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)

Tuesday, May 12, 2015

Morning Sitting

Volume 26, Number 3

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

TUESDAY, MAY 12, 2015

The House met at 10:02 a.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

J. Yap: This morning I have four guests in the public gallery from Vancouver and Richmond. With us today are Adam Hong Quon Lu, Echo Xu, Amanda Lu and Po-Wah Ng, who is also my constituency assistant. Would the House please give them a warm welcome to the Legislature.

M. Mungall: Joining us in the public gallery today are Peggy Wilmot, Kathleen Kirkpatrick and Sister Joyce Harris. They are all with Faith in Action, which is very active with the Poverty Reduction Coalition. I ask that everybody in the House please join me in welcoming them today.

Hon. T. Lake: Last week we know was the 70th anniversary of Victory in Europe Day. On Saturday night I attended a dinner celebrating the 29th anniversary of the 886 Wing, which is the auxiliary wing in Kamloops, also attended by members of the 419 Tactical Fighter Squadron, the training squadron from Cold Lake, Alberta.

The Moose Squadron was named after John “Moose” Fulton, the first leader of that squadron, who has been adopted by the city of Kamloops. They do a fly-past every Remembrance Day in Kamloops, and it’s a very special day.

We also have an honorary Moose. That’s my good friend Alex Sim, who stormed Juno Beach on D-Day as a member of the 3rd Canadian Infantry and also served in the Korean War for which he received a U.S. Presidential Citation. Next month my good friend Alex will be turning 90 years old. While we’re in this House, I wanted to take the opportunity to wish Alex “Moose” Sim an early happy 90th birthday.

[1005]

R. Chouhan: It gives me great pleasure to introduce two of my friends, Dr. Bhullar and Dr. Bajwa. They are here in the gallery today, joining us. Please join me to welcome both of them.

J. Shin: The gallery is literally full with my friends from the Korean community today. I have the pleasure of introducing to the House a very cheery group of 42 wonderful Korean women and men visiting us this morning.

Would the House please welcome — I’ve got quite the list, but I’ll be very quick, I promise — Choi Su Yong, Choi Haengim, Kwon Yongtak, Kim Jamsook, Park Tae Oak, Choi Mee Ran, Lee Hwasook, Youn Bok Hee, Jung Guiyoung, Choi Miok, Kim Dong Soon, Song In Hun, Kim Hae Sook, An Gyeonghee, Cho Younrang, Jung Wansook, Yoo Kinam, Cho Eunsil, Na Jaecheul, Joung Ok Sun, Cho Kum Ok, Lee Ju Chang, Cho Mi Ok, Jung Young Hwa, Lee Geum Ock, Lee Ockhee, Lee Sungdong, Sung Youngsook, Jeon Jungsook, Song Yoonsi, Lee Hoisoon, Suh Bokki, Park Sangkyu, Lee Jungsook, Gu Minhoi, Jeon Bongdeok, Yun Unhui, Kim Min Jung, Kim Yoonkyu, Lee Youngja, Yang Ryenjung, led by Mr. James Soo-Chang Chun of Inter-Canada. I think Hansard is going to have fun today with all these names.

[Korean was spoken.] Would the House please welcome them and thank them for visiting us in the Legislature today.

Hon. B. Bennett: It’s a pleasure for me to introduce the Ambassador of Finland to Canada, who’s in the gallery today, His Excellency Charles Murto. He’s here on an official visit to Canada. He’s going to be meeting with various MLAs in the Legislature, I think, this afternoon, and he is accompanied by his wife, Mrs. Ritva Murto. Welcome.

N. Simons: It’s my pleasure to introduce a guest in the gallery. Rebecca Godfrey is a novelist and non-fiction writer who’s worked in Toronto and New York as a journalist before writing her first novel, The Torn Skirt, which was short-listed for the Ethel Wilson Fiction Prize.

She went on to write Under the Bridge, an investigation into the death of Reena Virk, which received British Columbia’s national award for Canadian non-fiction and which has been optioned for the big screen by Reese Witherspoon’s Type A productions. Her second novel, The Dilettante, will be published by Knopf. I hope that the House will make Professor Godfrey welcome.

C. Trevena: It’s with great pleasure that I introduce to the House students from Kyuquot Elementary Secondary. For those who don’t know, Kyuquot is on the west coast of the Island, and these students had quite a journey to get here — an hour’s boat ride followed by several hours down a very poorly maintained logging road before hitting the paved highway and another few hours of driving.

This is an opportunity for them to see democracy in action. Elementary school students, teachers and parents, I’m sure, will each take something separate from this visit. I hope it is all positive. I hope the House will make them all very welcome.

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

BILL M218 — POVERTY REDUCTION
AND ECONOMIC INCLUSION ACT, 2015

M. Mungall presented a bill intituled Poverty Reduction and Economic Inclusion Act, 2015.
[ Page 8330 ]

M. Mungall: I move that the bill intituled the Poverty Reduction and Economic Inclusion Act, of which has been given notice in my name on the order paper, be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

M. Mungall: Poverty is a complex economic situation. Telling people to just get a job doesn’t recognize the barriers to employment people may have or whether they have medical reasons preventing them from full-time employment. Then, of course, there are many people working who still live in poverty because wages don’t align with the costs of living or people who were working and lost their jobs and can’t afford retraining. For every person living in poverty, there is a story.

Because there are so many factors that contribute to poverty and because it costs our communities more to ignore it than to do something about it, we need a comprehensive plan with targets and timelines if we are to reduce its prevalence in our communities. Many communities in Canada have started plans and found success. Nine out of the ten provinces have also committed to plans. Some, like Quebec’s work, are over a decade long. Plans are proving to work.

[1010]

Although B.C. has had the highest rate of overall poverty in Canada for 13 years and the highest child poverty rate for ten years — 33 percent above the national average for that decade — government has yet to take action with a direct legislative approach. We remain the only province in Canada without a legislated plan.

Today this Poverty Reduction and Economic Inclusion Act seeks to take the needed action to look at the ways government can reduce poverty rather than contribute to it. For example, Ministry of Social Development access points can either hinder or help people living in poverty. Reduced office hours mean less in-person service for people who don’t have phones or access to computers.

With many complaints about the current system being a barrier, a plan would require government to take a look at the system to make improvements that ensure people get the help they need when they need it.

When such policies are identified and implemented, we reduce the poverty of real people of our province as a whole and provide for the greater economic inclusion for all people calling B.C. home.

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

Bill M218, Poverty Reduction and Economic Inclusion Act, 2015, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

GEORGE T. CUNNINGHAM
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

A. Dix: Last week I had the honour to participate in the opening celebration of the new playground at George T. Cunningham Elementary School at 37th and Nanaimo in East Vancouver.

Cunningham Elementary is an extraordinary place of learning under the leadership of principal Joanne Dale and a remarkable group of teachers. Its hallways reflect the artistic and academic talents of it students, who go well beyond their studies to support their fellow students, their community and the world. As I visited, students were leading a Toonies for Tanzania drive to support education in sub-Saharan Africa.

Cunningham has more than its share of its own challenges. Thirty-five students are formally designated as special needs, and 30 more students are in what Principal Dale calls the grey zone — students with special needs but no designation and no funding attached. Fifty-five percent of students speak English as a second language.

Yet in spite of often dealing with inadequate resources, students, teachers and learning assistants persevere in remarkable ways, a lesson to those who would make this already challenging task even harder.

It took five years to raise the $30,000 required to build the playground, with the last piece installed this winter. Dozens and dozens of small fundraising events were involved, led by parent leaders such as PAC treasurer Bentley Jung, students and teachers. They made it happen.

In addition, in the last few years the school has formed a remarkable connection with the history of the neighbourhood and a growing bond with the family of George T. Cunningham. Cunningham was a pharmacist who started his business in our neighbourhood, a business that eventually grew to 37 pharmacies across B.C. — now part of the Shoppers chain.

A few years ago the Cunningham-MacKay-Lecky family reconnected with the school named after George, a connection that has helped the school in innumerable ways. At the school you can tell how much the students appreciate the support and important connection to the past. And talking to family members, you can tell the joy that their involvement brings to them.

Congratulations to Cunningham Elementary School and its school community on the new playground and its learning successes every day.

LITTLE BRITCHES RODEO

D. Barnett: On behalf of my constituents in the Cariboo-Chilcotin, I am honoured to rise in the House today to speak about the Little Britches Rodeo Association
[ Page 8331 ]
in 100 Mile House.

Western heritage week is May 11 to 16 and brings the community together to celebrate our shared western culture and heritage. To showcase our western pride, we celebrate with a parade and many other fun events. The annual Little Britches Rodeo is one of the events. This year the 49th annual Little Britches Rodeo will take place on May 16.

Little Britches is a non-profit organization which hosts rodeos throughout British Columbia for young cowboys and cowgirls to get a start in the sport of rodeo. With so many children in the Cariboo watching rodeos as they grow up, what better way to get involved with western culture than learning the sport themselves.

It also allows children to experience the ranching lifestyle from an early age and helps keep the cowboy spirit alive. Junior competitors are younger than nine, and seniors are between the ages of ten and 14. Children compete in events such as goat tail tying, mutton busting and breakaway roping.

[1015]

They also learn responsibility through caring for animals, respect, compadre and sportsmanship. Hopefully, some of today’s Little Britches will grow up to be rodeo stars one day.

Please don your western finery and join us to cheer on the Little Britches. It’s Western Week in 100 Mile House.

SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGISTS
AND AUDIOLOGISTS

J. Rice: The ability to communicate is your bridge to the rest of the world. May is Speech and Hearing Awareness Month. This month is dedicated to the early detection and prevention of communication disorders and seeks to increase the public sensitivity to the challenges faced by individuals experiencing them.

Speech pathologists and audiologists assist people young and old struggling with speech, language, hearing, voice, swallowing, stuttering or social communication problems.

One in ten people in B.C. have a speech or language disorder. One in approximately 100 children in Canada have autism who experience speech-language difficulty. More than one million Canadians have a hearing-related disability. Twenty percent of adults over 65 and 40 percent of adults over 75 experience a significant hearing problem.

By the time a child is 4½, they will know approximately 2,000 words and 90 to 100 percent of their speech will now be understood. From birth to school, children’s language development is rapid. Ensuring that children’s speech and language is appropriate for their age will promote their learning both in and out of the classroom.

The B.C. Association of Speech-Language Pathologists and Audiologists can connect people who have communication disorders with highly trained, certified professionals across the province who can help.

Lives are changed by improved communication. Seeking help can make a positive difference to you, your family and our society. Speech-language pathologists and audiologists play an important role in making that difference. Today I recognize these professionals for all that they do.

EXPERIENCE AND NEW IDEAS

G. Hogg: In James Michener’s wonderful novel Hawaii, he has a mother and daughter sitting out on the veranda, rocking in their rocking chairs, contemplating life and watching the beautiful sunset. After a few moments the mother stops her rocking chair and turns to her daughter and says: “You know, dear, you really should listen to your father. He has 50 years’ worth of living experience.”

Then they start rocking again. After a few moments, the daughter stops her rocking chair and says: “You know, Mom, what I think dad really has is one year’s worth of experience lived over 50 times.”

It sometimes seems, even in this House, that we are repeating our experiences and our positions over and over again in a somewhat consistent and predictable fashion. It is comfortable to see and to experience things over and over again rather than to see and to experience things from new perspectives.

In 1932 Albert Einstein and Werner Heisenberg, two of the greatest physicists of all time, were discussing theories. Heisenberg suggested that, whether it’s people or protons, you just have to study the patterns long enough, and the theories will emerge. Einstein responded to Heisenberg that he was totally wrong. Einstein said: “You should know that it’s your theory that dictates what you will see.”

Well, if the daughter’s experience of her father and Einstein’s experience of behaviour are correct, then we might conclude that we are all passionate defenders of our own personal world views. It is no wonder that each of us interprets so much of what is said in this House as absurd. Einstein did say that if at first an idea is not absurd, then there’s no hope for it.

If Einstein is correct, then perhaps, the absurd that we hear may also be the hope that we have.

MISSION MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

M. Dalton: Ninety years ago marked the construction of Mission’s first hospital, and 50 years ago, in 1965, Missionites saw the opening of a new hospital on Hurd Street.

However, in the recent past residents have been deeply concerned that Mission Memorial was losing its viability as a hospital, along with its emergency ward. I’m very happy to report that this is far from the case — quite the opposite. The hospital grounds have seen tens of millions of dollars invested in new buildings.

[1020]

The Residence opened last year. It’s an attractive, state-of-the-art residential care facility for citizens with complex care needs and dementia. It has 195 suites. Also, a respite hotel will soon be opening in the building to allow family caregivers to book time so that they don’t get burned out.

In 2013 the ribbon was cut on the 27,000-square-foot Mission Community Health Centre. It’s a facility that provides a single location for programs such as public and home health, mental health and substance use, a diabetes education centre and a seniors clinic. This centre is a prototype and the first of its kind in Fraser Health.

Mission Memorial is an important employer in the community. In the past ten years regular staff have increased from 159 to 238 employees. Last week I met with executive directors Irene Sheppard and Val Spurrell. They told me that the number of acute care beds will be increased from 24 to 32 beds. And this being National Nursing Week, I’m glad to say that another eight new positions are being added.

I want to take this moment to thank everyone who is involved in making Mission Memorial the great community hospital that it is — nurses, doctors, support staff, the hospital auxiliary, donors and all volunteers.

JOHN WINTER

L. Larson: John Winter is retiring as CEO and president of the B.C. Chamber of Commerce. His 18 years with the B.C. Chamber is just part of a 30-year career in private sector business.

While associated with the B.C. Chamber, he was also involved with the Immigrant Employment Council of B.C.; the Pacific Corridor Enterprise Council; the Lower Mainland chambers transportation advisory panel; and from its beginning in 2005, the province’s Small Business Roundtable. As vice-chair of that round table for six years, I had the pleasure of working with John on projects that continue today to raise the profile of small business in B.C. He’s a caring man with a big heart who has devoted countless hours to the success of B.C. business.

John was born in Newfoundland and is a graduate of Memorial University. He was a great ball player in his youth and was drafted by the Pittsburgh Pirates as a home run–hitting first baseman.

Before joining the B.C. Chamber, he was president of the western division of Molson breweries. He received the Variety Club’s Community Heart Achievement Award in 1994 for his work in bringing the Molson Indy annual event to Vancouver. John is the chancellor of University Canada West and received the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee Medal for his community service in 2012.

John Winter strengthened the chamber network to become what it is today: a well-respected voice of B.C. business. The B.C. Chamber became a larger, stronger and more influential organization under the leadership of John Winter.

He is the father of two sons, Tim and Russell, and daughter Gillian, and grandfather to Olivia, Trevor, Ava and Declan. I know many of you here today will join me in thanking him for his service and congratulating him on a well-earned retirement with his lovely wife, Barbara.

Oral Questions

GAMING POLICY CHANGES
AND CASINO REVENUES

J. Horgan: Last March the Minister of Finance quietly issued a directive to the B.C. Lottery Corporation allowing casinos to take a greater take from table games than they had done in the past. The opposition learned about this directive, and we appropriately filed a freedom-of-information request to get more information.

What has become predictable, as well, is that the government declared that there were no documents and they weren’t going to release them. Again, we availed ourselves of the services of the Privacy Commissioner, and within a few days the documents were released.

My question to the Minister of Finance is: why would the government refuse to divulge documents that demonstrate quite categorically that government decided to give more money to casinos so there would be less money for taxpayers?

Hon. M. de Jong: I won’t endeavour to ascertain what the exchanges were between the opposition as applicant and the involvement of the Privacy Commissioner. I am happy, though, to discuss in this place the applications that are brought to the gaming policy and enforcement branch as they relate to the operation of gaming and the revenue split that occurs within the province of British Columbia.

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

[1025]

J. Horgan: That, of course, was contained in the question. Last year the government did a review of the Lottery Corporation and found out that it was quite profitable. In fact, the government Auditor is quoted as saying: “Industry reports suggest that gaming industry profits exceed other hospitality industries in Canada.” So we’re doing very, very well in British Columbia. Yet despite that, the government decided to give a break to the top 2 percent and, also, a break to casino operators.

Again, my question to the minister is: if everyone is tightening their belts in British Columbia — regular people are tightening their belts — why is it that the top 2 percent got a tax break and casino operators got more money than they’ve been able to get in 16 years?
[ Page 8333 ]

Hon. M. de Jong: Of course, I’m not privy to the documentation that the member has, but if he has the material that he purports to, he will know that he is not disclosing to the House a fundamental component of what took place.

There was an application advanced by the Lottery Corporation to the gaming policy and enforcement branch. It was a two-part application. On the one hand, it sought to raise, in certain instances, the table limits that were in place, and in the second instance, for certain games to alter the revenue split. There was an assessment done by the gaming policy and enforcement branch around the business case for doing that.

The good news is that as a result of the changes that were made, that were assessed by the gaming policy and enforcement branch, the revenue take for the Lottery Corporation, therefore the Crown, therefore the taxpayers of British Columbia, also went up.

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

J. Horgan: Now, the minister signed a directive last spring. This is a government obsessed with self-congratulation and promotion, but there was no press release. There was no advisory. There was no note put on the Ministry of Finance page. There wasn’t a Facebook post. There wasn’t even a tweet. There was a decision made by government to secretly give a bigger take to casino operators and, therefore, less back to the Crown.

Now, the minister may well be able to table documents that show the contrary, but that’s not the experience that I have seen so far, as this policy has been enforced.

Again, my question to the Minister of Finance is: why would he make a choice, at a time when everyone else is tightening their belts, to give a break to very, very profitable casino operators in British Columbia?

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, I can certainly appreciate and sympathize with the Leader of the Opposition’s feeling of disappointment that he doesn’t receive regular social media postings from me. It’s a disappointment that many share, and I commit to addressing that post-haste.

Contained within the preamble of the leader’s question, though, is again a fundamental error. That relates to the assessment that the gaming policy and enforcement branch did.

I hope it’s not news to the member that, in this particular business endeavour that the Crown is intimately involved with, operators, on a regular basis, seek to adjust the revenue split. The gaming policy and enforcement branch assesses that and does so from the point of view of protecting the best interest of the taxpayers of British Columbia.

In this instance, an application was made. It was assessed. A decision was made that, happily, has resulted in increased revenues flowing to the Lottery Corporation and, therefore, increased revenues to the Crown, which of course, are put directly to work on behalf of British Columbians in important fields like health care, education and public safety. That strikes me as a good news story.

GAMING POLICY CHANGES AND
ROLE OF LOTTERY CORPORATION CEO

D. Eby: The minister says that it’s the service providers that were pushing for this change. In fact, the freedom-of-information documents we had to go to the Privacy Commissioner to get show exactly who was pushing for this increased share for casino profits.

[1030]

On December 10, 2013, Michael Graydon, then head of the B.C. Lottery Corporation, wrote to the government’s assistant deputy minister for gaming. Mr. Graydon wrote: “A couple of things on my list from yesterday that possibly you can give me an update: the directive on commission adjustment status. We are heading into a very busy time of year in casinos, and having this in place would be helpful from a revenue and player-development perspective.”

The month will sound familiar to the minister, December 2013. The minister’s auditors say it was during this month that Mr. Graydon began secretly negotiating his employment terms with Paragon.

Can the minister tell this House why last year’s audit into Mr. Graydon’s activities completely failed to mention his advocacy for a policy that would deliver hundreds of thousands, and perhaps millions, of dollars in additional profits for his employer?

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, to the hon. member: quite to the contrary. When the internal audit and advisory services division of the ministry began and completed the review that I asked them to perform, they found and set out in clear, explicit terms that they felt the CEO, Mr. Graydon at the time, was in a conflict of interest.

So I hope the member isn’t standing here and suggesting that somehow there has been a denial or an unwillingness to confront the fact that there was improper conduct.

Now, to say further, however, that the standard practice that was undertaken by the Lottery Corporation in submitting an application to the gaming policy and enforcement branch, in responding to the request for a business case and providing that, for changes that would have ramifications for all service providers…. The internal audit division, by my recollection of the report, didn’t find anything untoward about that process.

The final thing I would say and remind the hon. member of is that the decision, again as I recall, around the application took place some one or two months following Mr. Graydon’s departure.
[ Page 8334 ]

Madame Speaker: Recognizing Vancouver–Point Grey on a supplemental.

D. Eby: The changes that Mr. Graydon was pushing the Ministry of Finance for specifically create higher profits for operators that offer low-limit table games. Coincidentally, his new employer, Paragon, that he jumped to just two weeks later, markets itself — its only casino in British Columbia — as having “the lowest limits in town.”

Can the minister explain if the change was designed to benefit the public or Mr. Graydon’s new employer, Paragon?

Hon. M. de Jong: In fact, the review undertaken by gaming policy and enforcement branch, prior to rendering a decision on this, is designed to answer that very question. Happily in this case, the evidence would appear to indicate that the interests of both the public and the service provider were advanced.

I should come back, though, and make this point again. It is for the very reason that I think the member of the opposition is alluding to that the internal audit branch came to the proper conclusion that Mr. Graydon found himself in a conflict of interest. It’s why we moved on the recommendations and instituted a series of safeguards to ensure that that couldn’t happen again.

It is for the very reason that the member is describing today that that suspicion persists and that the internal audit review found that a conflict of interest occurred.

I will repeat again — the gaming policy and enforcement branch conducted their review on the appropriate set of principles, protecting the public interest. The public interest was served because today there are more funds flowing to the B.C. Lottery Corporation and available for use in health care, education, public safety and other important services for British Columbia.

[1035]

C. James: I would think that the minister would find it worrisome that the audit of Mr. Graydon’s activities made no reference to this policy change or Mr. Graydon’s involvement in it, given the e-mail. I’ll read the quote again, from Michael Graydon to the CEO of the Lottery Corp. “A couple of things on my list yesterday that possibly you can give me an update on: the directive on commission adjustment status. We’re heading into a busy time of year in casinos, and having this in place would be helpful from a revenue and player-development perspective.”

Mr. Graydon lobbies for a change that benefits his new employer. The minister approves that change, and the Minister of Finance audit never mentions it. Could the minister please tell this House if he failed to mention the change to the auditors or if the auditors decided on their own that it did not merit scrutiny.

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, I hope that the hon. member is not suggesting in any way, shape or form that the folks at the internal audit and advisory services didn’t conduct a thorough examination. In fact, they did. I am certainly satisfied that they did. They rendered, as part of their report, a finding that whilst they believed Mr. Graydon was in a conflict-of-interest position during the two months prior to the time he left the B.C. Lottery Corporation, they found no evidence that he or his new employer benefited.

The process was followed by virtue of the gaming policy and enforcement branch conducting their work, requesting and receiving additional information from the Lottery Corporation around the business case for a set of changes. I haven’t talked about all of the details relating to all of the changes. They relate to specific games. They relate to specific revenue splits. But the fact is that at the end, the public interest was served. And in a key way, I would suggest that the flaw in the member’s assertion, or her theory, is that the decision…

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. de Jong: …that she is querying today actually occurred almost two months after Mr. Graydon left the Lottery Corporation.

Madame Speaker: Victoria–Beacon Hill on a supplemental.

C. James: It continues to be troubling, to use the minister’s word, that there was absolutely no mention of this policy change in the audit review.

When the Ministry of Finance audit was released, the minister described the findings as “troubling,” to use his quote again. He went further, and he directed a review of all conflict-of-interest rules at all Crown corporations. Yet the minister never bothered to mention to the public that there had been a significant policy change to the government’s gaming revenue structure, at the request, as we showed in this e-mail, of Mr. Graydon.

Can the minister explain why he never raised this issue in the House, never issued a press release and, most importantly, never directed the auditors to review this change after Mr. Graydon left for Paragon?

Hon. M. de Jong: I suppose the short answer is: because when I immediately called upon the internal audit division to conduct their review, the change had not occurred.

S. Simpson: Mr. Graydon was deemed to be in a conflict for the questionable manner in which he left the Lottery Corporation to go to Paragon. It was a move the minister called disturbing when he ordered the audit into Mr. Graydon’s conduct.

Now we know that there was a significant policy decision that was signed off by the minister that increased the
[ Page 8335 ]
revenues significantly for the casinos. There is no indication or evidence that the review ordered by the minister looked at that question. Can the minister tell us: has there been any review of that policy decision and its appropriateness, considering the conflict, and if not, why not?

[1040]

Hon. M. de Jong: The question of revenue splits and table limits is something that is reviewed on an ongoing basis. There are changes from time to time. There was a change, I think, in 2012 relating to the table limits for one particular game. No secret that the Lottery Corporation is endeavouring to create a range of activities that will attract some of the high-rollers, I guess we’d call them, and how to capitalize on that.

The member’s supposition is that this was a change that arose solely as a result of the submission or involvement of one individual. That is incorrect.

Interjections.

Hon. M. de Jong: The members scoff, and I’m sorry about that.

The gaming policy and enforcement branch — this is an important reason for the division that exists between the Lottery Corporation and the gaming policy and enforcement branch — received the application, requested additional information around the business case that would justify the change, received that information, analyzed it, provided a decision, a recommendation, and the decision was made weeks, if not months, after Mr. Graydon had departed the B.C. Lottery Corporation.

To answer the first part of the member’s question, a change of this sort is generally reviewed one year after the change has occurred, and that process is underway now.

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

S. Simpson: The reality is, I understand, that the revenue splits between casinos and the government haven’t changed for 16 years. This isn’t new.

The problem is this.

Interjections.

S. Simpson: As soon as the prattle on the other side halts….

The problem is this.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

S. Simpson: We have a situation where the person who motivated this change, Mr. Graydon, was found to be in conflict because he was leaving to go to work for a company who was an immediate beneficiary of this change. Yet somehow the minister doesn’t see that as a big enough problem to have some review of that and to say: “Oh well, we did that later, so it doesn’t matter.”

The question to the minister is this. It is a problem. There was a conflict that was determined. There clearly should be some audit review. Will the minister have that review done, preferably by an independent authority like the Auditor General?

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, beyond wanting to make political statements, I’m not sure what the member has just asked for.

A situation arose that was clearly unsatisfactory. Immediately upon becoming aware of it, I asked the division of government….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. de Jong: …that is responsible for assessing and reviewing these matters to conduct the review. They made a very specific finding — that a conflict had occurred — and that gave rise to a series of recommendations that the government has acted upon. At the same time, the business of the Lottery Corporation, the business of gaming in British Columbia, continued.

There was an application being made that went to the gaming policy and enforcement branch that was assessed on the basis of its merits and on the basis of the benefits that would accrue to the taxpayers of British Columbia. A decision was rendered, and, I suppose to the disappointment of members opposite, that decision was rendered months after Mr. Graydon had left the Lottery Corporation.

U.S. ACCESS TO HEALTH INFORMATION
OF B.C. RESIDENTS

D. Routley: Imagine you’re travelling to the United States with your family for a holiday, and you’re surprised when you are barred entry because the border guard somehow has access to your private, personal medical history — information they should not have.

[1045]

British Columbia’s Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act states: “A public body must ensure that personal information in its custody or under its control is stored only in Canada and accessed only in Canada….”

This government has previously denied that sensitive information was at risk of being accessed by the U.S., but that was later revealed to be untrue. To the Minister of Citizens’ Services: what is he doing to ensure that his government follows its own laws?
[ Page 8336 ]

Hon. A. Virk: First of all, the suggestion that the member is making in terms of an incident…. I can’t speak to a particular incident.

This government takes the privacy of its citizens very seriously. Our privacy legislation in British Columbia is among the strongest in Canada. The legislation ensures not only that the information is collected in the proper manner but that the institutions that collect that information have an obligation and a duty to ensure that information is guarded and guarded judiciously.

Madame Speaker: Member for Nanaimo–North Cowichan on a supplemental.

D. Routley: Last year the Auditor General reported that the Health Ministry failed to ensure that the contractor managing British Columbians’ personal medical records was complying with two key privacy provisions in their contract. In response, the Health Minister assured this House: “We take the privacy of health information very seriously. We work to ensure that information is held with the utmost privacy.”

A short two months later the Office of the Privacy Commissioner told the Ministry of Citizens’ Services in a clear statement that our personal information is indeed vulnerable to foreign governments, primarily due to seizure under the U.S.A. Patriot Act. Faced with such clear information about security risk, how can the minister responsible for privacy protection possibly continue to claim that our personal information is private and secure?

Hon. T. Lake: Well, thank you….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members. The Chair will hear the answer and the question.

Hon. T. Lake: The Auditor General did an update on his previous review into health benefits operation, which is managed by Maximus, and the review has shown that the ministry has made substantial progress in meeting the….

Interjections.

Hon. T. Lake: This is the Auditor General that has said that the ministry has made substantial progress in meeting the recommendation regarding reviewing the risk for privacy breaches at Maximus and ensuring that British Columbians’ health information is kept secure.

The Ministry of Health has worked closely with the Office of the Auditor General throughout the audit process. They were kept aware at all times of the findings, and we are confident that the government shared infrastructure is at the highest levels of privacy protection. We take the protection of medical information and other personal information very seriously on this side of the House.

G. Heyman: It’s like listening to a tape recording from a year ago by the Health Minister. British Columbia has robust privacy laws because they were introduced by an NDP government, and they’re weaker today because this government consistently undermines them.

It’s a matter of record from both the Auditor General and the Privacy Commissioner, who informed the Ministry of Citizens’ Services, that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court is authorized to order a U.S.-owned company to produce records that are under its control even when the information is located in Canada. Those U.S. court orders are made in secret, so we would never be told.

Yet the Liberal government failed to share this important information with British Columbians, despite having assured us that our records are secure. That’s not surprising, because this government has a history of hiding information from British Columbians until they’re forced to disclose it.

[1050]

Imagine. Our health information can be seized and used by the U.S. government without us even knowing it. Why isn’t the minister responsible for privacy protection enforcing his own laws to protect British Columbians’ private, personal and sensitive medical information?

Hon. A. Virk: This issue has been canvassed quite extensively in standing legislative committees. There have been updates to legislation. The assertion from the member is simply incorrect. The suggestion somehow that the members opposite are defenders of privacy legislation…. We determined right in this House just several weeks ago…. The members right across here were working, were mentoring, the suggestion that privacy legislation was far too open. That was determined right in this Legislative Assembly just several weeks ago.

Madame Speaker: Recognizing Vancouver-Fairview on a supplemental.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members. Members will come to order.

Please proceed.

G. Heyman: The minister is simply unaware of communications made to his own officials within his own ministry that concern protecting important, sensitive information of British Columbians, or he’s just hiding his head in the sand.

In November 2013 a paraplegic Canadian woman was denied entry into the United States because she had been hospitalized for clinical depression in 2012 and had at-
[ Page 8337 ]
tempted suicide a decade earlier. It was a mystery and remains unknown how the U.S. government accessed her personal and private medical information.

Cases like this one show that there are serious consequences when personal medical information gets into the hands of foreign governments. That’s why our law says that information has to stay in Canada and be accessed only by Canadians. Why won’t this minister ensure that the government follows its own laws?

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Hon. A. Virk: Well, the members opposite certainly want to spin a number of conspiracy theories. The privacy data of British Columbians is very important, and this government takes that responsibility….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Just wait. Please proceed.

Hon. A. Virk: The data security and privacy of British Columbians is indeed a serious matter. The suggestion, to spin these conspiracy theories…. Data collected about British Columbians by British Columbian institutions is safeguarded in the best manner possible, and it’s going to continue to be done so.

[End of question period.]

Petitions

M. Mungall: I rise to present a petition. I have here thousands of postcards calling on the government of British Columbia to institute a poverty reduction plan.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I seek leave to present a petition.

Madame Speaker: Please proceed.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: This petition was gathered by Stephanie Wu, a grade 12 student at Prince of Wales Secondary School, and contains 211 signatures on issues related to Port Metro Vancouver.

[1055]

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: In this chamber continued second reading debate on Bill 20. In Section A the continued estimates of the Ministry of Justice, and in Section C the ongoing estimates of the Ministry of Health.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 20 — ELECTION AMENDMENT ACT, 2015

(continued)

B. Routley: I rise to take my place in the debate about the Election Amendment Act, Bill 20. In particular, I want to focus on some of the issues that this Liberal government has chosen to ignore.

The Chief Electoral Officer had priority recommendations that this government has chosen yet again to ignore. One of those is the facilitating of youth participation. I actually think it’s a sad day for democracy when a government chooses to ignore our future, our youth. Yet this was a government that used to talk about families first.

Certainly, part of family, everybody knows, is encouraging our youth, for the future of British Columbia. It seems strange that whether it’s drinking ages or driving ages…. We’re talking about people that are under 20 years of age that should be able to engage in these things. In other provinces they are engaging voters earlier — really, at school age — and making sure that they have the opportunity to have some education about this.

It has always bothered me that in our educational system we don’t do some of the things that could be done. Certainly, one of them is signing youth up to ensure that they participate in democracy. I know that there are efforts made at the grade 4 or 5 level to bring students down to the Legislature to talk about the value of our democracy. You do see more youth involved in days like Remembrance Day, which is a good thing, but we need to encourage our youth and explain to them the understanding of why participating in democracy is so important.

This failure to listen to the Chief Electoral Officer in his recommendation…. The recommendation has been before us a number of times, as I understand it. B.C. has the lowest voter registration rates for young voters that are 18 to 24 years of age. There is a positive correlation between voting and being registered as a voter before the general election or voting day.

[1100]

I believe it’s important that our youth hear from seniors, from their parents, from their family about how critical it is. Really, people died on the battlefield defending our freedom, our democracy. It’s critical that they take the opportunity to participate.

I think the Chief Electoral Officer is absolutely right in choosing this as a priority issue — that we in British Columbia should be ensuring that we pass the torch to the youth of the future by encouraging them to participate.

You look at other provinces, such as Quebec, where they have a provisional register for potential voters, and unless they decline, they actually automatically add youth 18 years of age. They’re automatically added to the voters
[ Page 8338 ]
list. In order not to be added, you have to request that. In Alberta, although the amendment has yet to come into force, the Legislature has passed legislation enabling the Chief Electoral Officer to request directly from school boards the registration information of 16- and 17-year-olds for the purpose of provisionally registering them to vote.

Nine American states — nine — currently have provisional registration for 16- to 17-year-olds. Australia has addressed the issue by allowing provisional voters registration for 17-year-olds. The United Kingdom also registered 16- and 17-year-olds in Scotland in order to facilitate their participation in the 2014 Scottish independence referendum.

You know, I’m a firm believer that you need to listen to the people in the field that are focused primarily on issues and to the Chief Electoral Officer when he comes forward with keen recommendations. The question that ought to be in this Legislature is: why would we be opposed to such a thing? Why would we stand in the way? Why wouldn’t we be encouraging and enabling the people that spend their entire working day focusing on the issues and listening to constituents throughout the 85 electoral areas in British Columbia? You know?

When you’ve got somebody that recommends this and says we ought to be able to encourage youth in our democracy, get them signed up while they’re in schools or register them, inform them when they’re entering a driver’s licence program. I mean, they’re old enough to drive. Think about the irony of that — old enough to drive but not being encouraged to vote to participate in our democracy.

It should be alarming to everyone in this Legislature — the lower rates of participation, whether it’s school boards and councillors, that kind of thing. I know that even for me, I admit that it’s always a challenge to figure out who these people are and where they stand when they’re running for school board. There’s a brand-new group, and you have to at least do a little homework to try and find out whether you’re voting for somebody that you believe has the credentials and can support the democratic values going forward.

It’s important; it’s critically important. If we really stand and sing about our flag, about Canadian values…. We sing about B.C. — how critical and what a beautiful place this is. Well, it’s worth fighting for, to improve the democracy. I think that it’s just wrong that this Legislature and this government have decided they’re not going to listen to the Chief Electoral Officer in his recommendation and key report — or the committee that reviewed these issues that included all…. You know, it was a bipartisan effort. Again, they go away, they focus their time and energy on a subject like this, like engaging youth in democracy, they come up with this as one of their top three recommendations and sadly, this Liberal government has chosen just to ignore that.

[1105]

Oh, but what do they think is a wonderful plan? What do they think is a wonderful plan? Does it have anything to do with democracy, about encouraging people to vote and participate in democracy, or does it have everything to do with doing away with the spending rules? Oh well, that’s a good plan.

You know, this is a government that boasts…. The Vancouver Sun recently analyzed the donations. The B.C. Liberals, between 2005 and 2012, collected some $76 million, and the NDP were considerably less at about half that amount. That’s because the NDP primarily collect from individuals.

We have supported a real democratic reform, the idea of doing away with big corporations — or big unions, for that matter — being seen as anything more than what they are: separate entities. We need to have individuals that we go to the doorstep and engage with and have them have the major say in elections in British Columbia.

More and more, we’re seeing the participation of big money, the impact of big money. If anybody wants to argue that it doesn’t make any sense, one only needs to look at advertising dollars. Why do the biggest companies in the world engage in spending huge amounts of money on advertising? Because it works.

You can sell soap; you can sell toothpaste. But you can pound it out and get all kinds of participation from the public if you make it sound almost too good to be true. In fact, if you watch enough programs, and they say the saturation…. There’s a psychological impact of all of that money spent. They tell you: “You’re going to get a Happy Meal.” Pretty soon you think: “Well, I’ve got to rush down and get a Happy Meal, because if I don’t have a Happy Meal, somehow I’m not going to be happy. I’m not going to be fulfilled.”

The idea that somehow it’s a good plan….Oh notionally. We should really engage here in the province of British Columbia in some plan to free up the big dollars, the big corporate cash. Open the vault. Make it all free. Do away with spending limits. That’ll be good for democracy somehow.

The message from this government is that it’s going to be good to free the vault, open up the cash — bags full of cash, wheelbarrows full of cash. They can run down and give it to their local politician. No, they’re not buying anything, though. Oh, it would be a real mistake to suggest that they’re buying any of these good people that work in this Legislature.

No, no, they’re not buying, and they’re certainly not buying…. Oh, I’m sure that the good people don’t even notice who gave them hundreds of thousands of dollars. They probably hardly even notice. Or what do you think? I don’t know. It troubles me. I think it ought to trouble the good people of British Columbia.

We ought to be saying there’s something very wrong when the three top recommendations of the Chief Electoral Officer include, number one, facilitating youth
[ Page 8339 ]
participation, and we crumple it up and throw it in the garbage. “Nope, no, we have no interest.”

They’re doing it in Quebec. In Alberta they’ve moved ahead. Other provinces in Canada are looking at moving in the right direction. Certainly, nine American states, even in Scotland and the U.K.…. Here in British Columbia we say: “Nah. Thanks, but no thanks. We’re not interested in what the Chief Electoral Officer has to say about that issue.”

It’s sad to move away from it, because it does trouble me that we’re not engaging our youth of today. I’ve got five grandchildren, and like so many others, I’m sure we see them wandering around with their fingers on the dial. But we gotta engage. And I do. I make sure I engage with my grandchildren about the importance of democracy and their need to participate.

As the Chief Electoral Officer is attempting, it ought to be a priority of the government of British Columbia to do some education, some training and to ensure that we’re attracting and bringing democracy into the forefront and saying: “Well, even if it is a chore, even if it is difficult.…”

[1110]

I’ve run into young people that say: “Oh, it doesn’t matter. They’re all the same.” I understand why they would feel that way. They think that somehow it doesn’t connect to their life, with the computer and their iPad and their iPod and all of the other stuff that’s plugged in there. It’s hard for them to understand that at the same time we need to….

This is the alternative to war and to blood in the streets — to have democracy and voting. You don’t want wars. That’s why we talk about…. We even pray about the fact and give thanks for the fact that we have democracy. It is the alternative to fighting and war to be able to have democracy and to engage in a debate, if you want to call it that.

I guess it’s a debate, although I sometimes wonder: doesn’t a debate mean that there’s somebody listening? I often feel like nobody is listening, although I guess I shouldn’t feel that way. There were times that somebody actually listened to me, and they did change…. That was on the Woodworkers Lien Act. I’m appreciative that in my lifetime I actually got to experience that democracy can mean something. There are times. Some of the committee work is great that way, so I do get it.

Anyway, one of the other top vote-getters by the Chief Electoral Officer and the committee was the new voting technology. Again, this is very interesting. If you went with the premise that we should be saying: “You know, these folks are coming forward, cap in hand, asking for our help to look at possibilities to amend the legislation, to make it better, to make democracy better….” And they come in and say: “Well, we need to trial some new voting technologies. We need to do some trial periods.”

Again, I know that that’s a wonderful idea, actually. It’s a good idea to try new things, and the kinds of pilot projects that they’re talking about for new technologies include increased accessibility for voters with disabilities.

Again, let me camp there. Why, oh why, would the people who are going to order the drafting of legislation decide: “No, no, let’s just forget that. We have no interest in that. We’re going to move ahead with electoral reform so there’s no spending limits”?

That’s a good idea. It’ll get the cash running down the road, but the idea of having technology that helps voters with disabilities…. They call it sip-and-puff ballot-marking devices, for example.

Again, think about that. That’s important. I think that’s encouraging democracy in the right way. Any average B.C. citizen that was having an intelligent discussion about how to improve things for people with disabilities….

We spend a lot of money grinding the edges off sidewalks, which is a good idea, so that we have wheelchair accessibility. But: “Oh no, we can’t.” The Liberal government decides they’ve got no time for doing anything to increase accessibility for people with disabilities. They’re only talking about trials, just to try it.

Again, for the life of me, I can’t figure out why government wouldn’t embrace these notions that are so forward-thinking and so appropriate for the electoral officer to bring forward and to suggest. Again, why are we wanting to get to no with stuff like that and get to yes on things that seem selfish and self-centred, from my point of view? This idea of “Oh well, grab the cash. That’s going to be good.” But doing something for people with disabilities….

[1115]

Yet again, I just can’t resist. This is the kind of jiggery-pokery we’ve come to expect. We’ve come to expect the jiggery-pokery, the sleight of hand that this government displays every day in deciding cash is good. Bring in the wheelbarrows. Open the vaults from the corporate leaders. We want to get our hands on the cash.

But oh well. Sip-and-puff ballot-marking devices and optical ballot scanners that would actually allow more efficient results in reporting — let’s not even go there. Let’s not even look at it.

It’s wrong-headed. It’s wrong thinking in my mind. I almost can’t believe it, but I’ve grown a little harder in the experience here, because you find out some things that you think it would make no sense at all to turn down, like doing little trials for new voting technology. You just can’t imagine how they decided: “Well, let’s not do that, and let’s give a tax cut to people that make over $150,000. That’s a good plan.”

Anyway, I digress. I know we want to hear some more about Bill 20 and the Election Amendment Act. So I’m going to focus on that like a laser beam. I’m not going to talk about the veneer plant like I usually like to — throw in a little story, wander off down memory lane.

I’m going to talk about the flexibility of advanced voting opportunities. There really does need to be some flex-
[ Page 8340 ]
ibility. What the electoral officer is asking for here makes so much sense.

Basically, over 20 percent of all votes were cast in advanced voting. What the recommendation here is, is to allow, particularly rural areas…. Again, this is about making voter accessibility a key ingredient, something that we should all focus on as part of our democracy. It makes sense to listen to the request of the Chief Electoral Officer in his request to have a larger number of voters in rural communities have the opportunity to have a limited number of days or hours to vote early.

Again, he’s limited by the existing legislation, and so we would need to address amendments to make that possible. Again, it’s such a good idea to provide those kind of opportunities, to go back and review all of the issues.

The third-party spending limits. I do want to say that back in 2009 the Liberals had brought in the controversial third-party election advertising rules. The rules included an extra 60-day pre-campaign period that kicked in before the official 28-day election campaign window.

A Charter challenge, as we all know, was launched, and the court said the spending limits during this extra time was an excessive limit on free speech. So as the courts ruled, there was an attempt to amend the legislation to deal with that.

But Bill 20 gets rid of not only that 60-day pre-campaign period for third parties, but at the same time, under sections 12 and 13, removes the pre-campaign period spending limits for political parties and candidates. Again, that’s kind of the unintended consequence.

Under the existing act parties are limited to spending $1.1 million and candidates to $70,000 in the 60-day pre-campaign period. So under Bill 20 all of the limits on spending by political parties and candidates are eliminated in the lead-up to the drop of the writ. The limits during campaigns would remain in place, but that 60-day window has changed.

[1120]

It does disproportionately help the Liberal government in that it opens the door to a huge campaign donation, changes that remove limits and allow the deep-pocket folks to flourish the cash on Liberal insiders. You know, I’m troubled by that.

Going back to the notion of the three key issues, we will be voting, of course, against this legislation because of the dramatic changes that have taken place in terms of spending limits. The NDP, as you know, would favour banning corporate and union donations and strike an all-party committee to consider other changes to how money donated to the political process impacts our democracy.

I understand that the government is against any such bans that would require parties to rely, they believe, on some kind of government subsidies.

That kind of concludes my remarks. I just want to reiterate the importance of democracy and the importance of engaging our youth. I think it would be wonderful. I think that the Chief Electoral Officer has rightly concluded that there needs to be a way to get to the youth while they’re still in school or while they’re taking their training for their driving licences. That would be a great opportunity to improve democracy in the province of British Columbia.

With that, I thank you for the opportunity to say a few words about Bill 20.

Deputy Speaker: I thank the member and will remind members that participation in the debate should be only from their places.

N. Simons: Thank you very much, hon. Speaker. For a moment there, I thought that I was in the wrong seat, but I remember now. It had to do with some words that were spoken from somewhere on the other side of the House, perhaps echoing from the wrong location.

I hope that when interjections occur during my opportunity to respond or speak to Bill 20, they are done appropriately, with the expectation that the Speaker’s words are taken to heart. Nothing gives me greater pleasure than knowing that my friends opposite are paying close attention to my important and studied words.

Interjections.

N. Simons: I’m covered. Thank you to the members opposite, whose presence or absence in this House I shall not mention.

Bill 20, of course, is a bill that seeks to reform certain aspects of the way that we vote in this province. Many of the suggestions that were made by the Chief Electoral Officer have been probably contemplated and rejected. Others have been taken into account when drafting this legislation.

I think that the overall feeling that I have about this legislation, these proposed changes to our electoral system, is that it’s a missed opportunity, really. It’s an opportunity that has passed by. One would wonder why many of the suggestions made by the independent electoral officer were ignored. At least two key changes were summarily dismissed, it seems, on the face of it.

Those two recommendations that seemed to be…. I won’t say ignored but not taken seriously enough by this government were opportunities to use new technologies in voting — at least to trial them to give them an opportunity to see if they would work.

The second one that they seemed to have avoided is an opportunity to promote youth participation in our election. It’s something that I think every member in this House has been asked about during election campaigns. “What are you going to do to ensure or to promote young people participating in the electoral process?” We see, disproportionately, the more senior folks being more actively involved in the voting process itself.

[1125]

I think the studies indicate that, anyway. I do believe that’s the reason the Chief Electoral Officer suggested that.

Advanced registration for young people prior to their ability to actually vote increases their participation when they become old enough to vote. By preregistering them, the voter turnout of young people would improve. That not being included in this legislation I think is unfortunate, because it’s not often that governments spend this amount of time and resources on making changes to fairly established legislation.

I wonder if there are going to be opportunities for the government to come back to this legislation and include that particular approach. We will have to wait and see, and perhaps that change will come in due course, but unfortunately, it’s not included in Bill 20.

My views on facilitating youth participation in the electoral process are not dissimilar to those of my colleagues from both sides of the House. But when we say one thing — that we want to increase youth participation in the electoral process — and then we take no opportunity to do that, despite the recommendation of the Chief Electoral Officer…. Why wouldn’t we? Why wouldn’t we decide to take that suggestion and figure out how to work it in?

My sneaking suspicion is that it has to do with, you know…. The demographics of the province might have been a contemplation of this government. They might have thought: “Well, young people participating in the election may not benefit us.” I worry that some of these changes in this legislation have to do with trying to ensure that the status quo is protected and that big money is still a central part of our campaigns.

That brings me to that issue, and that is the fact that it’s an opportunity missed, not only in encouraging young people participating in elections but to rid our political system of the undue influence that big money has. I’m talking about corporate union donations. I say that as a member of the opposition, knowing that, by far, the contributions to our political party come from individuals, and perhaps knowing that the government side, the Liberals, counts on disproportionate donations from corporate entities.

Could that have played a part in the government’s decision not to include that in the legislation? If so, it’s disappointing, and I hope that the public sees legislative changes through a lens of how the legislation may benefit or be detrimental to different parties.

I would point out that when electoral reform and democratic reform took place seriously in the ’70s, led by Dave Barrett, those were changes that were made that continue to today, including question period, Hansard and a number of other changes to our system that improved openness and improved accountability to the people of the province, which should be what our electoral system is about.

Now, my friend who sits behind me was talking about new technologies. Clearly, we’ve emerged into an age of different forms of communication, and it seems that our electoral system hasn’t quite stayed at that same pace. And the Chief Electoral Officer’s recommendations around trialling or allowing new systems of voting to occur — perhaps that will come when real electoral reform or democratic reform takes place.

[1130]

I point out that the changes that the party recommends now aren’t necessarily going to benefit ourselves. I think that says something about the broader or the greater importance that we place on a strong electoral system than it does on partisan interests. I’m not sure that the same can be said about this legislation.

As it stands, without significant amendments, I don’t see us voting in favour of this, and government wouldn’t really care anyway, because they’ve got the votes. That’s the way they’ve decided to operate in this place. They say what they want, they write down what they want, and they pass bills that they want. Really, the opposition is to the government more of a nuisance rather than people who represent their ridings as duly elected members of the Legislature.

Even our parliamentary or our legislative committees seem to be more just paper committees, except for a few exceptions such as Public Accounts, Finance, and Children and Youth.

I would like to see, obviously, more opportunity or more willingness or appetite on the part of government to accept the fact that the opposition and the independents represent real British Columbians who have voted for us so that we could have some influence on the legislation that impacts their lives.

As much as we do make the efforts…. My friend from Cowichan was talking about the Woodworker Lien Act, I think it was, and how he has had an impact on that, and I think that many of us in this House have been able to contribute to improving legislation. It depends whether or not the government has an appetite to listen or an appetite to engage the opposition in real discussions about legislation.

This legislation, as it stands, has some serious, serious flaws, I believe. One of them that has been raised by journalists and opposition members alike is the provision which requires the B.C. electoral officer to disclose who’s voted and who hasn’t.

It’s slightly complicated, but my understanding is that during the election scrutineers from different parties are able to attend at voting stations in advance of the election — in advance voting — and during the general election and determine who has appeared to vote or not, who has shown up to vote.

As many political parties are very technical and well organized, they determine where they expect their supporters to be and where they aren’t, and then they cross-
[ Page 8342 ]
reference and make sure that the people who haven’t shown up do show up to vote.

Now, this provision, which would allow the political parties to see who voted and who didn’t after an election, under prescribed circumstance…. That doesn’t resonate well with me. I believe that there are some serious privacy issues involved. I think that in fact people’s decisions to vote or not are often a reflection of their faith, a reflection of their attitude towards politics, to government, or other reasons that are not necessarily the business of political parties.

From someone who hasn’t really studied the history of how this has all evolved, I think it strikes me as a little bit of an invasion when in fact someone will determine and someone will be told in a political party whether or not I voted — not how I voted, but whether or not I voted. I think that goes beyond what most people would feel is appropriate.

It’s different if you’re sitting in the polling station and you’re participating with the electoral officials and making sure the people you’ve campaigned at…. I guess you campaign at people.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: You campaign with and for them.

N. Simons: With and for them. Yeah, we all do that, I guess. We campaign with voters, and we campaign for voters — yes. I’m not sure if the member would say that again without wanting to be a little more accurate.

[1135]

I’m trying to find the right words, and he hasn’t helped at all. He’s actually made it more complex, but hey, he’s got more degrees than I have. But, you know, that’s fair. The fact that he’s listening just strikes me as kind on his part.

My concern around that, I think, is one that is shared by most British Columbians, by the Privacy Commissioner and by others. I hope that amendments proposed by and maybe even amendments brought in by the government itself or by the opposition or by the independents will address some of the serious problems that the opposition has with the legislation as it stands.

One other change that will make sense to most people is that political parties and candidates will be allowed to use social media to get out the vote on election day. Of course, they won’t be allowed to say: “Come and vote for me” or “Get out there and vote for me.” But they’ll be able to say: “Don’t forget to vote.” If you have a Facebook post that says, “Don’t forget to vote….” Previously, that wouldn’t be allowed. Under this legislation that would be allowed. So you could tweet: “Don’t forget it’s voting day.”

I’m hoping that maybe it will be harder to forget that it’s voting day, because this legislation also adds two days to the advanced voting, on a Saturday and a Sunday. In my riding, where we have…. A lot of folks who travel to work to commute to work and who are not necessarily available on the specific days allocated for advanced voting will have an increased opportunity to exercise their franchise and to get out to vote. It’s a Saturday and a Sunday, so in addition to the previous one weekend day where a person is allowed to vote in advance. That will be a good change for many of the residents that I represent.

Another change is going to require that those vouching for family members and for others will be required to present identifying documents, which seems to be, on the face of it, a good change. I do hope that the government has taken care not to write legislation in such a way that would disenfranchise folks who have trouble voting or people who are without a fixed address or people with challenges to…. I hope that it doesn’t interfere with their ability to vote.

My concern would probably be one that would be vetted by the electoral officer. Just pointing it out here as something that was raised, I think, during the federal election at one point where identity documents requirements seemed to have a disproportionately negative impact on the voting turnouts of certain demographics, including First Nations, homeless people and some rural folks.

This legislation isn’t without its positive characteristics, its positive points. I think that, like all legislation, there are certain aspects of it that seem to be appropriate and some that I think shouldn’t be in here. What characterizes this legislation to me is what it doesn’t include. Unfortunately, what it doesn’t include are ways of encouraging youth participation. What it doesn’t include are restrictions on the “big money,” as they call it, in the election process.

As it stands, this side of the House will be standing to vote against Bill 20. My hope, though, of course, is that the government will see fit to make proper amendments or to accept the amendments of the members from this side so that this legislation can be brought to a standard that we can accept.

With that, hon. Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity and for the rapt attention of the members opposite.

[1140]

K. Corrigan: It gives me a great deal of pleasure to rise and speak on Bill 20, the Election Amendment Act.

One of the things that really concerns me is the fact that a recommendation that was near and dear to my heart was not included in this bill. That was a recommendation that came from the Chief Electoral Officer, and that was a recommendation that was also, actually, represented…. I think we’ve had several private members’ bills, as well, suggesting that there should be youth voter preregistration.

I was a school trustee for nine years, and one of the things that we found that was distressing was that students had a tendency to have a big change in their lives when they left school. When they were 17 or 18 and they graduated from high school, so many things in their lives changed.
[ Page 8343 ]

My understanding, from some research that I did on youth voter preregistration…. One of the things that happened was that we found that students’ lives changed in many ways, and they get disconnected from their lives in their families. They leave school. They might travel to another place to go to school. They start new jobs. They might leave home as part of that process. What you find is that their lives are changing a lot. That discontinuity — one of the things that it can do — can interrupt the possibility of civic engagement, engagement in the electoral process.

One of the things that we can do, a possibility of something that could be done, is to have preregistration of voters at the age of 16. What this would do…. It wouldn’t mean that 16-year-olds would get to vote, although there are certainly some people that would argue in favour of that. But what it would allow to happen is that students — for example, when get their driver’s licence or automatically through the school system — have some process wherein they become registered to vote, and it would just take away a potential barrier for young people that makes it just a little bit easier.

We know that if people vote once, then they are much more likely to vote in the future — that they will be much more likely, if they have voted once, to be in the habit. You know, sometimes it’s just the process of knowing how to walk into that hall — or usually it’s a school — and go through the process of being greeted and then going to the booth and so on. That sets up a pattern for life.

We know that the number of young people that vote has declined, that the number of young people that vote compared to older people is low. This a was very democratic suggestion that came from the Chief Electoral Officer and, certainly, one that was contained in private members’ bills that have come from this side of the House.

Very disappointed. No particular reason why that democratic suggestion to increase engagement was not taken up. I just wanted to make that one point.

In addition to that, because I think that was very important and unfortunate that that was not included, I think it would have meant, for example, that students would be more involved and schools would probably be more involved in having debates at election time. I know that they do now, but having debates, having candidates for debates at election time or mock debates — those kinds of things — would probably be promoted.

We really have to be concerned about the fact that we had, in the last provincial election and in other elections, an overall decrease in the percentage of people that voted in the last two elections. It’s been only about half. About half of the people voted.

[1145]

We have an obligation in this place — people who, on both sides of the House, are particularly concerned in making sure that there is engagement. We all understand here the importance of the voting process, and this is an opportunity that has been missed. I think that’s very, very unfortunate.

I just had one other short point that I wanted to make. I know we’re going to be finished in a couple of minutes, but I’m also very concerned about some of the other provisions in this bill. The one that concerns me the most and is enough that I don’t believe that I can support this bill…. One of the others is the amendments to third-party spending limits. With this bill, the third-party spending limits in the pre-election period have been thrown out. I think that’s most unfortunate.

What this points toward or could lead us to is an American-style system where there is no limit. You know the horrible American example and model wherein millions and millions of dollars, hundreds of millions of dollars sometimes, are spent in elections. Essentially, huge lobbyists and individuals who represent issues really control the system.

I don’t want to see that happen in British Columbia. I want there to be an honest discussion of issues and that in British Columbia money will not control how decisions are made. Rather, they should be based on principle.

My understanding is that my time is coming to a close.

Interjection.

K. Corrigan: Well, then I will continue speaking enthusiastically until the minister gets here.

Interjections.

K. Corrigan: More, more, more.

I am concerned about that. My understanding is that there had been some court cases that were problematic. For that reason, the pre-election period, which was being controlled, was determined to be too long. We all were concerned about free speech, and that’s understandable. But the Court of Appeal decision that decided that the third-party advertising rules were inappropriately extended to 60 days — and even the 40 days was inappropriate…. That decision, which shot that down and said, “You can’t control speech for that period of time before the election,” on the other hand, did not say that there couldn’t be spending limits prior to the election.

With that observation, I am going to complete my comments and take my seat.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the Attorney General closes debate.

Hon. S. Anton: I would like to make a few remarks before we conclude second reading. I’d like to thank those members of the House who have taken part in debate on this bill. I’m pleased that there are areas of agreement about some of the proposed changes, and I understand that there are some differences of opinion as well.
[ Page 8344 ]

Let me respond first to the objection that has been raised regarding the elimination of the pre-campaign period, which still applies to political parties and candidates but not to third parties. The clear reason for eliminating these restrictions is to level the playing field for everyone. If third parties are not subject to spending restrictions during a pre-campaign period, then neither should political parties or individual candidates.

This government previously made attempts to legislate spending restrictions that would have applied to everyone — political parties, candidates and third parties. We respect the decisions of the courts when they found that, on balance, the restriction on third parties’ freedom of speech outweighed the goal of restricting political spending prior to fixed-date elections.

The key point is that the rules should apply equally to everyone. This is not being cynical, as some on the opposition benches have suggested. Either we’re all subject to spending limits, or none of us should be.

[1150]

Indeed, I reiterate the finding made by Justice Cole in his initial ruling on the pre-campaign period spending limits and how they apply to political participants. He 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 of this unfairness to the political parties and candidates during the pre-campaign period.” Those are the words of the Supreme Court justice, and we are acting on them.

I would also note that, while the majority of provinces as well as the federal government have fixed date elections, we are the only jurisdiction in Canada that has any pre-campaign period spending limits for political parties and candidates. We are, in fact, proposing to bring our legislation back into line with the common practice across Canada and, indeed, with what was the practice in British Columbia, except for the elections in 2009 and 2013. This is hardly the assault of the democratic process that some members opposite seem to think it is.

The other topic I would like to address is the concern raised about the provision of voter turnout information to political parties post-election. I’ve heard the comments from members opposite, and I, of course, reviewed the comments and recommendations made by the province’s Privacy Commissioner. I should reiterate that the clear intention behind this amendment is to assist political parties in reviewing their voter turnout efforts after an election and to assist with voter engagement efforts between elections.

Some in this House have suggested that parties might use this information to essentially badger non-voters through repeated and unwanted communications, but we have to stop and ask: why would a party do that? The goal for any political party is to gain voter support. The last thing you want to do is to alienate voters through unwanted contact. Instead, I fully expect that political parties would use and guard the voter turnout information as carefully as they have used and guarded all voters list information that they have received for decades.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

I’d like to say that I have taken careful note of concerns about creating a level playing field between political parties and candidates when it comes to providing this information. I’ve also heard the concerns about privacy protection. There is clearly a desire that has been expressed that we make explicit statutory rules to safeguard personal information and to limit more specifically what the information can be used for. I look forward to engaging further with these issues when we continue debate on the bill in committee stage.

With that, I move second reading of Bill 20.

[1155]

Second reading of Bill 20 approved on the following division:

[1200]

[ Page 8345 ]
Hon. S. Anton: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting after today.

Bill 20, Election 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.

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

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

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

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 12:01 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF JUSTICE

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); S. Sullivan in the chair.

The committee met at 11:01 a.m.

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

Hon. S. Anton: I’ve had a number of staff with me who have been introduced over the past few days, but I will introduce two new persons who are here this morning: Kathryn Chapman, deputy superintendent, RoadSafetyBC; and Kathy Kirby, director of policy for RoadSafetyBC.

S. Hammell: I have an e-mail from a person in my constituency that I’d like to share with you and then just ask a few questions on it.

“Two days before Christmas I left my pregnant wife in my truck while I ran into the pharmacy for a prescription for her. We were on our way to the hospital to have an ultrasound.

“When I went into the pharmacy, my wife was carjacked at gunpoint. The guy wouldn’t let her out of the truck. He threw her bulldog puppy dog out of the truck and tried to run over her. My wife screamed that she was pregnant, and he began punching her in the stomach.

“There was a violent fight for control of the truck, and it flipped over. He was mad. They crashed and began kicking my wife in the stomach as he exited the overturned truck. He then stole a car with a seven-week-old baby inside. The baby received a concussion.

“This guy has a huge record of violent robberies and offences. Why isn’t he declared a dangerous offender? He keeps doing armed robberies and hurting people and getting hardly any time. Does he need to kill someone? I’d like him declared a dangerous offender, and so would the police.

“Please look at the long list of offences and details of crimes. The police have him on their prolific offender list. He gets out of jail and commits violent robberies again and again. He tried to kill my wife, and if he keeps on getting off lightly, he is going to kill someone.

“Can you please help me? My wife has a broken hip and is not well mentally or physically.”

This offender has an ever-growing more violent action. I remember this incident. It was in my constituency. I am asking the minister: what is my response to this e-mail?

[1105]

Hon. S. Anton: The circumstances described sound dreadful, and I think we can all be very sympathetic to the family involved. No one ever asks for anything like this when they go out on a morning errand.

In terms of the specific case, of course I cannot speak to it or to how it is proceeding before the court, because it may be before the court. We don’t have that information right now.

What I can say in a general way is that in a case of this nature the victim can phone, and should phone and be in touch with Crown counsel. Crown counsel can and will give the victim updates as to the status of the case. They can help them hook up with victim services, because we do have victim services providers around British Columbia.

Crown are, of course, trained to handle cases of the nature described by the member. The Crown will turn their mind on a sentencing in a serious case. Where prolific offenders are involved, Crown will turn their mind to whether or not a dangerous offender application is appropriate. I think that is what a victim in the circumstances described can do.

If the member would like to give me a copy of the e-mail, we can look into it further to see whether or not there is in fact an outstanding case and help the person involved with that information.

I hope that is helpful. Our goal is to make sure that people who are victims of crime are helped with the system.

L. Krog: I’m instructed that we don’t have that much time left to complete these estimates. My co-critic is anxious to get on with it, so we’re going to have to do a little galloping through this morning, unfortunately.

My understanding is the budget this year will increase by 1.6 percent but that prosecution services are up 2.6 percent and judiciary is up 4.4 percent, both substantially higher than the overall increase for the ministry. I’m just wondering. Can the Attorney General explain that, please?

[1110]

Hon. S. Anton: There’s an $18 million increase. It’s $5.8 million to RCMP, $1 million to the superior courts judiciary, $2.4 million base-budget funding of the downtown community court. That downtown community court was previously funded out of contingencies, so we’ve moved it into the regular budgeting now.

A quarter-million to RoadSafetyBC for cost pressures. A quarter-million for a review of the judiciary’s budget requirements, and the funding is in executive and support services. It’s $7.08 million for essential compensation increases, including $1.95 million for judiciary, $1.3 million for Crown counsel, $70,000 for Legal Services Society and $3.76 million for other compensation increases, BCGEU, and the like.

L. Krog: The ministry has missed its family court timeliness measure for a number of years, the targets. The minister can correct me if I’m wrong, but it appears this has now been removed entirely, as a performance measure, from the plan. Is that correct?

Hon. S. Anton: Although this was included in some previous documentation, in fact this never was our measure. This is the court’s measure, so it’s in the court’s materials.

L. Krog: It does strike me as odd that it’s been used as a measure and available to the public and is the most widely circulated document and that now it’s been removed as a measure. Indeed, the 2014 plan would indicate that the target for 2013-14 was 103 days, and we’re now up to 126. Then the target was supposed to be 125 by 2016-17. Is that in fact still the target?

[1115]

Hon. S. Anton: The information is still available to the public. This is a Provincial Court measure. It’s not our government measure, so the measurement itself is located on the website of the Provincial Court and is available to the public.

I would like to just caution the member, though, as to time to order in family matters. The time to a trial in criminal matters is more measurable. You have a criminal charge. You’ve got an accused. You’ve got witnesses, and so on. You generally want to keep those moving through the system.

In a family matter, it’s different. In a family matter, the families may be talking. They may have three or four or five issues to resolve. They may resolve four of those five issues on their own, and by the time they need to get into a courtroom, it may be quite far down the line. They may never need to get into a courtroom.

It is not the same as measuring, as I said, a criminal matter. It is a completely different form of measurement. Generally in family measures, if people can resolve things out of court, if they can resolve them through mediation and if they can come to amicable solutions, that is good for the family.

L. Krog: I don’t think you have to be an uptight Victorian to recognize when there’s been a fig leaf placed over something that some people find somewhat embarrassing — which, with great respect to the Attorney General, I would suggest is indeed the timeliness of family court matters. The reality is that that number has been going up over time historically. I would suggest strongly that it doesn’t reflect any better access to justice. Indeed, it reflects the access to justice that is being denied to people who are stuck in family court.

Part of that — and the legal community has raised this issue in numerous reports; I’ve raised this issue over and over again — is the significant cuts made by this government 14 years ago to the Legal Services budget, which is still, even in raw dollar terms, not anything near what it was 14 years ago — not taking into account inflation, population increases and changing law, which obviously has an impact on people’s ability to shepherd their own cases through the court system, let alone lawyers.

[1120]

Given that there is no new money, it appears, being funneled into the Legal Services Society this year, is the government essentially saying, and speaking with its money or lack of money for this, that we are not anticipating any real increase in funding for the Legal Services Society in order to assist, particularly, people with serious family law matters — which they should not, quite frankly, be conducting on their own in our court system?

Hon. S. Anton: The total budget for access-to-justice services is about $104.5 million. It breaks down as $74½ million for the Legal Services Society and an additional $30 million, which is for the family maintenance enforcement program, family justice services and the justice access centres.

All of those things, like many things we do…. There is a package of things that address an issue. Dollars to the Legal Services Society is kind of a simplistic way and probably an older model of looking at it. We’re looking at new ways, through dollars to Legal Services and innovation. We’re looking at things like the justice access centres, family justice services, and so on, because all of those things help citizens who are in need of legal services.

We have given, over the previous fiscal year, this year and planning for next year an additional $2 million per year to the Legal Services Society, and this is for innovation projects.

In Victoria we have a full-time family duty counsel at the Victoria Justice Access Centre. That is one of those innovation projects. We now have the Family LawLINE, where eligible clients can call from anywhere in the province for family law advice. You can get six hours of a lawyer’s time. It’ll be the same lawyer, so it’s an advantage
[ Page 8347 ]
for lawyers and an advantage for people who have issues. That lawyer could be a lawyer in Smithers and be helping people all over British Columbia.

The third pilot is with Mediate B.C. and the Legal Services Society. This is really to change the philosophy of how we view family law cases. Every family law case does not need to present itself to a judge for adjudication. We like matters to be mediated. The whole philosophy of the Family Law Act is that matters be mediated.

The third pilot project with Legal Services involves referring eligible clients with family matters concerning property, debt, spousal support or related issues to Mediate B.C. for up to six hours of free mediation.

All of those things help families. They help families with legal issues. They are innovative, and they are good for British Columbians.

[1125]

L. Krog: I certainly would acknowledge and I do appreciate all the innovative things that the Legal Services Society and government have attempted to do in this area. If it were all in addition to a fully functioning, appropriately funded Legal Services Society and a system that allowed people to have access to lawyers when they needed them, then it would indeed be commendable. But the Attorney General well knows that much of what she has mentioned this morning in her response is essentially a replacement for the dramatic cuts that were made to the legal aid system 14 years ago.

We are now essentially offering people, with great respect — it’s a terrible analogy, perhaps — a horse to ride as opposed to a car to ride in.

It may be sufficient from the Attorney General’s perspective, but it’s not seen as sufficient by those people struggling to deal with family court or struggling to deal with the all-too-common situation where you have a spouse who has income and access to pay for counsel and another spouse who doesn’t and who, regardless of how poor they may be, because of the strict guidelines for legal aid won’t be eligible for legal aid either and so will essentially be stumbling through the system, trying to get advice from duty counsel as best they can and then wandering off to court on their own.

It’s not just my criticism or the criticism of the opposition. We know that the West Coast LEAF CEDAW Report Card 2014 — they’ve been reporting since 2011 — points out once again that the government, on access to justice, is an F. And it most particularly impacts women, obviously, disproportionately. Once again, it’s an F.

The Attorney General earlier commented that the fact that these matters aren’t getting into court would indicate that in fact, perhaps, this is good news. If it takes longer, it’s not a problem. But on the other end of the scale, where people are very intimately involved in the system and are facing the greatest legal challenges because they’re no longer in a lower-level court, the number of self-represented litigants in family matters, according to the latest numbers from the B.C. Court of Appeal, is up from 38 percent, which is well over a third, to 44 percent.

We are now approaching numbers where literally one in two litigants before the B.C. Court of Appeal are going to be representing themselves. Does the Attorney General honestly believe that that is fair justice for British Columbians trying to represent themselves before the B.C. Court of Appeal?

Hon. S. Anton: The member may possibly know that balancing the budget is very important to this government. One of the things that balancing your budget forces you to do is become innovative. I would like to speak very highly of all of the innovation that has gone on in Justice, because everybody in the justice system is working for innovation. How do we resolve things earlier? How do we keep things out of court? How do we come to better solutions for families?

[1130]

One of our partners in that is the Legal Services Society. The member said that he needed a fully functioning Legal Services Society. I don’t think he meant to be disrespectful in that, although it may be interpreted that way. But I don’t think that’s what he meant.

What I would like to say is that the Legal Services Society has been extraordinarily interested in innovation and working very closely with my team in Justice to make sure that we do think about innovative projects.

For instance, the projects that I mentioned a moment ago, the mediation projects — if that can come to a solution for families so that they don’t have to go to court, the families are better off, the children are better off. And if you’re not in court, the whole court system is better off. These are innovative and very good projects systemwide for a number of different reasons.

All of these are being evaluated. We need to test. We’ve got five pilot projects. I mentioned three. There are two others, which are the parents legal centre for child protection matters at Robson Square and an expanded criminal duty counsel in Port Coquitlam. All of these will be evaluated. If they are working, if they seem to be working when the evaluation takes place, we will then see about rolling them out further. They are being evaluated for the way they help people and also for the way they help the system.

L. Krog: As much as one appreciates all these innovative projects, which, as I indicated earlier, are substitutions for what was a fully functioning legal aid system….

I think my contact with the Legal Services Society is sufficient and over a long enough period of time for them to understand exactly what I mean, because they’re the ones who have had to bare the brunt of this. They’re the ones who point this out in their own material, and their CEO, Mark Benton, said: “Two out of three people who
[ Page 8348 ]
come through the door for a family problem are refused legal aid right now. We’re refusing very, very high numbers of people.”

When you’re going from 38 percent to 44 percent self-represented litigants in the B.C. Court of Appeal on family matters, that’s a pretty clear indicator that notwithstanding all the innovation, things are not working for those British Columbians.

The minister, I know, is aware of the West Coast LEAF CEDAW report. I’m curious to know, given her glowing comments about all of the pet projects and all the innovations that have been attempted, if the minister has reached out to West Coast LEAF. In other words, has she sat down and tried to explain to them, and if so, what was her explanation to them as to why, three years in a row, access to justice is a continuing F for the government?

Hon. S. Anton: I have met with LEAF, although it may have been a year or so ago. We don’t have the exact date here.

[1135]

I would just make a couple of observations. The family justice centres and justice access centres have been acknowledged in LEAF’s report as important services to help people resolve their family justice problems. So there may be one measure that the member is looking at, but there are many others.

I think the important thing about these innovation projects for the Legal Services Society is that they are new, and they are to be evaluated. We are optimistic about them, but we still do not know the results from them.

We need to change our system. You could pour money into legal aid forever and maybe never get to where everybody was 100 percent represented. That would take a massive amount of dollars. What we’re trying to do is find innovative ways to keep things out of those courtrooms so that people get resolutions they are happy with. Well, maybe you’re never terribly happy, if your family is having issues. But good resolutions for their family — good for their children and good for their family — and resolutions that the family can live with.

L. Krog: The minister uses the phrase “pouring money into the Legal Services Society.” It’s an odd use of phrase when one considers that it was cut by 40 percent some years ago.

This is the same government that let the modest surcharge on high-income earners making $150,000-plus a year lapse, kissing off $230 million of revenue. This is the same government that happily kissed off the corporate capital tax on the big banks, who weren’t even asking for it to be retracted. That was another $200 million years ago, and Lord knows what it would produce today.

Yet we have the lowest per-capita funding for legal aid in the country, is my understanding. If I’m wrong, I know the minister will have those numbers at her fingertips and can tell me if I’m wrong. That is not exactly a record to brag about when the best you can give us is excuses this morning around the concept of innovative projects that, frankly, don’t address the reality of the people who are struggling to get themselves through our court system.

All of those innovative projects still don’t deal with the issue. The fact is that time is up in order to get justice in family court, and the time in the Court of Appeal for self-represented litigants is all up.

I’m curious to know: is the Attorney General is not satisfied…? Can the Attorney General not understand that from the public perspective, when you have $1 billion a year and the government has access to revenue and it’s been experimenting and making changes and improvements and asking everyone to work harder for the last 14 years and has three balanced budgets in a row…? Can we not possibly find enough money in the budget…?

Given that the tax on legal services alone produces more than enough to give legal aid the funding it had 14 years ago, can the government not possibly find a few million dollars to actually provide real advocates, whether they be lawyers or otherwise, to people who need their advocates in a system where they are not able to either take their own cases through the process or defend themselves against litigation brought against them?

Are we at the stage where essentially the Attorney General is saying, given the modest increase in the budget for the Attorney General’s ministry and given the more significant increases for judiciary, prosecutorial services…? Everybody is getting more bucks in the ministry, but the Legal Services Society and others are getting pretty much close to zero.

Is this going to be the regime for the next two years? Is this the commitment of the government? If it’s not, I want to hear from the Attorney General what exactly she’s going to do to ensure that the Legal Services Society and those most vulnerable British Columbians in our court system actually get access to the assistance they need.

[1140]

Hon. S. Anton: I think in the comparison with other jurisdictions, you have to compare everything. In British Columbia it’s $104.5 million that goes into justice access services, and those numbers may not be in the comparison the member is using. I would like to observe, again, that there are $2 million more going in last year, this year and next for those innovative projects. I will just give a bit more description on the fourth and fifth of them.

The parents legal centre for child protection. This is for families whose child or children are on the radar of child protection services and it is apparent that parents will need some kind of legal help. This is to get those parents legal help early. Rather than waiting until after the child is taken into protection and then the legal services at that point, this is to help those parents early, to help
[ Page 8349 ]
them perhaps find a way that their child does not have to be taken into protection.

This is a very innovative and good service. Again, it’s a pilot that we’re trying out at Robson Square in Vancouver with a very accomplished lawyer who is offering that help to the parents.

We’ve also now got an expanded criminal duty counsel service in Port Coquitlam. The criminal duty counsel will be on duty over a period of time so that she — again, I think it’s a she — can help persons in the system. If there is an early resolution on their criminal matters, they will also get to an earlier resolution on their criminal matters, where appropriate.

As I said, there’s a great deal of innovation going on in the legal services world. Once again, I’d like to express my appreciation to Legal Services Society for what they do and to my team for what they do in expanding access to justice for all British Columbians.

L. Krog: It’s a wonderfully innovative program. We’re going to give legal advice to programs whose children may face apprehension by the ministry, as opposed to putting more money into the ministry so that families who are in crisis and in trouble — having trouble finding housing, for instance…. Inability to find adequate housing for your children will, in many cases, lead to apprehension.

We’re not going to put money into that, but we are going to put money into giving you some legal advice as to how to avoid getting in the system in the first place. And when you get in the system, of course, then you’re going to face these incredible delays where children are kept by the ministry for a very long period of time.

I appreciate that it’s not the minister’s issue and that we’re not in that ministry’s estimates. But the minister raised that as an issue, so I feel compelled to comment on it this morning. What would make a great deal of sense, it seems to me, is to provide support for families. As much as this is an innovative program, this is an innovative program in one part of the province.

All of these innovative programs — how are they going to be measured, and what are they going to be measured against? Are you doing it on a geographic basis? Are you doing it on an income basis? Are you doing it on a court time basis?

I mean, where are all the measures that are actually going to provide some reasonable response so that maybe, perhaps, we’re going to see an actual increase, a real increase, in services instead of avoiding — which, I would respectfully suggest, this ministry and this government has been doing for 14 years — the real issues? That is, you are not funding appropriately across the board, and all these programs are never, in fact, going to make up for something that’s reasonable.

However, I appreciate we’re running out of time, so I want to ask a particular question around issues related to an FOI that was conducted.

In relation to an FOI the opposition received for the dates between November 26 and December 31 last year, the LSS and their budget seemed to have been top of mind for the minister. There was a briefing note decision done on the MOU with the LSS on November 26, a briefing note for a decision on the LSS for the fiscal year 2015-16 to ’17-18 on December 15, 2014, and then a meeting between the AG Minister and the chair of the board of the directors of Legal Services on December 17.

Can the minister explain what this flurry of activity surrounding the LSS into the depths of December was about and, perhaps, relate what the substance of the discussion was between the chair and the LSS?

Hon. S. Anton: Noting the hour, I’ll come back with the answer to that after lunch.

I would like to read something into the record on the impaired-driving cases, which was a question raised yesterday. In 2009 there were 9,278 reports to Crown counsel approved to court for impaired-driving offences, and in 2014 there were 1,272, so a drop of about 8,000.

Noting the hour, I’d suggest that we rise, report progress and seek leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:45 a.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
BIRCH ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HEALTH

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section C); D. McRae in the chair.

The committee met at 11:03 a.m.

On Vote 29: ministry operations, $17,297,183,000 (continued).

J. Darcy: Just taking that $17 billion and narrowing in on nurse practitioners, where we left off yesterday. We had some back and forth about what money was spent on a per-capita basis for nurse practitioners.

I wonder if the minister could break down for us the various components of moneys from the Health budget that are spent on nurse practitioners, breaking down wages and benefits, professional development funds, overhead and recruitment and retention costs.

[1105]

Hon. T. Lake: There is no line item in our budget estimates on the breakdown of salary versus overhead versus benefits for nurse practitioners. As I mentioned yesterday, in the NP for B.C. program, which is a transfer to the health authorities for each position, it’s about $116,000 per position for salary and for benefits. The health authorities would incur some costs for overhead, depending on the setting in which the nurse practitioner is practising.

The other funding, again, is a transfer to health authorities. I think when we broke that down yesterday, it resulted, on average, in $122,000 per nurse practitioner. Again, that is a transfer of money from the Ministry of Health to each individual health authority to support nurse practitioner positions. But each individual health authority would have the level of detail in terms of salary, benefits, overhead and continuing education costs.

In our paper that we have out for consultation on rural health care we do talk about a discussion about nurse practitioners and whether there is some consideration that might be given to those other issues around continuing education and other supports for nurse practitioners. Again, that is part of the consultation that we’re doing at the moment.

J. Darcy: I think we established yesterday that the government has committed, I think, $130 million to supporting nurse practitioners in the province. That doesn’t include the NP for B.C. program. I understand that the money is transferred to health authorities, but surely, the minister has some idea how that money is broken down, how that money is spent and what proportion goes on those various pieces. It’s a lot of money. It’s an important program. Surely, there’s some accountability for the money that’s transferred.

Hon. T. Lake: As I said, our health estimates show a transfer to health authorities for these nurse practitioner positions. I can certainly provide this information to the member in written form, if she would like. If we look at base funding that has been committed to nurse practitioners, it has gone from $1.17 million in 2005-06 to $16.99 million in 2014-15, so a significant increase as the growth of nurse practitioners has occurred.

There’s been some one-time funding that over the years has amounted to $2.49 million and then the NP for B.C. program, which is $14.15 million. So over the years since nurse practitioners have been incorporated into the health care system in 2005-2006, the ministry has committed $162.22 million to support nurse practitioners. I don’t have a breakdown of each position and how much is spent on salary, benefits and overhead because it would vary between health authorities.

[1110]

Some health authorities would have very little overhead if nurse practitioners are being incorporated into the acute care system, whereas if a health authority were putting nurse practitioners into a community health centre type of scenario, then there would be overhead costs in terms of office costs and management costs around that facility.

J. Darcy: Can the minister provide that information? He doesn’t have it at this time. Can he provide that information so that there is more transparency to how the funds that are allocated to nurse practitioners are, in fact, allocated?

Hon. T. Lake: I certainly will look into whether or not we can break it down by health authority. I think it would be very difficult to do. It would take a lot of time, I think, to get at that level of information. We can endeavour to do that.

But this will vary by health authority, and so there can be quite a wide variation in the individual costs of a nurse practitioner, given the type of environment they’re working in. We will endeavour to get that information, but I will not commit today that that information is readily available. We’ll make our best efforts to see if we can find it.

J. Darcy: One of the concerns I’m sure the minister has heard and that I’ve heard from nurse practitioners repeatedly is the inadequate funding for overhead to enable them to have full opportunities to practise. Does the minister plan to invest in supporting nurse practitioners with additional overhead funding in order that they can assume a greater role in our health care system in delivering primary care?

Hon. T. Lake: I said previously that we have put that suggestion, maybe not perhaps worded in the same way, in our rural health care paper that is out for consultation, so we are soliciting input. This is something that we need to review on a regular basis: the effectiveness of all the different modalities of care that we have.

We don’t start from a position of saying that this is the panacea or that if we only do this, good things will happen. We have to look and evaluate each of these programs. I know that for some situations the increased use of nurse practitioners will be tremendously beneficial. In other situations it may not be as cost-effective as other types of team-based care. We haven’t come to any conclusions on that, and it will vary depending on the situation and the clientele, the patients that are being served in that particular venue.

We have put information out there in our rural health care paper. As I mentioned yesterday, we are putting that out to consultation to all the different stakeholders. We’ll be workshopping that information in early June and then taking all that information and coming up with some implementation plans in the fall.
[ Page 8351 ]

J. Darcy: The minister has…. Over the past year, whenever questioned about the GP for Me program, his language has begun to shift, and he has said: “GP for me or NP for me.” That’s been a very common response when questioned by myself or members of the opposition or other people out there.

Does the minister see a significantly expanded role for nurse practitioners in delivering primary care and helping to address the enormous challenge we have in British Columbia of hundreds of thousands of British Columbians not having access to primary care? If so, does that not require a further commitment of this government to invest both in training more nurse practitioners as well as in funding overhead in order to assist them to be able to play that critical role that they can play in primary care?

Hon. T. Lake: I think there can be no better representation of the commitment to a program than the metrics. In 2005-2006 we spent under $2 million for nurse practitioner positions in the province of British Columbia. Today, as projected in 2014-15, it’s over $25 million. That’s a large increase in ten years.

We have demonstrated our commitment not only in terms of the funding that is committed to nurse practitioner positions but also to legislative changes and regulatory changes that we have made to increase, broaden the scope of practice of nurse practitioners.

[1115]

We are working with the College of Registered Nurses of B.C. as they do their work for a pan-Canadian approach so that nurse practitioners trained in other provinces have the ability to come to British Columbia to practise. We train nurse practitioners in three different locations in the province of British Columbia. I don’t think anyone could doubt our commitment to nurse practitioners.

We have, as part of our papers that we are doing consultation on at the moment, put out the role of nurse practitioners and supports to nurse practitioners for consultation. We’ll be taking all that information, and we will continue to develop. I’m sure, as the years progress, we will continue to see a very important role for nurse practitioners in primary health care in British Columbia.

J. Darcy: I recognize that persons-with-disabilities legislation sits in a different ministry, but it was changed in 2012 to include nurse practitioners. My understanding is it has not been operationalized. Similarly, the Mental Health Act was changed in 2012 to include nurse practitioners and is still not operationalized, I understand.

Can the minister speak to supporting the implementation of those changes? And will those changes, in fact, be operationalized? If not, why was the legislation changed in the first place?

Hon. T. Lake: Certainly, we are committed. We wouldn’t have passed the legislation. I mentioned yesterday that there are regulations for nurses and nurse practitioners, changes to regulations, that are out for three-month consultation now, including the ability to prescribe controlled substances. So that’s our commitment and my personal commitment to increase the scope of practice of nurse practitioners.

With respect to the changes that occurred in Bill 10, the Nurse Practitioners Statutes Amendment Act, 12 acts were amended, and 11 were brought into force August 1. The exceptions were the changes to the Mental Health Act. The nurse practitioner standards committee of the College of Registered Nurses is currently working on standards, limits and conditions related to the Mental Health Act. We are waiting for that work to be completed before that is brought into force.

On the disabilities side, the Social Development and Social Innovation Ministry is undertaking consultations with their stakeholders. That’s really important to do. We can pass enabling legislation, but before regulations are brought into force, it’s really important to make sure we go out and consult with the people who are affected by those changes before they’re brought into force.

The commitment is there. We need to follow due process before we enact those changes.

[1120]

J. Darcy: I think the minister would agree that everyone who works in health care working to the full scope of their practice and training is critical to delivering high-quality care, best possible health outcomes and sustainability of public health care. Government has said that B.C. has the broadest possible scope for nurse practitioners.

I know that nurse practitioners do not believe that that’s the case and that their scope is restricted by both the college as well as by government. Nurse practitioners believe very strongly that we need to move away from lists of what groups can do and move it to where the individual and the profession can decide.

Does the government plan to endorse full practice authority for nurse practitioners and other professions in B.C.?

Hon. T. Lake: I’m not sure I heard or understood the member clearly. She seems to be advocating that individual practitioners get to decide what they do. That’s not how the system works. As a veterinarian, I was governed by a self-regulating body that outlined the scope of practice, the code of ethics, standards of practice. That’s what a self-regulating profession does. It’s not up to each individual practitioner to decide what they want to do and how they want to do it.

The College of Registered Nurses of B.C. is a regulating body. We have a legislative framework that the college works with in setting out their code of ethics, their
[ Page 8352 ]
standards of practice. We have demonstrated our commitment to having nurse practitioners work at the full scope of practice.

I’m really glad the member said that it is really important to have health care practitioners practise to their full scope of practice, because registered nurses are highly, highly trained. In a team-based model of care, registered nurses should be used at the highest and best level. Then other health care professionals, like licensed practical nurses and health care aides, should be used to their highest and best level of care. That’s what good team-based nursing, good team-based health teams, are all about. I’m glad the member agrees with that philosophy.

J. Darcy: Well, let me clarify. I think the minister is aware that last year in the discussion about amendments to the scope of practice for nurse practitioners and legislation that was before the House, nurse practitioners pushed strongly, and I proposed a number of amendments, in fact, for allowing nurse practitioners to work to full scope.

There were some changes that were made, and there were many others that were not. Nurse practitioners feel very strongly that there are other places where they are, in fact, able to work to full scope, and there are limitations on where they’re able to practise, roles that they’re able to take on, in British Columbia.

Does the minister have plans to expand the role of nurse practitioners in other areas that fall within their scope of practice?

Hon. T. Lake: As I mentioned in my previous remarks, we have a self-regulatory system for health professions. In this case, it’s the College of Registered Nurses of British Columbia. They’re in the process of a five-year review of nurse practitioners’ scope of practice. They have a timeline for completion and report to their board by early 2016. I think it would be incumbent upon government to wait for that review and that report to come before any substantial changes are made.

J. Darcy: The minister is no doubt familiar with the concept of shadow billing, when it comes to nurse practitioners. It’s my understanding that the B.C. Nurse Practitioner Association receives calls regularly from physicians — they say at least a call a week — wishing to add nurse practitioners to their practice.

For most, the only option is shadow billing, meaning — for those tens of thousands of people who are listening to this and might not be familiar with the term — that physicians charge all patients fee-for-service and then deduct nurse practitioners’ salary from their earnings. Shadow billing, I know, is discouraged by the ministry, but more and more physicians and nurse practitioners are reaching these types of agreements, I understand.

What is the plan to endorse this practice, make the rules clear or develop an alternative means for physicians and nurse practitioners to work collaboratively in clinics?

[1125]

Hon. T. Lake: The issue I think the member is framing up is if you have a nurse practitioner and a physician in a team-based practice, for instance, a physician can only bill for services that they actually perform themselves. So if you have a nurse practitioner, you’re really depending on seeing a lot of patients and billing for each individual patient, but you have to be the one doing the service. A nurse practitioner can’t really extend the practice in a way that makes economic sense unless the nurse practitioner is paid through a health authority or another situation.

But in a private practice, for instance, what is the incentive to have a nurse practitioner — or a nurse, for that matter? At the Thompson Division of Family Practice last week we talked about practice nurses and how the business model would work to have nurses as physician extenders. In other jurisdictions they have physician assistants. We don’t have that category of health care professional in British Columbia currently. But certainly nurses or nurse practitioners can extend the ability of a practice to see more patients.

We are open to discussions of that type. I’m treading carefully only because there can be unintended consequences in terms of the fiscal impacts when you open that door. But we want to explore that idea.

I mentioned yesterday, and I’ll just repeat again today, that in March of this year we contracted a consultant from the University of Victoria that is drafting a nurse practitioner action plan that will provide recommendations to the ministry for options, moving forward, with integration and sustainability of NPs in the province. We hope to have that work done by the end of June. We’ll put that in with the other work we’ve done over our primary community care, and we’ll see what comes out of that consultant’s work.

I think all of us are looking for ways of having more availability of primary care, and nurse practitioners and practice nurses, I think, are both ways in which we can increase the capacity of primary care in the province of British Columbia. So we’re open to those ideas. We’re doing the work to understand the potential outcomes of those changes.

[1130]

J. Darcy: We discussed briefly yesterday the issue of community health centres. I had the occasion to visit Ontario recently and visit some community health centres as well as meet with the director of the Ontario and Canadian Association of Community Health Centres. One of the striking things about Ontario, where they now have 140 team-based community health centres, is that a number of them are actually nurse practitioner–led clinics.
[ Page 8353 ]

Does the minister support the development of nurse practitioner–led clinics in British Columbia?

Hon. T. Lake: I always think it’s good to get the information before making decisions. That’s what we’re doing now. We’re getting the information, through the work of our consultant, through the work of our primary and community care paper and the consultation we’re having with the health care community — and patients, importantly, and divisions of family practice.

We haven’t made any decision. I will not commit because I want to make sure that the evidence leads the decision, rather than the other way around.

J. Darcy: If we could turn to midwives.

I’m sure the minister is familiar with the figures that relate to use of midwives in British Columbia — that 16 percent of our assisted births in British Columbia are assisted by midwives, 17 percent of those are planned home births, and 83 percent of them occur in hospitals.

And some pretty compelling figures — 18 hours for a midwife-assisted birth; average reduction in hospital stay of 18 hours; and 42 percent fewer births by Caesarean section in midwife-assisted births than the provincial average.

I’m sure the minister is also aware that there are other countries where the percentage of midwife-assisted births are many, many times higher, ranging between 70 and 80 percent in European countries and in the U.K.

Also, the minister is, I hope, aware of the stress and additional costs that are associated with women having to travel sometimes long distances from their communities in order to give birth. Midwives can be an important part of the solution for the women and their families in those underserved communities, and also they are a cost-effective solution for health care and have proven to be so in other jurisdictions.

I mentioned the figure of 83 percent of midwife-assisted births that do occur in hospitals. Midwives need privileges at hospitals, as I’m sure the minister is aware. They need to be able to practise both in people’s homes as well as in hospitals. But midwives have significant challenges when it comes to hospital privileging.

Essentially, each community and each health authority — not just each health authority but each community, often each hospital — is unique in how they handle midwife applications for hospital privileges. The refusal in some cases — in too many cases — to grant midwives privileges in hospitals is a significant barrier to the expanded use of midwives in midwife-assisted births in British Columbia.

Midwives are often put in the position of having to…. If they want to challenge a refusal of privileges, they can spend up to $30,000 in legal fees, which is certainly beyond their means and beyond the means of the Midwives Association to be able to support that.

My question is: what is the minister doing to remove those barriers to midwives being able to gain privileges in hospitals across B.C. and to fulfil the role that they are in fact well able to fulfil in health care in British Columbia, which can also realize significant cost savings as well as often a more satisfactory experience for women giving birth?

[1135]

Hon. T. Lake: We’re talking about the subject of midwifery, something that I know something about because the first person I met on this planet was a midwife — when I was born at home, a very, very long time ago. I certainly understand the importance of midwifery.

If you look at the use of midwifery in British Columbia, it has grown substantially. I’m just trying to find the numbers here. Midwifery services are covered by MSP. In 2013-14 they were paid approximately $26.3 million for clinical services, and they managed approximately 8,621 full courses of care. That means a full course of care from early on through delivery.

The budget for midwifery in 2014-15 is $28.6 million, and that is going up in ’15-16 in our estimates to $32,102,782. That’s a 12.1 percent increase year over year in the compensation going towards midwives.

We negotiated a five-year agreement with midwives from April 1, 2014, to March 31, 2019. Some of the barriers the member talked about we did address in that agreement. The highlights include a one-time lump sum payment of $500 per midwife to offset rising business expenses; a $200 reduction per midwife in annual fees for the professional liability program; and more funding for continuing medical education programs, rural practice support programs and rural locum programs.

In terms of credentialing, I mentioned yesterday — and this applies to all health professionals — we are in the process of implementing a provincial credentialing and privileging system that will ensure a consistent, standardized approach to the privileging across health authorities.

I think that’s something the member is referring to, that there may be different kinds of standards and different decisions made in different health authorities. The credentialing and privileging process is being implemented. That work is underway.

Also, if you look in our priorities document, we talk — particularly, the St. Paul’s redevelopment proposal — about birthing centres, where we can actually have birthing centres outside of hospitals. I think that would probably foster a different kind of environment that many families would find more conducive to childbirth.

We’re exploring many different options, but in terms of credentialing, the work is underway to try to standardize the credentialing and privileging system.

[1140]

J. Darcy: I just want to be clear. At the present time
[ Page 8354 ]
the onus is on individual midwives to apply for privileges, and if they are rejected, the onus is on them to pursue that issue.

Is the minister saying that he wants to see that changed so that, in fact, it is standardized across the province and the onus and the responsibility, including the financial responsibility, to challenge it does not rest with individual midwives or with the Midwives Association? Is that a change that the minister supports?

Hon. T. Lake: I haven’t seen the credentialing and privileging system work that’s ongoing at the moment, so I want to reserve my judgment on what the outcome of that will be.

But the same holds true for any health care practitioner that is seeking privileges, whether it’s an ophthalmologist or a surgeon or midwife. They apply for privileges in the health care facility. The health authority makes a decision with the medical advisory committee of the hospital and the health authority. There is an appeal process that is available to the physician or the midwife or the other health care professional if they have a decision that they’re not happy with.

J. Darcy: But I understand from talking with midwives that it can cost them $30,000 to challenge a decision. Clearly, that’s outside the ability of an individual midwife or a small association like the Midwives Association of British Columbia to support. That’s why my question was whether the minister believes that the onus should continue to remain on individual midwives who do not receive the financial compensation to be able to take that issue on or whether the minister envisions or foresees, with this consultation that’s happening about privileging and credentialing, a change in that process.

Hon. T. Lake: I don’t foresee a change in that process at this time, until I see evidence that shows that a change is necessary. We are undertaking that work, as I mentioned, and I would like that work to continue before we make any decisions on changes.

The Minister of Health is really not the best person to determine who should have hospital privileges, which individual should be allowed to have services in a hospital. We have regional health authorities. We have medical advisory committees. I think they are in a far better position to make that decision than the Minister of Health.

J. Darcy: Midwives have also raised concerns, I’m sure, with the minister as they have with me about the current payment model.

The midwifery payment model was developed back in 1998, essentially to support a full-time urban midwifery practice or a larger rural practice, which were the most common practice locations at the time. We now have midwives who have established practices in remote and low-volume communities such as Haida Gwaii and other rural communities and are unable to make a reasonable level of income due to the low number of births. Even though those communities are very much in need of midwifery services, they are challenged to be able to recruit or retain providers and in the ability to compensate them in setting up a practice.

In all of these communities, my understanding is that midwives fill other gaps in services, aside from labour and delivery. In many cases they spend hours assisting in services like appropriate transfers to higher-level-of-care communities, but they’re unable to bill for the other services that they provide and believe that there needs to be some important changes in the payment model in order to ensure that we are able to both attract and retain midwives in rural communities across British Columbia.

Hon. T. Lake: Sustainability of programs in rural areas is not limited to midwives. That’s for sure. There has to be a critical mass of services that are required in order to provide the service.

Having said that, in our negotiations with midwives we have agreed that we will set up a committee to study an alternative payment model. That may fill some of those gaps. But at the end of the day, I think we have to recognize that in some communities there simply is not enough volume in order to have some services.

[1145]

In today’s world, as well…. I really encountered this when we opened the beautiful new hospital in Burns Lake, which is a community health centre as well.

Having obstetrics available in the community depends on having a critical mass in terms of the team to support obstetrics, because when a delivery goes well, everything’s fine, but as we know, some things sometimes don’t go well, and then you need a full team, a full surgery team, that is available. So we want to make sure that whatever we do, we do it in a way that’s sustainable, that makes sure that patient safety is respected and that we’re not creating something that simply doesn’t have the ability to withstand any kind of pressure on the system.

We see case after case where there simply isn’t enough critical mass in a community or in the health care system in that community to sustain a particular service. I think we have to always think about: what if one physician gets ill? What if one midwife gets ill? Will the service be able to withstand that? We’ve seen situations where that hasn’t been the case.

We are always willing to explore these things, but, I think, with the understanding that we can’t do everything everywhere. The rural paper that we have put out for discussion I think does a very good job of describing the different types of communities and how we can support communities in different ways, but it won’t always be providing that same service in every community.
[ Page 8355 ]

J. Darcy: If I could switch to the issue of provision of physiotherapy services. The seniors advocate has noted the appalling gap in physiotherapy services for seniors relative to other provinces in Canada, which showed that the number of seniors who received physiotherapy in British Columbia — this is seniors in care — was 12 percent, compared to 25 percent in Alberta and 58 percent in Ontario.

My colleague the spokesperson for seniors for the official opposition will be pursuing that issue later on, I know, but the lack of physio services is not just a question for seniors. The findings of the seniors advocate, though, should come as no surprise to the minister or to the government, because physiotherapy services were delisted in 2002. The government said at the time that they would save as much as $130 million by doing so.

Has that been the case? Can the minister confirm how much money the government estimates to have saved at the expense of British Columbians by delisting this service?

[1150]

Hon. T. Lake: I don’t have the data on MSP changes in terms of savings to British Columbians. The member mentioned “at the expense of British Columbians.” It actually saves British Columbians when we can reduce the MSP budget, but I take her point in that the changes meant that their services billed through MSP were not covered.

However, health authorities certainly employ physical therapists, and we have increased the program. The Ministry of Advanced Education funded the establishment of a northern and rural clinical cohort of 20 first-year students at the University of British Columbia master of physical therapy program. In 2012 the first formal intake occurred.

There are, at the moment, 1,405 physiotherapists employed by health authorities around the province. We see that demand growing by about 3 percent a year. So it’s projected that in 2018 we will need 1,503 physiotherapists. It is an important profession. I’m happy that after the break, we can continue our discussion.

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

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:51 a.m.

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

Copyright © 2015: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada