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)
Thursday, May 7, 2015
Afternoon Sitting
Volume 25, Number 9
ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)
ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)
CONTENTS | |
Page | |
Orders of the Day | |
Second Reading of Bills | 8173 |
Bill 25 — Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations Statutes Amendment Act, 2015 (continued) | |
D. Barnett | |
H. Bains | |
M. Morris | |
B. Routley | |
D. Routley | |
Hon. S. Thomson | |
Bill 20 — Election Amendment Act, 2015 | |
Hon. S. Anton | |
G. Holman | |
J. Martin | |
L. Krog | |
D. Bing | |
M. Farnworth | |
Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room | |
Committee of Supply | 8205 |
Estimates: Ministry of Justice (continued) | |
A. Dix | |
Hon. S. Anton | |
L. Krog | |
M. Farnworth | |
S. Fraser | |
V. Huntington | |
M. Karagianis | |
THURSDAY, MAY 7, 2015
The House met at 1:32 p.m.
[Madame Speaker in the chair.]
Orders of the Day
Hon. S. Thomson: In the chamber I call continued second reading on Bill 25; and in Committee A, the continued estimates of the Ministry of Justice.
Second Reading of Bills
BILL 25 — FORESTS, LANDS AND
NATURAL RESOURCE OPERATIONS
STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2015
(continued)
D. Barnett: B.C. Timber Sales currently contracts about 95 percent of its business activities to the private sector and will continue to do so for the purpose of these service agreements.
[D. Horne in the chair.]
Strengthening our economy comes not only through investing in our communities but expanding and opening new markets such as forestry, increasing competitiveness in the industry and supporting the accurate pricing of Crown timber by allowing non-BCTS licences to provide timber to BCTS for auction and improving the marketability of lower quality beetle-killed timber by equalizing the financial risk associated with cruise-based and scale-based sale licences.
These changes to the Forest Act and the Forest and Range Practices Act will help the effectiveness of B.C. Timber Sales and act on the recommendations of the BCTS effectiveness review. Acting on recommendations from the B.C. Timber Sales effectiveness review, the amendments will encourage more accurate timber pricing, help B.C. Timber Sales generate more revenue and improve overall business practices.
These changes will not only encourage more accurate timber pricing and increase BCTS’s annual net revenue by as much as $4 million but will also help BCTS generate more revenue and improve the agency’s overall business practices, essentially helping support suitable forest management and market access by empowering B.C. Timber Sales to enforce its environmental management system.
The economic engine of the Cariboo-Chilcotin is driven by forestry. Closer to home, forestry has always been a backbone of the economy of the Cariboo, and it remains so through some tough times, when markets changed and the pine beetle epidemic hit.
Hon. Speaker, 100 Mile House is home to timber harvesting, lumber production and oriented strand board production as the home to Ainsworth Lumber’s oriented strand board plant, two West Fraser mills, a community forest and numerous log home companies, as well as privately held woodlot operations.
Williams Lake is the place in B.C. where Pioneer Log Homes spawned the HGTV show Timber Kings, which launched in 2014 and is now in its second season.
Increasing competitiveness in this industry is important not only to my constituency but all of British Columbia. In Williams Lake there is the West Fraser Timber Co., a leading North American integrated wood products company. There is also Tolko Industries, West Chilcotin Forest Products as well as pellet lumber and Pinnacle Pellet plants. Additionally, West Chilcotin Forest Products is a jointly owned lumber company that brings the Ulkatcho First Nations and industry together as partners.
Our government’s approval of the Williams Lake community forest is providing new opportunity for forest management in the Cariboo by enhancing economic opportunities with community forests and ensuring that local values and interests are integrated into forest management.
Of course, the Alex Fraser research centre, which is situated on close to 10,000 hectares of Crown forest land near Williams Lake, in the Cariboo region, is one of two UBC research forests, managed to create opportunities for research, education and demonstration of suitable, sustainable forest management.
The 100 Mile timber supply area covers well over one million hectares of land. Bill 25, the Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations Statutes Amendment Act, will make it easier to regulate and manage low-impact community, recreational, industrial and commercial activity on Crown lands.
The Land Act has not been substantially reviewed in 40 years and currently has a very limited scope of regulatory powers. New regulation-making powers will establish time limits and other criteria related to how an activity can occur on Crown land; require clear notification of proposed land use or activity; allow government to restrict areas for a season, activity or use; and allow government to create clear remedies to address non-compliance.
The proposed changes to the Land Act will also streamline application processes and give government authority to identify low-impact activities like camping, organized events and aggregate testing, which are exempt from the application process.
The Land Surveyors Act. The proposed changes to the Land Surveyors Act will allow the Association of British Columbia Land Surveyors to register land surveyors who are not Canadian citizens or permanent residents.
Land surveyors are also identified as one of the 63 professional occupations that are enabled to engage in and
[ Page 8174 ]
practise their business activity within the NAFTA zone. These changes mean that the Association of B.C. Land Surveyors will be in line with other self-regulating professions in the province.
I support Bill 25 and believe in seizing these opportunities and changes, keeping our forest sector growing and continuing to create jobs to support families and communities across B.C.
H. Bains: It is a pleasure to speak on the issue before us, Bill 25. Every time we talk about anything to deal with the forest industry, it just brings you up to the next level. It’s such an important industry for our province, an industry that for 150 years, ever since B.C. came into existence, built this province. This is the industry that helped many families secure good family-supporting jobs all across B.C., including the Lower Mainland.
I am a direct beneficiary of the forest industry, having spent most of my working life before this job in the forest industry, first as a worker in the sawmill and then as a union official representing those workers who were employed in the forest industry. So my family benefitted tremendously, along with thousands of other families over 150 years. I’m sure there isn’t one person in British Columbia that isn’t touched by the benefits of the forest industry in our province.
That’s why it becomes so important that every time we talk about the forest industry or any changes we are talking about, that we review it, that we monitor it with a fine-tooth comb so that we don’t make any mistakes. I will talk about Bill 25, a number of different areas. There are some concerns in the bill, and I shared that with the minister.
As my colleague from Columbia River–Revelstoke mentioned earlier, the minister on that side, who garnered a lot of respect from all sides of this House and the industry and people outside of the industry, I think is genuinely trying to make the forest industry a little better place for all of us to work and benefit from.
Again, the dynamics all around these changes you need to really examine — whether these are going to be benefits to our British Columbians and our industry. Now there are different components. I’ll talk about that separately in each one of them and expand that later on.
Basically what Bill 25 does…. The minister explained a number of different areas that this touched, but there are about three or four that I will touch briefly and then will expand into it. The amendment to the Forest Act implements the recommendation that came out of the B.C. Timber Sales role and effectiveness review. That’s what we are talking about.
It came out of the B.C. Timber Sales role and effectiveness review report written by…. I think it was chaired by John Allan, who has a good name in the industry, with the industry and on the workers’ side and with the government. But that report will not be made public. I think there are different reasons, and I understand the minister has said that they will not be made public.
Of the changes allowed with major licensees, I think this is a big one. It allows major licensees to sell their unused AAC to the government. Then the government will then put that in BCTS, and the BCTS will place that timber in their system, which means that it’ll be opened up, as all of the other BCTS-operated and -managed forests, put up for bids and the successful bidder will go and harvest. That way that timber is made available to the industry, which otherwise it wouldn’t have been.
I mean, that’s the argument that the minister made. I think that generally that’s what he’s trying to do. The timber that normally would not have been made available to the industry because a licensee decided not to cut their total AAC that year…. They would let that unused AAC portion go to BCTS, and someone would come and harvest and make it available through auctions to anyone who needs it.
In theory, I think it looks good, but if you really examine it, it has really serious implications to the working people who are dependent on the forest industry — the workers, the unionized workers and others.
I will go into these individual issues one by one, but let me go back to put things in perspective — you know, where we started and where we are ending up with this bill. Or at least that’s the risk — where we will end up.
If you go back to the history of the forest industry, about 100 years ago our government of the day decided that 95 percent of those forests were owned by the government, by people of the province, and that we need to utilize them for the benefit of British Columbians. How did they do that? They invited the industry and said: “Look, these trees are available to you. You have a vast supply of raw material. But in return, we expect you to harvest them and manufacture them in your own mills.”
Originally, through an appurtenancy clause in the Forest Act, a certain part of the forest was directly tied to a mill. The idea was: “Yes, we will give you a tree farm licence and clearcutting and harvesting rights for that area, but you must harvest and manufacture in your own mill, that particular mill.”
It went on for a number of years until the 1980s. I think the minister of the day really watered it down, that appurtenancy clause. Basically, he changed it to…. Rather than an area of timber directly tied to a mill, the new language was instituted, by way of legislation, that now the company holding a tree farm licence must utilize the equivalent volume in their own mills or mills owned by their affiliates. And there was a definition of who the affiliates are.
Again, they gave them the total AAC and said: “All of that AAC must be utilized in your own mills or the mills that are owned by your affiliates.” You could move timber from one area and then feed another sawmill, so no one
[ Page 8175 ]
particular mill was tied to that particular timber. I think that was the area. I thought they were trying to make it more practical to move timber around to feed the mills that may not have the timber tied to them.
Then in 2003, when this government got elected, under the so-called Forestry Revitalization Act it completely cancelled that social contract that existed between the companies, the government and the people of this province through their government. That social contract now is gone.
The timber holders now do not need to process any stick of wood in their own mills. So they would own a tree farm licence, but they are not required now to process them in their mills. The result is a high volume of log exports. I think that was the sliding slope that the government started. And cut control was gone as well.
Let’s face it. We are a province with many, many forest-dependent communities. They are smaller communities. People of the day, in their wisdom, said that there has to be some activity in the forest industry to keep those communities working. Having some economic activities continues to keep those people working at the gas stations, the grocery stores and so forth.
They were required under that social contract to harvest a minimum of 50 percent of their AAC — or 50 percent plus or minus 50 percent, but over a five-year cycle they must be within 5 or 10 percent. Now that part is also gone.
All of those changes were made — so that the people who are listening know — with a promise from the industry, on the coast especially. This industry, the coastal industry, required heavy investment to upgrade their mills to be competitive with the rest of the world. They pledged $2 billion to invest in those sawmills, to upgrade them. That was the promise made by the industry in return for what the government gave them under the Forestry Revitalization Act.
Well, the industry got what they wanted, but the people of this province did not get their part of the bargain. Investment that was promised in return for those changes…. Guess what happened to those investments. I’ll give you some numbers. These are astonishing numbers that blow your mind.
That $2 billion that was supposed to be invested here in British Columbia — guess what happened. Three major British Columbian companies…. West Fraser now owns 15 sawmills in the United States, compared with seven in B.C. and five in Alberta, and 36 percent of shipments of lumber can now come from United States mills. In 2001 they had one mill in the United States.
Interfor now owns five sawmills in B.C. and nine in the United States. Now they will add — I think they have added them — another four mills this year. So about 43 percent of Interfor’s current production capacity is in B.C. and 57 percent in the U.S.
I might add, while I’m on Interfor, that when that Forestry Revitalization Act was passed, McDonald Cedar, which existed in the Fraser Valley…. What happened to that mill? They picked up that mill and moved about 20 kilometres across the line. They set up their shop there. They did it because they were allowed to do that, because no one would question them holding a tree farm licence and not processing those trees in their own mill. That’s what happened.
Canfor owns 12 sawmills in B.C., one in Alberta and ten in the U.S. It also owns four pulp mills in B.C., one wood bioenergy plant in Alberta and one in B.C.
That’s the result of that Forestry Revitalization Act. I might add it was ill-thought-out, did not help the industry. Since that time — and the government is on record — we had over 150 mills closed in B.C. Over 30,000 workers lost good-paying, family-supporting jobs that once existed before the Forestry Revitalization Act was brought in.
While they’re shutting down mills here…. It’s not that they’re expanding. It would be fine if they were expanding — maintaining their mills in B.C. and expanding to the United States and making some business decisions. Fair enough. But no, they’re shutting mills down here in B.C. and setting up those shops in the United States. No wonder 30,000 jobs were lost in B.C.
The government will stand up and argue: “Well, we had some bad times.” Yes, there were some not-very-good times in the forest industry in the last few years, but that was not the only reason we lost those jobs. I would say a big reason was government policy, lack of vision and basically giving away British Columbians’ resources to the industry without getting anything in return through a social contract.
That is shameful. The government is the custodian on behalf of the public — custodian of those forests, as I said, that fed our families, that built this province for 150 years. They simply let it go — simply let it go. That’s not a very good record for this government.
When you look at so many other different things and look at this, it just shows the complete failure of this government to continue to have a thriving forest industry and continue to have an industry that once was the engine that drove the economy of this province. They simply mismanaged it year after year after year.
Not only that. We’re losing jobs, and we are not getting the benefits or the value from the logs that we have, that we harvest. Here’s an example. The other jurisdictions are doing a much better job.
Let’s take a look. Quebec — this is how many jobs they create with 476 cubic metres per job. In Quebec they create one job with 476 cubic metres of logs. So 29.2 million cubic metres — the logs that they have — and they create 61,300 jobs.
In Ontario they create one job with 328 cubic metres.
[ Page 8176 ]
In B.C. it takes 1,470 cubic metres for each job. That’s four times Quebec and Ontario. I mean, something’s wrong with this picture. Ontario’s economy is dependent not only on its forest industry, but on many other manufacturing and other sectors of the economy. But we were the forest industry province. We depended on the forest industry. We just let it slide, gave it away, rather than being a good custodian and looking after our forests not only for today but for our future, for our children.
It’s such a shame, and it’s embarrassing, actually, the opportunities that my generation, our generation and the generation before had. When I started at Eburne sawmills in 1973, we had three generations working in that mill. The grandfather started, his son started, and his son started. They all ended up working their lifetimes at Eburne sawmills. Today no worker in the forest industry is encouraging their sons or daughters to come and work in the forest industry because they don’t see a future. This government isn’t giving them hope that there is a future in the forest industry.
Again, how bad we are…. Since 1990, B.C. has now got about 50 percent worse at creating jobs with the amount of timber. From 1991 to 2001 — an average of 787 cubic metres per job for those ten years. Now it is 1,470, and from 2002 to 2012, 1,400. Ontario and Quebec got better, 14 percent and 13 percent better over the same period, because somebody is paying attention to their forest industry — the very, very important and precious forest industry.
So that’s the problem. The problem is that government has turned a blind eye to the forest industry. I could go on about how bad we are when it comes to managing our forest industry. I could look at different areas of how bad we are. Since the Forestry Revitalization Act became an act, the social contract is gone. There’s no justification for mill closures and no requirement for the companies to process their equivalent volume of the tree farm licence in their own mills.
Guess what’s happening? I’ve just said 30,000 jobs lost and 150 plants shut down. But here’s a little history on log exports. Log exports ballooned in that same period — ballooned. So 2013 was the highest number: 6.7 million cubic metres of logs were shipped abroad — 6.7 million exported. Last year wasn’t any better; it was just under 6.7 million.
In the meantime, we have mills, manufacturers, here in B.C. looking for that timber. They’re not running at full capacity because they have no logs available to them, or they’re shut down, or they’re running on only a one-shift basis. From 1987 to 2012 I’ll give you a little….
The minister sometimes, and other members of the House, will stand up and say: “Well, you know, log exports — it’s always been the case.” In 1987 it was three million cubic metres exported; in 1995, 692,000. In 1997 only 270,000 cubic metres were shipped out. That’s like running one mill on half a shift — one shift, not on two shifts. But 6.7 million? It’s like running ten sawmills on a two-shift basis, every size of sawmill, for a full year. Then from 1997, 1999, 2000, 2005, it went up to about 5 million cubic metres. It just continued on from 2000 until 6.7 million — record-breaking — in 2013.
Like I said, in the meantime we have mills that are looking for that timber. They’re not running at full capacity. Therefore, job opportunities for our workers coming out of high schools and coming out of universities are not there. Jobs are created somewhere else with our resources. That’s not right.
Bill 25 does not address that issue. It does not. So I gave that little history. That’s what this bill could do. First, we had a strong appurtenancy timber tied to a sawmill, and then the company timber tied to their mills. And in 2003 that social contract was gone with no requirement of the industry or the company to process those logs in their own mills. That is gone.
But now under this bill they can sell their AAC back to the government, the AAC that belonged to us, the public. And they were given that AAC because they made the argument and convinced the government and the minister of the day that they needed those logs to process them in their own mills to create jobs for British Columbians. That was the requirement of them obtaining their licence.
Also, at that time, when they tore up that social contract, they allowed these companies who got their AAC by adding and including their private timber holdings to have the AAC overall. So there was Crown timber given to them because they were bringing their private timber holdings into it. And then the government allowed them to subdivide that and sell the private portion that they brought into it as a condition of getting that AAC.
You see the pattern? Now we are talking about, under this bill, that now they don’t even have to harvest them. They can sell the unused AAC back to the government, who owns that timber in the first place. They’re selling it back to the government, and the government, through BCTS, puts it in their system so that somebody else comes in and harvests it and then makes it available to whoever.
Now they don’t have any responsibility. They hold timber licenses, but there’s no requirement for the public of this province to get their return on it. Just because they’ve got a timber licence, what right do they have to sell it back to the government? If they don’t use that AAC, then they don’t use that AAC.
First of all, there should be a requirement that if they have that AAC, they must use it. So with Bill 25, it would allow them to sell. They’re selling something that we already own. We gave it to them because they made an argument that they needed that timber to run their mills. Now they’re not even required to harvest it, they sell it and make money off of it. Now we are turning it into a private property for these companies. That’s where we started, and now this is where we’re going.
This is not a good deal for British Columbians, and I will have all kinds of questions at the committee stage on that. That one area is a serious concern. It is serious, serious stuff, what’s happening in the forest industry. Like my colleagues have said before, I have faith in this minister, as a custodian on behalf of the government and on behalf of the public. The minister better take a serious look at the direction that we are going because it is not the right thing to do, what we’re doing.
Again, when we are talking about log exports, it was supposedly the excess timber to our domestic market. That’s what the rules are. For that reason, to determine whether it is excess or not, the government, the minister has created what’s called the timber export advisory committee, made up of members from the industry. They know the industry. Over 100 times, when applications for export came to them in 2013, the minister overruled them. What a sham.
That’s not how you run a forest industry that built this province. We have an issue. There’s no doubt. On the coast we have close to 20.8 million, almost 21, cubic metres of AAC, but the mill consumption is about 12 million. So there are about eight, nine million cubic metres of excess timber available on the coast. And we have mills that are not running at full capacity because they can’t get those logs.
What’s wrong with that picture? Don’t you think the government has to show some leadership to make this industry the envy of the world? I just gave you some numbers. Ontario is doing better. Quebec is doing better. But we’re not. We’re in the last place when it comes to creating jobs with our resources. Western Forest Products on the coast have over two million cubic metres of excess wood, and they export. In the meantime they are shutting down another sawmill. They shut down another sawmill in Nanaimo. Not good.
Then we have wildland-urban interface. This is an area that was identified by Filmon after the Kelowna fire. There are 685,000 hectares around those communities identified as high risk. Only 68,000 in 11 years have been cleared, so we still continue to put those communities at risk.
I just want to get back…. My time is running out. That is a big concern: allowing unused AAC by these licence holders to sell it back to the government. The other one is the bonus bids. Now they can bid, but if they don’t proceed to harvest what they bid for, there’s no penalty, because that deposit is not going to be forfeited.
Mr. Speaker, I think those are the things…. There is so much else — stuff to talk about. Maybe I will use my…. Being a designated speaker, I could go over maybe a minute or two on this one.
Then also, on the community forest, government is proposing under Bill 25 that they will reserve the right to have the reservation in new community forests, so that BCTS can go and harvest. That is a concern to the community forest operators.
Then we have what we call NSR, not sufficiently restocked, areas. Two million hectares that the Auditor General has identified in their report and which the Forest Practices Board identified. Two million hectares that should be restocked, replanted is not. Every area you look at, you see mismanagement after mismanagement after mismanagement.
I know we want to finish today earlier, so I will not take a lot of time. But I have so many questions about that one particular part of the section. I think it’s section 8 of the bill. If the minister cannot convince us that it is not going to harm the forestry workers who will be affected by it, then I can’t support it.
The worry the unionized workers have is that now these companies, the tree farm licence holders who have a unionized workforce, could easily decide not to cut their AAC and give that or sell that to the government, to BCTS, and some other non-union contractor will come and take the timber. In the meantime the unionized workers will be sitting at home.
It’s a worry why the unions and those workers…. This will lead to deunionization of the logging industry on the coast — a serious concern. If that’s the case, and I hope that it’s an unintended consequence, it’s a significant consequence to those workers and those communities.
Many of those contractors, as I mentioned, are unionized. They are local contractors, they have roots in those communities, and they reinvest in their communities, whereas when you go through BCTS, those contractors have no connection to those communities.
The companies will use it every which way. That’s the fear of the workers, and I sympathize with them. This way the company will easily say: “I’m not using and cutting all of my AAC — giving it to BCTS.” Somebody else comes in.
They make money. They still make money without doing anything, but at the same time, the workers are losing because their work will now be work by somebody else.
I think that is a serious concern. We will have so many questions on this, Mr. Speaker. I will have more questions at that time, and I’m sure that my colleagues will have more questions on this.
With that, because of time constraints today, I will take my place and thank you very much for the time and allowing me to make those comments.
M. Morris: It’s my pleasure to stand up and speak in support of Bill 25. I’ll speak from personal experience with respect to the Land Act. I went through a Land Act application a number of years ago — longer than a decade ago, anyways — and the process was very onerous. A lengthy process, a lot of unnecessary steps, in my view as the applicant. It tied up a lot of administrative resources at the land office, a lot of inspections and a whole lot of activity related to probably some archaic terms that were
[ Page 8178 ]
in the Land Act. The Land Act hasn’t been looked at in any great detail for the past 40 or 50 years.
I can understand these relatively simple changes to the Land Act. I think it’s going to make things a heck of a lot easier for any of the applicants out there that want to get into adventure tourism, that want to get into some of these activities that shouldn’t trigger a whole list of administrative activities and burden on government and on the applicants. I think those amendments are going to be very much appreciated by the folks that are out there.
I’m going to concentrate a little bit more…. And the other amendments in there I don’t think are very elaborate changes to the Land Surveyors Act — pretty straightforward and whatnot.
I’m going to focus a little bit more on the forestry aspect of things. The world has changed. The member opposite went into a lot of detail about how things used to be in the past, and I can understand that. That’s when he was most familiar with the industry. The industry has changed significantly since the forest practices code. The Forest and Range Practices Act and the planning regulations were results-based, where the legislation was put in place to make things work.
I think it was working pretty good, but then a phenomenon came along. That phenomenon was the mountain pine beetle epidemic that has hit my area hard and the Quesnel area, the Williams Lake area, the whole Interior of the province, where we saw the AAC almost double in some respects.
Forestry has been the mainstay of my community, in Prince George and Mackenzie and the central Interior, right from the time that the then Forests Minister back in the 1960s, Ray Williston, had a vision for an expanded forest industry throughout British Columbia, established the pulp sector and created some more opportunities in the forest industry. We saw the AAC go from 20 million cubic metres a year in the Interior forest area up to 70 million cubic metres a year. It held that volume pretty steady over the number of decades since the ’60s — 60 million, 70 million cubic metres.
Then along came that tiny little beetle that just decimated the Interior forests, and government had to take some fairly quick action and increase the AAC. In some years, just recent years, we reached 90 million cubic metres per year in the Interior. A lot of the forest was cut down and processed as a result of that.
Industry rose to the challenge. They produced sawmills that were capable of not only handling the extra volume but the depreciated condition of the wood itself, the fine dust particles. We’ve seen the results of that, the tragic results of that, and the technology that has developed since.
Not only in that way but in the processing of that wood — they became very efficient at it. The member opposite was talking about so many cubic metres of wood for so many jobs in Quebec and Ontario. British Columbia is leading the world in forest technology, and the sawmills that we’ve produced in British Columbia today are reflective of that.
There are less people working in those sawmills because of the automation involved. There are less injuries involved in those sawmills because of the automation involved.
Not only that but on the logging side as well. When we have feller-bunchers nowadays that can cut between 750 and 1,000 metres per day, that is also replacing a lot of the workers out there, but it’s a lot safer for the workers in the forest industry. We’ve seen a significant decline in the number of injuries related to that.
All saying that because of the increased capacity to the sawmills, the increased capacity of the harvesting techniques that we have, we’ve been able to meet that 90-million-cubic-metre threshold the last few years. It’s had an impact on the land base. It’s had an impact on B.C. Timber Sales and the availability of fibre for those people in order to maintain a market pricing system that we have in British Columbia, which is connected to the softwood lumber agreement.
B.C. Timber Sales requires 20 percent of the volume throughout the province that is reflective of the type and kind of wood that the forest industry is harvesting itself. That wood is available in community forest lots. It’s available through First Nations timber allocations. It’s available in several types of areas throughout the province.
The amendments that Bill 25 speaks about are providing the province that ability to expand the community forest licences. The ministry has a tremendous amount of pressure on from all community forests in the province, and other communities that don’t have them, to expand or create community forest licences for those particular areas. This legislative change will allow that to take place. It’s also going to allow B.C. Timber Sales, in order to reflect the types and size of wood, to have that opportunity to use wood from the community forest licences.
The benefits that accrue to First Nations as a result of community forests or as a result of some of the licences that they have in the program…. McLeod Lake is a good example — McLeod Lake Indian Band, which is in my riding. They’ve got a significant annual cut, and they supply not only their own mill, which they’ve just built in Mackenzie, but they supply fibre to Canfor. They supply fibre to Conifex. They supply fibre to anybody else that wants it in that particular area there.
It has provided good-paying jobs for the members of the McLeod Lake Indian Band, and it’s provided a revenue stream for them that has paid some pretty good dividends for the community. We’ve seen a significant increase in the social development of that community as a result of the impact of these types of licences they have there.
This is allowing a little bit more flexibility for government in not only meeting our requirements in making a determination for a market pricing system, but it also makes some allowances to provide that extra capacity and those jobs for the communities through the community forest program, the First Nations licensing program.
Some of the costs that the member opposite was talking about and some of the pressures that we now have on industry and on government today as a result of the mountain pine beetle epidemic are that the mills have logged significant areas from the mill outward. So the distance to haul the wood into the milling facilities is fairly significant, and it’s increased their costs.
The member opposite was talking about how back in the old days the community supported the mill, and the wood was taken into the local sawmill. That was probably an accurate description 30 or 40 years ago, when the wood was handy to those local mills. But because of the cost of technology, because of the cost of infrastructure and the money that these companies have put into the mills, we can’t have these types of sawmills in every kind of community. Of course, the capacity in the province would be far exceeded.
The industry now is faced with the problem of: how do we minimize our costs? How can we remain competitive in the world, still maintain that competitive edge, get the fibre into the sawmills, into the processing plants, and still make a dollar out of it?
The other pressure that we have on the fibre supply in British Columbia — and Bill 25 addressed that — is that we no longer have just sawmills. We’ve got pellet plants. We’ve got bioenergy plants. We have an increasing number of bioeconomic sources to use fibre in British Columbia.
We have to be a little bit more nimble. We have to be a little bit more efficient on ensuring that we get that fibre into those processing plants in the most economical fashion that we can. The old tradition of cutting a log and throwing it on a truck and hauling it into the sawmill — that works in some cases, but now we have to figure out how we’re going to bring in the branches and all the other pieces of that tree so that these bioeconomic plants can utilize that fibre and provide jobs for British Columbians and contribute to the economy.
I notice that the member opposite made a comment about the fact that the forest industry used to be a driver in the provincial economy. Well, it still is. It is one of the major engines of the British Columbian economy, and it will maintain that place in our economy. It employs over 100,000 people in direct and indirect employment and contributes billions of dollars to the provincial economy through all the good jobs that it provides, in addition to all the taxes we have here.
I think Bill 25 is going to enhance that ability. It’s going to provide government with the ability to help industry be more competitive; help our communities in the community forests expansion, trying to find that fibre that they need; and keep B.C. Timber Sales as a viable tool in the market pricing system determination here in the province. I think we’re taking the right steps forward here, and I look forward to the continuing debate on this.
B. Routley: I, too, want to join with the minister and others who commented about Darrel Wong’s passing. He became a friend of mine. Darrel and I worked together in bargaining over the years, starting back in the 1980s. Darrel became the president of Local 71 of the IWA, which was known as the loggers local.
He was a guy with real class and dignity. He was a problem-solver. I can honestly say he talked me away from the ledge several times in terms of the frustration and anger that I was feeling. He was the kind of guy that would try to find the solution and work with everyone on that solution. I’m going to really miss brother Darrel Wong.
I attended his funeral, and there were people from all sides of the political spectrum, as well as folks from industry and from the labour movement and the workers who worked with him and his family friends, who would all join together in saying that he was a guy that all of us will remember fondly for his class, his dignity, his work ethic and his friendship and loyalty to all of his friends.
Having said that, I want to move on. I know that brother Darrel and I talked many times about the changes in the forest industry. While members have talked about some of the technological advances…. That’s true. There was no question that we saw logging go through technological change and manufacturing plants. However, the companies and the government of British Columbia didn’t do what was possible.
When I look at countries like Sweden…. I want to go back. I almost got to finish this story, so I’m going to go back and remind those that may have forgotten that when I was in Sweden, I went to a small town that had an old mill.
You know, they could have just shut it down and walked away, but that company said: “We’ve got 100 people in this mill, and the new Linck mill is only going to require less than half of that.” So that third-generation sawmill owner had the good grace and the class to say: “Well, wait a minute. I’ve been part of this community all this time, and so I have an obligation to the community to do something, to be innovative and try and find a way to employ 100 people.”
I was, I must say, thunderstruck with his vision when we talked to him, and he told me that that was the plan from the stage of drafting a new mill — how are we going to invest in new opportunities?
So you know what they ended up building was a laminated beam section. They built a finger-joining sec-
[ Page 8180 ]
tion. They built a dry kiln and a new planer mill. They built all of this stuff, and guess what. Not only did that company survive, they thrived.
Why did they thrive? Because you had a small community business that knew the value of the community, of the workers, of pulling together to come up with a huge opportunity. They were actually competing with the steel industry with laminated beams. I was, again, very, very impressed.
That was back in about 1989. Certainly, they had gone through changes in Scandinavia as well, but they already had improved forestry practices. In fact, the group that I was with was called B.C. future forest study group, and the provincial and federal governments, I think, put money into that program for us to go.
I know that there were contractors with us. There were industry people with us. There were labour folks along as well. We were very impressed by what we saw and what we learned in terms of the forest practices in that country. That brings me back to British Columbia and how we have unfolded our tenure reform and practices here in British Columbia.
You know, I still remember — in fact, I still have a copy of the document here, the old newspaper from April 2003 — when the B.C. Liberal government at the time said: “Oh, we have got a new plan.” They took out a full-page ad. Now, let’s just review it, and see how they’re doing.
Let’s do a bit of a report card on what really happened, because here’s what they said in their ad. Their B.C. heartland strategy and this new forest revitalization was going to diversify the economy for global competitiveness. Fail. No, that didn’t happen. We’ve got corporate concentration, and I’ll go through that in a minute.
Now let’s talk about how we’re going open up new opportunities for smaller companies and value-added. Again, fail. Why? Because the value-added industry, the remanufacturing industry, reports themselves that they’ve been gutted. Less than half the value-added and remanufacturing jobs remain in British Columbia. That is a real, real, serious failure. It has nothing to do with the technological change. It has everything to do with the policy of this government and what they did in impacting value-added and remanufacturing. But that’s what they promised.
That was their promise then. Value-added industry, community forests, woodlots. Oh, they were going to sustain good high-paying jobs. Wrong. We lost 25,000 forest jobs. That’s after you account for the 10,000 that they have added back in some places with new opportunities. But we’re still short 25,000 because it was over 35,000 that lost their jobs. More than 204 manufacturing plants were closed to forest communities all over British Columbia.
The other thing in that ad. It says…. This is directly related to this Bill 25 and the proposal to deal with B.C. Timber Sales. Here in this ad, this dusty ad that I dusted off and looked at…. Again, it’s quite amazing to read through. It says the revitalization plan “will achieve this by reallocating 20 percent of timber now held by the major forest companies. The amount of timber that will eventually be available through the open market will grow to 45 percent.” Nope, that didn’t happen either, and there was going to be no changes in the current restrictions on the export of logs from Crown lands. Well, no.
[R. Chouhan in the chair.]
I guess they can claim “wrap their arms around the old legislation,” but there was a little matter of the minister acknowledging and agreeing that he did sit down and basically tell the timber export advisory committee: “That’s all very interesting what you guys think, but I’ve got a better plan. We’re going to cancel, if not dozens….” I know it was over 85 timber export licences that other people wanted to claim back. No, it wasn’t permitted.
You look at those promised changes for the better. Again, it’s really sad, actually. I’m not happy to report that it’s all bad news and all wrong, but it is the reality. It’s all about holding people accountable for what they say and what we find in reality.
They also said: “Marketing our forest practices to the world. B.C. is leading the way in scientific, sustainable forest management.” Well, wait a minute. We laid off all the scientific and research people in the Ministry of Forests. Cut the research staff completely. Laid off more than 1,006 workers who worked for the Ministry of Forests.
In fact, we did away with the Ministry of Forests. We have Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations — the minister of licencing. But we don’t have a Minister of Forests in the province of British Columbia. That’s how much they really think about the forests. There’s not even a real focus on the forests of British Columbia with this plan.
You also think we need to look more at the forest revitalization package. You know, it was a confusing time. The Liberals introduced Bill 27, the market-based pricing piece. Oh, market-based pricing. Well, wasn’t there something about us selling 60 percent of the timber for 25 cents a cubic metre? That’s a real…. Well, I don’t know. There’s got to be something to it. We’ve got to look further into that one.
Then there’s Bill 28, tenure reallocation and industry compensation. All part of the transition: Bill 28; forestry revitalization changes to tenure obligations, Bill 29; and defined forest areas management, Bill 24. Confusion reigned the day.
The tabling of all of these bills — the Liberals were in such a rush that they were forced to do multiple amendments to fix their own mistakes. In some cases, they had to introduce amendments to further weaken their own bills.
[ Page 8181 ]
I want to talk about corporate consolidation in the province of British Columbia. Talk about a tragic story. We’ve now got five major forest companies and two smaller ones. We’ve got, in the Interior mostly, Canfor and West Fraser. And Interfor, Tolko forest industries. We’ve got Western Forest Products. Those are the big five, and then you’ve got the private land owners, TimberWest and Island Timberlands on the coast. So you’ve this corporate concentration that has taken place.
I don’t think it would be missed on anyone that these biggest forest companies in B.C…. It has been mentioned already, but it’s worth repeating again so that we really understand the picture of what’s happened to British Columbia. Did we give the farm away intentionally? I don’t know. Maybe not. I hope not.
When you hear that B.C.’s largest forest company, West Fraser, now owns 15 American mills compared to just seven in B.C. and five in Alberta…. Interfor owns five sawmills in B.C., nine in the United States and will add four more mills this year. Canfor owns 12 mills in British Columbia, one in Alberta and ten in the U.S.A. You look at what’s been happening with that corporate consolidation. Anybody hear something about what happened to the towns of Houston and Quesnel — when corporate concentration leads to serious impacts on forest communities in British Columbia?
More and more forest communities are feeling the impact of this corporate concentration. Forest workers and their families are losing jobs by the hundreds and have continued to be in a very difficult situation in forest communities, while we watch the logs roll down the road.
The little town of Youbou. The former forest workers there get to cover the dust. If you try to hang out some clothes in your backyard in Youbou right now, the dust just coats them. Why? Because they’re exporting logs. That’s what we get. We get left in the dust. That’s what happens to the people in Honeymoon Bay. It used to be a mill town, Honeymoon Bay. Little Mesachie. There was a mill there too. All the mills on Lake Cowichan are gone. Every single one.
I used to walk on the logs on Cowichan Lake. That used to be my job, partly, when I was on the boom. I enjoyed the fresh outdoors and working on the booming grounds, seeing logs for miles and miles and manufacturing in the community. You could feel the value that it gave to our communities. All gone. Now we just get to watch the logs drive through town and wave as they go by.
The forest revitalization plan relocated 20 percent of the timber to the large companies for B.C. Timber Sales. The interesting part of that is that the tenure takeback was intended to help solve the softwood lumber dispute by making more timber available. On the coast the takeback resulted in lower stumpage instead, by 7 percent. I don’t think they achieved their goal, because a lot of what was allowed to take place was that companies got to pick and choose what went into the pot in terms of that 20 percent.
You know, the major forest companies’ impact on small forest companies throughout British Columbia has been profound. Not just on value-added have they lost half their value-added industries; the truck loggers.
Not only the current Truck Loggers president but the former Truck Loggers president Mr. Yochim talked about how their members are being sent letters by the industry saying,
“Here’s your rate, and if you don’t like it, we’ll see you in arbitration,” which costs those small contractors $80,000.
All you have to do is drive by any of the Ritchie Bros.outlets, and you can see logging equipment from all over British Columbia lined up. Why? The rates have actually gone backwards. This is the result of the Liberal plan. This was planned: stuff the pockets of the biggest corporations in British Columbia with cash, and let the community stakeholders and small contractors and the workers go and get in the unemployment line or go and take their equipment and sell it off.
I watched as companies like Ted LeRoy, Madill…. I used to represent the workers that worked in Madill all those years. They had a wonderful company, treated their workers with dignity and respect. But what happened was the total collapse of so many of those companies. Munn’s Lumber….
Only five years earlier Donald Hayes had been told he was one of the top companies. He was in B.C. Business Magazine, if you can imagine. But that was before this government’s legislation. Now he, too, fell by the axe of all of these changes and was put into bankruptcy as a result of this corporate consolidation.
That forest revitalization plan has made tenures more like private property. A debate on this can’t go by without pointing out the obvious in Bill 25. First of all, these companies had appurtenancy that applied to tree farm licences, meaning they had to have a manufacturing plant or a pulp mill. That was tied to: “We’ll give you the timber licence, but you, in return, are going to give us something to ensure that we have community jobs.” Jobs and sustainability for communities — that was the promise.
Make no mistake. I heard executive after executive stand in front of crews and say: “Oh, this is all about sustainability.” All those mills closed now, and they stood there in front of them and said: “Oh, we’ve got sustainability. We’ve got wood forever. We’ll take you up in a helicopter and show you we’ve a lot of timber.”
The reality is the cut came down dramatically as a result of all of all of these changes, unprecedented consolidation. We’ve had Western Forest Products. Russ Cameron says that Western is an oligopoly. That’s a hard word for me. It’s not quite as good as jiggery-pokery, but it’s pretty close. Oligopoly — I’m sure that’s bad. It doesn’t sound good. But it is true that all of these jiggery-pokery changes….
You look at what was told the good people of British
[ Page 8182 ]
Columbia. They actually put it in ink and said: “Oh, look what we’re going to do for you.” But you know, you turn the page. Most of the time it’s yesterday’s news, and it’s thrown in the garbage. Nobody notices. But I happened to keep that because I thought it might be important one day. Isn’t that funny that I managed to store away the Liberals’ promises from 2003 and all the wonderful things. Sadly, in each and every case they’ve failed — not a good thing for forest families in British Columbia.
The 20 percent clawback. That resulted…. I remember my conversation with brother Darrel Wong on this one. I asked Darrel what the impact was to the loggers in terms of jobs. He said that as a result of the takeback of 20 percent, we lost 1,000 unionized forest workers in communities throughout British Columbia — 1,000. That’s just loggers. Never mind the…. Who knows where the timber ended up, although I will be talking about that later.
While they clawed it back and got paid some money, there seems to be some of it coming back at the end of the day.
But the point is that working people living in communities all over B.C. lost family-supporting jobs because they worked in camps like Port Renfrew or Caycuse. Any of the major logging camps that had crews lost timber supply, so you had to downsize the crew. And then what happened? B.C. Timber Sales would mark out and tape out a block, and somebody from up the coast would come down to a camp on Vancouver Island. I witnessed this myself. They’d bring in a bunch of trucks and a few power saws and a few pieces of equipment on a machine and go and do a few cutblocks. But that was not creating community-supporting jobs. It was a race to the bottom — a race to the bottom for the lowest cost.
Who benefited from that? It sure wasn’t the people of British Columbia. All it did was replace good-paying, unionized jobs with contractors who bid the lowest rate they could. Now a lot of them are going out of business. You just drive by and see their logging equipment stacked up by the side of the highway for sale, and you know that this has been a dismal failure.
Now this government has a plan. Get this. We’ve already gone from, “We’re going to grant you a licence….” Then they could run down to the bank in the old days. They’d grant you a huge forest land licence. They could go to any bank and say: “We need the money to build a mill.” They could borrow the money at, I’m sure, a very premium interest rate, given all the land holdings in this licence to cut that was guaranteed. Sure, it was tied to a mill, but everybody thought it was a good thing. Now all of that’s gone.
Then this government decides, back in the early 2000s, to do away with the private land portion of a tree farm licence. They tear that out and say: “Well, you can take your private land back.” I want you to think about this, hon. Speaker, and everyone that’s in the room. If you were looking at harvesting a pie, if you were going to take 1/80…. My first tree farm licence, TFL 46, said: “We’re going to take 1/80 of the trees” — an 80-year rotation. Now they’re down to 35- or 40-year rotations.
But if you were going to take 1/80 of it, you were going to work your way around that pie. And guess what. Part of that pie was the private land portion, in TFL 46. The private land portion. They did leave the private land alone a lot more, and they cut the rest of the pie based on the inclusion of that land. That land made up the forest pie that allowed the Ministry of Forests at the time to calculate the annual allowable cut. But when you allowed them to take it out, what you effectively did was make every year, for the last 50 years prior to that, wrong. Every AAC reduction or cut was wrong because you were including land that has now been taken out.
Well, okay, you can readjust it. Math is math. You can just figure out what’s left — if you’ve got an inventory. If you’ve got an inventory, you can do that. But that’s a whole other subject we could go into. We still have a problem with inventory in the province of British Columbia. In spite of all these promises, we still hear from the Auditor General, we hear from the professional foresters, and we hear from the Forest Practices Board concerns about things like inventory, things like safety on our bridges and our roads. It has really been a tragic race to the bottom.
This government bragged about cutting regulations. I went into the library and looked it up. You know, anybody should go and take a look at what this government did to WCB regulations. And they’re proud of it. They cut 5,445 regulations out. I could go through all the dates. July 1, 2003, to September 30, they cut 1,834. And on it goes. All of those regulations cut — basically written in blood, in my opinion. I’m not going to go there. I’d get myself too upset again.
But I do have to say that it is unacceptable to me that we have cut all these regulations — cut regulations in the Forest Act. We’ve consolidated the forest industry so there’s nothing left but a bunch of oligopolies, and here we are. Now the government says that if you’ve got a licence to cut timber, you can give a little of it back as standing timber. Think about it. The public first says, “Okay here’s a nice piece of timber,” and then says, through Bill 25, “Oh, we’ll pay a little for taking it back.”
What? All these years under cut control the way it worked is that you had to cut within a specified period. I think it was, five years. There was plus or minus 50 percent. At some point, though, you could potentially lose your cut. Of course, often they would write a nice letter to the minister and explain the difficult circumstances, and they wouldn’t be penalized. If they were penalized, the government had the unilateral right to take it back for violating these cut controls — take the timber away.
Now we’re talking about giving them…. First we give
[ Page 8183 ]
them the timber. Now we’re going to pay them not to cut, if you can imagine such a thing. If you don’t feel like cutting your timber this year, not all of it, you can give a little bit back. B.C. Timber Sales will buy it back is the way I read it. We’ve got a lot of questions. Obviously, there are a lot of questions that we’ve got to go through with this legislation.
While I’m there, I’ve got to comment how weird it is that in this place we get to talk for half an hour about a bill and then when we get into the third reading, we finally get into asking questions about what it all means. It is a bit humorous. I do have to say that from the point of view of a working-class guy, the idea that we come in and talk for half an hour about the thing and then get to ask questions in detail and go through clause by clause later somehow is backwards, in my view. I don’t know whether the minister will join me in correcting that, but it seems like a strange thing.
I would ask the minister, and I know he is…. You know, people have talked about him as being a gentleman, as a concerned citizen, as a minister that’s, out of the whole bunch, not bad to talk to. Why? Because he’s at least got the patience to…. He sees through our stuff. He understands we’ve got a job to do; we understand he’s got a job to do.
I really do wonder how this could possibly be in the public interest. Like, how…? What? It’s in the public interest to, first of all, give them a gift of timber rights? Now we don’t even expect anything in return. “You don’t have to build us a sawmill or a pulp mill anymore.” No, that’s all gone. Appurtenancy is gone. Now, in fact, you can shut down a mill in your local community and buy or trade with somebody else — just do, basically, whatever you want. You’ve got unilateral rights.
Now you can also take the timber that we have, through our government…. The public interest is supposed to be met, but our government has interpreted public interest that we’re going to give them the licence and then we’re going to pay them, too, if they give us a little bit back. It’s just strange.
D. Routley: I rise to speak to Bill 25, the FLNRO Statutes Amendment Act, 2015. I rise in second reading, where we’ll discuss the basic intent of the bill.
I think of the people who’ve spoken before me and their expertise and their experience in the forest industry — very in-depth experience of the member for Cowichan Valley, who spoke before me; the critic, the member from Surrey who spoke earlier; and the member from Revelstoke, who was the former critic.
I know that my own grasp of the industry by detail is less than these people, but I’ll tell you that the forest industry and wood, the product, has been such an essential part of my life. The first job I ever had was a high school job using a pump and fire hose to clean off barges outside the Chemainus sawmill. I went on to be a tree planter. I worked as a logger. I worked in Youbou sawmill. I’ve worked in a lumberyard. I’ve built houses with my dear stepfather. I’ve handled wood all my life. I’ve worked on the green chain. I know the smell and the feel of the wood, and I know the culture of the industry.
I know most of all that it is an essential piece of the soul of the communities I represent. It is absolutely tragic that we have seen such a litany of failure in managing the industry, the core industry of our province. It’s much more than simply an industry. It is, in fact, a culture. In fact, if managed properly, our forests represent the heart of a thriving economy and the lungs of the planet.
By far the greatest contribution B.C. can make to the fight to counter climate change is to be the world’s great carbon sink and to have healthy, thriving forests that provide that environmental function, at the same time providing enormous benefits to the communities that we all represent. It is the most sustainable of resource industries.
Our economy and culture are built on the exploitation of the resources of this province. It was built that way, not simply by mistake. Careful consideration, planning and vision were applied to the way that our country and our province manage our natural resources in the public interest. That’s the key element.
There was always an essential trust between the people and their government that we were in the same boat rowing to the same goal, that the resources of our province would support our communities, would support our families, would support the development of the future of our province.
It really saddens me to stand here in this House and put on display the absolute failure of the government to meet its basic test: to act in the public interest. All of us, as British Columbians, would like to stand with pride and relate to each other and to the world a sense of accomplishment around what we’ve done. I always grew up thinking that Beautiful B.C. meant that we had this appreciation of the environment, of the beauty that is our birthright and of our overwhelming obligation to play our part, in our short time here, to build on and defend that foundation and that legacy.
In fact, what we’ve seen is an absolute abandonment of the core, essential role of government. Let me talk to you for a moment about that. I understand that the role of government is to make it all work for people — make it all work for our children, make it all work for our grandchildren, make it all work for people who we haven’t yet imagined who will one day look back, hopefully, and say that we made the right choices. That is the most amazing piece of all of this.
I think of my dear friend Rick Doman, who was the CEO of Western Forest Products. He now has left the province and is disgusted with the state of our forest industry and the management of it by our current gov-
[ Page 8184 ]
ernment. His father, an immigrant from India, created a billion-dollar enterprise, starting with one truck running wood waste out of the forest.
My dad and I used to go down to the Cowichan River to fish, and we’d walk past what is now a shopping mall but was then the yard where all the Doman trucks were. He would tell me: “This is an example of the best of what Canada is, the best of what B.C. is.” It is the opportunity for people to come from far away and to start with little or nothing and create something of benefit to all of us, and to themselves.
This is the thriving free enterprise economy supported by thriving public institutions like public education and public health care — us all doing it for each other. That seemed like the basic premise to me, growing up in this province. But in recent years, in the recent decade, we’ve seen an abandonment of that vision and that grand, almost utopian, idea now that we look back at it and look at the outcomes.
We have public control over our forests. We have a government that still has the power and the mechanisms to be able to leverage that great benefit for each and every one of us. We had a social contract between those who were granted access to those resources…. Those entrepreneurs like Rick’s dad, Herb Doman, had access to this vast public wealth — our trees, our minerals — and in exchange for allowing them access to exploit that resource, they were expected, they were demanded, to create jobs to make benefit for communities.
There was a concept, a policy, called appurtenancy. Appurtenancy meant that if you got control of these trees, you had to use them in that mill to create jobs for those communities — a simple equation that for decades and generations provided benefit to all of us.
It was this government that completely broke and tore that contract, the most essential contract with the people of B.C. They sold it to us telling us that if we would endorse their plan of deregulation, then everything would be good. The capitalist interests in the province would be free to invest and profit, and we would all benefit. I think the people of B.C. trusted the government. They trusted them, and they gave them a mandate to do that. Instead, the government did something quite different.
When I met my dear partner, Leanne Finlayson, it was the strangest place to meet the person that you would fall in love with. It was at an inquest into the death of a faller. The tragedy of that faller’s life became, to me, an essential symbol of why it was wrong for the government to simply come and rip the guts out of regulations that had been put in place over many, many decades and many generations to protect people and to, essentially, link our communities with the benefit from their resources.
The government had ripped out more than 5,500 regulations from WorkSafe B.C. I’m sure some of those regulations were on the ridiculous side and were an impediment to business and efficiency and probably deserved to be removed. But they made a minister of deregulation. They made such pride that the regulations they took out of the annals of British Columbia’s statutes were some six or eight inches high if you stacked them all together. Well, in that mix were people and communities.
In the case of Ted Gramlich, he was a faller who…. Well, let me tell you that fallers used to work as a company crew. The tree farm licence holders would employ them along with the yarding, who pulled the wood down, the truckers, the mill workers. It was all connected. There was a complicated chain that developed in protecting people in one of the most dangerous industries in the world, a chain of checks and balances that kept people alive.
It was through privatization and deregulation that this government created a situation where the companies then fired all those crews and then contracted them back. So men like Ted Gramlich became companies unto themselves — still working for the same employer, but now the employer was not burdened by such obstacles or burdens as compensation details, benefits and such.
Ted Gramlich was working by himself with a partner many miles away, connected by radio. Before deregulation, no faller would go into the woods until it was clear that helicopter evacuation was available to them. There was a chain to notify that the helicopters were able to fly, and then the fallers would go into the woods and perform their jobs.
On this fateful day, Ted Gramlich and his partner went into the woods, and the links that connected them to the helicopter medevac had been broken and severed. Nobody had thought of the consequence. Ted Gramlich, admittedly, took a risk, and he was crushed by a tree. His partner found himself miles from the first-aid truck and on his knees with Ted in his lap, dying. They thought that a helicopter would come and evacuate them. That never happened. The fact that it didn’t happen…. They were unaware of that fact because of deregulation.
So when the member for Cowichan Valley says that these policies were written in blood, he is absolutely correct. The coroner, Honey Forbes, said exactly that. She said that a contributory cause to the death of Ted Gramlich was the deregulation by the B.C. Liberal government of the forest industry. A coroner said that a cause of his death was deregulation.
That’s just one person in an industry of many thousands. In 2001, when the B.C. Liberals took power, there were some 50,000-plus people working in the forest industry. When Ted died, there were about 30,000 working — so about 60 percent. They had lost 40 percent of their workforce, but the fatalities in the industry had quintupled. They had 60 percent fewer people working in the woods, and they had five times more fatalities. And Ted was one of them.
My partner, Leanne, was advocating for logger safety through a group that she formed called the Vancouver
[ Page 8185 ]
Island Loggers Safety Support Group, just a grassroots group of people fighting to defend the rights of workers in B.C. These are the people who have paid the price for this government’s failure to manage this industry in our interest.
Since the B.C. Liberal government took power — and all the promises that were made, that if we deregulated, there would be massive investment in the industry and more employment — we have lost 50 percent of the value-added companies in the province. So 50 percent of the companies that took our resource and made products out of it are gone, along with 60 percent of the jobs. That’s the outcome.
I consider that the job of government is to manage this resource for the benefit of all of us, to manage this resource for sustainability. What could be more essential to the future of our forests than tree planting? Tree planting was a huge part of my life. During the Bill Bennett years, Socred government — and restraint, another right-wing approach to governance in this province that drove young people out of this province — I was a tree planter at that time. I planted trees all over the province.
I am proud to say that probably 400,000 trees in this province are growing because I was privileged enough to have the job of planting them. I planted with a group of people who lived their winters in Japan and planted trees in the summer. I went to Japan, and I taught English. Because I’m a cyclist I met bicycle racers, and I became an importer of Japanese bicycle products.
Tree planting had an enormous impact on my life beyond simply a job. It really led to an incredible experience for me. It was an incredible job for young people. You could go out and make enough money planting for a season to pay for your education, or to pay to start up a business, in my case.
When this government came to power, they stripped out the legislation that required that public lands be restocked, that the public be responsible for restocking public lands. Since then, two million hectares of forest land has become NSR — not sufficiently restocked. In other words, not planted — sitting barren.
The most essential and sustainable industry that we have is being abandoned by this government. They made a 90 percent cut to the budget for planting trees — 90 percent. How’s that for a disinvestment in the future of our province — a 90 percent cut in the planting of trees? Now we have two million hectares of B.C. public lands without being planted. It’s ridiculous.
This is the level of neglect to the public interest that this government has established. When they came to power, they had an ideology that whatever was good for industry would, through trickle-down effect, be good for all of us. They gave to the major licensees, the biggest corporations in this province, who happen to be the biggest donors to the B.C. Liberal Party — millions upon millions of dollars that have supported this party. They gave to them every measure that these companies said they required.
There were promises made. There were promises that there would be billions of dollars of reinvestment in the industry and in our forests. None of it happened.
If you think that money isn’t important in politics in B.C…. People always say that the American political system is overrun by moneyed interests. Barack Obama spent three-quarters of a billion dollars the first time he became president, through primaries and presidential election. Per capita, the B.C. Liberals outspent him — millions upon millions of dollars.
Many millions of those were donated by the very companies who have requested the reforms that the B.C. Liberal government…. I think the cabinet ministers on the other side think that this is not according to the bill. I’ll assure the Transportation Minister that, in fact, the donation of tens of millions of dollars by the forest companies who benefited from the reforms that are carried on in Bill 25 is essential and irrevocably linked to the outcomes that we’re discussing here through Bill 25.
The forest companies asked for reform. The B.C. Liberals delivered the reform that they asked for, and British Columbians like Ted Gramlich, like all of us, have paid for it. Raw log exports, because of the closure of mills that used to be held open by policy, have wound up costing this province billions of dollars and tens of thousands of jobs. That’s the truth.
We have seen a race to the bottom in working standards. We’ve seen a consolidation of the industry under fewer and fewer hands. The manufacturing sector of the forest industry has been decimated by the loss of 50 percent of the companies and 60 percent of the jobs. I see in my own constituency pulp mills that are starved of fibre.
The minister said that this bill will encourage and support the transfer of pulpwood agreements and thereby create jobs or protect jobs — in effect, acknowledging that the loss of pulpwood agreements, which were torn out of the Forest Act by the B.C. Liberal government, was a mistake. These pulp mills, which are multi-billion-dollar investments and once lost are never returned, are starving of fibre because of a disintegration of the industry. Bill 25 continues that pace towards disintegration. We’ve lost control of our forests because the B.C. Liberal government has given away control of our forests.
One of the pulp mills in my constituency happens to be the payer of 40 percent of the tax base of the municipality of North Cowichan — Catalyst pulp mill. Catalyst pulp mill and Harmac in Nanaimo — two pulp mills that provide hundreds and hundreds of family-supporting jobs that extend out and have a ripple effect, a multiplier effect to many hundreds more jobs and small businesses in the community — are starving of fibre every month. They’re profitable, they’re viable, they’re excellent employers, and they are being abandoned by B.C. Liberal forest policy like Bill 25.
[ Page 8186 ]
Bill 25, in fact, takes the loss of appurtenancy a step further. In order to establish market-based pricing to defend against softwood lumber challenges from the U.S. softwood lumber coalition, it allows tenure holders to sell fibre to B.C. Timber Sales so that B.C. Timber Sales can achieve a 20 percent auction rate, which will be, they say, a legitimate market price base in order to establish the cost of timber to the major licence holders.
That all sounds all right. That all sounds good when you say that a First Nation or a community forest can sell their timber to B.C. Timber Sales to help them plump up their percentage and make a more accurate definition of what the market price of timber is. But it also allows the major licence holders, potentially, to not log the land that they’ve been given, the forest that they’ve been granted rights to, and sell it back to the government. Something we already own we would purchase back in order to establish a price for them.
That seems wrong to me when the original formula in B.C. was that companies would be granted rights to timber provided that they created jobs, that they had manufacturing facilities. All of that has been lost. We are paying the price on and on for this. As the member for Cowichan Valley said, we see this every day in the auctioning of equipment.
Earlier today I celebrated the 108th birthday of Mr. Keith Turner in Ladysmith. I think the guy sounds like a hero to me, right? He was fired from a Vancouver shipyard because he refused to fire all the women welders. This was back in the ’70s. I think that’s pretty amazing, that that man stood up and wouldn’t do that.
He went on to work for a company called Madill on Vancouver Island. I’ll tell you that when I was a kid growing up in the Cowichan Valley, I had a friend from Chemainus who was an artist. What did he do? His vision was designing forest equipment and drawing forest equipment. He had books full of drawings. He was a fan of Madill.
We were proud of Madill’s in Nanaimo. They were one of the world’s leading manufacturers of logging equipment. Because we lost so much of our industry, we lost so much else. We lost Madill. It’s gone. I see their equipment, what’s left of it, being auctioned off. We lost our manufacturers. But this Mr. Turner, he worked for Madill. He went around the world and demonstrated their equipment. That was his job.
We were proud. We were proud of that. We were proud of Herb Doman. I am proud of that heritage. I am proud of the logging industry. I am proud of the people who built our province on our resources, who offered to the world products…. We were world leaders. If other countries wanted to learn about the forest industry and about manufacturing products out of wood, they came to B.C.
Not anymore. Now they come to buy our wood cheap, to buy logs cheap. I see at the docks of Nanaimo freighters being loaded with raw logs — being loaded from the site of closed sawmills.
Interjection.
D. Routley: A sigh from the Education Minister. It’s so boring to hear this litany of failure to the other side who don’t seem to give a crud about what the outcomes have been for our communities.
I see every couple of weeks a freighter come into Nanaimo Harbour and get loaded with raw logs, and down the hull of that ship, written in 20-foot-tall letters, is “Wisdom Line.” How ironic is that? Wisdom Line. It comes to Nanaimo to load the raw logs from a closed mill site.
Across the chain-linked fence is a pulp mill starved of fibre, and separating them and those jobs and the benefit of British Columbians from our resource is more than a chain-linked fence. Separating us from the benefit of our resources are things like Bill 25 and a government that has systematically severed the tendons of the body of the economy of British Columbia and has left it without the power or the ability to respond, and it’s wrong.
Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the minister will close the debate.
Hon. S. Thomson: I appreciate the comments of the members opposite. They’ve made a lot of assertions about this industry. A lot of what has been raised here we have addressed through estimates. A lot of what was raised here is not specific to the bill that we have in front of us.
One thing we will agree on and we all agree on is the importance of this industry to the economy of British Columbia. As they pointed out, this is an industry that has a long history, one that has contributed to the economic history of British Columbia and continues to contribute to the economic history and prosperity of British Columbia.
There were a lot of comments about diversity in the industry and lack of diversity in the industry. I should point out: in 2001, one community forest in British Columbia. We now have 51 community forests in British Columbia and are working on more community forest opportunities for communities across British Columbia.
Since 2007, 55 new woodlots in British Columbia have been established — small- and medium-sized opportunities throughout communities in British Columbia.
We’ve built opportunities for First Nations in the industry now through forest tenure opportunity agreements, through First Nation woodland licences — 13 percent of the annual allowable cut in British Columbia. That is building opportunities for First Nations communities throughout the province.
What the forest sector wants in British Columbia,
[ Page 8187 ]
what the forest sector needs in British Columbia, is a stable investment climate and a competitive operating environment, one that allows them to compete globally, in a global industry, one that’s a very, very competitive industry. That is what we have built in British Columbia — an industry that can compete globally.
We have helped diversify markets for British Columbia producers. That’s why we’ve had a 20 percent employment growth in the industry since 2007. That’s why we’ve seen this industry contribute to 35 percent of exports in British Columbia. For British Columbia, significant opportunities. This is an industry that will continue to contribute to a positive future for both rural and urban communities in British Columbia.
The members opposite raised a number of comments around specific sections of the bill. We’ll certainly address those during committee stage. With the references made to the rationale of the disposition agreements — that section of the bill — we will deal with that in committee stage. I thank the members opposite for their comments. I look forward to committee stage of the debate.
I move second reading of the bill.
Second reading of Bill 25 approved on division.
Hon. S. Thomson: I move that the act be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.
Bill 25, Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations Statutes Amendment Act, 2015, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.
Hon. Michelle Stilwell: I call second reading of Bill 20, the Election Amendment Act, 2015.
Deputy Speaker: The House will have a short recess.
The House recessed from 3:29 p.m. to 3:31 p.m.
[R. Chouhan in the chair.]
BILL 20 — ELECTION AMENDMENT ACT, 2015
Hon. S. Anton: I move that Bill 20 now be read a second time.
The amendments in this bill address specific issues identified by government as well as recommendations made by the province’s independent Chief Electoral Officer.
Let me begin with government’s proposed amendments. First, we propose adding two additional days of advanced voting on the Saturday and Sunday prior to the week when advanced voting currently begins. The last few elections have shown that advanced voting is increasingly popular with voters. In the 2001 general election just under 7 percent of all voters voted during the advanced period. By the 2013 election more than 20 percent did.
These two additional advanced voting days will assist voters who may be away from home for the week leading up to general voting day. By choosing weekend days, we’re making voting more accessible for those who work during the week, because only one of the current advanced voting days falls on a weekend.
There are a few related amendments that flow from creating these earlier voting opportunities. The reason for these related amendments is to ensure that Elections B.C. has sufficient time to print ballots and finalize the voters list before the start of advanced voting.
The deadline for campaign registration would be moved to the seventh day of the campaign period rather than the tenth day, as is currently the case. Also, regular voter registration would be closed, and the voters list would be finalized after the first day of the campaign period rather than on the eighth day. Voters who are not on the voters list by that date can still register in conjunction with voting, just as they can now.
We also propose to amend the act to make it clear that candidates and political parties can send get-out-the-vote messages on general voting day. Currently everyone other than candidates and parties has the ability to send messages like this, and we’re making sure that election participants have the same freedom. We’re talking here about tweets and other social media messages that simply encourage people to participate in the process — that is, go and vote. To be clear, candidates and parties would not be able to say messages that say: “Vote for candidate X or party Y.”
The bill also contains a number of amendments that remove all references to the 60-day pre-campaign period. These provisions have not applied to third-party election advertising sponsors since the ruling by the British Columbia Supreme Court. The amendments propose to remove those provisions, which are not enforceable as the result of the court’s ruling.
However, at the present time the pre-campaign period spending limits continue to apply to political parties and candidates. This creates what we believe is an unequal playing field. Political parties and candidates have limits on what they can spend during the 60 days prior to the start of a fixed date election campaign, but others face no such restriction.
Mr. Justice Cole of the British Columbia Supreme Court said in his ruling on the matter that it would be unfair to continue to apply limits to political parties and candidates during this period. He also said: “I have no jurisdiction to deal with those particular sections of the act. I therefore leave it up to the Legislature to take the necessary corrective action in respect to this unfairness
[ Page 8188 ]
to the political parties and the candidates during the pre-campaign period.” That’s what we are doing with these amendments. If they’re passed, then spending limits would apply to everyone during the 28-day campaign period only.
The bill would also expand the scope of fundraising activities by parties and candidates that would not be counted towards their expense limits. Currently the act sets out a list of expenses that must be reported but which are not counted towards expense limits. The list includes such things as legal and accounting services, day-to-day administration and communications to members of the constituency association or party.
There’s also an exemption for expenses incurred in holding a fundraising function. That exemption has been there since 1995. The bill would update that provision by exempting all fundraising communication expenses. The reason for this is that fundraising activities have changed considerably over the years. These days it’s less about hosting functions like a barbecue or a dinner and more about sending direct mail and staffing telephone banks. There can be significant initial costs in setting up these fundraising mechanisms, and we believe the act should evolve to reflect that.
The bill would also amend the act so that Elections B.C. would provide voter turnout information directly to candidates and political parties. Currently the act authorizes candidate representatives to be present during voting proceedings to observe and scrutinize the process — except, of course, for when voters actually mark their ballots. Part of that observation process involves checking to see whether a candidate’s identified supporters have come out to the polls and voted.
The bill implements a recommendation made by the Chief Electoral Officer that the act allow election officials to provide information to candidates respecting who has voted in an election. This information would be provided after each advance voting day, as well as during general voting day. The bill also includes an amendment, on which the Chief Electoral Officer takes no position, so that a complete and final list of voter turnout may be sent to registered political parties after an election is over.
The reason for both amendments is to assist candidates and political parties in their voter turnout and engagement efforts, which in turn helps to increase overall voter participation. I emphasize that the information to be provided only identifies whether a voter has voted. It does not provide any information respecting who a voter has voted for or in any way interfere with the secrecy of the ballot.
As the Chief Electoral Officer notes in his report: “This information is no different in substance from what candidate representatives have the authority to observe and obtain now.” He also notes that most other jurisdictions in Canada authorize the production by election officials of these kinds of voter turnout records during voting proceedings.
I’m aware that the amendment to provide post-election voter turnout information to political parties has received some public comment, including from the province’s Information and Privacy Commissioner. I want to assure the House that government takes British Columbians’ privacy seriously. The Election Act currently provides that any personal information may be used and disclosed only for specific purposes — in this case, for an electoral purpose. In addition, the Chief Electoral Officer has the authority to place further restrictions or requirements on the use of this information.
I am supportive of the Chief Electoral Officer doing so, should this amendment be enacted by the Legislature. His office is independent of both government and political parties, and I think it is appropriate for him to be the one to fine-tune any further requirements respecting voter turnout information. The Information and Privacy Commissioner has expressed her intention to assist the Chief Electoral Officer with such regulations, if the Legislature enacts this change. This collaboration by two of the independent officers is welcome and helpful.
Turning to other recommendations made by the Chief Electoral Officer, the bill contains measures to correct an apparent discrepancy regarding the identity documents that must be produced by voters who vouch for a family member who is registering in conjunction with voting. Currently the person who is vouching for a family member must sign a declaration respecting the family connection but is not required to produce his or her own identity documents. The bill would require those documents to be produced.
The bill also implements a Chief Electoral Officer recommendation to permit constituency associations to incur expenses on behalf of their candidates throughout the campaign period. Currently the act limits that time period to the first ten days of the campaign period. Expenses incurred by a constituency association are currently applied to a candidate’s expense limits and that will not change.
Finally, we are proceeding with the recommendation to waive the requirement for a party leadership contestant to file a financing report if several conditions apply. The candidate must win by acclamation. He or she must not have raised or spent any funds relating to the leadership contest. This amendment will remove what is an unnecessary burden, particularly on smaller political parties, to comply with the fairly onerous reporting requirements when there is, in fact, nothing to report.
In summary, these amendments update the Election Act by providing for increased voter accessibility and participation as well as by addressing other financial, administrative and communications issues that have been identified by government and by the province’s Chief Electoral Officer.
[ Page 8189 ]
G. Holman: Thanks to the minister for that summary.
I’m very pleased to rise and speak to second reading of Bill 20. The general view from this side of the House is that while there are some modest improvements being made to the Election Act, there have been some significant opportunities lost to move democracy forward in British Columbia. In fact, there are some amendments, some changes, being suggested to the Election Act here which are, as currently drafted, completely unacceptable to this side of the House. If changes aren’t made to address those concerns, we will be opposing the legislation.
There isn’t anything more important to our democracy in British Columbia than government’s role, government’s responsibility to make elections as fair and transparent as possible. That’s why this legislation is so disappointing. There are a number of opportunities missed here that could have taken further steps in improving democracy.
While government has brought forward some of the recommendations made by the Chief Electoral Officer as well as changes government itself is making, two out of three of the CEO recommendations for amendments to the legislation have been ignored by government.
We all know the data, I think, and understand the data, if not the specific numbers. We certainly all understand the trends in voter turnout, which over the last number of years has been declining precipitously in British Columbia — and, in fact, elsewhere in Canada. That problem is particularly serious among young voters.
Another very serious problem with elections in British Columbia is the fact that we’ve got big money still involved in political campaigns, from large organizations like unions and corporations. These proposed amendments do nothing to change those issues, to change those problems.
I’m very proud to stand on this side of the House and speak on behalf of the NDP opposition. We have a long history of democratic reform in British Columbia, extending back to…. We haven’t had many governments in British Columbia, but we’ve left some very important legacies. And democratic reform is certainly part of that very important legacy.
I refer specifically to the Barrett government of 1972 to 1975. It made a number of changes that are still in place today that both sides of the House benefit from in terms of their ability to speak to the issues, represent their constituents and hold government’s feet to the fire. They have improved the accountability and the effectiveness of this place considerably.
The Barrett government made a number of vital changes still in place today. They established the first daily question period in the Legislature. They established the full Hansard in British Columbia, the first full record of everything that’s said in this place. The Barrett government increased funding for opposition parties, which enabled opposition parties to hire researchers and do the important background work that’s necessary for opposition parties to hold government to account — another very important change.
Chairmanship of the Public Accounts Committee was given to a member of the opposition, and that’s still in effect today — another very important change.
As spokesperson for democratic reform, I tend to look at these reforms more broadly than just around elections, just around elections financing.
The Barrett government created the B.C. Energy Commission which is the precursor to the Utilities Commission, which has actually been precluded by this government from vetting most large hydroelectric power projects in British Columbia. But the Barrett government in the ’70s brought in the B.C. Energy Commission, which regulated private utilities, monitored oil and gas prices.
The notion of independent watchdogs, paradoxically enough, perhaps, is very important to democracy. The minister herself just referred to two very important independent offices — the Chief Electoral Officer and the Privacy Commissioner — and how important those bodies are to, again, provide an independent view, an independent check, on elected governments.
The Barrett government established the right to sue the Crown — or restored the right to sue the Crown. It created the Islands Trust Act to protect the Gulf Islands against uncontrolled development. It established the first native school board in the province, the Nisga’a Tribal Council. Independent boards of review to decide Workers Compensation Board appeals — established by the Barrett government.
Mr. Barrett also established the Public Officials and Employees Disclosure Act, which required elected and appointed officials to disclose their financial holdings — a very, very important piece of legislation to ensure that MLAs would be transparent in their financial dealings and to reveal potential for conflict. The first full-time human rights officers. And the B.C. Human Rights Commission was also created by the Barrett government. This government also established the B.C. Police Act to handle public complaints against the police.
The list goes on. I’ve just mentioned a few to make the point that NDP governments, even though there have only been three in British Columbia, have a very proud history in terms of democratic reform. They’ve established some of the fundamental institutions, still in place today, that are so important to both sides of the House and, in particular, opposition parties.
This is the remarkable thing about the Barrett government: the institutions that he created, in fact, benefited the opposition of the day. I’d like to read a quote from a book by Meggs and Mickleburgh. Most members of this House will be aware of the book entitled The Art of the Impossible: Dave Barrett and the NDP in Power,
[ Page 8190 ]
1972-1975. A quote where they were referring to W.A.C. Bennett:
“Bennett’s opposition” — in other words, the NDP of the day — “had struggled to find gaps in his legislative juggernaut. Knowing their efforts would ultimately be ended by all-night sessions, Barrett’s opponents were reaping the benefits of question period, expanded committee mandates and Hansard Blues, the first drafts of each day’s proceedings. Barrett and the New Democrats were delivering on their promise to open up the Legislature and handing their opponents the democratic toolkit Bennett had always denied them.
This is what is remarkable. I think a good sign of whether democratic reforms stand the test of integrity is whether the reforms benefit the government in power or whether they actually benefit the opposition or other parties. This is the remarkable thing about Mr. Barrett’s reforms in the Legislature — that they benefited the opposition, which itself, when it was in power, refused the same kinds of rights, the same ability for the opposition to hold its feet to the fire.
Mr. Barrett is quoted in the book, in his February 9 budget speech, some of it clearly improvised on the floor of the House, which members will notice does not apply to me. Mr. Barrett was quoted as saying that the New Democrats’ mandate resulted in “a new era for the people of our province, an era where the rights of the individuals are supreme…a just and open era.”
I think he lived up to that rhetoric. I think most people in this House understand that Mr. Barrett has fallen on hard times and is convalescing today. I’m going to be sending him a copy of this speech. I hope he’ll be able to enjoy it.
As you know, our leader has made a very substantial commitment for democratic reform and electoral reform in British Columbia. I would argue that it does meet the test of integrity because many of these reforms are not going to just benefit the NDP. Many of them will support, will benefit, smaller parties. They will benefit opposition parties, regardless of who forms government. And I’m very proud to be the spokesman for democratic reform for our side of the House. That’s why this Bill 20 is so important to us. I just want to remind the House of the commitment that we’ve made to electoral reform in British Columbia.
It is an auspicious time because of the recent election results in Alberta, with the first-ever NDP government in Alberta. That NDP government is also proposing some very significant election reforms, and I’ll mention those later.
The commitment that we’ve made to electoral reform is to put it back to the people of British Columbia. To the credit of previous governments, Premier Gordon Campbell of the day actually had initiated two referenda on electoral reform in British Columbia — in 2005 and 2009. We have committed to do the same thing if elected in 2017. We will put electoral reform back to the people of British Columbia early enough in the term so that if British Columbians agree that we should be moving to some kind of proportional representation system, the following election would be held under those rules. I’m very, very proud of that commitment.
While I understand that Bill 20 is not directly related to electoral reform, everything is related. Everything is interconnected.
There are a number of other things that need to be addressed in our democracy in British Columbia. We need to ensure that this place meets at least two times a year. We need to ensure that the election is held on a date after the spring budget has been tabled so that electors and all candidates understand and know what the actual state of the finances of the province are.
We need to empower legislative committees in British Columbia. Even the Parliament of Canada…. The federal Conservative government is rightly criticized for its very autocratic approach to parliament, to governance in Canada. Even there you have legislation that’s actually vetted by legislative committees. We need to make these kinds of changes to make this place more effective, more accountable and more transparent.
We need to ensure that whistle-blowers are protected. The members from Cowichan and Duncan, both members, have spoken about changes to workmen’s compensation and the kinds of issues that that has created for workers and others. It’s very important that when wrongdoing is revealed or come across by government employees, they don’t face the risk of being fired because they’re blowing the whistle on inappropriate government policy and regulation. It’s very important to bring that kind of change in.
Conflicts of interest. We need to strengthen that legislation to ensure that not just MLAs but senior officials of government are bound by very stringent rules around conflict of interest. If you don’t do that, then the very fabric of government itself rots at the core. So those kinds of changes are very important.
Open government. We’ve seen examples where this government appears to be not fully disclosing information that should be available to the public, should be available to the opposition. So we need to bring in rules that ensure that all government records are made available to the public, fully disclosed. This is an essential aspect of democracy, and these changes have to be made.
In terms of financing of local elections and provincial elections — and this is an area that bears much more closely to Bill 20 — we need to make changes in this province that ensure that we keep big money out of political campaigns. This bears directly on a provision in Bill 20 which removes spending caps in the pre-election period. It’s a very, very serious amendment to the Election Act, bringing us closer to the free-for-all that we witness in the United States, where it’s big money that talks, not necessarily individual voters, and where you have to be
[ Page 8191 ]
a millionaire at the very least to run for state and even local governments.
We need to make these changes. Some of them could have been addressed with this legislation and are not being addressed at all.
As you know, Mr. Speaker — and I understand I’m not supposed to be talking about private members’ legislation — we’ve attempted to address all of these issues. I won’t belabour that point. You have taken me to task on that before. But these kinds of changes are very important, and again, they stand the test of integrity. It’s not just about the partisan interests of the NDP opposition. In fact, these changes will benefit all parties, and that’s why I think that they’re so important.
When you’re talking about democracy, partisanship and partisan interests should not be playing a role. The public interest should be the dominant factor.
One of the other issues that’s very important that could have been taken up by Bill 20, and hasn’t been, and was one of the three priorities identified by the Chief Electoral Officer was early voter registration. That’s another issue that needs to be addressed that we are proposing to address. Again, it suggests that government, in pushing forward this legislation, doesn’t seem to have paid much attention to the report of the Chief Electoral Officer.
I wanted to go through some of the recommendations in that report, some of which have been taken up in the legislation — as I said before, there are some modest improvements here — but many of which have been ignored.
In October 2014 the Chief Electoral Officer provided a report to the Legislature entitled Report of the Chief Electoral Officer on Recommendations for Legislative Change. In the report the CEO, Chief Electoral Officer, explains that “after each general election Elections B.C. conducts a thorough review of the processes used to administer the election in order to identify what went well and what could be improved.”
Again, this points to the value of independent offices in British Columbia. This is why we need these folks. This is why we need these offices to provide this independent, objective advice to government which is not tainted by partisan interest.
“This review includes consultation with stakeholders, including senior election officials, voters, non-voters and political parties. Many of the improvements that are identified through the review can be implemented through changes to administrative procedures and training, but some improvements cannot be made within the bounds of the existing legislation.
“As the ability to make changes to the Election Act lies solely within the authority and mandate of the Legislative Assembly, the Chief Electoral Officer’s role is to follow the process outlined in the Election Act for making recommendations respecting amendments to the legislation.
“This report highlights three special issues that Elections B.C. considers most deserving of consideration and debate. The proposals put forward in this report seek to improve the accessibility and efficiency of the electoral process in British Columbia.
“In addition to these three priorities, Elections B.C. would also like to refer legislators to a small number of issues in the Election Act that are largely technical in nature but cause recurring business problems for Elections B.C. and/or our stakeholders. Brief explanations of these challenges and recommendations…are contained in the appendix to this report.
“Elections B.C. also endorses the technical recommendations included in parts 7 and 8….
“Elections BC is still examining what changes are necessary to modernize B.C.’s voting model while maintaining its accessibility. Upon completion of the review and a broad consultative process with stakeholders, a proposal for a new voting process will form the basis of another report of the CEO, anticipated to be submitted to the Legislative Assembly in the spring of 2015.”
The reason I’m emphasizing this report, going through it in so much detail, is because several of the key recommendations made by the CEO were not taken up in this legislation. Some of them were, but a couple of very important ones, the most important ones, were not taken up.
I wanted to talk a little bit about the Election Advisory Committee that the CEO consulted with before writing the report, before making his recommendations. In fact, the advisory committee included members of all political parties. That’s important for all of us to understand, that when the CEO sought advice, he made sure that he was getting that advice from all of the major political parties in British Columbia, including the B.C. Liberal Party, the B.C. NDP, the Green Party of B.C. and the B.C. Conservative Party.
In fact, the CEO is required to consult with the Election Advisory Committee before making recommendations to the Legislative Assembly. It is a matter of due diligence, but in fact, the CEO is required to strike such a committee and ensure that he or she is getting advice, input from a broad range of stakeholders, including all of the major political parties in British Columbia.
The priority issues identified by the CEO include facilitating youth participation; trialing new voting technology; and more flexibility for advance voting opportunities. Now, only that last one is addressed by Bill 20. Just to go through some of the analysis by the CEO about the issue, he indicated:
“The lowest voter registration rates are for young voters 18 to 24 years of age. There is a positive correlation between voting and being registered as a voter before general voting day. The most effective means of registering youth may be to approach them before they graduate from high school. Currently, voter registration is restricted to those at least 18 years of age, an age when many youth have left high school.”
Just on the voter turnout, I wanted to recount some of the data, some of the information, on this very serious problem for western democracies. In fact, this is from an Elections B.C. 2014 report on Internet voting, when they discussed this issue.
“Academic publications suggest that since the 1970s, citizens in western democracies have been taking up the act of voting at later points in their life and in smaller numbers, and accordingly, overall voter turnout has dropped from approximately three-
[ Page 8192 ]
quarters of eligible voters in the 1970s to approximately half of eligible voters today.
“In the 2013 provincial general election” — in British Columbia — “overall turnout was 55.3 percent of eligible voters, but only 29.9 percent of eligible voters aged 18 to 24 chose to vote. At the local government…turnout is also trending down but to an even lower level. In 2011 local government elections voter turnout averaged 29.6 percent.”
That’s about the same percentages for younger voters provincially.
[D. Horne in the chair.]
These are very disturbing numbers. Certainly, while there are modest attempts to address this in Bill 20, it doesn’t go nearly far enough, and it completely omits any reference, any change at all, any suggestion or proposal to register young voters at an earlier age, ideally in high school.
Deputy Speaker: Is the member the designated speaker?
G. Holman: Yes.
Deputy Speaker: Yes? All right. Thank you, Member. Continue.
G. Holman: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for that vote of confidence. It’s not widely reflected in the House. I understand that, but I do appreciate that.
This has been a problem in British Columbia, in Canada. In 1983, 71 percent of registered voters turned out at the polls, but since then the turnout rate has fallen to about 55 percent of 2.9 million registered voters.
There are a number of factors that bear on this, that influence this, but one of the factors that we believe, on this side of the House, bears on this is the electoral system itself, the voting system itself.
We also believe that big money bears on this, that voters become cynical over time. They become cynical that their vote actually counts versus the financial contributions by large organizations. Particularly, younger voters are becoming more and more cynical, more and more doubtful that the democratic process actually works for them. Does it work for them, or does it work for large organizations?
Who do political parties listen to? Who do governments and opposition parties, for that matter, listen to? Do they listen to individual voters? Do they listen to young voters? Or do they listen to large organizations, like unions and corporations? That’s why we need to fix these rules, and Bill 20 does virtually nothing to do that and nothing to really encourage younger voters in British Columbia.
There is evidence to suggest strongly that proportional representation does increase voter turnout — for example, a work done in 2012 by Arend Lijphart, who’s a world-renowned political scientist and has spent his career studying the differences between majoritarian and consensual, i.e., PR, democracy. In his landmark study Patterns of Democracy he compared 36 democracies over 29 years and found that in countries using PR systems voter turnout was 7 percent higher on average. That’s a well-known study.
Again, it’s something that we really need to be considering in British Columbia, and if we form government in 2017, we will be considering that.
Back to the priority issues of the CEO. In his 2014 report he indicates that other jurisdictions have already taken steps — we’re talking about facilitating youth participation here — to address this issue by allowing the provincial registration of otherwise eligible individuals under the age of 18.
For example, Nova Scotia legislation permits the Chief Electoral Officer to collect the registration information of 16- and 17-year-olds who may become eligible to vote. Quebec also has a provisional register of potential voters who, unless they explicitly decline, are automatically added to the voters list when they turn 18.
In Alberta — where there’s been a rather sudden turnaround in political representation and philosophy — although the amendment has not yet come into force, the Legislature has passed laws enabling the Chief Electoral Officer to request directly from school boards the registration information of 16- and 17-year-olds for the purposes of provisionally registering them to vote.
Nine American states currently have provisional registration for 16- and 17-year-olds. Australia has addressed the issue by allowing provisional voter registration of 17-year-olds. The U.K. Electoral Commission registered 16- and 17-year-olds in Scotland in order to facilitate their participation in the 2014 Scottish independence referendum.
There are various ways to approach the issue of youth voter registration, but there does seem to be a common theme where, certainly, the preregistration of 16- and 17-year-olds before they become eligible is an important part of the strategy to engage them in the democratic process.
The data does seem to suggest that if you do engage young people in this way, it does increase, substantially increase, their turnout in elections. Bill 20 doesn’t deal with this, mention this, address this at all.
Another priority issue identified by the CEO of British Columbia was to pilot-test new voting technology. There is a growing interest in a number of jurisdictions about the possibility of introducing new voting technologies as a method for increasing the accessibility and efficiency of the electoral process.
Current provisions in the Election Act envision a voting and counting process that is paper-based and limit
[ Page 8193 ]
the ability of Elections B.C. to adopt, even on a pilot project basis, some new voting technologies.
The CEO recommended in his report that legislatures consider providing greater flexibility for the CEO to introduce, on a pilot basis, a variety of new voting technologies. These could include, for example, technologies that provide increased accessibility for voters with disabilities and/or optical ballot scanners to allow more efficient results reporting.
Elections B.C. endorses the recommendations of the Independent Panel on Internet Voting, as described in the panel’s recommendations report submitted to the Legislative Assembly earlier, in 2014. This panel recommended the province go slowly on the topic of Internet voting; take a provincewide, coordinated approach to the issue; and establish an independent technical committee chaired by the Chief Electoral Officer to evaluate Internet voting systems and support jurisdictions that wish to implement it.
The general area of testing new voting technology, as recommended by the CEO — one of the three priorities that he identified for changes to elections legislation — is not covered at all, is not mentioned at all, in Bill 20.
The final priority of the three identified by the CEO is to provide more flexibility for advance voting opportunities. This is one area that, in fact, government’s amendments to Bill 20 do address, although to a more modest degree than recommended by the CEO. “Since 2001” — I’m reading from the report — “a steadily increasing number of British Columbians have been taking advantage of advance voting opportunities. In the 2013 election over 20 percent of all votes were cast at advance voting,” which, I believe, is an all-time high percentage.
The current Election Act requires that advance voting opportunities be held from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. on Wednesday, Thursday, Friday and Saturday of the week before general voting day for an election. The CEO states: “While this is appropriate for most areas of the province, some parts of the province, particularly rural areas, do not have sufficient population to justify the cost and effort of establishing and staffing a full four-day advance voting opportunity in their communities. Hence, advance voting is not available in some smaller communities.”
To make this advance voting opportunity available to a larger number of voters, the CEO recommends that:
“…legislators consider providing greater flexibility to district electoral officers to establish advance voting opportunities on any of the days of the advance voting period or for a limited number of hours during the day. Elections B.C. does not intend to reduce the length of advance voting in communities that traditionally warrant an advance voting opportunity.
“To ensure this provision is applied carefully and consistently, the limited opportunities would require the prior approval of the CEO. Advance voting opportunities available for other than the full four-day period would clearly be identified as such in communications to voters, candidates and political parties.”
This is an area where government has responded, at least in part, to these recommendations. As I said earlier, it is an example of some changes, fairly modest changes, that do move the ball forward in terms of reforming our democracy in British Columbia.
There were a number of other recommendations made by the CEO. I do want to talk about those in a little more detail later when I go through the bill itself in a little bit more detail.
Just to summarize and reaffirm that of the three priority recommendations made by the CEO to make amendments to the Election Act, only one of those was addressed by Bill 20.
While the minister spoke of the importance of listening to the independent officers of the Legislature, in this particular case, for these three priorities, one out of three is not a great batting average. The CEO doesn’t seem to have been…. There wasn’t a lot of attention paid, it appears, to those three priority recommendations.
I do want to speak a little bit more about the specific legislation and some of the issues that we’ve identified with that legislation. I’ve spoken about the three priority issues. There are some other changes in the bill, both positive and negative, that I wanted to speak to as briefly as I can.
Interjection.
G. Holman: Thank you to the member opposite for the vote of confidence.
Some of the changes that were identified and recommended by the CEO are picked up in the legislation, which in general is a good thing. The minister did refer to it in her summary of the legislation. While they omitted any reference to or changes around youth voter registration, as recommended by the CEO, this bill does address some other issues.
There is an exemption from filing expense reports for leadership candidates that are acclaimed and that neither raised nor spent any funds. Even to a new MLA such as myself, it seems to make intuitive sense to do something like that.
The legislation permits constituency associations to incur elections expenses on behalf of a candidate for the full period of the campaign instead of just the first day. Again, this makes intuitive sense, and I think it meets the test of fairness and reasonableness.
The legislation proposes to tighten up identity requirements for vouching, requiring family members and personal care vouchers to provide identification the way that friends are required to now. There is a bit of a concern here, and when we get into the committee stage we’ll be asking more details about exactly how that works. There is a bit of a concern there around voter suppression, around some classes of voters — the marginalized, the poor, First Nations — where identification documentation can be a bit of an issue.
[ Page 8194 ]
There is a concern that while it’s not unfair to have rules that ensure that the person who is voting is actually who they say they are — that’s not an unreasonable objective — the devil is definitely in the details here. For example, there were changes made in federal elections rules that really did raise some serious concerns around dissuading or suppressing votes by marginalized groups because of the stringency of some of these requirements. We’ll be asking more detailed questions about this particular section of the bill when we get to committee stage.
The legislation provides election officials with the authority to provide voter turnout information to candidates during advance voting and general voting. Again, that was a recommendation made by the Chief Electoral Officer.
Now, the provision of voter turnout information in Bill 20 has been extended to post-election. There are some very serious concerns around that, privacy concerns that I want to talk about in a little more detail. I just want to go through kind of a rough summary of the bill at this point. That is definitely, as the minister indicated, a very serious concern that’s been identified by the Privacy Commissioner and also by other members of the public, stakeholders like IntegrityBC.
There are some real concerns with the provisions in this bill that require the CEO to provide voter turnout records — not who they voted for, but the fact that they did vote — to political parties.
As the Speaker and members of the House are aware, there are several amendments being proposed by opposition members of the House, including the NDP opposition, including the Green and independent candidates. There are some very serious concerns around this particular part of the bill and whether it’s appropriate to provide that kind of information that can be cross-tabbed with other data. There are some very serious privacy concerns there that have, of course, been also raised by the Privacy Commissioner herself.
Possibly the most serious concern that we on this side of the House have with this bill is the elimination of pre-election spending caps on political parties and candidates. This arises out of previous court decisions that have ruled restrictions on third-party spending in the pre-election period as unconstitutional.
Now, this government has attempted a couple of times to bring in constraints on third-party advertising and, in the first instance, was rebuffed by the courts. In the second instance, as I understand it, the issue was referred to the courts and, again, turned back. So it appears to be very clear, the court’s view of spending caps for third-party advertisers in the pre-election period. At first it was defined as 60 days. Government tried to reduce that to 40. That was still rejected. So it’s very clear about the court’s view of these kinds of constraints on third-party election advertising.
It’s a bit disconcerting that no one is really — particularly in the media, even the stakeholder groups — picking up on perhaps the most significant change in this legislation and the most important reason why this side of the House will be opposing it if it’s not changed. That is that they’ve extended this elimination of spending constraints on third parties to candidates and political parties in the pre-election period.
Now in British Columbia, after the writ has dropped, during the political campaign and in the 60-day pre-election period there’s a $73,000 limit, approximately, on candidate spending during that period — during both the election period and the pre-election period. The pre-election spending limit in this bill has been stripped. This is the single most important concern that this side of the House has with this legislation.
It creates a situation not only in which large, well-funded third-party organizations can be spending a lot of money in the pre-election period, although part of the concern, too, was that for non-profit groups and others, those constraints were limiting. That’s part of the reason why the court banned it. But it brings us in British Columbia, if this legislation goes through, to the situation that exists in the United States, where big money rules.
This is the single most important problem we’ve got with this legislation. It seemingly…. Perhaps this is unfair, but under the guise of court rulings around third-party advertising, this bill strips the existing constraints on political parties and candidates. On this side of the House we find that unacceptable, and if it’s not changed, we will not be supporting this bill.
There are some other changes in the Election Act being brought about by Bill 20. All of the ones that I’ve mentioned, save the pre-election spending cap…. By the way, it’s my understanding that the CEO did not recommend the elimination of the spending cap on political parties and candidates. That’s coming from government.
Some other changes are coming from government in response to the CEO concerns about advance voting. This bill does add two more days of advance voting. It seems to us that that’s more restrictive than what the CEO was recommending. It’s our understanding that the electoral officer was suggesting more flexibility in the advance voting period to provide more opportunities to voters. This does. But it does seem to be more restrictive than the recommendations made by the CEO.
Another thing that this bill does is it does allow “Get out the vote” messages on election day via social media. It requires…. Sorry. I’ve mentioned that already. I’ve mentioned the elimination of the spending caps. Also, I’ve mentioned the CEO is required by legislation to provide parties with a list of voters, after the election, indicating who had voted.
The bill also expands the scope of fundraising expenses that don’t count under expense limits. These changes
[ Page 8195 ]
seem to be fairly modest. We’ll get at some of the details in the committee stage. There doesn’t seem to be a significant issue there. If the barn door was left too wide, there would be some concerns. We’ll pursue those at the committee stage.
Mr. Speaker, we have proposed, as you know, on the order paper…. We and other opposition MLAs have proposed some amendments to the legislation. If all of those amendments were to succeed, we would have, on this side of the House, a different view of this legislation. If we can eliminate some of the problems and accept some of the modest improvements in the legislation, we would have a different view.
My experience with amendments being proposed by this side of the House…. I think we’re batting zero out of, you know, whatever. It’s a zero percent success rate in terms of having our amendments…. As reasonable and thoughtful as they are, we’re having problems getting them accepted by government. So I’m not optimistic about those changes, but we have suggested a number that we think would greatly improve the bill and would increase the chances of us supporting it on this side of the House.
As indicated on the order paper, we are proposing an amendment to add youth voter registration to Bill 20. As you know, we’ve proposed private member’s legislation around that and would be quite pleased if government would just simply take that up. That’s one of the amendments that we will be proposing. Again, that was one of the top priorities of the CEO — one of the top priorities identified by him in order to increase voter turnout.
We will also — as will the two independents — be introducing amendments on section 6 to narrow the language being proposed in the act around the provision of voter turnout lists. This is in response to written concerns expressed by the Privacy Commissioner, stakeholder groups and other citizens. We’ll be proposing language that would restrict the use of that voter turnout information and would ensure that they were used for electoral purposes only. We try to define, more clearly, specifically what those purposes would be. That’s another amendment that we would be proposing.
We will be opposing sections 11, 12 and 13, which remove expense limits on registered political parties and candidates in the pre-election period, and I spoke about this before — this probably being the most serious problem that we have with the bill. We’ll be proposing an amendment to strike that language from the legislation so that the existing spending caps for both political parties and candidates would be retained. Again, I say, if those sections are not struck, if those spending caps are eliminated, we will not be supporting this legislation.
Another amendment that we’re proposing in section 21 will be to…. These are all defined much more clearly, of course, in the order paper. We will be introducing an amendment to section 21 to maintain at the very least disclosure of third-party advertising during the pre-election period. While the courts have found that spending caps on third-party advertising pre-election are not constitutional, in our view, at the very least, we should understand which groups are contributing to which political parties to give us some insight into the influencers on various parties and candidates.
So we’re proposing that above a threshold of $5,000…. That would be to take into account concerns by NGOs, non-profits, smaller entities. This was part of the reason why the courts struck down the spending limits, pre-election, for third party…. It would take into account their concerns that they are being caught up in very complicated restrictions on what they could or couldn’t say during or just prior to the writ being dropped.
Again, to be clear, we’re not suggesting a spending limit per se. What we’re suggesting here is disclosure — but disclosure that would only apply above a certain threshold, and we’ve suggested $5,000.
I did want to just discuss in a little bit more detail some of the concerns that we’ve raised and that others have raised about the legislation. I did want to read just briefly the concern that the Privacy Commissioner has about the voter turnout lists in a letter addressed to government just recently. It’s dated April 13, 2015, and it’s addressed to the Minister of Justice. It’s regarding Bill 20, the Election Amendment Act.
The Privacy Commissioner, in the letter, makes some recommendations. She does suggest that if the amendment which requires the CEO to provide voter turnout lists to political parties remains in the bill, there must be “clear limits on the use and the disclosure of this personal information by political parties. For example, permitted uses of this information for ‘electoral purposes,’ as set out in section 275 of the Election Act, should be clearly defined, and political parties should be prohibited from using the information for commercial purposes or disclosing this information to any other organization or public body.”
One of the amendments that we’re proposing, which has some similarity to amendments being proposed by the independent and Green MLAs in the House, is intended to address this concern of the Privacy Commissioner.
There’s an additional concern that’s been raised by the independent MLA for Delta South — I should not speak for that member — who does have some serious concerns with this section of the bill about providing voter turnout lists at all. In the view of that MLA, if they are provided, it should not preclude independent candidates. We’ve also inserted language which attempts to address that. It may not fully address the concerns of the independent. We have tried to do that as well and to be cognizant of the views of other members of the opposition.
I wanted to speak about this issue of the pre-election
[ Page 8196 ]
limits, just to go through some data on corporate donations to the governing party. Just to emphasize the point that what we don’t want or need in British Columbia is a move towards a U.S.-style system of political financing, political donations, which makes it a free-for-all. That means you have to be incredibly rich even to consider running for political office and turns elections into fundraising orgies — if that’s not too strong a term.
Data suggests…. This is just an example. All parties do receive donations from corporations and from unions, I suspect. I’m not necessarily talking about this issue from some kind of high moral ground in which, you know, we’re better than everybody else — although I do secretly believe that. This applies to all of us. That’s my point.
My point earlier about democratic reform and making the rules stronger to improve our democracy in British Columbia…. The indication that those rules are appropriate is when they apply to all political parties, both sides of the House. And my comments are provided in that spirit.
Data indicates that from 2005 to 2012, corporate donors donated $46 million to the Liberal Party, between 2005 and 2012. Now, I won’t name the corporations. Some of them probably have also donated to the NDP.
My point here is merely to emphasize the fact that these donations create a perception among citizens of British Columbia — and I would say particularly younger voters — that their individual vote and their relatively modest contributions to political parties are far outweighed by donations made by large organizations, including corporations and unions.
So $46 million between 2005 and 2012. I’ll just go through the top five. I won’t name them, but there’s a well-known resource company, $1.7 million over that period; other resource contributors in the order of $800,000; forestry firms in the order of $650,000, $570,000.
The list goes on and on, but again, just to drive home the point that donations at this level can be very influential in determining the outcome of an election because elections are expensive. If you’ve got access to those kinds of dollars, clearly, there’s a question of fairness, and there’s a question of whether or not the playing field is level.
I come back to the point about the need to ban political donations from unions and corporations, as we are proposing, but also, specifically with respect to Bill 20, third-party advertising, which can be funded by these large donors. Now, in this bill, political parties and candidates can be directly funded pre–election period — no constraints, no cap whatsoever on those donations or spending levels. That spells real trouble for our democracy in British Columbia.
With respect to the provision of the voter turnout lists, as I indicated before, the advisory committee that was struck by the Chief Electoral Officer was comprised of representatives from all of the political parties. According to the CEO report, all of those parties did support the provision of those voter turnout lists. Speaking for the NDP, the official opposition, our view is that we need to make sure that if those….
We did support that as a party, as part of that advisory committee with the CEO. But we do agree with the Privacy Commissioner that if such lists are to be provided…. This is post-election. Political parties already get access to turnout records, I guess in a way indirectly but through scrutineers and those kinds of things, during the campaign. But this provision in Bill 20 is specifically about voter turnout lists post-elections. We do agree with the Privacy Commissioner that there need to be constraints on that to ensure that the use of that information is for electoral purposes only and that the definition of “electoral purposes” needs to be much clearer, much more transparent.
Now, the minister did make reference to the fact, in her brief comments on the bill, that once Bill 20 is passed by the Legislature, she would be more than happy to receive advice from the Chief Electoral Officer and the Privacy Commissioner about fine-tuning the issue around voter turnout data by changes to the regulations.
It does seem to be a modus operandi of this government to kind of make their legislation very, very broad and enabling, and then: “We’ll deal with the devil in the detail in the regulations.” I just want to point out…. Again, I’m a newer MLA here, but it’s my understanding that the CEO and the Privacy Commissioner don’t tell government: “You’ve got to change this.” They can make recommendations to government, but in the end it’s cabinet, it’s government, that will make that decision.
Myself and this side of the House, I believe, find very little comfort in the suggestion that after we pass this legislation that requires the CEO to provide these voter turnout lists, we’ll just fine-tune that and make sure the Privacy Commissioner is happy after the fact.
The fact of the matter is that, in the end, that’s government’s purview. These independent offices can make recommendations, but they can’t change the legislation, nor can they change regulations. Relying on changes to the regulations after the fact provides very little comfort on this side of the House. We believe that it’s important to put in the legislation, to define as clearly as possible within the legislation, the uses to which this voter turnout information can be provided.
There have been, shall I say, hints that the minister may consider amendments to section 6 of the act to actually deal with this in the legislation. We’ll look forward to seeing if there are proposals coming forward to government. Perhaps, again, we can deal with that kind of thing during committee.
There is some hint, some suggestion, that perhaps government might consider actually amending Bill 20 to take
[ Page 8197 ]
into account the concerns of the Privacy Commissioner and others. We’ll look forward to seeing what the minister actually has in mind.
I think I’ve made most of the comments that I wanted to make on this bill. I know there are others who want to rise to speak to Bill 20.
I have seen comments made by some of our long-standing and well-respected pundits that the legislation being brought forward by the government in this session of the House is, well, not particularly significant. It’s a little housekeeping here, a little housekeeping there. I would strongly beg to differ, not just on this legislation but on other legislation that’s being proposed by the Liberal government in this spring session of the House, Bill 20 in particular.
There are some very serious issues that seem to be ignored by the media, particularly this elimination of spending caps pre-election, bringing us closer to a U.S.-style kind of political financing situation. This is of deep, deep concern to this side of the House on that kind of change.
We absolutely need to have constraints on the use of voter turnout lists. We need to make changes in the legislation to provide for early voter registration. We need to listen to the recommendations of the CEO. Two of the three top recommendations made by the CEO are not addressed at all by this legislation.
Again, and other members have mentioned, legislation comes forward to this House. You know, it seems to be a bit rushed. It doesn’t seem to be well-thought-out. I’m surprised, actually, that government wouldn’t have conferred with the Privacy Commissioner before they tabled the bill as opposed to possibly considering amendments on the fly. We will get into these matters and other details during the committee stage of the bill.
I thank the members of the House for putting up with me. I don’t think I’ve ever spoken as long on an issue, and I appreciate the rapt attention of all those in attendance today. I’m very honoured to speak on behalf of my constituents, on behalf of my party.
I’m hoping Mr. Barrett will be able to view this speech, and I hope he’ll take some pleasure out of the comments that I made earlier about the remarkable legacy that he and his government have left the province of British Columbia and have left our democracy in British Columbia.
J. Martin: I think most Canadians took notice of how warmly our veterans were welcomed by the Dutch people this week during ceremonies honouring the 70th anniversary of the liberation of the Netherlands during World War II. The suffering of the Dutch people under foreign occupation, who were not only starved of food but also denied the most basic human rights, reminds us of just how fortunate we are to live in Canada.
Canadians serving abroad during the Second World War did so as they wanted to defend our freedoms, defend our democratic way of life. As such, that’s why, on behalf of my constituents in Chilliwack, I’m very proud to be standing this afternoon in the House to speak in favour of Bill 20, the Election Amendment Act.
Casting a ballot is one of the most important functions a citizen can exercise in a democracy. Voting is critical. It’s important because it determines our future, and it shapes the way we live — well, at least until the next election rolls around.
Since Confederation, voter turnout in Canada has averaged around 70 percent, with the highest being almost 80 percent during the late 1950s and the early ’60s. However, we have been experiencing a decline in voter participation since those times. As a matter of fact, voter turnout during the last federal election was just 64.4 percent, one of the lowest in Canadian history. Unfortunately, we’re experiencing a similar trend at the provincial level, with voter turnout during this past election around 52 percent.
I think it is important that we do all we can in this House to increase voter participation. That is the essential intent of this particular piece of legislation.
After every provincial election the Chief Electoral Officer in British Columbia releases a report with recommendations for changes to the Election Act. On October 7 of last year the Chief Electoral Officer issued his report, and it included a list of recommendations for the government to consider.
This bill responds to several of those recommendations. Additionally, it includes a number of recommendations put forth by the government itself. These amendments will modernize the Election Act and will provide for increased voter accessibility, increased participation. It also addresses other financial, administrative and communications processes that have been identified by the Chief Electoral Officer and also by the government.
Naturally, we must do what we can to encourage voter participation. Despite the recent decline in voter turnout, just about every jurisdiction is experiencing an increase in advance polling, as my colleague who preceded me detailed. Originally, the purpose of advance voting was to give people the opportunity to cast a ballot because they were intending to travel or otherwise might be unavailable on election day.
However, we have been seeing, with each election, advance voting becoming more and more popular. Now, this may be a function of convenience on behalf of the individual voter, who may not be interested in standing in line to vote. Or perhaps it may be attributed to campaigns that are focused on getting supporters to the polls and making sure that one candidate or another is successful. Either way, part of this legislation would expand the opportunities for advance voting, which, hopefully, will have the desired effect of increasing voter participation.
[ Page 8198 ]
Voter participation continues to be extremely low among younger voters, and I think it’s incumbent on ourselves as elected officials in this House to take this problem very seriously. It’s a challenge. In the course of this debate, I invite my fellow members of this House to provide their input and ideas on increasing voter participation.
L. Krog: There’s probably no better example of what’s wrong with western democracies than what is occurring, even now as we speak, with our friends to the south, the United States of America, as we approach the U.S. presidential elections — a long ways out yet. The candidates are anticipated to have to raise something in the range of $1 billion plus in order to campaign for the U.S. presidency.
Most democracies in the western world have figured out that the restriction on spending by political parties is, in and of itself, a good thing. It preserves democracy. It, in fact, enhances democracy. It is necessary in order to prevent powerful interests, wherever they may come from and whoever they may be, from unduly influencing the democratic process. The Koch brothers in the United States have raised hundreds of millions of dollars for extreme right-wing candidates down there, and it’s certainly their stated intention to do so.
It comes as a bit of a surprise that here in British Columbia, which has provided the source of some political reforms over the years…. The member for Saanich North and the Islands talked about the government of Dave Barrett and all the significant reforms that were brought in by that government. It is a bit of a surprise that the government would choose now, supposedly to make the system fairer, to bring forward Bill 20, which — including sections 11, 12 and 13 — essentially removes expense limits on registered political parties and candidates in the pre-election period.
That strikes me as — how shall I say — politically inept, is the kindest thing I can say. Out of touch with the attitude of voters. Not terribly helpful in terms of improving our democratic process. Indeed, it says that the differences between the New Democratic Party and the B.C. Liberals on these issues generally is pretty broad. I know that the government hesitates to acknowledge that in Alberta two days ago, the good people of Alberta, the good voters…. The voters are always right. I know the members in the Liberal benches will take some comfort for that, because Lord knows they believe they are right on everything.
The good voters of Alberta chose the New Democratic Party to lead them after 44 years of Tory government. One of the main campaign promises made by Rachel Notley and the New Democratic Party was to bring in a ban on corporate and union political donations to political parties. That is the policy of the B.C. New Democratic Party. Unfortunately, based on our first-past-the-post system, we’re going to have a couple more years, unless the government has a change of heart, where that’s not going to happen.
In the meantime, political parties, quite rightly and in accordance with the law, are going to continue to receive donations from corporations and unions, as much as they can possibly get, in order to finance what is becoming an increasingly expensive business in British Columbia, but nothing, nothing compared to the profligate spending by politicians in the United States.
I am struck even more by the contrast, again, that this bill reflects. What was the government thinking? What possible rationale could you have? In addition to having spending limits on third parties struck down by the courts — we accept the judgment of the courts in this — you then turn around and, instead of emphasizing the value and importance of restrictions on expense limits for registered political parties and candidates in the pre-election period, you eliminate that as well. It’s kind of like saying: “If you can’t have a little order, then let’s just make it a free-for-all.”
It’s rather like throwing in the towel. This is not some mad Wild West show. British Columbia politics are already known for being vicious enough. Anyone who has taken the time to speak to political staffers, regardless of whether they work for the government or us or the independents or any other political party, if they’ve had experience in other parts of Canada, they will tell you that notwithstanding what they hear and what they read, they’re always somewhat shocked when they actually arrive in British Columbia and see how rough the game is here.
Hon. R. Coleman: It’s not that rough.
L. Krog: The member says it’s not that rough. I suppose beauty is in the eye of the beholder too. But my experience, and it’s equal in time because of age…. The member who is chirping now and I, it turns out, many, many years ago were Rotary students in Ottawa together. We didn’t know one another at the time, and we have taken completely different paths. I respect his opinions, but in this particular issue, he is dead wrong.
Politics in British Columbia is a rough sport. It is a nasty and rough sport, and allowing for the spending of more money is not going to improve this. It’s not going to enhance the democratic process. It’s not going to enhance the system.
The reality is…. And again, I contrast this with the United States, where politicians — who are honest, who’ve written their biographies, who’ve had biographies written about them, articles, magazines, you name it — will all tell you the same thing. American politicians spend inordinate amounts of their time not doing the
[ Page 8199 ]
people’s business in state legislatures or in the House of Representatives or in the U.S. Senate. They spend an inordinate amount of their time fundraising.
Fundraising — so many bucks if you get to stand beside the Congressman for a picture; so many bucks if you want to have lunch with the Congressman; so many bucks if you want to get lunch at the Senate; so many bucks, it would appear, if you want to sleep in the Lincoln bedroom.
That may be palatable for some people, but I would strongly suggest…. I hesitate to use the term “Canadian values,” because the Prime Minister has kind of soured that one by saying that the federal Conservative Party reflects Canadian values. Canadian values, I don’t think, are those kind of values.
Canadian values are a little more modest, more discreet. We don’t like the concept of big money trying to tell us what to do. It appears that in the province of Alberta they don’t even like the fearmongering which is always part of politics and certainly has been, historically, part of politics in British Columbia.
It appears that the good people of Alberta, independent thinkers that they are, decided that the threats of the socialist hordes at the gate that W.A.C. Bennett used to talk about weren’t enough to scare them into making a different decision on election day.
In opposing parts of this bill, I do so, as does the opposition, based on history, experience and common sense. We know that the B.C. Liberals are able to outspend the New Democratic Party. If you spread the money around and think of it as per-capita voting and you look at what was spent by the Democratic Party in the United States and what will be spent this year by Hillary Clinton just to secure the nomination, assuming she does, and spent by the plethora of midgets, politically speaking, I would gratefully suggest, to represent the Republican candidate so far….
I would expect that we’re going to see a lot of money spent there. So why would we want to do that here? I listened carefully this afternoon to what the Attorney General had to say. I appreciate that she’s in a tough spot today, trying to do her estimates at the same time as introduce this bill and do double duty. Such are the joys of being in government.
But I would have thought that she might have offered some cogent explanation for the inclusion of these sections — some convincing argument, some passionate plea, some words of wisdom that would move the opposition to simply fade away, that would have meant that the member for Saanich North and the Islands wouldn’t have felt inspired to speak as long as he did today. But it wasn’t forthcoming.
Indeed, what is most interesting about this legislation is that it has provided a virtual inspiration for amendments. We’ve got eight amendments already, and we only started second reading today, on the order paper from the opposition and the independent members — well, the Green Party member, I should say, in fairness, and the independent member for Delta South.
Now, you’ve got to almost admire a government that is willing to take these kinds of steps so that it will inspire such unanimity amongst the opposition members when it comes to a bill before the House.
It’s not as if electoral reform or changes to the Election Act are a bad thing in general. Goodness knows, there were options the government could have chosen when it came to Bill 20.
The Chief Electoral Officer — a person, I might say, but more importantly an office that has the respect of all British Columbians in terms of its impartiality, its common sense…. I think it’s fair to say that we have been well served by every person who has occupied that office. In a province where…. The member who was talking earlier, who said that politics isn’t that rough, has perhaps forgotten the bad old days of Gracie’s finger, when drawing electoral boundaries wasn’t exactly up there with Sunday school preaching in terms of its honesty and veracity.
Instead of choosing to follow the commonsense recommendations of the Chief Electoral Officer, one of which was a recommendation for youth voter preregistration…. No, that wasn’t on the table, even though it’s common sense. It’s a recommendation from the Chief Electoral Officer. It’s a recommendation that most people would have thought was sensible.
You can’t pretend in this chamber that we’re all not extremely conscious of the fact that voter turnout is, frankly, given the sacrifices made by the veterans, which the member who spoke before me mentioned and made reference to…. Notwithstanding all the sacrifices of those veterans to ensure that we had the right to elect our government, that we had the right to participate in a representative democracy, voter turnout is diminishing. It’s not going up; it’s going down.
The best — and I have to laugh — that the Government House Leader, the member from Abbotsford, was able to say is — and I quote CKNW, 24th of March, 2015 — “We weren’t able to finalize the work and have it ready for this package, but it’s certainly not off the table.” Well, it’s not off the table. Isn’t that comforting to know?
We have this virtual feast of change, and somewhere down there, maybe next to the large ham, is a tiny little bit that isn’t off the table but is quite obscured by everything else that’s in Bill 20. Not quite available for consumption, yet not off the table, not in Rover’s mouth yet — the concept that we might actually do something sensible that the Chief Electoral Officer has recommended.
I only sat on the back bench in government back in the ’90s — the happy decade, as I think of it; dismal, perhaps, to the members opposite. Having sat on the committee that we used to call Legs and Regs, I’m conscious of the work and effort and time that goes into the prep-
[ Page 8200 ]
aration of legislation. I know that it’s a time-consuming process. It comes up; it goes back down; it comes back up. Somebody makes an objection, and it goes back down again. Legislative drafters work into the wee hours of the morning getting it all ready. I get that.
But you know, if you can put together legislation this session which removed a hyphen in one bill and a comma in another, and you can devote the time to that, one would have thought that the B.C. Liberals could have managed to scrape enough time, scrape enough money out of the budget to just even slide in a little provision for the most basic and sensible recommendation of the Chief Electoral Officer.
Would it have been too much to ask? Would it be too much to suggest, as we look at this banquet of legislation before us this spring, that we could have found a place for that little bit that apparently isn’t off the table but isn’t going to be digested by the assembly in this spring session?
When is it going to happen? Is it going to happen in the fall? Well, goodness knows. We hardly ever get called back in the fall. Heaven knows, the government would hate the possibility of extending a few more days of question period. The imperial government of the B.C. Liberals — they wouldn’t want to face scrutiny by the opposition.
Will it be the spring, perhaps? Spring — hope springs eternal in the human breast. Will there be some opportunity in the spring, perhaps, to say to the youth of B.C., whom the B.C. Liberals seem to care so much about when they talk about families first…? Is it possible then that we’ll maybe recognize, not that they have the right to vote at 16, but simply that they might have the opportunity — those that are interested and care, as passionately as the members of this chamber do, about politics…? Would it be possible for them to just preregister? Would it be so difficult?
Interjection.
L. Krog: I want to thank my House Leader. I thought I was getting the signal to actually stop talking, which would offend me greatly.
Interjections.
L. Krog: I only have a half-hour. I know the members are looking for more, but I only have a half-hour. We’ve heard from the designated speaker, who made a wonderful effort here this afternoon. But would it be that difficult to have simply put that in and said to the youth of British Columbia: “You know what? Politics is, in fact, important. If the game is played fairly and you don’t let it be run by powerful piles of cash, which is what this bill is proposing to do, you can actually elect governments that may be responsive to the people”?
It’s the chicken-and-the-egg thing sometimes, isn’t it? Is the fact that youth don’t vote a reflection of the way the system works now? Is it because they don’t feel there’s an appropriate incentive to do so? Is it because they feel disrespected? Is it because when this kind of proposal comes forward, as it has from the Chief Electoral Officer…? We’re not talking about the NDP in convention. We’re not talking about the Green Party gathering somewhere around the province and passing a resolution. We’re talking about the Chief Electoral Officer. Surely that is a message that the government could have listened to. It’s not a difficult concept. But instead, what’s the emphasis?
We want to open up more campaign spending. We want to ensure that political parties can continue to go out and raise as much cash as they possibly can and spend it wildly prior to the election period, with no spending limits. Nobody has challenged the spending limits on political parties successfully. Nobody has taken that one to court and succeeded. Instead, British Columbians, I would suggest strongly, recognize its value and its importance, that it is reflective of Canadian values around how we’re going to conduct democracy in our province.
Instead, the B.C. Liberals just opened the floodgates and said: “Let her rip, boys and girls. You go out and raise as much money as you want, and you spend as much money as you want — to heck with the consequences.” That is, by any definition, cynical. Then you wonder why, when they had the opportunity, the B.C. Liberals, instead of allowing for youth voter preregistration, chose instead to include provisions to make politics even more of a free-for-all than it already is.
If that wasn’t enough, leaving out one of the most important recommendations, or the recommendation the Chief Electoral Officer made for new technologies — to make elections easier to manage, to bring us into the 21st century, where people are communicating and issues are being raised and disappearing in almost the twinkling of an eye….
Instead of doing those things, they now want to narrow existing language in the Election Act about the unauthorized use of voters lists and play around with the use of voters lists in such a way that, as I said earlier, we have now inspired the opposition to propose all kinds of amendments and have brought — I won’t call it a scathing letter — let’s just say, from the Information and Privacy Commissioner, a fairly significant criticism of what the government proposed to do.
Again, she’s not a partisan appointment. Her selection was the result of an all-party committee. Both sides of this House sat down, figured out that the committee had an exceptional candidate, appointed her, and she was supported by every member of this House, in my recollection, and made the Information and Privacy Commissioner.
We’ve got these two independent parties. On one hand, we’ve got one saying: “Here are these good things. Do
[ Page 8201 ]
them.” The government ignores it. On the other hand, the other one is saying: “These are bad things. Don’t do them.” I suspect the government is going to ignore the Information and Privacy Commissioner as well.
I suppose in the B.C. Liberal lexicon that’s what counts as balanced. We’ll ignore the good recommendations, and we’ll ignore the bad recommendations — as so seen by the government. We’re not going to be good to anybody. We’re going to turn our noses up at the progressive things that are suggested by the Chief Electoral Officer and that are supported by young people around this province. Instead, we’re going to open the floodgates for the cash.
I must admit in my constituency, in Nanaimo, you can’t really spend that much money. It’s true. In terms of my own election, it’s not that expensive a proposition. I certainly know the B.C. Liberals have raised significant amounts of cash, and they’ve spent an awful lot of money trying to defeat me. I’ve got no problem with that in the general sense.
I do take some comfort in the fact that I know there are spending limits, and there are restrictions. Those restrictions and the concept of restrictions have been in place for a long time, and they’re there for a good reason. They’re there because it works and because it’s the right thing to do as opposed to, as I said, the cynicism that we see in this bill.
If the courts, as I say, had imposed this in the way that previous legislation was struck down around spending limits on third parties, the way the B.C. Court of Appeal found in October of 2012, that would be one thing. But this is entirely a B.C. Liberal baby. They created this one, and they want to give it life.
Now, I am always pleased to show my respect for the member for Cowichan Valley in the use of that phrase that springs to mind when one thinks of this legislation. I know members anticipate, because they listen carefully, the phrase I’m going to use.
Deputy Speaker: While the Chair usually gives the member for Cowichan Valley significant lenience when he uses that line, I’m not certain he’s going to give the same.
L. Krog: I appreciate the learned advice of the Speaker, and I will be very careful. But one can’t help but feel the inspiration to spit out the term “jiggery-pokery.”
Surely, the B.C. Liberals didn’t think that they were going to slide this one by the members of this assembly or the media or the Information and Privacy Commissioner or the Chief Electoral Officer or anyone else and that there wouldn’t be public comment on it. Surely, in their happiest moments, when they go to that happy place where B.C. is going to be debt-free, where we’re going to have $100 million from liquid natural gas and where the world is all wonderful…. Surely, even in that happy, happy place, they didn’t really think this one was going to get trotted out, accepted by the opposition and the people of B.C. and would succeed.
If they had included in this bill the kinds of reforms I’ve talked about — campaign expense limits, perhaps some variation recognizing their importance…. If they had finally brought in a ban on corporate and union donations, as the good people of Alberta have chosen to do — you know, that right-wing bastion….
I’m conscious of the fact that the brother of a former Premier is listening to this debate in a place that we never thought would elect a New Democratic Party to power. If they can make that choice, why is it so difficult for the government of British Columbia to make that kind of choice?
Is it worth the paltry advantage of eliminating campaign spending limits and not bringing in appropriate changes, appropriate electoral reform? Is it really worth the cynical price to get that advantage, whatever it may be? It may be paltry. If the tide’s against you, we know that parties can often spend and spend and spend and still not succeed and survive. We get that.
But in those elections which are generally closer, the power of money is important, sadly, and thus the reason for campaign limits. We know that money buys influence, sadly.
When I’m trying to think of what I can say to the young people of British Columbia, who deserved an opportunity to get on that train that leads them to the right to vote as soon as they’re old enough to pre-register, when I am trying to inspire them to pay attention to our democratic processes — that they’re meaningful and that they’re respected and that it’s a privilege to have the right to vote — instead we’re confronted by the cynicism of Bill 20.
You know, I just would have hoped that this government in the middle of its term, after having kissed off 45 million bucks in the Burke Mountain fiasco, after having acknowledged all of the issues that they have, after allowing the wealthiest British Columbians to walk away from a small request to pay a little bit more income tax to assist the province for a couple of years….
Interjection.
L. Krog: The member from Kamloops, the Minister of Health — I’m always pleased when he rises in debate. I’m sure he’ll have his opportunity.
A miserable 2 percent increase on high-income earners that generated $230 million would have helped an awful lot of British Columbians.
Interjection.
L. Krog: I know the member believes, as did Ronald Reagan, as our dear friend the late, belated President of
[ Page 8202 ]
the United States used to suggest, if you just give the rich enough, things will actually get so much better. What is it that John Kenneth Galbraith said? It was much like the optimism that if you stuff all the oats in one end of the horse, what comes out of the other end — there will be enough specks in there for the sparrows to survive on.
Interjection.
L. Krog: I am delighted that the member from Kamloops, the Minister of Health, who is going to rise in debate and defend tax cuts to the wealthiest in this province at the very time he defends the opportunity for them to now give even more money to the B.C. Liberals to pollute our political process…. I’m delighted that he is taking an interest in this debate and will insist on rising and defending those tax breaks for the rich at the very same time he defends the right of the rich to contribute even more to the political process, to pollute the political process even more and to make the whole process less democratic.
I am extremely pleased that he would want to do that because that’s exactly what politics is all about. It’s separating views. The views on this side of the House are very different from those of the other side of the House. If the minister wishes to defend this cynical approach to B.C. politics, I’m delighted that he will do so. I look forward to listening to every word he may possibly care to give us between now and the close of the session.
Deputy Speaker: I would remind the House that we’re currently debating Bill 20, so a discussion of the issues just brought forward by the member perhaps might not be in order.
D. Bing: I would like to echo the sentiments of the hon. member for Chilliwack with respect to the warm reception that Canadian World War II veterans received from the Dutch people this week while observing the 70th anniversary of the liberation of the Netherlands.
I know there are a great many people in the riding of Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows who took note of the commemoration. They appreciate the fact that after 70 years the contribution and sacrifice made by Canadians is still remembered. They fought and defended our freedoms and our democracy We should honour them by doing what we can to promote participation in our democratic system.
As a jurisdiction, British Columbia has a long history of democratic reform. I would like to review a bit of that history. The Westminster system has served British Columbia very well since the province entered Confederation in 1871. However, any democratic parliamentary system should be reviewed from time to time in order to ensure that it continues to satisfy the will of the people.
In British Columbia one of the most recognizable forms of parliamentary democracy in recent memory is the fixed election date. In fact, British Columbia was the very first jurisdiction in Canada to adopt a fixed election date. It was an election promise made by the government in the 2001 election, and it represents a significant evolution in our democratic system. I should also add that the B.C. government was the very first to set a fixed date for tabling the provincial budget. We were also the first to implement a set legislative calendar.
These are things that we often take for granted today, but back then it represented a major step forward in democratic reform. Our fixed election date eliminated what was perceived to be an unfair advantage by the governing party to select a date of its own choosing. A fixed budget date also eliminated the use of the provincial budget as a device or a substitute for an election platform.
Furthermore, we established three-year, rolling service plans for every ministry that set out clear performance targets. In addition, we tied a cabinet minister’s salary to performance and docked their pay if they failed to meet their targets. This particular reform has helped British Columbia to balance the provincial budget for three years in a row. In fact, all of these democratic reforms remain in place today and now set a high standard for other provinces to follow.
In 2003 the government established the Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform, a world first in direct democracy. The assembly was composed of 161 British Columbians selected at random throughout the province, one woman and one man from each of the province’s electoral districts. Two aboriginal members also became part of the citizens’ assembly. After a year of study, consultation and deliberation the citizens’ assembly proposed replacing the province’s existing first-past-the-post system with one built around the idea of a single transferable vote. This proposed single transferable vote would have provided the public with the opportunity to rank their candidates according to preference.
A referendum on the citizens’ assembly proposal was held concurrently with the 2005 provincial election, but it fell short of the 60 percent of provincewide approval required to pass. It drew 57.69 percent support. Because the vote was fairly close, another referendum was held concurrently with the 2009 election. Once again, the single transferable vote was rejected by the people of British Columbia. This time it only achieved 39.09 percent support.
While this was an important chapter in our democratic development, I remain concerned about increasing and encouraging greater voter participation. While some would argue that some form of proportional representation may encourage greater participation, especially amongst young people, we’re still left with the problem of getting voters to the polling station.
I therefore look forward to hearing the views of my
[ Page 8203 ]
fellow members of this House and learning more about their views during this debate.
M. Farnworth: It’s a pleasure to rise and take my place in the debate on Bill 20, and I am mindful of the time that I have available to me. I know I have 30 minutes, and there’s more than 30 minutes’ worth of material to go in here, even starting with a brief response to the previous member’s comments. But I will try….
Interjection.
M. Farnworth: My colleague from Nanaimo is going: “More, more.”
I will speak for the next 20 minutes, I think. Then, if I feel the need to go further, I will reserve my place at that particular point in time for members who I know might be interested in hearing the second half of my remarks. And I know….
Interjection.
M. Farnworth: The minister across the way.
Look, this is an important piece of legislation, Bill 20. It deals with changes to the Election Act. The fundamental basis of our democracy is that right to vote, that right to exercise a franchise. It’s a right that has not been achieved easily. It has a long history in terms of the rights of the individual to have their say, to cast their ballot over how…
Interjection.
M. Farnworth: I’ll come to that in a minute, Member.
…our society is governed. The government…. The public is governed with their consent. Governments need to have the consent of the public in order to have legitimacy, and that is done through elections.
My colleague mentioned the Magna Carta. Well, they did not have free elections back in 1215, but 800 years ago we did start that journey to the Westminster parliamentary system of governance that we have today.
In our own province we have seen the fight to exercise a franchise expanded from property-owning males over the age of 21, through the years to include women, to include aboriginal people, to include South Asians, to include people of Chinese origin, Asian origin — and often at great cost.
I mean, the very idea that because you are a woman, you are not capable of exercising or casting a vote…. When we think about that today, it is absolutely ludicrous. But back in 1910 and 1912 and 1915 and during the first war that was the norm. That was the predominant view of society.
The idea that South Asians or people of Asian descent should not be able to vote was the predominant view in this province for decades. And the idea that somehow that is acceptable is just more than alien to us. It is abhorrent. It is absolutely abhorrent.
So when we’re debating a piece of legislation like Bill 20, we need to understand where we have come from and what it is we are trying to accomplish. We have seen over the last 30, 40 years that voter turnout has declined. When women and aboriginals and people of South Asian or Asian descent got the right to vote, people truly appreciated that franchise and what that franchise meant, and we had significant voter turnouts. That has declined over time. I think there are a number of reasons for that, not the least of which — and too often you hear about it — is the complaint: “Well, my vote doesn’t matter.” There is a feeling that somehow big money decides elections, that one person cannot make a difference.
In my comments later on this bill, which will go to the heart of some of these sections that deal with the elimination or the increasing ability of money to play a role in a campaign…. I think it contributes to that sense of alienation that people feel in the democratic process, and I think that it’s one we have to guard against.
My colleague from Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows outlined some of the changes that government has made. Some of those change are good changes, as were changes that were made when we were in power in the 1990s — changes that were done through an all-party committee that brought in recall and referendum. At the time many people said: “This is a great innovation.” Some people were highly critical, saying it would never work.
At the time, it was made clear that these pieces of legislation, these reforms to our system, were not intended to be easy, in the sense of overturning the democratic will that was expressed during a general election, but were intended to be tools that could be used during a term of a government when either an individual MLA or a government or the public decided: “You know what? They have exceeded their mandate. They have exceeded the expectations that we had of them.” We have seen that work, during the last two decades since that legislation was put in place, on a couple of occasions.
We have seen it work on a member of this House, a former member of this House, and the affair was referred to as the Warren Betanko case. The recall petition did not officially succeed, but it had gathered enough signatures that that individual knew that it had succeeded and subsequently did the honourable thing in this House, which was to resign.
Likewise, on the referendum, the initiative process. Again, it’s not intended to replace the role of government, which is an executive council, a cabinet, supported by a majority of the members of this House. Again, that’s a fundamental concept in our electoral tradition.
Many people think: “Oh, we are voting for a Premier.” No, we are voting for 85 individual members, most of
[ Page 8204 ]
whom run under the basis of a political party banner. But at the end of the day, it is the party that can garner the confidence of the House that forms government.
Coming back to the initiative a moment, we saw that in this chamber, where governments made an announcement around the HST in the middle of summer when they thought people weren’t paying attention. It was introduced, and they thought that it would just slide by. They failed to understand the depth of hostility and anger that the public felt, and subsequently it manifested itself in the form of the petition drive to get a ballot question — an initiative question on the decision of the government’s — to repeal the HST.
They were told…. Most people at the time thought it would not succeed. But it was, I think, one of the most remarkable exercises of grassroots democracy that this province has seen in a very long time, and it succeeded.
Those were two important reforms and two important initiatives that have taken place in British Columbia. Some of the reforms that the government has brought in — my colleague from Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows talked about them. One was the fixed election date. I think, by and large, most people agree that the fixed election date is an important reform. It does remove some of the power from the leader to determine when an election was to be called.
Interjection.
M. Farnworth: I’ll actually address that. Thank you, hon. Minister, for making that comment. I’ll address that one in a second.
Again, the public was told that from now on election dates will be fixed. It removes the power from a Premier to hold that over their cabinet and their caucus, particularly when times can get rough — and as both parties in this House know, that does happen from time to time in political parties — and the ability of a Premier to say: “You know what? If you want to go down that street, fine. I’ll call an election.”
Traditionally, hey, there is nothing that whips a back bench or a cabinet into line than the threat of an election, particularly when the polls aren’t that great.
[Madame Speaker in the chair.]
Or it’s the timing or the ability of a Premier to manipulate events or create an issue to say: “You know what? We’re going to go to the polls on a snap election, because I think if we do this, we can win.”
People like the idea of a fixed election. But like many things, what is often a good idea and may, in fact, be accomplishing what you intended to do, also comes with unintended consequences. In this case, I think there have been some unintended consequences to the fixed election date that in fact are manifested here in this particular piece of legislation, and that is this.
Under the old system, when you had an election that could be called at the whim of a Premier, that decision…. Political parties were often on edge. You shepherded your resources. You didn’t go out and spend them because: “Okay, are we going, or are we not going?” You wanted to have a much better idea of when the election was going to be called.
What would happen is that the government called the election, and all of a sudden, it is a 28-day — or, a few years back, it would be six weeks — campaign. It was literally all hands on deck, and all those resources were poured into that short period of time. You had a very intense election campaign. The campaign period was short. The financial period, in terms of money required, was short. The harassment, if you like, depending on your point of view — or the education period, if you like, for your point of view — in terms of the voters, was also significantly shorter.
What the fixed election date has done, in many ways, has Americanized our political process. It’s done so in this way. By creating a fixed election date, all political parties know when that election is going to be. The result of that, of course, is you extend the campaign period. The campaign period gets extended significantly. And the result is you need more money because you need to spend more time, and you have more time, to harass or educate — as I said, your point of view — the electorate and the voters.
Interjection.
M. Farnworth: The member says to mobilize and invigorate. I guess, in that point, he’s right.
Madame Speaker: And will only do so from his seat.
M. Farnworth: In that point, he’s right, if you’re mobilizing and invigorating your own supporters. Or if you are of the opposite point of view, the opposition supporters, not your party…. They’re going, “I’m being harassed.” You see those ads on TV all the time.
But the point is it requires a lot more money. So more and more time is actually devoted to raising funds. The cost of running elections goes up and up and up. Political parties, it seems, spend less time focusing, often, on what really matters to people and more time focusing on the matters which are the needs of the political party and the need to raise money.
That’s why this section in this particular bill, around the elimination or the raising of the ability to spend as much money as you can raise, I think, goes against the way most people would like to see our system run. The influence of money, as my colleague from Nanaimo says, clearly becomes a crucial factor — even more so than it
[ Page 8205 ]
has been in the past. I think that that is one of the fundamental problems with this particular piece of legislation. When we get to committee stage, I think that this is one of those areas that we want to explore.
There’s a whole range of other issues that I want to talk about. I know that there are people in various committees who…. I think it’s important that I speak to them about my views, because I want them to fully understand the arguments I’m trying to make. I know that I can’t…
Interjection.
M. Farnworth: You know, that’s why I like the minister across the way. He has an open mind, you know.
The other issue that I can talk about in the time remaining is, I think, one of the key issues. I don’t want to truncate my remarks around the issue of youth voting, because I think that’s extremely important. The other issue that I want to talk about, which the member for Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows talked about, is the issue of the fixed calendar.
Again, I think the fixed calendar is an important innovation. Now, it’s only an important innovation if, of course, we follow the fixed calendar, which has not always been the practice in this chamber.
I’m disappointed by the member from Kamloops. I was waiting for a heckle. I was waiting for what his colleague used to do, which was: “You never had a fixed calendar when you were in government, and you never had a fall session.” The reality of that is it’s true. There never was a fall session when we were in government in the ’90s.
The way it worked back then was that the government opened the session at the beginning of March and it was the opposition that decided when the session would end, which would often be at the end of July, sometimes even into August. That was also when we would sit Monday to Friday, and we didn’t have break weeks.
Now, I know that it is time. There are other comments, and I know that I need more time to expand on my remarks. I know the Minister of Labour would like me to continue speaking, but I also know that the minister responsible, the Deputy Premier, would like the weekend to think about what I’ve been saying. Therefore, I will reserve my place and continue this debate on Monday.
M. Farnworth moved adjournment of debate.
Motion approved.
Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. T. Lake moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
Madame Speaker: This House, at its rising, stands adjourned until 10 a.m. Monday morning.
The House adjourned at 5:51 p.m.
PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM
Committee of Supply
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF JUSTICE
(continued)
The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); M. Morris in the chair.
The committee met at 1:36 p.m.
On Vote 32: ministry operations, $1,039,955,000 (continued).
A. Dix: Before the lunch break I had some questions for the ministry and the minister about her ministry’s actions with respect to the wrongful dismissal of health researchers and the events that followed that. The minister will know that the government decided to limit the terms of reference for the report by Ms. McNeil to events that occurred prior to and leading up to the wrongful dismissal of the researchers but not after.
I had some questions I’m just looking for some specific answers to. The minister will know, according to a formal statement put out by the government, that in June 2013 Mr. Brown was named Deputy Minister of Health and instructed to undertake a review of the government’s actions.
As a result of that review…. Again according to the same government document, he did that review and then reinstated the therapeutics initiative in the fall of 2013 and initiated settlements with some of the individuals involved, in particular a settlement with Mr. Hart in March and then Dr. Maclure and Mr. Mattson, which followed that.
According to government officials, the request to investigate was rescinded when the cases were settled. “We’re no longer asking them to pursue it. We consider the matter closed and that we’ve given all the info that there is to the RCMP, and we are not pursuing it any further.”
Of course, this is not what the government was doing. In fact, just to review that, in the fall of 2013 the government decides to change course on this in the wake of Mr. Brown’s investigation. In March of 2014 lawyers for the Attorney General under this vote were before a hearing of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Commissioner.
What they were asserting was that to allow the release
[ Page 8206 ]
of documents would harm “an ongoing law enforcement investigation under section 15 of the FOI Act.” This is what’s called a section 15 exclusion. They were saying that a whole bunch of documents could not be released to the public because there was an ongoing investigation.
We have June 2013, October 2013, and then in March of 2014 there’s a hearing before the commissioner, and the government’s position is that documents related to the therapeutics initiative and others…. The position of lawyers for the Attorney General, the minister’s lawyers working for the Attorney General, is that they can’t release documents because there’s an ongoing investigation, except that it was also the position of the government concurrently that the matter was closed and they’d given all there was to the RCMP.
On November 5, 2014, the RCMP writes to the government, and they say — and I’m quoting from Const. Dean Miller: “Are you any closer to being in a position to forward your findings?” In fact, of course, what the government was doing at the same time…. Lawyers for the Attorney General, at the commission, had laid out a position before the commissioner that they couldn’t release documents because there was an investigation going on by the RCMP that the government now said they had no more need for.
I guess the question is this. The government asserted very vigorously at the same time as it was saying that we have withdrawn the request for an investigation…. At the same time as that was going on, lawyers for the Attorney General were asserting with vigour a statement they never revised before the freedom of information and privacy commissioner that there was, in fact, an active investigation going on and they couldn’t release documents.
On the one hand, the government was saying: “There is no investigation. We’ve changed our minds. There was no need for an RCMP investigation.” On the other hand, in order to stop the public from getting access to the truth, lawyers for the Attorney General were saying: “There is an investigation.”
My question, very simply, to the Attorney General, the Minister of Justice: were those lawyers misleading the commissioner?
[P. Pimm in the chair.]
Hon. S. Anton: The matters discussed by the member opposite are not in relation to our current budget, so I will give an answer in relation to the current budget, and that is this. Legal services branch lawyers give advice to client ministries. The content of that advice, or even whether or not that advice happened, is subject to solicitor-client privilege. Our legal services lawyers act on instructions from the client ministries.
In relation to police investigations, if police ask government to give information or cooperate with an investigation, government does do that. But I will say as well that the Attorney General…. Our lawyers do not direct or control any police investigation.
A. Dix: We’re talking about submissions by ministry lawyers to the freedom of information and privacy commissioner.
At the very time that the government was saying that they no longer had an investigation, no longer wanted there to be an investigation; at the same time that the Deputy Minister of Health was writing to the individuals involved, saying that there was no longer an investigation; at the same time that government officials were saying, “We consider the matter closed, and we’ve given all the info there is to the RCMP,” the ministry lawyers — not in their advice but in their submissions to the commissioner — were saying that there was an investigation, there was an ongoing government investigation, and therefore the commissioner should not allow information to be released. In other words, they were saying something exactly different. They were, it seems to me, quite plainly misleading the commissioner.
I’m asking about that advice because, remember, those were their submissions. That wasn’t their advice to ministry. Those were their submissions in hearings of the freedom-of-information and privacy commissioner. What the government was saying was: “There’s an ongoing government investigation, there was an ongoing RCMP investigation, and therefore, you can’t release this material.”
Now, of course, the commissioner told them to go pound sand, to summarize her ruling on the matter. Nonetheless, the fact of the matter is that the Ministry of the Attorney General, in its submissions at the very time that they were saying that they no longer had any complaint to the RCMP, were telling the commissioner that they did have a complaint to the RCMP and that that complaint meant that they couldn’t release documents.
My question is very simple: was the Ministry of the Attorney General misleading the commissioner?
Hon. S. Anton: The question has absolutely nothing to do with my budget for next year; however, I will answer it in a general way. If there is an RCMP investigation underway, government lawyers will not release nor agree to release documents which might interfere with that investigation. As I said earlier, it is up to the RCMP to conclude as to when the investigation is finished.
A. Dix: Well, of course, what the minister said has nothing to do with what happened. What happened was that the RCMP was waiting for the government. In other words, the RCMP was waiting for the government. Constable Dean Miller — this was in November: “I have seen mention of your investigation in the media in past
[ Page 8207 ]
weeks. Are you any closer to being in a position to forward to us your findings?”
In other words, the RCMP was waiting for the government, which they also said in March of that year. While lawyers for the AG were before the commissioner saying, “You can’t release information to the public because there’s an RCMP investigation,” the RCMP was saying: “We’re waiting for the government.”
What was at stake? The government was smearing former employees, right? They were smearing former employees. In other words, the RCMP was waiting for the government, and the government was saying: “Oh well, we can’t we release any documents. There’s an ongoing investigation.”
Except, of course, the government was saying something else to the public. They were saying the investigation was over. “Our request for an RCMP investigation ended with our settlement with Mr. Hart in March.”
What was going on was an ongoing smear of these employees, which was the RCMP investigation. Those lawyers were before the commissioner, right up to the commissioner’s ruling, asserting that they can’t release documents because there’s an investigation.
In short, they were, in my view, providing misleading information based on what the government had stated its position was — that there was an ongoing investigation that the government had requested, when the government knew….
They knew for a fact long before that, because Mr. Brown did a review in the previous year, that there was no more need for an RCMP investigation. They left it out there. They asserted it before the commissioner. Lawyers for the Ministry of Attorney General asserted it before the commissioner, in spite of the fact that they knew there was no need for such an investigation.
The RCMP were waiting for the government to submit its report. The government knew there was nothing to report, yet they go before the commissioner and assert: “We can’t release information, because there’s an RCMP investigation.”
Imagine if you were one of those former employees — your reputation smeared. And this is the standard that’s being put forward. The standard is that we will assert anything anywhere to deny people access to justice. That’s the standard here. It’s completely unacceptable.
I ask the minister again, because this is directly under her vote, and it’s an ongoing matter. How do I know it’s an ongoing matter? The Deputy Attorney General wrote me and said it was an ongoing matter on January 16, 2015. We are strictly within the minister’s vote, and the minister simply says: “I won’t answer.”
I know why she won’t answer this question. The question is: why were lawyers for the Attorney General misleading a proceeding of the freedom-of-information and privacy commissioner when the government was asserting at the same time that there was no investigation required?
Hon. S. Anton: I have answered the role of government lawyers. And now the member opposite has responded with extraordinarily serious allegations being made against government lawyers. Extraordinarily serious. It’s a highly improper allegation for him to make.
Legal services branch lawyers act always with the greatest of respect for the law and for their role in it and for the particular position they occupy as government lawyers. They would never, ever knowingly mislead a tribunal or a court. It is highly offensive for the member to suggest that. Mr. Chair, I would like to request that you request him to withdraw those comments.
The Chair: Member, I would like to caution on the language that’s being used at this point in time and bring you back to the actual vote that’s on the table. We can’t jeopardize integrity in this room, and please don’t do that. Thank you very much.
A. Dix: Well, I’m delighted that we can’t. I’m truly moved that we can’t jeopardize integrity. After all, the government smeared employees for a couple of years. Gosh darn it, we can’t jeopardize integrity.
According to the Deputy Attorney General in a letter to the individuals involved: “I want to assure you that the Ministry of Health is not seeking a police
[ Page 8208 ]
investigation into this matter.” Further, a government spokesperson said — and I am citing that spokesperson precisely: “We considered tacitly our request for an investigation to have ended with our settlement with Mr. Hart in March, our subsequent settlements with Dr. Maclure and Mr. Mattson.”
Why was that position not provided to the commissioner by the Attorney General’s lawyers? In fact, the opposite was stated. The opposite of what the government says their position was, was put forward as evidence by lawyers to the AG.
The minister is wrong. I’m not suggesting the AG’s lawyers were intentionally misleading. I’m saying that the government was. That’s a different question. Those lawyers did not tell the freedom-of-information and privacy commissioner…. They did not tell them what the Deputy Minister of Health said. “I want to assure you the Ministry of Health is not seeking a police investigation into your matter.”
They said the opposite to the commissioner in order to withhold access by the public to documents that the government held in its possession under section 50 in that hearing. That’s what they said. So the government says one thing, and then they say another thing in a hearing.
I’m asking why those lawyers did not say, “I want to assure you the Ministry of Health is not seeking a police investigation,” when they tried to suppress access to information under that very proceeding.
Hon. S. Anton: The question, once again, has nothing to do with the estimates. The question earlier was: why were the lawyers misleading in the hearing that they were in? I would ask him to withdraw those remarks.
The Chair: At this time, Member, I’d encourage you to move on and to go to the next line of debate, if you would, please.
A. Dix: I appreciate your advice, hon. Chair. The government’s position was: “We consider the matter closed. We’ve given all the information there is to the RCMP, and we’re not pursuing it any further.” Their further position was, to one of the employees: “I want to assure you that the Ministry of Health is not seeking a police investigation into your matter.” At the same time, lawyers for the AG were telling the Privacy Commissioner that there was an ongoing investigation.
In other words, that’s not me saying they were misleading. That’s the Privacy Commissioner being misled. That’s exactly what that is. That’s exactly what those words say.
The government is saying they considered the matter closed at the time. We’re talking about March and subsequent to March of 2014 that the matter was closed. They say further in the letter to one of the employees: “The matter is closed. I want to assure you the Ministry of Health is not seeking a police investigation.”
What I’m asking is why those assertions were not provided to the Privacy Commissioner. That’s a very specific question. Those were very specific assertions, and the Privacy Commissioner, in fact, was misled. She was being told by the lawyers for the government, the AG lawyers, at that time that the police investigations and the comptroller general investigations were ongoing. That’s what they were being told at a time when the government clearly had another position.
I’m not saying the lawyers were being told that. I’m saying the Privacy Commissioner was being misled by the government.
The Chair: Member, at this point in time I’m just going to say that I think we’ve canvassed this far enough. I think the remarks are relatively impunitive, and we’re going to seek a new line of questioning.
A. Dix: In the ruling of the commissioner, the commissioner said that the ministry reconsidered its response to the applicant’s request. It decided to disclose some information but withheld other information under 51(a), 51(f). What this shows is that the ministry was updating its position and withdrawing claims right up to the beginning of the hearing, which was in March 2014.
Why did they persist with the claims to the RCMP and any kind of investigation underway at that time when they knew otherwise? I mean the government knew otherwise. If the Attorney General’s lawyers didn’t fail to disclose it, who was advising the AG’s lawyers?
Hon. S. Anton: The questions, once again, have absolutely nothing to do with the estimates for 2015-16.
I will repeat what I said earlier. Government lawyers are officers of the court. They act with utmost integrity. The member goes on and on with his highly improper and extremely serious allegations, and I ask him to withdraw them.
The Chair: Is the member prepared to withdraw?
A. Dix: Of course not, hon. Speaker. In fact, just because the minister doesn’t want to answer a question, which is about the record that shows the government misleading a hearing by saying even though they considered there’d be no role to an investigation….
What I’m asking the minister is: if she’s saying the AG lawyers — and I have real reason to doubt this — didn’t, in their minds, mislead, then who was instructing the AG’s lawyers? That’s the question.
The Chair: Member, the minister has made it clear that this isn’t part of her estimates at this point in time, and I’m not going to entertain any more debate along that line. Continue your line on the estimates for that ministry, please.
A. Dix: It’s unusual, and it’s really precedent-setting. I’m sure at the next conference of Speakers and Clerks we’ll learn how it is that the minister decides what’s in her bailiwick and what isn’t. That will be a fascinating paper. I’m looking forward to reading it.
My question is specific. It has to do with actions of ministry lawyers, who were updating their position in this matter right up to and including the hearing at the very time when the government was saying that it no longer saw a need for a police investigation and asserting that there was a police investigation.
My question is really specific. Why did they persist in claims for this investigation when, according to the government itself — not according to me; according to the government itself — there was no more need for one?
Hon. S. Anton: This has nothing, again, to do with the budget estimates for this current year. Our government lawyers, our legal services branch lawyers, are officers of the court. They act with utmost integrity. The member is continuing to persist in his point that they may not be. Once again, Chair, I ask him to withdraw those remarks.
The Chair: Member, please, let’s move on. The remarks are very borderline here, and we do have to move on.
A. Dix: Hon. Chair, you know that as a result of the misconduct of the government — established in an inquiry under the direction of the AG — the government has been forced to apologize. It’s been forced to settle. Its conduct has been condemned here and elsewhere.
People have lost lives. People have been injured, hon. Speaker. You bet I agree with you that the conduct has been reprehensible, but that conduct was the conduct of the government. That it was reprehensible has been established repeatedly and will continue to be established as more information comes out on this matter.
It’s a very simple question to the Attorney General. Is it the position of the Ministry of Justice that there is no need for any further RCMP investigation into this matter? Do they share the opinion of the Deputy Minister of Health?
Hon. S. Anton: As I said earlier, the RCMP decide the course of investigation based on the evidence they have before them. Their investigation is not directed nor controlled by the Attorney General’s lawyers or by the Attorney or by Justice.
A. Dix: Well, except, of course, that’s not what the government has been saying, and that’s not what has happened in this case. The matter was referred to the RCMP by press release from the government, from the government communications office, headed up by the Premier’s friend Ms. Mentzelopoulos. The minister hasn’t responded as to what advice her deputy gave in that regard.
I can’t imagine that he recommended that course which was completely irresponsible. Knowing the Deputy Attorney General a little bit, I can imagine his advice was: “Please don’t do it.” And then the RCMP did not undertake an investigation. They said so publicly in March 2014. They were waiting for more information from the government, information the government didn’t provide.
They were still waiting — I have referred to the FOI earlier — on November 3, when the government still hadn’t provided any information. I refer to what Const. Dean Miller said: “I’ve seen mention of your investigation in the media these past weeks. Are you any closer to being in a position to forward us your findings?”
The answer, of course, was they weren’t. There weren’t any.
Then we had the letter from Mr. Brown:
“I want to assure you that the Ministry of Health is not seeking a police investigation of this matter. As you know, government conducted an independent, expert-led review of practices and procedures under the direction of the Deputy Attorney General, and as a result, government will be implementing each of the review’s recommendations to improve how the public service responds to any future allegations of employee misconduct.”
In other words, the Deputy Minister of Health wrote, “I want to assure you that the Ministry of Health is not seeking a police investigation” — you know, the one they announced in a press release, in a leak to the media.
I’m asking the Minister of Justice, who has a role in this matter, whether she agrees with the position of the Deputy Minister of Health.
Hon. S. Anton: As I mentioned earlier, the RCMP conduct investigations based on the evidence they have before them. They are not directed or controlled by the Attorney General. And I don’t think I have anything to add to that answer.
A. Dix: So after the McNeil report, which showed the misconduct of the government in the handling of the matter, after the apology to Linda and Doug Kayfish and after the settlements in court, the Minister of Justice can’t even say that the government ought not to…. And the fact that the government announced an RCMP investigation in a government press release and in a leak to the media, an investigation….
It’s no fault of the media. This was government’s information. They broke the story. It was announced on the front page of the Vancouver Sun. “We’re investigating these employees.” “RCMP investigating these employees.” It’s something that they have never corrected formally in any serious way.
The Minister of Justice is saying today, her ministry having advised on this matter, that after all of this, we’re not going to say clearly here today that it’s the position of the government of British Columbia that there should not be any further RCMP investigation — a position, by the way, they held before the freedom-of-information and privacy commissioner, even though they were taking a different position in other places, up to November of this past year — November, 2014.
Is the minister saying that all of this…? At long last, after all of this abuse of process, the government is not saying today that these employees can get on with their lives. The Minister of Justice can’t say, having opened this up, and the police waiting for them to submit something, anything, in the way of evidence to support what they have to…. She’s not saying there’s nothing more. “We have nothing more, and this matter can be closed.”
Is she not saying that? Is the Minister of Justice standing there and saying today that she won’t be clear on this matter, with the government, years later, not providing any evidence to the RCMP, that there’s no more evidence and that these people can get on with their lives? Is that really what the Minister of Justice is saying to this House?
Hon. S. Anton: I believe that the Minister of Health has given a government position on this, but as Attorney General, I do not get involved in directing RCMP investigations.
[ Page 8210 ]
A. Dix: Except, of course, that the Attorney General did, because the ministry did provide advice on this very question of whether this matter should be publicly released. This is not a usual matter. It’s very unusual that the government would smear in this way, and we know it’s a smear, because they didn’t come up with the goods. They talked about an investigation. They smeared folks, and then they didn’t provide any evidence. We know that from what the RCMP says and the evidence the government itself has put forward.
I’ll just ask the minister one more time. There are families involved here. There are people involved here. It seems to me…. The Deputy Minister of Health has written to some of the individuals involved saying they don’t think there should be an RCMP investigation anymore. They never told the public that until that letter was sent to those employees.
The government’s position was the position they put out in September of 2012, which is…. They led it. They didn’t talk about firing or health privacy. They led with RCMP investigation, and then they provided nothing for years. They kept asserting the investigation was ongoing to hide information from the public. That’s what happened.
I guess I’m asking the minister a different question. Does the government have any more information on this matter to supply to the RCMP?
Hon. S. Anton: As I said earlier, the relationship between government lawyers and ministries is that our lawyers act, when asked, as legal advisers to government ministries. Their advice, of course, is subject to solicitor-client privilege. The independent matters that are going on are in the hands of those ministries, so the particular question, the direct question asked, is better asked to Health.
L. Krog: I have listened with great interest to the line of questions from the member for Vancouver-Kingsway, and I think the implications of his remarks are fairly clear. I firstly want to remind the Attorney General that she, unlike any other member of cabinet, enjoys the unique position of having a dual role, a very historic and important role. She is a member of cabinet. She is a political person. But she is also the chief law enforcement officer of the province.
The allegations being made by the member for Vancouver-Kingsway are essentially that the justice services branch, the legal services branch, retained to act on behalf of the ministry, were making submissions to an independent officer of the B.C. Legislature appointed by an all-party committee, submissions that may well have been absolutely incorrect, submissions that an investigation was continuing when there was no investigation.
Those are serious allegations. They may be unpleasant allegations. They may be allegations that make the government uncomfortable, that make ministry officials uncomfortable. But they are allegations based on material that is fairly clear and self-evident.
In light of her role and in light of the importance of the honour of the Crown…. Counsel from the ministry made submissions to an independent office of the Legislature. Is the Attorney General, in these circumstances, prepared to commit today to order an independent investigation?
If officials of the Ministry of Health or people working in any office of government have provided instructions to their counsel, being the staff of the Attorney General’s ministry, that were wrong and known to be wrong, then surely the honour of the Crown demands and merits that there be such an investigation. Is the Attorney General prepared to commit to that investigation?
Hon. S. Anton: Still fascinated as to how this relates to my budget for this year. Still haven’t made that connection. But there are some extremely serious allegations being made.
I am dubious of the timelines. I am dubious of the formula that was laid out. I simply absolutely and totally reject the proposition made by the member for Vancouver-Kingsway that legal services branch lawyers would deliberately mislead a tribunal. That is a shocking suggestion repeated several times by the member and never withdrawn by him. It’s a horrifying thing.
Interjection.
Hon. S. Anton: If he doubts me, he’d better go read the transcript, because I know that the Hansard people are keeping track of it.
There’s no question there were some matters that were under investigation by the RCMP, whatever they were. I don’t know what they were. There was a hearing. There is a certain timeline. Again, I don’t have the details of that because I actually came here to talk about my budget for next year, not a matter that was from Health from last year.
However, I will ask my deputy to have a look at the timelines and report back to me just so that we can be satisfied that the officials were acting properly. I’m very confident in my legal services branch lawyers, and I’m very confident in Health officials because the government staff and government lawyers act with integrity.
L. Krog: I think the member for Vancouver-Kingsway has made it fairly clear — notwithstanding whatever language he may have used during the course of questioning the Attorney-General this afternoon and this morning — that what he is raising is a very distinct, discrete and clear issue.
[ Page 8211 ]
That is, that the instructions that were given to the lawyers for the Ministry of the Attorney General, acting as counsel to the ministry, may, in fact, have been based on what I can most kindly describe as completely inaccurate. I will use that word: completely inaccurate.
This was not some small matter. This matter had serious family consequences, which the member has pointed out repeatedly during the course of today’s estimates. What the Attorney General has said in response to my request that she undertake a real and genuine and thorough investigation is that she’ll have her deputy minister look into it to see if the timelines are correct.
With the greatest respect to the Attorney General, that is not sufficient. That is simply not sufficient. When you’ve been in the political game a little too long, perhaps, you somehow think that maybe mud wrestling, which is what it amounts to on some occasions, is the standard by which behaviour is to be judged. But in this case, this involves the integrity of government and the integrity of the Attorney General’s ministry. If they were misled by the instructions they received from the Ministry of Health or other officials in government, that deserves to be exposed.
To my knowledge, no one has taken responsibility for what happened. No one has been disciplined, and no one fired. I would think, in those circumstances, that it would be the most appropriate thing for the Attorney General to assume the power of her office and order such an investigation.
This is not some political game. This is not some aspect of the mud wrestling. This is something serious. Sometimes you have to step back, take a breath, look at something in the cold light of day and recognize that it’s serious and that it requires the exercise of that authority.
So I’m asking again. Will the Attorney General commit to a thorough investigation so that we may determine and be satisfied that those officials in her ministry — those staff of the Crown who acted on behalf of, and gave legal advice to, Ministry of Health officials — performed in accordance with their duty to the Bar and to the Crown and that others were responsible for what led to submissions to the independent officer of the Legislature which were clearly wrong, so that someone might, at last, bear responsibility for what happened?
Hon. S. Anton: I’m still quite interested what this has to do with my estimates for this year. I haven’t drawn that connection yet, but perhaps the member will at some point, and perhaps, Chair, you will be able to help explain that, because I’m having a tough time understanding it at the moment.
Being equipped, as I am, for estimates, I can’t say as I have all the detail of what happened over the course of the incident and time that the member is describing. I will say that the dates, just on a cursory look, do not seem to match the dates that were given by the member for Vancouver-Kingsway.
What I will repeat is that our government lawyers are officers of the court. They act with utmost integrity. They act on the information that they are given. They are given accurate information, I would say, by the bureaucrats in other departments, by their client ministries. I have nothing to add to that. That is what our government lawyers do. They do it every single day. They do outstanding work for the citizens of British Columbia. They do that for us all the time, and we are very well served by our legal services branch.
M. Farnworth: I noticed the minister asked a question about how questions relate to her ministry estimates of this budget year. I’d just like to provide her, perhaps, with some information that may assist her in understanding that.
The estimates process is about not only the budget for this year, but also areas that come under her administrative responsibility. In this case, that’s around Justice questions and Justice policy. The practice of this House and the practice of this chamber is that we don’t confine estimates just to asking questions of the minister on how many police officers have been provided this year, and what is the change in this year, for discussion and basically rehashing of a press release.
This is the opportunity for the opposition to explore and ask questions and hold ministers accountable and ministry departments accountable for actions not just in this year but in past years. If the minister is not sure about that, I’d like to refer her to Hansard, where she can review debates that have taken place around the Olympics in previous years and rulings by previous Chairs on how those are very much in order.
As my colleagues have said, she may not like the questions. She may not want to answer the questions. But the fact of the matter is that the questions are legitimate questions, and budget estimates isn’t just about a binder and press releases on what the ministry is going to spend in the coming year.
L. Krog: I take it that the Attorney General is not prepared to commit to the kind of investigation that I have asked her to undertake. I would have hoped that she would reconsider that suggestion from the opposition, because undertaking that kind of investigation would clear the air surrounding this sorry mess, which has been not just an embarrassment to government on the political side; it has been an embarrassment to the public service in general.
Her unwillingness to do so, being afforded the opportunity to do so, I think is something the Attorney General should be considering very carefully. The opposition is not going to stop asking for what is right — that there be
[ Page 8212 ]
an investigation, that those responsible for what is obviously reprehensible behaviour….
It led to no small number of personal tragedies for what are now recognized to be honest and loyal and decent public servants in this province. That should go, if you will, not made transparent…. The conduct that led to all of this and the conduct subsequent to it is not to be covered up, is not to be put aside and forgotten about.
The Attorney General has, I believe, both the authority and the moral, if not a legal, obligation to undertake that investigation and to order it. I again ask respectfully: will she do so, yes or no?
Hon. S. Anton: I believe I did say to the member opposite that I would ask my deputy to have a look at the issues which have been raised, particularly in relation to timelines, because they are important. You can’t conclude as to the course of events unless you know that your dates are accurate. I’ve asked my deputy to look at that. I said that a few moments ago, and I will repeat it again just now because I don’t think it’s sunk in. I will be asking my deputy to have a look at that. In fact, I already have.
S. Fraser: I’m moving on to some issues around potential litigation and the costs of that. There are a significant number of cases between First Nations and the province currently before the courts, and there are others anticipated potentially to come forward, certainly in my discussions with First Nations that feel that they’ve hit roadblocks.
I did canvass this with the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation. There is no litigation budget for First Nations issues, as far as I can see, within budget 2015-16, but obviously, there is a cost to litigation and the ongoing cases and anticipated cases coming forward in this fiscal and beyond.
Can the minister provide me with any edification as far as the budget that’s available?
Hon. S. Anton: I’m so pleased to have a real question.
S. Fraser: Well, I would submit…. I’ve been here since this morning, and I think there have been a lot of real questions.
Hon. S. Anton: Staff are just looking for an answer because it’s a complicated question with a bit of a complicated answer.
I would like to start by saying that litigation is not the preferred option of government. We much prefer negotiation. In fact, I think if the member was questioning the Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation, that minister would have talked about the nearly 300 agreements that the government has signed with First Nations recently. It is always the better option if we can build relationships and come to agreement rather than going to court.
[D. Ashton in the chair.]
The budget for aboriginal litigation within our budget, within Justice, is $6½ million. We recover about $1 million of that from client ministries. If the question may be broader than that, though — what is government spending? — there is more than that being spent in government, because we do have ad hoc counsel on these cases. Our ad hoc budget is about $15 million, but it’s not broken out between aboriginal litigation and other litigation. I will have to get back to the member as to how much of that over the last year was aboriginal litigation.
S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for those numbers. I guess maybe a comment. The Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation…. We did canvass the number of impact-and-benefit agreements and government agreements on resource use and that. Just for the record, though, that doesn’t preclude litigation in any way. Even in the work that’s being done currently with government, between the government and the Tsilhqot’in, there are issues of conflict.
I’ll cite an incident — tripling of the grizzly bear hunting licences within the Tsilhqot’in territory without consultation. Things like that could still lead to litigation even when government is working on things. It’s not really one or the other. It can be both.
I’ve got a list that I’ve come up with as far as some of the more prominent cases before the courts now. Can the minister, at least, apprise as to how many First Nations cases are before the court now? How many cases between First Nations and the province are currently underway?
Hon. S. Anton: We are tracking 23 of what we would call significant cases, which are more major cases. There are probably at least twice that. The others are of more minor matters.
S. Fraser: Is that holding even? Is this comparative to last fiscal or the year before or the year before that? Is this sort of a normal amount: 23 significant cases and twice that of somewhat smaller cases?
Hon. S. Anton: I don’t have numbers, but there are a few more that have come through recently on title issues.
And Chair, noting the time, I wonder if we might take a short recess.
The Chair: Absolutely. I was waiting till three, but we’ll recess for ten minutes or so. We stand recessed for the next five to ten minutes.
[ Page 8213 ]
The committee recessed from 2:53 p.m. to 3:05 p.m.
[D. Ashton in the chair.]
Hon. S. Anton: I’d just like to make a correction to what I said a moment ago. The amount for aboriginal litigation in total is $6.5 million. We mentioned that there might be more in our ad hoc budget, but that is not correct. It’s actually all inside that first number.
S. Fraser: Thanks for that clarification. That actually answers one of my questions.
How is that determined? I touched on this in an earlier question before the break. Is there a formula for figuring out from year to year what budget to lay aside for litigation and court cases dealing with First Nations? Is it based on the previous year, or is it based on some anticipated number of cases or particular cases that are anticipated coming forward? How is that determined?
Hon. S. Anton: The $6.5 million is always an estimate. It is the budget amount, rather. It can be quite variable from year to year, depending on the litigation that’s under way, but that’s the number that we work with.
We do recover about a million dollars from client ministries. This is a little different than, for instance, in Health. If we were government lawyers acting for Health, we would cost-recover for those lawyers. But because aboriginal litigation does cover any number of ministries, the agreement is that it will be funded from Justice’s budget. That includes, of course, the ad hoc counsel, as I mentioned.
S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that.
Would the $6.5 million…? Presumably, if there were appeals on court decisions, anticipated or not anticipated, I’m assuming that that’s the full budget, that an appeal would come out of that budget too. That would be one question.
Further to that, would that include any settlement moneys that would maybe follow a decision by the courts that would require the province to compensate First Nations? Is that incorporated within the $6½ million?
Hon. S. Anton: Yes, it would cover the cost of an appeal. It does not cover any settlement money. That comes out of the Crown Proceeding Act.
S. Fraser: The Crown Proceeding Act. If I just might get some clarification on that. Is there a budget through this ministry for that act, and if so, what’s that budget?
Hon. S. Anton: The answer to that question is yes. It’s $24½ million.
S. Fraser: Just going back a step here. How does this compare to previous years — this budget for this year, $6.5 million for First Nations court cost litigation with the province? I’m thinking there are some big cases that have come to a close, the Tsilhqot’in decision being one that comes to mind for most of us. In the last year of that case, just so I have some comparative here…. How much does that cost the province for a case like that, the one case, in one year?
Hon. S. Anton: The $6.5 million is a number that’s remained steady over the last few years, although as I said, the actuals at the end of the year can be variable.
The question was on the Tsilhqot’in. How much did we spend? The cost is about $24½ million from November 2001 to March 2015. But I would caution that that number…. When we give final numbers, we usually like to give the audited numbers. I don’t have the audited number for March 2015 yet, but it will certainly be in that order of magnitude.
S. Fraser: I would note there are a few cases that are before us now, and I want to cite one, the Blueberry River First Nations v. the province, filed in the Supreme Court of British Columbia. I’d note that it’s the first Nation suit based on cumulative impacts — that I’ve seen, at least. As far as I know, the other cases have been more specific. This one is based on the cumulative impacts of a number of developments within the territory.
Is there an anticipation that these types of cases may be a higher cost? They seem more complex to me. I’m not a lawyer, but is there any anticipation that the future costs may end up escalating with these types of cases coming before the courts, if they indeed do?
Hon. S. Anton: The Blueberry case is before the courts, so I’m not going to comment on the specifics of that case. However, I will give a more general answer, which is this. Aboriginal title cases are complicated — no question about that. They are complex litigation and, moving forward, they are complex with the issues that are before the courts today.
I would observe that, since the Charter of Rights came out in the Constitution in 1982 there are many cases that relate to section 35. In fact, over the years there are many issues that actually have now been resolved by the courts. Those cases were very complicated in the early days. Those issues have been resolved. But we’re now, of course, moving on to new issues and new complications.
The law evolves, the cases evolve, the issues evolve, and it does take time for this area of law to develop.
S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that. I get that. I’m not looking for specifics and certainly any specific information around any particular cases that are before
[ Page 8214 ]
the courts. I get that.
I just want to reflect a bit on some of the numbers that I’m not quite sure I get yet. If Tsilhqot’incosts the province $24½ million over a 13-year period — approximately just under $2 million a year; that would be considered, I’m sure, by anyone’s standard, a significant case — and the minister has apprised that there are 23 significant cases before the courts right now….
If one significant case was, just for rounding figures, $2 million a year, and we have 23 significant cases before us right now and twice that number for smaller cases and there’s only a $6½ million budget, does the minister not see this budget as being woefully inadequate?
Just following that same….
Interjection.
S. Fraser: I’ll leave you to figure out the answer to this, but I mean, just the numbers. If it’s $2 million a year for a significant case and you’ve got 23 cases before us…. Following that, that would be over $40 million just for this year, not including the 46 less significant cases that are before us.
Hon. S. Anton: It’s not a terribly linear equation. There are so many different variables around a trial, one of the main ones being whether or not it actually goes to trial. As I started off by saying on this section of the estimates, we prefer negotiation. Government prefers negotiation. Some of the 23 major cases I mentioned are in very active negotiation, and we’d like to get it to a resolution of them.
On Tsilhqot’in and one of the reasons you really can’t extrapolate, there’s no question that it was a very large, very complex case that went on for many, many years, which is why it was so expensive.
V. Huntington: I just have a fairly brief question to ask the minister with regard to her recent announcement on the parents legal centre that was to be operated by the Legal Services Society at the Vancouver Law Courts.
Hon. S. Anton: I apologize. I feel I may have interrupted the question. Perhaps I could just get the question again, because I have people here who can help out with the answer.
V. Huntington: Yes, I thought you were shuffling the staff so you could answer the question, but I’ll start again.
I have a brief question on the minister’s recent announcement on funding for a pilot project for the parents legal centre operated by the Legal Services Society at the Vancouver Law Courts. According to the minister’s release, the reasons for putting it in the Vancouver Law Courts were volume of cases, space and access to transportation.
I’ve received some comments from people in Surrey at the Surrey law courts who have said: why was the decision made to put it at the Vancouver Law Courts, given the volume of cases that are going through the Surrey courts? Just to illustrate, in Vancouver Monday is the family court day. That’s for all family maintenance issues, family income assistance issues, ministry of children — everything on the one day, Monday.
In Surrey they have two Mondays a month on family maintenance alone, two Mondays for income assistance alone, every Tuesday for family law and every Thursday for Ministry of Children and Families. All of those are simply for remands. They have nothing to do with the trials; it’s just remands. Two Mondays a month for maintenance, two Mondays a month for income assistance, every Tuesday for family law, every Thursday for children and family services — just for remands. Vancouver has one Monday a week for all of them.
My information, Minister…. And I’m sure you and your staff know this. The duty counsel with Legal Services…. This information in question did not come from that counsel, I hasten to say. The duty counsel is literally drowning in Surrey. I would like to know from the minister if she could elaborate….
The Chair: Sorry, Member, just give us a sec. We’ll do this. We’ll get the minister to answer your question, and then we’re going to have to recess for approximately 30 to 45 minutes while the minister goes to the big House.
V. Huntington: That’s fine. Do you want me to just finish the question and then come back?
The Chair: Absolutely, please.
V. Huntington: I wonder if the minister can elaborate on the decision to locate the parents legal centre at the Vancouver Law Courts when Surrey is in such tremendous need of such a facility?
Hon. S. Anton: We have given Legal Services Society an additional $2 million the previous fiscal year, this year and planned for the next fiscal year in order to do innovative projects. We have chosen five pilot projects for their innovation. The one that the member is asking about is the parents legal centre at the Vancouver Law Courts. The question is: why did it go to Vancouver Law Courts rather than another centre?
A couple of observations. First of all, we haven’t necessarily chosen the busiest centre for these. For example, we opened one up in Port Coquitlam the other day. What we are doing is testing. We need to have sufficient volume to test the new service. These are pilots. We are looking at them to see how they work out for around the rest of the province.
[ Page 8215 ]
The parents legal centre serves parents and guardians who are involved with the Ministry of Children and Family Development. They offer a range of services to those parents. This is generally for children who may be in need of protection. It’s to offer advice to their parents early on with the hope that the issues that lie behind the question of the protection of the child can be resolved, always with the goals of helping the child, keeping things out of court and coming to good solutions.
With that, I’m going to suggest that we recess for a few minutes so I can go to the other House. We’ll be back before too long.
The Chair: This committee will recess to facilitate the discussion in the large House.
The committee recessed from 3:28 p.m. to 3:53 p.m.
[S. Hamilton in the chair.]
V. Huntington: I just want to respond to the minister’s answer and just follow up a little bit.
The minister said — firstly, in the corridor — that it’s a very worthwhile program. I agree completely. I think the pilot is very worthwhile. I hope it’s successful. I hope the one-stop shop becomes a normal occurrence throughout B.C. where we need some of these services so badly.
The minister also said that you didn’t necessarily put the pilots in the areas with the highest volume. Then the minister said: “But we need numbers in order to test the pilots effectively.” Well, it seems to me that places like Surrey have the numbers that would be incredibly effective to test the pilot. They have a demand that is just overwhelming the system.
Perhaps that is why we didn’t try the test pilot in Surrey. You thought maybe the pilot program itself could have been overwhelmed, or was it based on accessibility of transportation? If that was part of the decision, then the south of the Fraser will never receive the services, because there is no fair play in terms of accessing transportation.
I’d just like a little more fulsome idea of what we expect to achieve out of the pilot, why it isn’t in an area such as Surrey where the numbers would be significant for the test, and where one would expect to see these programs and services start to show up once the pilot…. It’s a long pilot. It’s a three-year pilot. So when would we expect to see these showing up in other areas of the province?
Hon. S. Anton: As I mentioned a few minutes ago, before the break, these are pilot projects. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Legal Services Society for the work that they do in delivering legal aid around British Columbia — and their interest and innovation. They work very closely with our staff from Justice to create these five innovative projects.
The five projects are: the expanded criminal duty counsel, where a counsel is assigned to the same court on a continuing basis. This will match Crown file ownership, and it’s hoped that cases will come to an earlier resolution, where appropriate.
The expanded family duty counsel at the Victoria Justice Access Centre. We have got there a full-time lawyer and an administrative assistant coordinator to help with legal advice, to offer more consistent advice service to family clients.
We have the Family LawLINE, where family lawyers will provide legal advice to anyone in the province on the end of the phone. You get evaluated for whether or not you can use the service, and once you can, you can have six hours of that lawyer’s time by telephone.
Family mediation referrals. This is where legal services is collaborating with Mediate B.C. to test an integrated family mediation referral model, which provides funding for six hours of mediation services. If we can get mediation and resolution in family cases, it’s generally better for the family and better for long-term outcomes.
The last of the five is the parents legal centre for the child protection cases.
The question was: why not Surrey? There were a number of evaluations in considering what the right location was. There were a number of criteria in deciding where to put the pilot, and Robson Square met the criteria. There’s a very significant number of child protection matters that arise out of Vancouver, so there were plenty upon which to test the pilot.
It is a pilot. There’s an evaluation period, and at the end of that period but prior to the funding running out at the end of three years, there will be a decision about the five pilots as to whether to continue them, expand them or discontinue them. But that will all come as a result of the evaluation that will be done.
M. Karagianis: I have a number of questions to ask related to domestic violence, violence against women and various other questions that sort of surround that particular topic. If there’s a staff change needed, I appreciate that, but I will start to just make some comments here.
I’d like to set the context for some of the questions I’m going to ask. The Premier, in the last throne speech, promised a violence-free B.C., but subsequently cut the budget for victim services and crime prevention. And in the 2015 budget, funding for victims and crime prevention is effectively frozen, with only a 3 percent lift, which of course presents all kinds of challenges.
Despite the promise of a violence-free B.C., there is no mention of a violence-free B.C. in the budget and no fiscal plan or any reference in the Justice service plan and only one-time funding coming from the civil forfeiture special account, so I’ll have some questions about that
[ Page 8216 ]
as we move on.
Also, no money announced for GPS-enabled improved electronic monitoring for sex offenders, so I’m going to be asking some questions there.
Of course, I’ve already asked some questions of the Children and Families Ministry about the office of domestic violence and the fact that there seem to be no new resources there as well. Obviously, the responsibility, the linkage here with the Justice Ministry will be of particular interest.
I have read recently the article that ran in the Vancouver Sun on May 1 where the report says that violent crime is rising sharply — from an RCMP report — a 40 percent increase in violent crimes in Surrey, and we may know exactly what the correlation is there, and a 46 percent increase in sexual assaults, according to this report, that includes sexual assaults rising to 57 from 39 over the period, and a 29 percent increase in assaults. It was noted that 30 percent of those are domestic violence–related. Those have kind of set the tone for my concerns.
Now, the Blue Ribbon Panel that was put together by the member for Abbotsford South had a number of observations, and I’m going to make some queries with regard to that as the starting point. The report of the Blue Ribbon Panel for Crime Reduction emphasized that time-limited or one-time funding “does not always consider or integrate research and evidence on best practices” and that stakeholders “have difficulties determining what works in crime prevention and how to measure success.”
My first question to the minister is: how is the minister measuring success and outcomes of these projects?
Hon. S. Anton: Before I go any further, I should add that I’m joined and assisted today by Lynda Cavanaugh, the assistant deputy minister, community safety and crime prevention; Perry Clark, executive director, policing and security branch; and Phil Tawtel, the executive director of the civil forfeiture office; also, Taryn Walsh, executive director of community safety and crime prevention.
I think the question was about the civil forfeiture funding and the projects that were funded this year from the civil forfeiture funding going towards a violence-free B.C. We put $3.43 million towards those projects.
The way those projects are managed through our community safety and crime prevention office is that each project does have a person who is responsible for that project. The community groups or the non-profit groups which run these projects do have to do three reports per project. We are in contact fairly constantly with the organizations, and it is important that we do measure outcomes of the projects which are funded.
M. Karagianis: I don’t think the answer actually got to the heart of what I asked. How is the government, or the minister, measuring success and the outcomes of these projects?
The reports that come from these various groups — what do they entail? Are they self-evaluating? What direct steps and responsibility is the minister taking for measuring the results of where these funds are being spent and what the outcomes are?
Hon. S. Anton: There are a variety of these projects, of course, as, I expect, the member knows. For example, there’s the Stopping the Violence program, which is a school-based program. These grants — the recipients are expected to report back regarding the number of youth served and the impact of the program on those youth.
Another kind of project again on the prevention side would…. Other youth projects. A measurement might be decreased negative contacts with police. We’re trying to prevent crime here, so that’s one of the measurables.
When the contracts are granted, we do specify the outcomes at the outset of the contract.
M. Karagianis: Again, though, I’m not clear on how the evaluation is done. These are one-time funds, so one would expect that some of these programs may be looking for subsequent funding in the years ahead. How would you evaluate the success of that? What is the measurement? What is the basis upon which you are determining whether you’re going to fund them again in the future?
Simply having them self-report that there are less encounters with the police doesn’t seem to me to be a real, quantifiable measurement, certainly not for a ministry to determine whether or not these dollars were well-spent.
Should they be repeated? I think there’s a lot of folly in one-time funding. But I can certainly understand that…. If it’s not being measured, then I’m not sure how the ministry would determine that best practices are being used or could be implemented and change the requirements for subsequent years if these organizations or these programs reapply for funding.
Hon. S. Anton: The organizations which we support file with us. The proposals are adjudicated and scored by review teams, which individually evaluate each proposal against the criteria in the form. There’s an oversight committee. Final decisions take into account geography, budget and application quality. We get a lot of applications for these grants.
Generally, the organizations are high-quality organizations. The grants that they apply for — or the ones that, at least, get awarded — are consistent with government objectives. At the moment, and continuing into the future, they’re consistent with our objectives under our violence-free British Columbia strategy.
[ Page 8217 ]
We do look for other stakeholder support in the applications. For example, a lot of the applications might come from police. They might come from schools. They might come from neighbourhood houses. They’ve come from existing organizations which have credibility and experience in this area.
Each organization is monitored by one of our staff people. They need to report in three times a year. What we are looking for is for them to achieve the outcomes, for them to be on budget.
We do rely on their assessments. We don’t step in and breathe down their necks and look over their shoulders, and we do rely on their reporting. What we look for are promising practices. We look for things that they’re doing that are good. We look for innovation, because they’re not cookie-cutter programs. They can be different from town to town and location to location.
When we find good practices, good programs, we promote those through British Columbia, because these organizations are used to looking to what each other is doing, and they, too, want to have the best practices for what they are doing.
M. Karagianis: Perhaps the minister could let me know who sits on the oversight committee that she mentioned, and then I’ll move into my second question at the same time here.
The report from the Blue Ribbon Panel on Crime Reduction concludes the following: “The panel believes it is imperative to change the way in which resources are currently allocated to reduce crime, moving away from limited-time or one-time funding to sustainable, evidence-based funding.”
Based on the recommendations that came out of their own panel here, why is there this continued reliance on civil forfeiture, and where is the sustainability in that?
Hon. S. Anton: The oversight committees are staff committees. It is a combination of staff from Justice, from Children and Family Development and from Education. There are usually panels of three. They look at all of the applications that come in. This year they adjudicated over 500 applications in choosing the ones that they did.
The member has asked about this being one-time funding rather than sustainable funding. It is true that the civil forfeiture funding is more in the nature of one-time funding. It’s project funding. But, as I said, we do evaluate these projects, and we do expect a portion of the civil forfeiture funds that come in will continue to be directed toward violence-free-B.C. projects.
Aside from that and in addition to that, government spends $70 million a year, which is a fairly significant number, in other victim services and violence-against-women programs. That is broken down by $40 million from Justice and about $30 million from Housing. The Justice funding goes to…. About $28 million goes in ongoing grant funding to victim services and violence-against-women programs. That is generally relatively stable funding.
In addition to that, we have the crime victim assistance program, which helps people who are injured by crime. The Housing funding, the $30 million from Housing, goes into transition houses, so again, it’s for victims of crime or women fleeing violence. Let me say more women fleeing violence rather than victims of crime.
There is $70 million, as I said, in ongoing funding. Civil forfeiture grant funding this year totalled nearly $5 million, with the portion I said a moment ago going to the violence-free-B.C. objectives.
M. Karagianis: Yet despite this, violent crimes and crimes against women and domestic assaults are on the rise, and the numbers are alarming.
Now, the blue-ribbon panel here concluded very specifically that it was imperative to change the way in which resources are currently allocated. I don’t understand. The minister could maybe explain. What are going to be the government’s responses to that imperative from the blue-ribbon panel? They talk about how it’s not effective to have one-time funding and that we need to change the ways in which we are addressing these issues to find ways to reduce crime. Could the minister tell me exactly what actions they are going to be taking out of this Blue Ribbon Panel for Crime Reduction?
Hon. S. Anton: I just want to get the nod on the question, because the recommendation in the blue-ribbon panel is: “Re-examine funding approaches to provide better outcomes.” And “some existing funding be redirected to support new approaches” aimed at and dealing with supervising offenders. I’m not sure if the member is asking about supervising offenders or if she’s asking about other programs.
M. Karagianis: My question was meant to be broad enough to encompass all of those, please.
[S. Sullivan in the chair.]
Hon. S. Anton: A couple of things on the question. Let me deal with programs for offenders first.
We do have a comprehensive domestic violence program, both for inmates and for offenders who have been released into the community and are under community supervision. These reduced reoffending by 60 percent. So when the people are willing to take them, they are very effective.
In terms of the other programs, we have a dedicated program team in the community safety and crime prevention group. There are about ten people in that group.
[ Page 8218 ]
They look closely at every one of the programs that are delivered around British Columbia. They follow them, and they take the reports that I described earlier.
M. Karagianis: Some of the programs here I noted from this year’s grants: Integrated Sexual Assault and Child Abuse Support Centre, a collaborative project in Victoria; RSVP healthy relationships transition project; Taking Care of Ourselves, Taking Care of Others; and several more in that vein. But I did particularly note that one of the funding categories was entitled “Healing and rebuilding after violence against aboriginal women.” I would like to ask why there is no prevention of violence against aboriginal women and why it’s more about after rather than before?
Hon. S. Anton: The Missing Women Commission of Inquiry had a strong influence on the work that we’ve been doing for the last few years. There was, as you will know, Mr. Chair, a strong focus in that on healing and rebuilding, which is why we still give significant grants toward healing and rebuilding — $436,580 in the recent grants.
But we are now very focused on prevention as well, particularly stemming from the violence-free British Columbia. We want to tackle the issue from a number of different directions. School-based prevention programs — there are 42 grants, to $746,000.
The question, I think, was around aboriginal. There are 43 projects that focus on aboriginal women and girls — $825,000; and 58 projects that have a general focus of supporting aboriginal communities — $1.050 million.
M. Karagianis: I will get into some more direct questioning about that specific aspect of violence against women shortly. But I did want to segue a little bit into domestic violence. Noting again that the large increase in violence…. There is a significant increase in domestic violence and assaults against women by spouses.
I have some concerns about government’s response to this. I know that the government provides funding for the domestic violence units. Again I refer back to the parliamentary secretary and the report that criticized one-time funding, especially as it pertains to crime prevention initiatives like the domestic violence units. There have been reports of staff shortages at domestic violence units.
Of course, the most recent tragedy that occurred in Cadboro Bay, right here, not too far from us at the Legislature, was in fact not even referred to a domestic violence unit. I would like to just ask the minister a little about these units. I’d like to know from the minister how many units are currently in operation and where they are located, please.
Hon. S. Anton: Through our victim services budget, we spend about $466,000 on domestic violence units. We fund two positions in Vancouver — one domestic violence unit position, one elder abuse unit position. In Abbotsford we have a 0.5 position, where Abbotsford police department pays for the other 0.5 so that it comes to one full-time. Capital region — two positions. New Westminster — half a position for the domestic violence unit, one elder abuse unit position.
We have the provincial protective measures unit, which is $70,000. At the same time, through civil forfeiture, we have three units — Kelowna, Surrey and Nanaimo, with $142,000 in Kelowna, $473,000 in Surrey and $129,000 in Nanaimo.
M. Karagianis: I think there were some mixed references in there to what actually constituted a domestic violence unit. I heard personnel or FTEs mixed in there. Perhaps the minister could just elaborate. How many domestic violence units? How many FTEs work in each location, and what are their positions, please?
Hon. S. Anton: The numbers I gave a moment ago…. First of all, there are seven, and I think I did give the numbers a moment ago.
This is our share of the funding, because a domestic violence unit will also have police officers, who are paid for by the funding source for that police department. There may be personnel there for children and families as well. I don’t have those numbers here. What I’ve given out in my previous answer was the numbers and the positions funded by Justice.
M. Karagianis: That didn’t clarify it for me. If there are seven units, how many people are operating in each one, and what are the positions in each one?
Hon. S. Anton: I can read them out again, if you like.
Vancouver, one domestic violence unit position and one elder abuse unit position. As well, they have one designated Children and Family Development worker. Abbotsford, 0.5 of a domestic violence unit position, where the Abbotsford police department pays for the other 0.5 to create one full-time position. Capital region, two domestic violence unit positions. New Westminster, 0.5 of a position and one elder abuse unit position. Then in the provincial protective measures unit, $70,000. Total for funding for those groups is $465,520.
At the same time, we have CFO funding in Kelowna, $142,000; Surrey, $473,000; Nanaimo, $129,000. I don’t have the breakdown of how many people that includes, but those are community-based staff plus police.
Children and Family Development workers are located in Vancouver, although not co-located; in Abbotsford, co-located; the capital region, co-located; New Westminster
[ Page 8219 ]
designated; Kelowna, co-located part-time; Surrey, co-located — actually hasn’t started yet but planned to be started there. And in Nanaimo there is one designated.
M. Karagianis: Well, I actually confess to being a bit shocked by the information that the minister has just given me. Certainly, the conception of these domestic violence units was supposed to be that there was a specific unit that was present in these centres that was very reliable. There are four people, or there are five people, and this is the job they do. Certainly, that’s not the only job they do.
But to find out that in some centres there’s half a person, or half an FTE — which I had heard anecdotally, by the way, from some locations from around the province and simply didn’t believe that could possibly be true…. That is not the spirit of what the domestic violence units were meant to be. I’m a little bit surprised by that.
Are there more of these domestic violence units, as thin on the ground as they apparently are in some places, anticipated to be put into communities? Where and when? And how many personnel would be devoted to those tasks?
Hon. S. Anton: I have had the opportunity to visit a number of these domestic violence units around British Columbia and can tell the member that they are very robust units. They are built in response to community needs. So in some communities there are less people than others, and they attend to the high-risk cases. They don’t attend to every report of domestic violence. They go to high-risk domestic violence cases.
The ones I visited — the unit is generally somewhat self-contained in the police department, with the police officers and the community organization workers working side by side. When they attend to a call, they will go out with the police officer and the social worker or whoever the designated person is, and they will attend at the residence to help the family.
They are very good units around British Columbia and very well supported by the communities, doing a valuable service for us in B.C.
M. Karagianis: The question was actually: are more planned and when, and where will they be placed, please?
Hon. S. Anton: We just opened two new domestic violence units. The Surrey one opened fairly recently, and the Nanaimo one opened even more recently. So we are on track to continuing to build this agency around British Columbia.
At the same time, I would like to talk about the interagency case assessment teams. This is what we call the ICAT teams. There are 23 of them around British Columbia. They come together as needed. They bring together service providers from police, victim services, Ministry of Children and Family Development, transition houses and others to share information, identify risks and safety-plan for specific high-risk domestic violence cases.
These are usually in smaller communities. These communities don’t have the same volume of domestic violence cases, so they don’t warrant the full domestic violence unit. They’re usually not co-located, but the teams come together as needed. These, I know from having visited a couple of them, are extremely well regarded by their communities. As I said, they deal with high-risk offenders, with families at high risk to identify ways of helping out either with the offenders, with the case or with the family to help public safety in British Columbia.
M. Karagianis: To the minister, can she tell me where the 23 ICAT programs are located? I’d just like to know what communities they’re in. I see the domestic violence units are glaringly absent from the north, where there are many issues, and from rural British Columbia. I would assume the ICATs probably are filling that particular role, so it would be interesting to know exactly where the locations of those ICATs are.
Hon. S. Anton: I will get back to the member with that information.
M. Karagianis: I do know that the minister works hand in hand with the provincial office of domestic violence, which is located with the Ministry of Children and Family Development. I’d like to know a little bit about how the minister works with that office. How often does the minister meet with staff from the provincial office of domestic violence, and when was the most recent time she met with them?
Hon. S. Anton: I would describe this as a close relationship with staff. They have formal meetings monthly, but they meet weekly or more often as required. It’s a very close relationship between staff from Justice and staff from Children and Family Development.
M. Karagianis: Does the minister meet with her counterpart in MCFD?
Hon. S. Anton: In the development of violence-free B.C., we had a number of formal meetings. I have to say I have informal meetings with her. I talk to her all the time.
M. Karagianis: I know in my queries of the Minister of Children and Families there were not a lot of questions that she could answer, because she said all or most of the responsibility for domestic violence and all of the resources around that rested with the Justice Minister. I’m just
[ Page 8220 ]
wondering how you, then, balance off the responsibilities between yourself and MCFD on dealing with things like domestic violence units and the oversight of them.
Hon. S. Anton: They are the coordinating office. Program delivery is generally through Justice, and Justice staff works extremely closely with Children and Family Development staff.
M. Karagianis: Does the minister have any information regarding the domestic violence units performance measures or how you measure their success?
Hon. S. Anton: The domestic violence units are the victim service worker working closely with the police. But they are, at heart, police units, so the officer in charge, the commanding officer, is in charge of those teams.
We did an evaluation of the Vancouver one. I think the member may have received that evaluation last year during estimates. They are fairly new, so we don’t have ongoing evaluations at the moment. But certainly, the people who work in and around the teams and with the teams have great confidence in the work that they are doing.
M. Karagianis: If we don’t have performance measures at this point, is that an intention of government — to have performance measures for each of these seven that are in place? Does that also apply to the ICATs — to look at performance measures there as well? If they’re not currently available, is there a plan, or what is the plan, for putting that in place and making sure that that accountability is there in the next fiscal year?
Hon. S. Anton: As I said a moment ago, the domestic violence units are fundamentally police teams and under the responsibility of the police.
The ICAT teams. We give $320,000 to EVA B.C., the Ending Violence Association, who use that to support the ICAT teams. The ICAT teams are a collaboration. The people on those teams are paid by their respective agencies. They come together, as needed, to look at serious cases in their community which need their attention. We do not have an evaluation of that system, but again, it is a system that seems to work and be very well received around British Columbia.
With that, Mr. Chair, may I suggest a five-minute break?
The Chair: Okay, we will have a five-minute break.
The committee recessed from 4:56 p.m. to 5 p.m.
[S. Sullivan in the chair.]
M. Karagianis: I gather from what the minister said that there are no real performance measures that are being put in place. That’s disappointing as well, because I’m not sure how you can evaluate the domestic violence units without some kind of clear performance reporting on this.
I would like to query a little bit more on how the domestic violence units are funded. The minister mentioned the various personnel that make up these units in the various communities. These funds that you referred to earlier. Is that out of the victim services funds? Is that out of civil forfeiture funds? Is it one-time? Is it ongoing? Is it dedicated funding? Perhaps you could just explain the funding model for these units, please.
Hon. S. Anton: Sorry, I have to correct something I said earlier. There is ongoing funding of $465,000, and that is for Vancouver, Abbottsford, capital region, New Westminster and the provincial protective measures unit. That is from our victim services funding.
At the same time, since 2014 we have provided $1 million in civil forfeiture office funding to support new and existing domestic violence units, and this helped the start-up and support of the three new units in Kelowna, Surrey and Nanaimo.
Earlier on I read out three numbers for Kelowna, Surrey and Nanaimo, and those, actually, are funding for ongoing community-based victim services. Those three numbers I mentioned earlier were not domestic violence unit numbers.
M. Karagianis: Great. Thank you very much.
The civil forfeiture dollars — are those one-time dollars, or is that ongoing?
Hon. S. Anton: This civil forfeiture funding, as I mentioned, in the amount of $1 million — some of that is start-up funding to get the offices going. The goal is to continue to fund these offices through civil forfeiture funding. But obviously, on an ongoing basis, it may be a little less, because we don’t need the start-up funding, as I said.
M. Karagianis: Is that committed line item going forward, or are those one-time and have to be renewed every year?
Hon. S. Anton: There is a commitment to fund these positions. Some of it will be through ongoing victim services funding, some of it may come through civil forfeiture, but the commitment is to keep these domestic violence units open. They are very important to us. They’re important to the violence-free B.C. They’re important to the provincial office of domestic violence.
As the member noted, domestic violence is a serious
[ Page 8221 ]
problem in British Columbia, and it’s one that we, as government, take very seriously. The Premier has taken it very seriously, has led the violence-free-British Columbia initiative and also ensuring that the provincial office of domestic violence is built and is funded. This is an important role for us in government and one we take seriously and one we will continue to fund.
M. Karagianis: I want to ask a general question about the domestic violence office and programs, but I have a specific question as to why the Saanich case, most recently, was not referred to a domestic violence unit.
Hon. S. Anton: We are not privy to any information around whether or not there would have been a response from the domestic violence team.
M. Karagianis: Can the minister find that out? Is that part of the minister’s responsibilities, to probe why that was not done?
Hon. S. Anton: This was a very tragic circumstance, very tragic for the family and for the community. I understand the member’s concern. It is a case where the coroner is conducting an investigation to find out the cause and manner of death. It may be one of the factors that she considers, whether or not the domestic violence unit was called or if they were called or the history with the police. That’s in the hands of the coroner right at the moment.
M. Karagianis: Well, they weren’t called, so that in itself is a problem.
I think it actually just speaks to what I see as an inherent failure in the way government is addressing these issues. When I ask questions of the Children and Families Ministry, of course the office of domestic violence offers no direct programs for women at all. It’s a coordinating office within government.
When I directly asked about the growing concern that we all have in our communities about the increasing domestic violence, certainly the minister commented that, yeah, she was very concerned. We should all be concerned about these kinds of things. But at the end of the day, her office is not responsible and her ministry is not responsible for any programs. It simply coordinates intergovernmental programs.
This lack of leadership on this, I think, is at the heart of a big problem that we have here. The children’s representative, Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond, has been very clear on this.
Now, the office of domestic violence came out of the Schoenborn case. The need for domestic violence units came out of the Christian Lee case. The children’s representative has clearly said in public commentary for several years now that leadership and accountability are needed on these issues.
I would ask: does the buck stop here with this minister? If the office of domestic violence, in fact, doesn’t take responsibility for prevention or for outreach programs to women or for early intervention or any of these things, does that fall to this minister? Is that whose responsibility it is now to provide that leadership and accountability for the increased incidences of domestic violence, for the lack even now — several years after some of these terrible, tragic domestic violence cases — of true, on-the-ground accountability for this?
Is it the minister that is the ultimate responsible person for this file?
Hon. S. Anton: The violence-free-B.C. strategy is the overarching strategy. The goal of the strategy is to bring together other ministries and other partnerships, stakeholders, in the community. Certainly, within government the goal is that it be cross-ministry so that we are not in silos but working together.
It’s co-chaired. The lead on that is Justice. Justice is the lead of the violence-free-B.C. strategy. The committee itself is co-chaired by Justice and the provincial office of domestic violence. As I said, we are the lead. It is meant to be a non-siloed, integrated group of ministries and stakeholders for everyone to contribute to the issue of preventing, and helping victims of, domestic violence in British Columbia.
Aside from the things we’ve already mentioned, I have a letter of accountability, through the RCMP, requesting that RCMP work in partnership with the various government agencies to advance programs in the interest of reducing domestic violence in British Columbia. That’s one of the major objectives that I have given to the RCMP in my letter of accountability to the RCMP from October 2014.
At the same time, we have programs in adult custody and in community corrections. We have 45 programs. They’re multicultural programs, and there are programs done in partnership with aboriginal communities.
At the same time, we have partnerships with schools — school-based prevention programs — and we have the recently launched the Say Something campaign. In other words, if any of us, as citizens, any citizens in British Columbia, see a co-worker or a friend who you think is being impacted by domestic violence, you should not be standing there. You need to say something. That’s the public information campaign on that.
I’ve got a little correction here. I think I said 45 programs for community corrections. It’s 45 communities where we run programs for community corrections and domestic violence programs or programs to help offenders around British Columbia.
[ Page 8222 ]
M. Karagianis: Well, the question was actually: who is ultimately responsible? Where does the buck stop? I like the idea that government is trying to get away from being siloed, but that also means that having multiple people responsible for accountability on a file…. It’s hard to pin down. Who do you go to? Who is the go-to person in government here?
When I talked to the Minister of Children and Families, she responded appropriately that she was very concerned about the increase in violence against women, domestic violence — an increase. While these programs are being run out here to offer supports in communities, we’re seeing an increase in the violence. That has got to say something here to the government about how they are managing these files. It can’t be all just flowery language about: “We want to see a violence-free B.C.”
Who is ultimately responsible to provide accountability for this? Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond has called for leadership. Communities have called for leadership. The families who have experienced domestic violence can’t even go to the office of domestic violence for help.
Non-siloed — great. Co-chairs — what does that mean? Neither of you will stand and take ownership of this. When you meet with the Minister of Children and Families, do you say: “We’ve got to stop this escalating violence against women and domestic violence, and I will take that on. I will be the champion of that”? Who says that? Who takes that role on?
I am disappointed by the rather non-answers on performance measures around what domestic violence units are doing. Generally, the government feels that one-time money put out into communities is somehow going to resolve this — many of which are fantastic programs in schools, early programs to change the behaviours of violence and things.
But who’s the champion? Who says in British Columbia: “We are going to make a difference, and we are going to stop the escalation of domestic violence and violence against women”? Who is it? Is it a co-chaired team? Is it a committee? It’s very frustrating. I just want to know which one minister is responsible, ultimately, for this file on domestic violence.
Hon. S. Anton: I led my previous answer by saying that the lead on violence-free British Columbia is the Ministry of Justice. As minister, I am the lead of that ministry.
M. Karagianis: That’s good to know. I mean, I think the public would like to know where the one-stop place is for this. I appreciate that.
I would hope, then, that the minister would be very concerned about performance measures on how these dollars are being spent to try and curb domestic violence. What is the success in communities? What is the accountability measure? How do we do it better?
How do we report that out to the public so that the next time there is a domestic violence tragedy that ends in death, the minister will say: “We have performance measures. These programs will work” or “These programs are failing us” or “They’re not working” or “They need to be tweaked” or “We need more personnel dedicated to these kinds of issues.”
I would sincerely hope that the minister is able to get on top of that performance measure aspect of this file, because without that reportable accountability, all we see, then, are the headlines that say there is a rise in domestic violence. Citizens are saying: “Who is going to stop this?” I would hope that the minister will seriously champion this issue.
I will move on because time is ticking away here. I’d like to ask some questions about the Highway of Tears. Very specifically, I want to ask questions about RCMP funding. It did take an FOI document for us to get some details on this.
Between 2011 and 2014 the government cut funding to the investigation unit dedicated to the Highway of Tears, the E-PANA program. I know from the FOI documents that this was against the express advice of the RCMP on this file. Last year the government had made lots of declarations about fighting violence against women, but directly in the face of that has made budget choices that clearly will make that more difficult.
[P. Pimm in the chair.]
Last year the government cut the budget for victim services and refuses to fund, as we know — we’ve canvassed it many times in this Legislature — safe transportation options for women along Highway 16. Many, many reports have come forward. The symposium on the Highway of Tears, the Oppal report, the 2015 Inter-American Commission on Human Rights have all spoken out against this.
I’d like to just probe a couple of these questions around this. What’s the budget for the E-PANA investigation unit for 2015-16? And what was the budget in 2013-14, ’14-15 — just for comparison purposes?
Hon. S. Anton: The E-PANA investigation is one which has been taken and continues to be taken extremely seriously by the RCMP. They have been investigating 18 cases of murdered or missing women. They have been working extremely hard on that. They are treated like major crimes files. There are a few of them which are thought to be solved, in that they believe they know who the murderer was. There are two recent charges that have been laid — one a charge of a young girl who was within the E-PANA group of women and one who was not.
These cases are all tragedies. They’re tragedies for their
[ Page 8223 ]
families, and they’re ongoing tragedies when there remains a mystery behind what happened to these women. But as I said, they are taken extremely seriously, as evidenced by the recent two charges. It is apparent that the RCMP continue to work extremely hard.
I do have to note that it was a task force, and with the task force, there was a huge initial amount of work that was done. As that work got completed, the resources needed to do that initial task force work reduced. But there is absolutely no question that these cases remain outstanding. They remain major crimes cases, and they remain cases that the RCMP are determined to solve.
M. Karagianis: I was actually looking specifically for…. What was the budget in ’13-14 and ’14-15, and what is the budget in 2015-16? Just for comparative information. What was the budget in each of those three line years?
Hon. S. Anton: The answer is not terribly straightforward, because the positions have been moved into major crimes. So they are integrated with the RCMP’s major crimes unit. There was task force funding initially. As I said, the task force was to do that initial body of work. The cases are now moved into major crimes, where they continue to be investigated. As I said a moment ago, the RCMP take these cases extremely seriously. They’ve built up close relationships with the families over the years, and they, like all of us, want to see resolution of the cases.
M. Karagianis: The answer is no budget can be broken out on this. It’s very interesting. Okay, let’s ask this question then. How many members are currently left dedicated to working on this task force work? The minister says that of the 18 cases, there have been charges in two cases; a vague number of cases where they think they know who did it. But are there any staff left, any officers left, dedicated to this, or has it simply all just been blended directly into the larger casework of the RCMP?
Hon. S. Anton: I think it might help to read the statement from the RCMP from August 2014. It says:
“Throughout the project the investigative team has expanded and adjusted to deal with the various tasks and tips. At its peak there were roughly 70 investigators working on the project, along with support staff. That number has dropped to about 12 investigators, members and support staff who are fully dedicated to the investigation.
“While the number of investigators has scaled down, we have the resources necessary to deal with the investigative needs at this time, from interviews to forensic analysis. Additional efforts with respect to education and prevention campaigns are also underway, especially in north district, and they have not been impacted by the budget reduction.
“E-PANA continues to investigate possible suspects or persons of interest and have the capacity to expand and respond as needed. We remain committed to investigation and victims’ families in determining what happened to their loved ones.”
M. Karagianis: Well, under the freedom-of-information documents that we obtained in February of 2015, RCMP Deputy Commissioner Craig Callens, the RCMP’s highest-ranking member in B.C., warned the government that the E-PANA budget cuts would mean there would be no other investigations related to the Highway of Tears case in the foreseeable future. I accept that that is true.
In September 2014 during the sentencing of Cody Legebokoff for the murders of four women along Highway 16, B.C. Supreme Court Justice Glen Parrett criticized the E-PANA cuts stating that: “We simply must do better, especially where the commitment to policing is reflected in an 84 percent cut to the budget of the Highway of Tears task force.”
Again, I take that as fact, coming from a Supreme Court justice. An 84 percent cut. How can the minister justify that there is any ongoing, intensive work going on solving the murders that have, up to this point, not been captured in the couple of charges that have been laid?
Hon. S. Anton: I will remind the member that these are operational decisions made by the RCMP. We don’t direct the RCMP. We obviously let them know what we’re interested in, but at the end of the day, their operational decisions are their decisions.
The RCMP believes, and continues to believe, that they have adequate resources to deal with these cases. They’ve got 350 people in the major crime section, and they have the ability to expand and respond to information and evidence as required.
Once again, I will observe that, in fact, they did lay some charges fairly recently in the cases which I mentioned a moment ago. It is clear that they are continuing to take these investigations extremely seriously.
M. Karagianis: Just one further question, then, before we report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Is the minister refuting the comments made in February by the RCMP deputy commissioner that they would be unable to do any further investigations for the foreseeable future? Is the minister simply refuting those comments that were made only a few months ago?
Hon. S. Anton: Noting the hour, I’ll get a more complete answer to the member on Monday. I would just observe that the memo that she’s talking about is from June 4 last year. I think the freedom of information may have been from February of this year, so that memo was nearly a year old. But I will come back with a more detailed breakdown of information.
With that, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 5:48 p.m.
Copyright © 2015: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada