It's B.C. Beef Day, as we all know. We enjoyed a barbecue out back with that, and the B.C. Cattlemen's Association was an important part of that event.

Just on May 7 they wrote to the Agriculture Minister. I'll quote from a little bit of their letter, because it is B.C. Beef Day. What better time to quote from the B.C. Cattlemen's Association?

[1425]

They said:

"We fear that these changes will make ranching more vulnerable to other industries and non-farming activities that aren't complementary or reversible to agriculture. We encourage you to take a slow approach with drafting and passing Bill 24."

That's exactly what this amendment is doing. It's offering a slow approach.

"It is difficult to see what the overall benefits to agriculture will be from Bill 24 and the amendments you introduced this week. Without more information about what the benefits to agriculture will be or what the changes will mean to our industry, it is very difficult for our directors to support the bill, even with your changes….

"It is our view that much of the uncertainty around the bill could have been avoided by including the agricultural organizations from the early crafting stages."

For instance, last fall when the then Agriculture Minister was taking this to cabinet.

He says:

"At the very least, we should have had information available to share with them.

"We kindly request that the minister delay any decision on Bill 24 until further information is provided and the consultation can be had with the farming and ranching community."

Well, this is exactly what the amendment that's on the floor today and that I'm speaking to would do. It would allow further consultation. It wouldn't be the rush job that B.C. Cattlemen's Association is referring to here.

I know that the Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation, who has many members of the B.C. Cattlemen's Association in his constituency — it's next-door to mine; I do as well — referenced to me that they were all in favour of Bill 24 in his constituency. Well, here's a letter from the B.C. Cattlemen's Association directly contradicting that. Again, it goes back to the issue of trust.

We have recently, May 26 — that was just this week — received a letter from the B.C. Association of Farmers Markets. This is a very important part of the agriculture sector. They point out that farmers markets are a rapidly growing sector that contributed $113 million in direct sales to B.C.'s economy in 2012, a 147 percent increase from $46 million in 2006.

This government claims they're concerned about economic development and concerned about jobs. They seem to have a sole focus on one sector. Here's a sector that has shown 147 percent increase from 2006, a sector that means jobs in communities like Smithers and Hazelton and other rural communities, a sector that is real and has benefits right now.

They're writing to the Minister of Agriculture, saying that the government should not vote to enact Bill 24 and its amendment, and that changes to the ALR take place in consultation with the agriculture community as a whole.

Pretty strange behaviour, again, if you're saying: "Trust us on Bill 24. Trust us. We're concerned about the economy, and we're concerned about jobs. But in this sector that's grown 147 percent, the farmers market sector in B.C., we don't know what the impacts of Bill 24 will be on that sector."

Why would you not vote for the amendment that we've put in front of the House here today and say: "Let's take a break. Let's take it a little easy. If we're really concerned about the economy and jobs, let's take a step back and actually do some analysis on what Bill 24 will mean to a sector like the B.C. Farmers Markets Association"?

They've got incredible growth, and they're incredibly important in small communities, in small rural communities. I know people, during the farmers market season in the north, the area where….

The Minister for Core Review claims that nobody on this side of the House from zone 2 is speaking against this bill. Well, that's an absolute misleading statement. I am from zone 2, the proposed zone 2, and I am speaking against this bill.

I'm telling you that I know people in the farmers markets in Hazelton and Smithers who, during the short season where they can sell their vegetables and their produce in the farmers market setting, make their entire livelihood for the rest of the year. That's how productive zone 2 can be. This government does not know the impacts of Bill 24 and what they're going to be on the B.C. farmers market sector.

[1430]

This amendment will allow us to step back, will allow the government to step back, and consult with organizations such as that in order to really, really figure out what the eventuality will be if this legislation passes or if we need to amend the legislation.

I want to conclude my comments today by saying: what is the government afraid of? I mean, what are they afraid of? They've got a bill that's getting soundly opposed from all sorts of stakeholder sectors everywhere in the province — north, south, east, west, urban, rural, everywhere. Is it a matter of losing face? We pledge we will not berate the government if they vote for this amendment. We'll say: "Good on ya." We know that you really now want to go out and consult. Vote for this amendment.

What could they be afraid of, and what is the rush? After this debate is over and if the government decides to pursue this agenda with Bill 24, I'm going to be going home. I'm going to be growing my own vegetables. I'm going to be growing my own protein. But others in this province might not be as fortunate, and that is why we are putting this amendment forward to make Bill 24 better.
[ Page 4441 ]

J. Darcy: I'm pleased to have the opportunity to speak to this reasoned amendment, because the essence of this amendment from the Member for Surrey-Whalley is to delay passage of this bill so that British Columbians can really be fully consulted. My constituents certainly feel very, very strongly about this. I've been hearing from them from the very beginning, when this bill was first introduced into the Legislature, and I continue to hear from them until this day.

In fact, I've received more e-mails and messages and letters on this issue than on any other issue since I was elected, and the essence of all of them is that this is too important an issue, too critical to our future as a province and to future generations to rush it. Please slow down.

I want to share some of my constituents' comments on this, because they speak very much to the spirit of this amendment. The member who spoke just before me quoted a letter from the B.C. Association of Farmers Markets, and I want to begin by referencing a letter that came from the president of our Royal City Farmers Market.

L. Larson: I seek leave just to make an introduction and a thank-you, if that's all right.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

L. Larson: On behalf of the government caucus, I'd like the House to recognize the legislative interns who have been with us this session — Beaudin Bennett, Sarah Griffiths, Simran Lehal, Renae Sinclair and Adam Walter. They've all done great work with the communications and research departments, and we wish them well in their future endeavours.

Debate Continued

J. Darcy: I'm very happy to have allowed those introductions. The interns do a remarkable job for whomever they work for in this Legislature.

I want to go back to…. The first letter I want to read from is from the president of the Royal City Farmers Market. He says:

"We are one of 125 farmers markets in British Columbia. We work with 14 of the 1,000 small-scale farmers who sell at markets all across the province, ensuring that British Columbians will have access to fresh, healthy and local produce and agricultural products. Over 40 years ago the ALR was created to protect our incredibly valuable farmland and ensure that land use decisions for that land were made without political influence or short-term gains."

Again, it's about the future. It's about the big picture. It's about slowing down. He ended his letter with what I found to be a really remarkable statement.

"As British Columbians, we are all connected to the land. Our provincial motto on our coat of arms is splendour without diminishment," he says. "Let's not continue with this recent trend of destroying our lands for short-term gains but, rather, encourage the sustainability of a strong agrarian society, a society that prioritizes feeding its citizens and leaves the valuable ALR land intact for generations to come."

That's from Kevin McConnell, the president of the Royal City Farmers Market.

[1435]

Again, speaking directly to the issue of needing more time, needing to look at the long term, and needing to look at the big picture, Ginny Ayers from the New West Environmental Partners reminds us: "Less than 5 percent of the province's land base is suitable agricultural land, and much less is considered prime agricultural land." She says: "We were reminded in 2010 of this by the Auditor General of British Columbia in his audit of the Agricultural Land Commission." She says: "As we face a fragile future, development of farmland for other uses is unethical." Strong words, but I think she's absolutely right.

She points out, again long term, big picture, encouraging us to think in those ways: "We are already in climate change. The unknown conditions ahead mean that no one today is able to plan accurately how we will adapt, but we can start by making local food security imperative." Then she also reminds us, "Over two-thirds of class 1 to 4 land reserves are in the Peace River region. Agricultural land in the Interior, the north and the Kootenays may become even more crucial to our food security as we experience more changes in the climate and ecosystems."

Then she concludes in the same spirit as this amendment that I'm speaking in favour of: "We ask you to vote against Bill 24 but in particular to provide for more thorough consultation with British Columbians about how to support the Agricultural Land Commission."

Kathleen Somerville from the New West Environmental Partners and the Community Gardening Society says: "Food security is a very important issue. We need to keep the land in the agricultural land reserve saved for growing food and agricultural purposes. Our farmland is a resource that is priceless. Please send a strong message to the Legislature that New Westminster residents oppose the proposed changes." On her behalf and on behalf of other constituents, I'm doing my best to send that message.

Again, a message from someone who says: "Slow down. Put the brakes on. Take a step back." Lesley writes: "It costs money to transport food. People forget that truckers have to buy fuel, and when the price of fuel goes up, so does the price of transporting food and, consequently, the end price to the consumer. Oil is a non-renewable resource which will only increase in price in the future with the potential eventuality of increasing the price of non-local food and increasing everyday living costs for ordinary people."

Again, she says to us: "Imported food is a luxury. The ability to grow food locally is a matter of vital economic security. Take the time to reconsider this." That's the message over and over again.
[ Page 4442 ]

Mr. Laurie Watt writes in that same spirit. "Yes, it's critical to maintain a fully independent Agricultural Land Commission. The Liberal government is, I'm afraid, following the ill-conceived lead of the Harper government in their attempt to remove essential protections from the land, air and water resources that all of us require to survive."

Again, in that same spirit, Ben Birovchak writes: "Unless we Canadians want to depend entirely on foreign food to eat in the future, we have to protect our agricultural land resources."

All of them are talking about long-range perspectives on this issue. I want to so strongly encourage members on the government side to take that step back and do what this writer urges, which is to have a really long-term perspective on the issue. Doreen Kostiniak writes: "I believe that we need to adamantly protect our farmland, especially in the light of continued climate change and global warming. Growing food locally is crucial since we're already seeing price increases for imported food. We need to engage in some long-range seeing."

Jim Cowan writes, same message, "No telling the effects of our food supply when climate change hits California or Mexico or Florida. Our population level is going to continue to rise, yet we're going to sacrifice our farmland? It seems like some kind of madness to me," he concludes.

Antigone Dixon-Warren says, again: "Think about the future. As this amendment proposes, preserving farmland throughout the province for sustainable food production and future generations should be a priority, given the impacts of globalization and climate change."

[1440]

These letters and e-mails came from such a wide array of my constituents, and I really believe they reflect the opinions right across the province saying, as this amendment does: "Slow down. Look at the big picture. Look at the long-range perspective."

Diane Butler from the Downtown Residents Association in New Westminster says: "We should be developing our farmland, and not only that, we need to encourage our education system to teach our young who are not IT bound to learn about feeding the people and the necessity of having farming to feed the world."

Colin Dover writes: "As climate change continues to push viable agriculture north, our already tiny amount of good farmland will be vital to our children and beyond generationally."

The New West Food Policy Council, Maureen Johnson, says: "The population of the Lower Mainland is increasing, and we're all becoming more aware of the health, social and economic benefits of growing and eating locally. Once land, any land, has been removed from the ALR, it can never be replaced. It is our responsibility to preserve this farmland for future generations of British Columbians." Again, looking at the long term and saying: "Slow down. Look at the big picture, as this amendment proposes."

Robert Stevens writes: "Canada, along with many, many of the world's countries, will very soon run out of basic foodstuffs. To feed the present and future populations is already a problem. What will happen if we lose more ability to farm our lands?"

The last message I want to read from my constituents is from Bill Zander, outspoken on many issues, including this one. This is not all the messages that I have received, but all of them underline what my colleagues have said before me and what I know to be the opinions of people right across this province. Bill Zander says: "They are not making any more land, and it's an outrage and a disgrace not to continue to protect our limited farmland for our needs and those of future generations." He's the last of the people who wrote us as individuals or representing particular organizations locally.

I want to finish with this message that came from a constituent who also works for the B.C. Dairy Association and who has very, very strong feelings. His organization, the Dairy Association, is, of course, part of the B.C. Agriculture Council. We've heard many of my colleagues speak to their concerns about this legislation and how they're asking the government to slow down and do the proper consultation. He says:

"In the hasty consultations of past days, the Liberals have refused to relent on the B.C. Agriculture Council's request for maintaining a single zone for the ALR. The B.C. Agriculture Council perspective is that if the proposed factors for zone 2 are not applicable for the entire province, they are not worthy of implementation."

This is from someone who is a director of the Dairy Association, part of the B.C. Agriculture Council.

"If the proposed factors for zone 2 are not applicable for the entire province, they are not worthy of implementation. For this reason, the B.C. Agriculture Council remains firmly opposed to fracturing the ALR into two zones as proposed within Bill 24.

"The B.C. Agriculture Council acknowledges that communities and B.C. farmers and ranchers have unique needs that require individual consultation, and while these needs require unique review, the B.C. Agriculture Council does not support considering those needs above the Agricultural Land Commission's mandate and responsibility to protect and encourage farming of agricultural land.

"The BCAC supports the introduction of new factors for consideration regarding applications, however, but requires the mandate of the ALC as stated in section 6 of the Agricultural Land Commission Act that it remain the commission's sole priority when considering both the short- and the long-term implications of any application made to the commission."

Finally, he says:

"The B.C. Agriculture Council does not support the removal of agricultural land from the ALR or the development of this land for non-agricultural purposes."

Again, precisely in the spirit of this amendment, this reasoned amendment, to put the brakes on, he says:

[1445]

"The B.C. Agriculture Council is extremely disappointed with the lack of consultation leading up to the announcement of Bill 24."

I speak to this amendment today — and perhaps it's having some hope beyond hope, but I do so with hope — on behalf of my constituents and many other people
[ Page 4443 ]
who have spoken out across this province, including our farmers. I want to urge the government to seize this opportunity that has been created by this amendment by the member for Surrey-Whalley to slow down, to put the brakes on and to consult with farmers.

I certainly met with the B.C. Agriculture Council, as did many other members of this Legislature. They have many, many legitimate concerns. There are many ways that they want this Legislature and that they want the government of Canada and that they want us to advocate, with the government of Canada, for measures that would support farming and enable them to stay on their farmland and make it more productive.

But Bill 24 does nothing of the sort. It does not support those farmers. They've said that loudly and clearly. This issue is far too important to move forward with quickly. Let's support this reasoned amendment, put the brakes on and take the time to consult with farmers right across B.C. as we should have done in the first place. Let's take the time to consult with communities right across British Columbia.

D. Eby: I'm glad to see there's a good crowd in the gallery for this debate. This is a very important discussion about the future of farmland in our province, about where we're going to get our food from in the future and making sure that we have food security.

I'm sure that everybody in the gallery knows we're looking at climate change. In California there are very serious droughts threatening food security. Food prices are going up. The price of meat is going up. The price of fish is going up. The price of vegetables is going up. We're all seeing that at the grocery store, and what we're seeing is the impact of a loss of farmland and of climate change that is threatening crops.

That's what our debate is about here today. That's the context that we're working in. But it's also a political issue. Obviously, we're here in the Legislature.

Today was the birthday, actually, of a guy named Harold Steves, who not everybody will know. He's a very important figure in terms of the people who got together and said: "We need to have protections in place to make sure that farmland is available for generations to come in our province."

Harold Steves came from Richmond. He was a cattle farmer. His family were cattle farmers. When he was in this Legislature, he was a strong advocate for farmland and helped put together this agricultural land reserve, which is just what it sounds like. It's a reserve for agricultural land that says that this land is held to make sure it's here for future generations.

Why are we having this discussion about changing the agricultural land reserve? Why are you hearing all of these speeches from this side of the Legislature? This side of the Legislature is the opposition — right? — and that side of the Legislature is the government. Why is nobody on the government side standing up to defend these proposals? Why are you only hearing from the opposition?

It's because the government don't see any point in discussing this. They haven't consulted about these proposals. They haven't gone out into the community to talk about it. They're just putting it through, and they won't even stand up to defend what they're doing here in terms of the agricultural land reserve. So all you're going to hear today is one side of the debate, unfortunately.

Fortunately, we have communications from the government that set out why they're doing this. The official reason…. The member for Kootenay East — we have to refer to people by where they're from rather than using their name in the Legislature — sent an e-mail to the agricultural land reserve expressing his concern about the fact that there are people in his constituency who would like to take land out of the agricultural land reserve, lands that are not suitable for agriculture. In this e-mail he talks about the importance of redefining the boundaries of the agricultural land reserve.

He says in this e-mail, which is a very formal e-mail: "No one up here is trying to undercut the ALR. We just want what we were promised when the ALR was first created — a boundary review to ensure land within the reserve is actually worth 'protecting' for agriculture."

Well, that sounds eminently reasonable. If there are lands that aren't appropriate for agriculture, then why would they be in the agricultural land reserve?

[1450]

The head of the Agricultural Land Commission wrote a report and sent it to the government and responded to this very concern. He said: "I have previously written to you in detail" about the boundary review process. "In the Elk Valley alone we're proposing to exclude approximately 1,400 hectares from the ALR, based on our findings that the identified lands are unsuitable for agricultural pursuits."

Now, those lands are exactly in the constituency of the member for Kootenay East. So that's 1,400 hectares already taken out of the agricultural land reserve.

"The Agricultural Land Commission plans to continue targeted ALR boundary reviews in the Kootenay, Interior and north regions to ensure that only those lands that are both capable and suitable for agriculture are in the ALR."

Well, that's under the existing law. Currently the commission is reviewing. They're looking at this land. They're saying that if it's not suitable for agriculture, then we're going to pull it out. It's happening exactly what the now Minister for Core Review asked for.

What this is really about is not a boundary review. This is about making it easier to use agricultural land for development purposes that are not growing food — to take land out of the reserve and use it for other purposes.

The reason why we know that is because we have an e-mail from the former Minister of Agriculture, the member for Peace River North, who wrote back. I guess he
[ Page 4444 ]
didn't understand who he was writing to when he wrote back his very frank feelings about what this was actually all about. He says, and he's clearly frustrated:

"All we have seen from the ALC is a complete stall. They are not even considering meeting with our board until September or later. Every time I try to contact Mr. Bullock" — that's the head of the Agricultural Land Commission — "I am told that he is an arm's-length body and for me to get the hell out of his hair. Who the hell is running our province anyways?

"Here is an opportunity to actually muster up some support for our team. But instead, we will ignore it and go out and find some way to give the Indians more money, which doesn't get me one vote. I am getting very tired of this kind of nonsense."

Well, speaking of nonsense — speaking of racist nonsense.

What this e-mail tells us is that the former Minister of Agriculture, the member for Peace River North, is not concerned about the boundaries. He's just concerned that he isn't the guy that gets to say: "Okay, pull this land out of the agricultural land reserve. Pull this land out of the agricultural land reserve. I'd like to be the guy. I'm tired of this arm's-length commission telling me to stay out of their hair. I'm sick of that. Who the hell is running this province? I'm running the province. I got elected."

Well, the reason why the commission exists is to avoid this kind of political interference and — something really important — to have an arm's-length commission that looks at the province as a whole and makes decisions about where the land is going to go.

It's very useful to have this e-mail and to have this context for what this is really all about. It's not about boundaries. We get it now.

If there was one person in the province that you would think would be the expert on whether the proposals put forward by the government to change this law that protects agricultural land were going to work, were going to be effective or not, it would be the head of the Agricultural Land Commission.

In fact, in December the head of the Agricultural Land Commission wrote to the government and said: "Hey, thanks for letting me know about your proposals to change the law. Here are my thoughts about what you're suggesting to put forward."

It's a very polite letter. It says: "Thanks. These are challenges that we face. We recognize the challenges that we face. But I have some concerns about what you're putting forward in this proposal." First of all, this change to the law proposes putting in place six different regional panels, instead of one central provincial panel, which is the way the commission's been operating.

So first of all, he says: "If you're going to be running this way, it's going to be very expensive." If you're going to run all of these separate regional panels that are going to make these decisions, it's going to be very inefficient. He says that one of the reasons why the commission works well is that he's able to send people out across the province to visit sites, and he doesn't have to maintain people and salaries in each region of the province. He can send them out as they're needed, as a task force.

In addition, the benefit that he sets out of having a central provincial commission, rather than six separate regional ones, is that decisions can be made in the best interest of the province.

[1455]

He says here, on his concern about regional panels:

"I realize there are some who would take the view that the Agricultural Land Commission" — this is the body that makes decisions about whether or not land can come out of the commission — "would make better decisions if fully regionalized panels made the decision for a particular region. The difficulty I have found with those taking this view, which in my experience is a small but vocal minority, is that they usually equate better decision-making with decisions removing land from the ALR. I have not yet heard it argued that regional panels are necessary to better preserve agricultural land.

"Critics rarely mention the substantial number of applications" — to pull land out of the reserve — "that have been approved. These successful applicants obviously do not complain, although it is noted that the Agricultural Land Commission is often criticized on the other side for granting these very approvals.

"This is the 'turf' on which an independent administrative tribunal must necessarily operate. We can rarely make everybody happy. Given that reality, an honest question has to arise as to whether institutionalizing regional decision-making will actually improve things."

Here's someone who has actually worked with regional panels. He has had regional panels before, and he has reduced the costs of operating this administrative tribunal by centralizing that and also, he says, delivered good decisions, provincial decisions, about what's best for agriculture. Yet this government knows better. This government says: "No. We're going to go to the regional panels anyway. We're not too interested in your feedback on that."

He also goes into detail about…. This is the most important part. The government's proposal will split the province into two separate sections — zone 1 and zone 2 — and the protections for agricultural land will be different for the two different zones.

Here again, the expert…. This is the guy who sees applications every day from people who want to take land out of the agricultural land reserve and use the land for other purposes. Now, the government will tell you: "Well, zone 2 — the land's not as good in zone 2. That's why we have fewer protections in zone 2. The land's not as good. Zone 1 is the really good agricultural land, and zone 2 is not as good, so it doesn't need as many protections."

Here's what the expert says:

"I have heard the view expressed by some that ALR land in what you describe as zone 2 is of lesser agricultural importance…. It is not always appreciated that each and every region of B.C. has prime agricultural land based on agricultural capability classifications and agriculturally suitable lands for specialty crops, forage, extensive agricultural uses and non-soil-bound agricultural endeavours."

He says that "the best policy is based on reality," not on rhetoric that zone 1 is the good land and that zone 2 is the bad land. The best policy is based on reality.

He crunches the numbers, and he says:
[ Page 4445 ]

"This data shows it is not correct to suggest that the Kootenays, the north and the Interior possess, as regions, lesser agricultural lands. In reality, the large majority of good agricultural lands in B.C. are in these regions."

Here's the expert saying that the large majority of good agricultural lands in B.C. are in the exact regions where the government is proposing to reduce the protections for agricultural land.

He also notes the obvious trends that we all see — that land is getting more expensive in the south, that more people are living in the Metro Vancouver area, in zone 1 areas, and that the price of land is going up. There's increased speculation, and there's increased pressure on the agricultural land reserve to pull land out for things like subdivisions, for various uses.

Because the cost of land is going up, if you want to get into farming, it makes sense that people are going to start looking north. He's saying that what the agricultural land reserve has been doing is a good job of protecting land in the north where land is a little bit cheaper. If you want to get into farming, you're going to be able to get into it.

It isn't something that they've just made up. They've thought very carefully about the future of the province and the future of agricultural land. He says:

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

[1500]

I took an agricultural law course in my undergrad, and the prof at the front of the room asked: "Are there any farmers in the room?" A couple of people put up their hands. He said: "What is the worst kind of neighbour for a farmer to have?" They said: "Easy. City people." Right?

That was a shock to me as a city person, because I thought I'd be a pretty good neighbour. But the issue is that a lot of farm practices are loud, smelly and noisy, so when you have a residential population living beside a farm, there's a lot of pressure on farmers to change their practices. So they stop doing things that bother people in the homes that live right next to the agricultural lands. As urban growth continues, there will be more and more pressure on farmers.

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

You might think to yourself: "Gosh, Asia. That seems really far away. Why would we be exporting food? It seems like we import a lot of food from Asia right now." But there's a larger global context that's taking place right now around food as well. There's something which those in the gallery and those watching at home and the members opposite may not have heard of. There's a global phenomenon taking place right now. It's something called land grabbing.

What that is, is large investment companies buying up large amounts of agricultural land around the world in order to grow crops on it, especially for biofuels. It's driving up the cost of the land, and the land is being used not to grow food but to grow fuel.

There's a professor at UNBC in Prince George that has done a lot of work on this. He e-mailed me when I asked him for some details. He said: "There's between 150 million and 200 million hectares of land around the world acquired by corporations, institutional investors and governments or their sovereign wealth funds since 2006." Those figures come from the World Bank and Oxfam.

World food prices during the global food crisis of 2007-2008 — wheat prices doubled, and rice prices tripled. When you're looking at a global context like that, where people are grabbing up land as investments because they recognize the huge future value of these lands, why is B.C., at that exact moment, weakening our protections for agricultural land and weakening what the head of the Agricultural Land Commission has identified as a potential opportunity for export to countries in Asia, to respond to that crisis, especially in light of climate change?

Now, there's another reason that the head of the Agricultural Land Commission sets out to say: "Please don't divide the province into two different zones. Please don't do this." The other reason is that it creates a division, and an unnecessary division, between farmers. It says:

"It's not difficult to anticipate the equity arguments that will be made by those in the have-not region, who feel they were excluded from the 'rights' given to others whose land is not qualitatively different.

"This is another reason for dealing with 'unsuitable' agricultural land directly by way of boundary reviews throughout the province. To balkanize the land reserve is unlikely to create more harmony among farmers and ranchers."

What he's saying here is this is going to create a race to the bottom. If you reduce the protections in zone 2 and zone 1 has higher protections, and I'm a farmer in zone 1 who would like to sell my land to someone but I can't because the people who want to buy it want to use it for development, they say: "Well, why are you treating me differently than the guys in zone 2? This isn't fair."

So the government will be under a great deal of pressure to change the rules for zone 1, as well, so that they match, so it's fair treatment for all farmers across the province. Then you'll have the discussion again with zone 2. They'll say: "Well, I thought that our land was less valuable, so if those are the protections in zone 1, we need slightly lesser protections." Before you know it, we're in a race to the bottom. This bill is going to take us a long way there.

The last piece that the head of the Agricultural Land
[ Page 4446 ]
Commission expresses concern about…. There's a set of conditions that the Agricultural Land Commission must consider in deciding whether or not land comes out of the reserve or stays in the reserve. These are the rules that'll be different between zone 1 and zone 2.

[1505]

He says that the reduced restrictions in zone 2 that'll make it easier to pull the land out are problematic, and here's why.

"I expect you would agree that at this very important moment in time the Agricultural Land Commission should be encouraged in its efforts to strive for decision-making that is more consistent, more predictable and more transparent. However, if these new factors are added to the Agricultural Land Commission Act, I anticipate, over and above concerns related to the preservation of agricultural land, allegations of inconsistent decision-making will be magnified, particularly if combined with the regional panel structure.

"It is easy to foresee critics arguing that while regional panel decision-making may properly take regional differences into account, decision-making should be consistent across the province on matters where regional differences are irrelevant."

He says that you've got these new factors that require interpretation. You're dividing the province up into six parts. Each of these six parts of the province are going to be making different decisions, so it's just a matter of time before, on the cover of the Province or on the cover of the Vancouver Sun, you see one farm that gets approval to be removed from the Agricultural Land Commission and right beside it another farm that looks identical — the exact same kind of land, the same kind of operation — doesn't get approval. It will discredit the Agricultural Land Commission.

More than that, it will cause speculation. If I'm a developer and I'd like to build a rodeo or an RV park — or whatever the proposal is; you've probably heard all kinds of them in the media — maybe I'll take a chance on buying agricultural reserve land. Maybe I'll be able to make the case now, under these new reduced rules, that I'll be able to take that land out of the agricultural land reserve.

This speculation drives up the cost of farmland, making it more and more difficult for young farmers to get into this industry. Every young farmer needs just one thing to get started, and that's land.

I think probably, though, the most important part of the letter from the Agricultural Land Commission head, whose name is Richard Bullock, is his conclusion. The reason the conclusion is so important is because he says: "Look, there are probably ways…." No, he says that there are definitely ways that we can improve the legislation, but the only way that that can happen is with in-depth consultation and discussion with stakeholders.

The people in the gallery may not know this, but this government does know how to do consultation. On the Water Act reforms, the government spent two years going across the province. They set up a website where people could file submissions. They made amendments and changes. They had discussion papers. They had industry and environmental groups and community members coming together and sharing their feedback.

At the end of the day, it wasn't perfect legislation, but everybody in this Legislature stood to support that bill. We all voted together in favour of that bill, and that was because of the consultation that was done.

When it came to the apology that we made just the other day to the Chinese community for the head tax, for the racist laws that were passed in this Legislature, the government went out, the opposition went out, and we met with groups, and we talked with people. "What will make a meaningful apology? What exactly should be in this apology? What are the pieces that you're going to be looking for in order to be satisfied?" Everybody worked together in this House to make that happen.

These things can happen, and they do happen.

Here you have the agricultural land reserve, which has been around for 40 years, all parties. I mean, this has survived parties — Social Credit, B.C. Liberal, NDP — who have all supported the agricultural land reserve, and now the government would like to change it. Surely, surely there is time, after 40 years, to take the necessary time to consult. But that is not happening.

Mr. Bullock had just one final point. I'm going to read from his letter because it's really important to know what the head of the commission right now says will work best.

"I will make just one final point, which is about the importance of in-depth consultation and discussion with stakeholders. As you know, recent media reports have revealed serious concern with regard to the consultation issue. I know from my own experience that consultation is critical to ensuring change is both well informed and accepted.

[1510]

"To this end, my experience is that key stakeholders include local governments, the Union of B.C. Municipalities, the B.C. Agriculture Council, the B.C. Cattlemen's Association" — who were here today in the Legislature — "the B.C. Fruit Growers Association and the B.C. Food Systems Network, to name a few.

"As you reflect on this letter, and in your own thinking regarding these issues, we also invite you to consult with the Agricultural Land Commission, as we do have considerable experience, expertise and data which we believe can only assist in the policy process."

This man sat down and wrote a thoughtful 11-page letter about the government's proposal, concluding: please go out and consult. Yet when we had a motion here on consultation, the government voted against it.

Not only that, at the end of the day today they have already passed a motion that invokes something called closure, which is the end of debate on this. They're going to shut it down no matter where we are in the process, and they're going to pass everything at once. If you stick around, you'll see it. But I don't blame you if you don't, because it will be a sad moment.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

When you look at the suggestion from the Agricultural Land Commission about who should be consulted, the Union of B.C. Municipalities said they've reviewed the
[ Page 4447 ]
legislative amendments. They said they're looking for future consultation with the province on this matter. It hasn't happened.

I don't see much point in going through the whole list, but there is a whole list of organizations that have been seeking consultation with the government because they have suggestions and feedback on how to improve this law, and the government is not going to do that consultation. So I won't waste anybody's time with that.

Hon. Speaker, I'll say to you and to the members opposite and to the people in the gallery, as MLAs we get letters and e-mails from people. It is an unusual situation to get, as an opposition MLA, 267 e-mails on an issue, but I got 267 e-mails on this agricultural land reserve issue. So 267 people took time out of their day to pay attention to a relatively obscure…. I see the Minister of Agriculture. I'm sure he has received many, many times that number of e-mails. They took time out of their day to express concern about these proposals.

"I'm gravely concerned by Bill 24. This bill proposes fundamental changes to the ALR that could result in the permanent loss of protected B.C. farmland" — Steven Phillips.

"Dear Mr. Eby:

"I recently received an e-mail regarding Bill 24. Coincidentally, the very day I read this e-mail, I'd been on a transit bus from the Tsawwassen ferry heading home to Vancouver from a weekend on the Gulf Islands. In passing, I looked at the fields and guessed as to what they might be growing and realized what a privilege it was to live in a city that had farmlands not too far away and that at least some of our food could be locally produced.

"From what I understand, Bill 24 would allow the destruction of farmlands in a different area of our province to allow for construction. That seems so wrong.

"Linda Campbell

"P.S. My reluctance in the past to write to any Member of Parliament or politician has been the feeling that it would fall on deaf ears. Hopefully, with the hopeful addition of many other people also concerned, this may be of some good."

One of the biggest concerns and one of the biggest reasons why I'm standing to support this amendment is the growth in the local food industry across the province and the threat to that new industry that is growing up in British Columbia. Hon. Speaker, I don't know about you and the members opposite and the people in the gallery, if you've been to a farmers' market lately, but if you have, you wouldn't be alone.

There are startling statistics about the growth of farmers markets. In Vancouver alone, total vendor sales are $7.1 million, and the total economic benefit to the economy is $14 million. But it's not just Vancouver; it's across the province — 33 markets across the province. I went to an amazing farmers market in Terrace, B.C.

In this article in the Vancouver Sun which came out in July, they did a survey of almost 10,000 people at 33 farmers markets across the province. The manager of the Squamish market talks about the explosion of interest in local food and how many people are seeking out food that's grown in their community by local farmers on B.C. agricultural land. "I started managing this market six years ago when it was very small and simple, maybe 12 vendors. Now we're full, with 62 vendors, and we have a waiting list. There's a lot more quality and a lot more local support for independent business ventures."

[1515]

Now, this survey said that across B.C., the economic benefits of all farmers markets in B.C. in 2012 — that was two years ago — was greater than $170 million. That's a 147 percent increase from a similar study done just six years before that.

There's been a 62 percent increase in the number of farmers markets across the province. The Squamish market is responsible for $1.8 million in economic activity in that community. The growth has been huge. In this survey of 9,800 people, 20 percent said it was their first time going to a farmers market.

Just to finish this thought off, the one threat that was identified, the single threat to this remarkable growth in this industry in British Columbia has been the fear of a lack of farmers and a lack of vendors. The author of the study said: "As demand for local food increases, it places more importance on the protection of the agricultural land base."

Yet at this exact moment when there's more importance on the protection of the agricultural land base, that is the moment we are choosing to reduce the protections for the agricultural land base in British Columbia.

I see the green light, which means that I've got just a minute or so left.

Deputy Speaker: Actually, zero seconds.

D. Eby: I've got zero seconds left. I have so much to say about this.

I thank you very much for listening.

S. Robinson: I seek leave to present a petition.

Leave granted.

Petitions

S. Robinson: I have a petition in my hands here with 6,600 signatures.

"As parents and grandparents of children in the B.C. public education system, we want you to know that we are standing alongside our teachers in this difficult time. As parents and as a collective, we believe in supporting teachers as they fight for workable class size and composition, safe working conditions for teachers and students, support for kids with special needs, fair pay for teachers, a government that prioritizes quality education, bargaining rights for teachers, the right to do their jobs and to enjoy them so that our kids learn and thrive in an environment that supports them."
[ Page 4448 ]

Debate Continued

V. Huntington: I'd like to say that I am pleased to be able to rise and speak to the reasoned amendment. However, I have to say I'm pained to have to speak to any aspect of Bill 24, reasoned amendment or not, because I believe that Bill 24 will have real and long-reaching impacts on agriculture in this province.

Why the government would consider such a change to such longstanding policy is difficult to understand, especially since they've not canvassed the farming community or the public or local government on what we can expect over the long term. That's why this amendment is so important.

I live in a region that is under constant pressure from other forms of development on agricultural land. I'd like to tell the House what they can expect and what the other regions and communities in this province can expect as other forms of development begin to occur on the agricultural land in their areas.

Let's talk about what happens when agricultural land is opened up to other developments and why this amendment becomes so important to our future and to the future of the land in this province.

When other uses begin to attack the agricultural land or are permitted on agricultural land, the first thing that starts to happen is that the hard edge of the ALR boundary starts to melt away. People become confused about where that boundary is. They become confused about what that boundary really means. They begin to think that the boundary becomes flexible, that it's not important, that it is something that can be toyed with at whim.

I'll tell you something else. The developers start to redefine what the edge of that boundary ought to be to suit their own needs. I'll give the House a perfect example. The Emerson group has optioned 260 hectares — no, it's optioned way more than that — in Delta. It's off one farmer alone, who has been offered $66 million for his land — all of this to promote industrial development next to the port.

[1520]

What did that developer tell me about the development and how it would impact the ALR? He said: "It would create a perfect hard edge. We'll develop between Deltaport Way and Highway 17, and those are perfect hard edges for industrial development within the region. It won't impact the ALR at all. We'll just redefine those boundaries." Well, if that isn't self-interest and money talking and nothing else, I don't know what is.

The second thing that starts to happen is that edge planning becomes incredibly difficult. You might ask what edge planning is. Well, it's that little strip of land that separates the farmer from the residential or the commercial or the industrial uses of the land. It's that hedgerow. It's that laneway. It's the buffer zone between the two uses.

But when you start to introduce new uses onto that land, who's expected to create the edge planning? Who's expected to provide the land to create the edge? That's the problem we have. All the regional districts, all the municipalities and the ministry itself have agricultural plans that speak to edge planning. Well, you can't edge-plan after the fact because nobody wants to give up their land.

In the case of a local government that's looking for a rezoning, you can rezone the land and get that edge from a developer, but in this case when you're excluding land from the ALR, you don't have to rezone it. You're not required to give up land for an edge planning. The Agricultural Land Commission can give you some requirements, some expectations, but the argument about who is responsible for creating that edge is what is always before the planner.

Another thing that starts to happen in most of the agricultural communities that practice hunting…. I will say that I've chaired the hunting advisory committee in Delta for many years. It's not well known. We don't think about the sport of hunting or hunting to control predators or to control waterfowl population.

It's critical on agricultural lands. The province has even stepped in on the Lower Mainland with municipalities that have tried to ban the discharge of firearms. The Minister of Agriculture and FLNRO step in, and they say, "No, we need to have the ability to regulate the population of waterfowl. We will not let you stop the discharge of firearms," in our municipalities. But what starts to happen is, as residential development and as commercial and industrial development move in, all of a sudden hunting becomes incredibly fractured and difficult.

People complain about the killing. Well, most people would. The reality is that it's a necessity on some of these lands, but you can't then discharge your firearm 150 metres from a home or a building or a commercial operation. You can't fire from the dike. You can't do this. You can't do that. So all of a sudden that very important element of sporting — which I don't agree with but which I will defend, particularly in a community like Delta because of the necessity to control that waterfowl population — hunting and the inability to hunt suddenly become very, very important. Why? Because it's an impact of non-farm use on agricultural lands.

Another thing that starts to happen is that the pressure on the land increases, and the cost of land starts to rise. The farmers, as a source of income, start to sell off the smaller parcels, and all of a sudden you're starting to see large homes all over what used to be pristine agricultural land.

So you suddenly have a landscape that is becoming chopped up, and it's impossible, then, for large-scale agriculture to continue. It impedes the industrial development of agriculture, and it doesn't assist in the environmental needs and qualities of the land, particularly in areas like Delta South, where the agricultural capacity, the productive capacity of agricultural land is absolutely critical to the survival of an international migratory
[ Page 4449 ]
flyway.

As these pressures start to mount on the land, all of these environmental qualities start to disappear. Where you once had the environment and agriculture struggling to live in balance, all of a sudden the balance is starting to tip.

[1525]

It tips not in favour of agriculture, and it tips not in favour of the environment. It starts to tip in favour of the non-farm uses, and you see the productive uses of that land starting to crumble around us. The smaller parcels start to develop as hobby lands, and then the tax base becomes affected within the municipality. Again, large-scale production becomes almost impossible on the land.

What I fear, as you start to create more and more development, is that on the land in zone 1 on the Lower Mainland you'll start to see the farm-gate receipts go down, and all of a sudden the province will start to say: "Well, it's not a productive area of the land. That isn't the best soil in the world other than the Nile Valley."

This province should be taking a look at the lands on the delta of the Fraser River. That land is the best soil in the world, subject only to the Nile Valley. We should be honouring, preserving that land for agricultural production. We should not be making it possible and easier for non-farm uses to develop on that land.

What happens is you start getting residential development, commercial and industrial development in proximity to farmland. You start to get the complaints. "We don't like the smells." "We don't like the noise." "We don't want the dust." "We don't like the greenhouse lights." "We don't want the blueberry cannons." Now, these are all legitimate farm practices, but farmers are then forced to consider compromises. Although often the province will step in and say: "No, that's a right to farm. That's a use that falls under the Right to Farm Act, and they don't have to compromise."

The very land that has been taken out of the ALR or has developed around an agricultural function becomes a nuisance not only to the people now moving in against that farmland; it becomes a problem for the farmer himself.

When you speak about noise, a farmer who has a pea crop times the harvest of that crop down to the minute, and if that crop is ready to harvest at 2:30 in the morning, that's when that equipment goes in, and that's when the noise starts. In a community like Delta neither the municipal government nor my office will support complaints from the residences along the farmland areas.

But sometimes there comes a point where you literally have to step in and say, "Look, we have a problem with blueberry cannons. You have to help us to deal with this," because there is no compromise coming from the farmer who feels, legitimately, that he doesn't have to compromise.

Proximity becomes an incredibly important thing, and here we are with a bill allowing this proximity, these intrusions into agricultural uses, to take place legally. We're opening up farmland for intrusions from non-farm uses, and it's going to result in nothing over time but difficulty for the farmer and for the individuals using the land for non-farm uses.

Legitimate farmers begin to resent the intrusions far more than they would have initially thought. In my riding alone, since I've been on council — what? — in the last 15 or 20 years, two new highways have gone in south Delta alone. Can you imagine what that does to large-scale agricultural production? Can you imagine what that does to the soul of a farming family who sees their land being taken?

You can develop all of the irrigation mitigation that you want. The government is fond of saying that it's the finest mitigation project ever undertaken. The fact is that there was no choice, and it was what the province had to do in order to keep the farming community alive and well, especially in east Delta.

Farmers start to experience theft from their crops, something that doesn't happen when you're living solely in an agricultural community.

The movement of farm equipment is compromised, and suddenly you see new small roads going up through farmland so that they can move their equipment off the highways. Washington State requires and allows farm equipment to run on their highways, and they require traffic to respect it. Does British Columbia? No. So the municipalities have to find some other way and mode for that farm equipment to move through the land and to not be compromised by frustrated motorists who haven't the patience to wait for the equipment.

[1530]

One of the most important issues that arises in proximity, that concerns the legitimate farmer by intrusion into agricultural areas, is the contamination of crops. Why doesn't the Trans Canada Trail go through Delta? Why doesn't the Trans Canada Trail follow the Boundary Bay linear parkway dike system? Because Delta refused to allow it to go there.

Why? Because the farmers were so concerned about an invitation that brought strangers into a farming community, who could potentially contaminate their crops which lie right up against that trail, that they fought long and hard to forbid the Boundary Bay dike system from becoming the Trans Canada Trail. Instead of going through the Boundary Bay and out to Tsawwassen, that trail now goes out, somehow, through to Horseshoe Bay.

So this amendment is critically important.

The last thing I would like to talk about is the pressure on the land as you allow development for non-farm uses to start to occur. The costs of that land are driven up. They're driven up high enough that the costs of the land are higher than the productive value of the land. That's when you start to see agriculture collapse in the region,
[ Page 4450 ]
and that's happening in south Delta today.

It's happening with the help of the province, which is selling land in south Delta right now at market value when it knows that the farmers can't afford to purchase it. They're just letting it rest there until some developer can come along and hold it for speculative value.

I have written both the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resources to tell them of this problem and to suggest that, in the case of Delta South and the 11 parcels that are being sold there right now by the Crown, they have to make an exception. They have to look at this problem.

The pioneer farming families that are trying to buy that land have been unable to purchase it. We thought we had a purchase in the making, but an error had occurred on the offer and they couldn't go through with it. That farming family is one of the very few in Delta that has a second generation — well, no, it's a fifth generation — coming along to farm that very land. They are a pioneering farming family, and they have told me now that they are going to have to look at Vancouver Island and Sumas.

Interjection.

V. Huntington: I don't know what's so funny, Mr. Speaker, but I'm finding it disconcerting.

If I can do anything right now, with the two ministers sitting in this House, it's to have them look at whether or not the policy to sell provincial land at market value can be flexible enough to permit them to sell the agricultural land in Delta, in south Delta, to farming families who want to buy it and who cannot afford it at market value.

The values are around $160,000 an acre. They can afford up to $35,000 or $40,000 an acre, if that — a legitimate farming family and not somebody who has farms all over the province. These are people that haven't had their land optioned. These are people that want to stay on the land. These are people that want to farm their land and want to continue the tradition of their pioneers that built the dikes in Delta.

I just suggest to the ministers that I really hope that they look at this issue. It's incredibly important. Yes, sell land elsewhere at market value. I understand that. But to sell it at market value in south Delta is a travesty, and it's making it impossible for the legitimate farming community to enter into the offer.

With that, I will say that I believe this amendment is terribly important. The impacts that will result over time on the intrusions of non-farm uses into the agricultural zones will be real, they will be lasting, and they will be impossible to fix after the fact. So I encourage the government to consider adopting this amendment.

S. Robinson: I am taking my place in this debate on this amendment because I think it's just plain bad policy to make a decision without consulting and without fully understanding the implications of our decision.

[1535]

The actual amendment asks that we consider substituting words after the word "that" with "it is not in the best interests of agriculture, food producers, the public, nor those 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."

It's those last few words that really catch my attention, because we need to understand what the full implications are of any decision that gets made in this House. I don't think that this government or any of us in this House understand the full implications.

I also think that understanding the context is part of what's really important. We have a long history of protecting agricultural land in this province, and 80 percent of British Columbians value the ALR. We know that climate change is a reality, and we need to be prepared for the future.

There has been no consultation whatsoever on this policy with the people whose lives it will most impact, British Columbians all over. I heard my colleague from Vancouver–Point Grey speaking to the number of e-mails that he's received, and I, too, have been surprised at the volume of e-mails I'm receiving. I'm sure the Minister of Agriculture has been inundated.

There's been no proper consultation, so people are trying to find ways to let us know how they feel about this major policy change. Of course, the development of the proposed legislation — it comes out now, this week, that it was done in an underhanded, backroom kind of way.

When you have those kinds of policies that come forward in this way, no wonder the electorate is sort of jaded and not participating in democracy. We wring our hands about it all the time, but when we do this kind of decision-making that doesn't respect the electorate, why would voting matter?

I think we need to go back. I think we need to recognize that the 40-year history of this piece of legislation has real value. I am very thankful that previous governments recognized the long-term vision. I think it took tremendous courage for that government to do what it needed to do.

I heard the member for Vancouver–Point Grey acknowledge, in particular, the work of Harold Steves back in the '70s. I have tremendous gratitude and respect for this gentleman, who currently sits on Richmond council. He was one of the driving forces behind the ALR.

Well, today happens to be his birthday, so happy birthday, Harold. I am so sorry that this is what we are debating on your birthday.

I know, for him, this is breaking his heart, as it is for many other people who've certainly worked to bring this vision to fruition, only to see it, 40 years later, start to disintegrate before their eyes.
[ Page 4451 ]

I have a number of questions that I do want to get on the record. I think, if this amendment were to be supported, these are the kinds of questions that government would need to be looking at.

I want to acknowledge Joan Sawicki. She sent some questions on, and I thought: "I want to get these into the record because they're questions I have as well." If members of the House aren't familiar with who she is, she worked at the Land Commission during its inception, from 1973 to 1981. She's a former MLA; Speaker; and Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks. She's currently a land use consultant living in Stuie, in the Bella Coola Valley.

Some of the questions that she raised that I'm really very interested in…. If we are going to really act on changing this piece of legislation, if we're going to enact Bill 24, we need to really understand what the impacts are, and we need to understand what the context is for why we're even bringing these changes around in the first place.

The first question I have, because I know this came from the Minister for Core Review: where is the core review analysis that supports that the ALR and the ALC need changing? There hasn't been a really cogent argument made for why we're even doing this. The provisions of Bill 24 will fix what? That's not even clear. What's perceived to be broken? What did the core review look at it? What are the results, and is there a report? I would love to see the report that the core review did that said: "This is where this falls apart."

Now, what about if the government can point out where the ALC has not been responsive to its directives? I'd like to see some evidence that says: "This is where the ALC screwed up. This is why we need to do all this. The ALC had these opportunities, and they didn't act the way they were supposed to."

[1540]

I don't know if there have been any attempts made to discuss any misunderstanding about the directives. I want to know if they can point out any of the chair's recommendations that are in Bill 24. I'd really like to understand that. I haven't heard anything, certainly, from that side of the House. It would be really lovely to hear some of that information here.

Other questions have come to mind about this. When it comes to the boundary fine-tuning issues that have been raised, I really would like to know. I'd like to ask: what are the remaining problems? Over the years there have been challenges, and they have been addressed one at a time, one after the other. So where are the remaining problems? Are they going to provide funding for the ALC to review these boundaries? Is it a funding issue? And what provisions of Bill 24 will help encourage young farmers and how?

If anything, this piece of proposed legislation just invites a whole lot of questions, questions that I think certainly everyone in this House should know what the answers are before we actually vote. Before there's actually a decision to enact it, we should understand the full implications. This amendment is just that. What are the implications of this piece of legislation so that we are fully informed?

I know there's been talk of flexibility and farm-related businesses. Again, where is the evidence that the ALC has not been responsive to this? There's certainly some comment being made from the government side of the House that the ALC is somehow failing, but they haven't presented any evidence to this. I would like to find out from the ALC, and I'd like to find out exactly what the challenges have been. I think government needs to provide some more information that makes it more tangible, helps us to understand exactly what the issues are.

I do recognize that when you create a system from 40 years ago, it might need a bit of tweaking. I fully appreciate that. Anything that is 40 years old needs a bit of tweaking, just like the rest of us. I can understand that. But I want to know exactly what the issue has been for this government that hasn't been working. What is it exactly?

When I think about the fact that 80 percent of British Columbians consider it unacceptable to remove land from the ALR, I think, okay. How am I going to check in with people from the suburbs? I come from the suburbs. Most people from the suburbs get their food from Thrifty Foods, Safeway, Save-On-Foods, their own little garden plot maybe. So I thought that I will speak with some of my constituents.

I had an opportunity to go to the farmers market the last two Sundays. It's a well-loved asset in my community now. I think it's been going on nine years, nine or ten years. I got to set up a little booth. I thought: "Okay, I'm going to have to do a lot of work explaining the ALR and the ALC for city folk." I was blown away. I didn't get a chance to go to the bathroom for four hours on each of those Sundays, because people were coming one after the other to sign a petition.

They knew exactly what was going on. They knew that their farmland throughout the province was put at risk. They like to eat local. They don't want imported strawberries from Chile that are this big and mostly red, that when you bite into them are hollow and taste like nothing. They want those tiny, sweet juicy little strawberries. They know that those are local strawberries. They are worried for their children and their grandchildren and their children's grandchildren, that they won't know what those taste like if this legislation goes through. That is what they are worried about.

My experience, when I was at this farmers market…. I had people coming to me and saying, "This is unacceptable. Where do I sign?" — people that I didn't think would have one idea about the agricultural land reserve.

Then I thought: "Okay, some of these new Canadians
[ Page 4452 ]
might not have any idea about it." I mean, some of these older folks remember when it came into being, and they've been around a long time. I thought: "Okay, maybe some of these new immigrants won't understand." But they got it. To them it was really basic. Of course you want to protect farmland. How are we going to eat?

[1545]

Then I thought: "Well, maybe our young people — they won't really have an appreciation, because they are just really here to go to the baking table. They're really not interested in the fruits and vegetables." But they certainly had lots to say.

Needless to say, I was able to collect hundreds of signatures in a very short period of time, and what I learned was that I completely underestimated my own constituents around their connection to the land and to the ability to grow our own food.

It's for that reason that I'd like to just put on the record an opinion piece that was written by Joan Sawicki, and I think she's done such a fabulous job of capturing why we ought to be supporting this amendment.

"Since the introduction of Bill 24, it has become clear that government either does not understand the potential negative impact of its actions upon agricultural land preservation, farms and farming communities or knows exactly what it's doing but isn't being upfront about it.

"The rationale for Bill 24 keeps changing, likely a direct result of the effectiveness with which British Columbians and the legislative opposition have discredited its every aspect.

"First, government said it was about shorter growing seasons in northern British Columbia and too much marginal land in the ALR, much of it forested. It took a substantive letter from a group of soil scientists and professional agrologists to explain that northern lands can be highly productive for specific crops and that the land's ability to support agriculture has nothing do with the present land use."

Her letter goes on, but I'm just going to jump ahead to a couple of little comments that she makes here. She says:

"Over the decades the ALR has proven to be a valuable land use planning tool. There are many instances where the ALC and local government have worked together to contain urban sprawl and ensure a positive environment for farming within the ALR.

"It is noteworthy that three of the five local government associations in B.C. and more than 15 individual municipalities or regional districts have either passed resolutions or submitted letters expressing concern at the lack of consultation or expressing outright opposition to Bill 24.

"I cannot think of another piece of legislation that has been so thoroughly thrashed from every angle as Bill 24. Not only has government not made its case on why these changes are needed or how they will fix what is perceived to be broken, but each rationale the government has offered has been discredited as effectively as the previous rationale.

"With the legislative and public debates of past weeks, Bill 24 has been left without a leg to stand on. Time to put it out of its misery. Either let Bill 24 die on the order paper or pass the opposition amendment to either send it to the Finance Committee for review or, alternatively, support the current amendment that we're debating right now.

"Then let's get back on track and do what government says it is committed to doing: helping today's farmers and safeguarding agricultural land for future generations."

Hon. M. Polak: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Hon. M. Polak: I'd like to introduce members of the Vancouver Foundation and the Fresh Voices Youth Advisory Team. They were here today to meet with the Minister of Education and discuss issues related to immigrant youth and some of the challenges they face.

Would the House please make them welcome.

Debate Continued

G. Heyman: I rise today to speak to the amendment, in favour of the amendment, and when I rose earlier to speak on the motion to refer, I said it was an honour to speak to this issue, because the issue of food security in the agricultural land reserve is so critically important to the future of British Columbians and the future of children, grandchildren and their children and grandchildren.

It saddens me as we discuss, in the final stages, this very important issue and this bill that is only so important because of what it proposes to do — to destroy 40 years of protection of British Columbia's agricultural land, 40 years that is the envy of other jurisdictions around Canada and North America, 40 years of preservation that is unparalleled in many parts of the world that wish they had had the foresight that the NDP government of the 1972-75 period had.

[1550]

I stand to speak about this important issue with so few people in this House to address this issue, to listen to the debate, to take it seriously, to display for the people in the gallery who have come here today to see democracy in action and that anyone actually cares on the government side what is said on the opposition side — any of the evidence that's entered, any of the letters from constituents, any of the studies, any of the history, any of the facts, anything that might make a difference to the food security of the people in the gallery, the people 50 years from now, the people 100 years from now.

Hon. Speaker, I am frustrated today. I am not honoured. I am frustrated. I am disgusted. I am speaking to a motion that says that "it is not in the best interest 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," without first doing the studies, reviewing the studies, commissioning the studies, asking for the studies that would say what the future looks like.

It's not what today looks like, not what the past looks
[ Page 4453 ]
like, but what the future may look like in this era of climate change, in this era of drought down south, in this era of droughts in the southern hemisphere where people are starving. They're fleeing their homes in droves. They're looking for places that they will be able to move to, to have some security in their lives, and that security includes food.

This bill has been brought forward simply because a couple of members on the opposite side — who now, unfortunately, hold influential positions in cabinet — were frustrated because the Agricultural Land Commission didn't move quite quickly enough for them in considering exclusions that in all likelihood were ill-advised in the first place.

The Agricultural Land Commission, in fact, has approved removal of land that was not suitable for agriculture and perhaps was suitable for other uses. But it seems from the exchange of e-mails that was exposed in the Globe and Mail just the other day that for some members, the independent Agricultural Land Commission was too much to stomach, because they don't believe in independent tribunals that look out for the interests of British Columbians. They believe they were elected, and everyone else should jump when they snap their fingers or whistle.

That's not a service to young people. It's not a service to British Columbians. And 100 years from now, when people are trying to figure out how to feed themselves in an era made worse because of so many other decisions we are making — not just in British Columbia but in Canada and in other jurisdictions — that fail to address the issues of climate change, today when we have a chance, people will wonder what we in this chamber in 2014 were thinking of.

They will wonder how we managed to so cloud our brains. As they look back over the record — perhaps they will pick up Hansard — they will listen and pay attention, as so many members of this House are failing to do and so many members opposite are failing to do.

They will read the letters from all of our constituents. They will read the opinions of scientists. They will read the opinions of experts in agriculture. They will read the opinions of people involved in agriculture — whether they are farmers, fruit growers, people who raise cattle — and wonder why the government was so convinced that there was an urgency to change the entire structure that has served British Columbia for 40 years.

[1555]

Why was it so important to do that today in this session of the Legislature, rather than take the two or three months between now and the fall sitting to consult, to hear properly, to hold public hearings, to let experts come forward, to let in the true wishes of people involved in the agricultural industry and the rest of the people of the province of British Columbia and Canada who rely every day on the right to have clean water and good food to sustain them and their families?

They will wonder — and they will be right: "What was the rush? Why was it so important to engage in changing a structure that has served British Columbia so well for 40 years, instead of looking at what problems this legislation is supposed to solve?"

No one on the government side of the House has made any convincing argument that there is actually a problem that needs solving and that this legislation addresses. No one has convinced me, no one has convinced my constituents, and no one has convinced the vast majority of people in the agriculture industry.

They certainly haven't convinced the independent chair of the Agricultural Land Commission, who earned the enmity of members opposite. Apparently, instead of preserving and acting to preserve agricultural land in the best interests of British Columbians…. He wasn't jumping fast enough to ensure they got the votes needed for re-election. I paraphrase their words but not by very much at all.

Today is a sad day in this Legislature because this legislation is essentially being rammed down the throats of British Columbians. It's being rammed down their throats against their wishes. It's being rammed down the throats of the agriculture industry. It's being brought forward in contempt of the considered opinion of scientific studies commissioned by the government's own ministers, whether it's in the Ministry of Agriculture or the Ministry of Environment.

I ask again: what's the rush? A responsible government makes sound decisions based on science. The rhetoric we've heard from the side opposite simply says: "We have the majority. We're going to do this. Don't worry. Nothing will change. We want to preserve agricultural land. Nothing is changing about the values we're bringing to bear on decision-making about agricultural land."

If that is the case, why is the change being brought forward? If that is this case, why are so many people in the agriculture industry worried about the future? They're worried about what it means for farming in the future. They're concerned that the things that would really help them and really help their children and really help young people who want a future as farmers in British Columbia to actually engage and make a living in the agricultural industry…. None of those supports are being offered. None of those were brought forward in this bill. In fact, there was no bill to do that at all.

There was simply a bill to deconstruct agricultural land in this province based on regional pressure groups for a shortsighted development proposal that may make some financial sense for a handful of people for a few minutes, for a short period of time, but does not make long-term sense for the food security that we so desperately need now in British Columbia — because we have droughts in California — today, tomorrow, next year, the decade after that and decades after that.
[ Page 4454 ]

My colleague from Coquitlam-Maillardville referred to an old acquaintance of mine, a person I once interviewed shortly after he was a member of the government that brought in the agricultural land reserve — Harold Steves.

Harold Steves has had a long and distinguished life of public service in British Columbia, not just in this House but as a councillor in Richmond, as somebody who fought to establish the land preserve, somebody who fought to ensure that the land preserve was respected, somebody who fought to preserve the integrity of agriculture and food security in this province, as well as somebody who is acutely tuned to the history of his region, whether it's the farming history of that area or the fishery in that area.

Harold Steves has done and contributed great service to British Columbia, and I want to join my colleague in wishing him a happy birthday and putting on the record in this House what a truly great British Columbian he has been.

[1600]

By paying respect to truly great British Columbians, it gives us something to measure not just our actions against but the quality of our deliberations.

I say again, and I'm sure Harold Steves would agree with me, that the quality of deliberation can be judged, in large part, by how much listening goes on, how much attention is paid to diversity of opinion, how much willingness there is to change direction, to modify direction, to understand that no matter how much we may think that we have the best idea and that we are acting in the best interests, we just might be wrong.

Even if we are right, if we failed to convince our fellow citizens — failed to convince people who work in a particular industry, people who are responsible for feeding not just the people in British Columbia but other people who rely on us as a food-growing area — even by that measure, we have more work to do. Even by that measure, more dialogue and more consultation is required. That's why the amendment, or the referral motion to committee, that was proposed by our caucus was so important.

Unfortunately, it failed. It failed even though there's no rush. It failed even though it met the demands of many British Columbians. It failed, to the shame of this government. It failed, and by so failing, it demonstrated that the government had no intention of listening to British Columbians.

In fact, many members of the caucus opposite had no intention of doing anything other than bending to the will of the former Agriculture Minister and the current Minister Responsible for Core Review — both of whom have clearly been on record for many years as opposed not just to the work of the Agricultural Land Commission but the principles of the agricultural land reserve if it ran counter to the interests of anyone in their area who had a short-term development proposal that they thought would do a better job.

The Minister Responsible for Core Review, who is not in this Legislature today….

Deputy Speaker: The minister's presence or not is not….

G. Heyman: I apologize.

The Minister Responsible for Core Review admitted in this House that he failed to consult and that consultation was important. He thought that simply saying he would take it upon himself and that it was an oversight was adequate but that actually instituting consultation was not something for which he was responsible, not something that he intended to do, not something that he thought was necessary.

He continued to say in this House, both in speeches and in answers to questions — and very often in remarks that undoubtedly were unrecorded in Hansard and are commonly referred to as heckling — that everything that was in the act was in the best interests of the best use of agricultural land and that he, like all of us, wanted to preserve agricultural land.

His own words and e-mails do not demonstrate that. His own words and e-mails, in fact, demonstrate the opposite. His own words on many occasions demonstrate that his regard for the agricultural land reserve and the commission, whose duty it is to preserve agricultural land in British Columbia…. His attitude is that these are institutions and acts that should bend to the will of the government of the day.

When we're talking about protecting the agricultural capacity of British Columbia and a heritage that was left to us and that is our responsibility to protect and leave to others…. When we are talking about that, no one, no institution, no independent tribunal, should bend to the will of individual members of the Legislature, individual ministers. What needs to be protected is the best interests of British Columbians and the best interests of future generations.

[1605]

Let me refer now to some useful information that was provided to all of us by the Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions in a document entitled Strengthening B.C.'s Agriculture Sector in the Face of Climate Change. I'm pleased to see the Minister of Environment. This was research that was funded by the Ministry of Environment and released in May 2013.

It starts by saying:

"The science to date is unequivocal: the climate is changing and getting warmer, and it is occurring faster than most climate models and projections have indicated. Recent extreme weather events — such as the 2012 to 2013 record-high temperatures and drought in the United States and Australia, Russia's heat wave, and flooding in Pakistan in 2010 — have demonstrated the vulnerability of agricultural production and food prices to these events that are projected to increase" — increase, hon. Speaker — "in frequency and severity as the climate changes."
[ Page 4455 ]

The report goes on to say that B.C. is not exempt. Its agricultural sector is also vulnerable to the direct impacts of climate change as well as the resulting shifts in global economic conditions. As I mentioned, we are seeing that today in unprecedented droughts in California, where virtually the entire state is now subject to drought conditions. The state has cut off the water supply to many agricultural producers. This means that some crops will simply not be grown. Others will be grown and not available for export, and those that are exported, assuming that's anything at all, will be at record-high prices.

That is all the more reason for us to take the time in this province to not hastily put in place a structure that will allow agricultural land decision-making to be conducted in a way that experts have said lends itself to local pressures, lends itself to bad decision-making and lends itself to a lack of an integrated overall provincial agricultural plan.

I might concede that it is possible — theoretically, of course — that the government has a good idea. But if it does, that good idea will be good a few months from now. It will be tested and should be tested by science, by the opinion of British Columbians and by agricultural food producers. By ramming this bill through today, by refusing to refer it to committee, by refusing to consider an amendment that simply says that we should use science to look at the possible impacts of those changes to agriculture in our province before we allow them to be made — by refusing to do that — the government is effectively playing a dangerous game of chance with our food security future.

Let me also quote briefly from an article that refers to Dr. Lenore Newman, who is the Canada Research Chair in Food Security at the University of the Fraser Valley. She talks about us being at peak farm. What she means by that is that we're limited in the land that can be available for production and that land, in fact, is now getting less protection. She says, with respect to the changes being proposed, "I think what we are going to see happen is loss of land for urban development, especially around Kamloops," which I would note has been put into zone 2, proposed for lesser protection, even though its quality would have you think that it should belong in zone 1.

She says:

"I can't understand why that's being put in zone 2. It's excellent land, very valuable as farm land, and it's going to be turned into urban development because there's incredible pressure all across the region.

"There is so much pressure on the land reserve right now. The one amendment I'm most worried about is the change to take it back to 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 who want the land out."

[1610]

Now, I'm sure members opposite would say: "Shouldn't local communities control decision-making about things that impact them?" On many things, that would be the correct statement. But when we're talking about the need to have an integrated web of agricultural land that can sustain all British Columbians — all British Columbians, and that is our responsibility in this provincial Legislature…. When we're talking about that — maintaining an integrated system of agricultural land and agricultural land preservation — it is the wrong approach because those decisions being made purely on the regional level will not have the provincial view.

Along those lines, the current chair of the Agricultural Land Commission, Richard Bullock, has in fact said that. He said that in a December 23 letter that he addressed with respect to consideration of changes to the Agricultural Land Commission.

He addressed it to the Deputy Minister of Agriculture, Derek Sturko. I won't read the whole letter, obviously. It's many pages, and it was very thoughtful and very well reasoned. He says:

"By way of introduction, I refer to the findings set out in my November 2010 chair's review."

He said in that review:

"I suggest consideration be given to a governance model that establishes a single decision-making body — seven members — while retaining regional representation from each of the Agricultural Land Commission's six administrative regions. A smaller structure will facilitate more in-depth dialogue amongst commissioners regarding planning, ALR boundary reviews and policy matters while at the same time building a cohesive team with staff."

He goes on to say in this letter that he proposes a slightly different and expanded board but along the same principles of regional representation and with a central cohesive structure so that the overall provincial interests in preserving agricultural land could be maintained.

He says that it will "allow for meaningful regional panel decision-making, be more manageable from a financial perspective and ensure that all decisions comply with the requirements of the law, procedural fairness and the exercise of discretion, even while taking regional considerations into account." That's the key, I believe — taking regional considerations into account without allowing regional pressures to lead to bad decision-making in the worst interests of the people of the province overall.

I could go on for a long time, notwithstanding the half-hour limit. Unfortunately, the time allocation motion means that others of my colleagues also wish to speak. I'm going to use the minute or two remaining to me to simply say that, as my colleague the member for Vancouver–Point Grey pointed out, I, too, have received an incredible amount of communication on this issue.

Just since last Saturday I have received 129 e-mails in my office on this issue. Let me read you a very short excerpt. It was copied to me. It's from one of my constituents and was sent to the Premier. It says:

"Dear" name:

"I am very concerned about this province's future. I am a mother, and I speak as a concerned mother and voter.

"The agricultural land reserve needs protection. Please halt your changes and honour an important, independent governing body. Your actions, no matter how your government spins it, taken in context look like you were trying to make protected B.C. lands,
[ Page 4456 ]
belonging to the collective whole, open for resource development. Excruciatingly and dangerously shortsighted.

"Sincerely,

"Hilary Strang."

A brief excerpt from yet another letter, on behalf of the Creston Valley Agriculture Society. It was to the minister.

"We held another public meeting last night, and it was well attended by a wide cross-section of farmers from our diverse agriculture valley, from beef, dairy and field crop growers to smaller-lot fruit, vegetable and market gardeners. Absolutely no one voiced any support for this divisive bill.

"We are encouraged by your apparent desire to hear from farmers from around this province and at the same time disgusted by" — and here the name of the Minister for Core Review is inserted — "close-minded attitude on this very important matter.

[1615]

"The wording in the bill is far too vague and open to different interpretations, and thus abuse, by persons with intentions other than preserving our limited farmable land."

Well, that summarizes the view of many British Columbians. Unfortunately, they took heart in the Agriculture Minister's claim that he was willing to consult a bit too early. It appears now that for the Agriculture Minister, consultation means either reading e-mails or passing a bill, ramming it through, using time allocation and then pretending to listen to the concerns of British Columbians when it's in fact too late legislatively to address it.

Let me close by saying that today is a sad day. It's a sad day for food security. It's a sad day for British Columbians' future. It's a sad day for democracy. And it's a sad day for the young people who are in the gallery, looking at how this government and this government's approach to legislation about such a critical issue is so stone deaf to the concerns of British Columbians and people in the industry.

C. James: I'm saddened to have to rise to speak to an amendment that I fear won't pass as we move forward, an amendment that really puts the focus on what I believe the government should have done in the first place. It's pretty basic and pretty common sense to most British Columbians, and that's to look at the impact of changes they are going to bring forward in a bill before they actually pass the bill.

I think it's pretty shocking to most British Columbians to find out that a government would bring a bill forward without doing that, without looking at the impact — in fact, without looking at any need for consultation. We spent a lot of time over the last couple of weeks talking about the need for consultation, about the need for changes in Bill 24 — basic work that really is related to good government — yet we haven't seen that with this bill coming forward. The amendment that's here today is an opportunity to be able to correct that. It's an opportunity to do that basic work that should have been done in the first place.

When you take a look at the importance of agriculture in our province, it's even more shocking to think that we would have a government that would bring forward a bill that fundamentally changes the way agriculture is done in British Columbia, the way it's dealt with, the way it's protected and to do that without public consultation, without any kind of discussion and without any kind of review of the impacts of the changes that they're bringing forward.

It's even more shocking when you think that this is a bill that has survived governments of different political stripes. It's not a political bill. In fact, the agricultural land reserve has gone through governments of different political stripes. It's survived. And why has it done that? Because British Columbians value agriculture. British Columbians want the protection that is there. British Columbians want to have a say about something that has been part of our history, part of our present and part of our future. Yet again, this government has not given them the opportunity to do that.

A historic piece of legislation — historic, yet here we are, spending time in this Legislature asking for a basic democratic right, which is the chance for the public to have their say.

There is a concern here, I have to say, that in fact perhaps the government does know the impact of the changes they're bringing forward. Perhaps the government does know in fact what the impacts will be, and they just don't want to tell British Columbians.

Why would people believe that? Well, they might believe that because the government didn't give them any notice about the legislation or the fact that they wanted to make changes to the ALR during what is a great opportunity for discussion, a provincial election. In fact, the government did just the opposite. When they were actually asked about whether they were going to make changes and whether they were going to support the Agricultural Land Commission and the agricultural land reserve, this government actually said yes, they were. They were going to protect it. That was the answer they gave.

[1620]

After the election, when we heard that the government was going to be looking at the core review and that that was going to be a discussion coming forward, there were rumours out there. I certainly heard them. I'm sure others in this Legislature heard those rumours that the government was actually going to gut the Agricultural Land Commission and the agricultural land reserve. So on behalf of the public, questions were asked.

Was there going to be an opportunity? Was the Agricultural Land Commission going to be part of the core review? The response then from the minister in charge of core review was: "You'll have an opportunity to be consulted. You'll have an opportunity to be able to have your voice heard." He said there would be a chance, through the Finance Committee, for the public to be able
[ Page 4457 ]
to raise their issues.

Well, in fact, again, as we know from the discussion that we've had, just the opposite happened. There was no opportunity for discussion. In fact, the Chair of the Finance Committee, a member of the government, didn't even know that there was going to be an opportunity for discussion. That's how planned that was. Shocking. And he was involved. As my colleague reminds me, he was actually Parliamentary Secretary for Core Review, so directly involved in the process, and didn't know that there was going to be an opportunity through the Finance Committee.

The government didn't say: "We're going to bring in legislation." The government didn't say they were going to make major changes without any opportunity for conversation. No. They said just the opposite. So when we talk about wanting to look at the impact of this legislation, there is a genuine, real concern that this government in fact knows what this bill will do, that they know this bill is coming in to weaken protections for agricultural land, not to support agricultural land.

We see a bill right now with absolutely no review, as our amendment asks for, of the impact of the changes. What might be the impact? Well, we've seen a number of citizens, we've seen a number of experts, we've seen a number of farmers who've made statements about the possible impacts. They've done the work that government should have done. They've done the kind of research and the kind of examination that you would expect the government would have done. They actually want to make sure that they're doing what they can to protect the industry.

It's interesting if you take a look at the Cattlemen's Association, the letter that they sent and the concerns that they raised. As they say, it's "difficult to see what the overall benefits to agriculture will be" from Bill 24. "Without more information about what the benefits to agriculture will be or what the changes mean to our industry, it's difficult…to support the bill." They believe that reform for the agricultural land reserve should be driven by the agricultural land community.

Well, isn't that unique? Can you imagine if the government actually decided that they'd include the people who are impacted by the very bill that they're bringing forward? The government might actually learn something. If the government did what this amendment asks for, which is to put the bill aside and do a study on the impacts, they'd have an opportunity to talk to all of those experts out there, including the Cattlemen's Association, to actually hear from them firsthand about the kinds of challenges that they see coming up with this legislation.

The government could actually improve legislation by doing that. Again, I come back to the concern that was there in the first place, which is: I don't believe this government wants to improve agriculture. I don't believe this bill came forward to try and make things better. I don't believe the government is trying to fix or improve a system. We've seen that in the cuts to the budget for agriculture. We've seen that in the lack of support for expanding programs to support farmers and agriculture.

I believe that the government wants to bring this bill forward to weaken protections. The reason that we are standing here fighting for a public voice to be heard is because the government doesn't want to listen. The government doesn't want to listen to the people who are experts in the field. They prefer not to hear those voices, and that's a sad day for democracy.

If government has the strength of their convictions and they believe this is the right route to go, then why won't they provide an opportunity to hear those voices? What are they afraid of in bringing forward this legislation?

[1625]

The Premier received a letter from a group of soil scientists, individuals who've worked in the field, of course, for many, many years. They, again, raised very serious concerns about the bill coming forward. They've asked for impacts to be looked at, just as our amendment does. They've asked for a review.

I want to read one paragraph of that letter.

"In areas designated as ALR, decisions regarding subdivision, exclusion and use of land for purposes other than agriculture are currently considered from a food production perspective; that is, protecting the inherent quality of the land for food production is, by law, the primary consideration.

"This approach, indeed, has proven to keep future options open. For example, if the poor economic production of tree fruit in the Okanagan valley of the '70s had taken precedent over the capability of many of the Okanagan valley soils to produce both tree fruits and grapes and had such land not been protected in the ALR, the vibrant wine industry and the associated agritourism business we have today would not have been possible."

There's an exact example of the value of the agricultural land reserve at a time when…. If this legislation had been in place, they could have looked and said, "Well, that's not quality soil. Well, that's not going to be considered as the best production, so we'll probably do a development there. That's the best idea" — and lose the opportunity for future agriculture opportunities and, certainly in British Columbia, future agriculture opportunities that have benefited us all, economically, and those communities as well. A very specific example of the kind of approach where, if the government had taken the time to be able to look at consultation, to be able to look at the impact, we would be in a very different place.

I know our time is running short. I know, unfortunately, that we're going to have to end the discussion on this amendment and, therefore, end discussion on this bill that has come forward.

I just want to close by talking a little bit about the importance of agriculture from an urban setting, because I have heard from others that those who are impacted by agriculture are often the ones who live in communities where the farms are close by, where they see it firsthand.

Well, agriculture matters to everyone in British
[ Page 4458 ]
Columbia. This discussion and this debate, the letters that have come in, the feedback from communities and the groups — everyone from farmers markets to local grocers — who have spoken up have proved that in this province.

The people of British Columbia care deeply about agriculture. They care deeply about food production. They know the link and the concerns they have around climate change and what impact that's going to have. They know the value of the Agricultural Land Commission and the agricultural land reserve and the importance of protecting it.

As we finish up this discussion and as I allow my other colleagues to have their chance to speak, I think it's important for this government to know that this discussion does not end, that the people in this province are going to continue to stand up for agriculture. They're going to continue to make sure that their voices are heard, regardless of the direction that this government takes. They're going to make sure that something they believed in and legislation that has survived for all that time is going to continue in each of their communities. I think the government is going to be surprised by the kind of outcry that they're going to see.

L. Popham: Well, we are down to about 45 minutes left in trying to right one of the most massive wrongs I have seen in this House since elected.

There's a problem right now that's not being acknowledged. We're not actually debating an agricultural bill. We're debating a bill of goods. What we see with Bill 24 is simple, and I'm going to lay it out. It's about deception, it's about corruption and it's about greed.

[1630]

Deputy Speaker: The member will withdraw those remarks.

L. Popham: "Deception"?

Deputy Speaker: All of the remarks.

L. Popham: Well, I'll withdraw "corruption," but I think "deception" and "greed" are acceptable. Is that not correct?

Deputy Speaker: It's not debatable.

L. Popham: All right. I withdraw that remark, but I think this chamber gets my drift.

This is a bill of goods, and it's not about agriculture. We have stood for day after day after day trying to make the case about agriculture, but this government's not interested. They're not interested in agriculture. What they are interested in is making sure there is the most opportunity for political interference in an arm's-length commission called the Agricultural Land Commission. That's what it's about. It's about political interference.

We have proof that it's about political interference because we've been receiving and reading e-mails that have been leaked — very, very embarrassing e-mails for this government. What they show is that government members have been trying to influence a commission, and when they don't get their way they come up with some elaborate plan called Bill 24 to make it look like they're trying to make things stronger for agriculture, but they're not.

We see members bullying a chair to get their way, to get applications pushed through a commission. This is the most deceitful thing I have ever seen.

Deputy Speaker: Member.

L. Popham: I'll withdraw that remark.

I'm very passionate about this bill, and I can tell you why, very briefly. I came into this chamber because I love agriculture. I am passionate about agriculture, and I cannot believe that this is happening on my watch. It has been in place for over 40 years. I am 46 years old. I grew up with the agricultural land reserve. I grew up valuing it, and on my watch as an elected representative I see it being destroyed by a government who doesn't care about agriculture.

They care about development, and they care about…. I won't say "corruption," but I think that's what it is.

This is a very interesting time, when members in the chamber can stand up and state who backs them up on this legislation. I have heard over and over and over again from the current Minister of Agriculture that he has a working relationship with the B.C. Agriculture Council and that they support this step. That is completely wrong.

The province of British Columbia is being lied to right now. We all know it, and the members on that side know it as well. Everybody knows it. The B.C. Agriculture Council does not support this bill. In fact, I can go as far as saying that they are disappointed and probably embarrassed that their name is associated with Bill 24.

I have a statement that was released today by the B.C. Agriculture Council. I'm going to read it into the record, because maybe the government can stop lying about who supports this bill. This is the biggest….

Deputy Speaker: The member is well aware that that is not within the rules, and withdraw.

L. Popham: I'll withdraw that statement, but I have to say this is the biggest political manoeuvring I have seen ever in five years.

This is the press statement that was issued by the B.C. Ag Council on the closure of Bill 24. "The government's decision to invoke closure on Bill 24 is a disappointment, but it's not a surprise. Ideally, the proposed legislation would have been withdrawn so proper consultation
[ Page 4459 ]
with B.C. farmers, ranchers and agriculture stakeholders could take place."

Where do you get the facts? You did not consult. There was no consultation. Who did this government consult with? They consulted with themselves. They went into a back room and tried to figure out how to get shabby, embarrassing legislation through this chamber, pretending that it's about making agriculture stronger. It is not.

[1635]

This statement goes on to say: "In regards to today's article published in the Globe and Mail, we are again disappointed but not surprised. The cited comments towards Richard Bullock and the Agricultural Land Commission reflect a level of impatience and entitlement indicative of bullying." Bullying — the Agriculture Council says bullying. That's pathetic.

In effect, this article and these comments have reaffirmed the B.C. Ag Council's original suspicion about the initial intent of Bill 24. Suspicion — the suspicion from the B.C. Ag Council. This is the relationship between the B.C. Ag Council and the B.C. government? The Ag Council is suspicious that something has been pushed through?

This letter is powerful. There are more letters from stakeholders, including the Cattlemen's Association. This is unacceptable. It is sneaky.

I have another document that I think is very interesting. It is a job posting for new commissioners that is closing on May 31. It goes on to say that commissioners will be appointed to one of six panels. Six panels — the one thing that the chair of the Agricultural Land Commission said would add to political interference, these guys on the other side of the House are pushing through.

I can tell you what we're going to do on this side of the House. Every single commissioner that's appointed, we're going to make sure who they are. We are going to check to see if they're Liberal donors. We are going to see if they've had past application history. We are going to check to see if they're a bona fide farmer. If this is about making agriculture stronger, those are the people that should be representing the Agricultural Land Commission: people that believe in agriculture and want the best for agriculture, not a government that's trying to sneak through legislation to destroy our agricultural land reserve.

I could go into the details about how the commission could make things stronger for agriculture and how much the government believes or doesn't believe in agriculture, but it's useless because this government is not listening. In fact, this government knows it has spent political capital on this bill, and they don't care, because they have three years to recover. This is a typical political manoeuvre — absolutely.

I am very angry about this bill, as well as my colleagues. We have stood here; our independents have stood here. We cannot get our message through to this government. The people of B.C. cannot get their message through to this government, so we're going to have to watch every step they make after this. Every application that goes through — it better have agriculture as a priority. If not, we're going to call you on it every single time.

I'm going to take my place, and I am going to hope that for some reason, the Minister of Agriculture hears what we're saying in the last 20 minutes and this government reverses its decision to put this bill through. I know that there are two past Agriculture Ministers and one current Agriculture Minister sitting in this chamber over the last ten days, and they know as well as we do that this is wrong.

The people of B.C. know it's wrong. I want every member to stand up and look inside of themselves and vote for the people of British Columbia. Do not vote for the members who believe that the agricultural land is there for development and it's their land bank. This is for our future.

I can't stand what this government is doing, and I hope that we can stop this bill at 5:15.

Hon. D. McRae: I seek leave to present a petition.

Leave granted.

Petitions

Hon. D. McRae: On behalf of 20 university women in the Comox Valley and Campbell River who are asking for a comprehensive poverty reduction plan, I submit this petition.

[1640]

Debate Continued

J. Kwan: I rise to enter into debate. As the clock is running down, I only have maybe five or ten minutes before I yield the floor to our critic, who will finish off this debate, because the government has imposed closure on this bill, on this very important bill, that needs the voices of British Columbians to be brought into this very precinct, which the government is not allowing.

We just heard a very passionate speech from my colleague here, the member for Saanich South, who very much believes in the protection of agricultural land and what it means for the future of British Columbia. You could hear the pain in her voice as she spoke just moments ago about what she anticipates will happen, what we all anticipate will happen — that is, for this government to ram through this legislation, to shove it down the throats of British Columbians and to dismantle 40 years of the agricultural land reserve for future generations.

Now, I know in this chamber there are rules — rules about certain words that you're not allowed to say. We're not allowed to call the government's intent into question, to insinuate that they might be lying or be deceptive or
[ Page 4460 ]
somehow that they acted in an inappropriate or corrupt manner. Those are the rules of the House, and that is what we must abide by as legislators in this Legislature.

That said, I will tell you this. The evidence before us will tell you a different story to what the government wants to say behind their intention of bringing forward Bill 24. The intention is clearly outlined by leaked documents…. People can draw their own conclusions in terms of the intentions that the government brought about in bringing forward this bill.

The e-mails are particularly telling because they date back to July 2012 — before the election — that clearly said what the intention was from the current Minister Responsible for Core Review. What he said in that e-mail — of always wanting to dismantle the agricultural land reserve and always wanting to sell off British Columbians' prime resource for development — was said for all to see, because it has now been leaked for the public.

In that e-mail he was not only just talking to himself. In that e-mail he was speaking to the now Minister of Social Development, who was then the Minister of Agriculture. In that e-mail he referred to the Premier in a caucus meeting where, he said, he looked the Premier in the eye to ensure that the Premier got what he was saying. So there is no misconception about who was involved in this agenda, in dismantling the agricultural land reserve in British Columbia.

The other members that were referred to in the e-mail, that received a copy of the e-mail…. There are other members as well, and they know who they are because they were recipients of this e-mail. They know who they are.

Now, I know that the current minister is made to defend this bill. He is made to defend the government's position. He is made to defend these disgusting e-mails and the passages that have been put in black and white for the world to see.

Now, I call on him to find the decency to actually rise up and to challenge that, because there is only limited time for that to happen in this very chamber, and we can still do it. We can still do it — stand down Bill 24. Support the opposition's reasoned amendment to stand down this bill.

[1645]

Do what is right. I know that the current Minister of Agriculture knows in his heart and feels the way we feel — to say no to this bill — because he is the guardian of the agricultural land reserve. He is the guardian of this sacred resource on behalf of British Columbians. That's what he's been given the task to do, when he was sworn in to become the Minister of Agriculture. So I am appealing to him to do that.

I hope that he hears the voice of the many British Columbians out there who are crying for action — someone who will stand up and say no to the Minister Responsible for Core Review and to the Premier, who condoned the passages that were written down in these e-mails that betrayed British Columbians in their intent for the agricultural land reserve and in the racist comment that was made by his colleague. I know that the minister can do that.

I will close with this. I would ask every member of this House to take a look at these e-mails, if they haven't already done so, and to read them not through a partisan lens but with a lens of what you would do if you were the individual who has been assigned the task to hold in trust British Columbians' sacred resource — this resource called the agricultural land reserve, this resource that provides for food production for us today and for generations to come.

What would you do if you were given that responsibility? Will you stand in this House and vote yes for Bill 24, or will you stand in this House and join with us, with all of us, in a non-partisan way to say no to Bill 24?

Give that a chance. Give that process of democracy a chance, bring the voices of British Columbians into the fold — in a true process, an honest process, an open process and a transparent process — and craft a bill that would truly protect agricultural lands in British Columbia, this sacred resource, for generations to come.

Hon. N. Letnick: I am the designated speaker, so I'll be speaking till a quarter after five, just to make it sure that everyone knows that I'll be speaking till the end.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members. Members.

I'd ask the member to withdraw.

N. Simons: I'll withdraw.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.

Minister of Agriculture.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Member. Member, please come to order.

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Member, you need to withdraw. Member, you need to withdraw.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: The member knows that if he does not withdraw his remarks, he'll be forced to be removed.

[1650]

Interjections.

Hon. N. Letnick: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to speak to the motion and to Bill 24. It's been
[ Page 4461 ]
an interesting debate over the last three weeks.

Members of the opposition and the members on the government side have had a good opportunity to discuss the bill. We've heard from many people outside, from British Columbians in all parts of this great province. I've read every letter that has been sent to me.

I've had an opportunity, also, to discuss the matter with the leadership of the B.C. Agriculture Council. I've also had an opportunity to discuss the matter with the leadership in the Agricultural Land Commission.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

I've also heard from the members opposite on what they believe is the right process to be followed as we go through this bill. What you can imagine, as many times as we've gone through this….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members. Members.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Vancouver–Mount Pleasant will come to order.

Members will come to order.

Columbia River–Revelstoke will come to order.

Saanich South will come to order.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Columbia River–Revelstoke will come to order.

Interjection.

Madame Speaker: Nanaimo–North Cowichan will come to order.

Hon. N. Letnick: I understand that this is a very emotional issue. Obviously, it has been for the last three weeks and before that. I imagine that the agricultural land reserve has been an emotional issue for people for 40 years.

As we've gone through this debate, many people in this Legislature have said things — I think, actually, personal attacks on members of the government side — on the record. I was quite surprised to see people's personal integrity challenged on the record. Sometimes out there in the world of Twitter you can see that, but in this House I thought we had a different sense.

Clearly, this agricultural land reserve, which we all hold dear, has caused a lot of people to reflect and to comment. Those comments I've heard loud and clear from British Columbians all throughout this province. What they want is what everybody in this House wants.

What they want is to make sure that we have a strong, independent ALC moving forward for years to come. That's what this bill does. They want to make sure that we have food security so that generations to come will be able to continue to benefit from the growth of agricultural products right here in British Columbia. That's what we continue to do.

Interjection.

Madame Speaker: Columbia River–Revelstoke.

[1655]

Hon. N. Letnick: It's interesting. As members of this House know, I try to take a non-partisan approach to most things. I try to do that. I've done that for many years — in the Emergency Intervention Disclosure Act, as we worked together on that particular bill. It was a great bill for firefighters and paramedics and first responders all throughout the province, and together we brought that in. Never once, Madame Speaker, have I done a personal attack on the members opposite. We continue with that relationship.

When I was the Minister of Agriculture in my former time here, I had an opportunity to work with the opposition critic at the time, the member for Saanich South. Together we looked at the meat inspection system. In Abbotsford we actually spent a whole day together. I invited her to be there.

We worked out a way with industry to find a path forward, where we could come up with a solution to the CFIA leaving the province and us taking over. Also, having that wonderful opportunity in some parts of the province to have e-licences and to have some mobile business licences for abattoirs, which actually have not only benefited people in the Cariboo but, I hope, one day will benefit people in Revelstoke. We worked together on that.

Never once in that process did I hear any disparaging remarks on behalf of anyone as we moved forward. There are many other examples where both sides of this House, not including me, have worked on many, many projects. It's very interesting that the rhetoric in this House has gone to such a point where people on the other side of the House must take interesting shots, quite frankly, about people and their personal integrity on this side of the House.

My colleagues on this side of the House have every right to have views on what should happen in this province, and they should have every right to express those views, as long as they're not views that are improper. Views that are political in nature — we are all politicians. They should have the right to express those views and do
[ Page 4462 ]
so in the comfort of knowing that in this place and out there that they are representing their constituents.

That's not what I've seen over the last three weeks. What I've seen is an opportunity for members in this House to fan the flames of division, to fan the flames in the public and take this bill…. It is, quite frankly, a modest amendment to the ALC Act, a modest amendment which will actually see the protection of farmland as the number one criterion.

The protection of farmland is still the number one criterion throughout the whole province. It's an opportunity to help those farmers in parts of the province that have less pressure on their land to stay on their land and have a little extra income, so not only can they be more successful, but they can, hopefully, in our case, continue to grow products and maybe take land that doesn't have products and grow some more on it.

I understand that not everyone in the House wants to see that. That's okay. It really is. It's important for the opposition to take an opposing perspective, especially on a bill of this nature, a bill that looks to change the Agricultural Land Commission Act. I respect that.

But what I don't understand is why we had to spend three weeks listening to speech after speech without getting to committee stage on proposals that are in the bill, without getting to committee stage on proposals that I brought forward — and government has adopted — to change the bill. The meat is on the bones. We had three weeks, and they dragged it out for three weeks, coming up with all kinds of different methods to go back and reset the clock.

They've had opportunities to speak three times to the bill now, instead of going to committee stage and looking at each particular section of the bill. I think that is the primary purpose, the primary function of the members opposite to do so.

[1700]

Quite frankly, I think they failed in that primary responsibility that they have as opposition: to put us through our paces on each section of the bill.

I'm going to put away these partisan rebuffs to the members opposite because, quite frankly, it doesn't fit in my character. So I'm going to put these away, and I'm going to get back to the benefits of the bill.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Hon. N. Letnick: It's interesting to hear the comments on the other side that I have no say in the matter. It's very interesting. Every member of this House has a say. Every member in this House has an opportunity to vote, and every member on this side of the House has a free vote when it comes to the legislation.

Interjections.

Hon. N. Letnick: I don't understand why the laughter, Madame Speaker. There are members on this side of the House…. Actually, more than two members on this side of the House…. There are six members that have voted against legislation right here in this House over the last five years. They have exercised their free vote. I am one of those members that have exercised their free vote. How many of you have exercised your free vote over the last six years?

Madame Speaker: Minister, you will direct your remarks through the Chair.

Hon. N. Letnick: Sorry, Madame Speaker. I was doing a Minister of Jobs pointing thing.

Madame Speaker, how many of them over the last six years have voted against their party? None.

It's extremely important that when they criticize us for not being able to speak our minds, they recognize that we have. And on any bill, any member of this House can vote against their party. We have done so on several occasions. I know that the Minister of Aboriginal Relations has done so. I know that several members on the front bench have done so, and so have I.

I take what they say with a grain of salt because I know where the truth lies. The truth lies right in Hansard. All they need to do is look at Hansard for the proof on that one.

Yes, I have a choice. I have a choice to stand here proudly, with my colleagues, and support this bill or not support this bill. I choose to support this bill because I think it's in the best interests of agriculture. If I didn't think so, I wouldn't be here talking today. I wouldn't be here making the time. I wouldn't be here reading and listening and discussing this bill for the last — how long has it been now? — four or five weeks since I have been given this responsibility, this privilege.

From day one, when I was given this privilege of being the Minister of Agriculture, Bill 24 has been the top of my agenda. The first thing I did was speak to the B.C. Agriculture Council. The first thing I did was spend an hour and a half on the phone with them. Actually, I brought them into the room. That's how long ago it's been.

The next thing we did is decide that we should spend the day together, and we did that. We spent a whole day together. We went through the bill section by section. The leadership of the ALC was there — Mr. Bullock, who has been named several times. Colin was there as well. I had a land economist there as well. We also had other people in the room with us, and we had staff walk through the bill section by section by section.

What I discovered was that while the bill itself was good, there were probably ways to make it even better,
[ Page 4463 ]
and those ways were in two sections of the bill.

[1705]

One area was to make sure, as the bill proposes, to have two zones: one zone for the Lower Mainland, Vancouver Island and the Okanagan, which is staying status quo; and a second zone for the northeast of the province, the southeast of the province and the Cariboo, where we find that there is less pressure on the land base. In those zones there would be other opportunities for promoting of agriculture and to also look at the other factors, things like social and economic and cultural factors.

But still they are subservient to section 6 of the act. Section 6 of the act is quite clear, and I'm going to read it out here. The purposes of the commission, section 6 of the act, are: "(a) to preserve agricultural land; (b) to encourage farming on agricultural land in collaboration with other communities of interest; (c) to encourage local governments, first nations, the government and its agents to enable and accommodate farm use of agricultural land and uses compatible with agriculture in plans, bylaws and policies."

Subservient to that are the ones that are in Bill 24. So after discussions with them, after listening to the public through all the e-mails and letters that both sides of the House have received and had an opportunity to read, after discussing it with my colleagues….

Interjections.

Hon. N. Letnick: After discussing it with all my colleagues, I landed on some amendments to the bill, which I proposed and which were accepted by government. So not only is the original bill being proposed by all of government and supported by all of government, every one of them…. Not only is that happening but also the proposed changes to the bill, the proposed changes that make sure it's very clear to British Columbians that the primary purposes of the act are still to preserve agricultural land but also to help farmers be more successful on the land.

The other part of that was the independence of the Agricultural Land Commission. There was some question out there as to whether or not the ALC was still going to be an independent body, and I heard that especially in the letters. I heard that, and I heard that from the people around the table, the people from the ALC as well as the B.C. Ag Council.

I wanted to make sure, with the support of government, that we reinforce that so there would be no question that if a decision is made by a local panel that is contrary to the intent of the act, if a decision is made in a local area that's contrary to the intention of the act, the chair of the ALC can take that decision and re-adjudicate that decision at the executive level. The executive level is the chair of the ALC and the six vice-chairs, who happen to be the chairs at each of the local panels. So the chair of the ALC on his or her own volition can take a decision and bring it back up.

The other piece to that, the amendments that are included in this act, is that if the chair wishes, instead of sending a decision down to a local panel to make, on three kinds of decisions the chair can make that decision along with the executive committee right at the executive level without sending it down — things of provincial significance. Some of the examples are things like large issues like a Delta port, for example. Or perhaps if a decision is made, it would set a precedent for other areas. Or perhaps if a decision is made in a local area, it would have an impact on an adjoining area, a neighbouring area.

These are things that we wanted to make sure the chair of the ALC had the ability to keep at the executive level and doubly make sure for all British Columbians that they understand….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Columbia River–Revelstoke.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Just wait until members come to order.

Hon. N. Letnick: Thank you, Madame Speaker.

Like I said before, I understand the passion in the room. I've read the e-mails and the letters that I've received over the last month and that many people on both sides of the House have received. But in the end, this bill, supported by government, ensures (1) that we continue to support agricultural land, farmland throughout British Columbia; (2) that we continue to support farmers on that land; and (3) that we continue to support and reinforce the independence of the ALC in making those decisions as to whether or not an application should stay at the executive level or be handled at the local level.

[1710]

Now, some people on the other side of the House have discussed a little bit about what those local panels might look like. I want to give them assurance that over the next few months one of my priorities is to make sure that we get the best people possible for those local panels to make sure that the best people possible apply.

To that end, I have asked the board resourcing office to extend the deadline for applications till the end of the month. That was an extension of several weeks from where the deadline was before. I am sure that we've had more submissions for consideration. I've asked the Agricultural Land Commission, the independent Agricultural Land Commission, to go ahead and readvertise that, which they've done.

I'm looking forward to looking at all the applicants, to working with the BCAC and others that I believe would help me in coming up with a list of names that could then
[ Page 4464 ]
be proposed to cabinet, which would then at some point in the near future, I hope, have all the panels populated throughout the province.

It is extremely important that we pass this bill, that we then move on to the regulations, because regulations, at the end of the day, will put meat on the bone.

You can tell that a lot of the letters and a lot of the comments that I hear from the members opposite are…. A lot of it is basically fearmongering. It's just a matter of saying: "Here we have a bill, but we don't know what's going to be in it."

A lot of the people out there are concerned with the same things we are concerned about. We want to make sure that we have a strong agricultural community for months and years and centuries to come. We want to continue with that.

The BCAC. We know we had a letter introduced just today. It was selective reading. There were parts in the letter that weren't read. The part of the letter that says that the BCAC looks forward to working with the Minister of Agriculture, the part of the letter that say that the BCAC will continue to work….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Hon. N. Letnick: I've been….

Interjection.

Madame Speaker: The member for Surrey-Newton will come to order.

Hon. N. Letnick: We have a strong ALR. It's managed by a strong and independent Agricultural Land Commission. We have sophisticated…. We have entrepreneurial farmers and producers all throughout British Columbia that are going to work hard to make sure that we go from the roughly $11.5 billion a year in sales we have in agriculture today to the $14 billion in sales that we are projecting to reach by 2017.

We are going to be there beside them. We are going to be there with them. We are going to support them in achieving their goals. Today was B.C. Beef Day.Today was a great day to celebrate B.C. beef. It's a great day to celebrate agriculture. We celebrated Agriculture Day just a few weeks ago.

We are going to continue to work on government policies to ensure that we have a strong agricultural sector in British Columbia. All 300 staff in my ministry, in our Ministry of Agriculture, are going to continue to work with people — whether it's with bees, whether it's in honey, whether it's in beef, whether it's in salmon, whether it's in shellfish, whether it's in eggs, in dairy — in all kinds of produce.

Some Hon. Members: Hay.

Hon. N. Letnick: Yeah, in hay too. We are going to work collectively under this legislation that continues to support an independent ALC making decisions on our farmland. We're going to fund the ALC, as we've received money over the last two years, so that they can continue to work their good work throughout the province, looking at areas, one area at a time, to decide what is the best farmland that should remain in the ALR and what new farmland that maybe is not in the ALR right now could be added.

They're working in the Kootenays. Once they finish in the Kootenays, in the southeast part of the province, they're going to move up, as I understand, in their workplan, up in the northeast. Then they're going to come down through the Cariboo. Once they've finished there, to the Okanagan, move over through the Fraser Valley and, finally, to the Vancouver Island area.

[1715]

This is an amazing opportunity over the next few years for us to work together, Madame Speaker. With that, I see you're shaking your head that my time is up, so I will close debate.

Madame Speaker: Hon. Members, in accordance with the time allocation motion passed on Tuesday, May 27, 2014, I am now obliged to put all of the necessary questions for the completion of Bill 24.

Accordingly, the question currently before the House is the reasoned amendment to the motion for second reading of Bill 24.

Division has been called.

Powell River–Sunshine Coast.

N. Simons: Hon. Speaker, I withdraw.

Madame Speaker: Thank you very much, Member.

[1720]

The motion currently before the House is the reasoned amendment to the motion for second reading of Bill 24.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

Madame Speaker: The question now before the House is second reading of Bill 24.

Members are prepared to waive the time? Please proceed.

Second reading of Bill 24 approved on the following division:

Hon. N. Letnick: I move the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered forthwith.

Bill 24, Agricultural Land Commission Amendment Act, 2014, read a second time and ordered to proceed to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 24 — AGRICULTURAL LAND
COMMISSION AMENDMENT ACT, 2014

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 24; D. Horne in the chair.

The committee met at 5:25 p.m.

On section 1.

The Chair: The minister has an amendment in his name.

Hon. N. Letnick: I move the amendment to section 1 standing in my name on the order paper.

[SECTION 1, by adding the underlined text as shown:

1 Section 1 (1) of the Agricultural Land Commission Act, S.B.C. 2002, c. 36, is amended by adding the following definitions:

"executive committee" means the executive committee of the commission established under section 10;

"panel" means a panel established under section 11;

"panel region" means a panel region established under section 4.1;

"zone" means a zone established under section 4.2.]

Amendment approved on division.

Section 1 as amended approved on division.

On section 2.

The Chair: The minister has an amendment in his name.

Hon. N. Letnick: I move the amendment to section 2 standing in my name on the order paper.

[SECTION 2, in the proposed section 4.3, by adding the underlined text as shown:

Exercising a power in Zone 2

4.3 When exercising a power under this Act in relation to land located in Zone 2, the commission must consider all of the following, in descending order of priority:

(a) the purposes of the commission set out in section 6;

(b) economic, cultural and social values;

(c) regional and community planning objectives;

(d) other prescribed considerations.]
[ Page 4466 ]

Amendment approved on division.

Section 2 as amended approved on division.

Sections 3 and 4 approved on division.

The Chair: The minister moves an amendment.

Hon. N. Letnick: I move the amendment to add section 4.1 standing in my name on the order paper.

[SECTION 4.1, by adding the following section:

4.1 Section 10 (3) is amended by striking out "The commission" and substituting "Subject to sections 11.1 and 11.2, the commission".]

Amendment approved on division.

Section 4.1 approved on division.

On section 5.

The Chair: On section 5 the minister has an amendment.

Hon. N. Letnick: I move the amendment to section 5 standing in my name on the order paper.

[SECTION 5, by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the underlined text as shown:

5 Section 11 is repealed and the following substituted:

Panels

11  (1) A panel is established for each panel region.

(2) Each vice chair is the chair of the panel for the panel region in which he or she is resident.

(3) Each member of the commission other than the chair of the commission is a member of the panel for the panel region in which he or she is resident.

(4) The chair of the commission may designate a member of a panel for a panel region as acting chair of the panel in the absence of the chair of the panel.

Matters referred to panels

11.1(5)(1) Subject to subsections (6), (7) and (8) (2) to (4), the chair of the commission may refer any matter to a panel.

(6)(2) TheSubject to section 11.2, the chair of the commission must refer an application under section 17 (1) (b) or (c) or (3), 20 (3), 21 (2), 29 (1) or 30 (1) in relation to land located within a panel region to the panel established for the panel region.

(7)(3) If the commission decides to reconsider under section 33 a decision in an application referred to a panel under subsection (6)(2), the chair of the commission must refer the reconsideration of the original decision to the panel that made the original decision.

(8)(4) Subsections (5), (6) and (7) doThis section does not apply to the following:

(a) an application for which the power to decide has been delegated to a local government, first nation or authority under section 26;

(b) an application that the chief executive officer may approve under section 27;

(c) an application that the chief executive officer has refused under section 30.1;

(d) a reconsideration of a decision of a panel under section 33.1;

(e) an appeal under section 55.

(9)(5) A panel has all the powers, duties and functions of the commission in relation to an application or other matter referred to it, and a decision of a panel is for all purposes a decision of the commission.

Applications referred to the executive committee

11.2 (1) Subject to the regulations, if any, the chair of the commission may refer an application to the executive committee if he or she determines that any of the following apply:

(a) the application may be of provincial importance;

(b) the application raises an issue that is novel or is otherwise of general importance for the administration of the Act;

(c) the determination of the application may substantially affect more than one panel region.

(2) Without deciding an application referred to it under section 11.1 (1) or (2), a panel may refer the application to the executive committee.

(3) The executive committee has all the powers, duties and functions of the commission in relation to an application referred to it under this section, and a decision of the executive committee is for all purposes a decision of the commission.]

Amendment approved on division.

Section 5 as amended approved on division.

Sections 6 and 7 approved on division.

The Chair: The minister has an amendment, section 7.1.

Hon. N. Letnick: I move the amendment to add section 7.1 standing in my name on the order paper.

[SECTION 7.1, by adding the following section:

7.1 Section 43 (5) is repealed and the following substituted:

(5) The board must hold at least one public hearing with respect to the matter in each panel region.]

Amendment approved on division.

Section 7.1 approved on division.

Hon. N. Letnick: I move the amendment to add section 7.2 standing in my name on the order paper.

[SECTION 7.2, by adding the following section:

7.2 Section 44 is amended

(a) in subsection (3) by striking out "the board must give weight " and substituting "in relation to land located in Zone 1, the board must give weight", and

(b) by adding the following subsection:

(3.1) In making the recommendations referred to in subsection (2), in relation to land located in Zone 2, the board must give weight to the considerations set out in section 4.3 (a) to (d), in descending order of priority.]

Amendment approved on division.

Section 7.2 approved on division.

Hon. N. Letnick: I move the amendment to add section 7.3 standing in my name on the order paper.

[SECTION 7.3, by adding the following section:

7.3 Section 45 (2) is amended by striking out "Section 44 (3) applies" and substituting "Section 44 (3) and (3.1) applies".]
[ Page 4467 ]

Amendment approved on division.

Section 7.3 approved on division.

On section 8.

Hon. N. Letnick: I move the amendment to section 8 standing in my name on the order paper.

[SECTION 8 (a), by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the underlined text as shown:

(a) in subsection (2) by adding the following paragraphs:

(c.1) prescribing additional considerations that the commission must consider in Zone 2;

(c.2) for the purposes of section 5, either or both of the following:

(i) prescribing criteria a person must meet to be considered a resident of a panel region;

(ii) conferring a discretion on the chair or another body or person for the purpose of determining whether, or the date on which, a person meets or ceases to meet the criteria to be considered a resident of a panel region;

(e.1) respecting considerations that the chair of the commission must consider in making a determination under section 11.2 (1);

(e.2) specifying applications and types of applications that

(i) are or are not of provincial importance for the purposes of section 11.2 (1) (a),

(ii) do or do not raise an issue that is novel or is otherwise of general importance for the administration of the Act for the purposes of section 11.2 (1) (b), or

(iii) do or do not substantially affect more than one panel region for the purposes of section 11.2 (1) (c);

(e.1e.3) prescribing the timing, content, form and manner of providing information under section 12;

(e.2e.4) prescribing additional information required under section 12;

(e.3e.5) prescribing the making of certain information public, and the manner of making it public;

(r) defining a word or expression used but not defined in this Act;

(s) respecting any other matter for which regulations are contemplated by this Act. ,]

Amendment approved on division.

Section 8 as amended approved on division.

On section 9.

The Chair: Section 9 — the minister has an amendment.

Hon. N. Letnick: I move the amendment to section 9 standing in my name on the order paper.

[SECTION 9, in the proposed sections 2 to 5, by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the underlined text as shown:

Island Panel Region

2 For the purpose of section 4.1 (b), the Island Panel Region consists of the geographic area of British Columbia within the boundaries of the following regional districts, as those boundaries existed on January 1, 2014:

(a) Alberni Clayoquot Regional DistrictRegional District of Alberni-Clayoquot;

(b) Capital Regional District;

(c) Comox Valley Regional District;

(d) Cowichan Valley Regional District;

(e) Mount Waddington Regional DistrictRegional District of Mount Waddington;

(f) Nanaimo Regional DistrictRegional District of Nanaimo;

(g) Powell River Regional District;

(h) Strathcona Regional District.

Kootenay Panel Region

3 For the purpose of section 4.1 (c), the Kootenay Panel Region consists of the geographic area of British Columbia within the boundaries of the following regional districts, as those boundaries existed on January 1, 2014:

(a) Central Kootenay Regional DistrictRegional District of Central Kootenay;

(b) East Kootenay Regional District Regional District of East Kootenay;

(c) Kootenay Boundary Regional DistrictRegional District of Kootenay Boundary;

(d) the part of Columbia-Shuswap Regional Distinct that is south and east of a line commencing at the intersection of latitude 50˚ 52' 58.23" north and longitude 117˚ 30' west and proceeding due north to the intersection of latitude 51˚ 45' north and longitude 117˚ 30' west and then proceeding due east and terminating at latitude 51˚ 45' north and longitude 116˚ 57' 40" west.

North Panel Region

4 For the purpose of section 4.1 (d), the North Panel Region consists of the following:the geographic area of British Columbia within the boundaries of the following regional districts, as those boundaries existed on January 1, 2014:

(a) Bulkley-Nechako Regional District;

(b) Fraser-Fort George Regional District;

(c) Kitimat-Stikine Regional District;

(d) Northern Rockies Regional District;

(e) Peace River Regional District;

(f) Skeena-Queen Charlotte Regional District;

(g) Stikine Regional District.

(a) the geographic area of British Columbia within the boundaries of the following regional districts and regional municipalities, as those boundaries existed on January 1, 2014:

(i) Regional District of Bulkley-Nechako;

(ii) Regional District of Fraser-Fort George;

(iii) Regional District of Kitimat-Stikine;

(iv) Northern Rockies Regional Municipality;

(v) Peace River Regional District;

(vi) Skeena-Queen Charlotte Regional District;

(b) all the land in British Columbia that is not within the boundaries of a regional district or a regional municipality, as those boundaries existed on January 1, 2014.

Okanagan Panel Region

5 For the purpose of section 4.1 (e), the Okanagan Panel Region consists of the geographic area of British Columbia within the boundaries of the following regional districts, as those boundaries existed on January 1, 2014:

(a) Central Okanagan Regional DistrictRegional District of Central Okanagan;

(b) North Okanagan Regional DistrictRegional District of North Okanagan;

(c) Okanagan-Similkameen Regional DistrictRegional District of Okanagan-Similkameen;

(d) Columbia-Shuswap Regional District, except the part of Columbia-Shuswap Regional District that is south and east of a line commencing at the intersection of latitude 50˚ 52' 58.23" north and longitude 117˚ 30' west and proceeding due north to the intersection of latitude 51˚ 45' north and longitude 117˚ 30' west and then proceeding due east and terminating at latitude 51˚ 45' north and longitude 116˚ 57' 40" west.]

Amendment approved on division.

Section 9 as amended approved on division.

Sections 10 to 12 inclusive approved on division.

Title approved on division.

Hon. N. Letnick: I move the committee rise, report the bill complete with amendment.

Motion approved on division.

The committee rose at 5:30 p.m.

The House resumed; Madame Speaker in the chair.

Reporting of Bills

BILL 24 — AGRICULTURAL LAND
COMMISSION AMENDMENT ACT, 2014

Bill 24, Agricultural Land Commission Amendment Act, 2014, reported complete with amendments.

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

Hon. M. de Jong: Pursuant to the applicable motion, now.

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 24 — AGRICULTURAL LAND
COMMISSION AMENDMENT ACT, 2014

Bill 24, Agricultural Land Commission Amendment Act, 2014, read a third time and passed on the following division:

[1735]

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

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

Hon. M. de Jong: I move that the reports of resolution from the Committees of Supply on March 6, 11, 24, 25, 27 and 31; April 3, 7, 9 and 28; and May 1, 5, 6, 12, 14, 28 and 29 be now received, taken as read and agreed to.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. de Jong: I move that there be granted to Her Majesty from and out of the consolidated revenue fund the sum of $35,737,087,000 towards the defraying of the charges and expenses of the public service of the province for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2015. This sum includes that authorized to be paid under section 1 of the Supply Act (No. 1), 2014.

Motion approved.
[ Page 4469 ]

Hon. M. de Jong: I move that there be granted to Her Majesty from and out of the consolidated revenue fund the sum of $778.784 million towards defraying the disbursements for capital expenditures, loans, investments and other financing requirements of the province for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2015. This sum includes that authorized to be paid under section 2 of the Supply Act (No. 1), 2014.

Motion approved.

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

BILL 26 — SUPPLY ACT, 2014-2015

Hon. M. de Jong presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Supply Act, 2014-2015.

Hon. M. de Jong: I move that Bill 26 be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. de Jong: This supply bill is introduced to authorize funding for the operation of government programs for the 2014-2015 fiscal year.

The House has already received, taken as read and agreed to the reports of resolution from the Committees of Supply after consideration of the main estimates. In addition, the House has resolved that there be granted from and out of the consolidated revenue fund the necessary funds towards defraying the charges, expenses and disbursements of the public service of the province for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2015.

Madame Speaker, it is the intention of the government to proceed, as is customary, with all stages of the supply bill this day.

Madame Speaker: Hon. Members, I would ask you to remain in your seats for a few minutes while the bill is being circulated.

Members, in keeping with the practice of this House, the final supply bill will be permitted to advance through all stages in one sitting.

Bill 26, Supply Act, 2014-2015, introduced, read a first time and ordered to proceed to second reading forthwith.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 26 — SUPPLY ACT, 2014-2015

Hon. M. de Jong: I move that Bill 26 be read a second time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. de Jong: I move that Bill 26 be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

Bill 26, Supply Act, 2014-2015, read a second time and ordered to proceed to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. de Jong: I move that Bill 26 be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

Bill 26, Supply Act, 2014-2015, read a second time and ordered to proceed to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 26 — SUPPLY ACT, 2014-2015

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 26; D. Horne in the chair.

The committee met at 5:40 p.m.

Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

Schedules 1 and 2 approved.

Preamble approved.

Title approved.

Hon. M. de Jong: I move that the committee rise and report Bill 26 complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:41 p.m.

The House resumed; Madame Speaker in the chair.

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

BILL 26 — SUPPLY ACT, 2014-2015

Bill 26, Supply Act, 2014-2015, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Madame Speaker: Hon. Members, Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor is in the precinct. Please remain seated while we await her arrival.

[1745-1750]

Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor requested to attend the House, was admitted to the chamber and took her seat on the throne.

Royal Assent to Bills

Deputy Clerk:

Electoral Boundaries Commission Amendment Act, 2014

Pooled Registered Pension Plans Act

Pension Benefits Standards Amendment Act, 2014

Liquor Control and Licensing Amendment Act, 2014

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2014

Water Sustainability Act

Animal Health Act

Local Elections Campaign Financing Act

Local Elections Statutes Amendment Act, 2014

South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Amendment Act, 2014

South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Funding Referenda Act

Agricultural Land Commission Amendment Act, 2014

The Cultus Lake Park Amendment Act, 2014

Armstrong-Spallumcheen Student Assistance Association (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2014

In Her Majesty's name, Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth assent to these acts.

Supply Act, 2014-2015

In Her Majesty's name, Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth thank Her Majesty's loyal subjects, accepts their benevolence and assents to this act.

Hon. J. Guichon (Lieutenant-Governor): Ladies and gentlemen, before I depart, I notice there is a change in the House. I would like to thank Adrian Dix for his service to the province as Leader of the Opposition and to welcome John Horgan in his new role.

As you leave to return to your constituencies, travel safely and keep well. Thank you all for your service.

Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor retired from the chamber.

[1755]

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Madame Speaker: Hon. Members, as we await the return of the mace, allow me to extend to all members safe passage to their ridings.

Certainly, I would like to extend our gratitude to the staff of this place, who allow us to be here and to perform the duties that we are so honoured and privileged to hold, with thanks to the parliamentary committees office, the office of the Sergeant-at-Arms, the attendants in the chamber, legislative facility services, security services, the Legislative Library, information technology, parliamentary education office, Hansard, broadcasting services, human resource operations and, last but not least, our staff in financial services and the Clerks-at-the-Table.

On behalf of all members, we sincerely thank you. We could not undertake our duties here without your capable assistance, advice and support. So to all of you: please accept our very, very heartfelt thanks. [Applause.]

Hon. M. de Jong: Madame Speaker, I move that the House, at its rising, do stand adjourned until it appears to the satisfaction of the Speaker, after consultation with the government, that the public interest requires that the House shall meet or until the Speaker may be advised by the government that it is desired to prorogue the second session of the 40th parliament of the province of British Columbia. The Speaker may give notice that she is so satisfied or has been so advised, and thereupon the House shall meet at the time stated in such notice and, as the case may be, may transact its business as if it had been duly adjourned to that time and date. And in the event of the Speaker being unable to act owing to illness or other cause, the Deputy Speaker shall act in her stead for the purpose of this order.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. de Jong: Madame Speaker, with best wishes to all members for a safe and happy time away from this place, à la prochaine fois. I move this House do now adjourn.

Hon. M. de Jong moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Madame Speaker: This House stands adjourned until further notice.

The House adjourned at 5:57 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HEALTH

(continued)

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

The committee met at 1:36 p.m.

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

J. Darcy: Is that the same $16 billion each time or…?

Hon. T. Lake: No, we keep adding to it. [Laughter.]

J. Darcy: Minister, you had promised that you would get back this afternoon on a number of other issues, in particular the breakdowns of current and future budgets for the Vancouver clinics as well as the existing positions, existing FTEs, and the future ones, and also the issue of
[ Page 4471 ]
the Mid-Main clinic.

Hon. T. Lake: There are a few pieces that I want to go through that I think will provide a comprehensive overview of the changes in Vancouver Coastal and their primary health care services. Through the centralization of Raven Song, we've been talking about taking clinical resources such as primary care nursing, dietitian, pharmacy and social work services over and above the clinical and medical services that are already in place and expanding the number of days that they are open, the number of hours per day.

While the centralization of some primary care services is occurring at Raven Song, it doesn't mean that the other community health centres are losing all of the services. At South, Evergreen and Pacific Spirit locations people will still be able to access services such as home nursing, which I know the member expressed some concern about; palliative and wound care; immunization; and baby and parent support.

Evergreen will continue to provide services for youth and adults with addiction. Pacific Spirit will continue to provide services to support youth mental health and addiction. Those services have been available at those community health centres and will remain in place. It's the primary care that is shifting over to Raven Song to provide a greater opportunity for access.

Vancouver Coastal has added physician resources for youth at two community health centres, Robert and Lily Lee and Three Bridges, as part of that redesign and has also added youth primary care services at Raven Song.

The staffing changes are focused primarily on non-clinical positions such as administrative support, and clinical services are not being reduced. On top of the increased range of supports that are going to occur at Raven Song, five of nine physicians in the system so far have agreed to continue on, and on a fee-for-service model. I mentioned yesterday that if we take five physicians' average of $200,000 to $220,000 billing each year, that's another $1 million going into the system to look after the population served by these clinics.

[1340]

If we want to break it down, in terms of the total FTEs…. I'll take a bit of time to go through this. Total FTEs in the '13-14 budget — so that's right now — we've got 30.29 full-time-equivalents at the urban primary centres. Those comprise clerical and admin FTEs of 18.38 and clinical care and support, 11.91. So you can see it's very much weighted towards the clerical admin side, not as much on the clinical care and support side.

With the proposed model changes in 2014-15, coming into the new year now, new fiscal year, the total clerical will go from 18.38 down to eight, and total clinical care and support from 11.91 to 14.4, for a total of 22.4 FTEs.

There will be a review of allocation — look for patient demand and whether there's need for extra resources. The vision at this point for '15-16 would see a total of ten clerical admin and 20 clinical care and support for a total of 30 FTEs.

As I mentioned, when this entire redesign has been completed, we will go from 30.29 total FTEs to 30. However, we will see a dramatic shift away from clerical and admin FTEs to clinical care and support FTEs and the additional physician services that will be added through the fee-for-service model.

If we look at each of the clinics…. At the South clinic, for instance, there will be a reduction in budget of about 3.5 percent. Evergreen will see a slight increase of 0.46 percent. Pacific Spirit — this is in clinic funding — will go down 4.7 percent. Pine clinic, because it is going over to a fee-for-service model, is taken completely out of the equation, so there's a 100 percent reduction there.

Importantly, the increase to Raven Song is 30.4 percent. Because Raven Song is the larger centre, you see a large increase there.

If we look overall at the total, we've got $39,938, 083 in those five clinics. In '14-15 it will be $41,541,725 for an increase of $1.6 million or 4.02 percent. So that is the total. It's an increase in resources for clinical funding for these clinics.

Then again, I must emphasize, the other physicians that will go to fee-for-service are an additional approximately $1 million going into primary care to serve that entire population.

J. Darcy: I have just two other things. Can I get the breakdown of nurse practitioners and physicians? It was one of the things that we'd asked for. Also, there was the issue of Mid-Main that you had said you would come back on.

[1345]

Hon. T. Lake: Nurse practitioners — when we look at now, we have 3.62 FTEs. Going out to '15-16 when the reorganization is complete, we will have three nurse practitioners for a reduction of 0.62. But importantly, looking at clinical nurses, we have 4.75 FTEs now, going to six clinical nurses in the full rollout, and also social workers going from zero at the moment to 3.5 positions.

This is really about reorganizing and providing the right team members in place and mentioning, again, the shift of balance between clinical care and support and clerical and admin, going from 18.38 out of 30 on the clerical side to only ten out of 30 on the clerical side once the reorganization is complete.

When we look at Mid-Main, there's going to be a reduction in administration support, and there will be a reduction of one nurse practitioner at Mid-Main because of the two new nurse practitioner positions established at Raven Song to improve the access there.

Hopefully, that answers the question.
[ Page 4472 ]

J. Darcy: I don't want to take much more time because the member for Surrey–Green Timbers has lots of questions to ask. I want to say on the issue that yesterday the minister said they would be able to continue on alternative payments plan. I want to ask the minister to pursue this. I don't want to pursue it further here, but this is a core issue here.

A nurse practitioner position is being reduced. The medical office assistants there have been instrumental in organizing a lot of the programs, like the medical home visits, like the chronic disease management programs. But a pharmacist position has also had to be cut. That's because of the total reduction of $400,000. So while the minister says they can continue on alternative payments plan, those actual reductions in their budgets are leaving them very little choice but to go to fee-for-service.

I don't want to take more time here, but I want to encourage the minister to have his deputy or someone senior in his ministry take the time to go and explore this with the physicians and the staff there. If the intention is for them to be able to continue with alternative payments plan and provide the same kinds of preventive care programs that they provide now, they're not going to be able to do it. I want to leave that appeal with the minister to please take that very seriously.

[1350]

S. Hammell: With the minister's permission, we'll switch back to mental health and addictions. I just want to move from finances more to specific programs and some of the context.

If I understand it correctly, there are approximately 400,000 people in British Columbia that have some form of addiction. It hits every socioeconomic, geographical, cultural and age demographic, and it is a huge cost to the province in terms of costs, which would seem obvious. Of those 400,000, 40,000 have severe mental addiction, and that's excluding tobacco. I assume we're talking about drug addiction, we're talking about alcohol, we're talking about gambling. All kinds of addictions run in, I assume, those 40,000 people.

It seems to me that's a huge amount of our population that suffers from mental illness or addiction. I think that we have moved from having that being completely stigmatized to understanding that it is a health issue and that we should treat it as a health issue.

My question to the minister is: with 40,000 people with some kind of severe addiction, if those numbers are anywhere near accurate, does he feel that we're covering this base, this health issue, adequately? If not, what more could we or should we be doing?

[1355]

Hon. T. Lake: The hon. member, when first asking questions earlier in the debate, mentioned what a complex and challenging file this was — mental health and substance use — and certainly, that's extremely true. We talked last estimates, I believe, about our ten-year plan, Healthy Minds, Healthy People, and some of the milestones that were there.

The question was, I guess: am I happy with the accomplishments and where we're going? I don't think anyone is ever satisfied that we're making enough progress in mental health and substance-use issues. All of us would like to do better.

We have done a three-year evaluation, a review of the ten-year plan, to try to see how much we have accomplished and where we need to refocus our energy. If I could just take a second to review a little bit about that. Since the release of the plan three years ago, three of the six milestones have been achieved. I'll just go through those quickly.

Milestone 3 was that by 2014, 10 percent fewer B.C. students will first use alcohol or cannabis before the age of 15. Results of the 2013 McCreary Centre Society's adolescent health survey shows that in 2013, 65 percent of students who reported ever drinking alcohol had first tried it before the age of 15, compared to a baseline of 75 percent in 2008. So that's come down significantly.

Fifty-nine percent of students who reported ever using cannabis had first tried it before age 15. That's compared to a baseline of 67 percent in 2008.

This is well known: the earlier young people start to drink or to smoke marijuana or other forms of cannabis, the more likely they are to suffer from concerns around addictions or even mental health issues. The longer you allow the brain to develop, the more resilient it becomes to some of these medications.

So with that one, we're on track. That's a good thing.

Milestone 4 is the proportion of British Columbians 15 years of age or older who engage in hazardous drinking. We'd hoped that would be reduced by 10 percent by 2015. Again, the results — this time from the Canadian alcohol and drug use monitoring survey, 2008 to 2012, based on calculations using the new Canadian low-risk alcohol drinking guidelines — show that B.C. has met the 2015 Healthy Minds, Healthy People target three years earlier than expected.

Milestone 5 was that by 2015 the number of British Columbians who receive mental health and substance-use assessments and planning interventions by primary care physicians will increase 20 percent. In fact, data indicates that these billings have risen from 51,000 in 2008-09 to over 89,000 in 2012, greatly surpassing the target. We talked a little bit about that yesterday, with the incentives for GPs to spend more time on mental health and substance-use issues and also the training that we are doing with Doctors of B.C. in that regard.

Three remaining milestone targets have dates of 2015 and 2018. Efforts are being consolidated to ensure that these will be met.

The first one, milestone 1, is that the number of British
[ Page 4473 ]
Columbians who experience positive mental health will increase by 10 percent by 2018. The Canadian community health survey reveals that 67.8 percent of respondents in B.C. rated their mental health as good or excellent in 2012, which is actually a slight downturn from the 2008 baseline of 70.9 percent. So we've got more work to do there.

Milestone 2 was that the number of young B.C. children who are vulnerable in terms of social, emotional development will decrease by 15 percent by 2015. The most recent data from the UBC human early learning partnership for assessments in 2012 and 2013 suggested that vulnerability on the social competence scale has increased by 23 percent and vulnerability on the emotional maturity scale has increased by 20 percent over the baseline year of 2008.

Sometimes that's a matter of the way surveys are done, but it does cause us concern that we see those increases in vulnerability. So we do need to focus a little bit on the second milestone as we get into the second phase of the plan.

[1400]

Number 6 was the number of days mental health and substance-use patients occupy in-patient beds. By 2018, through the implementation of integrated primary and mental health and substance-use services, there will be a 20 percent reduction in the number of days mental health and substance-use patients occupy in-patient beds while awaiting appropriate community resources.

As we see, patients waiting for appropriate services occupied in-patient beds for 109,879 days during 2012-13, which is an increase from a baseline of 75,838 in 2008-2009. So there are more people that are occupying in-patient beds. We want to be able to, if necessary, provide those in-patient beds, obviously. But the goal would be to connect them with services in the community and have them being supported in community rather than in-patient beds.

Again, that's a target. That is something we're going to have to focus more on. Our strategic document that outlines the priorities for the B.C. health care system points to the need for greater primary, home and community care for support outside of the acute care setting. We will refocus and redouble our efforts in this regard.

S. Hammell: The three that you've indicated, the first three that you talked about that you have made strides over, are alcohol and cannabis, and then the training of physicians and hazardous drinking. That's very good news. I think that's something that everybody can be really pleased about.

When you look at your other three targets or goals that you're trying to hit, how do you…? In talking to people around this issue, one of the major contributors to poor mental health is poverty. I think the plan deals with age and deals with sex fairly effectively, but there's not very much about the impact of poverty on mental health.

I think these indicators are suggestive that one of the indicators…. If you've got more kids in vulnerable positions, that is increasing. Would you suggest or would you agree that that contributor may in fact be the issue around poverty?

[1405]

Hon. T. Lake: The member's premise is that people living in poverty have a higher rate of mental health challenges. I'm not sure that I would concede the point. I can understand that people living in vulnerable situations would have more stressors on their life. I can understand that, but I think mental health and substance-use challenges occur across the spectrum of income.

Having said that, this is a complex area. If you've got someone that is suffering from fetal alcohol spectrum, then it's more likely that that person is going to have challenges that may add to mental health and substance-use issues. So the goal would be, from a social determinants of health point of view, to try to build resilience in young people across the spectrum of income.

We have an assistant deputy ministers committee that has Health at the table, Social Development and Social Innovation, Ministry of Education, Ministry of Children and Family Development, and Justice. We also have a cabinet committee that is devoted to these issues.

When we talk about how to build resiliency in young people, we take action, like StrongStart centres, which are available to people of all incomes, and all-day kindergarten. Whether you are living in poverty or whether you have a high income, children are given that environment for learning and building the coping skills that they require.

It's a very complicated field, and a lot of work is being done. We know that lots of work that's being done here at UBC and throughout the province on social determinants of health is extremely important. What we have tried to do, and the member knows very well…. Our approach is to support vulnerable people, particularly those young people that need those necessary skills to build resilience, while offering the opportunity for families to become educated and secure jobs that are family-supporting jobs to lift them out of poverty.

You can work on this issue from many different directions, and that is what we do. Healthy Minds, Healthy People is a cross-government document — it's not limited to Health — and it is a ten-year document, so we do expect that we will take some time to achieve some of these goals.

Some of the goals are a little more measurable than others. That's certainly, I think, fair to say. But that's why we're looking at it, doing three-year evaluations to make sure that we are in fact meeting some of those goals. We've identified three where we feel we need to do more, so that will be the focus over the next three years.
[ Page 4474 ]

S. Hammell: I have talked to a lot of people in this field, just as a…. I mean, I'm a layperson. I have no particular background. But the one perpetual theme I hear is that there is a close correlation between poverty and stress and, as a consequence, mental illness.

The person put it to me this way. When you do not have enough resources to execute your day, that's when you become more stressed and become more vulnerable. People who are in poverty are in that situation for long periods of time, over days and days, where every decision they make is critical because they don't have the resources to adequately execute their day. That impacts, again, on the children that they may be or may not be with.

The other thing that strikes me in terms of this number, this second target, is that I have seen the vulnerability studies that have been done in Surrey, from the research.

[1410]

There's an absolute correlation between the lower-economic areas, in terms of the constituency, and also in terms of where, often, immigrant communities come. Some of those are fleeing trauma and abuse. They're often in areas that then are inner-city schools, and we know they need more support.

I'm not hearing that the minister is denying the issue of poverty, but I certainly think it is a major player, and it's missed as something to address directly in the program. I'm not dismissing that as something that is not important. I think poverty plays a role, and I think it's punctuating some of the ones that we're not being that successful in.

Maybe the minister…. I don't hear you saying poverty doesn't play…. But every person I've talked to in this area has told me that poverty plays a huge role when it comes to being successful from a mental health perspective. I'm just sort of getting any further reaction, maybe…. I'm not trying to be argumentative. I'm just trying to explore this.

Hon. T. Lake: I don't take it as argumentative. I actually quite enjoy the debate, because it is interesting. The member was reciting anecdotes of discussions with people, and I don't doubt that she's spoken to a lot of people. I know she has a special interest in this area.

I'm not an expert in this area particularly, but I do know and have heard that one of the most important social determinants of health is the education of the mom. When a mother has the opportunity to be well educated, it will help lift the family. We know that moms are the keystone of families, and often moms, single moms particularly, that are in the lower-income scale have that vulnerability. If they have the opportunity for education, we know that they will do better, so we need to support them.

I had a one-hour discussion with such a single mom in my riding just last week — with four children. We discussed the level of supports that are available. She was very articulate, very well educated, had gone to great effort to try to learn as much as she possibly could. While she didn't always complete the programs she started, she gained a lot of information and education from those programs and was earnestly looking after her four children after moving from another province, where she was in an abusive relationship. There was an example of a mom that really worked hard at educating herself, is using the social support systems that are in place to raise her four children. From my discussion with her, her children are doing very well.

Now, I have lots of acquaintances that are in the middle- to higher-income levels who are working 80 hours a week. In fact, sometimes both parents in the family are working long hours. Their kids don't see a lot of their parents. There are a lot of stressors there, and there are a lot of mental health and addiction issues in such families. I know this from my own personal experience from friends, colleagues and family.

I would hate to say in a sort of blanket statement that people with lower incomes are more susceptible to stressors that lead to mental health and addiction issues. There are some vulnerabilities there for all types of health issues with poverty. We know that. That's why we believe that lifting people out of poverty with education and the ability to find and retain a well-paying job is the key for increasing all kinds of health outcomes, and we'll continue to look for ways of doing that.

S. Hammell: First off, I'm sure you're not mistaking me. I'm not saying that everyone who's poor has mental health issues, nor do I say everyone that is middle class or above doesn't have any. I made the statement at the beginning that there's a large range of them.

[1415]

I'd just like to share this with you. A main driver of mental health, socioeconomic status, is not addressed in the report. Poverty is a major factor in mental health problems, and there are several studies, including the famous Whitehall studies, demonstrating that economic equality, whether or not it produces out-and-out absence of basics for some parts of the population, also contributes significantly to psychosocial issues.

I actually don't think we're arguing. This is from…. This person is Glen Grigg. He's part of the counselling therapists. He's a therapist and an academic. He tries not to be too much of an academic. An absolutely amazing person, I have to say. I was just so taken with him.

For example, we were talking about the issue around mental health and moms. I know that the member for Burnaby-Lougheed has a question here. But one thing that happened in the Health Ministry in the last number of years is there's been a shift from nurses going to new mothers as a universal program to more focused on those mothers at risk.

If you're going to, as you said, be sure that those moms are well educated, that's the kind of thing that you would
[ Page 4475 ]
do, but I would suggest that most of those young moms are of a socioeconomic level that needs that kind of extra support. I think you would find that, because you have moved from a universal, which I would actually think is better, but…. I remember I was a single mom shortly after I had my daughter, and having that nurse was amazing. If you're going to only have it, you have it for those women at risk.

Glen told me…. I think it's worth repeating, because your comments on education are so important, I think. He said a baby cannot soothe itself. If it gets upset, it can't be put in a crib and then it just learns to soothe itself from somewhere. It actually learns to soothe itself from being attached to another human being. Therefore, if a mother knows that, or a father knows that, then there's less chance of the attachment disorder and a number of mental health issues.

I put more weight on poverty than I hear the minister do, and that's fair enough. That's just a difference. But when I go into my community, the mental health and addictions issue is drenched in poverty. It's drenched in crime and poverty. I'm not sure that what we're doing is good enough, nor am I sure that what we're doing is economically smart. I'm not sure we're using resources effectively.

I don't want to be a bit of a natterer up here, but if half to three-quarters of our penal population, the people that we've incarcerated, have mental health issues, and we spend $75,000 a year supporting them or keeping them in a penal institution, and you have a treatment centre like Phoenix recovery centre that costs $13,000 to treat a person for a year, I don't know why we are building another jail. I'm not sure we shouldn't be redirecting some of those resources into mental health issues.

I've probably said a number of things in that little diatribe there. I've gone from children to poverty and then to the penal institutions. I would just, in particular, like a reaction from the minister around the whole issue of poverty, the mentally ill and the addicted.

[1420]

Hon. T. Lake: Well, I want to clarify. The member said that I wasn't — I'm not sure if she said this or if it's just the way I inferred it — as concerned about poverty as she is. I don't think you meant it that way. I think you were talking about in terms of mental health and addictions.

I guess I just don't know enough about the subject to concede that that is in fact the case, because I think there are a lot of mental health and substance-use issues in middle-class and upper-class families that don't go noticed or discovered for reasons of, probably, relationships and appearances. Probably a lot of that goes hidden. I don't know. I'm not an expert, so I don't want to pretend that I am.

But I do want to say that both the member and I would like to see people lifted out of poverty. That's a goal, I think, of anyone who sits in this House — to create an environment where people have opportunity.

When I came to Canada when I was ten years old, my dad was an electrician, had $300 in his pocket and worked two jobs. My mom cleaned offices, and I used to go with her because it was better than having a babysitter. So I know what it's like to be in a working-class family and to work hard. I've got a lot of sympathy and empathy for people that have those types of challenges.

I represent a riding that has a large proportion of lower-income people, which is why I was talking about the King Street Clinic the other day, which serves that vulnerable population, many of whom are dealing with mental health and substance-use issues. They can't afford to go to places like Phoenix Centre, so those services are provided through the public health system.

I think we both agree that addressing poverty is important, not just for mental health and substance-use issues but for a whole wide range of different reasons — for physical health. People are physically healthier when they're doing better financially. We may disagree on the way to lift people out of poverty, but I think we both agree that we want to do something and help people become more prosperous and have supporting incomes.

I did want to just review our early-years strategy. Working with the Ministry of Children and Family Development, the B.C. early-years strategy is a cross-ministry framework. We announced this in February of 2013. It includes Ministry of Children and Family Development, Ministry of Education, Ministry of Health and Ministry of Finance. About $76 million of new funding has been allocated for the first three years — $6.1 million last year, $17.7 million this year and $52 million in 2015-16.

The priorities are to create the provincial office for the early years, which we've done; identification of up to five early-years centre sites; a public communications strategy for parents to inform them about their eligibility for the B.C. early childhood tax benefit; the launch of a bursary program for students enrolled in early childhood educator training programs, to build the folks that will help build resiliency in young children; expanded professional development opportunities for licensed group and family daycare providers.

There's a range of actions going on over the next few years specifically directed at early years. That's on top of the things I mentioned earlier, the StrongStart centres, all-day kindergarten, which have proven…. I know from experience, talking to my constituents, that these have been very welcome additions. They not only provide that resiliency we were talking about earlier but provide relief for those parents, so that for part of the day their kids are being looked after in a safe environment, a learning environment while they get a little bit of respite.

Again, I think we agree that we want to do something about poverty, and we all want to make sure that we are
[ Page 4476 ]
addressing mental health and substance-use issues.

J. Shin: My ears perked up when I heard the minister speak of his passion and his consideration for making sure that parents are well equipped to really prevent some of the early symptoms or early challenges that our children have in growing up with potential for worsened mental illness or more vulnerability or risks for that. That relates to exactly the question that I had.

[1425]

I'm here to really speak in advocacy for one of the community groups in my riding of Burnaby-Lougheed, a postpartum depression and anxiety society. It's called the Pacific Post-Partum Support Society. As we know, postpartum depression and anxiety is a leading cause of disability in women in their child-bearing years in B.C., affecting one in every five women approximately.

We have this vital organization that's been assisting mothers since 1971 with toll-free phone counselling, weekly facilitated groups, education and training, publications in multiple communities — not just in Burnaby but in the Lower Mainland and beyond. This is a very small group. There are only eight people in that organization, and they have learned to run a very lean, very bare-bones operation.

There was an abrupt ministry reallocation of funds in 2010 that diminished their funding by about a third. This is just when their call volumes were actually picking up. They report that their call volumes have increased from 2,000 to 4,500 for this tiny team of eight people to handle.

I met with this group. They're feeling quite out of options and choices at this point. They're desperate for answers. They're trying to service their clients, but they're obviously having a hard time. They had to close two out of the eight support groups that they had. They further had to reduce their telephone support hours from five hours a day now, from 10 a.m. till 3 p.m.

I do understand that the minister is aware of this challenge and cares about the work of this group. I would love to find out if the minister can comment if there's anything for this particular group. The group could even use just $10,000 or $20,000 even — if there is any consideration. Thank you.

Hon. T. Lake: This is a good opportunity to talk about the universal screening for new moms. The member from Surrey suggested that we're not doing universal. That is still a universal program, so I wanted to make that point.

The Pacific Post-Partum Support Society is in the Fraser Health Authority, which the member represents. They are funded through Fraser Health for $11,000, and the society came forward for a request for increased supports. But Fraser Health has responded by saying that the services for perinatal screening and depression are provided through the public health system.

Postpartum services come under the Best Beginnings program. Public Health receives a discharge notice from the hospital to alert them to when a new mom and babe are in the community, and within 24 hours a public health nurse does a phone assessment with the new mom, and the mom could be referred for other services or a home visit may follow as well.

[1430]

[J. Thornthwaite in the chair.]

The public health nurse assessment consists of a postpartum depression screening. If moms are at risk, they are immediately referred to a Fraser Health mental health service or their doctor for a follow-up.

In turn, Fraser mental health or their doctor can refer the moms to the B.C. reproductive mental health program of B.C. Women's Hospital. Fraser also provides specialized reproductive mental health services at Royal Columbian, at the Jim Pattison Outpatient Care and Surgery Centre and at the Abbottsford Mental Health centre.

The point is that the public health system is providing those services. Again, in terms of using our resources in the best available way, Fraser Health has made the determination that the services they provide for new moms through the public health system are doing a good job of supporting those new moms.

J. Shin: Thank you for that answer. It certainly makes sense the way that the minister has explained it. Has this been communicated to the stakeholder in question? The feedback that I was getting from the group…. They don't seem to be aware of the facts.

Hon. T. Lake: Thank you, hon. Chair. Welcome to the debate.

I know that Fraser Health is aware of the request. I presume, and it is just a presumption, that they have communicated with the group. We will make sure that they do, in fact, get back to the group and explain that.

S. Hammell: I always forget how precise you have to be. My reference was…. I think it's prior to the refocusing of the program. It was universal in the sense that the nurse visited all parents. It was altered. This was four or five years ago, God knows. It was refocused so that the visits were primarily to those moms at risk, and the rest of the moms got phone calls. I think we're on the same page.

Minister, where I'm going to go…. I want to do a fair amount of discussion in the little time we've got left, because the member for Kootenay West wants to do some work with seniors. I would just like to focus on the whole addictions and recovery system.

You may know that it's something that I've worked on a fair amount. As I begin, I just want to see where we are in terms of understanding each other when it comes to
[ Page 4477 ]
describing the characteristics of a good health plan for someone who is addicted.

Assuming that the addiction…. We are wanting that person to become healthier and more productive and have the addiction less of a deterrent. What does a strong health program for someone addicted look like? I just want to see if we're on the same page.

Hon. T. Lake: It's a pretty broad question, I'm sure. But I think the answer is that there should be a spectrum of approaches to people with addiction issues. What works for one person won't work for another.

We've seen that — in severe addictions like heroin, for instance. We've seen people that are addicted to heroin go on replacement therapies like methadone and fail time and time again — to the point, in fact, where medical heroin is used to support these patients. It has proven to reduce their health challenges and give them an ability to function in a much more productive way.

Yet someone else might do really well on a replacement program. Someone else might do better on an abstinence-based program. Every person suffering from addiction, from what I understand, has perhaps a different response to the different methodologies that are employed. I would say that we need to have a broad spectrum of approaches to people with addictions.

[1435]

That's why we are training physicians in our partnership with the doctors of B.C. — and why we have increased the amount of the fee that doctors can charge to spend time with individuals — to help them understand the types of approaches that may work for one individual versus another individual.

I'm not sure if that has kind of answered the question. It was a bit broad, and the answer was somewhat broad as well. I think the key thing is we need to have a lot of tools in our arsenal, tools in our toolbox — I better be consistent in the way I approach these things — to make a sensible response to individuals that would vary in their responses to the different methodologies.

S. Hammell: I was listening the other day to an addiction expert from back east. He said the two components that must be in a healthy program for someone trying to recover from addictions…. It could be a medical approach, a drug, but it must also include some kind of therapy.

We have some programs. For instance, let me zero in a little bit on the Methadose or methadone replacement therapy. It doesn't appear to be connected to counselling. People can get the methadone and not have to do…. It's not attached at all. It's not a condition. Those two things don't go hand in hand in terms of Methadose.

Hon. T. Lake: Just restating the question to make sure I have an understanding: when someone is put on methadone replacement therapy, do they have to take counselling to increase their chances of success? I think that's what the member is asking.

I don't think there's any question that when you combine counselling and other supports with the methadone replacement therapy, you're going to get greater success.

[1440]

It is a very interesting question. Let me start by saying that we can't force people to do things they don't want to do. If someone wants to be on methadone and does not want to take counselling, it's difficult to force that patient to do that.

However, through the College of Physicians and Surgeons, we have partnered to train physicians on methadone replacement therapy. Part of that training is emphasizing the need to connect patients to counselling services and other supports that are available in the community — the community assertive teams that are in the community to support people with mental health and substance use issues. I've been on some of the visits with the team. They have psychiatrists, social workers, counsellors working with physicians to manage people that are on different forms of treatment for mental health and substance use. That's an example.

There were a lot of recovery-based programs that would not allow people on replacement therapy to come into the program, and we've broken down a lot of those barriers to enable people that are on substitution programs to enter into those programs which have the supports and counselling that the member is referring to.

Again, there's a spectrum there. Some recovery centres want to take an abstinence-based approach. That's why we support a range of different approaches to mental health and substance use. Essentially, the answer is that someone is not forced to take the ancillary services that will help them recover if they're on methadone replacement but is strongly encouraged by their physician, by their pharmacist to do so.

I wanted to just take a second, if I could, to talk about another initiative that we have embarked upon over the last few years to try to support organizations in community that are providing those very real supports for people in mental health and substance use, and that's the Community Action Initiative. So $25 million has gone to the Community Action Initiative.

A lot of funding has gone out, both convening grants and innovation grants, to help these organizations help with vulnerable people that are dealing with mental health and substance use problems. I'd be happy to share any information with the member on the Community Action Initiative. It is a very good news story in many ways.

S. Hammell: I have the physician clinical practice guideline on the methadone and Methadose — I guess it's now Methadose — program. In one section it says: "Methadone programs that do little more than provide a
[ Page 4478 ]
methadone prescription are inadequate. Methadone programs are expected to incorporate a comprehensive biopsychosocial and spiritual approach to treatment." This is in the doctors' guidelines.

It seems to me that…. It's an interesting comment — that you don't prescribe something and then expect the condition to be a part of the prescription. I guess I can think of the odd thing that if you get the prescription, you have to do certain things to make sure that that prescription works to some degree or the treatment works to some degree.

Hon. T. Lake: Can I comment?

S. Hammell: Sure you can.

Hon. T. Lake: The question is: can you force someone to take ancillary treatment when you prescribe something that will make that treatment more successful? I guess I'll use an analogy. If you have someone with type 2 diabetes that is overweight and you put them on a medication, a hypoglycemic agent, to control their blood sugar and tell them that they should go through a dietary and physical exercise regime, they may take your advice, and your treatment may be more effective. But if they don't, you don't deny them the hypoglycemic necessary to control their blood sugar.

[1445]

While I appreciate that the member is…. Saying that connecting someone on methadone to counselling and other support services would improve the chances of their recovery is absolutely true. As she has rightly pointed out, in the College of Physicians and Surgeons' instruction to doctors it is expected that doctors will connect, but they can't force. I think that's the distinction we've got here.

Every effort is made by physicians to connect clients to the other support services that are available in the community. We've talked about some those today, at Raven Song Community Health Centre, with the increased number of social workers. Efforts are made, but at the end of the day, you can't impose it on patients.

S. Hammell: I actually said methadone prescriptions are inadequate. That's what the clinical guidelines say. So the methadone prescription becomes inadequate. From what I gather, in our discussion up to this point, we spend $100 million a year on the methadone program.

Hon. T. Lake: It's $58 million.

S. Hammell: No, there are other areas that you told me there were methadone…. Let me see if I can recall them. One of them is the methadone program under prevention and promotion, where we spend $12 million and $43 million on methadone. Then we spent $58 million, or $56 million maybe, on the actual dispensing of it.

Hon. T. Lake: Just for clarification, there are three elements to the methadone program, the largest of which is the medication itself. In 2012-13 the total amount paid for opioid substitution treatment, pharmacy dispensing, ingredients and interaction costs was approximately $44.39 million.

The second largest was physician services, and that pays physicians who bill fee-for-service for opioid substitution treatment. In 2012-2013 the total amount paid for this fee item was approximately $12.75 million. Then we have the contract with the College of Physicians and Surgeons for training of licensed physicians to prescribe methadone, which is $465,000. That's roughly about $58 million, I believe, in total.

I just wanted to comment. I had a long morning walk the other day with one of my colleagues who has great interest in this area. He described a lot of people he has known functioning in very-high-level jobs on methadone, and you would never know.

Methadone is very effective for some people. I think the member was saying that it's inadequate to use methadone alone. I think the implication is that for some people, for most people probably, those other supports are very critical in helping them succeed.

The College of Physicians and Surgeons is saying to doctors that prescribe the methadone: "You can't just give them a prescription and kick them out the door. You need to talk to them about counselling. You need to connect them with services to increase the efficacy of the treatment."

S. Hammell: I don't think we're very far apart in terms of what we understand. We do understand that methadone or Methadose is better attached to other parts of a treatment program.

I would just like to see if the ministry knows approximately how many people are addicted in British Columbia to either drugs or alcohol.

[1450]

Hon. T. Lake: It's difficult to give a complete picture of the number of people suffering from addictions in any jurisdiction. There are certain figures that do pop out. For instance, there's an estimated 200,000 British Columbians age 15 and older meeting the criteria for problematic substance use or dependence. That's from Mike Pennock, who's a population health epidemiologist in the Ministry of Health. That's about 5 percent of British Columbians that have problematic substance use or dependence.

When we look to the number of British Columbians who drink above the Canadian low-risk alcohol drinking guidelines — 23 percent. So does that mean they're addicted? No. But they are drinking above what we would
[ Page 4479 ]
consider low-risk guidelines.

Approximately 127,000 British Columbians report problematic alcohol use or dependence, and 82,200 British Columbians reported having at least 8.6 standard drinks per day — so 1.8 percent of British Columbians drinking almost nine drinks a day.

According to the Centre for Addictions Research, alcohol-caused hospitalizations are increasing, projected to overtake those of tobacco. That's alcohol. That's a really important thing to mention, I think — that the greatest threat we have in terms of addiction and substance abuse is alcohol.

When we look at other drugs, 14.9 percent of adult British Columbians report using drugs other than alcohol. Approximately 46,000 British Columbians report problematic cannabis use or dependence. Approximately 28,000 British Columbians report problematic drug use or dependence for drugs other than cannabis. Illicit drug–related deaths are reported at seven per 100,000 people in B.C.

So substance use is problematic across the spectrum in British Columbia. But I can't come up with a single figure which would say that addictions to alcohol, drugs, gambling, other forms of addictions…. I don't think anyone has a total number. Some of those would cross over, obviously. Drugs, alcohol, gambling — people would have multiple addictions. The point is that it is a challenge that we need to face.

S. Hammell: And there is a very close correlation or there's a fair crossover where people are dual-diagnosed. They have an addiction and the compounding mental illness.

Given that there is a large number, besides Methadose — and I understand there's a strategy to deal with, particularly, opiate addiction with the methadone, Methadose maintenance treatment program, and that should have some kind of accompanying therapy — what are the other strategies for some of the other drug-dependent health issues?

[1455]

Hon. T. Lake: It's always great having our chief medical health officer trapped with me for a little while. I get to learn a whole bunch of different things.

We were talking about methadone replacement therapy for opioid addiction. There is a wide variety of different addictions, and some of the approaches would include a pharmacological approach. Some would be an absence-based approach. Both of which, as we have both recognized in our comments, are much more effective when you're connected to psychosocial supports — counselling, cognitive behavioural therapy. Because the risk of relapse is so high, the more supports you can put in place, the better.

When you're looking at alcohol, for instance, naltrexone and bupropion — otherwise known as Wellbutrin — can be used. Antabuse is another medication that can be used for alcohol addiction.

Sometimes, if someone is addicted to valium-like substances, they may need to be on a medically supervised withdrawal program. They may have to be hospitalized and titrated down until they are off of the medication and then supported, obviously.

We are supporting the Centre for Addictions Research at UVic. I believe we gave $1 million last year, because there's a lot of work going on here. We know there's a lot of really great work going on in Vancouver as well. I met with Dr. Evan Wood recently, who is doing a tremendous amount of work in this area and has been recognized by national organizations in the United States and has funding through the National Institutes of Health, I believe, for some of the research he is doing around a drug called Vivitrol, which looks extremely promising, not just for opioid dependence but for alcohol dependence as well.

So a lot of new work going on in the field and a lot of different approaches because, obviously…. Opioid addiction is one, but alcohol addiction is, as we mentioned, a far greater challenge across the province.

[1500]

S. Hammell: Minister, I do want to clarify. I'll just ask. I'm very sensitive to the time. When I was taking notes when you first had spoken and I had asked you to review your numbers, you did say — if I recall, and I could be quite wrong — that under prevention there was $86 million, and $43 million was for pharmacists under the Methadose methadone program.

The numbers I've got are $23 million for HIV/AIDS, $12 million and then $43 million for the pharmacy under the methadone program, $7 million for drugs of abuse, laboratory services, then $225,000 for the information line and $200,000 for the Centre for Addictions Research of B.C.

I took all of those numbers, and I thought, okay, they do sort of add up to about $86 million. I assumed I got them right, but I may have gotten them wrong. I do want you to clarify that.

While that's happening, could I just ask you a few other questions? Are you planning…? I understand there's funding for the methadone treatment replacement therapy. I know that we have some health-driven recovery centres. There are four in the Surrey area. Phoenix is actually funded under the Ministry of Health. There is Creekside. There is Maxxine, right? There are a couple of them that are under the umbrella of health care.

Then there's this whole range of recovery houses that run from very good to — to be quite frank — awful, which should not be called recovery houses at all. They go from some that are supported through the Ministry of Social Development for an extra add-on to their recovery….
[ Page 4480 ]

But what I see lacking is a real sense of a funded recovery program, where you're going to get people in and — like you have in just a superb anti-smoking program — there is a carrot and stick going on. Like, you want people off cigarettes at some point.

I'm looking for the program that is really going to drive those people to abstinence, if they can get there. You've mentioned before that there may be six or seven times that they go on and off the methadone program. It seems to me that they go in and out of recovery also, even if the end goal is abstinence. I've been to both kinds of houses, where they don't let people in unless they're going for abstinence and houses where there's methadone treatment involved in it also.

What I see lacking is that drive for abstinence. The end goal has to be…. Even if you're on the methadone maintenance program, there have to be some kind of repercussions for taking that kind of drug for a long period of time. My understanding of methadone or Methadose is that it is a synthetic opiate, that it binds, that it is more difficult to go through withdrawal from.

I hear you and understand, and I'm not unsympathetic to the fact that some people function fine on Methadose, but what I'm looking for here is a program and some kind of strength and support for that recovery program that has, at the end goal, someone free of the addiction.

Hon. T. Lake: We started the conversation by saying it's very complex. All of us, I think, would like a system where someone with a particular mental health, substance-use problem goes in one door and comes out the other end fixed. Unfortunately, that is simplistic. I don't mean this as condescending in any way. All of us would like that, but that's not the reality.

We cannot force someone. I had this discussion when I was mayor of Kamloops, I remember, with Interior Health. We were dealing with a lot of homelessness issues, people with mental health and substance challenges living on the street, particularly downtown.

I went to Interior Health and talked to their mental health and substance-use people. I said: "You need to educate me. Why can't we just get these people into treatment? Why can't we just take them off the street, put them in treatment and fix them?" Because all of us — that would be our goal.

[1505]

I was told: "Your Worship" — I still miss those days — "you can't. There is such a thing called free will and the constitution." You can't force someone unless they're at risk of harming themselves or others. You have to try to provide an array of services and nudge people in the right direction, provide the supports necessary.

There are very good supportive recovery homes. We have a system under the Community Care and Assisted Living Act to register those if they provide five services. Those are the ones where Social Development and Social Innovation will partner with them and send extra funds to support them in those situations, but they have to meet a standard. They are inspected. They're kept on a registry.

The member, I know…. I have the same concerns about unregulated facilities that call themselves recovery houses, but they're not supportive recovery houses. In many cases they're people that are parasitizing people that are vulnerable. They are calling themselves recovery houses. They invite people in, and they have the rental part of their income assistance cheques sent directly to them, again, because the recipient has the right to tell the ministry where to send their cheque.

They're really not getting any services. In fact, often these so-called recovery houses will turn over, and the people are left without anything. That's why we need to work with local governments in terms of zoning and in terms of enforcement so that we can reduce that as much as possible. Some municipalities have been particularly successful at that.

The Community Action Initiative that we talked about earlier. I met with them just recently, and we talked about the so-called supportive recovery homes in Surrey. I asked them if they would focus on this particular area of the province because of the collection of problematic houses that are calling themselves recovery houses that are not, so that we could strengthen the ones that are in fact registered and that are providing good services. We could increase and expand the service and then reduce the demand for these other types of facilities.

With that, hon. Chair, I wonder if we could ask for a short recess, as we are getting later in the day. I know it's five o'clock somewhere, but it's not quite five o'clock here. If we could take a short break, I would certainly appreciate that.

The Chair: If everybody's okay with that, why don't we have a five-minute recess.

The committee recessed from 3:08 p.m. to 3:17 p.m.

[J. Thornthwaite in the chair.]

K. Conroy: We're on to seniors, last but not least. I think we have a few hours of that. I think we might have an hour and a half, depending on when they call us in there.

Interjection.

K. Conroy: Two hours? Okay. We'll keep our fingers crossed.

I want to go back to the minister just to clarify a discussion that we had earlier today in the Legislature. I'll refer to it as the needle-in-the-eye procedure. The minister had responded in question period to the question around macular degeneration treatment. His response
[ Page 4481 ]
was a little different than the research we've done, so I just want to clarify some things with the minister.

It's my understanding that of the 220 ophthalmologists we have in this province, there are only 20 of them that have been approved to provide the treatment that is needed for macular degeneration, the retinal disease. That leaves out many people in remote parts of the province — for instance, the Kootenays, the entire north. There are a lot of people that don't have access to this retinal specialist. But we do know that ophthalmologists can provide this procedure.

We've done some research and talked, in fact, to a physician that is a teacher at UBC, and it is exactly the same training. Whether they're a retinal specialist, or a so-called retinal specialist in this province, or an ophthalmologist, they get exactly the same training. There's no difference. They're all trained to do the procedure, inject the drugs into your eye. So they all have the same training. This viewpoint is agreed to by the College of Physicians of B.C. as well as the royal college in Ottawa. All agree that it's exactly the same training that everybody gets.

Because there are only 20 in the province, they have to be flown in to communities like the Kootenays or up north to provide the treatment. This is costing extra money. It's also putting undue stress on seniors who are waiting to get the treatment and who can't afford to pay their ophthalmologist, which they can do. The ophthalmologist does say to them: "Well, you can pay for it." But they can't afford it, so they have to wait.

[1520]

We all know how macular degeneration can evolve very quickly, and you're ending up with seniors with issues around eyesight and losing their eyesight.

We looked into the PHSA website, which runs this program. It looks like, when we look into it, we're looking at about $10 million that had been spent, that is extra, over and above what it could cost the Health Ministry if ophthalmologists in this province — all ophthalmologists — were allowed to make these injections into people's eyes in their home communities.

That's quite a bit of money. You think of how many cataract surgeries, how many hip surgeries — when I'm thinking of seniors — could be done with that kind of money. This is just one example of it.

I'm really concerned with how this has been rolled out. It was brought in five years ago. It was opposed by the ophthalmologists, their association. I know that it was raised. I know I've raised it with the minister. Yet today we still have seniors who can't access it in an appropriate manner.

I know they brought in two specialists, who get flown into the area, into Nelson, or they come to Castlegar and they do the procedure in Nelson. They used to have a clinic four times a month; now it's twice with the specialists. The local fellow doesn't do it unless it's an absolute emergency because he doesn't want to charge people. We have three ophthalmologists in our area that could be doing it that aren't.

It just doesn't make sense, and I don't understand why seniors can't access this. Why? It's such a simple fix. For the minister to say that for some reason these 20 chosen few are the only ones that can do it….

People aren't even sure, when we talk to ophthalmologists around the province. We've talked to ophthalmologists in Vancouver, in the Kootenays, on the Island, up north, and they don't understand the procedure: how these 20 special people got to have the right to charge the MSP so that they would get the money and the patient wouldn't have to pay.

That's a rather long-winded explanation, but I wanted to get it on the record. I'm wondering if the minister has anything he'd like to add to it.

Hon. T. Lake: This is a question that has been asked by other MLAs, so let me just, first of all, state that retinal specialists do have specialty training. That's an important thing to point out. They have extra training in diseases of the retina.

The majority of the patients that have diabetic macular edema or retinal vein occlusion, which are treated with these medications — 85 percent already see a retinal specialist. The vast majority of people that need this treatment are already seeing a retinal specialist. They also perform a range of administrative and other functions as part of the program, including, importantly, ongoing monitoring of the effectiveness and safety of each treatment dose.

[1525]

It's also not unique to the retinal program that funding of certain medications is restricted to a particular specialty or subspecialty. For example, PharmaCare only covers drugs for rheumatoid arthritis when prescribed by a specialist in rheumatology. Our program also covers multiple sclerosis drugs only when prescribed by a neurologist who actually subspecializes in multiple sclerosis. That is the subspecialty piece of it.

Retinal specialists do hold clinics in the Interior and other areas of the province to make sure that patients can be seen closer to home. That will continue. They hold clinics in Cranbrook, Fort St. John, Terrace, Vernon, Salmon Arm, Nelson and other communities as well.

Importantly, the member was talking about the costs of the program. Two of the drugs that are used, ranibizumab and bevacizumab, contain enough drugs for several doses. When you get a vial, it is a multidose vial, but it can be, with appropriate methodology, prepared into multiple individual doses.

The bevacizumab costs $13.13 per treatment, while the ranibizumab costs $598.33 per treatment or $1,770 for an unsplit vial. By splitting the doses appropriately — under the auspices of a retinal specialist who does administrative work and monitoring of efficacy, as well — we are
[ Page 4482 ]
able to provide this program for a much lower cost than otherwise would be the case. The program cost for 2012-13 was about $14 million. From 2009 to August 2012 the program cost $33.8 million.

The coverage approach for these drugs is, in fact, unique in Canada. For example, if B.C. had followed other provinces that provide coverage only, without the preparation of multiple doses from one vial, the program would be unaffordable, costing more than $83 million for wet macular degeneration or more than $156 million a year for all three indications. This year we expect the program to cost $15.5 million.

We have brought the costs down dramatically by having an agreement whereby retinal specialists are able to split the dose of the vial due to their specialized training and their obligation for administration and monitoring the efficacy of the treatment.

K. Conroy: I have two comments and questions on that. Again, in the eyes of the Royal College of Surgeons across Canada, the official certifying body of surgeons in Canada and licensing authority, there's no difference in the training. And in fact, the doctors that are doing the training are saying there's no difference in the training. So there's some miscommunication there, because it is not only the body that certifies physicians but also the actual people that do the training of the doctors. I don't know where the miscommunication is there.

Also, I don't understand why the dosage can't be divided up in Vancouver and shipped to Nelson. The ophthalmologist in Nelson used to do the very same procedures with the $13 drug, as well as the $600 drug. Actually, B.C. is the only province that also has both drugs. B.C. is the only province that does it this way.

In every other province, ophthalmologists can perform this procedure. An ophthalmologist in Terrace or Prince Rupert can actually perform the procedure. I don't understand why the drugs can't be divided in the Lower Mainland and dispersed appropriately. When you're looking at a senior from Prince Rupert having to travel to Prince George to get the service, I mean, that's crazy. And to have to wait to get it — seniors are struggling with their eyesight.

I wonder what the health care costs are when seniors end up falling, when they end up in the hospital. We don't track those costs. But the seniors whose eyes are affected….

[1530]

I mean, you talk to seniors. One of the worst things, they say, is…. With the hearing they can get by, but they can't get by without their eyesight, they tell me, once things start to go. This is a real concern, and we obviously have different information.

Hon. T. Lake: Well, I guess we're going to agree to disagree. I've said that retinal specialists do have additional training, and this agreement has enabled us to treat far more people than otherwise would be affordable. The member is concerned about access. I can understand that, which is why we encourage a retinal specialist to travel and hold clinics, to provide that access throughout the province.

Specialized services are not available in every place, and it is unfortunate. Sometimes people have to travel. If people in Kamloops need radiation therapy, they have to travel to Kelowna or to Vancouver. That is a challenge in our province and in our system at times.

But we feel, through this agreement that we have with retinal specialists, which is not unique — there are other drugs that are restricted to specialties or subspecialties — that we have been able to provide greater access, greater service at a very, very substantial reduction in cost to taxpayers.

K. Conroy: I want to point out to the minister that people expect to go to bigger centres for chemotherapy, radiation therapy, because they're not going to get it in every community; the specialists aren't in every community. But when you have the specialists in the communities who could provide this, it just doesn't make sense.

We're going to agree to disagree on this, because I don't have enough time to dig into this further. But it's a situation that begs the question: what is the overall cost? I mean, the minister might be saving a little bit of bucks up front initially, but I think the long-term costs for seniors who aren't getting the supports they need in their own communities….

The amount of travel that has to happen is a worry for rural seniors — even though some of the seniors in Vancouver also expressed concern about it because they weren't able to access on a timely basis too. So we will agree to disagree on that one.

I'm going to move on. Just quickly, I want to talk about the B.C. Association of Community Response Networks. The organization is funded by the Ministry of Health. It's a pretty amazing organization. They've done incredible work throughout the province. I want to acknowledge Sherry Baker, the executive director, and the work she has been doing.

They have a contract that expires next year at the end of this budget year. The work they do throughout the province — they've reached out to over 107 communities. They have mentors across the province. With the money that they've received from the Ministry of Health, they've been able to take that money and have additional money coming in from donations, just to make it even a more viable program.

They function on $700,000 a year, something incredibly…. That's the base. I'm wondering if the minister is aware of the program and also if there is a future prognosis for this program, if there is going to be money there
[ Page 4483 ]
for the long term.

[1535]

Hon. T. Lake: The B.C. Association of Community Response Networks, as the member mentioned, was funded with one-time funding of $1.4 million for a three-year period. That funding will take them to the end of March in 2015. This is the provincial coordinating body for community response networks around the province. It provides mentorship and ongoing support to those networks and was established in 2003.

Just for context, the community response network in an individual community is a network of individuals, groups and agencies from diverse sectors — it could be First Nations, Justice, health authorities, not-for-profits, police — that work together in the community as a community-coordinated response to adult abuse and neglect. It's part of our elder abuse strategy.

It is an organization that we have supported. We certainly would look for the opportunity of supporting the network in the future. Often agencies like this…. We will sit down with them as we progress into the fall and review what they've done, what their needs are. Then we would put their requests for future funding in with a number that we get over the course of the year.

This is something, I think, our new seniors advocate would probably be interested in taking a look at, to look at the effectiveness, sit down with the organization. Together with the seniors advocate, I would like to take a good look at future funding opportunities for the organization.

I can't say to the member today that we will be able to guarantee funding. It certainly depends how the fiscal fortunes go over the next year. But I certainly would like to sit down in the fall with the seniors advocate and the B.C. CRN to look at the opportunity and give them consideration for future support.

K. Conroy: I'm sure the organization and the many people that benefit from it would be glad to hear that. I think, in fact, that they have already set up a meeting with the advocate and are working with her, because it's something that will benefit everybody across the province.

I just want to ask a few questions around residential care layoffs. It's become really apparent, especially in the last few months — the number of facilities that are still flipping contracts, so to speak, in long-term care facilities, primarily on the Island here. It causes such an issue for the seniors that are living in the facility. Of course, it causes an issue for the staff who have been working with the seniors and suddenly have to leave and get their jobs back at a lower rate of pay and benefits.

It's really disconcerting, because this very practice was proven by the Supreme Court not to be one that should be utilized. Yet the bill that allows this to happen still sits on the books. The bill that allows this happen, Bill 29, affects the Ministry of Health; it affects seniors. We talked to families. We talked to seniors who are really worried. They're stressed about it. They're stressed about their care.

We know that for many seniors, they might not have families that come and visit them. For them, the caregivers become their family. They become the people they depend on. When suddenly those people are taken away from their lives, it creates real issues in facilities across the province, and it creates long-term health care issues.

[1540]

I think it would be very simple for the government to take away the opportunity for facilities to do this contract flipping. It's happening again and again, and I'm just wondering. I'd like to get the minister's view on this. Is there any commitment, any discussion with other members of cabinet, that for the sake of seniors and for the sake of facilities in this province that are trying to provide services, this is something that is in the near future?

Hon. T. Lake: I understand the potential for stress that's caused by any change. The member is correct in saying that caregivers in long-term residential care facilities are essentially, in many ways, the family of the patients whom they serve.

There are situations…. I don't have it in front of me, but I recall a situation — I believe it was on Vancouver Island here — in which a facility, a company, won a contract with Vancouver Island for provision of long-term residential care services. It was a non-unionized operation, and that was the basis upon which it won its contract. Its RFP submission was based on the costs of doing business as they were at the time.

Subsequent to winning the contract, the workforce became unionized, increasing the costs to the company that was providing the service and making it unsustainable. So in that case, services were contracted out, causing some disruption.

There are multiple reasons why this happens, but in order for the system to be sustainable, costs have to be managed, and one way to manage is through contracting out. With the 2010 collective bargaining agreements and Bill 29 settlements, that right was confirmed and negotiated into those agreements, so agreements were signed with that understanding.

I know that it's stressful for residents at times. Fortunately, in many cases many of the people that were working in the facility find new positions with the reorganization, so they are still looking after those residents in many cases — not in all cases, I grant the member that.

We talked about the sustainability of the health care system. If we don't have some flexibility in maintaining sustainability, then the costs to the system will be such that the health care budget will consume more and more and more of the provincial budget. There are only two things that can happen at that stage. Either other programs will have to be reduced to pay for it, or taxes will
[ Page 4484 ]
have to increase. We've indicated an unwillingness to do either of these.

K. Conroy: It's interesting, because some of the owners of some of these facilities seem to be using it as a way to increase the bottom line. One contractor has done the flipping at nine different facilities. It's interesting that other facilities manage to maintain decent wages and benefits. They manage to maintain good quality of care and don't need to flip contracts to make ends meet.

I think that we need to be looking at why this is continuing to happen in certain facilities in the province. Should we be looking at regulations? It doesn't seem to make sense that there's a small group of operators that continue to flip contracts. Then we have the Island Health Authority recommending that an owner flip contracts to make ends meet because that's the only way you're going to make ends meet. We have the same person saying: "We're not getting enough money from the ministry, so you might as well flip the contract, pay lower wages and benefits." There's no accountability for the care that's given to the seniors in the facilities.

I'm just asking the question: is this even something that's going to be considered? I think that there have to be better ways of making ends meet, providing effective services within an economic framework, because other facilities do it. It seems a little odd that there are some that just can't quite seem to do it, and I'm wondering what the minister has to say about that.

[1545]

Hon. T. Lake: The Ombudsperson did a review of seniors, as the member is well aware, The Best of Care, part 2.

[1550]

There were a series of recommendations to improve the fairness and transparency of decisions that result in a facility closure or significant changes that have impacts on residents and their families. The Ombudsperson did not make any recommendations about contractual arrangements between health authorities and operators. I think that's significant.

But the ministry does recognize that these are difficult changes, and we want to try to minimize those impacts. We are considering revisions to the home and community care and licensing policies to develop safeguards to ensure that seniors are not adversely affected by large-scale staff replacements.

We're also considering possible amendments to the Residential Care Regulation to require that residents, families and staff are notified of decisions to close, reduce, expand or substantially change or to transfer residents. We are also considering ways to ensure that seniors and their families are informed of decisions that could impact them — also give them an opportunity to respond, and are informed of any avenues of recourse.

I think it's safe to say the ministry, through the Ombudsperson's report and our response, is aware of the situation and would like to find ways of minimizing impacts on residents when large-scale changes occur. Through possible changes to policy and regulations, we will try to address some of those issues.

K. Conroy: The minister's said that the Ombudsperson, in her very detailed report, didn't raise this as an issue. Well, she didn't raise some other issues, too, so surely to goodness I hope that doesn't mean it's issues that the ministry's not going to be looking into in the future, because I'm probably going to be raising some of those issues that might have not been in the Ombudsperson's report.

The minister said "considering this, considering the changes," so are these changes going to be brought in soon, or are they just consideration? And is there a time frame?

Hon. T. Lake: Again, I think this is a subject that our seniors advocate, Isobel Mackenzie, will be very interested in looking into. She is developing her office. She is on a tour of the province and consulting with organizations and individuals around the province and has a tremendous background in residential care and assisted living. I know she will bring a personal interest in this particular topic.

I think this is something that we will discuss with the seniors advocate. I cannot put a time frame on that at this particular moment in time.

K. Conroy: I'm going to move into some of the issues stemming from the Ombudsperson's report — perfect segue — and just talk a bit about the fact that in the review that was just recently done…. The report came out in 2012; I remember it was Valentine's Day 2012. It's two years later and a bit, and we have 6.5 percent of the Ombudsperson's recommendations that have actually been fully implemented.

It's interesting. That stat does include the seniors advocate, which I think is an absolute…. I mean, as the minister well knows, we were a huge advocate of the seniors advocate position. We brought a bill in three times to try to bring that position in.

What is very interesting is that that wasn't part of the Ombudsperson's report. The Ombudsperson did not recommend the seniors advocate or a seniors representative, but it is included in the stats from the report as part of the 6.5 percent of recommendations completed. That's one thing that the Ombudsperson didn't recommend. I know that 24 percent have either been partially implemented or are under consideration, and 66 percent have virtually been ignored or not acknowledged or responded to in any way, shape or form.

I'm curious. I know it was almost a year ago that the member for West Van–Capilano actually at the time was
[ Page 4485 ]
the Minister of State for Seniors. He was quoted as saying, and this is last June, that his government's overhaul of the senior care system is adequate and about "as done as it's going to be done." I'm wondering if the minister agrees with this, that it's done, that at 6.5 percent of the recommendations being completed and implemented that's it now and we're moving on? Or is there actually going to be hope that more of the recommendations are going to be looked at and implemented?

[1555]

Hon. T. Lake: I met with the Ombudsperson on February 25 of this year. I had read the Ombudsperson's report. I saw the one-year review, to which the member refers, that showed that there was a fairly low response rate in terms of the recommendations. I wasn't happy with that.

I met with the Ombudsperson on February 25 and told her that I wasn't satisfied with the ministry's response, and we committed over the next few months that we would review her recommendations in detail and then provide another update, a two-year update. So we did that. Just as sort of a summary, of the 176 recommendations, ten she agreed were fully implemented, and seven are responded through health authorities.

Since that one-year update, our evaluation, and we submitted this to the Ombudsperson: 34 more recommendations are now complete, 70 are underway, and 53 are still being reviewed. While we have made some progress, we will be interested to learn the opinion of the Ombudsperson. We expect her annual report on our responses to come in mid-June of this year.

The first year, obviously, she was concerned that we weren't making progress. I committed to speeding up the response. We feel that we have done that, but we've made a commitment to continue to do that over the next few years.

There's a breakdown that I could provide, which I'll pass to the member later, in terms of where these recommendations are — whether they're in residential care, assisted living or home and community care.

K. Conroy: Well, I would love to have the list and see the Ombudsperson's report.

I just want to get a sense of where the ministry has gone with a few specific issues in relation to the report. One of the first recommendations in the report was around the ministry's failure to track and report information on how and where funds were expended in the home and community care, whether this fund is even effective in meeting the needs of seniors for quality and timely care. It's hard to know if the system is working.

I'm wondering if this recommendation is one of the ones that the minister has now said has been carried out. Will we get to have a clear and concise report, an annual report, on where the funding is allocated in this sector?

[1600]

Hon. T. Lake: This is a very busy ministry, and sometimes…. I remember the meeting with the Ombudsperson, and I was just thinking about finding myself frustrated with the response that the ministry was taking. I remember it was one weekend when I was at home. I was reading through some of the recommendations, and a lot of the recommendations were around communication with families.

As MLAs, I know we deal with a lot of constituents looking after their aging parents, wanting to know the inspection reports and availability and a whole host of things that you're going to be concerned about when looking for care for your elderly parent. I remember going on the website and trying to follow and track, and I found it frustrating. That triggered my memory as to why I was getting a little bit frustrated with our response.

Having said that, the particular issue was evaluating and reporting on funding levels. Health authorities and the ministry do track information as needed to ensure sound fiscal and operational management, and we continue to improve the type of data collected, particularly accuracy and timeliness.

We will be considering further enhancements to the information it makes available to the public and will also consider enhancements to the information that's made available about funding for home and community care services. What we're looking at is a public performance reporting that includes measures of the performance of various parts of the health system, including home and community care.

As part of that ongoing work on developing residential care models and quality standards, the ministry is considering processes for evaluating and determining funding requirements for residential care as was recommended by the Ombudsperson.

That would be the progress we've made to date, a commitment to look at the operational, fiscal management and the funding and ensure that the public is aware of being able to follow the funding and where it's ending up in the system.

K. Conroy: I probably just need a yes or no nod from the minister, just to get this clear. Is the minister actually committing to make public the results of an annual report that shows where funding is allocated, how much is expended in the home and community care sector for each health authority, and then an assessment — if those funds have been effectively utilized? Is that what the minister just said in what he read to us?

Hon. T. Lake: Certainly, the goal would be…. The performance management framework that I described is being developed. Whether that comes in an annual report or is just made available on the website on a regular basis, that decision will come as we work through this.

In terms of sort of getting value for money, that's a
[ Page 4486 ]
more difficult one. I think the member said: "Is it being effectively utilized?" That sort of quality assurance or quality control is a tough one, and I'm not sure…. We certainly would want to, as we always do, look at performance measures and be able to track performance measures so that people can see where the funding is going and how it's being utilized.

I don't want to commit to the way the member described it, in terms of getting the best effectiveness. I'm not sure if we've developed a model that is robust in that area, but the work is ongoing and will be developed as we go through this performance management framework.

K. Conroy: I'll look forward to the report when it comes out. I guess that was too wishful thinking — looking for a yes or no answer.

[1605]

I just want to talk a bit about…. The Ombudsperson had 17 recommendations that were specific to home care, and, to date, none of these 17 recommendations have been implemented, despite the minister's promise. Last November there was a promise that over time, these would be implemented.

There are issues around reductions of home support hours, the narrow range of available services, the elimination of housekeeping services, the lack of continuity of home support workers, scheduling of home support workers, unclear complaints process, inadequacy of available information.

The Ombudsperson actually just recently said that there is a real opportunity to make some real, meaningful changes to home support; however, the opportunities are going to be lost if these changes continue to be delayed and are not implemented for another five to ten years.

I'm wondering what the general discussion is in the ministry. Are we going to see these recommendations implemented in the very near future? Is there hope for home support in the near future?

Hon. T. Lake: In our priorities for the B.C. health care system document…. Hopefully, the member has had an opportunity to take a look at this. It's been available on the website since February. There are eight priorities and then a number of strategies to help us address those priorities.

The eighth priority…. Well, there are a couple of priorities here that I think sort of deal with the member's concern of supporting people in their home. One is priority 2, which is to "implement targeted and effective primary prevention and health promotion." That is one of the priorities in terms of supporting people in community and taking pressure off of the acute care system.

[1610]

As the member well knows, often elderly patients arrive in the emergency department in a frail condition. They may have fallen. They may have had other issues that put them in the acute care system, and often that's not the best place for them. If we can support them in their homes longer and keep them from getting frail and ending up in emergency, they will live much better lives.

The seventh priority is to examine the role and functioning of the acute care system, focused on driving interprofessional teams and functions with better linkages to community health care. Again, that's somewhat addressing the problem.

The eighth priority is to increase the access to an appropriate continuum of residential care services, getting the right mix of services for frail seniors requiring residential care. We recognize that there are different needs of seniors and different settings in which seniors find themselves, whether it's a small community or a metro community. It may be that a one-size-fits-all approach doesn't work, so having some flexibility in the regulatory system to increase available care so that there's a broader continuum of care rather than either assisted living or complex care — having a wider range.

Another important aspect is the home-first initiative that health authorities have rolled out across the province. This is where health support workers go into homes and assist seniors who would otherwise need residential care. It helps them live safely at home and avoid future hospital emergency admissions.

My dad keeps being used for an example. I hope he'll forgive me for this. He's 82 and lives in Kelowna. He's been having difficulty with his balance. He saw his physician just recently and now has been connected to a physiotherapist to come into his home to help him with exercises that will improve his balance and, hopefully, keep him from a fall or something that may put him in the hospital. So home-first initiatives.

Through our strategic document and instructions to health authorities, we want to incentivize community care so that we can keep people in the community and not in the acute care system. I think recently one of the things that's important, particularly for rural areas of the province, is the opportunity to utilize paramedicine and our agreement with the Facilities Bargaining Association.

Hopefully, it becomes ratified, and the paramedics along with the ministry will work on a paramedicine model that's based on…. Well, we'll work together. Some models, in Ontario and other jurisdictions, have paramedics going into homes to work with frail seniors and make sure that they're taking their medication, make sure that they're doing the exercises that they've been prescribed and addressing any of the health care needs that they might have and connecting them to those services. I do think there's a great opportunity through this agreement with the paramedics, particularly in rural areas, to provide greater home services.

One thing that I do want to point out is that we are eager to get the report back from the Ombudsperson to see if she agrees with our assessment of our progress to
[ Page 4487 ]
date and then work with her through future actions. That will be informative in the middle part of June.

K. Conroy: I'd love to be able to use my dad. He's 86. He does long-distance marathon bike rides. He golfs. He cross-country skis. And he's a full-time caregiver for my mom. I'm hoping that when he does need home support, it's there for him. He's worried about that. He's a great example of a senior in the province that's doing amazingly well.

We, too, support the paramedic program. I'm hoping that it'll work. I talk to paramedics and have been talking to them for a number of years and to people that are providing services in rural B.C. in the seniors facilities — for instance, in some of the small communities where they would dearly love to have the paramedics come in and help out. If it can be agreed upon, I think it's a wonderful opportunity, and it'll definitely provide services. Will it provide actual home support services? That's the question. It could be medical but….

[1615]

I appreciate the minister's plan, which the staff have put a lot of work into to bring together. It's fine to have a strategic plan. If you're not going to actually implement the services…. My worry is with home support. There have actually been cuts to the home support in this province. It's been, like, 30 percent. People are waiting for home support services.

There are issues with home support services. We continually hear about it in our offices. We get calls about it. People aren't getting the home support they need. They get put on a wait-list. They get sent home from the hospital. They say, "Oh, don't worry; you'll get home support," but then they don't get the home support. I mean, there has to be a better system of ensuring that seniors are actually getting the home support they need so that they can, in fact, stay in their home longer and they don't end up back in the acute care system.

I'm wondering what the minister has to say about that one.

Hon. T. Lake: I just remembered another program called the BreatheWell program. That isn't limited to seniors, but certainly seniors are more likely to suffer from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. So in many cases you have respiratory therapists going into homes to, again, help them with their exercises, and that has cut down emergency department visits. It has been very successful.

But the member says home support services have been cut, and that's just simply not true. I think it's important to say that. In 2001-02, $258.5 million was spent on home support services. In 2006-07 that had increased to $342.4 million. In 2009-10 that was increased to $376.1 million. In '12-13 it sits at $401.2 million.

K. Conroy: Yet the access to home support dropped by 30 percent in the province so that fewer seniors were actually accessing home support. I'll give the minister a copy of the report. I'll be only too happy to share Caring for B.C.'s Aging Population: Improving Health Care for All. I'll give the minister that report. I'm sure he's seen it. So there is the data.

What is being done to ensure that seniors can actually access the care in their home? We understand seniors that have been told suddenly that…. We heard the story of people who've had their hours reduced. When they asked, "Why are my mother's hours reduced?" it's, "Well, the service can be provided to her in less time," when it can't.

So people are trying to deal with that and jumping through the hoops of trying to deal with it. All of a sudden…. You have your life planned out, you've got a little bit of home support to tide you over, you've got a primary caregiver, and suddenly your home support is cut. That's an issue that's happening again and again.

For some reason the health authorities are…. It still continues to happen, even though the minister says that there are no cuts. Well, when a senior is not getting the home support they need, when their actual hours are being cut, that's a cut.

Hon. T. Lake: In 2002 total clients for home support as well as CSIL clients — 28,922. Total clients in 2012-13 — 33,077, an increase of 14 percent. Total hours in 2002-2003 — 5,368,190. In 2012-13 — 7,365,971, a 37 percent increase.

Total clients increased 14 percent. Total hours increased 37 percent. So the average number of hours per client per year has increased 20 percent.

The member can cite Centre for Policy Alternatives documents. We've got data here that shows that we are spending more money providing more hours of care. I would like to point out that the member's own platform did not show a huge increase in the health care budget — $25 million, I believe. I didn't see in that health care platform that dramatically more money was going to be spent on home support.

I agree with the member that we need to provide good home support to keep people out of the acute care system and out of residential care, if possible. But I take exception to saying that we are cutting hours and cutting funding when in fact we're not.

[1620]

K. Conroy: Well, there's another thing we'll agree to disagree over. Home support was actually a key part of our platform, but that's water under the bridge, isn't it?

The ministry said that they were going to work with health authorities to develop consistent policies around home support. That hasn't happened. We hear of seniors whose families have moved from one health authority to
[ Page 4488 ]
another. They get their hours cut. They're in one health authority. They move to another one, and their hours are cut, but they have exactly the same needs as they had in the previous health authority. I'm wondering if the minister has looked into those recommendations.

Hon. T. Lake: The question is around, particularly, consistency in terms of assessment, I believe. Since, I think, the mid-2000s the RAI, or residential assessment instrument, has been used, which is an international standard of assessing the needs of someone for residential care or for home care services.

[1625]

That's a standardized tool that's used across the province, but of course, a tool needs someone to use it. So different assessors may have different opinions — you know, use the RAI and come up with different conclusions. If someone moves from one health authority to another, they may find that either their needs have changed or the assessor assesses them differently.

There are options if someone feels they have not been adequately assessed or that they've been assessed downward and have a reduction in services. They can go to the patient care quality office, which is an initiative that was brought on that has given patients a voice in terms of their health care. They can then have a reassessment by a different person to see if, in fact, they agree that their needs are greater. Then that would be addressed through the health authority.

The ministry is interested in working across health authorities to ensure that there is a consistent approach across health authorities, because what we don't want is a person whose needs have not changed moving from one health authority to another and having different assessments. The goal would be to have the consistency across health authorities, so the ministry will be doing work in that regard.

K. Conroy: That's great. Thank you, to the minister. I look forward to seeing if there's going to be some report-outs or some kind of…. I don't know if accountability is the right word.

Hon. T. Lake: Next year.

K. Conroy: Next year. It's not going to be…. Next year. My goodness. That's a long time to wait for that to be implemented. I don't think seniors can wait that long, to have to wait for next year for that to be implemented, so I'm hoping that's something that's going to be done a little sooner.

That leads me to my next question about actually establishing time frames. When eligible seniors get an assessment and they end up waiting for services, is there any kind of a report time, reporting procedure for the ministry to see which of the health authorities has a long wait-list? Is there going to be any kind of a regulation around established wait times so that seniors don't have to wait?

We all know that the longer they're waiting for home support, the more opportunities there are for them to end up in acute care, which is going to cost a heck of a lot more than getting them into home support sooner.

[1630]

Hon. T. Lake: I'm getting a commitment from my staff. The question was about wait times and standards — from assessment to when services are supplied.

There are minimum reporting requirements for home and community care. We've been working with health authorities over the last number of years to get that data. We've had some challenges getting the complete data, but we are now happy to say that we have complete data from all the health authorities, and all have been compliant as of January 2014. That data is being analyzed, so I don't have it in front of me, but it does include wait times for home and community care.

Also, importantly, starting this year health authorities will be required to submit complete data for home and community care services to the Canadian Institute for Health Information. So we'll see what the data is across the country.

[J. Sturdy in the chair.]

That will be very helpful in establishing benchmarks, which I think the member is alluding to — that we should have a standardized benchmark so that we could ensure that we could report that this health authority is meeting the benchmark; this one needs some work.

If we had a national benchmark, that would be extremely helpful. We'll be working with the Canadian Institute for Health Information, and we will be discussing this with them. If they are unable to commit to a national benchmark within a reasonable period of time, then we will work towards a provincial benchmark.

I'm saying my staff have assured…. Well, they are hopeful that we would have that provincial benchmark by the end of this year so that we could look at wait times and use it as a performance measure, as part of the performance management framework we were talking about earlier.

K. Conroy: I welcome the new Chair to the discussion.

The minister shouldn't feel bad, or the staff shouldn't feel bad. The Ombudsperson couldn't get information and couldn't get data out of some of the health authorities either. I'm glad to hear that all health authorities are cooperating and that you're actually going to get some data. I'm hoping that data will be shared with the public and with members of the opposition once it is all compiled.
[ Page 4489 ]

I'm wondering about the contracted home support providers. Are the health authorities also going to get the information from the contracted home support operators?

Hon. T. Lake: The answer is yes.

K. Conroy: That was easy. Good. You pressed the easy button. It's good to get those answers that quickly.

The progress — he's established performance measurements and service agreements. I'm just wondering: will we be able to ensure…?

One of the things that happens with contracted services is that often the seniors getting the service aren't sure where they go if they need to complain about the service or issues about the service. For some reason, some of the health authorities aren't following through with the contractors to ensure that the contractors are providing those services to the recipients of the home support.

[1635]

I'm wondering if any regulations are going to be put into place — or might have come into place in the few months — that would ensure that this does happen.

Hon. T. Lake: Finding 38 of the Ombudsperson's report noted that health authorities do not have a requirement in their contracts for home support providers to inform residents and families about how to complain about home support services.

In October of 2012 an update to the Home and Community Care Policy Manual included a directive to health authorities to provide information about how to make a complaint. So health authorities expect both their owned and operated as well as contracted home support providers to give residents information about how complaints are handled and try to solve clients' problems and concerns.

Again, part of that would be through the patient care quality office, but the contractors as well as the owned and operated providers have to provide residents information about how to complain about the service they're receiving.

I think that was the question. I may have lost it in translation over time. If the member can clarify if that hasn't answered the question, I'd appreciate it.

K. Conroy: Yeah, that answers the question. I'm just wondering: how do the health authorities ensure that there is actually follow-up? And how does the ministry know there is actually follow-up or that that's happening?

[1640]

Hon. T. Lake: We currently don't audit whether or not the contractors are, in fact, informing clients. They are supposed to. My staff inform me that the directives to the patient care quality program can be updated to include a mandatory audit by health authorities of their contracted providers to ensure that patients are made aware of the process that they need to follow if there's a concern.

These are directives that are sent out to the patient care quality offices in all the health authorities. As part of that, we could put a directive in there that would have the patient care quality office tell the health authority that they must audit whether or not their contractors are informing their clients of the method by which they could complain.

K. Conroy: Okay, that's the clarification I was looking for. You don't do it now, but you could do it. And potentially, this could be a thing that could be done soon?

Hon. T. Lake: Potentially.

K. Conroy: Potentially. Good.

Let's move on to end-of-life care. It doesn't mean…. It's not the end. I'm only halfway through my binder, Minister, so you can make lots of sighs. The only thing that's going to save you is the time.

I know the ministry released an end-of-life care plan last March with three priority areas. You said in the throne speech you were going to double the number of hospice palliative beds in the province by 2020, yet there doesn't seem to be money in the budget for it. I'm wondering how…. Is this going to be a gradual addition to palliative beds in the province? Or miraculously, maybe in three years there's going to be a bunch of building happening in palliative beds, hospice facilities.

I'm wondering what the plan is, how these beds are going to be rolled out. I'd also like to know how it's going to be done with some regional equity in mind. I'm well aware of the four facilities that got funding — in March, I think it was, just prior to the election — all in the Lower Mainland. There was no funding to the Interior, and there's a real lack of hospice beds in the interior of the province.

I know we have some great hospice facilities. There's the one in Penticton, at the hospital there. It's a stand-alone, but it's beside the hospital. Prince George has a fabulous hospice facility.

[1645]

I know they're doing one on the Island, in the member from Alberni's constituency, but there's not a consistency of funded hospice beds across the province in hospice facilities. I'm wondering where the ministry's going with hospice beds.

Hon. T. Lake: The member's correct. Our goal is to increase the number of hospice spaces available in the province by 100 percent by 2020. We have done a lot of work on end-of-life care.

The member mentioned the Provincial End-of-Life
[ Page 4490 ]
Care Action Plan that was published in April of 2013. As part of the plan, we committed $2 million to establish the provincial centre for excellence in end-of-life care. The board has appointed a new executive director, Dr. Doris Barwich, who will lead the work at the centre. That will accelerate innovation and best practice in end-of-life care in British Columbia. That's one thing.

When we move on to…. There are different options for people at end of life, as the member is aware. Hospice could be inside a residential care facility, perhaps. It could be in an acute care facility in some cases. I went to Mission Hospital, for instance, and the top floor has been converted to a hospice. It's just an amazing, amazing transformation, and the care is remarkable.

There are other options. There's palliative care at home, which is the way my mom died ten years ago, so I acutely remember that.

We are in the stages of assessing the number of hospice spaces around the province. The member mentions that there are equity issues in terms of the spaces available for hospice around the province, so we will be assessing what we have on the ground in all the different health authorities at the moment and then the actions we need to take to meet that commitment of doubling the number of hospice spaces.

It is a phased approach. It won't happen all at once. The implementation is planned in three phases — a first phase this coming year, then a three-year phase up to 2018 and then the final phase in two years. In March of this year the health authorities submitted their phase 1 plan for implementation of hospice beds in 2014. Let me just go through some of this information here.

We have four beds proposed in 2014 in Island Health, in the Courtenay-Comox region. Each of the health authorities has planned activities that support improved palliative care, as well as undertaking implementation planning to meet the hospice commitment.

We are meeting with each of the health authorities to establish a set of deliverables for this year and for coming years, including the development of the implementation plan for the 2015-16 and '16-17 years for palliative and end-of-life services, including hospice beds.

So 56 to 61 beds are currently proposed for subsequent phases, starting in April 2015. Island Health, 24 beds; Fraser Health, ten to 15 beds — that would be ten beds in Abbottsford, at Holmberg House, and potential for five beds at Peace Arch Hospice; Vancouver Coastal Health Authority, 12 beds, to be owned and operated by Providence Health Care. Planning is still underway and should be complete in March of 2015 in Interior Health Authority. For Northern Health Authority there are ten beds.

That represents, by the end of 2015, a 25 percent increase on the current residential care end-of-life bed inventory. We're sort of getting the baseline at the moment and working with health authorities for implementation plans for the different phases of the activity up until 2020.

K. Conroy: On just more of a local note, there are no hospice facilities in the Kootenays. The hospice society in our area has managed to secure land from the city of Castlegar to build a regional hospice facility so there's something in our area.

[1650]

Would they be dependent on the Interior Health Authority deciding where the funding should go, or is this going to be looked at by the ministry as a whole — for example, an organization like the Hospice Society in Castlegar?

Hon. T. Lake: We would work with each of the health authorities to establish the baseline, which is what we're doing at the moment, and then work with them as they develop their plan.

If there is a community — Castlegar, I believe the member said — where there is an active hospice society, we will work with them and Interior Health Authority to see if that's the appropriate distribution of hospice and, if we all agree that it is, then, through the Interior Health Authority, support the formation of the hospice. We did just have some year-end grants available. A small hospice society in the North Thompson, for instance, received $40,000 for planning.

These are some of the initial steps that we're taking to try to support societies and health authorities to meet our goal of doubling the number of hospice spaces.

K. Conroy: Our hospice society will probably be very happy to hear that. They are working regionally, and it's a much-needed facility.

One of the issues I often hear when I tour a seniors facility is that the facility tries to keep a bed for palliative purposes, a room for palliative purposes, or the seniors die in their own rooms. But the facilities rarely have the support that they feel they want to give for end-of-life care.

I talk to people that work in the sector. I think one of the most heartbreaking stories to me was of a woman who said that there just weren't enough people on staff that night and she had to go from bed to bed dealing with all of her residents. She knew this one woman was dying and had no family, and she couldn't be with her to hold her hand when she did pass away. She said, unfortunately, that she was out of the room, and she said it broke her heart.

I've talked to administrators about it. There really needs to be some recognition that facilities require a little bit of extra support to ensure that people do die with dignity, that they do get the supports they need. I'm wondering if that's part of the strategy — to ensure that facilities do get that little bit of extra support they need to make sure that seniors do get the support they need in
[ Page 4491 ]
their end-of-life care.

[1655]

Hon. T. Lake: As part of the end-of-life care plan, what we hope to do is…. I've mentioned that some of the actions of the provincial centre for excellence in end-of-life care will certainly help inform best practices. We want to work with health authorities to encourage those best practices.

It may be, for instance, that a hospice in a particular region, a community, has outreach services. If someone is in a residential care home and the staff feel that that person may be at risk of passing, the hospice would have outreach abilities to go into the residential care home and provide support for the staff in the situation that the member describes.

These are some of the ideas that we hope will be generated through the centre for excellence so that we can have a performance management framework for end-of-life care in health authorities. That document was produced just over a year ago, so we are in the early stages of acting upon some of those things.

There's no question — particularly as our population ages and with, I think, the very public discussion that's happening over end-of-life care now — that we need to address this issue and have a range, a spectrum, of responses for people, because different families will have different approaches to end of life. We want to be able to accommodate all of those, whether they are in stand-alone hospices, in residential care facilities, in acute care facilities or in the home care setting.

One of the things, as I mentioned, is to develop information and performance measures and to implement end-of-life care guidelines, protocols and standards across the province.

K. Conroy: Dying with dignity is becoming a very much talked about subject right now, as we know with the Gloria Taylor situation here in B.C. Gloria actually grew up in Castlegar. My CA is her cousin, so I'm well aware of her story and who Gloria was. She was an incredible person.

A lot of Canadians are talking about end of life and how they can die with dignity. I've been looking at situations in other jurisdictions that actually provide dying with dignity, as far as jurisdictions like Oregon and Washington State. Quebec came very close to bringing in legislation.

I'm wondering if there's any discussion in the ministry of perhaps looking at this as something that the ministry could look at somewhere down in the future, or in the very near future, as more and more people in the province are talking about it as an issue that's something that we need to look at.

Hon. T. Lake: Yeah, there's a lot of discussion and debate in Canadian society, particularly around the subject of end of life. I think there is controversy around end-of-life care, palliative care versus what is termed assisted suicide. It is a very sensitive and controversial subject.

We have not broached this subject from the assisted-suicide point of view. We are approaching this as giving the very best quality of life possible till the end through a range of services and settings.

[1700]

I would say that if the member is talking about palliation and quality of life until the end, yes, we're very much discussing that and want to ensure that everyone has access to that. If the member is talking about assisted suicide, no, we are not having those discussions.

K. Conroy: People prefer to refer to it as doctor-assisted death, dying with dignity. I think it's a discussion that's going to happen in this province whether we like it or not, and it is happening around us.

It's interesting enough that in Ottawa yesterday, in the House of Commons, there was a motion passed for a national palliative care plan, actually brought in by an NDP member. It was passed almost unanimously. There was one Bloc Québécois member who voted against it.

But they did vote for a national plan, and Minister Ambrose said she would be working with provinces to work towards some kind of a national palliative care plan. I'm wondering if the ministry has thought about this and is going to be willing to put on the record that they will definitely be supporting the federal government in ensuring that there is a national plan.

Hon. T. Lake: We are always interested in taking a national or pan-Canadian approach, because we can learn a lot from each other. Best practices can be instituted. I'd be happy to have those discussions with Minister Ambrose — as I would a national dementia strategy as well.

I think we've demonstrated in the past a willingness to work with our partners across Canada, including the federal government, to advance increased access to care and to making sure that we are, in fact, instituting care across the country in a way that is providing best outcomes for people.

Yeah, I'm certainly…. I hope to be meeting with the minister soon and certainly can add that to our discussion.

K. Conroy: Moving along, as I just got told we only have, probably, ten more minutes.

The ministry did a report. CLeAR, call for less antipsychotics in residential care facilities — it was an initiative whose aim was to reduce antipsychotics in facilities by 50 percent by December 31, 2014. I just wanted to know if there was any update on this report, how it's working out.

How many…? Are facilities coming on board? I know
[ Page 4492 ]
there are some facilities that are very much on board that provide some really incredible care. It does cost a little bit more, because it's a bit more like "Hugs, not drugs," as is evidenced in Delta View care centre.

I think that it's something that we need to look at, from working with seniors with dementia. I'm wondering where the ministry is on this issue.

[1705]

Hon. T. Lake: The member is asking about a reduction in the pharmacological approach to dementia care — certainly, something that we are very interested in. We have a pilot, a training program called PIECES, which was undertaken in the Interior Health Authority and now is being rolled out across the province. That was developed in Ontario. We have acquired the rights for that program, and I know it's being used well in a number of settings.

The first year of development for some health authorities is to focus on development and training of facilitators as well as resource persons to increase their capacity to deliver dementia training. The second and third phases will focus on providing training to the remaining facilities and on sustainability. I should just mention that the ministry has provided targeted funding for regional health authorities last year and to support the non-pharmacological approaches to dementia care.

The member mentioned CLeAR, which is a call for less antipsychotics in residential care. This is an initiative of the B.C. Patient Safety and Quality Council under Dr. Doug Cochrane. They held a kick-off event in October, 2013. It's designed to support member teams and facilities to reduce inappropriate antipsychotic use through quality improvement activities — so behavioural approaches rather than pharmacological approaches.

So far, 52 residential care facilities from across the province are participating in the CLeAR program. We'll be, certainly, following it very closely and meeting with the Safety and Quality Council. It's one of those programs where if we see the value, then we will obviously want to incorporate it into as many settings as possible.

The Chair: Member, noting the time, I think this is your last question.

K. Conroy: Okay. I'm going to put a bunch of questions out to get answers for in writing. One of the questions around the antipsychotics…. If we could get all of that information that you had referenced in writing — like what the health authorities are doing, how the individual health authorities are working through, making sure that….

Interjection.

K. Conroy: Yeah, good.

Just on the dementia action plan, the government released the plan two years ago and said it was a two-year plan with 12 action commitments on what's happening with dementia in the province. I want to get it in writing — I'm obviously not going to get it verbally but in writing — where the ministry is at with each of those recommendations and how they're being monitored and measured.

I just want to put on the record how incredible the B.C. Alzheimer Society is and the work they do, and I was really happy to see the funding that went to them. Their First Link program is incredible. It provides amazing services throughout the province. I think it's going to be a growing phenomenon in our province that we're going to have to be dealing with.

I would like to know, around actual services to rural parts of the province, especially in hospital facilities, in residential care facilities that do not have the ability to care for persons with Alzheimer's….

There are no empty beds in facilities in rural B.C. In some small communities we have situations where we have quite violent persons with dementia attacking…. In other residential care facilities we've heard the awful stories that have happened. They continue to happen. In the Kootenays, there are no empty beds at this time to move or transfer a person with dementia that's acting out aggressively. I want to know how the ministry is going to deal with that. It needs to be dealt with.

[1710]

We're seeing more and more that these patients, these residents, persons with dementia end up in acute care facilities. The acute care facilities don't have the capability to handle them. There has to be something better that's done to ensure that these people are getting the care they need, but also that other residents in the building they're in are safe, that the residents don't end up in acute care taking up a bed — because it's happening. I want to know…. I'm assuming that the minister is going to put it in writing. I don't think he can answer a question like that in…. What do I have — 30 seconds, Chair?

The Chair: Ten.

K. Conroy: Ten seconds?

I'd like that in writing — what the ministry's plans are for persons with dementia, for patients, residents who are aggressive and what's going to happen to them, especially in rural B.C., where there are very limited resources.

The Chair: I think the minister is going to respond in writing, are you not?

Interjection.

The Chair: Yes, okay.

Vote 28: ministry operations, $16,788,820,000 — approved.
[ Page 4493 ]

The Chair: I understand there were some members that would like to make a comment — a short, brief comment?

J. Darcy: Yes, absolutely, short and brief. I want to thank the minister for — I won't say "always patient" — answering all of the questions. I want to thank the staff — 23 at a count yesterday and more today; I know they've all been working very hard to prepare for this — and other people behind the scenes, all the people who work in health care every day. I won't thank my family, because it's not the Oscars, but I do also want to thank Jon Robinson, our health researcher; Carly Aasen, our intern; as well as Veronica Harrison for keeping us on target and on time.

Hon. T. Lake: I want to thank the critics and all of the MLAs that have asked questions over the past four very long, gruelling days. I think, by and large, we've had a very respectful and enlightening discussion about important issues for British Columbians.

Because I have spent so much time with my peeps for the last four days, both in our committee room here and in other areas of the building, I want to thank them all for their dedicated work. We have an amazing group of people that work for the Ministry of Health and, of course, throughout the health care system. Thanks to my office staff for putting up with me each and every day.

With that, I move that the committee rise and report completion and resolution.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:13 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
BIRCH ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF JUSTICE

(continued)

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

The committee met at 1:37 p.m.

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

L. Krog: Hon. Chair, I just have a few questions I'd like to ask — and a few other smaller issues, if you don't mind. One of the things, of course, is the appointment of the special prosecutor with respect to what I will call the Bountiful issue.

I appreciate that there is a special prosecutor appointed. However, that special prosecutor was appointed some time ago. I note, in fact, that notwithstanding the series of special prosecutors, the last one was appointed on, I believe, January 17, 2012 — named Mr. Wilson, the special prosecutor replacing Mr. Peck.

On January 16, 2014, the criminal justice branch issued a press release stating that Mr. Wilson is continuing his charge assessment review. That release notes that the branch expects to receive a second portion of the police report in relation to individuals associated with Bountiful at the end of January. A deadline for completion of the review is not included.

Now, the last thing I would ever suggest is that the Attorney General interfere with the work of a special prosecutor. But given there is also authority to make statements, if you will, that are published in the Gazette, as I recall, it just strikes me from the public interest perspective that Bountiful has been the subject of various investigations for literally years and years. We're going back probably 20 years in this province.

A number of groups and organizations, quite justifiably, write to me. They write to the Attorney General, I know. They write to everyone they can, hoping and encouraging that something will be forthcoming.

[1340]

My question is: is the Attorney General satisfied, given it's been two years — 2½ it's getting on to now — since the appointment of the special prosecutor…? Isn't she concerned that perhaps there should be a report forthcoming so that the public has some satisfaction, if you will, or confidence in the justice system that justice is actually going to be done around Bountiful — whether that's a decision not to prosecute or not to lay charges or to in fact lay charges?

Hon. S. Anton: There are indeed nearly two and a half years since the appointment. The first report to Crown counsel was given to Mr. Wilson in July of 2013. The second piece of it was in January of 2014. It was expected that there would be two pieces of it.

The charge assessment process is underway. There is no reason to believe that Mr. Wilson is not being diligent on the file. There are complex issues, obviously, and it is working its way through the process.

L. Krog: Mr. Wilson's directions included not just polygamy but focused on potential offences against minors, including sexual assault, sexual interference and parents or guardians procuring sexual activity.

I appreciate that these things take time, but I believe that was one of Mr. Cowper's great criticisms of the justice system — the culture of delay.

I'm going to lead to a somewhat more general question in my remarks by pointing out that special prosecutors
[ Page 4494 ]
are — no pun intended — a special breed. They're appointed in those situations as the statutes require.

From a public interest perspective, if it's taking this long — and it often does, and appears to take a very, very long time for their work to be completed in the sense that either a charge is laid or a report is made that no charges will be laid — perhaps it's time the ministry considered a somewhat different process or different requirements so that it would ensure that in these cases, which almost invariably involve significant public interest, which the public pays attention to, and therefore are cases which the public will judge the system's efficiency by….

Surely it might make sense now to consider a somewhat different system so that the public isn't looking at a case like this which, since the appointment of the last special prosecutor, as the Attorney General has just acknowledged herself…. We're nearly 2½ years down the road. No report saying, "Go ahead and lay charges," and no report saying that charges shouldn't be laid.

My question to the Attorney General: is there any consideration being given to a somewhat different system of appointing special prosecutors so that the cases they're appointed to prosecute and supervise in fact get some priority?

[1345]

I have no qualms about the qualifications of Mr. Wilson, eminent counsel. No criticism of him intended as an individual. But surely the public deserves a more timely response on issues and allegations that involve a significant public interest.

I'm curious to hear what the Attorney General has to say in response to the suggestion that perhaps it's time to look at the system and suggest improvements so that we get a far more timely response.

We've heard a great deal of discussion during the course of estimates about how the criminal list is dropping down and how we've been achieving all these great efficiencies. But for the ordinary members of the public, maybe they're not paying close attention to the big numbers. But Bountiful — they're paying attention, and they'd like to know. So I'm curious to hear what the Attorney General has to say.

Hon. S. Anton: Just to re-emphasize the dates, the police report itself, to Crown, didn't come until July 2013 and then the supplementary report in January 2014. In fact, the report has been in the hands of the special prosecutor for substantially less time — January until now. I think it was the end of January, so about four months. That's not a terribly long time in terms of a complex case.

The system itself was reviewed by Stephen Owen in the last few years. We think it was 2010, but I would have to get confirmation of the exact date when that happened. The conclusion of his report at the time was that we are well served in British Columbia. We have no plans to change the special prosecutor system.

L. Krog: I thank the Attorney General for her answer. The suggestion that the report has only been in the hands of the special prosecutor…. I guess the real question is: what authority or real role does the special prosecutor play in this?

If I were a prosecutor in charge of a case, I would expect to have some authority over the police investigating, and it seems to me I'd want to be riding herd on them pretty hard to get responses in a far more timely way. We've had 2½ years now since the special prosecutor was appointed. I'm going to assume that the RCMP, given the history of this particular situation, must have had access to some evidence and information.

I mean, with great respect, we know that the United States of America — another functioning democracy the last time I checked — was able to charge, prosecute, convict and jail individuals involved. So the image it portrays versus Canada as a nation that can't seem to get its act together around prosecuting what most people regard as pretty horrific potential crimes if, in fact, they're proved or charges laid and convictions entered….

[1350]

Again, does the special prosecutor have authority to ensure that the police are doing their job, and is there a reporting process in place back to the Assistant Deputy Attorney General, criminal justice branch, so that someone is in fact ensuring that these things move forward in a far more timely way?

Hon. S. Anton: The police and prosecutor — in this case, the special prosecutor — do have independent roles. The prosecutor does not direct the investigation or the evidence gathered by the police. They are independent, but they do work together to a certain extent.

The police would be likely working with the special prosecutor in terms of whether or not…. A prosecutor may ask for…. They need…. The evidence on something is not sufficient, so they'll ask questions of the police, and the police may go back and get it again. So they do work together, but they do have separate and independent roles.

Special prosecutors are chosen for their expertise and their experience. They are chosen because at Justice — the Assistant Deputy Attorney General and up through to me — we have confidence in the people who are chosen as special prosecutors. They're chosen for their experience, for their expertise, and we're confident that they can do a good job.

K. Corrigan: Given that this file has been going on for a long, long time, and given that there are, according to many sources, real dangers for some of the young women and young men who live in Bountiful and a real concern expressed by some of those who have left or have fairly close contact that, particularly on what would be originally called the Warren Jeffs side, things are getting worse
[ Page 4495 ]
rather than better….

[1355]

To paraphrase it, last year I asked the minister, on July 24, 2013: given the reports that because of the separation of the two sides of Bountiful and how much more isolated and how much more dangerous it is, what's your plan? "If we cannot move at this point on criminal charges, what plan does the minister have, working with other ministers, to assist these people, who, apparently, are in more and more dangerous circumstances?"

The answer was: "I think the answer to this question may lie with more than one ministry, and I would be pleased to take it up with the Minister of Children and Families."

My question to the minister is: what work has been done, given how dangerous the circumstances are for the residents of Bountiful, or some of them? What work has been done with other ministries — like the Minister of Education, the Minister of Children and Families — working with the Ministry of Justice in order to have a multi-pronged plan, as promised almost a year ago?

Hon. S. Anton: Following the estimates debate last summer, my deputy, Deputy Fyfe, did have conversations with the Representative for Children and Youth and the Minister of Children and Families but then left it in their hands, between those entities. It's not something that Justice would have a day-to-day piece in, in terms of, I think, the issues that the member is raising. They were looking at options. But as I say, we did not need to be part of the further discussions, and it was left with them. I think that issues as to how it was dealt with after that would have to be brought to those entities for an answer.

K. Corrigan: Well, the minister also said…. I asked if she can commit to working with the Minister of Children and Family Development and other ministries, including the Ministry of Education. The answer was, "As Attorney General, I'm not sure that I will take the lead in this, but I am certainly prepared to talk to other ministries and see what kind of actions might be appropriate" with the issues raised. Then later: "The commitment I will make is this: I will commit to talking to my colleagues in ministries affected, and I will commit to asking staff to have a look as well."

Was there more than one ministry contacted? How many conversations were there? And what was heard back from the other ministries? I guess I'm essentially asking: does the minister think that this request has been fulfilled by just talking to another ministry, considering, reportedly, how serious the situations are for some of the particularly young people, particularly young girls — and boys, in some cases — in the community of Bountiful?

[1400]

Hon. S. Anton: It is indeed the case that this was not an Attorney General's lead or Justice's lead, although as I mentioned a moment ago, the deputy attended several meetings with the RCY and MCFD and has been available for discussions. There was some discussion by those entities as to what actions they would take, but my deputy has not attended a meeting recently. So we do not know what actions they have subsequently taken. Again, I think those questions would have to be put to those two entities.

K. Corrigan: Finally, I'm just wondering if the minister could tell me what ministry has taken the lead so that we can follow up with that ministry.

Hon. S. Anton: This is a Children and Families lead, and they would be the entity to ask.

L. Krog: The Attorney General is no doubt aware that several dozen Vancouver lawyers are planning to withdraw their services this summer due to the lack of legal aid funding — something in the range of 100, as I understand it, starting in July. There have been various similar actions — I would hesitate to call them strikes, but that's essentially what they amount to — over the last several years by lawyers around the province, including Kamloops and other communities.

We know that the number of lawyers who undertake legal aid cases in British Columbia has dropped from about 1,800 — 15 years ago — to less than 1,000 now.

I can say this without sounding ageist. It was our generation of counsel to the Attorney General who — most of us — cut our teeth to some extent on legal aid cases. For those who came from privileged backgrounds, it was perhaps an opportunity to mix with people they otherwise wouldn't mix with. I think, therefore, it was an important tool for educating and making the lawyers of this province more professional and, frankly, better counsel.

We have seen some increases over the last few years — very modest — rising to 2013 from $63 million to $72 million. But that's down from $96 million in 2001. We are now further behind in this province than we've ever been in terms of funding for legal aid. Our per capita funding has plummeted from $18.40 in 2000 to $13.51. Canada spends about half of what Ireland spends and barely a quarter of what England, Scotland and Wales spend per capita on legal aid.

We know that significant numbers of family cases are turned away because of financial ineligibility. What we really have is a system that I would not be too far off if I describe as a shadow of its former self. Surely, justice in society is one of our fundamentals.

[1405]

Again, I come back to this, as I raised the other day with the Attorney General. Apart from the minuscule — relatively speaking, compared to the provincial budget — amount of funds that are being suggested will be spent, the extra $2 million this year, is there even a plan in place
[ Page 4496 ]
as to how the system will become better funded?

We know that the legal services tax collected in this province in 2011-2012 produced roughly $120 million of revenue for the provincial government. That is a tax on legal services. It was designed to fund legal aid. We are spending substantially less than that — something in the order of two-thirds.

My question again to the Attorney General: do we have a plan in place? Are we working towards improvement, or is this just something that the Attorney General is prepared to say to British Columbians? "Forget it for the foreseeable future. There will be no improvements in our endangered legal aid system, which has seen a drop in participation by lawyers and increasing injustices for the poor of this province."

Hon. S. Anton: The government is fundamentally committed to the principle of access to justice and justice innovation. That is why government, this year, invested a further $2 million in the legal aid system. I will say, as someone who is carefully managing my budget, it's one of the few parts of Justice which received an actual increase.

That money is being used…. There will be three years of this $2 million. There's a three-year plan. The member asked if there's a plan. Yes, indeed there's a plan. The plan is to use those funds to test some different ways of delivering legal services to British Columbians and to evaluate those different methods.

We want to deliver service differently so that more people are helped, and people are helped all around British Columbia. There are a number of different ways that money is being spent: an expanded criminal duty counsel project; expanding services at the Victoria Justice Access Centre; the Family LawLINE, which provides access to people all around British Columbia for their family issues; and an innovative parents legal centre for use in child protection cases.

Yes, there is a plan, there are funds, and there is innovation, because it's our goal to have good access to justice for British Columbians.

L. Krog: With great respect to the Attorney General, the people who require legal aid are often — by and large, and no disrespect intended — the most vulnerable of British Columbians. They are people who live in poverty. They are people who often suffer from mental illnesses on the criminal side. They are people whose relationships have broken down. They are people at risk of violence.

There's an even better example of people who can't even get timely hearings, who are committed to hospitals under the Mental Health Act, because there isn't appropriate funding there either.

[1410]

You are seeing people who are kept, literally, in psychiatric wards around this province — the most vulnerable of the vulnerable, arguably — who can't get timely assistance to be able to get a hearing and at least have the opportunity to present their case and, therefore, the opportunity to gain their liberty, which we take away through a legitimate process, but it is a process that is based on the concept that you can have advocates speaking on your behalf. Surely, there's nobody in greater difficulty than someone who's in a psychiatric facility.

So with respect to that particular issue, are there any plans afoot to ensure that there is better assistance for advocates, counsel who work in that particular area, who will deal with people who are under committal orders?

Hon. S. Anton: This is indeed an area covered by the services of the Legal Services Society. They use the Community Legal Assistance Society to help them out and give persons in the circumstances described by the member, persons with mental health issues going to the Mental Health Review Board, for instance….

Through the auspices of those two organizations, persons in that situation can have access to advocates. They may be lawyers; they may be paralegals. They give them assistance, they give them advice, and when needed, they give them representation. Certainly, the goal is to help people in those circumstances, and that's what legal services does.

L. Krog: I understand and appreciate all of that and everything the Attorney General said. Quite true, but the fact is that there is an extremely limited budget for that. Those are, as I say, the most vulnerable of the vulnerable.

Is there any possibility, or any interest on the part of the Attorney General or the ministry, to either specifically increase funding for that side of legal services or, alternatively, perhaps some further increase that might enable legal services, through the Community Legal Assistance Society, to deliver those services in a more timely and, therefore, more just way?

[1415]

Hon. S. Anton: As the member will know, the Legal Services Society is given the authority to set priorities in terms of the funding they get. Obviously, we are working very closely with them on the additional $2 million to the funds that they had last year. In terms of individual sectors that are funded, those priorities are generally set by the Legal Services Society.

In terms of representation in front of the Mental Health Review Board, the system is generally working as it should. We are not aware of any systemic problems in the delivery of services to those people.

K. Corrigan: I'm going to go on to the Solicitor General side of the ministry. But I'm going to go back to ask some additional questions — I realize that staff may not be here; I know some of them aren't here — that came out of estimates on Tuesday. Maybe what I'll do is just ask
[ Page 4497 ]
those questions, and I'm happy to get a written response. We ended up being quite cramped for time.

The information that I would like — if it's available today, that's great. I would like to get an update on what percentage over capacity we are on corrections at this point. I think last year we were at 136 percent of total cell capacity. Last year, as well, the Minister said that it was estimated that the overall population would go up 3.5 percent in the next fiscal year — in other words, the past year — and 1.3 percent the year after that. I'm interested in what actually happened and then the same question in terms of what is expected in the next two years.

I'm also interested in finding out about wait-lists and whether or not the ministry is keeping wait-lists for victim services programs. I've heard in my community and other communities that there is a long wait-list for services, violence programs and programs for children who are exposed to violence or sexual abuse.

[1420]

Those programs — I'm just wondering if there is information. Maybe I'll just ask that. Do we have that information? We certainly have it locally, but is that information available provincially? And if you don’t have the answer, that's fine. I can find out later.

Hon. S. Anton: On the corrections answers, I'm going to get that answer in a few moments.

On the wait-list for victim services programs, the community safety and crime prevention branch works closely on these matters. When there are people waiting — and there seem to be people unnecessarily waiting, or too many people in an area — the program managers work closely with nearby programs to resolve waits for service so that people can get the service that they need.

K. Corrigan: So are you saying that in my community, when we have people who are waiting up to about 18 months for some programs, this has happened?

Hon. S. Anton: We're unaware of that wait. Usually the waits are under three months. In fact, if there is a crisis or a very difficult time in someone's life, we can fast-track it and get people into programs quickly.

I would request that the member, on the specific case, provide that information. I will have staff follow up on it.

K. Corrigan: I guess the next question is for the minister. Does the ministry keep track of the average wait in order to access those programs, both the Children Who Witness Abuse and the programs for women who have experienced domestic violence and abuse? If they do keep track, can they provide the averages to me?

It sounds to me, when we're talking about performance measurements, that would be a useful statistic to have. It would be particularly interesting to find out given the fact that there has been no increase in this area in terms of community-based victim assistance programs for over a decade.

[1425]

Hon. S. Anton: We don't track, but we do monitor. I would observe that there are about 400 contracts let by the community safety and crime prevention branch. Those contracts each have a program manager in the branch who works closely with the service provider. They're in frequent contact. They know the issues with the organizations. So they are able to stay very closely aware of what the needs are.

Generally, the average length for service is under three months. If there are issues outside of that or problems outside of that, then, as I said, the local service provider will be contacted, and both branch staff and the service provider will work to find solutions to it.

On the question of corrections — I'll just come back to that now — the question that was asked a few moments ago about how many people in corrections facilities. The question was the capacity. I'll answer it, and if the member has a follow-up…. It was a couple of questions ago.

On May 14 the capacity was at 117 percent. An analysis of inmate counts over the last 40 years and the projected growth of the B.C. population do suggest that the counts will rise again and will increase capacity pressure.

K. Corrigan: Because the staff wasn't here, I didn't actually expect an answer on corrections, so I just moved on. I will go back to that for just a second. So 117 percent and then the increase is expected because of the increasing pressure because of the changes to the federal legislation. Is that correct?

Hon. S. Anton: Yes. Prison population is expected to rise due to two factors. One is the growing population of the province of British Columbia, and the second is the recent changes to the Criminal Code of Canada.

K. Corrigan: Does the ministry have an estimate of how much, then, the prison population, the inmate population, is going to go up over the next few years? I don't need that necessarily today, but I would appreciate getting that.

Hon. S. Anton: I will get that response to the member.

K. Corrigan: Again, another piece of information that I requested and received last year was what the inmate-to-officer ratio was. As the minister knows, I raised it in a very short period of time last time, on Tuesday.

[1430]

The correctional officers have expressed real concern about the level of violence within prisons — both prisoner-to-prisoner and inmate-to-correctional-officer as well. We didn't get a chance to talk about it, but there was a
[ Page 4498 ]
confirmation that the level of violence has gone up, I do believe. So I think it's important to know what the ratios are at this point and whether or not the minister believes that the ratio is in any way responsible for the increasing levels of violence.

[M. Bernier in the chair.]

Hon. S. Anton: As the member knows, the assistant deputy minister in charge of corrections is not able to be here today. I know that she knows the reason for that. We will get the member a response.

K. Corrigan: Thank you. I'll leave corrections now.

I wanted to ask if the minister can again provide, as the ministry has provided in the last few years, the list of all the organizations that have received funding for the victim services programs in the province of British Columbia.

Hon. S. Anton: Indeed, we will get that information to the member.

K. Corrigan: In addition, last year I got information about the number of people that were working in the domestic violence unit. I was told that there were four people, one in the domestic violence unit side — that there were four people and that they were contracted. I'm wondering if that is still the case.

Hon. S. Anton: Can I get clarification on that? We do have domestic violence units around British Columbia.

K. Corrigan: The question was, is there…? The answer I received was: "On the domestic violence unit side there are four people, one in each unit, who are contracted services. They would report up through their contracting agency. There is one-half of an FTE who works across the ministries to help the coordination on the police side."

[1435]

Hon. S. Anton: There are domestic violence units in Vancouver, New Westminster, Abbotsford and the capital region. We recently provided funding to support the development of new units in Surrey, Nanaimo and Kelowna. These units are comprised of police, community-based victim services workers and, in some cases, children and family welfare workers. They typically work in partnership with the local police department or detachment. They go and attend at domestic violence calls.

I could not say exactly how many people are working in them, but that's the format of the units around British Columbia.

K. Corrigan: I didn't read the question that I originally asked, because it didn't seem to be a really clear answer to the question that I'd asked last year. I think what we were looking for was the people who were doing the coordinating with the domestic violence units. It was four. I'm wondering if it still is four people within the ministry.

Hon. S. Anton: The domestic violence units are located in police detachments or departments and report up through that police department. The contracts, insofar as they relate to Justice, are managed by program managers, but in fact the contract goes out to a team in the community, and then they work up with the police department.

K. Corrigan: Okay. I'm not going to spend more time trying to figure that out. I thought there were four people working within the ministry who were coordinating those contracts. If that's not clear, that's fine.

One of the pieces of information that I received last year as well, and would like to receive again, if possible, is a list of all the grants that were provided in order to provide assistance with regard to human trafficking. I'm wondering if I can receive that list of grants again.

Hon. S. Anton: Yes.

K. Corrigan: Can I just confirm the number of people that are working in the human trafficking unit, although I know it's part of the ministry and not a separate unit now? The number of FTEs that are working in that branch.

[1440]

Hon. S. Anton: The core team is two people. Part of the goal of bringing them into the branch was so that their expertise could be more widely spread in the branch. There is now a group of about 40 people who have expertise in this area.

K. Corrigan: Last year I asked about the numbers, and there had been a contingent of six. I was told that last year there were three people and that there were 50 staff in the community safety and crime prevention branch who are trained in human trafficking. Is the minister saying that now there are two people, and 40 people who are experts in this area? Have I got that right — a decline in both ways?

Hon. S. Anton: The commitment remains intact and strong in the community safety and crime prevention group. There are two people, as I said, who are the core team, and they are working on training. We have an on-line curriculum. We've trained aboriginal groups. There are train-the-trainer enterprises. A number of people around the province are expert in this area.

K. Corrigan: Is that the 40 that the minister was referring to?
[ Page 4499 ]

Hon. S. Anton: To get an accurate number, I'm going to get my staff to report back to the member with a more accurate number of how many people have actually been trained.

[1445]

There are many people, 14,000, who have accessed the website. Promotional material has been distributed around the province, and people have been trained around the province, because government is very committed to the issue of human trafficking.

K. Corrigan: I'm not questioning that, but I'm just trying to understand the numbers. The minister talked about 40 experts, and if that is not the number of people trained, what is that referring to?

Hon. S. Anton: Just in terms of order of magnitude — and I'm going to get a more accurate number on this — there are about 40 people in the branch who have been trained and are knowledgeable in this area, and they themselves have provided training to people around the province. I cannot give a count of that number at the moment. I'll get that number for the member.

K. Corrigan: I'm going to turn to civil forfeiture now. I'll just start with some questions about the number. Last year, in fiscal year 2012-2013, a total of $8.406 million was forfeited, of which $7.58 million, or 90 percent, was through the court process, and $0.826 million, or 10 percent, was from administrative forfeiture.

I'm wondering if the minister can provide, if not today, then at some future time, the numbers for 2013-14, including the breakdown between administrative and court.

Hon. S. Anton: In the year '13-14, $11.1 million was received through the civil forfeiture process generally. Of that, about 10 percent was from administrative forfeiture.

K. Corrigan: Maybe the minister could…. About 10 percent is good, but since I got such an accurate number last year, perhaps — if not today, at some point — we could get the number on that, exactly, for 2013-14. I see nods, so I appreciate that.

There has been pretty widespread criticism of B.C.'s civil forfeiture law over the past couple of years, including from three members of the minister's own caucus and including Justice Wally Oppal, who said that there should be a review of the Civil Forfeiture Act — as well as the MLA from West Vancouver, the MLA for Surrey–White Rock and the MLA for Vancouver-Langara.

The concerns are that the efforts of the government have perhaps been overzealous in their reach. And the types of properties that have been forfeited…. There have been specific cases that have been challenged successfully in court as contrary to the rights of individuals and that have either been dropped or that the government has lost.

[1450]

I'm wondering, first of all: can the minister respond to the criticisms of B.C.'s civil forfeiture law?

Hon. S. Anton: The civil forfeiture process is doing as it was designed to do, which is to forfeit to government the proceeds of unlawful activity. At heart, this is a court process. It's civil litigation. At the end of the day, the case may settle. The case may be discontinued. Some do discontinue. Others will go to trial. At the end of the day, a court has to be satisfied that the order is a proper one, whether it's after a trial or whether it's after a settlement.

The courts give judgments. The judgments have supported the program. They give guidance to the office of civil forfeiture, and that guidance is carefully followed by the office.

K. Corrigan: I think most who read the case of David Lloydsmith, who had the police turn up at his home, and they found marijuana plants, despite there being no warrant for a search…. Mr. Lloydsmith was never charged with a crime. The officer involved in the search characterized the offence as "minor." I'm wondering if the minister believes that that particular case was an appropriate use of the powers of the office of civil forfeiture.

Hon. S. Anton: I'm not going to discuss a specific case, but I will discuss the procedure generally.

The files come to the civil forfeiture office from the police and are recommended by the police for civil forfeiture. The police make an initial assessment that they believe this is a file that can go ahead, a matter that can go ahead. That, then, is reviewed by the office of civil forfeiture, by the director and his team. They carefully review the file. They need to determine if there is public interest in proceeding and if there is evidence in the case that should be proceeded on. If there is public interest, if there's good evidence it's a good case to take forward, then they will take it forward.

[1455]

The vast majority of these cases either settle or go to court, and forfeiture is achieved. Occasionally, some discontinue, and occasionally, courts don't grant the forfeiture sought. But as I said, the vast majority of them in fact do result in a forfeiture because the office is very careful about which cases it takes forward.

K. Corrigan: Well, I think there are those that would disagree, including three members of the minister's own caucus — and Justice Wally Oppal, who thinks there needs to be a review. I'll ask about whether or not there will be a review in a minute.

But there have been cases where there have been issues. There have been issues with regard to whether or not…. There have been found to be, or the office has dropped the case when there have been, apparent Charter breaches.
[ Page 4500 ]

I guess my question for the minister, then, is: is the office screening for potential Charter breaches in its consideration of whether to press a case forward?

Hon. S. Anton: The question is whether Charter issues are considered in deciding whether or not to proceed with a civil forfeiture application. The answer is yes.

K. Corrigan: I would assume that this is a result of the fact that there have been some high-profile cases where it was apparent either that that screening was not done appropriately or that it was not done at all. Can the minister assure me, then, that there will be no more cases ending up in court as a result of a Charter breach, where the cases are either dismissed or the office has to shut them down or withdraw them because they realize they're going to lose?

Hon. S. Anton: It's always possible in a case that to the office — I used to be a prosecutor — to the prosecutor…. You believe that you've covered the Charter issues, but in fact a court may disagree with you. They're fact-driven. The facts may demonstrate that there was in fact a Charter breach.

So it's not always self-evident on the front end of the case, but suffice it to say that the cases that are taken forward by the director are cases where it's believed that the Charter has been followed and that the evidence is proper to take forward.

K. Corrigan: Well, one of the problems with this process — whether it's stopped along the way or not, or dismissed — is the impact that it has on individuals who are subject to the process. I'm certainly not supporting criminality, but of course, we're not talking about criminality, because there's been no charge of a crime. We're not talking about criminals, because somebody is not a criminal until they're proven guilty. I don't believe that in any of these cases anybody's actually been charged with a crime.

Mr. Lloydsmith described himself as being in a state of shock when he spoke with the Globe and Mail. That was at the end of the case. When it was finally dropped, he said in a follow-up interview that the case had put an incredible strain on him for years. He'd seen doctors for the stress. He's also said it wiped out what he had in his savings and RRSPs.

[1500]

Does the minister have any concerns or share any concerns from those that have said this puts an incredible stress on people and that in addition, there are those individuals — the claim is that there are those individuals — who are spending thousands of dollars and eventually making a decision to come to a settlement with the office because it's cheaper than seeing the process through to the end, whether or not they acknowledge that there is an appropriate forfeiture.

Hon. S. Anton: The comment that the member made was: in no cases have people been charged with a crime. In fact, sometimes people are charged criminally, and then the case moves into a civil forfeiture proceeding.

As to the stress for people, I'm not going to comment on that, except to say that often court proceedings can be stressful. But I think we do need to remember that these cases are taken forward when the director believes, on the evidence that he has received, that the item in question is the proceeds of unlawful activity.

K. Corrigan: I stand corrected. I think I did know that there were some cases where a charge has been dropped or has not proceeded for whatever reason.

I'm wondering if the minister could give me a breakdown — if not today, at some point in the future — of the percentage of cases that are in civil forfeiture where there has been a charge and those where there hasn't been a charge. Just a simple breakdown between the two.

Hon. S. Anton: That's not a metric which is kept. It would be difficult to measure that. To give an example, Crown counsel may approve charges, and then they may drop them further down the road. It's just not very easy to accumulate that information, and it's not collected.

K. Corrigan: When the office of civil forfeiture receives the information, is that information on how it got there? It's not part of the information that is received by the office — whether it was something where there was a charge, a charge that was considered or a charge that was dropped?

[1505]

I mean, it's one more piece of information. Either there was no charge, or there was a charge that was dropped. Those are the two pieces, are they not? I don't quite understand why we can't get that information.

Hon. S. Anton: When the file comes to the office of civil forfeiture, the police file may very well say: "This person has been charged." It may say that Crown is considering a charge. It may say that Crown is not going to charge, or I guess it could possibly say that Crown is going to charge, and then Crown decides to drop the charges or doesn't charge.

It's a changing situation. For that reason, it's not a reliable metric, and it's simply not collected.

K. Corrigan: In no case has somebody ever actually been convicted of a crime. Is that correct?

Hon. S. Anton: The answer to the question is that, indeed, people can be charged. They can be convicted. They can be in jail. The civil forfeiture proceeding may still go ahead.
[ Page 4501 ]

K. Corrigan: I'm wondering how often that has happened. I haven't looked back at the original debate or the follow-up debates, but my understanding was that it was an either-or. I'm interested to hear that. If it's possible to get the information, I would be interested in finding out in what percentage of the cases there has been a criminal conviction as well as a civil forfeiture.

Hon. S. Anton: As I answered earlier, we don't collect that information.

K. Corrigan: Frankly, it surprises me when we have such a serious power that has been transferred from criminal law largely to civil law. There have been criticisms. There have been Charter cases. There have been judges expressing real concern in some of the cases. I haven't gone into that, and I'm not going to bother doing that today. There have been a large number of people, academics and so on, who have expressed concern about this.

I would have thought that keeping track of information like that would have been worthwhile. I just want to be clear. The minister is saying that the ministry has no idea in what percentage of the cases there is a charge, or in what percentage of the cases there is a charge that's dropped, in what percentage of the cases there are no charges and in what percentage of the cases there is a criminal conviction.

[1510]

I guess on the last point, does the minister have any concern? Are there any legal concerns about the fact that people can be convicted of a crime as well as lose property under civil forfeiture for the same offence?

Hon. S. Anton: Civil forfeiture is an action against property, not an action against people, so it does not require a conviction or a charge against the person. The convicted person can indeed have a civil forfeiture. They are two quite different proceedings. One is a charge against the person; one is an action against the property.

K. Corrigan: Well, in the interest of time, I'm going to move on to police services.

I’m going to ask a few questions about PRIME-BC and also criminal record checks. I'm wondering if the minister knows how many entries there are in the PRIME system at this point.

Hon. S. Anton: Would that be how many people or how many entries altogether?

K. Corrigan: How many entries.

Hon. S. Anton: Firstly, I would like to introduce Perry Clark, who's here, the executive director of police services. I think everybody else in the room has been introduced.

[1515]

In terms of PRIME, it operates independently of government. We will ask that question of PRIME and provide the information to the member.

K. Corrigan: Just to be clear, I'm talking about maybe not every single piece of information but the number of people, recognizing that there can be duplications. The last number we had a few years ago was about 4½ million for B.C., but the explanation given at that point was that there could be aliases or whatever. So that's the number that I'm looking for.

Hon. S. Anton: We'll get that information.

K. Corrigan: I wanted to ask about the transparency of PRIME-BC. In the first year, or perhaps two, of PRIME-BC, there was public reporting — annual reports from PRIME-BC — back in, I think, 2009-2010. Since that time there have been no public reports. I have managed to get reports through request. But I'm just wondering why there's not more public information about PRIME.

Hon. S. Anton: As I mentioned a moment ago, PRIME is independent of government. I think it would be better to come back with a written answer to that question.

K. Corrigan: I appreciate that. It concerns me a little bit when we're talking about this being a private board. In fact, it is a private board, a private organization, that is holding information for we don't know how many million people or aliases of people — 4½ million the last time we checked.

It's information that is used in very sensitive ways. We'll talk in a minute about criminal record checks and concerns about criminal record checks and police record checks. One of the primary sources of information for those police record checks that there has been concern expressed about is, in fact, the information that's in PRIME-BC. It concerns me that there are repeated references to the fact that this is a private board. Maybe that's a concern in and of itself.

[1520]

It seems to me that when you have an organization — it is FOIable, by the way — that is holding so much public information that is used in a very sensitive way and could be misused, we should have some concerns if there is a lack of transparency and a lack of access to information about it.

Speaking of access to information, when we were debating one — I think it was an omnibus — bill earlier this year, we talked about access to information that was in PRIME. The bill provided that when a person wanted to seek their information — what was in PRIME about them — the individual would have to go back to the police agency that was the custodian. That was the decision
[ Page 4502 ]
— that the police agency was the one that was in care and control of that information.

I would like to follow up a little bit on that comment that was made in the discussion of the bill and ask the minister whether or not there is any place that a person can go and access their PRIME file to know what the total of the information is that is held on this private police network.

Hon. S. Anton: It would not be correct to call it a private corporation. PRIME is a subsidiary of E-Comm, and E-Comm, of course, is set up amongst a number of public entities to deliver 911 and other services. All of those entities are subject to provincial and federal privacy legislation — the entities which make up E-Comm.

In terms of getting information, if you want to find information about yourself, for example, you need to go to your own police agency to get that. If you go to PRIME, it is not their information. They are an accumulator of the information, but they do not have the authority to give out the information.

[1525]

K. Corrigan: I've been getting conflicting advice about this. Just a point on it being a private board. Is the Ministry of Justice not the sole owner of PRIME?

Hon. S. Anton: PRIME is a corporate entity which is a wholly owned subsidiary of E-Comm. The complicating and unusual factor is that there's one share of PRIME, of which E-Comm is the owner. However, it votes that share as directed by the Minister of Justice.

K. Corrigan: I guess it was simplified, but I do recall seeing a PRIME-BC presentation in which it was stated that the province was the one that had sole control of PRIME — which, to me, seems actually appropriate. So it's a voting share, not an ownership? Can I just get that clarification? It is a sole voting share, as opposed to an ownership?

[1530]

Hon. S. Anton: E-Comm owns PRIME. PRIMECorp itself owns assets. It owns the servers. It employs people. It carries on business. It's a corporation.

There is one share in that ownership arrangement, and there's a voting agreement whereby that share is voted according to the direction of the Minister of Justice.

K. Corrigan: Well, on this issue of access. To me, it seems that if the information is being gathered up and used for police record checks and it is being used in a way that some people, including the Information and Privacy Commissioner, think is inappropriate, people should be able to go to one source to find out where that information is — or delete or have corrections.

I had one of my staff, actually, one of the wonderful interns, contact PRIME, and they were told by PRIME that under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act anyone can request their PRIME file through FOI and that you also have the right to request correction. But others have said that you have to go to the original police agency or that you might be directed to PRIME.

I'm wondering if the minister can clarify that.

Hon. S. Anton: PRIME, as I mentioned earlier, does not own the data. It accumulates the data. For example, if you've got a record or some information in PRIME through the Vancouver police department, it's the VPD that owns that data. If you want to access that data as a member of the public, you do need to go to the Vancouver police department to request it.

K. Corrigan: But it's the accumulated data that is used in a police record check.

[1535]

It seems to me that an individual should have the ability and the right, if information is gathered about them and then passed on to another organization through a police record check or a criminal record check, to find out where it came from. They will not necessarily know. When the record check comes back, it can simply have a tick box that says "negative contact," or it can have other information. That person from that record check may have absolutely no idea where it came from.

How would the minister suggest…? If there was a record check that came back that had information potentially incorrect or potentially not as important as interpreted in that record check, what can the minister do to assure me that that individual can find out where that information came from?

Hon. S. Anton: The entities which put information into PRIME are all subject to privacy law, including the rights of citizens to access to their own information. In a practical sense, I think what the member is asking is: how do you find out what that information is? If there's a black mark against you somehow, how do you find out where that is?

If you've gone to a local police agency to ask for your criminal record check and they've given you the black mark, then you need to go back to that agency and ask how that information got put there. Then you are able to deal with it accordingly.

K. Corrigan: On a police record check, which is used for employment purposes often, it is my understanding that the information that could be on that report from the police record check wouldn't include what police agency that information came from.

Maybe the minister can correct me if I'm wrong. I'd like confirmation that that person would be able to find
[ Page 4503 ]
out where it came from.

[1540]

Hon. S. Anton: I'd like to introduce Fraser Marshall, with Justice, who is responsible for the criminal records checks.

Recognizing that there is an issue, as identified by the member opposite…. I do understand the question, that you've got some kind of mark against you and you don't know whether it's out of Kamloops or Montreal or wherever. The B.C. Chiefs of Police did set up a working group. Mr. Marshall is chair.

They are unrolling new standards around the province, whereby when you apply for your record — this was already in force in Vancouver, I gather — you will get a list of the items which are in the PRIME database, and it will tell you which agency put the record into PRIME.

K. Corrigan: Well, I'm glad there's a recognition now. Unfortunately, the program has been in effect for several years now, and it has affected many, many lives. Just to be clear, the individual — I may not have heard all of that or processed all of that — can go to a police agency, any police agency, in order to get that total information — or go where?

Hon. S. Anton: It would depend on where you went in to get your records check — if you went in to the RCMP in Burnaby or the Vancouver police department. Now it may be that the RCMP hasn't completely unrolled this, but it is the goal to have this across the province.

I would put one caveat on what I've just said, which is that the eight police agencies will check. If they have information from various places, they will check with those alternate agencies as to whether or not they can provide that information. Particularly, there may be cases where the information is sensitive for some reason or there's an ongoing investigation. There may be information which is not actually given out to the person applying, but generally, the goal and the effort is to make sure that people know where their information is kept.

[1545]

K. Corrigan: So the person is going to get a report back with all the information that is in the file, and where it is kept. Is that correct? Just to better understand it.

Hon. S. Anton: I'm talking about a criminal record check here. If you ask for a criminal record check, you will get the nature of the charge or the investigation and where that charge or investigation took place. You will not necessarily get the whole file. If fact, I don't think you will get the whole file. But you'll get the nature of the information which is out there.

K. Corrigan: There are criminal record checks, but there are also police record checks. Those are the ones that are creating the widespread damage. That was the one that the report of the Information and Privacy Commissioner was about. And that's the one that includes not just criminal charges but also information about negative contacts and all that. Is that type of situation covered as well — the police record checks?

Hon. S. Anton: I think the question was whether we were talking about police record checks, and the answer is yes.

K. Corrigan: Okay, so we're talking about police record checks and criminal record checks? I see nods, so we don't need to talk about that anymore.

Would the minister agree that one of the challenges is that when you have a private, for-profit entity — I assume it's for-profit but maybe not — that is responsible for gathering the information, that's exactly the type of problem that can happen. The entity, which seems to me should be the place that you should be able to go and get the totality of the information, is a private corporation that doesn't want to take on that responsibility.

You have a contract with that entity, so it creates problems that then end up having to be fixed later because it is contracted out. It could have been solved quite easily, I would think, if it had been a public entity doing this. I won't even get into whether the cost would have been less or more.

But would the minister acknowledge that that could be the problem with this situation? And is this going to create more costs, therefore, for local police entities, agencies, like municipal or RCMP?

[1550]

Hon. S. Anton: I disagree with the description of PRIME as being a private entity. It's essentially a public entity which is a wholly owned subsidiary of E-Comm.

I just have to say again that PRIME is a records management system. It collects information which belongs to other people. It does not own the information. It is not capable of giving out the information. It is not even capable of commenting on the information. All it does is collect it.

K. Corrigan: When somebody does a criminal record check, who is it? Is it the local police agency, then, that does the criminal record check using the information that's in PRIME and other sources — police or criminal?

Hon. S. Anton: If you request a criminal record check, the police will check CPIC, which is the Canadian service, and they will check PRIME.

K. Corrigan: I could spend another hour on this subject, but I won't. I will move on to something that is very
[ Page 4504 ]
closely related. That is the report fairly recently published by the Information and Privacy Commissioner.

Her message at the top of the report was: "This is one of the most important investigation reports, if not the most important, that I have issued in my role as Information and Privacy Commissioner of British Columbia." She took a look at the use of employment-related record checks, so of course it's very similar to what we are talking about now, because she says they are also known as police information checks. Of course, those would then include PRIME and CPIC.

Her investigation into how these record checks are done…. Her summary was:

"This investigation report clearly demonstrates that police information checks issued by B.C.'s police forces have a significant, real-world impact on British Columbians. These checks can affect an individual's ability to successfully obtain employment and can have lasting negative effects on their dignity and self-esteem."

She doesn't believe that the information released achieves the appropriate balance between an individual's right to privacy and an employer's right to obtain relevant background information. She's particularly concerned about mental health information.

I'm not going to go more deeply into it. I probably would have if I had more time, but the commissioner made several recommendations. Some of those that are related to government…. It says:

"Government and police boards should immediately direct police to cease providing mental health information in a police information check.

"Government should enact legislation to prohibit the release of non-conviction information for record checks for positions outside the vulnerable sector.

"Until recommendation 2 is adopted, government and police boards should direct police to stop releasing non-conviction information for positions outside the vulnerable sector.

[1555]

"Government and police boards should direct police agencies to implement a record check model that allows individuals to request only conviction information that is relevant to the position for which they are applying.

"Government should enact legislation to mandate that the centralized office currently operating under the CRRA undertake all record checks for vulnerable sector employees."

I'm wondering how the minister responds to these various recommendations and what, if anything, the government is doing about those recommendations.

Hon. S. Anton: The Information and Privacy Commissioner came out with her report on April 15. My staff were consulted during the course of the preparation of that report, and they were very supportive of doing the review.

Since the report, my head of police services has met the Deputy Information and Privacy Commissioner. He has written to police boards to invite them to consult. He has met by phone with the B.C. police chiefs and with the RCMP. We are considering these recommendations very carefully.

K. Corrigan: Since this is an ongoing issue and considering the urgency or the strength — the concern, I guess — expressed in the report, has the government considered interim measures?

I know, for example, that after the Dziekanski case there were directives in terms of police standards about the use of Tasers. That did not include legislation, but it included a directive.

I'm just wondering if the ministry has considered similar directives in terms of any of these recommendations on an immediate basis, rather than waiting until after consultation has taken place. And I do appreciate that this discussion is going on.

[1600]

Hon. S. Anton: There are no interim measures, but what there is, is a very active file, and it's a priority file. As I mentioned, the ADM in charge of police services has been actively meeting with the different entities involved, and all of the entities are giving the matter some priority and taking the recommendations very seriously.

K. Corrigan: I'd be interested in an estimate of when there will be action that would change the practices. Commissioner Denham says:"My conclusion is that the system is broken and that beyond the vulnerable sector, beyond those types of positions, I've called for a cessation of the release of non-conviction information."

As we speak, that information is continuing to be released in a police record check, and people's lives are being hurt. So perhaps some idea of what the timeline is in terms of any possible actions that could change those practices that Ms. Denham is so concerned about….

Hon. S. Anton: As I said, it is a priority, so I anticipate it will be in the next few months, but I do not have an exact date.

K. Corrigan: I want to ask a few questions about some issues that the B.C. Police Association has raised. They've raised them, certainly, with government, and they've raised them with me and others as well. I think what I'll do, in the interests of time, because I have some other things that I want to get on to, is maybe just mention some of them and get an overall answer. Then perhaps we can get more complete answers at some point in the future, perhaps in writing.

The issues that the B.C. Police Association raised this year, and some of them in past years, are the concerns about the fact that ICBC records…. They've been seeking regulatory amendments to the Motor Vehicle Act that would protect a driver's licence registration and personal information of police officers and their families. They're particularly concerned because recently an ICBC employee was found to have accessed the personal information of at least 65 individuals for inappropriate purposes,
[ Page 4505 ]
and some of those individuals have subsequently been the victims of a series of arsons and shootings.

That's one issue. The second — and it's a wider issue — is that there are real concerns about the B.C. Police Act and the independent investigations office — concerns, I think, about part 11 and many concerns about the way investigations are conducted and issues with the Police Act, generally. So that's another concern.

A further concern is about emergency access to high-security residences and then a concern about the cellular phone levy and that money from cellular phones is being collected by the providers but not going into the 911 system. It means, basically, that land lines, I guess, are completely subsidizing the 911 system.

[1605]

I don't know if the minister wants to respond to some or all of those now or whether it would be preferable for me to put those in writing and we can get an answer later.

Hon. S. Anton: These have somewhat complex answers. On the ICBC keeping an officer's information, that is a shared responsibility between….

[Interruption.]

The Chair: Go ahead.

Hon. S. Anton: On the question of ICBC keeping the information belonging to police officers, that's a shared responsibility between Transportation and Justice — because of ICBC being under Transportation.

On the B.C. Police Act and the IIO…. It may also be with Police Complaints, but I'm not sure. So for that reason, I would ask that both of those questions — in fact, all of these questions — be put into writing, and then we will respond to them — emergency access to high-security residences and the question of the cell phone levy and whether or not it's going properly into 911.

K. Corrigan: Yes, I'd be happy to do that. Maybe the one if there's a possibility to get an answer now is on that issue of the cellular phone service 911 levy. Is that correct — that essentially the money is being levied, is going to the cellular phone providers and is not coming back into the 911 system? If so, why? I'm not sure whether that could be answered today.

[1610]

Hon. S. Anton: The charges that cell phone companies use is not something within the expertise of myself or this side of the table. What I can say is that we don't have a government levy on cell phone bills relating to 911.

K. Corrigan: Well, I'll put that in the letter anyways, and if there is…. I think the suggestion from the B.C. Police Association was that there would be legislation to stop the double-billing of B.C. taxpayers, but that may, in fact, be federal. But I'll put that in the letter as well.

The one that I didn't mention was a concern about policewomen on maternity leave. This is largely an EI issue, which, of course, is federal, but the suggestion there is that there could be a policy directive to Crown with regard to accommodating female police officers who are on maternity leave and have to go give evidence in court and the fact that they don't get any extra time and they're not given any compensation for that.

I think that was a small piece, but I'll send that in the letter as well. Unless there are any more comments on that question? Nothing on that. Okay, then. What I'm going to do is I'm going to quickly….

Actually, a couple more things with regard to police services, just two, and I'm going to run through them really quickly.

The member for Vancouver-Fairview received a letter from the B.C. Society of Transition Houses expressing concerns about a bill that we had talked about. I asked many questions of the minister — the Missing Persons Act. I don't think I'm going to go through all the concerns, because of the time constraints that we have. But the society is very concerned about whether or not women that are fleeing abuse, women and children fleeing violence in their home, whether or not the provisions of that act could put them in jeopardy.

One of those concerns is that the definition of "missing person," which we had a great deal of discussion in the House about, may put women in jeopardy. The executive director says: "As you may know, there have been many cases where abusers accuse women of mental health issues and file complaints stating that a woman has unstable mental health or is mentally ill…concerned that the definition of 'missing person' could be used to trigger a missing persons report. We also know that many women suffer with mental health as a direct result of abuse."

There's concern about that, a concern about the fact that abusers often file missing persons reports. They're concerned about the use of the act in that case — and several other concerns. If the minister wants to make comment at this point about the position of those that are fleeing abuse, I would appreciate a general comment, and then I'll forward this letter as well.

[1615]

Hon. S. Anton: It is obviously of critical importance that women in abusive relationships be protected. It has always been the case that police may find a missing person who does not wish to be found or who wishes to remain in protection or away from her abuser. That has been the case prior to the Missing Persons Act, and it will continue to be the case.

There are regulations that will come under the Missing Persons Act, and as those regulations are developed, we
[ Page 4506 ]
will be consulting with persons such as the B.C. Society of Transition Houses. Our goal is to make this good regulation, to make it work and to protect people.

K. Corrigan: Well, I'm glad to hear that there will be consultation. I look forward to that. I think what I'll do is I'll forward the letter with the specific concerns, because they have been forwarded to us, and I'm sure they would have wanted that to be forwarded to you. They are not comforted by the fact that police already do get this kind of information, because it is a significant widening of the power in this case. But I'm not going to go into that anymore.

I wanted to just ask about the status of negotiations between the province with regard to Green Timbers.

Hon. S. Anton: Discussions continue. There is no resolution. Our goal is to get a fair deal, fair market value for the taxpayers of British Columbia and no more than that. We do not have a deal yet.

K. Corrigan: I'm wondering if the minister can explain to me exactly what the negotiations are about. We're talking a certain amount of office space. Is that correct? A commitment to a certain amount of office space within the Green Timbers facility.

How much office space are we talking about? I'm asking about square footage. What is the nature of the negotiations? Is the province already committed to taking on the office space? Is the province already occupying the office space? And is the province paying for that office space some amount at this point that could change in the future?

[1620]

Hon. S. Anton: It's actually the RCMP, of course, not the province directly. They have moved in. They occupy under 50 percent of the space, but the amount they occupy and the rent paid for that space are both still under negotiation and unresolved.

K. Corrigan: Okay. I'm trying to figure out: the negotiations are between who and who, and the contract is between who and who? You said it's RCMP. The province has not committed to renting any space at all in the property?

Hon. S. Anton: It is the provincial police force, and it is the RCMP, but the negotiation is indeed between Canada and British Columbia.

Well, there's another qualification on that. The building is occupied by the federal police force, the provincial police force and an area for divisional administration — Burnaby's divisional administration, for example.

The negotiation between British Columbia and Canada relates to the piece of the building occupied by the provincial police force and the piece of the building occupied by the divisional administration but not the piece of the building relating to the federal police force.

K. Corrigan: I'm wondering if the minister can let me know: that piece that is occupied by the provincial police force and divisional administration, which presumably will be paid for by the various RCMP detachment municipalities on a per-capita basis…. Can the minister please provide me information as to how many square feet we're talking about with regard to the provincial police? I assume it would be paid for by the province — 100 percent. Is that correct? And how much is divisional administration, which will be paid for by the municipalities that have those RCMP detachments? How many square feet?

[1625]

Hon. S. Anton: The square footage is still under negotiation, so I just don't have an answer to that. As I said a few moments ago, it's under 50 percent, but the final number is not settled on.

In terms of how it's paid for, for the provincial force, those dollars are cost-shared between 70 percent to the province and 30 percent to the federal government.

For the municipal divisional administration pieces — I guess those are the detachment administration pieces — there's a per-capita charge, and then that per capita is allocated to municipalities in the same way that other policing charges are allocated to municipalities. So if it's under $5,000, there is no charge; if it's between $5,000 and $15,000, it's 70-30; and if it's over $15,000, it's 90-10.

K. Corrigan: It's less than 50 percent, so the amount of square footage is actually under negotiation? Why does the province have any liability whatsoever? Where was that liability incurred and at what point and in what form? Is there a contract or a document that says the government will negotiate this?

Maybe if it's somewhat less than 50 percent — so I'm asking a number of questions here — what is the total square footage that we're talking about for the whole building?

Hon. S. Anton: It is a very large building. Is that a good enough answer? [Laughter.]

It's about 70,000 square metres. Even the Chair thinks that that's a big building.

[1630]

K. Corrigan: I think what I'm going to do, because we're running out of time — we have maybe a half hour to 45 minutes here, and I do want to ask some questions about Emergency Management B.C. — is I will, if it's okay with the minister, put remaining questions about this in a letter to the minister.

I have real concerns, because we're talking now about
[ Page 4507 ]
a fair amount of time that the building has been occupied. Liability has been incurred. This was left out of the negotiations at the time that the contract was negotiated between the province and the federal government, unfortunately. So it was not part of the contract at a time when I think we could have had more leverage.

What I'll do is I'll put these questions in a letter, if the minister agrees that the letter will be answered. I do understand that when we're in negotiations, there's some information that won't be provided, but if that's okay with the minister, that's how I'll proceed on this.

Hon. S. Anton: Indeed, yes.

K. Corrigan: Okay, I'm going to turn to Emergency Management B.C. I don't know if we need a change of staff here.

[D. Plecas in the chair.]

I wanted to take this opportunity in case — in a great flurry, as we act like we're getting out of school in 45 minutes or so — when the bell rings, I forget to do this. I want to thank the minister for her patient answers, and I want to particularly thank all the very able staff at the Ministry of Justice for providing the answers that my colleague from Nanaimo and I have received.

Interjection.

K. Corrigan: Oh, the member for Nanaimo concurs. So we win the vote.

Anyway, we want to thank all the staff, who have been most helpful over the last…. We've had three days, so it's been fairly extensive.

Turning to Emergency Management B.C., I wanted to ask questions about the budget, first of all. The budget for EMBC over the last several years has gone down in all but one year.

[1635]

I would just point out that for the year 2007-2008, the budget was $35 million. Then in 2008 it was about $36 million; 2009, $31 million; 2010, $26½ million; 2011, $23 million; then $26 million; then we're at $26.7 million this year.

Given that we have had inflation, given that we seem to have an increasing recognition and information about the fact that we're not prepared for earthquakes, that we seem to be feeling the impact of climate change…. If not so much now, certainly there will be impact from climate change in the future. Certainly, reports like the report that was done by the insurance brokers of Canada point out the real concern about possibilities in the future of earthquake, and other reports have talked about the possibility of landslides and so on.

Given all those things and increasing costs, will the minister acknowledge that it's very difficult to do emergency planning in this province, despite fabulous staff, I’m sure, on the budget that has been allocated — a reducing budget overall — over the years?

Hon. S. Anton: I'll start off by introducing Mr. Patrick Quealey, who is the head of Emergency Management B.C., and, should we need her, Ms. Lisa Lapointe, chief coroner of British Columbia.

I'll say one more thing, too, which is: thank you to the member for Burnaby–Deer Lake for her thanks to my staff. I concur completely. We are fortunate in Justice to be surrounded by excellent staff who do a very fine job for the province of British Columbia. So thank you for that observation, and thank you to the members opposite for their questions.

It's an interesting process. I will admit that not everybody professes to love estimates, but I do find it a very interesting process being here and being asked for the information that is of interest to the members opposite. So thank you for that.

In terms of the budget, it's not easy to draw comparisons from one year to another because things move in and out of the budget. For example, some of our facilities have gone into Shared Services British Columbia, just to give one example. So to compare year over year is not always comparing apples to apples.

K. Corrigan: Well, that is the money that's in EMBC. Perhaps I'll turn to something that is more concrete and, I would assume, is more stable, which is the Emergency Program Act. I would assume the types of payouts that have happened with the Emergency Program Act have stayed stable over the last several years. Is that correct?

[1640]

Hon. S. Anton: The voted portion of the Emergency Program Act is stable — around $14 million a year — but the actual expenditures under the act vary quite dramatically, because it is a statutory appropriation. So for example, in the year of the wildfires, about ten years ago, $87 million was paid out. Last year it was $36 million. So it can vary very significantly depending on what's going on in the province in a given year.

K. Corrigan: Yes, for 2013-2014 right up to 2016-2017, the Emergency Program Act is budgeted for $14.478 million, yet we do have payouts between a low of $17 million in 2006-07 up to, according to my figures, $81.745 million in 2011-12.

The last figures I have are, again, significantly more than the amount that is budgeted. I'm wondering why it is that the ministry…. When every single year there is significantly more that is paid out of the Emergency Program Act, why would it be budgeted so low when we know that it's not going to be even close to that in any
[ Page 4508 ]
of the years? At least, it certainly hasn't been in the last many years.

Hon. S. Anton: The $14 million is a baseline budget. The Emergency Program Act deals with situations from year to year which could be very minor or could be very major. In fact, the member drew the example of $17 million up to $81 million. You can't budget for that, because the numbers vary so greatly.

The second consideration is that government, EMBC, needs the authority to spend what is necessary if there is a serious emergency, so that's why it's a statutory appropriation. It's not voted money. It's simply authority to government under the Emergency Program Act to spend what's necessary in an emergency,

[1645]

K. Corrigan: But I guess if the lowest amount is $17 million…. I'm not sure, but looking at it, I would say that the average amount is probably closer to $50 million over the last several years.

Why would not an appropriate amount be put in the budget to better reflect the true nature of the books of the province so that we're not continually, every single year, underestimating the amount that's going to have to be paid out?

Hon. S. Anton: Given the type of account it is, which is the base budget with much more — perhaps not much more in an easier year…. It is Finance that has made the decision that this is the better way to account for it and budget for it.

The Chair: Member.

K. Corrigan: Thank you, hon. Chair, and welcome. I didn't say that before.

Could the minister, then, tell me…? So this budget, up to the $14 million or so that is there every year — that comes out of EMBC. That comes out of the Ministry of Justice. Where does the rest of the money every year come from?

Hon. S. Anton: I believe the member is asking about the difference between the $14 million, which is budgeted, and any other amount, which is actually spent. That difference is a statutory appropriation that comes out of the consolidated revenue fund.

K. Corrigan: Well, what line item…? It doesn't simply jump out, does it? Is it in a contingency fund, or is it in a particular ministry fund? I mean, it can't simply…. Really, can it just not be accounted for anywhere in the budget?

Hon. S. Anton: Expenditures under Emergency Program Act considered necessary by the minister to implement a provincial emergency plan or provincial emergency measures "may be paid out of the consolidated revenue fund without an appropriation other than this section," which is section 16.

[1650]

K. Corrigan: Well, I'm learning something.

So, for example, in 2007-2008…. No, how about 2011-12, where we had almost $82 million, and $13 million budgeted? Essentially, what we had was over $65 million — $67 million, I guess — that was paid and that was not in the provincial budget, which I think would be significant to the people of British Columbia.

If you looked at it over the last several years, we would have continuous payouts that are not budgeted for and are paid out. That would, to me, indicate that we might have a bit of a skewing of the actual budget as opposed to the costs incurred by the province.

Hon. S. Anton: As I mentioned a moment ago, it's a statutory appropriation. The details of that I think the member would have to canvass with the Finance Ministry.

K. Corrigan: Fair enough. Thank you very much.

I want to talk about a fairly recent report that came from the Auditor General of British Columbia about earthquake preparedness in the province of British Columbia.

I'm not going to get too deeply into it, given the amount of time, but essentially, the main finding is that we concluded that EMBC cannot demonstrate that it is adequately prepared to manage the effects of a catastrophic earthquake and is not reporting publicly on the province's preparedness and, further, that catastrophic earthquake planning has not been made a priority by government or EMBC.

Given that we live in an earthquake zone, given that we have reports like the one that I mentioned earlier by the Insurance Brokers of Canada saying that a major earthquake could cost in the range of, I think it was, around $85 billion…. I'm wondering if, given all of that, the minister would respond again to the question with regard to the funding of EMBC and answer whether or not it is believed that that's an adequate budget, given that we have done, apparently, not a good job in preparing for an earthquake.

Hon. S. Anton: The Office of the Auditor General did provide a very useful report to Justice and to government as to earthquake planning. I would observe that there are many different pieces of earthquake work and disaster-planning work which is done in British Columbia, but what the Auditor General was wanting to see was: what's the big picture, and what's the overall structure?

EMBC is working on that. We have a public consultation with an outside expert, as you know, who's canvassing utilities, canvassing municipalities, canvassing
[ Page 4509 ]
entities throughout British Columbia to assess their preparedness. In the meantime, EMBC is developing a long-term plan to articulate provincial goals and a phased approach to achieving these goals, working with partner agencies.

This will help us develop a sense of what we need to do in British Columbia for preparedness and what kind of budget will be needed in order to achieve that.

K. Corrigan: I'm assuming from the minister's response that we're going to need to find out what kind of budget it is that the money has not been put into earthquake preparedness that should have been put in, because we haven't done a good job.

[1655]

I guess, related to that issue of budget, how many people work in EMBC, including full-time staff? Then I'll ask a second question about that.

Hon. S. Anton: There are 82 people in EMBC right at the moment.

On the question of earthquake preparedness, many organizations and governments have responsibility for earthquake preparedness. The member will know that there's responsibility in local communities. There's responsibility in agencies. Telus, B.C. Hydro — they all have responsibility. There's responsibility in provincial government, in federal government. It's a vast question of how many different pieces of earthquake preparedness there are.

The Auditor General's report looked at EMBC. There are other entities in government which are also responsible for disaster planning — Transportation, for example. Forests, Lands and Natural Resources is responsible.

What EMBC's role and job is now is to describe the big picture, describe what people are doing, find out where the gaps are and prepare for those gaps. That's the job, and that was the piece that was identified by the Auditor General.

K. Corrigan: I would say describe, but I also think that EMBC, and the province generally, has a responsibility of coordinating. I think that's a theme that comes up over and over again with regard to emergency management. It comes up with regard to fire services. Report after report says the responsibility is with the provincial government in order to coordinate and provide the training, the information, and so on.

So yes, many people have responsibility, but the province definitely has a responsibility that I think goes farther than describing the situation.

Last year when I asked the question about how many people work in EMBC, I was told 166. They're not necessarily all FTEs. That is what I was told. I want to make sure that I'm getting the same information. I just asked the same question and was given an answer of 82. I'm wondering if there could be an explanation of why it's different — so different.

Hon. S. Anton: As I said just a moment ago, it is 82 EMBC excluding the Coroners Service. Last year I gave the answer 166 all together. So the two numbers are quite reconcilable.

[1700]

On the coordination role, indeed, Emergency Management B.C. does do coordination. I should add that EMBC does an outstanding job with people in British Columbia and responds to 8,000 incidents a year in British Columbia, where people attend to a local fire, a flood — different things that happen around British Columbia. The staff in the EMBC do a terrific job in doing that every day of the year.

K. Corrigan: I'm wondering if the minister can then give me an apples-to-apples answer. I got 166 last year when I asked the question — I don't know if there was a reference to the Coroners Service — and 82 this year excluded. I wonder if the minister could provide me, if not right now, for last year what the breakdown was between the Coroners Service and EMBC proper and this same information for this year — 82 plus how many in the Coroners Service? I don't need that today, necessarily.

Hon. S. Anton: The overall number is the same: 166. I want to verify the exact breakdown, but I'm going to say that the breakdown is either the same or very close to being the same.

In terms of the mission for Emergency Management B.C., I'll just read out their mission statement. "EMBC is responsible to British Columbians for leading the management of provincial-level emergencies and disasters and supporting other authorities within their areas of jurisdiction."

K. Corrigan: I'm only going to have time for one or two more questions. I'll ask on two different areas.

One of them is that I'm wondering what kind of financial planning…. Maybe this is not in the ambit of this ministry, but I'm wondering whether or not there is budgeting that is done in conjunction with the Ministry of Finance in case there is a major disaster. Or is that something that…?

For example, if there was a $75 billion earthquake, does this ministry work with the Ministry of Finance to estimate what it would cost? Is there any kind of budgeting in advance or planning for a major catastrophe? I guess they are called ex ante budgetary policies. Are these kinds of policies in British Columbia so that the money would be available for the province of British Columbia if there was a major disaster?

Hon. S. Anton: I think the question was: how is the
[ Page 4510 ]
money spent, and what are the consultations?

If there is a disaster, EMBC funds to pay for the flooding response, pay for the forest fire response — that is done through the funds, as permitted by section 16 in the Emergency Program Act, which allows those funds to be paid out of the consolidated revenue fund. That's done through consultation of our own Finance staff, our own staff on the financial side, who consult with the Minister of Finance, obviously, as the expenditures are underway.

Let me remove one thing from that last statement, which is: not forest fires.

[1705]

K. Corrigan: I was actually thinking of programs, like in New Zealand and other places, where there is a national fund put aside in the billions of dollars that has been building up over time. In fact, some proved to be invaluable in the most recent, I think, two sets of earthquakes. It's the New Zealand Earthquake Commission. That's only one of many countries.

I'm just wondering: is there nothing in place in this province in order to put a significant amount of monies aside in order to prepare for a catastrophic natural event like an earthquake?

Hon. S. Anton: I think, perhaps, the point being raised is that in a significant year when a lot of expenditures are being made, it has a significant impact on the overall provincial financial condition. There's no doubt about that.

But I would observe, as well, that the federal disaster financial assistance arrangements do help in dealing with a disaster where the costs are extremely high. The floods in Alberta would be an example of that, where the federal government stepped in to cover some of the cost. The agreements are available when a province's disaster response and recovery costs exceed $1 per capita of the provincial population. Right now that's about $4.7 million.

K. Corrigan: I'm not going to ask any more questions, because, apparently, we're going to be having to leap out of here in a couple of minutes. I have taken a look at the disaster financial assessment arrangements and did have some questions about that. I have some questions about mitigation and further questions about planning — personal planning and so on.

Of course, I had some for Lisa, as well, in the coroner's office. I apologize, Lisa, that you're here and that we're not getting to those questions today.

If possible, I will put all of those questions in a letter. I appreciate the response from the minister.

With that, I'll leave it to the minister to do what needs to be done. Thank you.

Vote 32: ministry operations, $1,025,193,000 — approved.

Vote 33: judiciary, $68,109,000 — approved.

Vote 34: Crown Proceeding Act, $24,500,000 — approved.

Vote 35: independent investigations office, $8,100,000 — approved.

Vote 36: British Columbia Utilities Commission, $1,000 — approved.

Vote 37: Emergency Program Act, $14,478,000 — approved.

ESTIMATES:
OTHER APPROPRIATIONS

Vote 52: Electoral Boundaries Commission, $2,500,000 — approved.

Vote 53: Environmental Appeal Board and Forest Appeals Commission, $2,075,000 — approved.

Hon. S. Anton: Hon. Chair, I move that the committee rise, report resolutions and completion of the Ministry of Justice, Votes 32 through 37; and Votes 52 and 53; and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:10 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

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

TV channel guide • Broadcast schedule

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