2015 Legislative Session: Fourth 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)

Wednesday, May 6, 2015

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 25, Number 7

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

WEDNESDAY, MAY 6, 2015

The House met at 1:41 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Madame Speaker: Good afternoon, hon. Members. There was a medical emergency in the west gallery, but I’m pleased to tell you that the gentleman is in very good hands.

Routine Business

Prayers.

Tributes

JUNE BURRITT

Hon. C. Clark: Today I want to note, with sadness and with tremendous respect, the passing of one of British Columbia’s great citizens, June Burritt. She was the matriarch of a British Columbia family that spans five generations — truly founders and builders in our province. Her influence over everyone that she met over the years was subtle, and it was profound. She was a bright light, and we will all miss June Burritt, who lived her life well.

Introductions by Members

Hon. T. Lake: Earlier today, along with you, hon. Speaker, and the Leader of the Opposition and members of this Legislature, we had the privilege to be part of the dedication of the Fallen Paramedics Memorial on the grounds of the Legislature.

We gathered today, which the province has proclaimed as British Columbia Fallen Paramedics Day, to remember and honour the paramedics whose lives have been lost in the line of duty. And we all saw the wonderful work that our paramedics do for us each and every day, right here in the House.

In the gallery are friends and family of the paramedics whose lives were lost in the line of duty and who are memorialized outside today. They are Tony Sunderland, Theresa Hunt, Carolyn Schlamp, Andreas Goedicke, Kim Weitzel, Ivan Polivka, Jo-Ann Fuller, Michael Gray, Shawn Currier and Wendy Thompson. I would ask the House to please join me in welcoming them and expressing our sincere gratitude for the work of their loved ones.

[1345]

Also in attendance at the dedication and with us today are Bronwyn Barter, who is the president of the Ambulance Paramedics of B.C.; Carl Roy and Linda Lupini, who are respectively the president and executive vice-president of the Provincial Health Services Authority and the B.C. emergency health services; Jodi Jensen, the chief operating officer of B.C. emergency services; the Rev. John Lowe, the B.C. Ambulance chaplain, who is representing the B.C. Ambulance Service retired members association and the fallen paramedics committee; Ken Kramer, chair of the emergency medical assistants licensing board.

I want to note Lynn Klein, a retired paramedic and frequent guest of the Legislature, who played such a key role in the Fallen Paramedics Memorial. And I want to thank you again, hon. Speaker, for the role that you played.

Please join me in welcoming our guests today.

N. Macdonald: Joining us here in the precinct is George Weitzel, as well as Bob and Lori Currier. They attended the paramedics memorial unveiling held earlier. Would MLAs join me in welcoming them to Victoria.

R. Sultan: Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, otherwise known as ALS or Lou Gehrig’s disease, will capture about one in 1,000 of us. It’s terminal, and there’s no cure. The best we can do is provide research and family support. In the galleries today are representatives of the organization which does that: the ALS Society of B.C., coordinated by a former member of this Legislature, Susan Brice, who was MLA for Oak Bay and is now a vice-chair of the Victoria chapter of ALSBC.

She’s accompanied by Wendy Toyer, executive director of the ALS Society of B.C.; by Richard Polquin, who’s one of the directors; by researcher Dr. Neil Cashman; by Ann McArthur, who’s also a director; and by Edward Wang, of Borden Ladner Gervais and a member of the ALSBC advocacy committee.

Would the House please make them welcome.

Statements

ALBERTA ELECTION

J. Horgan: We on this side of the House, those who have been in government, understand how hard ministerial assistants work, and I know that the members of executive council know that as well. So it will be no surprise to anyone who knows the hard work of ministerial assistants to learn the news that last night in Alberta a former ministerial assistant to the Minister of Justice in British Columbia was elected to be the Premier of that great province — Rachel Notley.

It was a great campaign. I know there are those who think that anything can happen on a campaign — some people sitting, maybe, right across from me. Sometimes things happen on the trail that lead to good outcomes, sometimes not so much. But with Rachel Notley, I think we can all agree that Alberta, for the first time in 45 years, is going to experience genuine change.

I think that’s healthy for democracy in Canada; it’s
[ Page 8098 ]
healthy for the people here. And for all of those ministerial assistants watching question period today: you never know.

Introductions by Members

Hon. A. Virk: It’s my honour to stand here today in the House and introduce not only two amazing Surrey residents, business icons and philanthropists but great British Columbians. We have Sherrold and Marina Haddad with us here today. They built from the ground up Flag Chev Olds, and it has a history behind it. They moved the flag from Expo 86, at considerable cost, all the way. They wanted to preserve it and moved it. It became an icon in Surrey — Flag Chev Olds.

They’ve been philanthropists, they’ve been business leaders, and they’ve been community volunteers. Their philanthropy has gone to Simon Fraser University and Surrey Memorial Hospital. In fact, they even rescued two children — two abducted children — from the trunk of a car once.

In 2013 they were awarded the Angel Award for outstanding charity for their work on Variety, the children’s network. This is one of several rewards they’ve received for their volunteer works for Canuck Place, for B.C. Special Olympics, Surrey Memorial Hospital and many, many others.

I am truly honoured to call them my mentors, my adopted godparents. Would the House please make them welcome.

[1350]

S. Fraser: Joining us today in the Legislature are Brian Fuller and Fred Webber. They were here to attend the wonderful ceremony. Thank you, hon. Speaker, for that and everyone else involved dealing with recognizing the fallen paramedics.

Brian and Fred are here representing the families of fallen Tofino paramedics Jo-Ann Fuller and Ivan Polivka. Would this House please join me in making them feel very welcome.

J. Shin: It’s with great pleasure that I introduce to the House my constituents Hiruth Mekit Mwandemere and Woinshet Ladessew, and also dear friends from the Ethiopian-Canadian community and their leaders and representatives from the Ethiopian Community Association of B.C.

The visit by the delegation today is not to just share with the members of the Legislative Assembly their proud 3,000-year-old heritage and culture but also to highlight the importance of and to gain support for their new project, the Ethiopian house.

Burnaby is home to the largest population of Ethiopian Canadians, and I’m privileged to be able to support this initiative that will serve our diverse communities.

To mark this important occasion, the delegation brought to this House a very special gift. For over 3,000 years the Ethiopians have maintained their independence from several invaders. One significant event in their history is the Battle of Adwa in 1896, where they defeated the foreign power equipped with modern weaponry attempting to colonize Ethiopia.

The gift is what their forefathers had used to keep their freedom for centuries. It symbolizes the same as for the mandate of this House as the defender of freedom, democracy and liberty for British Columbians, they say.

I would like to thank everyone from the Ethiopian Community Association for making their way to Victoria to join us in the House today, and I would ask the House to make them please feel very welcome.

B. Ralston: I wanted to also introduce some Canadians of Ethiopian origin who are here today for their first time in the Legislature: Tisgeroman Dejene, Melaku Mekonnen, Bereke Kebede, Debebe Gulu, Abaynesh Tafesse, Nigussie Abera, Buzunesh Alexander and Kokobe Getahun. Please will the House welcome them all.

H. Bains: I also have two sets of introductions today. My constituents, three of them, are from an Ethiopian background. They are in the gallery: Hassen Abdella, Leyila Hassen Yusuf, Bisrat Hailemeskel. Please help me give them a warm welcome to this House.

Also, I have two very good friends. I think I could call them lifelong friends. Bruce Ferguson has been an activist, a trade unionist all of his life, for 40 years. In the past he spent 16 years as president of Laborers International Union Local 1611. Currently he’s a president of the Labour International Union’s retirees club. Along with him is Merrick Walsh, who is a recording secretary of the retiree council.

Please help me give them a warm welcome.

K. Corrigan: I also would like to welcome an Ethiopian Canadian, my constituent, Afework Woldetsadik, and I hope that the House will please make Afework welcome.

R. Chouhan: It gives me great pleasure to introduce and welcome my constituent Lulu Kebebe, who’s a member of the Ethiopian delegation today. Please join me to welcome him.

S. Simpson: I’m pleased to join with my colleagues and welcome three members of the Ethiopian community from Vancouver-Hastings who are here today: Genet Kebebe, Elsa Birru and Ejigayehu Woldegiorgis. Please make them welcome.

J. Kwan: I’d like to ask the House to please welcome Elsa Abebe, who’s also part of the Ethiopian Association
[ Page 8099 ]
of B.C. delegation visiting us today. I ask the House to please make her welcome.

[1355]

G. Heyman: I hope the members will join me in welcoming another member of the Ethiopian-Canadian delegation, who’s a resident of Vancouver-Fairview, Worku Ayalew.

M. Mungall: I’d like to introduce the House to a group of people who are with Raise the Rates. This fall they joined Bif Naked, a Canadian rock star, in doing the welfare food challenge, living on $23 of food for a week. Please will the House welcome Bill Hopwood, Jean Swanson, Fraser Doke, Terry MacDonald, Harold Lavender, Thelma Jack, James Pau, Phoenix Winter, Fraser Stuart, Rene Flamand, Victoria Bull, Wilson Liang, Dana Burgess, Samantha Truong and Brittany Goud. Please will everybody give them a very warm welcome.

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

ORAL CANCER AWARENESS

D. Bing: Each year over 500 people in British Columbia and over 4,000 people across Canada are diagnosed with oral cancer. The key to improving outcomes is early detection. That is why the B.C. Cancer Foundation is dedicated to raising public awareness about oral cancer and leading the way in terms of supporting cutting-edge research in British Columbia.

In the past three years an event organized by Brenda Currie, An Evening to Conquer Oral Cancer, has raised over $215,000 in support of the B.C. oral cancer prevention program. It is also the first and only fundraiser of this type dedicated to raising funds for oral cancer research.

Dr. Miriam Rosin at the B.C. Cancer Agency leads a multidisciplinary group of scientists and clinicians committed to improving the prevention and treatment of oral cancer in British Columbia through a combination of research, clinical and community outreach activities. In fact, this program is the first in the world to have successfully identified specific genetic changes in the DNA of individuals with low-grade lesions that are highly predictive of oral cancer development.

We know that dental professionals who screen during dental visits tend to diagnose oral cancers at an early stage. This is why on April 8 the government announced a new, one-time, $120,000 grant to support dental programs for low-income adults and children throughout B.C. Twenty not-for-profit dental clinics will receive funding to deliver services at a reduced rate so that more British Columbians can access dental care. Together we can continue to reduce the number of new diagnoses and improve the lives of those living with the disease.

PARAMEDIC DEATHS AND
FALLEN PARAMEDICS MEMORIAL

N. Macdonald: Today on the grounds of the B.C. Legislature we attended the unveiling of a monument to honour paramedics who have died while on the job. On the monument are the names Kim Weitzel and Shawn Currier, who died nine years ago. They succumbed while attempting to save the lives of Bob Newcombe and Doug Erickson, who also lost their lives. All four entered a shed on the decommissioned Sullivan minesite in Kimberley that covered a water-testing pit. The air in the shed was almost entirely devoid of oxygen, and one breath put the victims in an unconscious state.

Paramedics do a very difficult job. They rush to scenes of trauma to give comfort and ease pain, and they’re often asked to go into dangerous situations. Kim and Shawn thought they would be attending a drowning. They believed they were going to a pond, not a shed. They had no way of knowing that the conditions in the shed would cause their deaths.

The funeral, held nine years ago, for Kim Weitzel, Shawn Currier, Bob Newcombe and Doug Erickson was held at the Kimberley Civic Centre. Along with much of Kimberley, more than 700 paramedics, firefighters, police, military personnel and search and rescue members led a two-kilometre procession to the funeral. Across East Kootenay and, I think, across the province we mourned their loss.

I just wanted to acknowledge the work of B.C. paramedics, the B.C. Ambulance Service and the Speaker’s office to create a fitting memorial to fallen paramedics. Kim Weitzel and Shawn Currier are honoured here on the grounds of the B.C. Legislature in perpetuity, as it should be.

Our thoughts are with their families, who are with us today. They have lived their lives these past nine years and will live with this tragic loss forever. We all hope there is some comfort in knowing the deep appreciation felt by all members of the Legislature and, in fact, all British Columbians for those like Kim and Shawn, who choose to serve.

[1400]

CYSTIC FIBROSIS AWARENESS

Moira Stilwell: May is Cystic Fibrosis Awareness Month, a time for all Canadians to come together to increase awareness and raise funds to fight this fatal disease.

Nearly 4,000 Canadians are living with cystic fibrosis. Each week the disease takes one life and presents itself in two more. It’s multisystem, often affecting the digestive system and the lungs, creating long-term issues that include difficulty breathing, persistent coughing, frequent
[ Page 8100 ]
lung infections and poor growth in the young. It is the most common genetic disease affecting Canadian children and young adults, and there is no cure.

Since most deaths from cystic fibrosis are due to lung disease, organ donation is an essential lifeline for many suffering from the condition. Great strides have also been made in life-saving research, and management of the disease has improved significantly over the last few decades.

Cystic Fibrosis Canada has been at the forefront of advocacy and clinical care for the past five decades. It has invested more than $140 million towards vital research that has improved the quality of life for Canadians living with the disease and helped our country achieve one of the highest cystic fibrosis survival rates in the world.

This May, Cystic Fibrosis Canada is asking Canadians to support further research and care, help raise awareness in their community and use social media to spread the word. Together, we can continue to improve the treatment for Canadians living with this devastating disease and work toward a future where we can all breathe a little easier.

ETHIOPIAN COMMUNITY

J. Shin: Whenever I crave my share of wat and injera, I don’t have to travel far because one of my favourite Ethiopian restaurants is just five minutes away. That is just one of the many wonderful luxuries we enjoy in a province as diverse as ours.

Ethiopian-Canadians in B.C. have a rich history. They started to arrive in the 1940s to study at the University of British Columbia, to return home with a Canadian education. But many remained to serve in government and in other industries here. Today we have over 10,000 Ethiopians in British Columbia in a wide range of professions and businesses.

A local fundraising event in 1985, in response to the famine in Ethiopia, led to the inception of the Ethiopian Community Association of B.C. This non-profit organization was established to preserve, share and promote the 3,000 years of Ethiopian cultural heritage. They also worked to support the settlement of new Ethiopian-Canadians, to contribute and enrich the cultural mosaic of Canada. As well, ECA is engaged in community and youth empowerment programs that foster integrated communities.

As the Ethiopian Community Association prepares to celebrate its 30th anniversary this summer, the association has embarked on an ambitious project to build a community centre that will help promote understanding and appreciation of their Ethiopian culture and heritage by all Canadians.

I ask the support of this House for this initiative. So on behalf of ECA, I would like to also invite all members to join me on August 29 at the Ethiopian Summer Festival. And in where else but, of course, Burnaby, as the hub of multiculturalism and interculturalism, is this going to take place.

This festival is one of our enduring summer favourites for the communities, featuring live music, dance on-stage, exotic food fair and displays of arts and crafts that draws an audience, more than 3,000 attendees, from our communities each year. I hope to see you there.

INTELLIGENCE AND WISDOM
IN DECISION-MAKING

G. Hogg: It seems that it isn’t what we don’t know that causes us problems; it’s what we do know that just isn’t so. It seems that many more things are plausible than are right. President Kennedy was fond of saying you can’t beat brains, and he appointed his cabinet knowing that that was true. But he was wrong. Brains can be, and often are, beaten.

Author David Halberstam called Kennedy’s cabinet the best and the brightest ever assembled. Following the first meeting of that cabinet, then Vice-President Lyndon Johnson said to Sam Rayburn, Speaker of the House and Lyndon’s mentor, that the cabinet was incredible. Each one who spoke was brilliant, and the last to speak was the brightest of them all, a former professor at Oxford and CEO of the Ford Motor corporation, Robert McNamara. But Rayburn wasn’t impressed. He said: “Uh-huh. I wish one of them, maybe one of them, had run for dogcatcher once.”

He went onto explain the difference between intelligence and wisdom. He said that wisdom grows out of common sense, intelligence and experience, and that he feared that Kennedy’s cabinet lacked wisdom, lacked the advantage of the different perspectives that experience can teach.

[1405]

Halberstam argued that the cabinet, despite its brains and its thoughtful, rational decision-making, could not find a way out of the Vietnam War because it lacked the context, perspective and experience — in fact, the wisdom — necessary to solve that difficult problem.

Fortunately for those of us who are not the best and the brightest, listening is more important than talking, and wisdom is more important than brains. As actor Jim Carrey said in the movie Dumb and Dumber: “So you’re saying there’s a chance?” Well, yes, there is — lots of them, for all of us.

ALS AWARENESS

A. Weaver: Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, or ALS, is a debilitating, progressive, neurological disease that leads to the death of neurons that control voluntary muscles. Each of us in this chamber probably knows of at least one person who has struggled with this disease. In my case, it’s three.
[ Page 8101 ]

Hon. Speaker, 2014 was a very busy year for the ALS Society of B.C. Prior to last year’s ice bucket challenge, which I had the distinct honour of participating in, the society found it challenging to raise awareness about ALS. They found it challenging to attract the type of funding required to advance ALS research. These challenges were literally washed away, temporarily, last August, and a new era of hope has begun.

Three years ago the society established a five-year goal to raise an additional $2 million for ALS research. Remarkably, by itself, the 2014 ice bucket challenge raised nearly that amount through the generosity of British Columbians. The ALS Society of B.C. directed 100 percent of this windfall to ALS research. As a result, five new research grants have already been awarded in Canada, including one to Dr. Charles Krieger at Simon Fraser University for his studies concerning the use of bone marrow cells to deliver single-chain antibodies in ALS.

In British Columbia we are extremely fortunate to have some of the best ALS specialists in the world caring for our patients at the G. F. Strong Rehabilitation Centre. The province’s continued partnership with the centre is crucial to providing the best quality-of-care service.

On August 6 members of the International Alliance of ALS/Motor Neuron Disease Associations will be staging events around the world to report back on how the funds from the ice bucket challenge have been invested.

However, it’s important to note that despite the recent fundraising success, ALS is still not a treatable disease. More patients are diagnosed daily, and the cost of equipment and critical services increases every year. Until there’s a cure, we cannot afford to let up.

June is ALS Awareness Month. There will be many events taking place across British Columbia during this month, and if you’re looking for information, it can be found at the ALSBC website — www.alsbc.ca.

Oral Questions

B.C. HYDRO MANAGEMENT AND
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PLAN

J. Horgan: Before the last election the Premier conducted an audit of B.C. Hydro. In doing that audit, the Premier said the following: “We worked really hard on that audit to try and wrestle down these rates. I’m going to keep that promise, because people are struggling.” That was the Premier before the election. We all now know after the election that rates were increased by 28 percent, and it was: “Well, I guess we didn’t struggle that hard before the election, as we had been told.”

In fact, since then we’ve learned that transmission projects in British Columbia are $500 million over budget. We’ve learned that B.C. Hydro is not meeting its conservation targets. We learned that the number of employees making over $150,000 a year has tripled. And now we learn that the five-year information technology program, the five-year telecommunications and technology plan, is in its seventh year and is $100 million over budget.

My question is to the Premier. What happened to the enthusiasm for working people before the election, and why is it that we now see B.C. Hydro completely and utterly out of control, costs continue to escalate, and overpricing on just about everything seems to be commonplace?

[1410]

Hon. C. Clark: Well, let me just take a moment here to be clear about who it is in this Legislature that stands up, stands for, fights on behalf of working people in British Columbia. It’s this side of the House. It’s people who believe in creating jobs — high-paying resource sector jobs, technology sector jobs, where people can make not just a living wage but a family-supporting wage.

There is a reason members of so many private sector and public sector unions voted for the plan that I presented in the last election. It’s because they understand that bigger government, bigger taxes, do not mean more benefits for citizens.

What they understood in the last election is that smaller government, responsible spending, tackling your debt and your deficit, maintaining your credit rating and making sure that British Columbians are number one in your mind in creating jobs is how you look after working people. We stand for that every day, and we do it proudly.

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

J. Horgan: I don’t know how the Premier can take 28 percent rate increases for hydro bills as looking after people who are struggling. I don’t know how the Premier can say that doubling MSP premiums since the Liberals came to power is keeping costs under control for working families. I don’t know how the Premier can say that jacking up camping fees so that families can’t even take a break in the summertime is helping working families.

What I do understand is that the government decided to give a tax break to the top 2 percent. That I understand, and that’s what the people of British Columbia understand as well. But I think I digress. Let’s focus on the meal of the day, which is mismanagement at B.C. Hydro. Before the election the Premier looked into the camera and she said, “I’m going to wrestle these rates to the ground,” and they went through the roof.

Why? Well, $500 million over budget on transmission; $150,000-a-year employees tripled; and just today we’re revealing to the Premier — and maybe she’ll pay some attention to this, because her current chief of staff was responsible for this when he was at B.C. Hydro as the chair of the board — that your IT plan, your five-year plan, is in year 7, and it’s $100 million over budget. Instead of
[ Page 8102 ]
driving costs down, it’s driving costs up.

So again, my question to the Premier is…. Let’s try and focus on the facts, and the facts of the matter are that B.C. Hydro is a disaster. What plan is there to fix that?

Hon. C. Clark: I know that the Minister of Energy has spoken quite a bit in response to these questions and has offered all the answers that the member is seeking. B.C. Hydro is undertaking one of the largest expansions that they have undertaken in 30 years so that we can look after our kids.

I mean, the other part of this equation, when the member talks about working people…. Empty promises, empty talk, at a time…. From a man who was a part of so seriously damaging our economy throughout the 1990s…. Last in employment growth, 50,000 people who fled our province to try and find jobs, eight consecutive unbalanced budgets and credit downgrades — that’s what that member stands for.

On this side of the House we stand for working people, including the working people over at B.C. Hydro that he complains about. Many of the people that are earning over $150,000 a year, which he complains about, are the men and women who go out at night, on weekends and in overtime and put their lives at risk to make sure that British Columbians continue to have power.

Yes, those are costs that we incur, but I think most British Columbians would say it’s worth the investment in those working men and people who do that on our behalf and who do it so incredibly well.

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

J. Horgan: I do have a supplemental, and I’ll try again to bring the Premier back to the reality that families are feeling today. They’re struggling. The 28 percent rate increase is not my rate increase. It’s not the member for Burnaby–Deer Lake’s rate increase. It’s the Premier of British Columbia’s rate increase.

[1415]

Now, I appreciate that the Premier likes to take historical walks down memory lane, but I think we learned something very valuable last night about fearmongering, and that is that it doesn’t work. So rather than getting an undergraduate course from the Premier on what happened in British Columbia a thousand years ago, why don’t we get from the Premier an answer to what she’s doing to working people in British Columbia today?

And what is that? Hydro rate increases. I live on Vancouver Island. I’ve got to pay a little bit more to get off it now, and some of the people that come here by boat might be doing that on the other side as well. Camping fees, ICBC rates, MSP premiums. Everything that the government touches comes out of the pockets of working people.

Will the Premier stand today and say that B.C. Hydro is out of control, that we need to fix it and that that should be the highest priority, not pretending it isn’t broken?

Hon. C. Clark: If the government that we complain about, the last NDP government, was a thousand years ago, I’ve got to give this guy credit. He doesn’t look like 1,054 years old, because he worked for them back then. When we talk about 1990, it’s not that long ago.

What we should be talking about when we talk about how British Columbians are doing…. Were British Columbians doing well in the 1990s during all those years of deficit? Were they doing well when British Columbia had the worst unemployment rate in western Canada every single year in a row? Was that good for working people?

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Hon. C. Clark: Was it good for working people when the NDP opposed the B.C. early childhood tax credit? Ask the 180,000 families that will benefit from that. Ask the tens of thousands of children who will get the $1,200 in the education savings grant — again, something that he campaigned against. Ask the tens of thousands of people who will soon be riding the Evergreen line to work and to home every single day. Ask the thousands of trade students who will be eligible…

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Hon. C. Clark: …for up to $16,000 through the B.C. access grant. Ask the 1,300 British Columbians who are working in the five new mines that have opened since 2011. Ask them if they are better off. Ask them if they are better off with the policies of a B.C. Liberal government that stands for jobs and opportunity. I think they will give you a resounding yes.

A. Dix: Let’s just review what the Premier is actually bragging about today. A five-year information and technology plan that’s half finished and that’s in its seventh year. It’s in its seventh year. Their $400 million plan…

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

A. Dix: …has cost $492.5 million. They’re failing to meet targets.

B.C. Hydro justified doubling their IT spend and increasing rates to double their IT spend on capital by
[ Page 8103 ]
arguing that the $400 million expenditure would reduce operating costs by 30 percent — $400 million to save $30 million a year. It sounds a little like Social Credit, but that’s what they promised.

What happened? We’re now in year 7. The plan is incomplete.

Interjection.

A. Dix: I know the Minister of Health is an expert on bungled IT schemes.

We’re now in year 7 of the plan. The plan is incomplete.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

A. Dix: And the operating savings? Did they save 30 percent? No. Did they save 25 percent? No. Did they save 10 percent? No. Operating costs went up.

How can the minister justify this irresponsible and unsuccessful spending?

[1420]

Hon. C. Clark: Just so that there’s no doubt, I do want to be clear about what I was bragging about.

Near record employment in British Columbia — 2.3 million British Columbians working. An exclusive club with a third balanced budget, a third consecutive balanced budget. An unemployment rate at 5.8 percent, which is the largest decrease in Canada since we introduced our jobs plan in 2011. Lowest personal income taxes in Canada up to $121,000, which puts a lot of money in people’s pockets.

And so, in addition to the 21,000 units of social housing that have been created, in addition to the 74,000 British Columbians who are now working who weren’t before, in addition to the B.C. education savings plan, the middle-income families who are paying less — more than $2,000 a year less than they were under the NDP…. Those are achievements, and if the member wants to know, that’s what I’m bragging about.

Madame Speaker: Vancouver-Kingsway on a supplemental.

A. Dix: This is how, I guess, you get 28 percent hydro rate increases. This is how you get transmission line costs out of control and the public misled before an election. This is how you get an information technology plan that doesn’t meet any of its targets, that’s over budget, that’s in its seventh year with no end in sight. This is how you get it. All the Premier seems to do is sit in her own office and read her own campaign literature.

A few weeks ago the Minister of Energy and B.C. Hydro weren’t able to provide coherent answers to any questions on this overrun, any questions on these late programs, any questions on this unsuccessful program. How can he explain? Oh, but someone at B.C. Hydro noticed in February that the person responsible for the plan was dismissed by B.C. Hydro.

So my question to the minister is simple. It’s simple. How can he justify…?

Interjections.

A. Dix: Oh, again. You know, there are so many experts on failed IT schemes on that side of the House, and they’re all speaking now.

How can the minister possibly justify a scheme that is in its seventh year, that is over budget, that is failing to miss its targets and where the author of the scheme has been fired? How can the minister justify this scheme which has cost hydro ratepayers so much money?

Hon. C. Clark: Well, first of all, I reject this notion that I am reading campaign literature. What I am reading are the accomplishments of the government that are based on the promises that we made during the election, promises that we have kept and accomplishments that we have delivered for the people of British Columbia.

Why are people moving from across the country and around the world to British Columbia? It’s because in British Columbia we have the lowest overall tax burdens in Canada. When you look at income taxes, property taxes, health care premiums and payroll taxes, British Columbians get to keep more of their money than just about anybody else in Canada. That is in direct contrast to when that party was in power in 1990 and people had the biggest hit from government of anyone in Canada. Their wallets got smaller faster in British Columbia than any other province. The most beautiful place in the world to live and people had to leave.

[1425]

Well, not under this government. We’re looking out for working people. We want to keep British Columbia affordable. And we want to create jobs in every corner of the province.

INTERIOR HEALTH AUTHORITY
AND SENIORS CARE CASE

M. Karagianis: Let’s look at another record under 14 years of B.C. Liberal government. Under this government seniors care has deteriorated, and despite a major investigation by the Ombudsperson, delivered in 2012, problems persist, causing seniors and their loved ones, like Nancy and David Varcoe, unbelievable hardship.

According to a subsequent report from the Ombudsperson issued in April of 2015, Interior Health detained Ms. Varcoe for more than two years without her consent. She was torn away from her husband,
[ Page 8104 ]
David, who wanted to take care of her at home. To quote the Ombudsperson: “The health authority detained her in residential care and charged the corresponding residential care fees without having the proper legal authority to do so.”

My question is through to the Justice Minister. Can she tell this House why her government detained Ms. Nancy Varcoe against her will for more than two years?

Hon. T. Lake: It is this government that instituted the first seniors advocate office in all of Canada. We care about our seniors. They have dedicated their lives to British Columbia, and we need to make sure that they are looked after as they age. We have a seniors advocate. We have a seniors action plan. We are working hard. We have created thousands of spaces for residential care and assisted living throughout the province of British Columbia.

What we recognize in our priorities document, which has been out for a year now and had widespread consultation around the province, is that we need to make sure that seniors can live in their homes as long as possible, to be assisted to stay in community and to stay, as much as possible, out of the acute care system. That’s what we’re working hard on, and we’ll continue to do that to make sure our seniors are well cared for.

Madame Speaker: Esquimalt–Royal Roads on a supplemental.

M. Karagianis: Well, it’s very clear that the government does not want to give us a direct answer on this issue.

A review panel released Nancy in May of 2013, but it took the Ombudsperson’s investigation to document how systematically the government violated Ms. Varcoe’s basic human rights. According to the Ombudsperson: “It was evident that health authority staff had facilitated the revocation of Ms. Varcoe’s power of attorney without providing her with access to legal counsel.” The report goes on to say: “The health authority did not have adequate reason to detain her, and after spending over two years in care against her express wishes, a decision by the review panel ordered that Ms. Varcoe be immediately discharged home.”

I would like to ask the Minister of Justice again to tell this House: how many other seniors are being detained in care without adequate reason and against their expressed wishes — detained without their express wishes or permission?

Hon. T. Lake: I have had the opportunity to visit residential care homes throughout the province of British Columbia, and I can tell all members of the House that the staff who look after our seniors in those residential care homes are exceptional. They care deeply about their residents.

In this situation, the health authority has apologized to the family. We take this very seriously. The health authority has committed to additional training and understanding of applicable legislation for their staff to assure that appropriate assessments and decisions are made, to make sure this doesn’t happen again. But we also have strong legislation in place, which guides when someone is held under the Mental Health Act, to make sure that there is a Mental Health Review Board, an avenue for families to seek recourse.

The health authority, in this case, has apologized to the family. We will make sure that this does not happen again. That is why we have a seniors advocate, an independent seniors advocate, who ensures that we continue to improve everything we do in seniors care in British Columbia.

[1430]

M. Farnworth: Mrs. Varcoe was not fighting alone. In fact, had it not been for her husband’s determined efforts, she would not have been released.

The Ombudsperson’s report is very clear. It said to the Varcoes that the steps taken by the health authority resulted in “significant loss of liberty and financial hardship” to them both. They lost their car. They were told to sell their house and divide the profits between the two people. They had their bank accounts accessed, their tax returns accessed, their pensions accessed — all without the appropriate authority.

To say it’s undue financial hardship is an understatement, if there ever was one. It’s disturbing that you would force a vulnerable citizen to be detained against her will. But it’s truly disturbing when the government would do so, when the review panel concluded that her husband was more than able, and perfectly willing, to care for her at home.

Even after that, when they knew it wasn’t right, they went and doubled down. They detained her as an involuntary patient under the Mental Health Act.

Can the Premier explain to the Varcoes why this government took more than two years of their lives?

Hon. T. Lake: It is extremely unfortunate that some decisions were made. I have no doubt that people were making decisions out of the interests of the client. When you have vulnerable people, good intentions don’t always translate into the best decisions.

We take the Ombudsperson’s report very seriously. Interior Health has apologized. No one would want that to happen to their family member. Interior Health has apologized. They are discussing how to work this out with the family in terms of the financial impact on the family. We have strong legislation, in terms of the Mental Health Review Board, for recourse for families.

Madame Speaker: The member for Port Coquitlam on a supplemental.
[ Page 8105 ]

M. Farnworth: This requires more than a simple apology or that “we’re going to have some additional training.” This is about a family who…. For two years their lives were torn apart because of the actions of this government.

The Ombudsperson’s report is clear and damning in its findings. I’ve outlined how they lost those two years, the financial pain and the family pain that the actions caused. But there was more. When the apology was offered and a “settlement” was put toward the Varcoes, they were told: “If you don’t agree to waive any civil suit, the $25,000 that we took from you wrongly, we will not give back.”

Again, to the Premier: does the Premier think that is fair treatment for citizens of British Columbia? Does she think that is justice for people hurt by the actions of her government?

Hon. T. Lake: The member is correct. These aren’t simple matters. To suggest that a situation is black and white, as the member is doing in this House for political purposes, is not correct either. It is not correct. It is not right. People act with the best intentions. In spite of that, mistakes were made. They have been acknowledged. Apologies have been issued. The IHA is working with the family to ensure a resolution for them.

[1435]

No one can give them their time back. We know that. But to suggest that people looking after vulnerable adults in this province would willfully impose something to…. That is ridiculous. The member does a disservice to everyone looking after seniors, to suggest that people would act that way knowingly.

We will ensure that Interior Health looks after the situation. We are committed to looking after vulnerable adults in the province of B.C.

J. Darcy: It must be said. The Minister of Health does an injustice to the Varcoes, and to people who care for seniors right across this province, with his response.

After threatening to withhold the Varcoes’ care fees, the government finally relented and reimbursed them with no strings attached. But that doesn’t even begin to address the more significant harm that was caused to this couple. In addition to the indignity of being detained against her will, the Varcoes went deep into debt — $65,000 by their estimate — and they lost 30 months of their lives that they will never, ever get back.

Does the minister really believe that an apology, reimbursement of fees and vague statements about an education program offset the immeasurable pain that was inflicted on this couple?

Hon. T. Lake: No, I don’t. I don’t. Nothing can give them that time back. But again, to suggest…. I can’t talk about details of individual cases in the House. The member knows that. The members opposite make it sound like it’s black and white, that it’s not complex, that people didn’t have good intentions or had the very best interests of people in mind when decisions were made.

That is why we have an Ombudsperson’s office. That is why we have the Mental Health Review Board. We have processes in place, because situations — as the member well knows, from her career in health care — are not black and white. They’re not simple; they are complex. When family members are facing challenges, when people have real needs and caregivers have their best interests in mind, it is never simple.

We are committed on this side of the House to continue to improve the service that we give to vulnerable seniors throughout the province of British Columbia. I am determined to do that. I know every one of my colleagues is determined to do that as well.

[End of question period.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. T. Stone: In the chamber of the assembly I call committee stage on Bill 9, the Workers Compensation Amendment Act, 2015. In the Douglas Fir Committee Room I call the continued estimates of the Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development. In the Douglas Fir Room, following the estimates of the Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development, will be the estimates of the Ministry of Justice.

[1440]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 9 — WORKERS COMPENSATION
AMENDMENT ACT, 2015

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 9; R. Chouhan in the chair.

The committee met at 2:44 p.m.

On section 1.

[1445]

S. Simpson: This section deals with the matter of injunctions and the ability to restrain industry if an employer defaults. I believe this replaces section 46. Could the minister tell us, and explain generally, what the change is and how the government believes that this will, in fact, effect the kind of changed behaviour that we’re looking for from employers who might not pay their bills?

Hon. S. Bond: I appreciate the brief recess. Thank you very much for that, to the member opposite.

I do want to introduce the team that I have with me today, because they’re always critical to the work that we
[ Page 8106 ]
do. I very much appreciate them, and I know the member opposite does as well and has expressed that. I have my deputy minister, Athana Mentzelopoulos. I have Trevor Hughes, who is assistant deputy minister on the labour side, and I have Michael Tanner, who’s the director of labour policy and legislation.

I think the member opposite’s question is to ask: what is the point of the section and the changes? He is correct. It would replace section 46.

One of the problems that I was very concerned about was the fact that there may well be egregious employers who are assessed administrative penalties and in order to avoid actually being held accountable for their behaviour will reconstitute themselves under another corporate entity. The purpose of these particular changes means that if there is an employer who defaults in paying an assessment or a penalty, which includes administrative penalties, the Supreme Court of B.C. will now be able to grant an injunction which restrains that particular employer from carrying on in that industry until the assessments are paid.

I think the decision we made, from a policy perspective, was it’s not just about the corporate entity. We need to be able to move that down. The changes in 46(2) actually will not only affect the corporate employer but also directors, senior officers and other persons who are a directing mind of the employer from carrying on in an industry or an activity in an industry until all of the assessments, including penalties, have been paid.

S. Simpson: In the legislation, 46(1)(a), it says: “an employer defaults in the payment of an assessment.” Assessments generally under the act have been the rates or the premiums paid by employers into the accident fund — essentially, the dollars paid by employers into those funds. Is that still the interpretation here? Would that mean that for an employer who was delinquent on paying those regular assessments, this could be used to affect them, as well as an administrative penalty, for some kind of particular conduct?

Hon. S. Bond: The member is correct.

[1450]

S. Simpson: Then just to be very clear, can this be used to….? This policy — is it seen as a way to be used to deal with what we might call premium avoidance? You have circumstances where, for example under the rating systems, employers who work safely can get discounts. They’ll receive discounts on their premiums based on their conduct, and those discounts can be significant if they work safely for significant periods of time.

We know that there have been instances where employers have not been able to achieve that and may make a determination for a variety of reasons to wrap that business up, put a new shingle out and come back and try again to get at those reduced premiums in another way. Would this also potentially be used to cover that conduct if an employer was trying to get around having to pay the level or the rates of premiums?

Hon. S. Bond: I appreciate the question. I think it is important to point out that the bill and the policy intent here, in the work that we’ve done, is really designed to drive compliance around worker safety. But the member opposite is correct. It would certainly cover if they have not paid their assessment or penalties. Yes, this would apply. It would mean that you simply couldn’t…. To use the member opposite’s own language, you can’t hang out a shingle and avoid payment of either an assessment or administrative penalties. This allows that practice to stop. In fact, the court would simply say: “You cannot continue to work in this industry until you either pay up your premiums or pay up your administrative penalties.”

S. Simpson: One follow-up there. We know the situation around WorkSafe B.C. is the experience rating system. Employers who have a record of working safely can get a discount on their base rate of up to 50 percent, if they have a record of working safely.

We know, on the other hand, that firms that don’t work safely could face a surcharge of up to 100 percent on their premiums if they’re deemed by WorkSafe to not be working safely or they’re acting negligently. We know there have been circumstances…. The stories are out there about companies that find that prohibitive in terms of their costs or they just see the example of essentially reincorporating their activity, much like others have done. We all know the stories. People have called this the Arthur Moore clause in some cases, and we know how he conducted himself, flipping his businesses at times to do what he did.

[1455]

This is slightly different. Companies could essentially reincorporate and look to get a fresh start on their premium payments by getting around it if they faced a significant surcharge. Does this do anything to deal with that? It doesn’t mean they are not paying, but they’re using a reincorporation strategy to reduce their assessments.

Hon. S. Bond: I certainly understand the question, and I just want to be careful to answer it correctly. The point of these changes is to preclude a company — and its directors now; we go further down the chain of command — from starting up a new corporate entity. Whether they don’t pay their premiums or their administrative penalties, the court will now be able to say, “Oh, no, if you were a mill, you can’t operate in that particular sector again until you pay up.”

To clarify the question about premium avoidance, if that corporate entity starts another corporate entity
[ Page 8107 ]
their history travels with them. It doesn’t mean that you can shut down one, start a new one and, by the way, the premium history that you had disappears. It doesn’t do that. The history would follow them. And that’s a separate issue.

This is about saying: “If you have not paid your assessments, if you have not dealt with your administrative penalties, the court can say you’re not going to operate at all until you do that.” That is a new power. Premium avoidance is not directly reflected in this. The only way you could avoid premium adjustments is if you started in a new sector. You can’t continue in a mill and avoid the premium history that you have.

S. Simpson: Could the minister talk a little bit about how this might apply differently to a smaller company with fewer employees, with a single owner or a small group of officers, a small company that might be affected by this? If you took the principal of the company out of play, or threatened to do that under this legislation, that becomes a significant consequence, versus a larger company where individuals are not that critical to the operation of the company and how it might function differently.

[1500]

Can the minister talk a little bit about the thinking in this, about how you get around maybe this not being such a consequence for a larger company?

I would note, for example, this deals with small players that might be a problem. In the case of, for example, Lakeland or Babine, those are both significant companies. They’re not small, fly-by-night operations. They’re significant mills. They have significant infrastructure, and they have major questions about them.

You’re not going to take one or two people out of either one of those companies and stop them from operating. How does this affect them differently?

Hon. S. Bond: I think the size of the mill really doesn’t matter because the new power will allow the court to say: “Whether you are a two-person mill or whether you are a Lakeland or Babine, your mill does not operate again until the assessment or the penalties are paid.”

I think the scope is quite broad when it comes to talking about the senior officers and others, because what it means is the court will have discretion. This is an enabling section for the courts that will allow the court to say: “As a senior director or a senior officer in this organization, you will not be able to operate in the sector either.”

What it does is, for those larger companies, bring a greater degree of accountability further down the organization.

I do want to point out, because this is a very…. It was a recommendation made in Gord Macatee’s recommendations, obviously after the circumstances that occurred with WorkSafe. This is for the most egregious.

You can imagine that with building in, now, the authority for the courts to say, “You can’t operate in this sector or even conduct” — it goes as far as to say — “an activity in an industry until you take care of these assessments or fees,” there is fairly broad scope.

To the member’s question, whether you’re big or you are small, it means that the court can simply say to you: “Because of your egregious behaviour and because you have not taken care of your responsibility in terms of the consequences, you will not operate in this industry.”

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

S. Simpson: Section 2 is the section that essentially adds two more directors to the board, increasing the board from seven to nine directors. Those are to be directors one of whom has a background in legal and law enforcement, the other one occupational health and safety.

Could the minister talk a little about the rationale behind the decision to do this?

[1505]

Hon. S. Bond: Mr. Macatee in the work that he did recognized that the current framework for the board of WorkSafe certainly provides that the directors must have expertise in terms of their obligation around disabled workers and to deal with the matters in a financially responsible way.

Mr. Macatee believed that there was a gap, and I agreed with him, that would allow WorkSafe to better meet its obligations, frankly, and requirements to deal with workplace safety. He highlighted two specific areas that we needed to pay more attention to. One was occupational health and safety expertise and making sure that that information is available for those who give direction and provide decisions. There needed to be a focus on occupational health and safety to make sure that we recognize the full range of responsibilities that WorkSafe has.

Frankly, it was, I think, demonstrated in what occurred leading up to the decisions around Lakeland and Babine. I think these are important gaps to close.

S. Simpson: The section in the legislation is fairly specific. It lays out a fairly specific definition of what “law enforcement” means for the purposes of this director. It doesn’t do the same thing with health and safety. Could the minister tell us why one of them is specifically defined and not the other? The subsequent question will be: what’s the expectation around the health and safety position?

Hon. S. Bond: One of the reasons that the definition of law enforcement is included is because it actually is defined in other statutes. So when you’re talking about law
[ Page 8108 ]
enforcement, there is a definition in other B.C. statutes — for example, Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. We wanted to be consistent, and obviously, when we write new law, we want to ensure that it is consistent across others.

It also very specifically captured the type of individuals that Mr. Macatee recommended specifically. In recommendation 14 of his plan he specifically talked about those who had investigation or prosecution experience.

[1510]

I think the reason that the occupational health and safety position is less defined is that there is a process under which those particular nominations are made. They actually come from a body of expertise where people will recommend occupational health and safety individuals. That’s noted, obviously, in sub 2(e) and (f).

The primary reason was reflecting Gord Macatee’s recommendations and also making sure that we were consistent with the definition of law enforcement across other B.C. statutes.

S. Simpson: The selection process for these directors, as with other directors…. As the minister says, they will choose from a list of at least three nominated by representative organizations — “nominated by one or more organizations for professionals in law or law enforcement.”

Has the minister made a determination of which organizations those are that she will be accepting those nominations from?

Hon. S. Bond: I have not been prescriptive in terms of where the nominations should come from. What is clear, though, is that WorkSafe needs to consult broadly within those particular sectors. What we will be doing is having a discussion about the types of organizations that would be able to provide names for the nomination of directors.

I can give the member opposite some examples. In the case of law enforcement, organizations that could be asked to nominate would include the bar association, the Law Society, the B.C. Association of Chiefs of Police and the Fire Chiefs Association of B.C. Logically, those would be groups that could probably provide some excellent candidates.

On the occupational health and safety organization, the same would be true. I have not said it needs to be four or five organizations. I would expect there to be a broad discussion about this.

Some examples of organizations that we’ve talked about that are potential would be the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of British Columbia, the B.C.-Yukon local section of the American Industrial Hygiene Association and the Canadian Society of Safety Engineering.

This is absolutely not an exclusive list. We want to have the best people for the role and with the appropriate expertise. That process would take place. Three names would then be presented as recommendations. So a number of organizations, and I have not been prescriptive.

[1515]

S. Simpson: Just so I understand, it says three names. How this process works…. This is the question. There are three or four or five organizations, the minister is saying, and law enforcement was mentioned — I think three or four or five, the potential. Is the expectation that those organizations have a conversation, then arrive at three names that they can all agree on and submit those? Or does each of those organizations submit the three names of their choice?

Hon. S. Bond: No, it’s WorkSafe’s responsibility to go out and canvass organizations and then come back and bring a list of three. The groups themselves don’t have to agree or disagree. It basically is WorksSafe that would go out. We would task them with that responsibility. That is their responsibility to go and do that. In fact, all three names could come from one association, should they be deemed to be the most appropriate and have the highest degree of expertise for the particular nomination. That would be the case in either law enforcement or occupational health and safety.

WorkSafe will go out, will canvass, will have a discussion with a number of organizations. And again, not at all prescriptive. I have not said it has to come from here, there or anywhere, for that matter. We will have a discussion that it be broad and inclusive. Their job is to come back with three names that they believe would be best able to serve in those two positions.

S. Simpson: So that I understand this…. Is it the minister’s expectation that WorkSafe will generate maybe a list of names in one of these sections, as presumably they do elsewhere, and come back and say to the minister — or to the deputy, whoever: “Well, here are the five or six organizations in this area that we have been talking to, and here are the names that we’ve got from them”? They’ll tell you, “Here’s who we’re talking to,” so you know who’s not on the list as well. Is that the expectation? Or will it just be up to them to do this, and the minister is a bit hands-off in terms of the organizations? Or you want to know and be able to say: “Okay. That list isn’t broad enough for me, and I’d like you to talk to a couple other people”?

Hon. S. Bond: There is some back-and-forth, less directly with the minister than with the staff at work. I think that’s appropriate. Having said that, my expectation is that this be a broad…. When I say “consultation,” we’re not talking about a royal commission here. We’re talking about in their discussions with people in the sectors that they reflect the number of organizations that would have people with expertise.
[ Page 8109 ]

I think it’s fair to say that if the list came back to me and I believed that there was a gap, I would certainly make that point to ensure that it is a broad consultation. I would welcome the member opposite…. If he has suggestions of particular organizations that he thinks it would be important to canvass, I’m happy to have that information passed on to WorkSafe.

The process is that they go out, they consult, they talk to a number of organizations, and the list that finally comes back to me is three. It would be within their decision-making authority to come back and say: “Here are the three choices. How do you feel about that?” Then we would work through the process. But if I felt that the scope had been too narrow — certainly, if that was the advice from my staff — I wouldn’t hesitate to ensure that there was some broader discussion.

[1520]

S. Simpson: I appreciate that. The observation I would make around that…. Maybe the minister would comment, particularly on the occupational health and safety position, whether some factor of the labour movement — whether it’s the Federation of Labour — would be one of the bodies that gets consulted here since health and safety is obviously one of the areas that the labour movement is quite focused on. They have a fair amount of people who have a breadth of expertise in that area.

Does the minister think that would be an appropriate choice for one of those organizations on that side?

Hon. S. Bond: It certainly does not preclude them. I think the only delineation that would be important for me to make is that there is already a worker rep on the board. So the person who came from the labour movement, for example, would need to demonstrate that they have the expertise to fill the position. It wouldn’t be that they were there as worker reps. They could be workers, but we have a worker rep.

The most important thing, from Gordon Macatee’s perspective — and I agreed with him, as I said earlier — is that we need people with expertise on that board in these two areas. So it absolutely does not preclude them. I am sure there will be a discussion that will take place. It does need to be based on their expertise, not on being a worker rep.

S. Simpson: I certainly would agree that any names that get put forward have to have appropriate credentials, whether they’re experiential or academic or whatever credentials they are in the field. The observation I would make is that…. I’m sure there are people who would tell me there’s an employer’s rep on there. There are a number of other employers who fill other roles, whether it’s the actuarial role or other roles. They are essentially employers as well, for all intents and purposes, but they’re there because of another expertise.

I’m sure that the labour movement — I know for a fact — has many people who are very experienced on the health and safety file itself. So I would hope that there would be some discussion with those folks there around that.

I think at that point that will end my comments on section 2.

Section 2 approved.

On section 3.

S. Simpson: Section 3 talks about an expedited process, potentially shortening the review time frame down. Could the minister talk a little bit about what this section accomplishes, why the decision was made to do this and what the benefits are?

[1525]

Hon. S. Bond: I think one of the things that Mr. Macatee certainly shared with me and that I have experienced — and I’m sure the member hears it all the time too — is that when we’re working through these processes after there has been an event, by the time you accumulate days and months and weeks, by the time you’re at a place where you are dealing with this, it can be years after an event.

I asked Gord to look at the processes that are in place and sort of the cumulative impacts on the timing. How long is it taking to do things, and what can we do to, in essence, not shortchange the process but streamline it? You know, from my perspective, it’s not reasonable to be three years after an event and still sorting things out.

The point of this provision is that currently the act says that if a person wants a review of a WorkSafe decision or order, it must be done within 90 days. Mr. Macatee and I, again, agreed — or it wouldn’t be here — that that’s too long.

What this does is allow for there to be, by regulation…. I’ll explain to the member why…. I’m sure he knows that Mr. Macatee recommended ten days. That’s not characterized here. It’s not captured in this legislation because we actually wanted to have some discussion about whether that was reasonable or not. I agree with the principle of shortening it. We have not determined that it is ten days. That work is underway as we speak, and I understand that some ideas and feedback will come to me not that long from now.

The point here, though, is that we have to have shorter time frames. We want things to be more timely, more effective, making sure that we’re dealing with penalty and occupational health and safety orders more efficiently.

He recommended moving from 90 days to ten days. The changes that we have put in place allow, by regulation, for us to shorten that time. That’s certainly my in-
[ Page 8110 ]
tention. But we also need to make sure that there has been some discussion about whether the right number of days is ten or not, so the ten is not reflected in the legislation.

S. Simpson: Mr. Macatee, in his report, recommended the review process be shortened for citations, for employer citations. He talked about both with the government — and I agree with the government — and deemed that it would be for citations against employers. He recommended that process be shortened.

Does this also apply or will it apply to reviews around benefits for workers as another aspect of review? I ask the question because, the minister will know, the review process is complex, not easy to navigate. In particular, that’s true if you have individual workers who are trying to get through this in terms of their situation and a potential review around their benefits, versus an employer and a citation, where presumably they have counsel and other folks helping them sort through that.

It’s not clear to me here that this also wouldn’t effect a shortening of the process, say. That might affect an injured worker’s benefits.

[1530]

Hon. S. Bond: To the member’s specific question, this provision is not intended to deal with the time frames attached to benefits for workers. That does not mean that that is not an important issue. This particular provision talks about, and directly relates to, the review of a decision or order that WorkSafe has made.

I would share the member’s observations and concerns that this is about one part of the process. I have made it clear, on many occasions, that workers need to be our priority in the processes that take place at WorkSafe.

This particular provision does not consider shorter time frames for reviews on other types of decisions. But we have made it clear that that type of process also needs to be looked at in terms of putting workers’ needs at the front and making sure that there is efficiency in those processes.

One of the challenges we have, and I know that the member opposite would be aware of this…. A worker has up to a year to make a claim, so we have to keep in mind that there’s also an important principle in recognizing that some issues may not even evolve or develop until further away from the event.

I don’t want it to be so constricted that it removes the right for workers further down the path to actually come and make those claims. It is a balance, but I recognize the member’s concern. I would agree that we always have to be looking for ways to ensure that workers and their needs are being considered as well.

S. Simpson: The concern I have — and I’m happy to be corrected here if I’ve misinterpreted this — is that this change would potentially affect the review for almost any type of decision that’s made. It could be covered by this review period.

If I understand correctly, ultimately the regulation will be written by WorkSafe here, as to what that is, in consultation with whoever they consult. They’ll write the regulation, and this would allow WorkSafe to write the regulation to affect a whole variety of decisions with a shortened time period, not just citations.

I also don’t want to necessarily shorten that time period, I think, for review of benefits for individual workers. But am I correct that this would, in fact, allow them to write that regulation for those benefits?

[1535]

Hon. S. Bond: The member is correct that this is enabling legislation. So there is room for…. And it wouldn’t be WorkSafe. It would actually be us, because it’s an order-in-council. It’s the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council that sets the regulation.

The focus of the changes is actually to deal with Gord Macatee’s specific recommendation. But the member is correct. This is an enabling piece of legislation. So yes, it would at some point not preclude there being an adjustment to time frames related to other issues.

S. Simpson: Well, I certainly would hope that, as the minister has stated, she’s sensitive to the issues of injured workers’ benefits, how they may be calculated and sometimes the ongoing process to come to a final resolution of what they should be. I would hope that there would be no notion of shortening that time frame, because it’s complicated enough as it is.

I think we’ll leave it at that on that section.

Section 3 approved.

On section 4.

S. Simpson: One question on section 4. Just so I understand this change, the minister could maybe explain it briefly. I’m interpreting this as being much like section 3 — just, again, tightening and saying that decisions have to be made in what is essentially less than 150 days, from within 150 days. Maybe the minister could explain what that difference is — other than a day, potentially. I’m assuming that it’s, again, just part of the process of some tightening and expediting.

[1540]

Hon. S. Bond: Yes, the member is correct. This is in the same thematic grouping as the changes previous to this. Mr. Macatee wanted there to be shorter time frames to ensure that we are dealing with things and that WorkSafe is dealing with timeliness and the effectiveness of penalty and occupational health and safety orders. I
[ Page 8111 ]
think that all of us agree that we need to do a better job of tightening those things up.

What this provision allows is for this decision to be made. It is a WorkSafe policy. It is not regulation, so it won’t be determined by Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council.

WorkSafe has done, I can advise the member opposite, a review and consultation on reducing the time period for conducting these reviews. While I don’t get to direct WorkSafe, I know that they clearly understand that the intent of this change and the recommendation provided in the action plan was for it to be shorter than 150 days and that 149 probably wouldn’t cut it from my perspective.

I think there has clearly been a message sent by the action plan and by our team that this is about making sure that we are, in a far more timely and effective way, dealing with these events. It’s very difficult. The member knows. He’s met with families, as I have, and with communities and others. When you add up all of these timelines, it takes too long. Now, we want to be thoughtful, because it also has to be judicious, and we have to ensure that there is proper due diligence done.

So yes, same vein as the previous changes. Have not determined what that date will be. WorkSafe has done their consultation and are contemplating what the policy change might look like.

Section 4 approved.

On section 5.

S. Simpson: I just have one question here. It’s in regard to…. We know the federal government here changed “controlled product” to “hazardous product.” This change, as I understand it, just makes the change in definition to do that. But could the minister tell us whether…?

In that assessment, when that change was made, did the ministry or WorkSafe do any assessment about whether there’s any material effect or impact that this has on the designation of hazardous substances? Has it changed anything, with the federal change, in terms what it means now?

Hon. S. Bond: No, we don’t believe that it has any material impact. In fact, this is a requirement. The amendments have been made to the federal Hazardous Products Act. So it doesn’t matter what jurisdiction. People will need to move…. The term will need to change in their jurisdictions from “controlled product” to “hazardous product.”

We wanted to make sure that we are staying in sync with the decisions that Canada has made, and provinces need to look at adopting the globally harmonized system. As you can imagine, when you’re dealing with a hazardous substance, you want to be sure that it is viewed the same way and consistently across jurisdictions.

Sections 5 and 6 approved.

On Section 7.

S. Simpson: Section 7 is one of the more significant sections, I believe, of this piece of legislation. It requires employers to conduct two investigations, one within 24 hours of an accident or an incident and then a full investigation within 30 days.

[1545]

Could the minister tell us what the thinking was with this, to have the employer do this, and how this differs from the current situation?

Hon. S. Bond: The reason for clarity here is that in the previous section, which will be existing section 173(1), the language was: “An employer must immediately undertake an investigation….” I think the concern, and rightly so, was: what does “immediate” really mean? Some of us might have different viewpoints about what that looks like.

From the recommendations from Mr. Macatee, there needed to be specific timelines. Again, it’s trying to reduce the cumulative overall time frame that the investigation takes, from the beginning of the event to getting to some resolution. The recommendation was that the employer should be required to complete a preliminary investigation within 48 hours. That’s that very beginning reaction to what happened — getting that preliminary investigation done. Then the full investigation must be completed, with a report submitted to WorkSafe, within 30 days.

The concern that I had in looking at this was that…. To my earlier comments, it is about balance. We don’t want a process in place that is about rushed, inadequate work. Certainly, the bill is trying to address at least the inadequate part of some of the work that has been done previously.

This says clearly that there is also, if it is very complicated — we want to ensure that the work is of high quality — a possibility to have an extension granted in certain circumstances. But this is about timelines. It’s about saying that these investigations are a priority, that the preliminary one must be done quickly and immediately, within 48 hours, and then you have to have the full one done within 30 days.

S. Simpson: Could the minister talk a little bit about how this complements what WorkSafe has to do themselves in terms of WorkSafe investigations? How does that process work, where WorkSafe does its own investigation? I’m hopeful, and I don’t expect that…. The minister is not suggesting that the employers will investigate themselves and then that would just be accepted.
[ Page 8112 ]
I’m sure there’s a process for WorkSafe investigation too. Maybe the minister could talk about how those complement each other.

[1550]

Hon. S. Bond: This does not change the obligations that WorkSafe has about conducting investigations. So in the event of — we certainly pray they never happen again, but as an example — a significant event, WorkSafe would still be on site, likely, long before the 48 hours that the employer is required to provide a preliminary report. There will continue to be an obligation for WorkSafe to investigate those events that are significant in nature. Often these things are being done in a parallel way, so in the event of a major circumstance, WorkSafe will be on site within hours.

They would begin to conduct their investigation, and the employer would simultaneously be doing the work for their investigation — their preliminary one, at least — within 48 hours.

It is very important that we ensure that there are timelines so that health and safety risks are addressed in a very timely way, that the employer has enough time to conduct an investigation and evaluate all of the issues and also to ensure they are well aware of the parameters within which they must make those determinations.

WorkSafe continues to have obligations. The employer will continue to have obligations, only they will have to do it within, now, a prescribed timeline.

S. Simpson: In the changes in section 7, the amendments to 173, it defines what accidents need to be investigated and what requires a full investigation, etc. What changes, if any, are there in relation to the existing rules about what has to be investigated, and how?

Hon. S. Bond: There are no changes to the type of accident. It reflects the need to provide timelines for employers.

Sections 7 and 8 approved.

On section 9.

S. Simpson: We’ll keep this discussion going through 7 and 8; 7, 8 and 9 are a bit of a package here. But section 9 is the section that really gets into the depth of these investigations and what needs to happen with these investigations.

My sense of it is the preliminary report, which has to be completed within 48 hours…. There is no obligation here, if I’m correct, for that report to be filed with the board, with WorkSafe, unless WorkSafe specifically requests it. There’s not an investigating officer who’s going to get to see that first report that happens quickly, unless they ask for it. Is that correct? If so, why is the decision made not to have that kind of first preliminary report arrive?

[1555]

It’s my thinking that depending on what the scope of that accident or that incident might be, that report quickly may trigger interest from WorkSafe that they may want to pay more attention. Depending on the nature of the incident, they may be looking to pay more attention to it, and I’m not sure that they’ll always ask for them. So why the decision to have that discretion and not have them filed?

Hon. S. Bond: To the member opposite’s question, there are a number of tools available to WorkSafe, and this is another one. The thinking behind the 48 hours is directly, obviously, from Mr. Macatee’s report. In discussing it with him, the intent was that an employer needed to be compelled and required to do the work for the first 48-hour preliminary report.

[1600]

He does go on to balance his comments in the report by saying that there also needs to be thorough and complete investigation. The piece that’s required to hand automatically to WorkSafe is the final report within 30 days. Having said that, the employer must be ready to present to WorkSafe a 48-hour preliminary report. And it is by request. The member opposite is correct in that.

It is also supported by another section of the act which requires serious incidents, and it’s defined, to be reported to the board. It doesn’t mean that WorkSafe will not be aware of circumstances, because if it’s determined to be serious, they need to notify the board. The requirement here is that an employer must do a written report and be prepared to present it to WorkSafe. That is, again, as I said, supported by the need for employers to report serious incidents to the board of WorkSafe.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

In discussions with Mr. Macatee about this, he did not believe that it was necessary for every 48-hour report to be given to WorkSafe automatically. Part of the reason for that is pragmatic. There can be 100,000 reports or more every year. It is a tool that WorkSafe has that if an incident occurs, they can request: “After 48 hours we want to see your preliminary report.”

For me, the key piece was that within 30 days there needed to be a full investigation and that needed to be presented to WorkSafe.

S. Simpson: So I understand. The current practice is a preliminary report done by an employer into an incident today does get supplied to the board, as a matter of course. And this would change that practice?

Hon. S. Bond: At the moment there is no preliminary
[ Page 8113 ]
report required. So this is now a two-step, where there would be an immediate…. The employer is now, with a timeline, required to immediately pay attention and make sure they have a written report available. The language before did not require a preliminary investigation report in this form.

S. Simpson: One of the things that does change somewhat here is the preliminary report or the preliminary investigation…. There’s no longer a requirement here for that to be provided to the plant health and safety committee or to the workers’ representatives unless corrective action has been taken, and then there’s something to follow up there.

Could the minister explain why that preliminary report is not made available, as a matter of course, to the health and safety committee or the workers’ representative so they can see whether they accept the premise of the preliminary report, which will be preliminary? But do they accept the premise?

[1605]

Hon. S. Bond: The member has read the legislation correctly. It is specifically articulated that if there is corrective action, it must explicitly be shared. In terms of where there is no corrective action, whenever an investigation is done, there is a worker rep engaged in that process.

The view was that if they’re involved in the actual process of doing the investigation — and there are sections that lay out where that is required — the process would assume that that worker rep has the ability to be aware of that information and to share it where necessary. The reason that it is more explicit…. If there is corrective action necessary, then it was viewed that that is very significant and needed to be explicitly shared.

I think that in looking at Mr. Macatee’s recommendations, the key point was that a worker rep is involved in that investigation, would be aware of any of the work that is done. So the only requirement that’s captured here explicitly is if there is corrective action taken.

S. Simpson: Could the minister direct me to the place where it specifically says that workers have to be involved in that process?

Hon. S. Bond: It’s not in the sections that are represented here. It’s in another section of the Workers Compensation Act. In section 174, the investigation process, sub (1): “An investigation required under this Division must be carried out by persons knowledgeable about the type of work involved and, if they are reasonably available, with the participation of the employer or a representative of the employer and a worker representative.”

S. Simpson: Could the minister tell us: what happens in the case where…? Is there a particular criteria, a guide? Something that says to employers: “When we want that 48-hour investigation, here’s what our expectation is about what you’re going to tell us. Obviously, the 48 hours is going to be less complete, and here’s our expectation about what that 30-day review is going to tell us about an incident.” Does that exist so that we know what to measure against?

[1610]

Hon. S. Bond: There are specific existing investigation requirements, and they are outlined in the statute in various places. For example, one of the existing investigation processes, and we certainly don’t intend to change that, is that employers must determine the cause; identify unsafe contributing conditions, acts and procedures; and recommend corrective action.

There are a number of others. Employers must recommend corrective action to prevent a similar incident. Employers must undertake any corrective action required to prevent recurrence of similar incidents. So the statute lays out the broad expectations.

The member opposite is correct. Employers have conducted these investigations previously. That will not change. What we’re adding is the time frame. The statute lays out specific expectations, and then additionally, WorkSafe would have policies and procedures which would assist and provide the framework for the particular reports.

What’s key is that there was an expectation to investigate previously. That continues. What the significant difference is, is adding the timelines.

S. Simpson: I’m just bouncing back, because I was just reading ahead in some of my notes here, to the question about…. I see in 174, the investigation, potentially it says where “reasonably available, with the participation of the employer or a representative of the employer and a worker representative.”

Section 175 deals with the incident investigation report. I’m assuming this is the bigger report. It requires there that a copy of the report, not just the corrective action, go to the joint committee or worker’s representative, as applicable, as well as to the board. The board gets that report, even if they don’t get the 48-hour one. They get that report.

I’m going to go back and try again. I understand the worker’s representative in section 174 that the minister read. Could the minister tell us why the decision is that a health and safety committee, a joint committee, would get the full report and would not get the 48-hour report?

[1615]

Hon. S. Bond: As I said to the member opposite, when Mr. Macatee considered this, he did consider other pro-
[ Page 8114 ]
visions. Certainly, the part that I read to the member opposite is somewhat outside of the scope of this discussion. It’s another section.

It was, first of all, sheer volume. When you look at the number of investigations that take place, we wanted to have a certain set of parameters around that preliminary report.

One of them was that we didn’t believe it needed to be directly transmitted to WorkSafe, but upon request, the employer must do that. I think the same thing was true in terms of the practice with the report, in terms of workers that are involved in that process. There is not an explicit inclusion in this legislation about sharing that report, unless corrective action is required.

Again, I think there is a process that is underway, and workers do participate. Worker reps, where reasonably appropriate or available, as the member points out, do participate in that process. It wasn’t that information shouldn’t or couldn’t be shared, but there was a view that that venue was available. There was a worker rep there, and that information could be made known. But we chose not to make that explicit.

S. Simpson: I understand that somewhat — the 48-hour report, in regards of the board, what goes to the board and the volume of incidents. I have some sense of that. I don’t think the same rules apply in terms of the actual company or the facility or the workplace, because you hope they don’t get that many reports at the workplace about these incidents.

The minister will know…. I’m sure the minister has been apprised of things like…. I’ll go back to Lakeland, and I’ll go back to having sat in on a couple days of the inquest. Some of the testimony there was around minor incidents that happened. They talked about how there were always fires. They were usually minor ones, but it was a fairly regular occurrence that there were minor fires there, and some of them more significant than others. There were exchanges. The workers expressed concern about that.

There were some reports, but they were done without everybody being involved. These reports didn’t necessarily get back to these workers about what was occurring. We’re starting to see…. At least, what we saw in the first phase of the inquest is some pretty significant difference of opinion with some of the workers and with the company and management about what was and wasn’t an incident of significance.

My concern is, of course, the information that the workers don’t get, are not apprised of, necessarily, as a requirement. There’s a workers representative. You hope that they would do that, but there’s not a requirement that they be apprised of that. And there’s not a requirement presumably, if these reports come to a joint committee that meets, that they at least in some way, a cursory way, would review any of these reports that came forward.

Again, I don’t quite understand. I appreciate Mr. Macatee’s work, but it’s not entirely clear to me what the downside is of having a joint committee at least look at those 48-hour reports. They may provide good advice to the proper and the bigger investigation that the company does, through that process.

[1620]

Hon. S. Bond: I think the key point for the member opposite is that there is a worker representative. This does not preclude the information from being shared.

I think the other thing that we want to be thoughtful about…. I certainly respect the concerns that the member has expressed. He has been there and heard the stories. One of the things we’re trying to do is sort out this process so that workers feel safe when they go to work.

Our view is that the preliminary report is just that: it’s preliminary. What matters is the final and complete version. The employer must, without undue delay, look at corrective action, and if that corrective action is necessary, the employer must and is required to provide the report.

I think there’s a view that, with the worker representative as a part of that process, it does not preclude that information from being shared. It is just not expressed explicitly.

S. Simpson: In terms of the reports, the bill is silent at this point on any specific consequences for an employer’s failure to do a proper investigation or to fix situations — to take corrective action and actually deal with it. What is the enforcement? What is the consequence if you have an employer who either doesn’t file a proper report or doesn’t deal with corrective actions in an appropriate way?

[1625]

Hon. S. Bond: There are consequences. If an employer does not complete the investigations within the required time frame, WorkSafe has the ability to apply the enforcement actions that are included in the act. That could include an order or a penalty. So if they do not comply, there are consequences. All of the suite of enforcement tools that are available within the act could be applied by WorkSafe.

S. Simpson: I understand that the board has the discretion to extend the time period, if they deem it appropriate, to submit a final report. Could the minister maybe tell us a little bit just about whether there are any limits on that extension from the 30 days? Is it 60 days, 90 days? Is it another week? Are there any limits on those extensions? What would be deemed to be a reasonable reason for having a delay?

Hon. S. Bond: I would suggest that the answer to this question is part of the balance that I’ve been trying to de-
[ Page 8115 ]
scribe. There are no specific extension times. It’s not 30 or 60 or 90 days. WorkSafe has the discretion to look at the complexity of the event and the expectations around investigation and make that determination.

I really think this is part of the balance. We want to be expeditious, but we also want to be thorough. So it does leave the discretion with WorkSafe, and there are no prescribed or restricted extension periods.

S. Simpson: Just so I can understand, is there…? In terms of the investigations and the engagement of WorkSafe directly, there’s the 48 hours. In the case…. I’m sure this is probably in that act that’s this big. If there’s an injury — somebody is taken to the hospital; somebody has a significant injury — what is the difference between this and what happens then? I’m thinking particularly of…. Does that compel a WorkSafe investigator to come to the site?

We’ve had a lot of discussion around evidence and that and needing to look at those things. I’m just thinking about the protection of evidence of a worksite — determining that — that you would want an investigator to look at. What has to happen there in a case of an injury? Does that trigger a different process for WorkSafe than this process?

Hon. S. Bond: There are obligations for an employer to report injuries, and WorkSafe investigates. But it is a separate part of the act. The member is correct. It’s not reflected here. That is a separate process. If there’s an injury, the employer must report, and WorkSafe investigates.

Section 9 approved.

On section 10.

[1630]

S. Simpson: Section 10 deals with compliance agreements, authorizes the board to enter into compliance agreements with employers in specific circumstances and sets out requirements respecting compliance agreements. Could the minister tell us a little bit about what the thinking here is? I’m assuming it comes back to her discussion of balance. Could the minister talk about, under the circumstances, just when those agreements would be appropriate and when they would not be appropriate?

Hon. S. Bond: This is very much in the…. The thinking that Gord Macatee had was that we need to give more tools to WorkSafe, that we need to tighten up timelines, that we need to be more rigorous — and a number of other principles that were captured in his report.

The compliance agreement is another tool, and the member is absolutely correct. It is in the spectrum of how we manage non-compliance. This is obviously the entry-level piece. When it would be appropriate — at least, when we look at what section 186.1 says — would be if the employer has contravened a provision in the workplace safety laws or regulations under the Workers’ Compensation Act, if the employer has not contravened the same provision within the previous 12-month period. For example, if they’ve done the same thing eight months before, a compliance agreement is not going to be satisfactory.

Obviously, if there is immediate concern for health and safety or risk to worker safety, it would not be acceptable. There is a range of places where it would be appropriate. It would not be in significant or egregious conditions, even, as I said, including if someone has contravened that within a year.

It really is also about being voluntary. You know, we talked to many employers, and I know that Mr. Macatee did across the province. It was a chance for employers to step up and say: “We understand that there is an issue there, and we want to deal with this. We want to take on the corrective action, and we want to do that in a voluntary way.” Again, it was about not just when it might be appropriate, but it was about employers stepping up and taking responsibility. It does, however, require the employers’ written commitment. It’s not, simply: “Oh, that’s great. I’ll take care of that.” There is an expectation that it have formality and that there is a commitment attached to it.

S. Simpson: One of the things Mr. Macatee suggested in his report was that these agreements, if they’re going to get put in place, should be signed by the senior executive or senior management. It had to be somebody at that level that was making that a commitment around compliance in order to oblige. This had to be serious. It had to be at the most senior levels of the company or at least the management at that particular facility.

There is no suggestion, as I read it in Bill 9, about who may sign that off on behalf of an employer. Could the minister tell me if I am correct in that interpretation and why there is nothing about this having to be signed at the more senior level?

Hon. S. Bond: I agree with the member opposite. It was something that was important to Mr. Macatee. While it is not included here, that will become part of the policy and practice — that it will be written in WorkSafe policy that it must be at a senior level.

[1635]

I agree with the member. This is a serious undertaking. It needs to be seen as that. It will be covered in WorkSafe policy so that that recommendation from Mr. Macatee will be reflected in policy.

S. Simpson: The other thing is…. Mr. Macatee in his report, when he talked about compliance agreements, suggested that if an employer failed to adhere to the
[ Page 8116 ]
terms of that agreement, this should result in follow-up inspections plus potentially escalating enforcement action. The bill itself is silent on that question. Could the minister tell us what the expectation is about consequences for not adhering to a compliance agreement?

Hon. S. Bond: If the employer makes an agreement and then does not comply, the legislation, in sub (5), says: “The Board may rescind….” The expectation is that WorkSafe would rescind the compliance agreement, and the employer would then fall under the other process. It would no longer be voluntary. The compliance order would be seen to have no weight, and the regular practice would be undertaken by WorkSafe.

S. Simpson: Of course, it would be — I would hope — a very small number of employers who may do this, but the concern is that because there is no consequence for this — if you sign a compliance agreement, and then you waffle on actually meeting the terms of the agreement — it becomes a delaying tactic as well.

Based on the minister’s comments that it would revert back to pre–compliance agreement rules, is there not an expectation here of somebody playing a little fast and loose, using the compliance agreement to do that? There is no consequence for that action — for saying, “I am going to agree to do a number of things so that you won’t penalize me. You won’t give me a fine. I’m going to agree to do a number of things,” and then not doing them. I know I’m going to maybe get the fine, at the end of the day.

I guess the question is: should there be some other consequence for the fact that I just didn’t do what I said I was going to do when I signed this document?

Hon. S. Bond: I agree completely with the member opposite. First of all, we would hope, and I have every reason to believe, that employers would not do that. But we want to be protective. We want to protect workers in the event that they do.

The legislation provides WorkSafe with the authority to rescind a compliance agreement. It can also be amended. So there are things that can be done along the way. But once it’s rescinded, WorkSafe can then, and will, take other actions authorized under the act that would be appropriate to make sure we’re protecting affected workers. That could be a compliance order or an administrative penalty, or there could even be a stop-work order.

We absolutely agree that if you’re going to voluntarily work to comply and to deal with the issues that have been brought forward…. If you don’t, there need to be serious consequences for that. If the compliance order had not been met in terms of the obligations — and there are specific obligations outlined — then WorkSafe has the power now to rescind that order and take action, including shutting down a worksite.

S. Simpson: In Mr. Macatee’s report he talks about “a hierarchy of enforcement tools” and about the tools that an officer might have, including “the escalation of enforcement.” I think that’s the term that he used there.

[1640]

Some implication is that, again, if somebody was not adhering to what they had signed and agreed to, there may, in fact, be a ramping up the enforcement ladder to greater consequences. Is it the minister’s expectation that this will just fall to the discretion of the investigators? If they come in, a compliance agreement is signed, and they do an inspection three months later and find that nothing is different three months after the agreement was signed — or nothing of consequence is different — they then will be able to rescind that order on the spot and take action at that point, an investigator, based on what the agreement said, if it’s not adhered to? And maybe just with that, will the agreements have specific timelines that say, “You’re going to complete (a), (b) and (c)” in such a period of time?

Hon. S. Bond: Yes. For each of the actions, it is an agreement that is entered into. It must be in writing. It must describe each of the actions that the employer intends to take. It may include one or more expenditures that the employer agrees to make to make sure that it explains how they will fix the issue. It must set out the time frame within which the employer, with respect to each action described under the paragraph, agrees to take the action and report to the board on the action taken. And it must specify the date when the agreement ends.

To the member opposite’s question about if it can be rescinded on the spot, the answer is yes. In fact, it could be rescinded, and if there were an issue that was obviously putting workers at risk, they could use a stop-work order to actually stop the process right there. Yes, there are specific….

I think Mr. Macatee wanted to be sure that while this was a voluntary process, it had rigour, it had timelines and it had a significant degree of commitment attached to it. At the end of the day, WorkSafe has absolutely the ability to rescind and then begin to take other corrective action.

S. Simpson: Is there a requirement with these agreements that there are signs and that they be posted at the worksite? They’re on the bulletin board so that workers or the workers’ representative for the joint committee would see the agreement and say, “Okay, we know what the expectation is. In X period of time steps 1, 2 and 3 will be taken,” so that you have the potential, if they’re not taken and a worker feels at risk, that they could make that call and say: “Hey, this isn’t getting done.” Is this to be made available to the health and safety committee or the workers’ representative, so they know what the expectation should be?
[ Page 8117 ]

Hon. S. Bond: Yes, there is — in fact, two steps. If there’s a joint committee or a worker health or safety representative, the employer must provide a copy. And if there is no joint committee or worker health and safety representative, the agreement must be posted at the workplace.

Section 10 approved.

On section 11.

S. Simpson: Section 11 deals with stop-work orders. One of the things this section does is it changes the standard for a stop-work order from conditions of immediate danger to a situation of high risk. Could the minister tell me what’s the difference between those, what that change means?

[1645]

Hon. S. Bond: I think that’s a good question. The standard that would now be in place would be high risk, and that is broader than immediate risk.

We had a lot of discussion about how to characterize what we wanted to capture here. What it means is that even if there is not necessarily an impending risk in the short term to workers in a workplace, if there is a high risk, if there is a perceived high risk even though it may not be pending immediately or in the short term, that stop-work action can take place. It actually broadens the ability for WorkSafe to say: “There’s a high risk there. We’re going to use a stop-work order.”

It also brings us more into line with other jurisdictions. There was some discussion about what “immediate” means, and it’s harder to determine. It was a decision that I made to look at broadening it, lining it up with other jurisdictions.

I think it gives, again…. In addition to other tools, it expands WorkSafe’s ability to make that decision.

S. Simpson: The section goes on to talk about…. This is in subsection 1.1(b), I believe. The board can issue a stop-work order if an employer has previously failed to comply with the same provisions and there is a risk of serious injury.

What’s the difference here? The first one talks about high risk. I kind of think I understand the difference between immediate danger and high risk. This now talks about risk and does not use the word “high” risk. I’m assuming that’s a broader range of risk.

Could the minister talk about that? And are there legal implications, particularly between those two?

Hon. S. Bond: I think this is one of those places where the word “hierarchy” really helps understand. The general provision, as we discussed, is around high risk. We’ve broadened the scope. The particular subsection that the member references is related to, in essence, repeat offenders. Again, it expands the scope, where WorkSafe can say to an employer: “You had a high risk. There were a series of things we asked you to do.” It may well have contemplated a stop-work order.

This particular provision means that if that risk has existed previously and the employer has not dealt with it, for that reason alone, a stop-work order could be issued. It’s a cascading expansion of WorkSafe’s ability to use stop-work orders. Obviously, those are not used lightly, but they’re an incredibly important tool.

[1650]

I think, and the member knows, one of the things I’ve been most concerned about is workers understanding their right to report issues. Ultimately, that may well lead to a stop-work order in their workplace. One of the initiatives around the greater package that we’ve taken on is making sure that workers understand their right to say, “This is an unsafe work environment,” and there would be no repercussions for that. It really is about increasing the scope of WorkSafe’s ability to apply a stop-work order.

S. Simpson: If I read it correctly, if an employer has a number of worksites and an investigator comes to site A and determines there’s something of serious consequence to issue a stop-work order, they would have the ability, if they thought appropriate, to issue the same order at the same time for other worksites, presumably, if they had reason to believe the same problem existed there.

Would they be required to go and do a direct inspection or investigation of those other sites before an order came into force? How does that work at other worksites, other than the one I’m at today where I look and see a situation that I believe warrants a stop-work order. I have reason to believe it might be the case at other sites. Do I have to go look at those sites? How do we do that?

Hon. S. Bond: The member has identified a significant change. It is correct that an inspection will no longer be required to shut down multiple sites. Obviously, WorkSafe has to have reasonable grounds for believing that similar work practices are taking place in other locations, and that’s up to them to determine. They have to be concerned that there are unsafe work practices. In fact, the employer can be told now at one location that their other locations will also not be working until that practice is corrected.

A good example is asbestos removal contractors. We know when they are non-compliant. Or the example of roofers. If they’re using a particular practice in one place, there are very good and reasonable grounds to believe that they are probably doing that elsewhere. So without inspection, in order to protect worker safety, you can now be given a stop-work order for multiple worksites.

S. Simpson: I can understand how this applies if John
[ Page 8118 ]
Doe has a company, his company has three worksites — he does essentially the same thing on three different worksites — and WorkSafe finds a particularly egregious practice, issues that stop-work order and then goes to the other sites.

What happens in the case — we know this is true; asbestos, roofers are good examples — where there are people who have different companies that essentially do the same thing? They may own two or three companies. They’re doing the same thing, largely the same workers, but they’re doing them, for a variety of reasons, with different corporate entities. It’s the same owner of the company, same practice. Would this be able to be applied there? Or because they’re separate legal entities, would you have to go and do each company separately?

[1655]

Hon. S. Bond: The provision is based on an employer, on the definition of employer. He is correct that this is a significant step and a significant change. But it does refer to one corporate entity, one employer.

It does not, however, preclude a person who may be working or is aware of another company. That could be reported. There would be, then, an investigation on the separate company. But this only allows us, because of the definition of employer, to deal with those directly connected to the one corporate entity.

S. Simpson: One last question here, just for clarification, because presumably it potentially has some impact on high-risk policy.

If I understand correctly, WorkSafe is in the middle of a consultation around high-risk policy today, going into the summer. So then that policy could be amended based on the results of that, and then that presumably would apply here? Just to be clear on that.

Hon. S. Bond: That’s exactly correct.

H. Bains: I think my question is along the same line as previously put by the critic.

I think we have some real examples. I think the ministry knows, the staff knows. The WCB was showing frustration that they were not able to shut them down. The only reason that one individual went to jail was because it was contempt of court.

I think there were two examples and in both cases, both threw their hands in the air. They tried everything. The tools were not available to them to shut them down. They would shut them down on one site, and there’s another site going under a different name. They shut them down there. There was something else going on. It was in multiple places. Same stuff happening, basically flouting the law, and WCB was unable to control this one particular employer. I think the staff knows about that.

If we are not able to deal with those situations…. Those were real situations. My question is: how do we say to the workers who are exposed…? This case was asbestos, as you know. How do you explain to those workers who got exposed that those practices are not complying with health and safety? Those cases were largely residential homes that they were tearing down. And the neighbours…. How do we explain to them that they somehow are protected better now than they were before?

[1700]

Hon. S. Bond: I appreciate the member opposite’s question. He’s a little bit after one section and ahead of section 14.

The bill actually provides two places now to deal with those egregious corporate entities. Section 1 deals with the ability for the court now to put in place an injunction which would preclude…. Section 1 is based on the payment of fees and penalties. If they don’t pay those, then the court can now be involved and say: “You don’t get to operate until you deal with this.” That is the entire process. Section 1 allows us to move that down to senior officers and others.

Section 14 — although the Chair, I know, will give me a chat here, because I’m ahead of it — will deal with the injunctive power more broadly. So, in fact, we are adding new tools which would allow, we hope, WorkSafe to deal with that very issue with a court injunction.

Section 11 approved.

On section 12.

S. Simpson: One of the changes here is the standard of proof for an administrative penalty. This section deals with administrative penalties. The new language adds the phrase “a balance of probabilities” — that the Board may, by order, “impose on an employer an administrative penalty under this section if the Board is satisfied on a balance of probabilities.” Could the minister explain the significance of this language?

Hon. S. Bond: Yes. What this does is actually brings this particular section in line with other B.C. statutes. It’s defined in legislation. When there are penalties, that’s the test that is used. In fact, it is a common legal phrase, and it means that it’s more likely than not that something happened.

It’s a much clearer legal statement for the board to follow. Most importantly, “considers” is quite archaic, and it’s very vague. The term “satisfied beyond a balance of probabilities” actually is the standard for penalties in other B.C. legislation.

S. Simpson: Maybe just a bit more explanation…. I get that. What does this change in terms of how the board makes a decision about an administrative penal-
[ Page 8119 ]
ty? What are they looking at differently with the balance of probabilities in broad terms? What are they looking at differently than they would look at under the current language?

Hon. S. Bond: It really is not substantive change. The process will be very similar. What it does is it in fact just clarifies that that is the more common legal phrase.

S. Simpson: One of the changes here, as I understand it, clarifies that the employer “bears the onus of establishing the defence of due diligence.” Currently, I think it says that if an employer exercised due diligence…. It now says that an administrative penalty must not be imposed on an employer if the employer establishes that the employer exercised due diligence.

One seems to put a bigger obligation on the employer to establish due diligence. Could the minister talk a little bit about what that change means in operational or practical terms?

[1705]

Hon. S. Bond: In Mr. Macatee’s report he did talk about shifting the onus for due diligence requirements from WorkSafe B.C. to the employer. He really viewed it as misaligned. It is up to the employer to be able to demonstrate that they have done due diligence.

The significant, practical perspective here and the change — the member asked, “What difference will it make?”: making sure that it’s clear that establishing due diligence rests with the employer. Again, it’s about shortening the time frame. It’s making it quicker for WorkSafe to be able to issue a penalty, since employers have better access to the evidence necessary to support a due diligence case.

What it does is it allows there to be a more effective approach to administrative penalties. We know that the goal of an administrative penalty is to encourage and to motivate compliance.

It is about shifting the onus to employers. Mr. Macatee saw that as being out of balance. We believe that this will certainly shorten the time frame in terms of issuing penalties.

S. Simpson: With administrative penalties. My understanding is that the amount of the penalty is based on the size of employers’ accessible payroll and the circumstances of the policy. The policy also provides, of course, that certain circumstances, depending on risk, can depart from a formula around payroll, with penalties being greater for violations that are higher risk.

Could the minister talk about how that gets applied? I’ll give you one example. I believe that, for example, in the case of Babine, Hampton got a $97,000 penalty. They paid costs that were more significant, but the component that was administrative penalty was about $97,000 there.

How does the formula work to change the penalty from payroll, to up the penalty? What has to happen for that to occur, considering what we were dealing with at Babine?

Hon. S. Bond: The framework for assessing penalties is included in legislation. But in terms of the policies related to penalties, that’s a matter of policy at WorkSafe. I can advise the member opposite that that policy penalty and how that is applied is currently under review at WorkSafe.

[1710]

S. Simpson: Maybe just with that — and if this takes us away from here, I don’t want to go there — could the minister elaborate a little bit on what the objective of the review is? Not the specifics, but just: what’s the objective of that review and the timeline for completion of that review?

Hon. S. Bond: There is not a timeline that I am aware of. I have just been advised that the policy work discussion is underway. It’s a broad discussion with stakeholders about whether or not the penalty policies are meeting their objectives. It’s a chance to take a fresh look at the policy that’s in place. That work is underway, and I am told that we are not aware of an end date for that work. I am just advised that it is currently underway.

S. Simpson: Currently the maximum administrative penalty, I believe, is $596,435 and is adjusted for inflation every year. When I see this…. And this may be reference to what the minister talks about, the review. In the recommendations in Mr. Macatee’s report, he said: “Ensure that when administrative penalties are imposed, the amount of the penalty is proportional, with consideration of the circumstances of the incident and the size of the employer.” I’m not sure when I would think of penalties that should be higher than $596,000, but it’s possible that there are ones that certainly should be.

The question I’d have for the minister is: why the decision to cap the penalty or to retain the cap when what I hear Mr. Macatee saying is the discretion should rest with WorkSafe to decide what is a proportional penalty? Especially since we know the challenges around other options, including legal options, have been tough for WorkSafe. I know that there is work being done to improve that situation, but it’s still going to be tough on the legal side. That’s my view.

Was there a reason why there was no change on the maximum? Maybe this review the minister is talking about will review the maximum amounts too. I don’t know. But why wasn’t there a change here to reflect what I think Mr. Macatee was talking about in terms of proportionality in his report?
[ Page 8120 ]

Hon. S. Bond: Mr. Macatee did not, in his report, recommend raising the maximum. The member is correct. He did say we need to look at whether or not the penalty is proportional. So that is the work that’s being done. The recommendation was actually that WorkSafe move forward with its plans to review the penalty amount policies. That work is underway, as we speak. For example, with the maximum that’s in place, the policies about how you get to the place where you might use that maximum or the space that’s there, that’s what WorkSafe is looking at right now.

He didn’t recommend changing the maximum. What he did say was go check the policies and make sure that your policies allow for the use of the room that’s in that penalty provision to be sure that it is proportional. That work is underway, as he recommended.

[1715]

S. Simpson: This section also deals with the $1,000 ticket. Could the minister explain the difference between the appropriate time for an investigator or inspector to be writing a $1,000 ticket versus applying an administrative penalty? What’s the difference here?

The Chair: Member, I believe that is within section 13. If we could pass section 12.

Section 12 approved.

On section 13.

Hon. S. Bond: The work is currently underway. The actual circumstances under which a citation may be assessed will be determined in regulation. That is clearly outlined in section 13, as we look at what the new additions to 196.1 are.

WorkSafe will outline the criteria. The citation will need to be within the cap of $1,000. The critical piece around the citation is that it’s quick, it’s easy and it’s a tool that WorkSafe can use to bring employers into compliance sooner. It is intended to be for safety violations that are relatively minor. Obviously, you’re not going to do that if there are significant issues. You would proceed on to other mechanisms.

This is, again, about expanding the suite of tools that WorkSafe has. It would be issued on the spot, and it would apply only to employer contraventions.

As the member opposite knows, I think we’ve discussed…. Mr. Macatee asked us to consider whether or not there would be financial penalties for workers. After our consultation with a number of worker groups, including the B.C. Federation of Labour and others, we determined that, in fact, we would not proceed. We believe that there are enough provisions within the current act and practice that would allow for those infractions to be taken care of.

This is low-cost. It’s done on the spot. WorkSafe will, through regulation, outline what the citation would be issued for and the amount of the citation.

S. Simpson: With the citations…. I’m going to assume that administrative penalties certainly would have an impact on any discounted premiums paid by an employer. If you got a significant administrative fine, that probably affects…. These citations, the tickets of up to $1,000 — does that information go into the consideration of premium discounts for employers?

[1720]

Hon. S. Bond: The factors that impact your premiums are not administrative penalties, or in this case citations. It’s on your experience, your occupational health and safety experience. It’s based on the number of injuries you might have. Premium reductions are based on occupational health and safety issues, so neither administrative penalties nor citations would impact premium rates.

S. Simpson: I appreciate the answer. Just so I understand that, we’re saying here that the premium discounts — it’s not a consideration when WorkSafe determines that there are things going on in the workplace that they deem to not be safe or to require adjustment, to the point where they issue a fine of some kind, whether it’s $1,000 or $50,000, depending on the penalty. That doesn’t have any play when there’s a consideration about whether this employer should be rewarded for their safety conduct?

Hon. S. Bond: Injuries impact premium rating. The issue that we are concerned about here is worker safety. While the actual administrative penalty or citation doesn’t directly impact your premium, if you have an unsafe workplace and it leads to an injury, it definitely impacts your premium. While they are not directly related, they are certainly connected.

S. Simpson: I know this has been called the $1,000 ticket — or up to $1,000 ticket. It has been called the new enforcement option. Yet I’m advised that, essentially, that was available to WorkSafe today. The current language would have allowed WorkSafe to put that kind of tool in place without this particular legislation. They had the option of doing that if they had chosen to.

Is that correct? What is it about this that was required, with this particular clause, section 13, that wasn’t available to WorkSafe under current rules?

Hon. S. Bond: Again, this expands WorkSafe’s authority. It would not have been able to be issued on the spot. This allows for there to be an on-the-spot citation, and what will be made clear in advance is what the citation
[ Page 8121 ]
amount will be, based on the criteria that’s laid out. The difference is that they would not have been able to do this on the spot.

S. Simpson: Just one last question on this section. One of the concerns that has been raised to me is whether…. These are very easy and quick to be done. That’s part of the logic of them. I understand that, and I think it’s not a bad idea. I don’t have any particular problem with this tool.

[1725]

One of the concerns is: does it become more convenient to do this with a slap on the wrist to get the attention of an employer, rather than what is a somewhat more onerous approach — to look at what might be a larger penalty but requires a whole lot of other process to get to that administrative penalty?

The inclination to do what is quick and efficient to get their attention — has there been any discussion about that? And is there any intention to kind of monitor the use of this tool, so that an assessment can be done about whether it’s being used as an expedient way to deal with issues, rather than what might be penalties under the administrative penalties file?

Hon. S. Bond: I think that with the work that Mr. Macatee has done — and I can understand the question, and it’s certainly valid — the issue is far more significant than that. I think that Mr. Macatee recognized there needed to be a broader suite of tools, a more expanded scope for WorkSafe to reflect the proportionality of what has happened.

You see we have some entry level changes and we have some far more significant issues on the other end, which is an injunctive power. I don’t believe that will be the case.

I think that WorkSafe is emerging. It needed to change. It needed to be significantly reshaped. I think the recommendations that resulted in this legislation reflect that.

I think the other area of confidence I have, to the member’s point about monitoring, is that we did ensure that Mr. Macatee retained the oversight role here. I can assure you that he updates me regularly on the process of his recommendations, whether or not he believes they are being met.

I have no doubt that he will continue to monitor the effectiveness, not just of the up to $1,000 citation, but all the other changes. I think WorkSafe recognizes the importance of the breadth of tools that are being provided. I don’t think we need to be concerned that they would shy away from utilizing other more significant and serious tools that are provided.

Section 13 approved.

On section 14.

S. Simpson: Just a quick question. We dealt with most of the questions in regard to this in section 1.

Could the minister explain, just so I understand it clearly, what this section does, combined with section 1, to give these powers and how that injunctive process may work? What does actually have to happen here for WorkSafe to be able to put this in place through application or what?

Hon. S. Bond: The framework and the circumstances in terms of consequences are similar in 1 and 14, as I expressed to the member opposite earlier. The difference here is why. Why would we seek an injunction in this case? In section 1 it was about: they had not paid their assessment fees or penalties. And in this case this is if there is contravention of safety regulations and a failure to comply with the safety regulations.

This ensures that an injunction is available, if necessary, for any violation of safety laws and regulations. For example, if an employer contravenes the regulations by using equipment or devices that are not up to the regulated standard or fails to provide workers with required safety equipment, we could actually seek an injunction. So same framework. The difference is why.

[1730]

One is they have not paid their assessment fees or their penalties. And in this case, if they are flagrantly ignoring and contravening regulation, we can also seek an injunction.

S. Simpson: Could the minister talk a little bit about — and I’m no lawyer — the evidentiary requirements to get this kind of injunction? What is the expectation? What will be required here in terms of obligations for WorkSafe to produce the evidence to get that kind of injunction? What do they have to do?

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Hon. S. Bond: I can agree with the member opposite. I’m no lawyer either. Because this is an enabling piece of legislation, this allows for the policy work to be done based on the best legal advice about exactly what evidentiary base or standard is necessary. As with any new law, and as we test that provision, it will evolve over time. But the work will be done by policy and will be informed by legal advice.

S. Simpson: My interpretation of this, and to make sure that it’s clear…. I’m an individual who is negligent — has really bad health and safety practices. WorkSafe makes the decision that they’re having a challenging time dealing with me because of how I conduct myself. You know, I have a couple of companies, and I’m playing fast and loose. So they go to the Supreme Court to injunct this. They injunct me, as an individual who owns this
[ Page 8122 ]
company, from being in this business — like asbestos removal, for example.

Then that stops me from being involved in any way, shape or form, or from having agents working on my behalf operating companies where essentially the benefit in some way comes back to me. How broad is the reach to make sure that I, in fact, am stopped from doing this and not having my kid or my spouse run the company for me? Does this deal with all of these things?

Hon. S. Bond: It does capture all of the people that the member opposite spoke about. If we look at the legislation, there is a section. In subsection 198(1.1)(g): “a person who is not described in any of…” the paragraphs which precede this “of this subsection but who performs the functions described in any of those paragraphs, and who participates in the management of a company or corporation….” The list goes on. It can actually also be a lawyer, an accountant — all of those types of people.

This is very far-reaching. It is to do exactly what the member suggests. This is to send the signal that not only will you not be participating in this industry or an activity in the industry, but neither will be people very far-reaching into the organization in those circumstances.

H. Bains: I think just further exploring…. I know I want to thank the minister because she is genuinely trying to fix the problem that has existed for some time, especially in the asbestos industry.

[1735]

Used as a live example…. We had a couple of them. WCB is very well aware of those couple of cases. For example, the owner — we know the name in this case; I won’t use it — runs around and has ten different work sites. At ten different work sites he would have ten different agents working under that one person. I think my question would be: how would it be to get the injunction…? Yes, you will get the injunction against the owner, but then you must need to have the names of the others who are running other sites. Is that what it’s going to take in this case?

I mean, this is those people…. I understand you can never…. Those people who want to break the law will always find something to go around it, but what is the intent here? How, in practical terms, will they be able to shut them down in all those ten sites where they have different agents working under this person?

Hon. S. Bond: What this allows is because of the definition of “person,” the way that it’s been included in here…. Believe me, there is a long list of them, as I said, including a person who is not described in any of the specific ways. This is designed to allow us to expand the reach of WorkSafe to say that it’s not just about one person and one site.

WorkSafe would have the ability…. Obviously, they have to work through the policy with legal advice to say that we would seek an injunction on any of the people caught within any of the aspects caught within the scope. So it would mean that you could seek an injunction against ten locations as long as the test of the person, the definition of “person,” is met.

The member opposite has been quite outspoken, and rightly so, about asbestos removal and roofing companies and others. Absolutely, this would allow WorkSafe to seek that injunction that previous to this was beyond their reach.

It will take some formative discussion, as you can imagine. It’s a new law, and we know that it’ll be tested, but WorkSafe is doing the policy work and getting the best legal advice to create the opportunity for that action to take place.

Sections 14 and 15 approved.

On section 16.

S. Simpson: Just quickly, a couple of “what happens next?” questions. Section 16 is about commencement and regulation. A whole lot of this is enabling legislation, and there are regulations to be written. I know that the minister and I have discussed this briefly.

The question that I have is about the regulatory process. It’s my understanding that most of that regulation gets written by WorkSafe itself. Could the minister talk a little bit about how she envisions the WorkSafe process to work, particularly how people will be engaged?

[1740]

This is significant change brought about by Mr. Macatee’s work and his recommendations. I’m sure there may be a variety of opinions on what the detail needs to be. My concern is: what does that look like in terms of the process of consultation leading to writing and finalizing the regulation?

Hon. S. Bond: I want to just, first of all, thank the member opposite for his thorough and well-thought-out questions. I want to thank our staff for the hard work that they have undertaken to bring this bill to the Legislature.

I also want to make the comment that I am fully aware that this in no way makes the kinds of…. We can’t change what happened for families in communities, and I deeply regret that. But I think, as the member opposite himself has characterized this, that this is a step in the right direction, and we’re going to continue to be vigilant about these things and other recommendations.

First of all, Mr. Macatee will, as I said, remain in place to deal with oversight. There is a protocol that has been developed in terms of how the regulation, in particular, will be developed. I think that’s very important. I think we’ve been very transparent with the Macatee report, publishing regular updates and asking WorkSafe to be
[ Page 8123 ]
more transparent about those things.

Obviously, the regulatory proposals will be developed by WorkSafe. He is correct about that. There is a regulatory development process, though. It will, first of all, look at what other jurisdictions do. It will seek legal and technical advice and other experts if necessary. Certainly, in the case of seeking an injunction, we want to be sure that’s done well and right.

The WorkSafe board of directors will approve the regulation proposals before they go out to consultation. So this isn’t going to happen, you know, in a vacuum. We need to go out. We need to make sure that…. WorkSafe needs to go out and consult.

I think the additional protection that the member would have is…. The act actually requires that before making a regulation, WorkSafe must give public notice of the proposed regulation and hold at least one public meeting. As these regulations are developed, there will be an announcement that there’s a public meeting. That will be required. People will be able to come and give their views about that. WorkSafe may also conduct other consultations with worker, employer and stakeholder representatives.

Because the administrative penalties are a new area of regulation, WorkSafe will be conducting several public hearings throughout the province allowing British Columbians in different regions — that was very important to me — of the province to have a chance to provide input.

As well, WorkSafe will be posting a discussion paper on its website to provide the public and stakeholders with the opportunity to give their feedback. In the case of the administrative penalties, WorkSafe will also be conducting a special consultation process with key affected stakeholders. We’ll make sure that there’s ongoing and regular consultation.

From my perspective, my expectations are that the consultation be thorough, that it be inclusive and that it be transparent. I know I have listened to many of my colleagues on the other side talk about how regulation gets developed. WorkSafe has a very clear policy that would certainly bring expectations about how this process is managed. So I would also invite the member opposite to engage. If there are places where there’s certain advice or input, I know WorkSafe, and I can certainly arrange for that opportunity to be created as well.

Thank you to the member opposite. I appreciate the opportunity to outline the process. I think it is important that British Columbians understand that this will be transparent and that there will be opportunities for them to provide direct input.

S. Simpson: I think this is probably my last question. With the work that came out of Mr. Macatee’s work and his reports and now this legislation, we know there’s other work being done, around enforcement and that, by Mr. Macatee. What’s the minister’s expectation on a review process for this?

There are a fair amount of changes in here. Some of them are legal. Some of them are changes that will be successful based on the level of resources from WorkSafe to do inspections, to be on top of this. I have no reason to believe they won’t, but that will make it either work or not work. There are a whole bunch of pieces here and a lot of detail to still come that will come in the regulation.

[1745]

What’s the minister’s expectation on a process of review, to go back and say: “Okay, we have a whole series of things we’re trying to fix. We’ve put some fixes in place now. Let’s give them a little bit of time, and then we’re going to assess whether they actually are working or they need to be tweaked”? What’s the minister’s thinking about what that looks like?

Hon. S. Bond: Thank you to the member opposite. We certainly have made sure, as we’ve moved from the action plan that Mr. Macatee recommended, that we have been very public and very transparent about that.

I can assure the member opposite that there will be ongoing oversight. That is critical for people rebuilding trust and confidence. The system is taking a major shift, and a major change to issues. We now have two completely separate investigation teams. It is important to check that that firewall that is required is in place and that it’s working.

At this point in time my expectation is that Mr. Macatee remain in place to look at the oversight. Certainly, he does not hesitate to talk to me about issues that he thinks need to be dealt with more quickly, more effectively. I can assure the member opposite that there will be monitoring. At this point in time the oversight role remains with Mr. Macatee, and I would certainly hope that that will continue. We will continue to produce as he does. We will make public his interim reports. He does that quite regularly, and we post them.

I think accountability, and making sure that people have the opportunity to rebuild trust, will not be easy. I respect the member’s question about monitoring. I think it’s an important one.

S. Simpson: I appreciate that, and I’m glad that there’s going to continue to be the oversight and the monitoring. I think that’s important, and I support that.

The question was a little bit different than that. It was around the question of just looking at the level of change that’s being effected here by Mr. Macatee’s work, by this legislation, by changes that I anticipate are still to come and that are not ready yet but that will probably follow on the work Mr. Macatee continues to do. Some of it might be legislative. Some of it might just be in policy and regulation.

The question is around a more formal review pro-
[ Page 8124 ]
cess. Is it the thinking of the minister that as we fix the problems that have been identified and that hopefully…? I think that he’s done good work. Maybe with Mr. Macatee’s fixes, as he’s identified them in his recommendations that have been implemented, the reality is when you do these fixes some of them work and some of them don’t. That’s life. Many of them probably need to be tweaked when you get to practical application.

Is there a plan for a review process here at some point, to come back and say in a year or in two years, “Let’s have a look,” and know that’s what we’re going to do, to see if we got it right or whether we need to tweak it some more? That’s on top of Mr. Macatee staying on top of the operational side, which I what I think that oversight is doing, to make sure this actually happens. Then we’ve got to figure out: is what’s happening the right thing to do?

Hon. S. Bond: I can assure the member opposite that there will be ongoing review and monitoring. Mr. Macatee will be one part of that, but I think the member and I both know that we will have a number of points in time where review will be not only warranted but essential.

As we await the outcomes of the coroner’s inquest, for example, recommendations will come forward that may align with the work that we’ve done, or there may be additional work that’s required. There will be an ongoing review process that we expect with all of the work that we’ve put in place. At the moment, obviously, Mr. Macatee has a key role to play in that, and I want to publicly thank him for the work that he has done. He will continue to be a key person in terms of looking at the effectiveness of the actions that we’ve taken. Do they meet the expectations? Are they working?

Then I think there will be the requirement for ongoing review, ongoing evolution, as we work through what we expect will be recommendations from the coroner as well. While there is no formal review process indicated either in legislation or in my remarks, we know that if this is going to work, we need to be constantly monitoring, reviewing, assessing — and, potentially, adding or changing — as we move forward. That certainly will occur.

Section 16 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. S. Bond: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:50 p.m.

The House resumed; Madame Speaker in the chair.

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

BILL 9 — WORKERS COMPENSATION
AMENDMENT ACT, 2015

Bill 9, Workers Compensation Amendment Act, 2015, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. M. Polak: I call continued committee stage debate on Bill 23, beginning with section 54. I wonder if we might just have a brief recess to shift people around.

Madame Speaker: The House stands recessed until the call.

The House recessed from 5:51 p.m. to 5:55 p.m.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 23 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 2015

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 23; R. Chouhan in the chair.

The committee met at 5:55 p.m.

On section 54.

G. Heyman: Section 54 repeals a section that imposed consequences for convictions, and section 15 listed penalties with respect to first and second convictions. Could the minister clarify exactly what this means for a family unit that may have been wrongfully enriched through the actions of a single family member who has been convicted of an offence? Would the entire family unit be barred from benefit and financial assistance?

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: If I might take a moment quickly just to introduce the staff that I have with me here today. I have Molly Harrington, my ADM of policy, as well as Ian Ross, the director from the ministry in this area.

In response to the member opposite’s question, the repeal provisions of the Employment and Assistance Act that we are talking about here today repeal the current consequences for income assistance fraud. So it repeals the consequences against all those whom the court has given a civil judgment in debt for unlawfully obtaining assistance. The current consequences include a combination of lifetime ineligibility, prescribed periods of ineligibility and prescribed periods of reduced eligibility for assistance.
[ Page 8125 ]

Section 54 approved.

On section 55.

G. Heyman: Thank you to the minister for answering the previous question, notwithstanding the fact that I asked it in a rather convoluted manner.

With respect to section 55, are there limits or special considerations that need to be accounted for when determining duration or the amount to be deducted?

[1800]

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: To the member opposite’s question, the section refers to repealing regulation-making authority for a current fraud consequence scheme. It gives regulation-making authority to prescribe the manner, duration and minimum amount of deductions from assistance to recover debts under the Employment and Assistance Act or the Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Act.

It also gives regulation-making authority to exempt categories of family units from the minimum deduction, and it permits different debt repayment provisions based on whether the person in the family unit has been convicted under the Employment and Assistance Act or the Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Act under the Criminal Code.

G. Heyman: Can the minister describe in any fashion how cabinet would categorize different classes of family units for this purpose?

[1805]

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: The first thing that we would do is to see if the conviction is under the Criminal Code or whether it is under the Employment and Assistance Act or the persons with disabilities act. Then the second thing we would do is to look at the family composition to see whether it is a single person, a couple or a family.

Sections 55 to 58 inclusive approved.

On section 59.

G. Heyman: Are the limits or special considerations that would be accounted for, for determining duration and amount to be deducted — as well as categorization of families — the same for the Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Act as for the Employment and Assistance Act?

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: The answer to the question is yes.

Sections 59 to 61 inclusive approved.

On section 62.

D. Routley: I’m not sure we have the right minister for Citizens’ Services. I think they have to request a recess.

The Chair: Member, take a seat. Let’s sort it out, please. The committee will have a short recess.

The committee recessed from 6:07 p.m. to 6:11 p.m.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

On section 18.

D. Routley: Could the minister explain the provision that allows the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council the discretion to reclassify a municipality into another classification, if it is in the public interest to do so, and what those classifications might be?

Hon. C. Oakes: The district of Maple Ridge made a formal request to government to be reclassified as a city to coincide last year with the 140th anniversary of its incorporation. In September of 2014 cabinet approved an OIC that reclassified Maple Ridge as a city, despite the fact that the municipality did not meet, at the time, the statutory conditions under the Local Government Act to become a city. So at the same time, cabinet made the commitment to develop validating legislation, which is here today, for the city of Maple Ridge and enabling legislation to reintroduce cabinet’s discretion in municipal classifications.

The amendments to the Local Government Act and the Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act in this bill will validate the reclassification of the city of Maple Ridge, ensure that actions taken by the city of Maple Ridge after its reclassifications are valid and enable cabinet to provide exceptional municipal reclassifications in certain circumstances.

One of the things that we did identify with Maple Ridge is that there are many…. The classification happened several years ago. Well, actually, it was in the early part of the century. A lot of the districts were around agricultural classifications. What was found was when you’ve got larger populations that are now being classified as a district, many of these districts are coming to us and saying that they think they should be recognized as a city. That is what this permits.

D. Routley: In effect, the government is backdating a city, in that the classification was allowed before — in conditions that didn’t meet the test of the act until this amendment. So this amendment, in a sense, backdates the establishment of the city of Maple Ridge?

Hon. C. Oakes: Yes.
[ Page 8126 ]

D. Routley: I’m tempted to make reference, in humour, to other backdating episodes, but….

The implications of retroactively changing the legislation to recognize the reclassification of the district to a city…. The legislation that we’re now amending will satisfy the act, but will there be, potentially, civil consequences to the decisions made by the district, now city, of Maple Ridge since the reclassification?

[1815]

Hon. C. Oakes: When we get to section 23 you will see the protection of that.

D. Routley: What other potential backdating or amendments must be made to the decisions that would have been made by Maple Ridge since the reclassification? Will it require that the district, now city, will have to amend its own bylaw changes and zoning changes and other steps that the city has taken since this time?

Hon. C. Oakes: No.

D. Routley: What implications will this act impose on the town of Port Edward, in relation to….

C. Trevena: That’s the next section.

D. Routley: I’m sorry. Am I jumping ahead a section?

C. Trevena: I’ve got a question.

D. Routley: Okay, I’ll take my seat.

C. Trevena: I’ve got a couple of questions about this section, section 18, to start with.

One is in the explanatory note. It says this “provides the Lieutenant Governor in Council with discretion to reclassify a municipality into another classification if it is in the public interest to do so.”

The minister has talked about the example of Maple Ridge. But I’m wondering if this is defined enough so it is just specifically Maple Ridge. I realize that in section 23 it does specify both Maple Ridge and Port Edward, but I’m wondering if this is specifically Maple Ridge, and if not, who determines the public interest, and what is the public interest in this specific sense?

Hon. C. Oakes: The ministry believed that Maple Ridge should be granted an exception because of its population and its strong urban character.

The district of Maple Ridge is very populous, with a population of over 79,000. It is more populous than most legitimate cities, and therefore, there was strong community support for this reclassification. We considered it, and that is what section 18 provides.

C. Trevena: Although it doesn’t mention Maple Ridge — Maple Ridge isn’t mentioned until section 23 — section 18 is specifically for Maple Ridge. It will not be used for any other municipality to turn from a district into a municipality or vice versa, or from a municipality into a district if it’s losing population?

[1820]

Hon. C. Oakes: This does provide the opportunity for other districts to come forward and make a request to the ministry to be brought forward to cabinet. For example, the district of West Kelowna has currently put forward a request and is seeking voting approval, currently within its citizens, to be brought forward.

C. Trevena: Did the ministry know about the request from West Kelowna when this was being drafted? It had specific reference to Maple Ridge in the explanation. Was West Kelowna in the parameters when this was being drafted?

Hon. C. Oakes: The ministry had received requests from both the district of West Kelowna and the district of Mission.

I think it’s important to clarify that there is really no distinction between what a district and a municipality is. However, for marketing and economic development uses we receive those requests because often — for example, with Maple Ridge being called the district of Maple Ridge versus the city of Maple Ridge — we require some clarification, especially with a population of 79,000.

Up to 2008 there was this designation that…. Cabinet did have the ability to make these designations. It was inadvertently removed during a housekeeping measure of amendment, and this is putting that back in place.

C. Trevena: We’ve heard about…. It seems to be growing with each question. Now it’s West Kelowna and Mission as well as Maple Ridge, and Maple Ridge is referred to later.

I wonder if the minister could tell me when both West Kelowna and Mission approached cabinet for this — I’m assuming approaching the minister, who then takes it to cabinet.

[1825]

Hon. C. Oakes: Since 2008, when the changes were made. That’s when the district of West Kelowna and the district of Mission did come forward to the ministry. However, we did not have the authority to grant the approval of moving from a district to a municipality. What this, section 18, provides is that should the district have the assent of the voters, we would entertain that request to move them in classification from a district to a municipality with this authority.
[ Page 8127 ]

C. Trevena: It’s obviously not done on a population basis, and it’s not done in the British style, where — I’ll just elucidate for the minister; she may not know this — a city is a place where there’s a cathedral. So you can have a very small community, but if it’s got a cathedral, it can be termed a city. Large populations are not necessarily cities.

However, I just wondered if the minister could explain, on this basis of shifting from a district to a city — it’s obviously done on a population basis — how you get the assent of the voters in the community?

Hon. C. Oakes: There are two ways to get the assent, approval. There’s the referendum, or there’s the alternative approval. How that works is the local government would advertise the question, and if 10 percent of the population demand a referendum, that is the process that would take place.

C. Trevena: Obviously, Maple Ridge has started this. Do we know what the status is for West Kelowna? It sounds, from what the minister is saying, that Mission is dropping down the list — from what she was referring to earlier. To clarify, what is the status of both communities?

Hon. C. Oakes: For West Kelowna, they are currently in the middle of the assent-approval process, and they’re looking at the end of the month, when we’ll have that information. The district of Mission has not brought forward a request to the ministry.

C. Trevena: If the minister could briefly just explain the benefits of shifting from a district to the terminology of “city.” Obviously, the community still has the same name. Why would West Kelowna feel the need to be pushing itself forward as not just being West Kelowna that happens to be a district but West Kelowna that is deemed to be a city?

Hon. C. Oakes: The current municipal classification framework has been in place for at least 50 years. While historically there were substantive differences in powers, responsibilities and provincial oversights, these differences do not exist today. However, classification continues to be of interest to municipalities as a defining characteristic and point of local pride.

I can let the member opposite…. When we went to Maple Ridge for this reclassification, the community was significantly filled with great pride of moving from a district to a city. So while classification does not have a practical implication for the municipalities, there’s a very strong symbolic attachment.

[1830]

D. Routley: Does the minister anticipate a prideful moment for West Kelowna, should they be granted city status, that would include ceremonies and celebrations?

Hon. C. Oakes: Well, to move through this process…. It certainly expresses a strong desire from the local government to go through this process. I imagine that there will a strong sense of pride and celebration, as with the district of Maple Ridge when they moved from a district to a municipality. That lined up with their 140th anniversary, and it was a big celebration for the community.

D. Routley: Will such a status change line up with any particular anniversary for West Kelowna?

Hon. C. Oakes: No.

D. Routley: I don’t know if this is valid for this section. The validation period — could the minister describe other…? I understand, by reading the section, what “validation period” means here, but has this term been used in definitions in other acts?

Hon. C. Oakes: Hon. Chair, this actually moves to section 23. Would you prefer us to wait until we get to section 23 to have that conversation?

Sections 18 to 22 inclusive approved.

On section 23.

D. Routley: The term “validation period,” used in section 23 — could the minister define that term? Has it been used in the definitions of other acts, and could she refer to other uses of that term?

Hon. C. Oakes: The validation period referred to in this act refers to the period beginning on September 12, 2014, when the OIC was brought forward, and ending on the date that this section comes into force.

D. Routley: The validation period, by this definition, appears to say that everything that the former district, now city, of Maple Ridge has done has been validated. Is there any implication for the potential liabilities of the new city in terms of civil proceedings around development and bylaw changes they might have made?

[1835]

Hon. C. Oakes: The significance of this again confirms the validity of the reclassification of the city of Maple Ridge through the OIC and ensures that all proceedings and all things done by the city of Maple Ridge after and before the reclassification was validated are not at risk of legal challenge.

D. Routley: I understand the effort that’s being made to justify the transition to a city perhaps before it was validated under legislation. I don’t know if that’s a mistake on the part of the provincial government or a mis-
[ Page 8128 ]
take on the part of the municipality or district of Maple Ridge.

Does such a retroactive measure then potentially create problems for developers or for residents who might have received decisions that were satisfactory to them or unsatisfactory to them, in terms of their right to challenge those decisions in the future? Is this act, in a sense, whitewashing every decision that the district, now city, has made in the interim in an effort to justify the transition to a city?

Hon. C. Oakes: To the member opposite, thank you for the question. Really, this is rectifying a name change. The name doesn’t change the powers of the local government. It still follows the same…. Anyone working with the local government still is required to follow the same procedural processes, bylaws. Again, this is just rectifying a name change.

C. Trevena: This is, again, specifically about Maple Ridge. Maple Ridge is actually cited — in section 10(2) particularly. It’s obviously being used, as the minister says, to rectify the name change. Again, I’m wondering whether this is just purely the retroactive clearing up of the mess that happened because the cart came before the horse, effectively — and this is why we are discussing this bill — or whether it is also going to have implications for other communities, such as when West Kelowna suddenly becomes a city.

Hon. C. Oakes: The section only applies to Maple Ridge.

D. Routley: The act allows the town of Port Edward to enter into a long-term property tax agreement with Pacific NorthWest LNG. Can the minister explain what implications that might have for other communities?

[1840]

Hon. C. Oakes: This subsection is very specific to a specific community in relationship to Port Edward — so one city. It doesn’t have any effect on any other local government.

D. Routley: I understand the explanation from the minister, but this allows this particular municipality to enter into an agreement with a particular company that’s an exemption from existing property tax rates. I wonder, if there are other applicants for such permission, if the government would have difficulty refusing or even allowing such an exemption, if this is specifically referring to Port Edward and one particular company.

It seems an odd way to write legislation, specific to one community and one corporate player. How does the government envision answering the call of, perhaps, other communities that would ask for a similar exemption?

Hon. C. Oakes: This section only applies to Port Edward to facilitate agreement brought forward by the local government of Port Edward by a motion of council to this ministry. No other municipality has brought forward a similar motion.

C. Trevena: I’ve got a couple of questions, and in the interest of time, I’ll put them both together.

One is: does the minister envisage this being a request from other communities that are hoping to get LNG facilities? I mean, we’re supposed to have…. How many is it? Ten? Six? However many LNG facilities are built — whether this is something that’s going to come forward from each municipality, with such specific links to such specific corporations….

I would imagine that the municipality is aware that if PNW — Pacific NorthWest — LNG, changes hands, that is going to be covered, which leads me to my next question.

We hear so often in this House that we don’t see the details, that it’s going to be in regulation, because it’s easier to change things in regulation. It’s easier to fix things, and yet we have a very specific list of definitions and very specific actions relating solely to the Port Edward and Pacific Northwest LNG limited partnership. I’m wondering why we’re seeing this in legislation, because if there is any change in any of these things that either Port Edward or the LNG corporation wants to do, they would have to change the legislation.

I’m wondering, this time, why we have it in legislation and why the minister didn’t suggest doing it in regulation?

[1845]

Hon. C. Oakes: The significant element of this is that Port Edward requested to the province, through their council, to negotiate an agreement with PNW LNG. What this does is facilitate this agreement to do this.

There are elements within the Community Charter that required us to put in a municipal enabling validation act, which is what we have here, to ensure that we are listening and supporting the local government with their request.

C. Trevena: I’m just concerned, I think. The fact that Port Edward has come along and the minister has just said: “Okay. This is fine.” Or have the minister and her staff been asking Port Edward about this?

It’s the fact that it’s tied so specifically to one company. What happens if that company changes hands? What happens if Port Edward wants to change the arrangements at any stage? We have it in legislation. It’s that much harder to change it.

I’m wondering, from the minister, if she can just explain a little bit more about why she, as the minister responsible, felt that it was appropriate to approve it, and
[ Page 8129 ]
whether she questioned the municipality about any of these issues — about the fact that they’re tying themselves to one company, about the fact that this was going to be in legislation, so it’s that much harder to change.

Because other municipalities…. If any municipality comes along that may have some arrangement with an LNG company, is the minister just going to turn around and say: “Yes, that’s fine. Do whatever you want. We’ve got the precedent here”?

Hon. C. Oakes: The legislation does allow for flexibility of the changes that the member opposite brought forward. Really, what this is, is enabling an agreement that was arrived at through negotiation between the district of Port Edward and the company.

I would also point out that there are other instances where the ministry has considered and put forward a municipal enabling validation act — for example, in Port Alice. The member opposite may be familiar with the MEVA that was put in place in Port Alice. Again, we work with local governments, and they bring forward requests to us.

[1850]

There is a vigorous process that our ministry puts a lens on and ensures that, after a vigorous process is in place and if it is, in fact, something we can do to support the local government with negotiations, we will do that.

C. Trevena: Does the province maintain some sort of oversight of this as it moves along through the years? If so, what sort? And what sort of advice does it offer the municipality?

Hon. C. Oakes: It is a very common function of this ministry to offer financial support and advice to local governments. In this particular instance, 30 days of a final agreement…. The local government is to provide the agreement to the inspector of municipalities. As well, if there are any changes to this agreement, they are to be provided to the inspector of municipalities.

C. Trevena: One last question on this. Are there any limits to what Port Edward can agree to in relation to this?

Hon. C. Oakes: This is an agreement between Port Edward…. Of course, they are limited to the Community Charter. They must follow the Community Charter and the legislation that we are proposing to introduce here in the House today.

Section 23 approved.

Sections 62 to 64 inclusive approved.

On section 65.

D. Routley: Are there oversights or regulations that the Queen’s Printer needs to follow, or is the Queen’s Printer given complete freedom in how it operates under this section?

[1855]

The Chair: Member, would you please repeat the question.

D. Routley: Yes. Are there any oversights or regulations that the Queen’s Printer needs to follow, or is the Queen’s Printer given complete freedom in how it operates under this section?

Hon. A. Virk: The Queen’s Printer oversight is still through regular ministry operations.

D. Routley: Will there be controls over the amount of charges, the level of charges that can be imposed on the public in terms of accessing documents that will now not be printed by the Queen’s Printer but contracted out? Will there be strict control over cost recovery, or will there be a profit motive imposed on the access of public documents?

Hon. A. Virk: We don’t anticipate any changes to prices.

D. Routley: The previous minister assured the public at the time the privatization was announced that the current employees of the Queen’s Printer would be taken care of through a transition plan worked out in partnership with their union — Unifor, I believe. Since that time we haven’t heard about progress or the definition of what that transition might be.

Is the minister aware of steps that are being taken to accommodate those employees? Will they be losing their jobs? Will they be transferred to other government jobs?

Hon. A. Virk: I can report that there are 34 staff that are affected. To date 15 have elected pre-layoff canvassed options, seven staff have found work in other parts of government, and 12 staff are providing continuing service, offering digital printing services.

D. Routley: The anticipated workload from this privatization exceeds the capacity of local printers, suggesting that some of this work that had been a part of the capital, Victoria area, economy will now be transferred, potentially and likely, to the Lower Mainland.

What efforts is the ministry making to ensure that the Victoria economy isn’t negatively impacted by this decision?

Hon. A. Virk: The contracts are awarded through an open RFP process and will benefit the entire province of British Columbia.
[ Page 8130 ]

Sections 65 to 71 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. A. Virk: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:59 p.m.

The House resumed; Madame Speaker in the chair.

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

BILL 23 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 2015

Bill 23, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2015, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

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

Hon. M. Polak moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 7 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
COMMUNITY, SPORT AND
CULTURAL DEVELOPMENT

(continued)

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

The committee met at 2:47 p.m.

On Vote 18: ministry operations, $215,828,000 (continued).

R. Fleming: I certainly didn’t intend to have the last word in this set of estimates. I appreciate the minister’s time and the time of the staff of the ministry this afternoon. I know that the critic, the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville, and the minister should properly have the last word in this set of estimates, but the critic is not here today. I know she wanted to pass on thanks to the minister and to staff for the last couple of days of estimates debate.

I simply want to ask at this stage, before we close this set of estimates, about amalgamation in the capital regional district. The minister — and the Premier, actually — have made a couple of definitive statements to follow through on the signal that was sent in November 2014 in a number of municipalities here in the capital regional district.

While the referendum’s wording of each question was slightly different, they are approximately the same. And what it directed and requested of the province was that the province organize, oversee and, quite importantly, pay for an amalgamation study. The minister agreed. I have her comments here the day after the election, I believe, where she agreed that the province would be doing a governance study and said that it’s going to be very hard work. “It’s going to be complex. It’s going to be very, very difficult, but we are committed to doing that.”

Maybe just to begin, I would ask the minister to…. I’m aware of a number of letters that have been written to her recently, certainly since the beginning of 2015 and as recently as a couple of weeks ago, asking what the status of this study is. They haven’t heard a lot, apparently, that’s committal and certainly haven’t heard in the manner of enthusiasm that we heard last November from the minister. Where is this governance review study for the capital region at, at this point in time?

Hon. C. Oakes: For a minute there I…. It’s great that we do have staff, and I’d like to thank the member opposite for the recognition of the staff. They do an outstanding job. And to the member opposite, thank you for bringing this question forward to estimates.

[1450]

There was a common theme over the last few days when we talked about local governments. It’s about: how do we modernize local governments to ensure that we’re meeting the needs of citizens around modernizing governance systems? We recognize that there is only one taxpayer and that it’s the responsibility of all governments to ensure that the most efficient and effective delivery of public services has happened.

As you know, eight of the 13 municipalities in the capital region had non-binding questions related to governance services on the November 2014 election ballot. We would wish to applaud those local governments for putting that question out to the citizens. It’s important to remember that each of the questions asked electors was quite mixed and that there wasn’t a clear approach or a clear definition of the problem that everyone could agree
[ Page 8131 ]
on. But there was a common theme, and there was a common thread that I think all municipal councils need to take seriously. That is that electors indicated that they want their governments, their local governments, to explore how to better integrate.

It is in this context that we are in the process of considering how best to proceed regarding the results of the referenda in the capital region. We see great opportunity for the province to support the conversation on governance and service integration. I’m committed to supporting the region in responding to the citizens. That conversation can’t solely be focused on amalgamation as a solution. It needs, instead, to have a broader dialogue about governance and service integration so that all municipalities can be involved.

We need to build a shared understanding for that conversation to be successful, including supporting public education about decision-making and services in the capital regional district. All this needs to be done in collaboration — collaboration between the province and the local governments, collaboration with the citizens and collaboration amongst the local governments and the region themselves.

Hearing from and consulting with local voices must be a cornerstone to this approach. The province will not impose a particular approach or a solution to the capital region. I have heard from mayors and councils, but I want to hear from others to gauge their interest and better understand how to collaborate on this goal. Decisions about potential next steps will come after I have a better understanding of how all of the local leaders believe that they can collaborate in this conversation on governance and services.

R. Fleming: I don’t think I heard very clearly the urgency that the minister expressed six months ago in that response. It sounds like — and I’ll be disappointed if this is the case — very, very little has been done to move ahead on what was quite a clear signal from the electors in the capital region.

I certainly agree with her that how the study is done, protecting the credibility of the study, means everything in terms of whether it would be useful. But it seems to me that the business about gathering opinions and being able to have meetings or communicate with mayors is something that can be done rather quickly. There are a lot of stakeholders and voices in this region that have spoken out, whether it’s leading industries, the chamber of commerce, business, academia.

There are a number of key regional stakeholders that don’t want to be told that there is a slow, iterative process going on that may or may not come to something at no specific date in the future. They want to know that the minister is following up on her word from six months ago, that this is something that the government takes very seriously — that it’s excited about, enthused about — and sees as an opportunity to more optimally govern this region.

I don’t think anybody would agree that the capital regional district is arranged in the best possible scenario that it could be at this point in time and have a forward-looking process. I just can’t believe, and maybe the minister can explain, how some of the key questions haven’t even been wrestled with at this point. It would seem to me….

Don’t have a meeting just to hear one-way dialogue with local government leaders. Come with ideas and reflect back upon what they’ve already told you. There are some pretty detailed proposals about what the study should look like out there already that I’ve found and that have been part of the discussion in the public realm. Can she give any idea about whether she favours a commission model to do this work, what the timelines look like?

[1455]

It doesn’t sound like she has an idea about when this study will start, but, at least ideally, maybe she has an idea about when it should end — in time for the next election cycle, obviously, with plenty of time for it. I just need a better idea that the minister has been doing some thinking and some work about this and would ask her to maybe add some more details of what I’ve just requested.

Hon. C. Oakes: To the member opposite, thank you. This does provide us the opportunity to put on record the process of how we ensure the next steps.

One of the things we were clear on around amalgamation, and around a theme that we talked about over the last several days, was around the autonomy of local government. There is a process for us when we look at providing governance studies, and that is that we require a letter from local governments requesting a governance study.

To this point we have heard from the mayors of Victoria, North Saanich, Central Saanich, Sidney, Colwood and Esquimalt regarding their interest in the amalgamation issue. We’ve yet to hear from Langford and Saanich, so there is the opportunity, on the record, for those two local governments to ensure that their citizens did respond. I have an expectation that those local governments will be providing a letter to the province to look at amalgamation, so we are waiting on those two letters.

I would, though, to the member opposite…. Again, when we discussed back in the fall that this is going to be a complex, complicated process, I want to reiterate that.

[1500]

In the letters that we’ve received back from local government, we have Victoria and Colwood who’ve requested a regional governance study. When we look at the communities of Central Saanich and North Saanich and Sidney, they want to look at how perhaps they could look at integrated services and amalgamation.

The communities are coming forward, the local gov-
[ Page 8132 ]
ernments are coming forward, and they have different ideas about this question around integrated services and amalgamation. We will work closely in collaboration with the local governments, but it’s ultimately up to the local governments to determine the services for their citizens and the approach they want to take.

It is a cautionary note that we value, respect and want to ensure that local governments are having the opportunity to provide to us at the province the direction that they wish to see. We are respecting their autonomy in this but will be there to collaborate and work with them once they’ve come upon a decision.

R. Fleming: Just to be clear. The minister said explicitly on November 18, 2014: “We will be doing a governance study.” Now what I’m hearing today is: “We may do a governance study, depending on how many letters we get from different mayors.” If I could put this delicately, the likelihood of all 13 municipalities agreeing on exactly how to proceed on an amalgamation study is unlikely, and it’s probably symptomatic of why there are 13 municipalities to begin with.

The minister did not say: “We will be waiting for a signal.” She said: “We respect the signal that the electorate” — not the mayors writing letters on letterhead — “sent in November.” I want to make sure and take some comfort this afternoon that the government isn’t simply playing for time, delaying, failing to wait.

So yes, it’s a controversial area. There’s no question about it. There are some provinces that have done this well and some that have done it disastrously. But I want some assurance that the minister isn’t going to be fearful about that, that she’s going to live up to her commitment to proceed on this.

We are going to be running the clock very quickly on when the next electoral cycle is for municipalities. It’s not up to the province to try and wade a non-controversial course and then have nothing to show for it. It’s up to government to work with local governments as best they can, forge a broad consensus — not a complete consensus, because that may not be possible; if it is, that’s great — and to actually give voters something to decide upon in 2018. That time will go very quickly if nothing is done.

I just want to ask the minister again if she can give any idea of the timeline. What if some of these councils and mayors don’t send in letters? Do we simply wait for them forever to send in a letter? I mean, several councils have already contacted her. Their patience is not, I wouldn’t say, wearing thin, but they are wondering when the minister is going to take some steps here.

[1505]

Hon. C. Oakes: The member is incorrect. What I had said is that there is a process in place. We have two more local governments that we are waiting to hear back from.

Here is the opportunity. As I read this into Hansard, and as the MLA, we are waiting for letters from Langford and Saanich. The citizens put on the ballot and voted in favour of looking at this, so we are waiting for letters from Langford and Saanich. There is an opportunity, as there always is as citizens, to go to your local government and to their Committee of the Whole or the opportunity that provides citizens to engage with their local government and remind them that the citizens voted to review and to have a governance study.

The next step on that is that based on the letters we have, we need dialogue. These local governments need to have dialogue with one another to come to at least some form of consensus about how we move forward and what they’re looking for. We are prepared to work collaboratively with the local governments in this conversation around governance and integrated services and on how we move forward. But the dialogue needs to come.

We will not, as the province, impose on the local governments a decision. They need to have dialogue and start working on a collaborative approach amongst themselves to decide how they want to move forward. We will be with them in that collaboration.

R. Fleming: Has the minister communicated to the two outstanding municipalities, Langford and Saanich, how long they will have until they make a submission and respond to the idea of a timeline and proceeding with the study?

Hon. C. Oakes: We have had the conversation with local government leaders in the area about the fact that we are waiting on two of the final letters to come forward, from Langford and Saanich. We will not impose on those communities to forward a letter but, again, remind the citizens living in Langford and Saanich to go to your local government and remind them to submit a letter to the province requesting a governance review.

R. Fleming: Well, it seems reasonable to me, not heavy-handed in any way, for the province, in respect of the mayors and councils who’ve already communicated with the minister and in respect, most importantly, of those who cast a ballot for or against amalgamation, wherever they lived last November, that government give the two municipalities she hasn’t heard from yet a reasonable but not an indefinite amount of time to respond. I would put to her that given that a majority of municipalities have already communicated with her and we’re only waiting on two, a reasonable timeline might be rather soon.

Really, the mayors and councillors there need to communicate to her on behalf of those who’ve directed them to, which is their electors last November. This isn’t something that needs to be dragged on indefinitely. It’s something that…. I think the minister should put in place a reasonable timeline to correspond with her. Most people
[ Page 8133 ]
have already complied voluntarily with that as well.

I would ask her: when is she going to ask these two municipalities to let their views be known?

[1510]

Hon. C. Oakes: Again, we discussed over the last few days our respect for local governments and their autonomy. We respect that local governments determine the priorities of the citizens that they represent as local governments. We will not impose on these communities. For the member opposite, you are more than willing as a citizen living in the area to let Langford and Saanich know how you feel.

We respect local governments. We respect their autonomy. We will not impose upon them. The citizens have every opportunity to go to those two communities and ensure that the process that we have laid out — that a letter needs to come from a local government requesting to the province for us to do a review — happens in that fashion.

R. Fleming: Well, then let me ask the minister this. Has she picked up the phone and spoken to the mayors of those two municipalities directly and said, “Hey, I’ve heard from a majority of your colleagues in the region. You did have a referendum. I did say seven months ago that we’ll be doing a governance study” and have that conversation with them?

Hon. C. Oakes: I see a theme, again, that…. You live in the region. Have you attended the local governments? Have you had this conversation as a citizen and as a representative in the area? For me as a minister, it is my responsibility to respect the autonomy of local governments.

We’ve heard other issues canvassed and policies brought forward by the Union of British Columbia Municipalities, ensuring that the province understands and respects local governments’ autonomy. If the member opposite is suggesting for one second that we do not respect the autonomy of the local governments, I think he should say it here on the Hansard.

R. Fleming: We have been, with all due respect to the minister, talking about amalgamation in one form or another in this region for three or four decades, quite frankly. It took a lot of effort on behalf of citizens to get the mayors and councils to agree to even have a question on the ballot last fall. Those votes were counted. They were interpreted. They were sent to the minister. She said: “It’s going to be very, very difficult, but we’re committed to doing that” — “that” being a governance study.

Now I hear: “Well, I don’t think we want to do it unless everybody is on exactly the same page.” That doesn’t sound like somebody who’s prepared to do the very, very difficult work to move forward on an issue, which is a study, by the way. It’s not binding on anyone, I wouldn’t think, unless the minister is going to contour the study to have binding recommendations.

It’s important to get going on this work. It wouldn’t be fair to anybody to allow this study to not proceed because one or two municipalities did not want to participate — wanted to pick up their marbles and go home — or to ignore, in either of these cases, what their voters were allowed to participate on last November.

Again, to the minister. There has to be a point at which she is going to fulfil what she pledged last November, which was a commitment — full stop — to doing a governance study. Is it actually possible, in her mind, that the governance study may not proceed because she doesn’t hear from a mayor or council in the region?

Hon. C. Oakes: The member opposite clearly describes the situation that we’re dealing with. We have been looking at this issue, as the member opposite suggests, for decades. It is prudent for me as the minister to wait, whether it’s a couple of weeks, for two local governments — respecting two local governments — to come forward and provide a letter.

I imagine that the member will go out to these communities to remind them that letters can be submitted from Langford and Saanich. If the member is so…. To ensure that this process moves forward, that is a process that the member opposite could take upon himself to do.

[1515]

R. Fleming: Why didn’t the minister just say, “I’ll give them a couple more weeks,” in her previous answers? I think what people are fearing is that this’ll drag on to a couple of years. I think I heard something that was a little more definitive there.

Does the minister expect and deem as reasonable a couple more weeks for these two municipalities, who haven’t written to her yet, as a reasonable timeline? Or are we, as many citizens are starting to fear, seeing this government contemplate something of a considerable delay that could be months, if not years?

Hon. C. Oakes: What I said to the member opposite…. That we respect local governments. We respect their priorities. We respect the fact that…. I imagine that those two communities, which I have read into the Hansard now probably at least seven or eight times, of Langford and Saanich will ensure, or the citizens that live in that region will contact their local governments to ensure, that letters are provided to the province, as per process for every other single local government in the province of British Columbia, so that we can ensure that the collaborative work takes place.

R. Fleming: Maybe I could ask the minister some slightly different questions about this same topic. I was
[ Page 8134 ]
hoping, quite frankly, to hear the same tone of enthusiasm and excitement about what I think is an opportunity and a clear signal from voters in this region to proceed towards an amalgamation study. I think I’ve got something remarkably more subdued than that.

Nonetheless, I’m sure the minister has been doing a lot of hard thinking about what a good study would look like. Maybe I could ask her a couple of questions about that. One of the letters she did receive was from the mayor of Victoria.

There were a few suggestions. I think she described them as guidelines for her consideration on this governance project. Part of it is to continue to allow the public to have an ability to influence and try and persuade those conducting the study, and maybe we’re talking about a commission of eminent persons who’ll be in charge of this study.

I think what the mayor of Victoria was asking the minister to agree to, or to consider, was that there be an opportunity both in the report-conduct stages as well as the report recommendation stage.

I wonder if she’s been able to look at these ten suggested guidelines that have been given to her by the city of Victoria, and if she has any comments on the advisability and how she feels about some of these, what I think are, quite commonsense guidelines.

Hon. C. Oakes: Again, we are waiting for the two communities of Langford and Saanich to provide us with their letters on that. Yes, we are receiving recommendations from several of the local governments. It’s useful information, and we’ll take it into consideration.

R. Fleming: I wonder if the minister could comment a little bit about how she might see the scope of the study being conducted. I know she’s speaking with the mayors and councillors as we speak, and over previous weeks and months, and is waiting to speak to two more. Just wondering if she has any thoughts about — what I’m going to call a commission, but — whatever this study commission or panel will look like.

In terms of looking at…. It’s going to be quite a bit of work, as she has said herself. It’s going to be very complex, very difficult. It will require gathering the experiences of a number of Canadian cities.

[1520]

In recent years, through the 1990s and the early 2000s, a number of medium-sized cities in Canada have successfully amalgamated. Places like Hamilton, Ottawa, Quebec City and Halifax would be very good examples for this study to consider.

Then there have been some megacity mergers that have been very controversial but are not, perhaps, very applicable to the Victoria situation. In the case of Toronto, you’re talking about a metropolis of several million people. In the case of Montreal, you’re talking about a city that’s also large but also has municipal structures that were formally divided, mainly on language divisions and regions.

Anyway, my point being, the amalgamation study needs to understand the recent Canadian experience. That will take a bit of very qualified research work to do. It’s going to have to look at, I think, the issues that people in the capital region are concerned about. You’ve got 13 municipalities. Do you go to a one-municipality model? Do you look at three? Do you look at five? Those sorts of things.

In other words, does the minister see the resourcing that will be required to do this study well as something that she’s prepared to support to get a comprehensive, wide-ranging report? Also, does she think that the report should make, essentially, one recommended model at the end of this process, or should they, on the basis of submissions, public feedback and, really, in the independent opinion of whomever is in charge of this commission, make several recommendations — two or three models for the region’s residents to consider?

[1525]

Hon. C. Oakes: Thank you to the member opposite for the question. Throughout the last few months I’ve been reading a lot of amalgamation studies. We’ve got some international scholars, actually, on amalgamation that live and participate and are highly regarded intellectuals here in the Victoria region, actually — Robert Bish. We’ve got Andrew Sancton and Enid Slack that have done a significant amount of work on what amalgamations look like.

The member opposite mentioned a couple of examples of how to look at amalgamation. I encourage the member to perhaps do some investigation of his own about the findings of some of these individuals and some of the communities that he identified. I think that if you look at that…. When I was doing the study…. We all look for a simple solution. We all look for that example, that model, that ideal out there that will be an exact fit for what we want as we look at governance and we look at these integrated services.

What I can tell the member opposite is that this is going to be incredibly complex, and it’s going to be critically important to listen to what the communities, the local governments, the citizens feel. To talk about a scope at this point or a direction that we’re taking without the opportunity to go out and listen to the problem, as the citizens and the local governments have identified…. To understand what that is, and for citizens and local governments to understand what amalgamation is and to understand what integrated services is, is going to take time.

R. Fleming: I wanted to ask the minister, because she mentioned it there a couple of times, on service integra-
[ Page 8135 ]
tion. There has been a long history of pursuing service integration. Of course, there are a number of utilities that are integrated and administered through the capital regional district here around drinking water and hopefully, at some point in time, a wastewater utility as well.

I want to make it clear that she doesn’t…. Or maybe she does. On this governance study, this amalgamation study, does she see it as being primarily about service integration? Or would it include political amalgamation and service integration? I think it’s important to make the distinction.

We have 91 mayors and councillors here in 13 municipalities. We’ve had service integration discussions. We have seven municipal police forces as well as an RCMP detachment. It needs to be clear to people in greater Victoria, because it was clear on the ballot that they weren’t talking about pursuing just more service integration projects. They were talking about a governance review, using the word “amalgamation” that would talk about fewer municipalities. I want to be clear that in her mind, that’s what this study’s purpose would be as well.

Hon. C. Oakes: The member opposite said that it was clear, that it was clear in the questions that were put forward to the electorate. I’m going to read into Hansard what the questions were. If the member thinks that this is clear, I would like to understand…. It’s a great opportunity for the member opposite to provide that golden idea of how this will move forward.

Central Saanich. “Should the district of Central Saanich petition the province to fund a cost-benefit analysis of an amalgamation of Central Saanich, North Saanich and Sidney, yes or no?”

In North Saanich their question was a non-binding question. “Are you in favour of a study, provincially funded, to investigate the feasibility, costs and implications of amalgamating the three municipalities on the Saanich Peninsula of Sidney, Central Saanich and North Saanich, yes or no?”

In Sidney their question was a non-binding question. “Are you in favour of a provincially funded study to investigate the feasibility, costs and implications of amalgamating the three municipalities of the Saanich Peninsula, yes or no?”

[J. Martin in the chair.]

Then we move into Esquimalt. “Are you in favour of the township of Esquimalt exploring options to achieve efficiencies by further sharing some service with other municipalities?” They didn’t identify the other municipalities. “Are you in favour of exploring the reduction of the number of municipalities within greater Victoria through amalgamation, yes or no?”

Then we move into Victoria’s question. “Are you in favour of reducing the number of municipalities in greater Victoria through amalgamation?”

[1530]

Saanich. “Do you support council initiating a community-based review of the governance structure and policies within Saanich and our partnerships within the region?”

Oak Bay. “Are you in favour of the district of Oak Bay being amalgamated into a larger regional municipality, yes or no?”

Langford: “Are you in favour of the city of Langford being amalgamated into a larger regional municipality?”

R. Fleming: No, I think what’s common in all those questions is that they were talking about fewer municipalities, whether you’re talking about three or one. I just asked the minister a question about that, and she didn’t choose to answer. Maybe I’ll ask her again. The study should provide not one set of recommendations or one model in particular but perhaps several.

I want to ask the minister, in her mind as well. Involving the public during the study but going out after the study is done, should the public be given the option of looking at one set of recommendations — one map, if you like, of what the capital regional district might look like under a new governance regime? Or should there be a couple of options, two or three options perhaps, for the public to review?

Hon. C. Oakes: The member opposite said that all the questions did talk about amalgamation. That’s incorrect. I could read through all of the questions again, but I won’t waste everyone’s time. Some of them were about integration of service, and one was about governance. That is significantly different.

I’d be happy to provide the member opposite with some information on amalgamation, integrated service and education — on what that means. Again, we are not prepared to predetermine a solution or an outcome before we’ve actually had the dialogue with the local governments, that local governments have had dialogue with one another and, quite frankly, that local governments have had that dialogue with the citizens.

[1535]

R. Fleming: Well, as somebody said, “It’s going to be complex, but it’s worth doing” — as the minister said. I thank her for her time this afternoon.

I’ll give her one more opportunity just so I can tell residents in the region and she can speak directly to them in Hansard: does she have any idea when she will have something substantive to say on the commitment she made immediately after the election in November that the governance study is going to proceed, that the province is going to play a prominent role with local government in doing that? When are we going to hear something about draft guidelines, draft terms of refer-
[ Page 8136 ]
ence — any idea about who might be involved and when this might proceed?

Hon. C. Oakes: I would like to thank the member opposite, and I appreciate his comments. I would like to speak directly to the citizens of the capital regional area. There is a long history that the member alluded to.

I think it’s very important that we understand the pitfalls of rushing in and being heavy-handed and not respecting the local government autonomy. The member, as a former city councillor, should understand the importance of respecting local governments.

We are not going to predetermine a solution, but we are willing and prepared to work collaboratively with the local governments and the citizens to listen, to respect their ideas as we move forward on this. We had staff prepared as I opened up this conversation.

[1540]

I think I will read it into the record again just so that we are extremely clear that there is a common thread that I think all municipal councils need to take seriously. The electors have indicated that they want their governments to explore how to better integrate.

In that context, we are in the process of considering how to best proceed regarding the results of the referenda in the capital region, waiting for those two final communities to step forward. We see the opportunity for the province to support the conversation on governance and service integration, and I’m committing my support to the region in responding to the citizens.

The conversation can’t just be focused solely on amalgamation as a solution. It needs to be broader dialogue about governance and service integration, and we need to build a shared understanding for that conversation to be successful, including supporting public education about decision-making and services in the capital region.

All this needs to be done in collaboration — not by a heavy fist by the province, but collaboration between the province and local governments and collaboration amongst the local governments in the region themselves. Hearing from and consulting and listening to the local voices must be a cornerstone to our approach.

We will not rush this. We will ensure we are listening to the citizens, and the province will not impose a particular approach or solution on the capital region. Decisions about potential next steps will come after I have a better understanding of how local leaders believe they can collaborate in this conversation on governance and services. I’m optimistic, and I look forward to working collaboratively with this region.

R. Fleming: I don’t think I have any other questions. I thank the minister for her answers at this point in time. I’m not entirely satisfied with them at all, but it will give me something to report back to my constituents and to the mayors and councillors who will undoubtedly pore over the Hansard from this delightful exchange this afternoon.

I do want to say, though, just to sincerely express to the minister: I do want this study to be done right. This is an opportunity that only comes around every once in a while. There are so many people that have an interest in seeing it done fairly, it being done comprehensively.

There are tremendous opportunity costs that need to be accounted for in this study when it’s done. This region pays annually and every decade by having the political system that it does — so diffuse — and this region, I think, has paid a serious price for that over the years.

I don’t want to predetermine, either, what the outcome of the study will look like. I want somebody who is eminently qualified to be able to do it, to consult broadly in the region. But I do want it to be done. I don’t want the starts and stops and the failure to seize momentum to continue.

This is an opportunity. This is a signal that was sent by voters in the region. It falls upon the minister’s desk. I know she doesn’t hail from this region. She does seem to know something about it. It’s her responsibility, though, and it’s in that light that I urge her to exercise that responsibility and to move forward on this.

The Chair: Seeing no further questions, I will now call vote 18.

Interjection.

The Chair: Final statement from the minister.

Hon. C. Oakes: Thank you very much, hon. Chair. First, I, too, would like to express my appreciation to the incredible public servants we have that support both local government, community, sport and cultural development and all of the Crowns that provide such great service to the citizens of British Columbia. I thank you very much for your efforts, and I thank you for your support through this estimates process.

I would like to thank the member opposite and the critic for her support and her passion for local governments and for community, sport and cultural development as well.

[1545]

I would, if I possibly may, like to take the opportunity just to clarify a comment from yesterday regarding government’s contribution of $74 million in grants to local governments. It’s important to note that the substantial contributions also include the supports provided through regional district grants as well as traffic-fine revenue-sharing, which helps fund policing and community safety. I just wanted to make that clarification.

Vote 18: ministry operations, $215,828,000 — approved.
[ Page 8137 ]

ESTIMATES: OTHER APPROPRIATIONS

Vote 50: Auditor General for Local Government, $2,600,000 — approved.

The Chair: The committee will take a five-minute recess as we prepare for estimates debate on the Minister of Justice.

The committee recessed from 3:46 p.m. to 3:49 p.m.

[J. Martin in the chair.]

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF JUSTICE

On Vote 32: ministry operations, $1,039,955,000.

The Chair: Good afternoon. Welcoming and recognizing the Minister of Justice.

[1550]

Hon. S. Anton: Just some very brief remarks. I’ll introduce staff who are with me today: Lori Wanamaker, deputy solicitor general; Doug Scott, ADM, liquor control and licensing; Blain Lawson, general manager and CEO of the Liquor Distribution Branch; Tara Faganello, executive financial officer and ADM, corporate management services branch; and David Hoadley, chief financial officer. There are quite a few other staff outside waiting who will be coming in over the course of the debates. I’ll introduce them as they join me.

The mission of the ministry is to administer justice, deliver public safety services and programs, lead emergency management and provide legal advice to government. Simply put, the Ministry of Justice has an extensive and diverse portfolio of responsibilities — including liquor, which we will be discussing today — all of which we will canvass during the debates.

Every single day ministry staff do a terrific job in serving British Columbians, and I would like to take this opportunity to thank them for what they do in keeping British Columbia safe, secure and running in a good justice manner. I look forward to the questions from the members opposite over the next couple of days.

D. Eby: I’d like to join the minister in thanking the staff for being here today and for assisting us in the estimates around the budget.

I’d like to begin with the issue of the retail margin in government liquor stores. Page 34 of the annual report of the government liquor stores says that the cost of sales is approximately 17.2 percent for the last fiscal year that I have numbers for. The minister may have updated numbers. The minister, however, was quoted in Business in Vancouver magazine saying that the margin that government liquor stores will be adding to the new wholesale price is 16 percent.

Can the minister explain how it’s possible to run stores on a lower sales margin than the cost of doing the sales? And is she anticipating a loss in government retail stores this year?

Hon. S. Anton: The goal of the government stores is to ensure a positive return, which would be done through the mix of products and expense control. The number in the service plan is 17.2 percent, but our goal over the year is to make sure, as I said, that there is a positive return for the stores.

D. Eby: I think it would be remarkable if there wasn’t a positive return from government stores. In fact, as far as I know, this would be the first time that that wouldn’t be the case. Can the minister say, goals notwithstanding, whether she’s projecting a positive return?

I can say with certainty that the markup on a number of popular beer products, for example, is 7 percent. Now, how do you run an operation that has a 17 percent overhead, sell beer with a 7 percent markup and expect to break even? I can tell the minister that many, many people in industry have come to me and said that is not possible. The tightest overhead in retail operations they’re aware of is Costco, which runs at 15 percent. And they’re not operating in Oliver.

[1555]

I need more detail from the minister about what she’s projecting, not what the goal is. What is she projecting for the next fiscal or for the current fiscal? Is she projecting a loss for government stores? You cannot make a profit operating at 17.2 percent when the markup on some very popular products is 7 percent. What am I missing here?

Hon. S. Anton: There is a variety of markup over many different categories of product, which will allow the generation of profit at the store level. While the member points to one product and, perhaps, one set of markup, it is the whole mix of products which matters.

Can I just request a five-minute break, please? I need to take care of something.

The Chair: We’ll take a five-minute recess.

The committee recessed from 3:56 p.m. to 3.57 p.m.

[J. Martin in the chair.]

D. Eby: Can the minister clarify what the blended markup is that she is targeting for the current fiscal year for the retail operations in that case?

[1600]

Hon. S. Anton: The goal is to have a blended markup somewhere between 18 and 18½ percent.
[ Page 8138 ]

D. Eby: Is that 18 to 18½ percent anticipated to be running stores on a break-even basis?

Hon. S. Anton: The goal is to ensure a positive return.

D. Eby: I do understand that that’s the minister’s goal, but I also understand that she is responsible to meet forecasts for the service plan in her letter of expectations from the Premier.

I’m asking what she is projecting for year-end. Is she projecting a profit for retail stores? If so, what portion of that markup, if any, will go to profit? It looks to me like this is very close to a break-even basis.

Hon. S. Anton: The goal is to return $880 million to general revenue for the province of British Columbia through a combination of wholesale and retail.

D. Eby: That does not answer the question. We’re talking about the retail operations of the government of British Columbia, and the question is: what profit is the minister expecting to make on the retail operations this year?

I’m not sure why she’s combining it with wholesale distribution, which is totally different. The minister has had staff presenting to industry saying it’s separated out from the retail operations — and for good reason. The retail operations are now in direct competition with other retail operations the way the minister has set things up.

The question is: what is the profit the minister is projecting on the retail operations?

[1605]

Hon. S. Anton: The question…. It’s not a terribly straightforward answer, because it is an entirely new system, as the member will know. The separation of wholesale from retail…. The stores are now in a competitive marketplace, so there are adjustments being made to the product mix. There are changes in hours, in refrigeration, in advertising. We are now exactly 36 days into the new system.

As I said earlier, the goal is to have a profit on these stores. We don’t have a number at the moment, but the goal is definitely to ensure a positive return on the stores.

D. Eby: The B.C. government’s budget relies on almost $1 billion in income from liquor sales to fund hospitals, to fund schools, to fund roads, to fund all kinds of public services.

When I ask the minister in these estimates about the major changes that she has made to the way in which we sell alcohol, including the wholesale price reform, she stands in this place and says: “We don’t really know how much money we’re going to make in the government liquor stores. We did a lot of changes. I don’t know.”

I’m baffled that that could be the case, especially given the fact that revenue is falling. Significantly, B.C., according to Statistics Canada, had the biggest drop in revenue of any province from liquor sales this most recent year.

We’ll move on from this, because the minister says she has no answer. Fair enough, I guess. On to revenue. Why is revenue falling from B.C. liquor sales when in other provinces it’s going up?

[1610]

Hon. S. Anton: In response to the comment made by the member earlier, the combined wholesale and retail projected to government is $880 million. The member is right. That does go to a number of important services in government, the services offered to the citizens of British Columbia.

The Statistics Canada number which is being commented on is actually from March 31, 2014. It’s actually year-old data. The new data will be from March 31, 2015. We don’t have that yet. It comes out in June in the public accounts.

D. Eby: Of course it’s going to be $880 million when you count the wholesale, because the government got rid of the 16 percent discount for LRS stores and the 30 percent discount for independent wine stores. So now they’re buying their product at a higher price from the government through the distribution centre.

You can compare their old prices that they used to pay with the new prices. They’re paying more through the government distribution centre. You’ve moved your profit centre out of retail into wholesale. The question dealt with retail. How much money are you planning on taking in from retail?

The minister keeps conflating these two things. They are totally separate. The minister has increased costs for people who purchase through the liquor distribution system in British Columbia through the new wholesale price system. Of course the government is taking in more money on the wholesale side, because those discounts are gone. I don’t know why the minister insists on conflating them.

I’m sorry she doesn’t have this year’s estimates. I can tell her that for the summary financial outlook for the ministry — this comes from the service plan, page 12 — for fiscal 2014-15, the government is projecting a $907 million net income. Part of that, $44.7 million of it, is other income — a one-time hit of other income. If you remove that, the net income is lower than the actuals from last year.

Maybe the minister can explain what the other income is, and we can get down to where they’re actually forecasting this year’s revenue to be.

Hon. S. Anton: Of the $907.6 million in the service plan, $36 million of that is from the sale of the warehouse. The rest of that, $44.7 million, which the member was looking at, is miscellaneous revenues.
[ Page 8139 ]

[1615]

In terms of the comment about the purchase price at wholesale, the setting of the price was designed to be revenue-neutral. Generally, buyers are paying the same price as before, plus or minus small amounts. It is the case that the 12 independent wine stores pay more, but it’s also the case that the rural agency stores all around rural British Columbia are paying less.

D. Eby: Let’s go over the numbers. So $877 million returned to government in fiscal 2013-14 was itself a four-year low for revenue. The previous three years were all higher, including pre-HST, which I’m sure the minister will raise. In 2011 the government received $890 million from liquor sales. In 2014, $877 million. The minister has just said now that they’re projecting — quick math here — $907 million minus the $36 million one-time sale. They’re projecting $861 million in revenue from alcohol sales, not real estate sales.

Why are these numbers going down? Why are they continuing to drop? What is the issue? Has the minister identified what the problem is here?

[1620]

Hon. S. Anton: It is how the tax is collected. The numbers present differently, but the bottom lines are these.

In 2012 fiscal year the total to government was $911 million. That included net income of $5 million PST and some piece from liquor control and licensing. In 2013 year-end, $930 million net income, no PST, but that $930 million included GST. In fact, in the 2012 year it mostly included GST as well. There was a small piece for PST, but most of the year it was GST included in that $911 million.

Then in 2013-14 net income to the LDB, $876 million. Now the PST is separated out again, $112 million, for a total of $989 million. The numbers have been steadily increasing, but what happens is that the PST is not recorded in our numbers. It’s recorded in government’s numbers.

D. Eby: Let’s go to something that presumably will be clearer. I would have assumed that the government would be providing useful apples-to-apples comparisons in terms of revenue. If you look at the numbers, return from income, and if you look at the Stats Canada numbers, our numbers are going down. Other provinces are going up.

Let’s look at performance measure 4.1, sales per square foot. I assume that the taxes are going to be independent of this, but maybe the minister can set me straight on that too. The 2013-14 actual sales per square foot in government liquor stores was $1,222. The target for 2015-16 is $1,190. That’s going down. In 2016-17, $1,215. That’s going down. For some reason, in 2014-15 — very optimistic about what’s happening there — it’s the only number in the next three years where the government is forecasting an increase over ’13-14.

Now, these targets that are lower than 2013-14 actually used to be higher. These targets used to be $1,303 in sales per square foot in the 2014 service plan. But they’ve been reduced. Lower targets, I admit, are easier to hit.

Can the minister explain why she reduced the targets for sales per square foot for ’15-16 and ’16-17 after adding refrigeration and extended hours for B.C. Liquor Stores? How does that make any sense?

Hon. S. Anton: One of the sets of changes that we have made is that the purchases of product by the licensee retail stores and the rural agency stores is now from the wholesale customer centre, where some of it used to be from the retail stores. That shift to the customer centre does mean that the square-foot forecast has reduced slightly in the retail stores.

[1625]

D. Eby: I’ll ask whether the minister would consider providing a list of the actual revenue — without the PST, or all with the PST, however she wants to do it, an apples-to-apples comparison — for 2011 through the most recent year for which she has actual figures.

Hon. S. Anton: The numbers are in the annual report, which the member should be able to get. I’ll just start from 2011 fiscal year, $928 million; 2012, $911 million; 2013, $929 million — $930 million, essentially — and 2014, $990 million.

D. Eby: The minister took me through those numbers, and she said…. When I look at them on page 37 here, it’s right that some of these numbers include $37 million or $112 million in PST, and others of them don’t.

Can the minister explain why she relies on these numbers as apples-to-apples comparisons, but the other ones, not so?

Hon. S. Anton: I’m not sure if I understand the question, but the reason they present slightly differently is because the PST is separated out, whereas the GST was added into the net income. Although they’re calculated differently, it’s the totals at the bottom that are important.

[J. Thornthwaite in the chair.]

D. Eby: Then if I read the minister’s numbers correctly, $989 million returned to government in 2013-14, and I compare that to her target of $880 million, am I correct in understanding that’s almost a $110 million shortfall?

Hon. S. Anton: The PST is not reported as revenue to the Liquor Distribution Branch. It is reported through the Minister of Finance.

D. Eby: These numbers that the minister has pointed me to on page 37, where on the line “LDB net income,”
[ Page 8140 ]
which is the number that I want…. I want that number consistent across all of the columns for what’s included in that number, whether it includes all the PST and GST or HST, or whether it’s stripped out.

Will the minister provide me with LDB net income for the years that she has up to the present? We don’t need to go as far back as 2008. I’d be glad to have it starting at 2011, but I cannot compare these numbers because some of these LDB net income numbers include PST as in the bundle, and some of them don’t.

[1630]

Hon. S. Anton: I think what the member is looking for is a number with the tax stripped out of it. We don’t have that number because the HST was actually built into the pricing. When we went away from the HST again, the PST was stripped out of the pricing. That’s what now goes to Finance. So the number that matters is the bottom line, as they say. That’s the number that matters.

D. Eby: With respect, to the minister, PST, HST, GST can all be collected from private sector sales as easily as from public sector sales and so on. I think the number that really matters is LDB net income. Which is: are the government’s operations under their management turning a profit? If so, what is the profit? Are the retail operations turning a profit? If it’s going down, why is it going down? How do we fix it? If it’s going up, then great. What are we doing right? How can we keep doing it?

As surprised as I was to hear that the minister didn’t know how the retail stores were going to do this year, has no forecast for that, I am equally surprised to hear that there is no number that we can compare the LDB’s performance year over year to see how we’re doing, especially with falling per-square-foot sales, which I understand is due to a change in how things are being done. How can we even compare the distribution side, year over year, to see what the impact of that was? The minister doesn’t have those numbers either.

I’m going to move on to a different topic. There’s a program run by the government, or certainly implemented by the government, that used to be called the quality enhancement program. Now it’s called the VQA program. I’m having a hard time understanding exactly what this program is. It appears to be a program that’s run through the VQA.

The QEP was phased out originally in 2003-2004 and replaced with a new VQA program which has no cap on program benefits for wineries. In the most recent year, I understand, the benefits averaged $11.1 million. It resulted in significant payouts to a number of commercial wineries: $1.2 million to Andrew Peller, $3 million to Constellation and $2.3 million to Mark Anthony.

I hope that’s enough of a clue for the minister’s staff to know what I’m talking about. If not, I can give more detail. I’m afraid I’m not familiar with the program, and I would like the minister to explain what the program is and how it impacts the budget.

[1635]

Hon. S. Anton: The member is right. There was a program that was phased out over ten years ago now. What it has been replaced by for the commercial wineries is that they can direct deliver, and we do give them a rebate of 7 percent of the wholesale price. The purpose of that is that the product is not going through our warehouse, so they get, as I said, the rebate amount.

D. Eby: Can the minister clarify who is eligible to participate in this direct-delivery program to get that 7 percent rebate where the LDB doesn’t touch the product?

Hon. S. Anton: The eligibility of this program is for commercial wineries producing wine from 100 percent British Columbia grapes, but they’re not estate wineries where the grapes are actually grown right on the property.

D. Eby: The only participants are commercial wineries. Estate wineries are not participants in this program? Is that what I understood?

Hon. S. Anton: That’s correct.

D. Eby: What was the cost of this program in the most recent year that the minister has data for?

[1640]

Hon. S. Anton: The number I have is from March 2014, and the amount at that time was $11.5 million.

D. Eby: Can the minister provide totals of how much of this goes to the big three commercial wineries? The big three that I’m aware of are Andrew Peller, Constellation and Mark Anthony group.

Hon. S. Anton: The majority is to those three, but for the exact breakdown, I will have to get that number to the member.

D. Eby: I appreciate the minister’s offer, and I’ll take her up on that.

Was there a change in this program? I understood in fiscal 2012-13 that there were benefits paid to land-based wineries. If there was a change, when did that happen?

Hon. S. Anton: There has not been a program change in the last few years between the commercial wineries and the land-based wineries. I think I was using the term a moment ago of estate winery, but the proper terminology is land-based winery.

D. Eby: Is the 7 percent paid consistently across all channels — hospitality, private LRS store or wine store?
[ Page 8141 ]

Hon. S. Anton: The answer is yes.

D. Eby: What does the minister project the spending will be on advertising for government liquor stores in the current fiscal year and the following fiscal year?

Hon. S. Anton: It’s anticipated to be around $2 million, including Taste magazine.

D. Eby: As far as I’m aware, Taste magazine has been around for a while. Can the minister break out…?

[1645]

We just passed some legislation — maybe; certainly there’s legislation under consideration — permitting government liquor stores to advertise. Can the minister clarify which portion of this budget would be above and beyond existing marketing that the stores would have done?

Hon. S. Anton: The member is, of course, correct that the legislation isn’t passed. However, it’s in the House, and we can be optimistic that it may be.

The amount is about $1 million for other advertising. Let me make sure I say that right. About $2 million, including Taste magazine, so that’s about $1 million for other advertising and about $1 million for Taste magazine.

D. Eby: When the government announced the new wholesale price model, there was a lot of concern around a second-tier markup in relation to wine. The minister, I’m sure, will correct my numbers if I’m incorrect, but there was a base markup of 89 percent for the first $11.75 per litre and then a second-tier markup of 67 percent applied to the remainder. Following this announcement the minister then revisited that and changed the markup so that instead of the second tier being 67 percent, it was now 27 percent.

Now, the question that I have is…. When the original announcement was made about the markup, the minister said the intent was to keep revenue the same to government. I’m not sure how you can reduce the markup on the second tier from 67 percent to 27 percent and still keep revenue about the same, which is what the government said in both press releases where this was announced. How does that happen?

Hon. S. Anton: The member is right on the numbers. It was 89 plus 67 percent. We heard loud and clear on the second tier that it was too high a number. We did a further analysis and determined that 89 plus 27 percent was the right formula, so we adjusted the formula. We believe that the cost of that will be about $8 million, but we believe we can recover that generally in the operations.

[1650]

D. Eby: I apologize if I’m jumping around and if it’s causing the minister’s staff any grief here, but I will be doing that.

We talked about other revenue being the sale of the distribution centre. The minister had a figure for that sale. I assume that the sale is complete, but the LDB is still operating out of the distribution centre. Can the minister tell us the cost of leasing the distribution centre from the new owner?

Hon. S. Anton: The lease costs are all combined in the information we have here today, so I will get the member that number.

D. Eby: Thank you to the minister. I’ll take her up on that offer.

In the summary financial outlook on page 12 of the service plan, the minister has set out — or her staff has set out — operating expenses, administration. When I look at the numbers, I see a steady climb from $97.1 million in administrative costs in fiscal 2013-14, which was an actual number, to a projection in 2017-18 of $126.2 million in administration costs. This reflects an increase of 30 percent. What does the minister attribute this increase in administration costs to?

[1655]

Hon. S. Anton: Quite a lot of that is associated with the costs for the plan to move into the new warehouse. There will be extensive, new systems required, preparation, planning, thinking and so on. That’s why the administrative expenses are expected to be higher.

D. Eby: In fiscal ’13-14, admin costs are $97.1 million, then ’14-15, $107 million, so that’s an increase of $10 million. Then $118 million — that’s an increase of $20 million. Then $121 million — that’s $23 million or $22 million. Then $126 million — that’s about $27 million. These are all compounding, so you’re talking about somewhere on the order of about $50 million or $60 million between fiscal 2013-14 and fiscal ’17-18. Surely the minister is not attributing all of that to planning for the new distribution centre?

Hon. S. Anton: I’d like to suggest a short break — it’s five now — and I will get the answer for the member when we come back.

The Chair: We’ll take a five-minute recess.

The committee recessed from 4:59 p.m. to 5:09 p.m.

[J. Thornthwaite in the chair.]

Hon. S. Anton: The member was asking about the increase in the administrative cost projections. There are
[ Page 8142 ]
increases in depreciation; transportation, including fuel costs; repairs and maintenance; professional services, including prepping for the warehouse and IT; bank charges; credit card fees. Beyond the year we’ve just concluded, to the end of March 2015, increased administration expenses are due to preparing for the new warehouse.

[1710]

D. Eby: I see that on the capital side the government is also projecting significant spending for each year from the current to ’17-18 — fiscal 2014-15, $30.4 million; ’15-16, $34 million; ’16-17, $64 million; ’17-18, $59 million. Can the minister explain what this capital expenditure is for?

Hon. S. Anton: The answer is yes. It is warehouse. Just to be crystal-clear, the depreciation number that I mentioned a moment ago does include the amortization of the capital of the new warehouse.

D. Eby: Can the minister give us figures for the total cost — that’s difficult to understand from these numbers, spread out year over year — capital and administration costs, for the new warehouse?

Hon. S. Anton: The warehouse is still in planning, so we don’t have a cost. We still are considering whether or not to buy or to lease.

D. Eby: When I look at the summary financial outlook and I add together the increases in administration costs from fiscal 2013-14, which is the most recent year that I have actual numbers, I get a number of more than $75 million. When I add together all of the capital expenditures that are laid out there, I get a number in excess of $180 million, which means we’re talking about an expenditure of about $250 million plus. That’s laid out here in the outlook for the public to have a look at.

When I look at what’s projected for income to come out of that investment of more than $250 million, the increase that I see, when I add together the increases from the most recent year I have, is $51 million. Are we investing, or are we planning or proposing to invest, $262 million in additional capital and administration to return $51 million in increased sales? Is that what the plan is that’s been set out here before us?

[1715]

Hon. S. Anton: A couple of things. I fear that in the number the member gave, he may be counting twice. He’s counting capital and depreciation, which is double-counting. First observation.

Second is that the warehouse costs will be up front, but the warehouse itself is expected to last quite a long time, 20 to 25 years, and the benefit will certainly extend over that period of time.

Also to observe that the capital costs include technology, include the stores themselves — the 195 stores, 196 stores that we’ve got — and the technology in each of those stores, so there are quite a number of other capital expenditures.

D. Eby: The minister cautions me, and I think she’s right to do so, that I may be double-counting here with respect to depreciation. Even when I look at administration expenses, $75 million in increased administration expenses, that’s $24 million more than the increased income that’s projected to come in.

When does the administration drop back down to a level — proportionate with inflation, obviously — that we saw in 2013-14? It looks like this number continues to climb year over year. When is the project done, with respect to the distribution centre?

Hon. S. Anton: We’re planning for the project to be done by 2019.

D. Eby: How much is the minister planning on spending on the store modernization project?

Hon. S. Anton: We spend $7 million to $8 million per year for the stores, and that number has been fairly constant.

D. Eby: The minister has made much about modernizing stores, new technology in the stores, refrigeration in the stores, investing in the stores. Is the minister saying that it’s just $8 million a year, and that includes refrigeration and tech and all that? And that’s consistent with previous years’ spending?

[1720]

Hon. S. Anton: The number is what I gave: $7 million to $8 million. It is for all the stores, for the capital expenditures on those stores.

One observation on the technology, which is that that is, generally, centrally developed and then distributed to the stores. The stores all hook in to the same technology.

D. Eby: How many stores will be getting refrigeration?

Hon. S. Anton: There are about 15 stores now that have refrigeration. We’re planning to do 30 this year and about 30 next year. After that there may be more, but the plans are still undeveloped.

D. Eby: So if I took the number of 30 plus 30 plus 15, that’s 75, and divided that by $7 million to $8 million, would I have the cost per store of refrigeration?

Hon. S. Anton: I don’t have a breakdown of the different forms of improvements, because we do, do improve-
[ Page 8143 ]
ments in the stores — racking, lighting, making the store’s general renovations — so there are a number of things that come under that capital budget for the stores.

D. Eby: Again, I’m surprised that the minister doesn’t have a number for one of the major improvements. I mean, if you’re making a business decision about where to put refrigeration — whether to put it in or not, whether there is a return — one would expect you would know how much it costs to put in the refrigeration and to operate it. I’ll take the minister at her word on this.

The minister commissioned — or somebody in government commissioned — an Ernst and Young report on the wholesale price reform, or various aspects of the reform, within administration of the liquor system in B.C. How much did that report cost?

Hon. S. Anton: I’ll provide that number to the member.

D. Eby: Will the minister release that report?

Hon. S. Anton: It’s a cabinet document, so it will not be released.

D. Eby: Certainly, it’s well within the minister’s and the cabinet’s power to release that document. Can the minister give us a little more explanation about why she will not release that document that was paid for by the public?

[1725]

Hon. S. Anton: As I said, it’s a cabinet document, and the cabinet documents are kept confidential.

D. Eby: I look forward to finding out how much the public invested in that document that they can’t and are not permitted to read.

Moving back to wholesale pricing. Can the minister provide numbers of net income to the LDB per liquor category? Now, I’ll give a little background about what I’m looking for here and why I’m asking.

The minister, effective April 1, 2015, changed the wholesale price system in British Columbia such that there are different markup levels for spirits, refreshments, wines and beer. They each have their own markup system, and markup is a polite way of saying tax. For example, for spirits, depending on how much it costs, their markups are between 124 percent and 43 percent and on and on.

Can the minister provide the net income to the LDB, or to the public, of these markup rates for the previous year, before the change? And I imagine that my follower, if it’s not me — the next critic — will be asking for the same thing for the following year so we can compare the impact on revenues of the wholesale price changes.

Can she provide by category the net income for the most recent fiscal year before the markup schedule change?

Hon. S. Anton: I think the member is looking for some baseline information. We do have the information about sales per category, and I will get that information to the member.

D. Eby: I do have the sales by category information already. What I’m looking for is the revenue that’s generated by the taxes on these various categories of spirits, imposed by the LDB, so that I can compare.

That’s exactly right. The minister is exactly right. I’d like a baseline — the revenue that we generated from domestic spirits and import spirits in the most recent fiscal year so that we can compare it, following the markup change, to this current fiscal year.

Does the minister have that information, and will she provide it?

[M. Bernier in the chair.]

[1730]

Hon. S. Anton: I think the member knows the sales by major category. Perhaps he could just give me a nod on that one. Yes, he does. I believe his question is on net margins. We are able to provide the information on the margin for total spirits, total wine, total refreshment and total beer. I will get that information to him.

The Chair: Member.

D. Eby: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Welcome. You may have been here for a while. Sorry. I’m in the zone, the liquor zone — in a good way.

One of the concerns that was brought to me by a group of…. I guess the most appropriate term would be, although these are very small operations, “commercial distillers” in British Columbia. These are distillers that don’t use 100 percent B.C. products, but their operations are within the boundaries of British Columbia, usually one- or two-person operations.

Under the old system they were treated essentially as an independent wine store, almost, for sales out of their tasting room, where they had a 30 percent discount that is essentially what they lived on. Under the wholesale change they lost that discount. The effect has been quite devastating. I wonder whether the minister in the budget has contemplated some form of relief.

Clearly, they’re different from the craft distillers that produce from 100 percent B.C. products. The minister and I, I can say, are on the same page — that craft distillers are entirely deserving of appropriate treatment because they’re using 100 percent B.C. products.

These are not 100 percent B.C. products, but still inside British Columbia. Has the minister contemplated some sort of relief for these commercial distillers, which are located in B.C., at least to get them back to the place where they were before the wholesale price change? I be-
[ Page 8144 ]
lieve there are about two or three of these — maybe even four or five at most — in the province.

[1735]

Hon. S. Anton: Yes, we are aware of the issue. There are three of these distillers. Mr. Lawson from the Liquor Distribution Branch has been working closely with them, working to find a solution.

D. Eby: I’m certainly very glad to hear that.

Can the minister explain…? When craft distilleries in British Columbia sell their product in a government store, is there any preferential markup rate for them, compared with distilleries that are not located in British Columbia?

Hon. S. Anton: The craft distillers, at the moment, do not sell through the Liquor Distribution Branch stores.

D. Eby: Let’s move this into the abstract, because I don’t understand that answer. If a craft distiller were to sell through a government store, what would the markup be? Would it be the same as if it was an international conglomerate?

Hon. S. Anton: We don’t have a program for those distillers at the moment, because they are simply not using the channel.

D. Eby: I thought there were B.C. craft distillers that were selling through the government stores. I’m surprised to hear there aren’t. There is certainly an understanding among craft distillers that I’ve spoken to that they would be subject to the full markup if they did sell through the government channel, which may be why they’re not.

Is the minister willing — it sounds like she is — or is Mr. Lawson willing to work with these distilleries to make sure that B.C. craft product is available in government stores?

Hon. S. Anton: I think the question was whether we would be willing to work with them, and the answer is yes.

D. Eby: We have turned a corner here. I’m very excited about the last two answers.

Interjection.

D. Eby: Yes, we’re getting places.

Another issue has been brought to my office and surely brought to the minister as well. Companies that run tasting programs in government liquor stores used to be able to buy their product at what would be equivalent to the wholesale price, but now they pay full retail. This is not such a big deal for the big companies, but for the smaller companies it’s a fairly significant hit that they have to take.

Is the minister aware of this issue, and is she looking at addressing it to make sure that small companies, like big companies, are able to come and expose British Columbians to their offerings?

[1740]

Hon. S. Anton: These stores are retail stores, and they need to make their retail margin on the product. That is the reason why it is sold at full retail.

We do see it as beneficial to both parties. It’s beneficial to the store because it sells more product, and it’s beneficial to the manufacturer because they sell more product. I assume that for them it would be considered to be a marketing expense.

D. Eby: That’s a fairly significant increase for some of them in terms of their marketing expense. I would encourage the minister to have a look at that in terms of the revenue that’s generated, which is surely infinitesimal compared to the impact on smaller companies.

I’m going to move on to the issue of identification checks in government stores and generally in the province. The target that is set out in the Ministry of Justice is for all stores, both private and public. But the target that is set out….

I’m going to ask a different question, while the minister is working on that one. What is a spec product?

Hon. S. Anton: Spec is specialized. It’s a product which is designated by the supplier to a certain channel. A common example is the independent wine stores may like to have an exclusive order of wine that comes into the province, and it goes to their store. That’s the spec product.

D. Eby: Do government stores sell spec products?

Hon. S. Anton: The answer to that is yes. There could be a spec product that would go to the government stores generally — not usually to one government store but to the chain.

D. Eby: There is a link between spec products and hospitality in that I understand that hospitality would be required to buy an entire case lot of a spec product. Is that actually the case? If so, has the minister looked at addressing that, given that hospitality restaurants are forced to buy exclusively through the government stores?

[1745]

Hon. S. Anton: If a restaurant were to take a spec product, it does come through the warehouse, because all of the products come through the warehouse. But it’s their product. They are ordering that case of wine from Italy, and we don’t wish to take back half of it, because it’s not our product; it’s their product.
[ Page 8145 ]

D. Eby: I take the minister’s point on that. But in the case of spec product, if you’re ordering a Scotch, you want to have a Scotch come in, for example…. You only want one bottle; you don’t necessarily want a case of Scotch. I’ll flag that for the minister that that’s an issue for many people in the hospitality industry. They want to bring in a special hard alcohol, but they don’t want a case of it. That’s a lot of money for them to tie up. It’s different than, for example, a case of wine.

Certainly, there’s a possibility to address that issue, potentially even through the private stores for those products that aren’t generally carried by the government stores.

With respect to the establishing of retail prices under the new wholesale price model, one of the concerns that I’ve heard from smaller producers is that the LDB sets retail prices without consultation with the wineries and there’s no formula anymore. Sometimes the concern has been raised that the retail margin can vary from 7 percent to 17 percent on various products and that it can change with just a few days’ notice.

It makes it very impossible for them to do long-range planning and business planning if their wine is, for example, less than 20 bucks or more than 20 bucks, because that is a make-or-break point in the wine industry. Has the minister heard this concern? Has her staff heard it? Are they addressing this? It’s less of an impact on the big producers but certainly a major impact on smaller producers in the province.

Hon. S. Anton: The vendor or the manufacturer sells to the Liquor Distribution Branch. They know their sale price to the branch. We apply a known markup with a known formula. Then we apply a retail markup on that. There’s a known wholesale markup by formula. Then when it goes into the Liquor Distribution Branch stores, there is a retail markup. And yes, that can vary, the retail markup. But it doesn’t change more than once a month. At the moment the price changes are monthly.

[1750]

D. Eby: We’ll put a flag in that one for the minister, as well, to have a look at that, because a change of $19.99 to over $20 can have a major impact on a small producer. It’s a small percentage change in the retail markup, but it changes the whole amount of product that they can expect to sell through government stores.

I’ve raised this previously with the minister. I’ll raise it again. Some cultural groups have events that take place — Vancouver, for example, the province of B.C., increasingly an international province — in a different time zone than Pacific Standard Time. These groups, for example, will be watching a rugby match in Australia that may be taking place at seven in the morning our time.

The hope of these groups is that they could have a beer at a pub while watching the rugby game on these special occasions and that the general manager could make a decision: is this a responsible operator, is this a responsible organizer, and could we make an exception in this case and allow service to begin at this unusual time?

Currently, I understand, the regulations only allow the general manager to make the call if it’s nine in the morning, no earlier. It seems a bit arbitrary, but in any event, I’m interested to hear the minister’s perspective on this, as it could impact special-occasion licences issued for the coming fiscal year.

[1755]

Hon. S. Anton: The hours of service are from 9 a.m. to 4 a.m. That’s set out in the regulation, and it’s common to many jurisdictions in North America. What we can do is allow businesses to open earlier than that, but not for liquor sales. For example, we did allow that during the Olympic hockey game.

To change that regulation would be a fairly major undertaking. It would require extensive consultation with local governments, with health and safety and with people who pay attention to health and safety issues, because it’s certainly believed that if you have increased access, of course, that can lead to health and safety issues.

The nine o’clock to four o’clock seems to be a fairly broad period of time where liquor can be available, and as I said, to change it would be a pretty major undertaking.

D. Eby: Just to be clear for the minister, I’m certainly not suggesting that hours of service be increased across the board. This would be special occasions only, with the consent of the general manager for special cultural occasions. I don’t see that being unreasonable. I do encourage the minister to investigate that. I discourage her from investigating increasing the hours of service generally. I think that would be a mistake.

In any event, I found my ID-checking page. I thank the minister for her patience for that. Liquor distribution board service plan, page 18, expects 100 percent compliance with ID-checking requirements. Ministry of Justice service plan, page 18, expects an 80 percent, roughly, compliance with ID checking.

I understand that one is government stores only, one is private stores, but surely we expect 100 percent compliance as a target for ID checking in all stores, regardless of public or private. Can the minister explain the difference between these two?

Hon. S. Anton: Of course, we would like everybody to be at 100 percent. Our government stores are at a 100 percent target, and that’s because we do have more control in those stores. We have more control in the staff, and our staff do a good job.

On the second performance measure that the member was noticing, that’s for all liquor stores, including our stores and private stores. Of course, we would like that
[ Page 8146 ]
number to be near 100 percent as well, but that’s not reality at the moment. The reality is, though, that we do have programs to encourage people to make sure that there is compliance. Also, we charge people if there is not.

D. Eby: I’d like to thank the staff of the minister for all their assistance, certainly to me, through the minister, and for being here today. I really appreciate it. I’d like to thank the minister for her answers and for her commitments to provide additional information. That’s the extent of my questions on the liquor file.

[1800]

D. Donaldson: I have a couple of questions to do with the Attorney General’s part of the responsibility of your ministry. I don’t know if you need to change staff.

Hon. S. Anton: I am joined by my deputy, Richard Fyfe, and Assistant Deputy Attorney General Kurt Sandstrom.

D. Donaldson: I’m going to pursue a couple of questions that arose out my budget estimates with the Minister of Children and Family Development where she referred me to your ministry for answers, so you can thank her for these questions.

My first question is to do with the cost of settling civil lawsuits where the Ministry of Children and Family Development were the main target of the lawsuits. Doing a quick reference, and research, we were looking at the number of civil suits that had been settled where the Ministry of Children and Family Development was the main target. Three were settled in 2015, nine in 2014, six in 2013, four in 2012, two in 2011, four in 2010 and seven in 2009.

That’s 35 over the last seven years. My question is: what was the cost of settling those civil suits — the damages or what the awards were — and where did the money to pay for those damages come from?

Hon. S. Anton: In the past seven years, there have been 58 claims relating to the Ministry of Children and Family Development. The total number is $29,643,919.61, and that money is out of the Crown Proceeding Act.

This past year there have been eight claims, with four settlements, therefore, four cost awards — $511,297.90 paid out of the Crown Proceeding Act.

D. Donaldson: Thanks for having that information at your fingertips.

When the minister says paid for out of the Crown Proceeding Act, does that mean it comes out of contingency funds for the year?

[1805]

Hon. S. Anton: The vote is one of the votes we have here, and it’s for $24½ million for the Crown Proceeding Act. It’s kind of a marker amount, because if the settlements over the course of a year are more than that, the extra funds come out of a statutory appropriation. We’re not held to the $24½ million. If the $24½ million is not spent, it’s not Justice’s funds. It’s just money not spent by government.

D. Donaldson: Another aspect that we covered with the Minister of Children and Family Development was when an investigation takes place after the death of a child in care or critical injury of a child in care. I was specifically asking about a death of a child in care. The instance I was citing to her was the case of Isabella Wiens. She died while in care at 21 months, on March 16, 2013. A coroner’s report wasn’t completed on that death until March 5, 2014 — so almost a year later, 12 months.

Much hinges on that coroner’s report, as the minister knows, especially the findings of the report. The Representative for Children and Youth’s office waits to determine the findings of a coroner’s report, whether it’s going to be a criminal proceeding, before she can kick in, for instance, into her investigation.

I’m just curious. Twelve months seems like a long time. Are there performance standards within her ministry around how long a coroner’s report should take when investigating the death of a child in care?

Hon. S. Anton: The question was: are there performance measures for the coroner? The answer is no. The coroner’s job is to find the cause and manner of death. Sometimes their job can be relatively straightforward. At other times their job, in determining the cause and manner of death, can be very complex. The coroner does like to get the reports out, but sometimes the reports do take time.

D. Donaldson: Another area we explored with the Minister of Children and Family Development was the governance issue around First Nations and their children and the governance issues around that. Since the last estimates process, we’ve had the Tsilhqot’in decision. A major part of that decision revolves around the concept of consent.

[1810]

Many in First Nations communities would say it’s not simply…. That will be explored even further. It’s not simply consent around activities that take place on the land, but the land is intimately connected to the well-being and welfare of children. That issue of consent is going to grow.

My question is…. When the Indigenous Approaches initiative of the Ministry of Children and Family Development came under review by that ministry, the governance section that had been an important part of the Indigenous Approaches was removed — those discussions. At that time in media reports it was talked about — and, I believe, perhaps even the minister re-
[ Page 8147 ]
sponded — that that would become part of something the Ministry of Justice would be the lead on, because the expertise around constitutional issues and governance and self-government lies within that ministry.

Would the minister be able to describe what kind of leadership is taking place on that file and on that front?

Hon. S. Anton: Legal counsel in our aboriginal law group is reviewing the options available to the province and considering the issues which were raised in the recommendation in light of the significant developments in the Tsilhqot’in case. The aboriginal law group is working with staff from Children and Family Development and the Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation to prepare a submission on the response to the representative’s recommendation.

D. Donaldson: I’m sorry. I didn’t quite follow the minister’s answer. Did she say a response has been drafted and made public on that, or is she just saying that that’s in the works?

Hon. S. Anton: It is being prepared.

D. Donaldson: Thanks to the minister for that clarification.

Moving on to another topic area that the minister will be very familiar with. The Representative for Children and Youth wrote a letter to her April 10 regarding some major concerns the representative has about accountability and transparency regarding child injuries and deaths in British Columbia and, specifically, the convening of a Children’s Forum, which was part of the Hughes recommendation.

I believe that six different agencies have a legal role and a responsibility role around child injuries and deaths, so the recommendation back in 2006 from Justice Hughes was to create a Children’s Forum — senior managers from those different agencies getting together on a regular basis to discuss learnings, accountability and coordination of efforts.

That recommendation was never adopted by the government, so the children’s representative took it upon herself and has been doing that on an informal basis since then over the last nine years I guess that would be now. However, she was writing to the minister to ask that the more formal role be adopted by government. Specifically, she was hoping the minister would take the lead on that.

From what the representative said this morning in our Select Standing Committee on Children and Youth…. I’ll quote from what she said: “I’m particularly not prepared, in my role, to passively be part of a process that tells the public that there are reviews and processes in place when there are not.” She goes on to say: “But I certainly do not want to be complicit in a process that is not rigorous and is not appropriate and has not done the work.” That’s in reference to the process around the investigation of children’s deaths or critical injuries while in care.

[1815]

The representative said, and I read into her response, that she was a bit disappointed that the Attorney General has now, it seems, responded to her letter by saying that the Ministry of Children and Family Development will be the lead on the Children’s Forum.

I was just wanting to ask the minister why she would not, in her ministry, take the lead on that when, in fact, the letter she received from the representative and the comments she made this morning really point to her concerns about the actual processes and transparency and accountability within the Ministry of Children and Family Development.

Hon. S. Anton: I’m joined by Jay Chalke, QC, assistant deputy minister, justice services branch.

The recommendation from ten years ago was that there be a collaborative approach. I understand that in the last ten years it has perhaps not been settled what that approach should be, but the Minister of Children and Families has undertaken that she will lead that approach, and we agree with that in Justice.

L. Krog: I’m going to try, in light of my comments — through my friend from Vancouver–Point Grey earlier — to make sure that I stay on track in light of the staff that are still available here today to assist the Attorney General.

I’m going to start with the letter of June 10 from the Premier to the Attorney General, profusely congratulating her and thanking her team for doing work in the previous year, including the appointment of additional Provincial Court judges to improve access to justice services in British Columbia.

I take it that obviously even the Premier believes that the appointment of further Provincial Court judges is a good idea. I’m just wondering if the Attorney General can comment on the present number of judges or full-time equivalents. What is the goal during this fiscal year in terms of the complement of judges for the province?

[1820]

Hon. S. Anton: I’m joined by Joanne Hanson, acting assistant deputy minister from the court services branch.

We have 122.25 judges as of the 30th of April of this year. That is 31 new appointments since January 2012.

L. Krog: The Attorney General, I know, will correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe the original complement back in 2005 was 143 Provincial Court judges or full-time equivalents. That’s what my memory is, in any event.

As much as I appreciate that there appears to have been a general reduction in crime, some of the service plan and other comments would indicate that in fact we still
[ Page 8148 ]
have some serious issues in our court system regardless. I’m curious to know: how many judges are anticipated to retire this year or are going to be eligible for retirement? Is the Attorney General aware of that, and if so, can she provide any numbers or information on that?

Hon. S. Anton: The question was: how many retirements might there be this year? I don’t have the answer to that, but what I can say is that the number of Provincial Court hours is declining. In 2010 it was 113,000. In the year ending 2014 it was 101,000 hours — so a decline of about 5 percent. This is due to things such as the immediate roadside prohibition and a declining crime rate. For example, now the time to hearing in criminal cases is largely within the Provincial Court judges’ standards.

L. Krog: Which brings me back to part of my first question to the Attorney General today, and that is: what is the goal in terms of the complement of judges for this fiscal year, and does the government actually have a goal? In other words, are we anxious to keep the number at 122.5, I believe the Attorney General said, or 0.45? Are we anticipating getting it up to 130?

[1825]

Inasmuch as there may be a decline in crime and the number of court hours, that also means there’s a decline in the number of court hours available for family law cases, for instance.

[P. Pimm in the chair.]

Hon. S. Anton: Chair, welcome.

A moment ago I think I said the Provincial Court judge. Of course, I meant the Chief Judge of the Provincial Court. Just to correct that.

The goal in the complement…. We do believe that there may be a very small number added to the complement, which I have mentioned, of 122.25. I would make one other observation, which is that in 2010 there were 28,867 cases pending, and as of September 30, 2014, there were 19,795 cases pending.

L. Krog: Just so we’re clear, I believe the Attorney General said it was 113,000 judicial hours in 2012. If she nods her head and gives me a hint, that will help. So 113,000 hours in 2010. And the complement of judges in 2010…. I’m sure the Attorney General has that figure at her fingertips. And now we’re looking at 101,000 judicial hours most recently. Is that correct?

Hon. S. Anton: The hours are correct. I don’t have the complement for 2010.

L. Krog: One of the reasons I raise this — and the Attorney General will correct me if I’m wrong, I’m sure — is that I understand that the judiciary expenses are going to be up 4.4 percent in this fiscal year, roughly $3.009 million, I believe, or some figure close to that.

[1830]

I’m just wondering, given the reduction in judicial hours, what accounts for that increase in cost, which, of course, is not nearly as substantial as any increase that might be available for the Legal Services Society.

Hon. S. Anton: While staff are looking for that number, I’ll just give the member the question he asked a moment ago. September 30, 2010 — there was a total of judicial full-time equivalent positions of 126.3. That was 111 full-time and 34 part-time judges.

The increase of $3 million reflects funding provided for judicial compensation and operating pressures.

L. Krog: Just so I’m clear, we had 126 in 2010. They’ve generated 113,000 judicial hours. We have 122.5, roughly, now, and they are expected to, or did, generate 101,000 judicial hours. Are those figures correct?

Hon. S. Anton: The numbers are correct.

L. Krog: This raises the obvious question, because I appreciate we’re talking about full-time equivalents in terms of judges of the Provincial Court. And it relates back to an issue I’ve raised in previous estimates debates, and that is the use of part-time judges around the province.

The issue I raised with the Attorney General was that certainly in smaller communities where you have a judge in for a certain period of time, a two-day hearing is about to start on Thursday afternoon, and the judge says, “Oops, sorry. I’m not going to be here tomorrow, counsel. I’m going back to Vancouver or Prince George or wherever my home courthouse is,” and therefore things don’t get started.

I’m wondering, given that we’re talking about the difference of, roughly, four full-time judges, 122 to 126 — that’s my math, and I could be wrong, but I think I’m right — and a reduction from 113,000 to 101,000 judicial hours, which is more like a 10 percent difference….

I don’t mean it as a particular criticism of how the Provincial Court is conducted, but I’d rather like to hear the explanation of why, with four less players and a reduction of 12,000 judicial hours…. Arguably, either they were working really, really hard before, or they’re not working nearly as hard now, or there is some inefficiency in the system when you look at those numbers.

I’d be interested in hearing the Attorney General’s explanation for that, because after all, I’m going to spend a certain amount of time during the course of this estimates debate asking why the poorest people in this province can’t get access to legal aid but the judges of the province seem to have significant court time available and get a 4.4 percent bump.

[1835]

Hon. S. Anton: The chief judge, of course, is the one who does the scheduling of the judges, but we are working very closely with the chief judge and the judiciary to improve the efficiencies in the Provincial Court system.

We’ve got better scheduling. We’ve got Crown file ownership. We’ve got better use of technology. I don’t know if the member has had a chance to visit courtrooms around British Columbia now, but they, generally, have the computer screens so that we can do distance hearings if we need to.

I would observe, as well, that some of the easy cases have now come out of courtrooms so that the cases that the Provincial Court is dealing with do tend to be more complex than in the past.

L. Krog: One simple question, which I’m sure will give me a simple answer. When we talk about judicial hours, we mean hours that a judge is actually in the courtroom presiding over a case, as opposed to a judge who’s expected to be at the courthouse, perhaps, till five o’clock, but the court shuts at four o’clock or whatever. We’re talking about actual hours that the courtroom is open with a judge presiding over a case.

Hon. S. Anton: The hours that I gave are, indeed, hours where a judge is in the courtroom, which can include hearings or can include video hearings.

[1840]

L. Krog: Therefore, following the answer the Attorney General gave me to my earlier question, when we’re talking about a reduction of 12,000 judicial hours and yet only a reduction in the full-time-equivalents of four judges — which wouldn’t begin to account for that much time — then, clearly, we are retaining a significant number of judges to preside over courtrooms for less hours.

That tells me either the court is finished in the afternoons or earlier and we’re not getting full and appropriate use of those judges, or alternatively, we are using part-time judges in a way that may not be efficient. I’m just wondering if the Attorney General can comment on how many of the judiciary now are part-time and how many are full-time.

Hon. S. Anton: I think I might have an April number, but I’ll just give the March numbers because I think that’s going to be fairly close to what the member is looking for. On March 31, 2015, there were 142 judges total — 103 full-time and 39 part-time.

L. Krog: Again, coming back to my point about the full-time equivalency being a difference of four and the reduction in hours being 12,000 — which is more in the range of 10 percent of total judicial hours — and looking at the number of full-time and part-time judges and referring back to my concerns that I’ve expressed earlier about judges coming into communities for limited periods of time and lengthier hearings, has the Attorney General’s ministry had discussions with the chief judge around the appointment of more full-time as opposed to using more part-time judges?

I’m concerned that this is resulting in no reduction in cost, it would appear, of any significance whatsoever yet a reduction in the amount of judicial time available at the very same time that the ministry’s own statistics indicate a significant increase in the amount of days to get a family law case heard, which are the cases that many British Columbians are facing without the assistance of legal advice or counsel to act on their behalf — lengthier delays in the court system for the very people whose families are in crisis.

[1845]

Hon. S. Anton: The time to trial for family court matters has generally been declining, although recently it has started to increase again. It’s an imperfect measure — the time to trial in family court — because it’s not necessarily the best outcome that a matter get to trial.

There’s an emphasis in the new Family Law Act on settlement and an emphasis on mediation. So a trial, as I said, is not necessarily the best result. Sometimes a trial can be quite delayed or may never happen because it’s not needed.

I move that the committee rise, report resolution and completion of the Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development and progress of the Ministry of Justice and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:46 p.m.

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.

Copyright © 2015: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada