2015 Legislative Session: Fourth Session, 40th Parliament
HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Thursday, May 14, 2015

Morning Sitting

Volume 26, Number 6

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

THURSDAY, MAY 14, 2015

The House met at 10:02 a.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

Hon. T. Lake: As we all know and have heard a few times in the House this week, this is Nursing Week. Our province’s nurses, our health professionals, provide care to British Columbians every day in every community of the province and really are the foundation of our health care system.

In the gallery with us today are representatives from the B.C. Nurses Union. I know that members will have a chance to visit with members of the union. The union president is here, Gayle Duteil, accompanied by regional representatives from all areas of the province. Gayle has over 30 years as a front-line nurse and became president of the union last October. She’s from the beautiful Okanagan Valley.

Gayle, as I said, is joined by representatives from all over the province, including Vice-President Christine Sorensen, who’s from my hometown of Kamloops. We’ve known each other for a number of years.

It’s great to have our nurses here with us visiting, and we hope they enjoy the beautiful Victoria weather. I hope the House will please make them very welcome.

J. Horgan: I would say it’s quite normal to see a bus going through the James Bay neighbourhood here in Victoria, but my colleague from Victoria–Beacon Hill acknowledged today that there was a really big, big bus with nurses all over it going through her neighbourhood today, acknowledging, as the minister said, National Nurses Week.

Joining the president and Vice-President Sorensen in the gallery today are Rachel Kimler, Liz Ilczaszyn, Dan Murphy, Marlene Goertzen, Lorne Burkart, Meghan Friesen and Lori Pearson.

[1005]

They are here today to meet with MLAs, to have a good rally of fun and friendship on the front lawns. Would the House please make them very, very welcome.

V. Huntington: It is my great pleasure today to welcome a number of guests who are here representing the Friends of Delta Hospital and are in support of a petition I’ll be presenting this morning to restore surgical services to Delta Hospital.

Would the House please welcome Nicholas Wong; Anita den Dikken; Doug Massey; Inger Kam; Phil Horan; and Dr. Robert Shaw, who’s the head of internal medicine and chief spokesman for the medical staff at Delta. Will the House please make the Friends of Delta Hospital welcome.

M. Mungall: Well, in the basement of many hospitals, you’ll find people doing some very important work for our hospitals. They are the people who are working in the laundry, and we have some of them here from the interior of British Columbia today.

We have Megan Korol, who is an HEU representative from Kelowna; Neil Monckton from Burnaby; Jessica Guthrie from Kelowna; Rhonda Studer from Royal Inland Hospital in Kamloops; Debbie Anderson from 100 Mile District General Hospital; Brent Parker from Penticton Regional Hospital; and Sophia Dricos, Kootenay Lake’s very own laundry facilities worker. Give them a very warm welcome.

Tributes

BERNARD “BERNIE” AGG

J. Kwan: I have some very sad news to share with the members of the House. Bernard W. Agg, a long-time resident of the Strathcona neighbourhood, died last Sunday after a heart attack, just one week after the surprise party to celebrate his 90th birthday.

Bernie, as he was known to many, trained as a psychiatric nurse and then worked at Woodlands School in New Westminster. He then joined the B.C. correctional service as a probation officer and was instrumental in founding the DARE program and Step Up school, that were important and well-respected innovations in community-based services for young offenders.

He received an exemplary service medal before retiring in 1988. Bernie then embarked on a third career with the RCMP Public Complaints Commission. He was an avid sailor and owned a boat until just two years ago. He had relocated to Squamish and volunteered at the local Red Cross medical equipment loan service.

I ask the House to please join me in sending condolences to his family and friends on their loss and my deepest condolences to them.

Introductions by Members

A. Weaver: As other members have indicated, nurses are in the precinct today to celebrate National Nursing Week in Canada and for a rally at 11 o’clock in support of safe patient care. It’s my pleasure to introduce one of those nurses, Adriane Gear, an RN who serves as co-chair of the south islands region of BCNU. Would the House please join me in welcoming Adrianne Gear.

G. Heyman: Joining us in the precinct today is a group of elementary school students from Vancouver Talmud
[ Page 8524 ]
Torah school in my constituency. There are a number of teachers with them today. Two of them are Becky Chan and Lily Bouskila. I hope that they will be making their way into this chamber for another illuminating question period. Will the members of the Legislature please join me in making them very, very welcome.

Statements

KELOWNA ROCKETS HOCKEY TEAM

Hon. N. Letnick: “He shoots. He scores.” You usually hear that from Kamloops, but this time, you’re hearing it from Kelowna. I’d like to announce the great work of the Kelowna Rockets. They’re going to Quebec City to represent all of western Canada. They won the WHL this week in four straight games, and now they can represent not only western Canada but, of course, British Columbia as the hockey team in this country. Let’s make sure that he shoots, and they score right in Quebec City.

Introductions by Members

K. Conroy: I have a number of introductions. The first one is to Her Worship Kathy Moore. This is her first time here as mayor of Rossland. She was a two-term councillor and took a plunge last fall and was successful in being elected mayor. I’m looking forward to working with her. Would you all please join me in welcoming her here to the House today.

I recognize one of the nurses, Lorne Burkart, who’s actually an RN from Castlegar, and he works tirelessly on behalf of RNs in this province. He’s in my office quite a bit. So I want to welcome Lorne too.

[1010]

As well, I want to say thank you to all the nurses in this province. Over the last 25 years we’ve had numerous health experiences in our family, and nurses have been there, front and centre, for us.

On a really personal note, I want to say happy anniversary to my husband, Ed. It’s five years ago today that he received a kidney. As neat as that is…. Even more, I’d like to thank the altruistic donor. We will never know who donated their kidney to Ed, and we want to thank him and remind everybody to please become an organ donor. You can do it alive, and you can do it after you’re gone. It’s a gift that keeps on giving, so thank you.

Tributes

YULANDA FARIS

S. Chandra Herbert: I just wanted to acknowledge the passing of Yulanda Faris, a West Vancouver resident who, I just learned, passed away in late April.

She was a friend to the arts community in B.C., a philanthropist, an incredible arts advocate. She helped save Vancouver Opera. The list of her accomplishments in B.C.’s creative community is incredible.

She helped teach me as a young artist, as a board member. She was the chair. I will be forever grateful for her work for B.C. arts and want to thank her husband, Moh, for lending her to the arts community — although she’d be there, regardless — and, as well, for his philanthropy.

So if the House could acknowledge her passing, I would really appreciate it. There are few like her, and she will be missed.

HAL CARLSON

R. Fleming: I wanted to just bring to the attention of the House a recent celebration of life for a constituent of mine, Mr. Hal Carlson, who passed away recently.

Hal was a wonderful, kind man, very well-known and well-liked in our community. He grew up in Burnaby and married his wife Kathy and raised four children there, and then he lived in California for a while, where he was the owner of a Chevron station and very active in Kiwanis.

He was known from his life here in Victoria since the mid-1960s, when he moved back here. He worked in the construction industry all his life. In 1983 he became the business agent for the Union of Painters and Allied Trades.

At the celebration of life it was well said by many of his friends and admirers that among his many qualities, as an avid reader, a loyal father and a thoughtful gentleman, in our community it was Hal’s generous and loyal and loving heart to those who were around him that will make him remembered eternally.

I think what was said in his obituary was that Hal taught us, above all, never to shy away from standing up for what is right and that how a society treats its weakest members is indeed the measure of its worth.

I would bring Hal’s passing to the attention of members, and messages of condolence can still be sent to his family.

Introductions by Members

Hon. P. Fassbender: We have some friends in the gallery today: Mike Rosenblood; his wife, Kate; and their two children, Lindsay and Tristan. I’d ask the House to make them welcome.

Hon. M. de Jong: Sheila McCarron grew up in Scotland. Somewhere along the line, she decided to relocate and make a home in France. Today she is the deputy mayor of Le Breuil and the departmental councillor for greater Lyon, the culinary capital of France.

She’s in Victoria serving as the emcee of the International Federation of Sport Climbing’s speed world cup and Canadian national speed and difficulty climbing
[ Page 8525 ]
championships at the Boulders Climbing Gym, located at Stelly’s high school in Central Saanich.

She’s a climber herself, and both of her children are accomplished climbers. [French was spoken].

Please make Deputy Mayor Sheila McCarron welcome.

V. Huntington: I have just learned this morning that the president of the nurses union is a resident of Ladner, and I would like to welcome Gayle Duteil to this House.

Hon. T. Stone: I know all members of the House would agree when I say just how important it is for us to be able to do our jobs to have exceptional people who work behind the scenes and work with us.

[1015]

Today is the last day for my chief of staff, Jessica Wolford. She has worked in these buildings for about four years now. I have been very grateful for the exceptional support that she has provided me. She’s a young woman with — she’s very smart — great judgment and a tremendous sense of humour. I’m certainly going to miss her in my office.

She has an incredible amount of patience as well, the Minister of Health points out, which has come in handy in working with me. I certainly wish her all the best in her future career, and I would ask that the House join me in saying good luck, Jessica.

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

BILL M221 — PROVINCIAL
SHIPBUILDING ACT, 2015

C. Trevena presented a bill intituled Provincial Shipbuilding Act.

C. Trevena: I move that a bill intituled Provincial Shipbuilding Act be read a first time now.

Motion approved.

C. Trevena: This is the second time that a bill to nurture the B.C. shipbuilding industry has been introduced in this House. The Provincial Shipbuilding Act will ensure that ferries, sea buses and other vessels used by and for the public are built, retrofitted and repaired here in B.C.

Our province has a history of shipbuilding. Nearly all of the vessels in the B.C. Ferries fleet, some of them more than 50 years old, were built here. There has been a long tradition of carrying out maintenance and retrofits here in B.C. also.

However, over the last dozen years that work has stopped. B.C. Ferries has gone offshore for all but one of its new vessels. The replacement for the Queen of the North, bought overseas; the Celebration vessels, built in Germany; and now three intermediate-sized vessels being built in Poland — that’s hundreds of millions of dollars gone offshore for the construction and, subsequently, for parts. We’re soon going to see the Spirit-class vessels retrofitted so that they can run on LNG, another major long-term project which should occur here, and more vessels are going to built.

For years B.C. shipyards could establish consortiums so that they could jointly bid for and work on the projects, and vessels were successfully built in our province. With this bill, that could happen again.

The Provincial Shipbuilding Act provides a real jobs plan. We know that there are vessels that will be built in the coming years, and construction of ferries creates work for thousands. The act includes apprenticeships in every contract and fair wage commitments. Modelling has shown that the construction of just three ferries in B.C. would result in a provincial GDP of $378½ million, $200 million in consumer spending and more than 1,000 people employed, creating $100 million in taxes. There’s also the multiplier effect. For every 100 jobs created in shipbuilding, 135 additional jobs are created elsewhere.

B.C. Ferries will be replacing about 23 ferries over the next number of years, with expenditures of around $2½ billion. This level of investment would have a huge impact on jobs in this province. I’d hope that with this government’s avowed commitment to jobs and the Premier’s former stand for jobs in shipbuilding, we can work together to get this bill enacted.

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

Bill M221, Provincial Shipbuilding Act, 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)

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

S. Robinson: Over the last month local governments representing five areas of the province have been meeting to discuss common issues, debate resolutions and to learn how they can deliver better services to their communities. I had the pleasure of attending all five of the area association meetings this year — the AVICC in Courtney, the AKBLG in Nakusp, SILGA in Kamloops, the NCLGA in Prince George and the LMLGA in Harrison Hot Springs.

I had the opportunity to witness firsthand how local governments work together to review best practices, identify shared concerns and capitalize on opportunities. Each regional meeting brought forward a range of resolutions for consideration at the Union of B.C. Municipalities’ upcoming conference in September.
[ Page 8526 ]

There were certainly some lively debates and discussions, and there were certainly some common themes from all regions of province. There were resolutions asking the UBCM to lobby government to deal with the doctor shortages. Local governments recognize that their communities suffer when medical care is scarce.

There were resolutions asking the UBCM to lobby the provincial government to address the infrastructure deficit. Some communities have ancient pipes and sewers and need funding to meet federal and provincial standards and to sustain their communities as livable, desirable places to raise a family and, perhaps, live out their remaining years.

The one thing I saw from all across this province, and it was consistent at every single one of these meetings: every mayor, every councillor, every regional director believes that they live in the best community in the best part of the province.

[1020]

Given that we are celebrating Local Government Awareness Week, May 18 to 22, I invite the entire House to acknowledge the hard work of our mayors, councillors and regional directors throughout British Columbia who help to inform us of what is going on in their communities, and to thank them for their hard work and contribution to enriching the lives of British Columbians.

L. Reimer: Today I rise to inform the House that May 17 to 23 is Local Government Awareness Week in British Columbia. The goal of this week is to promote awareness and educate the public on the purpose and the importance of our local governments.

In 2015 our provincial government increased funding for local government grant programs by $5 million, which will raise the total funding to almost $125 million.

It is key that British Columbians understand how the decisions made by our elected officials — be they from our 162 municipal councils, our 27 regional district boards, our school boards, our island trusts or park boards — affect them on a daily basis.

Our local governments play a huge role in building essential infrastructure, including streets, water systems, recreational facilities, etc., and this supports a higher quality of life for our citizens.

In addition, they provide for our communities by enacting bylaws to encourage safe neighbourhoods and organizing family-friendly events to promote a tight-knit, fun-loving community.

I encourage everyone in British Columbia to take note of their local government and to volunteer their time to make our communities more livable, where families can thrive, businesses can grow and where neighbours support one another. All of this begins with our exceptional local governments and the decisions of their elected officials.

We want to thank our local governments so very much for the wonderful work they do and look forward to continue working with them in partnership for our mutual constituents and to make B.C. the best place in the world to live.

MERV WILKINSON AND WILDWOOD FOREST

D. Routley: Wildwood forest is a sustainable forest in my constituency. In 1938 Merv Wilkinson began a 70-year effort to prove responsible forest stewardship and management is not only possible but profitable, environmentally sustainable and socially just.

Merv studied the forest management philosophies and practices of Scandinavian countries, harvesting less than the annual growth rate so that volume increased, not diminished, over time. Merv considered the standing volume of his timber to be a bank account, annual growth being interest. That simple economic analogy fails to adequately credit Merv’s investment.

Beyond economic value was a deep appreciation of the environmental values enhanced by a thriving, healthy forest, home to diverse species — essential values to Merv and Wildwood forest.

Wildwood is home to the Ecoforestry Institute Society, dedicated to promoting ecologically, socially and economically viable forest use. Ecoforestry maintains forest systems, providing appropriate levels of timber extraction, careful silviculture methods and improved quality of timber, making extractions suitable to the highest-value uses.

Merv Wilkinson passed away in 2011 at 97 years of age. A signalman with the Pacific Coast Militia Rangers during World War II, a founding director of the Nanaimo Credit Union and Mid-Island Consumer Cooperative, leader of Cedar Youth Activity Club, Merv led an accomplished, full life — also, founder of the foster parents association of Nanaimo. He was awarded both the Order of B.C. and the Order of Canada for his contributions to sustainable forestry.

Merv’s work is internationally recognized, and Wildwood forest is a treasure of B.C. Now owned by the Land Conservancy, which is struggling financially, Wildwood now stands at risk of being sold to private developers.

Wildwood forest is a provincial, national and global treasure that must be preserved. We all hope that the government will agree, honour the life work of Merv Wilkinson and take the necessary steps to protect this B.C. gem.

CATHOLIC EDUCATION

S. Gibson: It’s my pleasure to inform you that across Canada and throughout the world, World Catholic Education Day is celebrated today, May 14.

Catholic education has served parents and their children in most nations throughout the world for centuries. In Canada Catholic education is an integral contributor
[ Page 8527 ]
to our Canadian identity and culture, serving the nation through faith-based learning and leading.

[1025]

Catholic education has helped define Canadian society through its deeply rooted teachings of social justice, service to the community and ongoing promotion of respect and dignity of all persons.

The presence of Catholic education is based on the values of peace, justice and respect — values that are inherent to our Canadian identity. Accomplishments over the past 170 years of the Canadian Catholic school system, both English and French, have been an integral part of the growth and spirit of our nation.

Congratulations to all who are involved in Catholic education in our provinces, here in B.C. and the territories as we join together with colleagues throughout the world who are celebrating World Catholic Education Day on May 14.

SWAN LAKE–CHRISTMAS HILL
NATURE SANCTUARY

R. Fleming: There is always something to see or do at the Swan Lake nature sanctuary. “But where is it?” many ask. MLAs heading home via the Pat Bay Highway to the ferry terminal unknowingly drive by it every week without seeing it, even if they are going the posted speed limit. Connected by four kilometres of trails, the sanctuary includes two distinct habitats — the marshland of Swan Lake and the rocky highlands of Christmas Hill — which are home to a diverse network of native plants and wildlife.

The nature house boasts an extensive library with a gift shop and a classroom with regular programs which promote the understanding and appreciation of nature. Educational programs and activities are offered for all ages. Kids can participate in programs like Biology Buddies that focus on the natural wonders of the area. Every year hundreds of people bring their binoculars when migratory birds return from winter. Throughout the year a variety of special events celebrate the natural creatures that live in the sanctuary.

A registered charitable organization since 1975, the Swan Lake–Christmas Hill Nature Sanctuary is celebrating its 40th anniversary this June. A couple of years ago I was at a trail opening at the sanctuary, and I met a group of gentlemen in their late 50s and early 60s, all of whom had created the sanctuary 40 years earlier from a polluted lake. All of them insisted that they were tough dudes back then. They were with the John Howard Society. They were on parole. They created this, and it was one of the greatest experiences of their lives. They were still avid conservationists based on that experience.

It has a special place in my constituency. I hope that other members will be able to find it in the near future and enjoy it as well.

I’d like to thank Kathleen Burton, the executive director; the Swan Lake–Christmas Hill Nature Sanctuary Society; and the dedicated group of volunteers, naturalists and biologists for their incredible commitment to education and the protection of this unique natural environment in the heart of our city.

So the next time you’re driving down the Pat Bay Highway, turn right at Saanich Road, then take your next left, and you’ll find the signs to the Swan Lake nature sanctuary.

NEIL SQUIRE SOCIETY

R. Lee: Today I would like to stand and acknowledge the Neil Squire Society, a national non-profit organization that I’m proud to say has its headquarters in Burnaby North.

In 1980, 21-year-old UVic student Neil Squire was in a car accident that left him tetraplegic, unable to move his legs and arms and unable to speak. Realizing how much Neil’s disability cut him off from the rest of the world, his relative Bill Cameron — who worked at TRIUMF, in charge of remote handling — built a machine that allowed Neil to communicate in Morse code using only his breathing. A dedicated group of scientists, therapists and volunteers went on to form the society after Neil died unexpectedly in 1984.

Over 30 years later the Neil Squire Society remains dedicated to social inclusion and economic equity. They are a leader in the research and development of assistive technology but are also committed to helping people with disabilities achieve their employment goals. Their Employ-Ability program provides support and training for people with disabilities looking for work, helping them find and keep the job they want for absolutely no cost.

Today the society has four offices across Canada and has served over 30,000 people with disabilities since its inception. Whenever I meet Dr. Gary Birch, executive director for over 20 years, he’s always eager to share his thoughts on how to make lives easier for people with disabilities. I’m really pleased to see recently that his organization will receive $9 million over the next three years to deliver the new Technology@Work program.

[1030]

The Neil Squire Society is great for my community and great for B.C., and I ask everyone in the House today to join me in congratulating them for all their hard work.

Oral Questions

INCOME ASSISTANCE POLICY ON
MATERNITY LEAVE BENEFITS

J. Horgan: Luke Dickinson’s family receives disability assistance. His spouse, Katie, works part-time, and they keep the $1,000 per month they’re entitled to under the
[ Page 8528 ]
provisions of the earning exemptions in British Columbia. Luke and Katie found out in the past couple of weeks that they’re pregnant, expecting their third child. Delightful news for them.

They advised the Ministry of Social Development of that fact, and the ministry asked if Katie was going to be receiving maternity leave benefits. When she responded in the affirmative — as is her right: 15 weeks of maternity benefits to anyone in Canada, and more to those who have the benefit of a union position — she was shocked to learn that the government of British Columbia will be clawing back those maternity benefits.

My question to the Premier is: does she believe that families that are entitled to maternity benefits should have those resources clawed back by the government of British Columbia?

Hon. C. Clark: Here’s what I believe and here’s what two years ago British Columbians gave us our marching orders to do. They said that they wanted a government that was going to go out there and create jobs all across the province, attract investment that was going to mean new opportunities for people at all income levels, at all strata of society, in all regions of the province. We are delivering on that.

The next thing that British Columbians said they wanted us to do was to make sure that we go out there and we support them in getting the training they need to be able to fill those jobs. That’s a role that unions play. It’s a role that the private sector plays. But most of all, it is a role that government plays a critical part of in making sure that people here, British Columbians, have the skills that they need to be first in line for the jobs in British Columbia that all that investment is beginning to create, and we are delivering on that.

The third thing was people said: “Leave more money in our pockets. Keep taxes low. Keep British Columbia affordable.” We are delivering on that. We have a lot more to do, but two years ago today British Columbians gave us their marching orders, and we are delivering for them.

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

J. Horgan: As with everything the Premier says, you’ve got to check against delivery. You’ve got to look at the facts. Although I’m sure the Premier might acknowledge that she completely missed the substance of the question, I can’t resist the notion that somehow the B.C. Liberals are leaving more money in people’s pockets when B.C. Hydro rates are going up, ferry rates are going up, ICBC rates are going up, camping fees are going up, adult basic education fees are going up, on and on. But I stand corrected: millionaires are getting a tax break. That’s what we get from this government.

Although the families-first — the millionaire families–first — policies of the B.C. Liberals are evident to anyone to see, I would like to focus on the Dickinson family for a moment. The Dickinson family gets $1,490 for a family of four on disability assistance. Put in Katie’s $1,000 that she’s entitled to under the earning exemptions. Out of that they have to pay $1,325 to rent their apartment in Maple Ridge, leaving them $165 for food, clothing and other necessities.

Now Katie’s pregnant with a third child. That’s an exciting opportunity for any family. Anyone who’s been a parent understands that. Will the Premier put this family first and end the clawback of maternity benefits that the B.C. Liberals have been doing for the past 14 years?

[1035]

Hon. C. Clark: You know, what I can’t believe is that this member would stand up and pretend that he cares about affordability and about poverty in British Columbia. The government that he advised for ten years…

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members. The members of this House will come to order.

Hon. C. Clark: …had double the rates of child poverty in British Columbia. We have worked very hard to reduce those child poverty rates over the last decade in the province.

We had the highest income taxes anywhere in Canada. British Columbians were poorer with respect to the amount of money that government took from them, on the days when he was advising government, certainly, than they are today. British Columbians pay amongst the lowest taxes. If you’re under $122,000, you have more money in your pocket after taxes than anybody else in Canada.

British Columbians no longer have to leave. When he was supporting the previous government, 50,000 people had to flee the province. Things have changed. British Columbians are coming home.

They’re coming home because we believe in leaving money in people’s pockets, in giving them the skills that they need to be able to take advantage of opportunities and attracting the investment that is going to create those opportunities, not just for them but for their children and grandchildren for the future.

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

J. Horgan: Only a leader of a government completely out of touch with the public could say that giving a tax break to millionaires and taking money away from people on disability when they have the good news of having a child coming into their family…. It’s absolutely outrageous, completely and utterly out of touch.

The question to the Premier, the affable Premier, the
[ Page 8529 ]
jolly but perhaps sometimes incoherent Premier is this. Will she do the right thing and stop taking away maternity benefits from mothers when they need them most? Why don’t we put mothers on disability on the top of the list and put the millionaires down a couple of steps?

Madame Speaker: May I remind all members that it is possible to disagree in this House without resorting to personal attack.

Hon. C. Clark: I want to assure the hon. member across the way that while he may think I am jolly, I certainly can do math. The math is this. Under the NDP we had the highest income taxes anywhere in Canada. We had the highest child poverty rates by far anywhere in Canada. We saw a New Democrat government that drove up unemployment to rates that were historically amongst the highest in our province’s history. British Columbians had to flee in order to find jobs, flee this beautiful place, the most beautiful place in Canada, because the NDP had killed the economy that we all depend on.

We take a very different approach. We have three principles. The first is to work hard to attract investment to create jobs. The second is to make sure that British Columbians have the skills that they need through government-provided training to take those jobs. The third is to get out of their way, leave as much money in their pockets as we possibly can so that they can spend it as they choose and have a better, more affordable, sustainable quality of life for them and for their children. That’s math.

M. Mungall: Unfortunately, nothing of what the Premier has said so far has provided any solace to Luke and Katie at this time.

For 14 years this government has been doing this maternity leave clawback. Two years ago Tabitha Naismith saw her maternity leave benefits clawed back when she had her daughter. Without her wage, without her maternity leave benefits, Tabitha struggled to put food on the table for herself and to clothe her newborn. That is exactly what Katie and Luke are worried about. They are not being left with more money in their pockets after their maternity leave benefits are going to be clawed back, Premier.

[1040]

If this government can find a break for the richest 2 percent in this province, why on earth are they creating more hardship for families like Katie and Luke’s?

Hon. C. Clark: In British Columbia we have the lowest taxes in the country for anyone earning up to $121,000. And while taxes are higher in British Columbia for people who earn $122,000 and $123,000 than in other provinces, I want to assure the members opposite that if you earn $122,000 in British Columbia, contrary to their view, you are not a millionaire.

Now, though we are trying to make sure that those people in the lowest-income bracket have the lowest taxes anywhere in the country, up to $121,000, trying to make sure that we are creating jobs, which we are….

So $12.5 billion has already been spent on working to fill the ground and make sure that we are ready to host the most competitive LNG industry anywhere in the world — $12.5 billion in one industry, alone, that is on the cusp of being born. That doesn’t count forestry. It doesn’t count mining. It doesn’t count the thousands of jobs that have been created in the resource sector.

I want to say this. I am quite confident in asserting today that very few of those jobs, if any, would have been created had the NDP been elected two years ago today. They oppose resource development. They fight workers in resource communities every step of the way. They stand in the way of development. There is a reason. We know that it’s not the New Democratic Party. It’s the no development party. It was that ten years ago, and it’s that same thing today.

Madame Speaker: Recognizing Nelson-Creston on a supplemental.

M. Mungall: Katie has a job. That’s the point. She has a job. She’s having a baby. This should be an exciting time, not a time of worry in her life.

The reality is that it is a time of worry because she has to take maternity leave, as all women do when they have a baby. She has to take maternity leave. She’s entitled to maternity leave benefits. The reality is that this government is taking away those benefits and making life harder for Luke and Katie and their family, and that’s not okay.

Clawing back maternity leave worsens child poverty, and unfortunately, in Canada you just can’t get worse than British Columbia when it comes to child poverty. Ending the maternity leave clawback could be done with a stroke of a pen, and it would cost this government very little. But the benefit to families like Katie and Luke’s and to their communities would be substantial. So will the Premier get off her message box and get onto the topic here and end the maternity leave clawback?

Hon. C. Clark: Child poverty is very much an issue of concern for all of us in this House, particularly on the government side, making sure that we do everything we can to reduce the impacts. The thing is that it’s not really just child poverty. It’s family poverty. It’s parent poverty, which is why we’re working to create jobs across the province, making sure that people have access…

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members, the Chair will hear the answer.

Hon. C. Clark: …to the training that they need with
[ Page 8530 ]
very generous grants from government, if necessary, to make sure that they can go and get the skills they need to find those jobs.

The member is wrong about this. She’s wrong when she said that child poverty could not get worse than it is today. In the 1990s, when her friends and insiders were in power, there were 69,000 more children living in child poverty. Those families, those children have been lifted out of poverty as a result of a growing economy, one that’s created jobs all across the province.

The investments that government has made in making sure that families can be as healthy and wealthy as possible, that they can attract and get into the jobs and get into the skills training they need to be able to find those jobs — that is the solution to poverty. It’s creating prosperity for British Columbia. It’s making sure that we create an economy where there are good-paying, family-supporting jobs for workers in every corner of British Columbia.

[1045]

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE UNITS

M. Karagianis: Hon. Speaker, 2014 was a very dark year for British Columbians. Domestic violence cases were at the highest levels in half a decade. There were 20 murders as a result of domestic violence last year, with an additional 11 women who were seriously injured. Unfortunately, indications are that this year will be just as alarming.

Julie Cox was murdered in Saanich two weeks ago. Just four days ago, on Mother’s Day, 23-year-old Cady Quaw, the mother of young children, was murdered in Surrey. Her estranged husband has been charged.

It’s very clear that the violence-free-B.C. slogan of the B.C. Liberals is an utter failure, so my question is to the Premier. Why haven’t B.C.’s domestic violence units been effective at stopping these horrific incidents?

Hon. S. Anton: Having a safe British Columbia is important to everybody in this province. Having a violence-free British Columbia is important to everybody. It’s important to everybody in this House, it’s important to everybody in this province, and it is important to this government.

That’s why the Premier has been leading the violence-free-British-Columbia initiative, which is part of Justice. It’s a cross-government initiative, because all of us need to put our shoulder to the wheel to make sure that we have a violence-free British Columbia.

There are numerous pieces to this. As I said, it’s a cross-government initiative. We need to have a safe British Columbia for families. That is why we have domestic violence units in a number of police departments in British Columbia. We have the Integrated Case Assessment Teams across British Columbia. That’s why we have given out $5 million recently in project grants to groups around British Columbia for safety in communities all around British Columbia.

It is a priority for government. It is a priority for all of us that families be safe, that people be safe in British Columbia and that we work towards having a violence-free B.C.

Madame Speaker: Member for Esquimalt–Royal Roads on a supplemental.

M. Karagianis: Well, there are some very clear clues as to why the domestic violence units have not been able to halt this horrific wave of domestic violence in British Columbia. Domestic violence units in Kelowna, Surrey and Nanaimo have no stable funding. It is merely year to year. They depend on the whims of this government for more funding.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Continue.

M. Karagianis: Thank you, Madame Speaker.

Worse, in several communities these so-called units are only staffed by a single full-time officer. It’s hardly a unit. Abbotsford and New Westminster have only a half-time officer for their domestic violence unit. With stats as high as they are, half an officer is simply not good enough, and it certainly is not a unit.

When is the minister going to get serious, and when is the Premier going to get serious about domestic violence in B.C. and actually create full-time units that are funded with stable funding to help halt domestic violence in this province?

Hon. S. Anton: Domestic violence units are an extraordinarily important tool in the toolbox of keeping families safe, of keeping communities safe. We have domestic violence units in Surrey, Kelowna, Vancouver, New Westminster, Abbotsford, here in Victoria and in Nanaimo. These are police units where there are community workers embedded with the police unit. They go out and deal with serious domestic violence cases. They help families. They help families in crisis. There is a very strong commitment to those units in government.

At the same time, where the community is not big enough for the domestic violence units, we have the integrated case management teams. They, too, are a group of service providers, including police and Crown, in communities all around British Columbia who take on serious cases in their communities to help, as well, make their communities safer.

This is a very significant commitment by government, by police, by community service organizations to keep British Columbia safe.

[1050]

GAY-STRAIGHT ALLIANCE
GROUPS IN SCHOOLS

S. Chandra Herbert: We all know gay-straight alliances save lives. In Alberta their government has declared that students in any school that asks for one will get one. They will make sure it happens.

Ontario has said the same. Saskatchewan has said that if there’s a school that won’t provide one, they’ll look to cut their funding. Yet here in B.C., this Liberal government refuses. They say they will not lift one finger to ensure that kids get access to these life-saving clubs. My question to the Premier: why?

Hon. P. Fassbender: I thank the member for the question.

British Columbia has led the country. The Premier has been recognized by other first ministers across this country for leading the country, for our ERASE Bullying strategy — investment in ensuring that schools and communities have the tools they need to ensure that no student, no person is bullied for any reason.

It has been successful. We’ve seen great work being done in schools. We stand on the record that says very clearly that no person in this province should be discriminated against or bullied for any reason.

Madame Speaker: The member for Vancouver–West End on a supplemental.

S. Chandra Herbert: This government stands on a record of failing, absolutely failing lesbian, gay, bi and trans students. The minister knows it. All of this side knows it. You’re failing them. Gay-straight alliances cut suicide risk in half. Yet this government…. When these students ask for help in their most vulnerable times, the Premier and the minister refuse to do anything. They will not ensure that kids get these clubs that are life-savers, that make sure they’re not at such high risk of suicide. It’s shameful.

Alberta acted. They’re a Conservative government. Ontario acted. They’re a Liberal government. New Democrats are calling for action in Saskatchewan. Their Conservative-affiliated government is looking to cut the funding. Yet here in B.C., which is, I suppose, a leader in failing our students, this government says nothing, does nothing, turns their back on these students crying out for help.

How can the minister stand and claim to be a leader when he so clearly knows that his government is a failure?

Hon. P. Fassbender: The heart of the ERASE strategy is very clear. That is, that we support the diversity of all students in the province of British Columbia.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members, Members.

Interjection.

Madame Speaker: Powell River–Sunshine Coast.

Hon. P. Fassbender: We support the boards of education across this province and independent schools that have implemented LGBTQ clubs as part of their local initiatives in the schools, with the students at the heart of it who know who their friends are and work with them to ensure that they are not bullied or discriminated against.

In addition, because we have safe school coordinators in every single district in this province, they’re not only working with the students, they’re working with community so that the school communities are safe and inclusive communities.

B.C. HYDRO MANAGEMENT AND
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PLAN

A. Dix: The B.C. Hydro information technology five-year plan is now in its seventh year. It’s half-finished, according to the minister, over budget and missing all of its performance targets on $492 million of spending.

The minister was forced to apologize to ratepayers yesterday for this massive failure. Before the plan was put into place, somebody told the Utilities Commission that transitioning to an SAP platform on a key element of the project would cost five times as much, not save operating money, cause delays and would “not be considered appropriate for B.C. Hydro.”

[1055]

You know who that somebody was? Why, it was B.C. Hydro itself in sworn evidence to the Utilities Commission. B.C. Hydro told B.C. Hydro not to do it, and B.C. Hydro did it anyway at a huge cost to taxpayers. That’s Liberal energy policies at work.

Can the minister explain why B.C. Hydro didn’t follow its own advice in this debacle? Can he finally tell this House, after three weeks of questions, when B.C. Hydro, now in its seventh year of a five-year plan, will finally be finished the work?

Hon. B. Bennett: In 2009 — that is the date when the document was created that the member has referenced — B.C. Hydro had a piece of software that they used that was not supported any longer by the vendor. That is my advice. In fact, the note that he referenced in his question actually states that the software that was being used by B.C. Hydro was not supported by the vendor. It was out of date, and it needed to be replaced.

If the member would take the time to look at exactly the same document the following year….

Interjections.
[ Page 8532 ]

Madame Speaker: Members.

Hon. B. Bennett: If the member would take the time to go to the next year’s filings for the rate review, he would find, in fact, this is what it says, “The scope and timing of the enterprise financials upgrade project has changed relative to the project described in the fiscal ’09-10 rate review application,” the document that the member has referenced.

The member can look this up, or I can provide a copy to him. “Specifically, the scope was expanded to include a comprehensive rework of the financial data model to align BCUC regulatory views, and the project timing was adjusted to align with the expected IFRS implementation date.”

Madame Speaker: Vancouver-Kingsway on a supplemental.

A. Dix: I don’t know who the minister is disagreeing with — the B.C. Hydro that told him not to waste the money or the B.C. Hydro that did waste the money.

Three weeks ago the minister, surrounded by the five most senior B.C. Hydro officials, couldn’t even answer basic questions about this plan. They said they’d get the answers but are seemingly unable to do so, in multiple questions in this House and elsewhere.

Watching this, I think ratepayers have to ask themselves how on top of things B.C. Hydro is today. They told the BCUC one thing, and then they did another. Ratepayers are paying a massive price for this failure — so massive that even this minister had to apologize to them yesterday.

Is he able to tell us today whether this five-year plan, in its seventh year, will ever end? Does he know? Did the president of B.C. Hydro tell him yesterday when he summoned her to meet? Did she tell him when the plan would be finished and how much this scheme will finally cost when all is said and done?

Hon. B. Bennett: Well, I don’t mind admitting, actually, when I don’t know something or if I’m wrong. I admitted to the member in estimates that in fact B.C. Hydro had not measured up in its IT program in 2009 and 2010. I think it’s appropriate for me, as the Energy Minister, to say that I apologize to ratepayers. I think that’s the appropriate thing for an Energy Minister to do.

The member might want to consider actually admitting that he’s wrong, because he is wrong about what he is saying in the House this morning. He is wrong. What B.C. Hydro….

Interjections.

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

Hon. B. Bennett: He is wrong. I don’t know what’s so hard — for this particular member to acknowledge that he’s made a mistake. He seems to have great difficulty doing that.

[1100]

B.C. Hydro has explained in the document that was filed under the rate review application in the following year. He can look it up. It’s right there. They explain why they went to the different IT system. In fact, if you look at fiscal 2011, ’12, ’13, ’14 and ’15, they are under budget.

[End of question period.]

Tabling Documents

Madame Speaker: Hon. Members, I am tabling a report of the Representative for Children and Youth, Paige’s Story: Abuse, Indifference and a Young Life Discarded.

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

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Hon. M. Polak: I just would like to offer a welcome to 29 students from St. Catherine’s Elementary in my riding. They’re joined by their teacher, Maria Canil, and their principal, Jeff Brophy. Would the House please make them very welcome.

Petitions

V. Huntington: It gives me enormous pleasure today to introduce the first of a series of petitions, this with 10,000 signatures, asking that the Fraser Health and government of British Columbia immediately restore 24-hour surgical services at Delta Hospital.

Hon. T. Wat: I ask leave to table a report.

Madame Speaker: Please proceed.

Tabling Documents

Hon. T. Wat: I have the honour of tabling the 2013-14 Report on Multiculturalism.

Petitions

M. Dalton: I rise to table a petition signed by more than 1,300 residents. The petitioners seek to protect the residential well water supply in Whonnock, which is a part of Maple Ridge. They ask that a water use permit be denied to any commercial greenhouse operation that relies on limited water supply needed for residential use.
[ Page 8533 ]

There’s currently a 97,000-square-foot medicinal marijuana greenhouse being built, and more are planned. Residents are very concerned about its impact on their water supply, as many of them experience dry wells for months each year. These medicinal marijuana grow ops will only make the situation much worse.

S. Chandra Herbert: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

S. Chandra Herbert: I would like to welcome to this House, just arrived, Sophia Osborne and her father, David. She’s a young activist, he’s an older activist, and they want to learn about this place. Please welcome them to this House.

Petitions

M. Mungall: I have a petition here with 12,423 signatures from people who want to keep the 175 Interior Health laundry jobs in their communities, done by the exceptional people currently providing integral services to the health care system.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: In this chamber continued committee stage debate on Bill 11. In Committee A, the Committee of Supply, the Ministry of Natural Gas Development. In Section C the continued estimates of the Ministry of Health.

[1105]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 11 — EDUCATION STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 2015

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 11; R. Chouhan in the chair.

The committee met at 11:06 a.m.

On section 25.

Hon. P. Fassbender: Yesterday I asked to stand down section 25. I have the explanation, which I’d like to read into the record. This, of course, applies to the francophone school district. To be clear, subsection (c) adds the ability for the minister to appoint a special adviser or special advisory committee to a francophone school district in circumstances where there has been a failure to report specific matters under section 16 or 16.1 of the School Act or section 80 of the Teachers Act.

This parallels the same section that is already in the act that applies to all other boards in the province. That section is the current 171.1(1)(c).

It is important to clarify that this existing section applies to francophone school districts and brings it into compliance, as I said, with the other districts in the province. This was done by adding subsection (c) to the special advisers section for the francophone school district in section 166.431(1). This will ensure that it’s absolutely clear that the minister has the authority to appoint a special adviser where there has been a failure to report to the commissioner for teacher regulation under the act.

Section 25 approved.

On section 32 (continued).

R. Fleming: The minister has said in the past that — shared services — where there are savings that will be achieved by districts or a group of districts that participate in an arrangement, the money will be reinvested into the education system. He backtracked on that commitment with the 2015 budget. There is a $54 million estimate of administrative savings that are, in fact, cut. The savings are realized, and then they are taken out of the district.

I want to ask the minister — because I think it’s important in this section, where school districts do not trust, do not like the amended language here in terms of the imposition upon them that is contained in the new language that will be substituted in the School Act — if he will, at the very least, make a commitment on the record here in this House that any savings that are achieved through these kinds of procurement arrangements that are made by directive, presumably, will at the very least be reinvested in the K-to-12 education system.

[1110]

Hon. P. Fassbender: I’m sure the member opposite is well aware that I would not stand in this House at this point and commit any budget decisions in advance. What I will commit to is what is on the record. Record levels of investment in education — $141 million of additional investments over the next three years. Record levels of investment in seismic and capital.

It is very obvious that our commitment, and I stand and reinforce that, is we will do everything we can working with districts to find efficiencies so that we can invest everything that is possible within our budget into education. That is the goal, that remains our goal, and that is what we will do in the future.

Section 32 approved on division.
[ Page 8534 ]

On section 33.

R. Fleming: I want to ask the minister about the administrative directives that can be issued to a board “in respect of” — and I am quoting the language here — “the improvement of student performance or another matter specified by the minister.”

I think people would well understand “in respect of the improvement of student performance” if it were to do with graduation rates or another standard measurement or participation in a certain type of program that is offered. But I think I want to ask the minister, specifically, why the drafters of this legislation put in language like “another matter.” It covers virtually anything in the known universe.

Will he admit, or at least clarify to those following debate — school trustees and their officials — that “another matter” is pretty much unlimited? It could refer to virtually anything. Is that what the drafters intended? Because that’s certainly how this clause reads.

Hon. P. Fassbender: I do appreciate the question, because it allows me to speak to the heart of this change. The wording is done in the way that it is to allow for flexibility on the part of school districts.

One very classic example is that we are currently working with districts looking at our innovation zone. There may be regulations that are in place where a district asks for a variance to that because of an idea that they brought forward which may not fit a particular regulation, but the minister, through directive, can allow them to do something that has clearly been demonstrated by them to be of benefit for the learning outcomes in their schools or in their district.

It is to provide maximum flexibility, not to be punitive but, indeed, to enable the flexibility that we know, in our discussions to date with school districts, that they want.

R. Fleming: This is, again, where the minister takes a definition of a word like “flexibility” to mean “compulsion.” That’s what the change in this section is about.

[1115]

It gives him the power to compel school districts to do anything on another matter determined by him — not jointly agreed upon but compelled by the minister. That’s the concern.

Now, I think that what school districts have told the minister in a different context, and I’ll give an example of this, is that…. He raised the so-called innovation agenda, which was a press conference, I recall, from January in which no funding was announced around a so-called innovation agenda. It didn’t pass the smell test for school boards in terms of having anything interesting contained in it.

Let’s look at one area where the government has a commitment or a goal to double the enrolment in the ACE IT program in trades training. Now, we’ve got school boards dealing with a budget cut of $54 million right now. Undetermined how they will manage it. Some are cutting school bus service. Some are laying off employees that offer student supports. Some will lay off teachers. We don’t know how it will end because the budget-making at the local level is happening now in response to the budget that he passed that didn’t fully fund the cost of the teachers settlement, as he promised he would do.

Trades training, as the minister knows, is more expensive. It involves more equipment. It involves supplies. Much of that is not adequately funded. School districts will potentially look at not offering as much of a selection of trades-training opportunities in their districts as a means to control costs, not because they want to invest less in trades training. Many of them are trying to ramp up and entice enrolment and encourage it, and they’re not supported by the government.

We could have a situation, as I read it under this section, where the minister issues a directive that you must, for example, have a certain amount of dual-credit programs offered in an enrolment, when the school district will ultimately lose even more administrative autonomy over their own budget.

That’s the fear I have, because you’ve got a government that is failing to meet its 5,000 enrolment in the ACE IT program targets. It’s not even at 2,500. It hasn’t even budged over the last six years since the target was created.

The directive could end up costing school boards money and reduce the autonomy of their decision-making locally on how budgets are allocated internally.

The question for the minister is…. Surely, he must have had some discussions with school boards about exactly this example and other types of problems that will arise from the ability to have an expanded amount of directives that are unrestricted towards them and the intrusiveness towards their administrative decisions.

Hon. P. Fassbender: Over the last two days I’ve tried to be respectful and appreciate the speeches made by the member opposite and his colleagues and the fearmongering. I use that word hesitantly, but it is fearmongering in suggesting there are all kinds of objectives here that there aren’t.

I have clearly said a number of times that we have been discussing the future with school boards. What the member fails to do is to read the section in the act, section 33. It adds a new section. The words I would like to read for the member, which he chooses to ignore and chooses to try and spread fear that the minister has got some other objective, say: “By order, issue administrative directives to enable a board to participate in or undertake certain projects.”

The word “enable” is not proscriptive. It says, as I clearly indicated in my previous answer, that if a board or a school as a function of being one of the innovative zones that we’ve identified and we will be building on…. And
[ Page 8535 ]
it isn’t a press conference. There are schools in this province that are doing amazing things.

[1120]

Part of our initiative on the innovation zone is to celebrate those schools and to allow them to work with their fellow peers across the province to look at new opportunities.

This section…. If the member would like me to get a dictionary definition of “enable,” I’d be happy to provide that to him, but I’m sure he went to school, and he might know what the word “enable” means. It means to enable districts to be able to do innovative things which may not be in keeping with current regulations. The directive is to enable them to be able to achieve that.

The member can do all the fearmongering he wants. The reality, what’s going on, is we are going to have the flexibility to celebrate it, to replicate it, to work with districts so that they can move ahead and not be hampered by regulation but be enabled to do innovative things.

R. Fleming: Let me read the section, then. The minister has just said it enables school boards, almost as if it empowers them to do something. Enable a school board “specified by the minister.” I’m reading the legislation, I believe, correctly.

He’s the only person in the province that’s cheerleading these kinds of changes in this legislation. Every other school board that has written to him has asked him to withdraw these sections and others of the bill. They were never consulted about it. They don’t want it. They frankly don’t trust the power that the minister is assembling for himself. It is so broad as to be dangerous.

I’ve advanced a couple of potential risks to school boards. There are dozens of others. We will run out of time to canvass them all. But let me just ask the minister this. The language clearly says it will enable the board specified by the minister, so it has to have his permission and direction. Would he at least agree with that reading of this clause of the legislation?

Hon. P. Fassbender: I don’t know how long the member has been in the House, but I’m sure he’s been around long enough that he really knows the facts. The facts are that if there is a regulation and a board asked for a variance, it is only the minister currently who can give that variance. This does not make it any more complicated. It actually makes it easier. I’ve said it. I will repeat it. Again, it will allow boards to ask for a variance to existing regulations to enable them to do something innovative.

Section 33 approved on division.

On section 34.

R. Fleming: We covered this section, I think, in the definitions, so I asked, substantively, most of the questions I had for the minister. I want to give him another opportunity, though, just because he insists that by stripping out all of the restrictions on the use of student information and moving to the FOIPPA legislation, all of the protections will remain in place but will refer to another statute.

Now, I have had conversations with other lawyers who are familiar with that piece of legislation, and they do agree that we are moving towards a less restrictive, more permissive set of legislation around student protection. I think we’ve canvassed that adequately at this point in time. We’ll have some disagreements, but the most important thing is to monitor it going forward.

I think for the purposes of this debate, I would ask the minister specifically what protections he is putting in place to protect student privacy, because we have greater risk, significantly larger data systems than ever before and now the ability to share Ministry of Education student information data with any other public body. Potentially dozens and dozens of entities could make applications to have information that formerly was only the property of the Ministry of Education.

Can he assure parents, educators and others connected to the school system that he is setting up an infrastructure and an oversight in the ministry to deal with some of the increased risks and now the less restrictive, more permissive legislation that he seeks passage for?

[1125]

Hon. P. Fassbender: Again, on the record, I want to correct comments that were made in the press and in other areas by the member, that we did not check with the freedom-of-information and privacy commissioner. We absolutely did. The member stood in this House and said that, on one occasion that I’m aware of.

Here is the reality in this section. All of the structures and guidelines that are in place today will be strengthened as we move to a more modern act and we also come into compliance with the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. We will have structures. We will have guidelines. We will have filters. We have the firewalls.

With the introduction of MyEducation B.C., we’re strengthening all of those. We are ensuring that the only people who have access to that information are people who are providing a direct benefit in the interest of each and every student. That is the purpose.

When we went to the freedom-of-information and privacy commissioner and they reviewed the legislation, the same questions were asked in terms of all of the structures and guidelines, the audits we will do. We assured the commissioner, and that was received. They saw that this change was not going to compromise any single student’s information. It’s absolutely critical for the ministry to ensure and assure every parent and every student in this province that their privacy will be protected as it has been in the past.

[1130]

Sections 34 to 36 inclusive approved.

On section 37.

R. Fleming: I just wanted to ask the minister why the section here…. The language here around the removal or destruction of individual identifiers. It has been a key strength of the existing School Act: restrictions of the misuse, or the failure to discontinue the use, of student information that is collected by being engaged in the school system. Why was that taken out?

Hon. P. Fassbender: Again, in reviewing the move to the guidelines under FOIPPA, it’s very clear how and when and why information of a personal nature can be released — and in this particular case, information between ministries. If I can use one example — there may be others: students who are in care. Because some of those students move, the ability of that information to move with them is appropriate under FOIPPA to ensure that their needs are looked after. In point of fact, the removal of this and the provisions under FOIPPA are much stronger than what we currently have. That’s why this is being deleted.

Section 37 approved.

On section 38.

R. Fleming: Just looking at what’s changing here, the most obvious change is…. The minister has had a statutory obligation, a requirement, to appoint an Education Advisory Council. I know from the terms of reference of this council that it’s a representative stakeholder body. It includes all of the major professions and unions representing those who work in education, as well as administrative groups and others.

Now he may — under the new legislation, “may” — appoint an education advisory council. It’s interesting that an opportunity to give feedback, to have conversation and dialogue with the minister goes from being an absolute statutory requirement to something that may happen if the minister wants it to.

[1135]

I think he’s under a lot of criticism right now, over Bill 11, from all of those education partners who were left out of the legislative process, were not consulted at all. It shows that he, perhaps, doesn’t like advice or feedback of any kind, because it has been given on this bill and there has been no result of any of the widespread criticism that he has received.

I guess my question is around the Education Advisory Council. It says very clearly in the statutes that are about to be thrown out that the advisory committee not only must be appointed by the minister to advise him on policy matters regarding education, it “must meet at least twice annually.”

I’m just wondering, in the last year, or perhaps the last two years, has it in fact met at least twice annually or more frequently? If it has not met at least twice annually as required by the statute, how long and why has the minister been breaking the law in this regard?

Hon. P. Fassbender: The reality — and the member knows this — is that the group has not met. One of the reasons is that the way it was structured previously was not effective in meeting the needs both of the group and of the ministry.

The reason that change is being made is, again, to give us the flexibility to not designate one group necessarily but a variety of different opportunities to bring people together who have a particular set of expertise.

One of the ones that I mentioned yesterday was the sector advisory council, which has met already and is dealing with a lot of the issues that are inherent in where we need to go in the future.

We also may have a group that we would call together as an advisory council to the ministry and the minister on issues like special needs, class composition — a number of the things which we know are very important as we move forward.

This provides maximum flexibility. It also provides a mechanism where a variety of different people can provide advice to the minister and the ministry.

[1140]

Sections 38 and 39 approved.

Section 40 approved on division.

Sections 41 to 46 inclusive approved.

On section 47.

R. Fleming: I will maybe ask the minister’s indulgence, because I think the questions we have will cover a few sections here that are all to do with professional development. Perhaps I should have stood on section 49.

Let me begin just by asking him again…. This section — and 49, in particular — gives the minister new powers to regulate teacher professional development. I just haven’t had a good explanation why, so far, the minister, in changing the law giving control to regulate teacher professional development unto himself, failed to consult with key stakeholders like the B.C. Teachers Federation prior to announcing these changes?

Hon. P. Fassbender: I’ve said it publicly. I’ve said it on a number of occasions when asked. We have clearly been in discussions with the BCTF, and the great work that’s been done by teachers and other stakeholders around the province on the new curriculum….

At the heart of that is to ensure that professional de-
[ Page 8537 ]
velopment provides teachers with the support they need in order to deal with new curriculum or any other things in the innovation zones and so on that we’re moving toward.

I have clearly said, and I repeat, that we will be moving into detailed discussions with the BCTF and other stakeholders, like post-secondary institutions, on the issue of professional development. While we are making the change to the act, the regulations that flow out of this will help to populate what professional development will be. We are going to work with the teachers of this province to develop those criteria and regulations, and that is the process moving forward.

R. Fleming: The minister — this isn’t the first time he’s done it — is trying this sleight-of-hand trick, where he talks about consultation with the teaching profession on curriculum. He tries to confuse it or morph into the same thing about changing the law on professional development. We are talking about two entirely different things, and the minister knows it, or he certainly ought to know it. That needs to be clarified.

The question was: why is the minister giving himself sole authority to set professional standards? In other words, why would he legislate first without consultation of teachers and then give a vague promise, which we’ve already seen him walk back in this debate, to consult after? Why legislate first and promise to consult later? That’s what has the teaching profession’s backs up: the record of this government that can’t be trusted on so many issues.

I don’t want an answer that tries to confuse the public out there by substituting curriculum committee for professional development. They’re not the same thing. The minister ought to know that. Why did he make this controversial move to take over and give sole direction unto himself the professional development of the teaching profession in British Columbia? This upset of relationship has gone on for decades and makes the conversation so much harder to have now.

Why not have the consultation, which is the normal thing to do, and make legislative changes subsequent that flow from those conversations? Why has it put it around backwards, the other way, where he legislates first, like an authoritarian government would do?

Hon. P. Fassbender: The only person trying to confuse or fearmonger is the member opposite, again, on this subject. I have clearly said to the president of the BCTF that we will work together to develop the framework on professional development. I’ve said it. I mean it. I’ve answered the question, and I won’t take it any further.

R. Fleming: I think the important thing to note is that the minister says he will work with the teaching profession. This law gives him the right to not to have to do that.

[1145]

He won’t have to do that. So my question to the minister is whether he has plans to direct mandatory training in the future. Is that what this substantive change in the legislation is about — to give himself the authority and power to direct mandatory training?

Hon. P. Fassbender: I’ve answered the question.

R. Fleming: I’m sorry. That was a completely different question that has not been answered by the minister at this point in time, so I’ll ask it again. Is the minister planning to direct mandatory training?

Hon. P. Fassbender: I don’t know how I can say it any clearer. I have said that we will work with the B.C. Teachers Federation and teachers and other stakeholders in the future of education in developing professional education standards for teachers that will support them as we move forward, as we transition education. My sole desire in all of this is that we will develop those together.

Those regulations will come out of dialogue and debate and discussion with all of those parties. At the end of it I believe we will have one of the best professional development frameworks anywhere, because we’ve got the best outcomes already because of the good work that we’ve done, and we will continue to do that.

R. Fleming: The changes will give the minister great powers over professional development. I want to ask the minister if he will put on the record that he will not force teachers to use professional development time to learn MyEducation B.C., which is replacing the BCeSIS boondoggle.

The reports out in the field are that it is taking a lot of time for teachers to learn the data entry techniques. Data entry is not professional development. The minister can, under this new legal regime, deem MyEducation B.C. data entry training as professional development. I want to ask him whether he will calm the fears that exist out there that his legislation has caused.

Hon. P. Fassbender: Again, I will try as best I can, even though the member wants to put negativity out there in suggesting all kinds of things. We will work with the B.C. Teachers Federation, the independent teachers, the post-secondary institutions and with our ministry team to develop a framework for professional development that meets the needs and supports teachers and, ultimately, learning outcomes for students.

R. Fleming: The legislation gives the director of certification new powers over professional development, instead of the much broader Teachers Council. I’m just wondering what the capacity is of the director of certification to do all this work in future.

The current director of certification — I believe her
[ Page 8538 ]
name is Monica Winter — has a strong professional background, but it’s as a former director of finance and operations, not, to my knowledge, as a teaching professional. Yet now it will not be the Teachers Council but the director of certification that exercises huge authority over professional development of teachers and the decisions that flow from that.

I’m just wondering why the minister chose to situate, in this legislation, the director of certification to have these new determinative powers instead of the Teachers Council.

Hon. P. Fassbender: The member knows that I’m not going to speak about any individual. What is conferred on the position is what is important. The deputy minister and the team within the ministry will define the credentials, the job qualifications, for any given position, and that position is the one that is referenced in the act.

[1150]

It will be the responsibility of that position to execute those criteria and the job description and all of the attendant responsibilities that go with it.

R. Fleming: The current director of certification for teachers doesn’t have a background around curriculum development or teaching. I’m just wondering what the minister’s plan is in terms of adding staff that will be hired to do the approvals. How will the work get done? Will there be a tracking system? Ultimately, who is paying for that?

Hon. P. Fassbender: Again, I’m sure the member recognizes it’s not the job of the minister to direct what employees should be hired. That is the job of the deputy minister, and he will do that based on the requirements as identified by government and the policies established.

R. Fleming: I do think it’s for the minister to explain whether by changing the law he’s going to, by necessity, create new layers of bureaucracy. It’s especially important for him to answer that question.

He’s asking school districts out there right now to find $54 million in so-called administrative savings. The Premier of this government is tweeting that administration amounts to 7 percent in school boards when, in fact, government statistics say that it’s much closer to 3 percent.

There is so much misinformation out there and accusation by this minister and the Premier. Then, when we get to a bill that potentially — by changing how professional development is done and who is responsible for it — will create new layers of bureaucracy…. Quite frankly, the Ministry of Education doesn’t have the capacity to lead professional development, to take it away, to centralize it away from districts and teachers in the regions of British Columbia.

He should be answering that question, unless he doesn’t have a plan. Surely, this minister and this government wouldn’t introduce a bill with sweeping changes about the conduct of professional development without a plan behind it, would they?

The concern here — and it cuts right across Bill 11 and the debate we’ve had over the last couple of days — is that the government simply doesn’t know what it’s doing. But it is taking broad powers upon itself to be able to make sole determination, in this case over the teaching profession, and overrule and look over the shoulder of school boards that administer the budgets that the minister’s budget apportions to them — to second-guess them, to force them into shared-services arrangements with designated providers, to do untold things of unlimited potential.

He has had feedback from the school boards of British Columbia, who were never consulted about this bill, that they reject it. He has been told and reminded by us on this side of the House, by anyone who comments on education, that it’s absolutely hypocritical in light of a memorandum of understanding to respect and consult prior to legislation — a memorandum that he signed only in December.

Not only is this legislation offensive, but I think we have discovered over the course of this debate that it has no plan behind it. That’s a recipe not only for confrontation, which this sector has had all too much of under his government, but for mistrust carrying on, when the Premier just said a couple of weeks ago that it’s time to work more closely with teachers.

This section is utterly offensive and renders meaningless the Premier’s words from that time just a week ago after the Court of Appeal decision. Does he not recognize that? How many letters does he need to receive from teachers, from school boards, from all of his education partners who have respectfully asked him to withdraw this section and other sections of the bill in order that their views be heard on it?

[1155]

He has one last opportunity, I would say at this point in debate, to work with rather than alienate his education partners, to at least hear their requests. He has shown no urgency that these things need to be forced through at this point in time. Will he do that now?

Hon. P. Fassbender: Well, the member has a great rewind button. He has hit it a number of times over the last two days. I will simply say what I’ve said.

We are going to work with all the stakeholders for the future of education in this province. We’re committed to it. That’s what this bill provides us the opportunity to do. We know that as we move forward and with the work we do with our partners, we’re going to build on one of the best education systems in the world, and we’re going to move it ahead to where it needs to go.
[ Page 8539 ]

Noting the hour, I ask that the….

Interjections.

The Chair: Minister, let’s give it a few more minutes.

Hon. P. Fassbender: All right. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Sections 47 to 49 inclusive approved on division.

Sections 50 to 53 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. P. Fassbender: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

[1200]

Motion approved on the following division:

[1205]

The committee rose at 12:06 p.m.

The House resumed; Madame Speaker in the chair.

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

BILL 11 — EDUCATION STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 2015

Bill 11, Education Statutes Amendment Act, 2015, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed on the following division:

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 12:10 p.m.
[ Page 8540 ]

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
NATURAL GAS DEVELOPMENT

(continued)

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

The committee met at 11:12 a.m.

On Vote 38: ministry operations, $23,872,000 (continued).

Hon. R. Coleman: With me today is Shayne Ramsay, the chief executive officer of B.C. Housing; Jeff Vasey, assistant deputy minister, office of housing and construction standards; Greg Steves, the executive director of the housing policy branch, office of housing and construction standards; Janet Donald, policy director, residential tenancy branch, office of housing and construction standards; and Shauna Brouwer, assistant deputy minister, corporate services, for the natural resource sector.

They’re not all here. The last two are not here. I didn’t think we were going back to residential tenancy.

D. Eby: We’ll start today with a topical issue in the news.

The minister has surely seen the covers of newspapers and heard on the radio, seen on TV, concerns about housing being used as an international investment tool.

I’m going to read to the minister a short excerpt from an article in the Financial Post from April 21 of this year, just a few weeks ago. Headline: “Forget Gold, buy a Vancouver condo if you want to stash your wealth, says world’s top money manager.” The chairman of BlackRock said at a conference in Singapore: “Gold has lost its lustre, and there are other mechanisms in which you can store wealth that are inflation-adjusted…. The two greatest stores of wealth internationally today is contemporary art…. And I don’t mean that as a joke…. And two, the other store of wealth today is apartments in Manhattan, apartments in Vancouver, in London.”

With the world’s top money manager saying to buy condos in Vancouver as an investment and real estate values certainly in the Lower Mainland rapidly exceeding what families can afford who live and work in the community, will the minister consider using the tools available to the provincial government to measure the extent of this phenomenon, to measure vacant condominiums and vacant homes that are being used as international investments?

[1115]

Hon. R. Coleman: I will tell the member that it has virtually nothing to do with the ministry for housing at all. We don’t have the Real Estate Act in this ministry, so we don’t have any issues around real estate.

I will advise the member of my knowledge that there were some restrictions put in, I think it was in Australia, with regards to new build. They have found that their housing prices have continued to go up, actually by 43 percent. It has not worked in the city of London either. I think sometimes you have to be careful whether you’re going to go and adjoin yourself to a marketplace.

Government doesn’t have any policy around this, and so I don’t want to articulate one until government would have a conversation. But we have not had that conversation. In addition to that, in British Columbia we have…. I think it’s called the Property Law Act. Within it, our act specifically says that we do not discriminate against foreign ownership. So people with foreign ownership wishes that want to buy in British Columbia actually, in law, are allowed to do that. That legislation has not been reviewed and is also not housed in this ministry.

D. Eby: I would suggest respectfully to the minister that this ministry is responsible for rental subsidies. This has a direct impact on rental rates and the availability of units for rent. This ministry is concerned with the affordability of housing generally in the province and the ability of people to access it — squarely within the terms of this ministry.

I’m not asking the minister to ban international investment. I’m not asking him or impose Australian-style taxes. All I’m suggesting is that it would be greatly worthwhile, from the perspective of many people, to measure the impact of this, if any, on the B.C. real estate market.

The reason why I suggest that as well is that this is very closely tied with an unfortunate history that we have, certainly in Vancouver, of anti-Asian racism and limitations on the purchase of real estate and so on. I agree with the minister that this is a very delicate area. We need to be careful, and we need evidence about what impact, if any, the international investor class has.

I had a really funny conversation with Kerry Jang, who’s a city councillor in the city of Vancouver, who said that his neighbour pulled him aside and said, “There’s a vacant house there, and it’s owned by a Chinese investor,” and they were pointing at Kerry’s house, where he lived.

Clearly, there is a lot of concern about this in my community, and people need to know whether their concern is overblown or whether it’s legitimate. And if it’s legitimate — that people are using housing as investment, driving up prices — then the province should look at what action should be taken. But we’re not even there yet because we don’t know where we’re at.

Again, to the minister, will he consider — and will he take forward the conversation within his government — measuring what’s happening in terms of international
[ Page 8541 ]
and perhaps even domestic investors in property who don’t live in the units and are simply holding them as investments?

Hon. R. Coleman: I’ve actually had real estate investments, so I guess I’d be guilty as charged as a Canadian for having units that might be rented in the marketplace or what their vacancy could be from one time or another. That was long before…. That was way back when. I do believe that real estate is a good investment for British Columbians to be able to invest in, or for anybody in Canada. And obviously worldwide, real estate investment is topical.

There is no plan at this time to go and do what the member is asking. In addition to that, the city of Vancouver has come out and actually, in my opinion, inflamed this issue when they talk about bringing in some things relative to the city of Vancouver and then say, “Let’s have neighbors tattle on neighbours” as to whose house is vacant in the community.

I’ll give a very quick summary of my cul-de-sac out in Langley. There’s a couple that lives across the street from me that also happen to have a property in Phoenix. They live in it six months of the year and six months here. Should they be told they can’t do that because someone wants to actually control the marketplace? I don’t believe so.

I believe that the marketplace adjusts. If you notice over the years, it has fluctuations up and fluctuations down. I think that the question about…. If you look at the mean cost of housing across British Columbia or the mean of the Lower Mainland and compare it to other major cities worldwide, the reason it’s attractive internationally is because it’s actually pretty reasonable compared to other cities like London, Singapore, Tokyo — those cities.

I don’t believe that we should be in the marketplace. We have not had any request to go and do this work. Usually the housing statistics in this country are handled by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation.

[1120]

It is very difficult — we’ve had this conversation in the past — to determine how many condos are vacant in a building in Vancouver or anywhere else. I can tell you that, because I’ve lived in three condos in Victoria. Over the years that I owned, I couldn’t tell you whether the unit was fully rented up or used or not. I do know that when there was a fire in one unit, I met a very nice gentleman from Saskatchewan who was renting one of the condo units for three months during the wintertime because he wanted to be out here. They should have those options available to them.

There’s no initiative at this time in government to go and interfere in the marketplace with regards to housing. There is no initiative or research that we’re doing from this ministry with regards to that.

D. Eby: Certainly, it concludes my questions. But just by way of clarification to the minister’s comments, this is a unique phenomenon when the head of the largest asset manager in the world says at a conference in Singapore: “Buy Vancouver condos as an investment, and hold them.” This is a serious issue that the province should be looking at. This isn’t snowbirds. This isn’t when you’ve got a place where you work in another part of the province or you work in another province. This is holding a property vacant as an investment. I’m disappointed that the minister doesn’t see any point in measuring that, but I’ll move on.

I’d like to move on to B.C. Housing’s sale of properties. It’s a very big initiative. The minister and B.C. Housing are selling off a number of properties. I understand the plan is actually to sell all the properties, ultimately.

There are two classes of properties being sold. One is where they’re operated by non-profits, and they will be sold to the non-profits operating them. The other is where they’re operated and owned by B.C. Housing, where they’ll be sold through some kind of tender process. I understand the ministry is well underway with two properties in Vancouver.

I guess the big question that everybody has — and maybe we can start with the big question and move to the small questions: where is the money going from these sales? How much…? I’m not looking for a vague answer that it’s going back into housing. I’ve heard the minister’s media comments on that.

Specifically, which initiatives? What new buildings are being built? What renovations are being done? Where is the money going? There’s a big concern — I share the concern — that this is going into general revenue, or at least into B.C. Housing’s maintaining existing housing, and that this will not create any new housing. I’d like to know specifically where the minister will be using the money from these sales.

Hon. R. Coleman: Just before I do that, I would also invite the member to listen to Money Talks on Saturday morning on CKNW, where he can listen to a gentleman by the name of Ozzie Jurock who tells British Columbians every week, when he’s ever on there, how they should be investing in real estate.

I should tell the member that when I’m in Kuala Lumpur, the four times I’ve been there, one of the things that’s in the local media there is that the rest of Asia is looking at Kuala Lumpur as a place to invest and hold property because it has some affordability compared to some other jurisdictions and cities. The market is the market with regards to that.

The non-profit asset transfer program is a pretty direct, progressive and innovative public policy. The country hasn’t seen this anywhere else. It’s actually to protect the future development of social housing.

The first thing is that these are not being devolved or sold to the private marketplace. They are going out to
[ Page 8542 ]
non-profit organizations who have told us for years that they would like to have control and ownership of their property. Most of them are in very long-term lease relationships with us. It allows them to look at the future of their property as they go forward with their aging stock to build additional stock or work with communities and things like that.

Over the next three years we intend to transfer ownership of up to 350 properties to non-profit societies who currently own and operate social housing on land leased from the Provincial Rental Housing Corporation. We transferred 55 properties in 2014-15, and the remaining properties will be transferred over the next two years. The non-profit sector has been asking for the transfer of these properties since way before I became the minister. As a matter of fact, it was a topical issue back in the 1990s when I was a Housing critic.

The non-profit sector has been asking that we do that because they think having ownership of land will improve their ability to support better long-term planning and self-sufficiency. Owning the lands they operate will also help the non-profits secure the financing they need to be sustainable.

[1125]

We’re also transferring two B.C. Housing–owned and directly managed social housing sites to qualified non-profit agencies. That will go out to an RFP process to the non-profit community for them to give us proposals with regards to that. PRHC, by the way, is the Provincial Rental Housing Corporation. It holds the assets on behalf of B.C. Housing. All the proceeds from the sale to non-profit societies will be reinvested into the construction of new affordable housing projects or the repair and renovation of existing projects.

We have two challenges facing us. We had a devolution of some very old stock from CMHC that used to be in partnership with the province a number of years ago. We have some stock in B.C. that is getting to the end of life, so to have predevelopment money available for them to be able to look at the future of those properties is going to be very important.

We know that we could get more units out of some of the innovations that could come for us being partners with them and investing in that. The first $150 million to be realized in these property sales has been allocated to the provincial cost-matching requirement of the provincial-federal affordable housing investment program, which basically means it gives us the dollars to fund and leverage additional dollars, probably another $150 million to get $300 million, for the construction of new affordable housing in British Columbia, and some renovations.

The remainder of the asset sale proceeds will be allocated to new construction and other projects over the coming four or five years as the proceeds are realized but also as we identify properties that either meet certain forms of need or not. That’s what we will do with those. I’ve got a number of examples I’ll give to the member.

That is what our intention is. The money will not come back into general revenue. It goes into reinvestment in affordable housing in communities across British Columbia. Investments will be done in the vein of trying to figure out how to leverage the dollars into the projects in such a way that we can make them sustainable as they go forward. The challenge that comes with any of this is always the challenge whenever we do projects today — what the costs of financing and operations are. This will help us reduce operation and financing costs, going forward, because we’ll be able to invest capital in projects which will actually drive down their operating costs.

D. Eby: Can the minister provide a list specifically of the projects in which this money is going to be invested? The concern is that this money will displace money that would have otherwise been allocated to B.C. Housing through the budget and that there’ll be no net gain. Essentially, it’ll relieve the provincial government of their obligation to fund these projects, and the money won’t be used as new money; it’ll be used to just replace what B.C. Housing would have done anyway.

Hon. R. Coleman: The budget of B.C. Housing is not affected by this. The nice thing about this is…. It’s a challenge as you go forward and do more housing for capital dollars, which can also be a stress to try and achieve. B.C. Housing has their financing. They have their capital dollars, and all of this as it comes in is over and above.

I’ll give you an example. Just in Victoria alone, for the $10 million that came out of this — three projects that probably would not have gone ahead. We budget our capital each year, and we have a number of projects in the pipeline: Rosalie’s village, by the St. Vincent de Paul Society; the Cool Aid’s Cottage Grove project; and M’akola Sooke. More than 100 new units have already come out of the fact that we can redeploy this capital.

The other nice thing about it is that because we can redeploy the capital and don’t have to finance it, it allows us to make operations of these things self-sustainable. This means they’ll be even more self-sustainable and stronger in the future, because it doesn’t require additional operating dollars for those projects to be run.

[1130]

D. Eby: Here’s why I’m pushing the minister for specifics. The housing capital fund in the budget appears to have been cut by 62 percent, or $24 million. The numbers that I see, and the minister can correct me if I’m wrong: $39 million in 2014-15 and $15 million in 2015-16.

Now, I would think that if you’re selling properties — you’re selling over 300 properties, as well as B.C. Housing–owned properties — this fund would be going through the roof. This is the fund that pays for new capital housing in the province.
[ Page 8543 ]

Can the minister clarify where I would find this new money in the budget allocated to new capital?

Hon. R. Coleman: It’s on page 15 of the B.C. Housing service plan, under “Provincial Rental Housing Corporation.” It shows that in ’14-15 the forecast would be $35 million; 2015-16, $174 million; 2016-17, $140 million; and 2017-18, $69 million, for a total of approximately $418 million.

The confusion, for the member, is probably you’re looking at the wrong corporation. The B.C. Housing assets are held by PRHC. Therefore, they’re the beneficiary of the asset transfers, and then they fund into the projects, because both corporations are connected. So the funding for projects that would be approved by B.C. Housing would be coming from these funds.

D. Eby: So $418 million. The minister has referred me to page 15, which is the income for the Provincial Rental Housing Corporation. Where is the expenditure, the capital expenditure that matches this income?

So you take in $35 million. You take in $174 million. You take in $140 million. Does it sit in a bank account at the PRHC? I mean, there must be a corresponding expenditure line. Where do I find that?

Hon. R. Coleman: In my preamble I think I touched on this. Over the next number of years it would be reinvested in housing. It sits as cash. As projects come in that are approved within an annual budget that would be established, these assets get transferred. They would go back out in capital. So you can’t show it in today’s budget when you haven’t approved the projects yet. You’re going to realize the capital. You will then identify where projects are.

But I can tell the member that it will go out in two major…. Actually, there are three veins that the money will be used for. One is to extend the life of projects that we’re going to lose because of their age and ability to be renovated. Two would be into new build — projects that will be focused on our priorities in housing, which today are mental health and addictions, people at risk of homelessness. That group of the cohort is where the major investment in capital goes today.

Then it will also be…. That was renovation, new build, and I’ve lost my train of thought on the third one.

Oh, also to lever cost shares, where we could leverage cost shares into a project when the federal government puts up money. Those programs evolve. They come back and forth. We end up pursuing dollars within government, often if we’re going to match a federal program. This allows the flexibility to identify them up front — what we think we could accomplish if they were to match.

The best example of that was two projects. One was the First Nations off-reserve projects where B.C. actually…. Those didn’t come from this fund, but the money that was brought in on that was delivered to the public, to housing, very quickly and faster than anywhere else in Canada.

[1135]

Another example was the federal government came to us a few years ago, basically saying: “If you had an additional match of $50 million, what could you accomplish with that?” We went back to them and made them a proposal that we thought we could deliver 1,000 units of seniors housing to small communities in British Columbia, because we did have a challenge. The seniors advocate has this in her report, and we’re always working for new ideas.

We actually went to places like Valemount, McBride, Taylor and those sorts of things. Because we could leverage the dollars, we took $50 million and made it $100 million. Instead of delivering 1,000 units, we managed to deliver somewhere around 1,400 units. We did modular in some places. We actually showed people modular construction and stick construction, and learned the cost of this as we went through it.

I would defy anybody to go into a community like Keremeos or into McBride or into Chetwynd and tell me which one of the buildings was actually stick-built versus modular-built, because they’re virtually identical. It helped us. We have now, in small communities, self-sustaining seniors housing where the rents can cover the cost of the operation, because the communities came with land. The federal government matched us. We had the money to match, and we were able to do that. So it will allow for additional innovation for B.C. Housing to do other things.

D. Eby: The minister says that 55 properties have already transferred. I understand that B.C. Housing hopes to transfer an additional 60 properties in the fiscal year. What was the revenue generated from the sale of the first 55 properties, and how has that been allocated?

Hon. R. Coleman: On page 9 of the service plan we outline the number of unit beds created, by priority groups. Each year it identifies the number of units we’re targeting to do in each given year, which is substantial, actually, because — and only because — we’re able to do this asset transfer.

Really, the numbers historically, since the federal government left the business back in about ’89, ’90 or ’91 — somewhere in there — when they didn’t match anymore…. At that time we were doing about 1,800 units a year of various types of housing — seniors, what have you. They were all matched. The NDP government of the ’90s, for a number of years, continued with about 500 units that they could find within their budget to do. So this is a significant number.

The $45 million isn’t allocated yet. Some of it is, like on the three projects I mentioned to you in Victoria. We actually go looking for where projects would fit. We look for relationships with the non-profits that want to do them.
[ Page 8544 ]
We look at communities where they’re putting up property or streamlining zoning and those sorts of thing to work was us to do stuff.

There are some communities that have been very good at that. There are some that aren’t so good. The aren’t-so-good always make it difficult, especially if the local government is or isn’t committed to something and they’re not going to zone the property and let you do it, or if they telegraph to you that they don’t think they need it in their community and then they won’t zone the land. It’s one of the biggest challenges with every project we do.

If you give this corporation the dollars, they have about 100 active projects present in different communities, in process, whether it be predevelopment and looking at design, whether it be looking at a proposal that’s come from a non-profit or whether it’s money we’ve actually provided to a non-profit to see if they can build a business plan around something they want to build in the community and justify it back and then build a proposal with us.

We don’t allocate the money all in one year because it depends on what projects become shovel-ready during a period of time. We will identify in going-forward budgets, because we just started this not that long ago, how much money has come in each year and what we’re allocating. But it won’t always necessarily match up from year to year, simply because there are some projects that take a lot longer than others to get done.

[1140]

Then you run into situations like we did in Abbotsford last year, where we actually invested a substantial amount of money in a project because the community offered us the land and pointed us in that direction. At third reading they turned the project down. Then we had to decide where that $20 million would go somewhere else, as far as being able to be deployed for the benefit of the community.

Another example for the member is that some of this money is actually paying for the Remand Centre project in Vancouver. It’s a $20 million project for 96 units. We took the old Remand Centre jail, and we’ve basically…. Well, it’s actually a remarkable renovation. We had basically what would be a stranded asset of government — not in this ministry. It was over in the ministry that’s responsible for Crown properties. We made them a proposal that we could do something with it. Now we’ve turned it into something, of affordable rent, of subsidized housing right across from the police station down on — whatever street that is — Cordova or whatever.

That’s the type of example. But these projects don’t happen overnight. I’ve had three come in, and two from ridings that are…. Letters have come in just in the last day or so — two from ridings that are from the opposition — that have asked if we would look at something. At that point I take it to B.C. Housing, or sometimes I write directly and say: “Could we look at some predevelopment funding for this group to see if they really have something real?”

We’ll give them some money, what we call predevelopment funding, so that they can actually identify project land and those opportunities. As they come through, each one has got to be analyzed on its value for money and the group and cohort that they’re actually serving. As we go through that, then the decisions are made by B.C. Housing on which projects get approved. I don’t have anything to do with that. Then I’m advised as we go through.

The other thing is we could be, as I know we are in a couple of communities right now, looking at the value for money to do a project that may affect the turnaround quicker for some communities that have an issue with mental health or addiction in their community, where it’s not unusual for us to be in the marketplace to actually use capital to purchase direct.

An example of that would be the Wheel Inn in Quesnel, which we did a few years ago. We had an issue with folks in the downtown area of their community. We bought the Wheel Inn and renovated it and gave it to a society to run for people that were on the streets or homeless with mental health or addictions or whatever the case may be. So it’s not always about just building. Sometimes it’s actually looking for the assets that are valuable and useful within the marketplace as well.

D. Eby: Can the minister provide a list of the properties that have been sold, the date they were transferred, the book value and the price at which they were transferred, for all the properties transferred to date?

Hon. R. Coleman: Yeah, we can. I mean, we’ve always said, as each transaction gets done, it’s going to be public anyway. The list would be a moving list, of course, because there might be two transfers this month, three next month, or whatever the case, up to a maximum number.

There is no problem with us doing that. To the member: I think that, basically, somebody from B.C. Housing will send it to you.

D. Eby: One of the concerns that’s been raised is when the mortgages are complete, when B.C. Housing’s involvement is done, there’s really nothing stopping a non-profit group from selling property, from transferring it, from it no longer being available for non-profit housing.

Burnaby is a city that has put covenants on property to prevent…. It’s a kind of zoning that prevents the property from being used for anything other than affordable housing. Why is B.C. Housing not incorporating that into these transfers to make sure the property stays in perpetuity for non-profit housing?

Hon. R. Coleman: There are certainly restrictions during the life of the mortgages, but the one thing we…. I, when we got into this discussion, know that I trust the non-profit organizations of British Columbia. I trust
[ Page 8545 ]
these guys — who have been partners with us, in some cases for as long as 50 years with different projects — and what the goals and the standards in their constitution and bylaws dictate that they’re supposed to be doing as a housing society and those sorts of things.

More than that, I think to restrict that to too big of a degree might be a mistake, from the standpoint of if they have the ability to leverage their property to bring in more units and be creative. In some cases they may want to do a mix where some market units actually provide more housing within the project. I would think that that would make some sense.

Noting the hour, I move 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); S. Hamilton in the chair.

The committee met at 11:14 a.m.

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

J. Darcy: I have just one question this morning, and that is concerning the Royal Columbian Hospital in New Westminster.

[1115]

We’ve canvassed this in many estimates, in the last couple of years while I’ve been here and many years before that. I note that the service plan this year says: “The business plan for the first phase of redevelopment of Royal Columbian Hospital is complete and pending review by government. Following approval of the business plan, the procurement process for construction will commence.”

I understand that the Minister of Health and the Transportation Minister had an excellent meeting with our new mayor and senior staff in the city recently about any outstanding concerns, anticipating concerns about traffic and so on, and that it was an excellent and productive meeting. I wanted to ask for the minister’s assurance that the business plan for Royal Columbian Hospital redevelopment is in fact going forward.

Hon. T. Lake: Royal Columbian Hospital is one of the busiest hospitals in the province of British Columbia, a centre of excellence for trauma, for cardiac services and, of course, serving a vast region of Fraser Health. The redevelopment of Royal Columbian Hospital has been planned for a number of years, and we are very close in terms of finishing up the process.

We did meet recently with the mayor and the CAO with Fraser Health and the Ministry of Transportation. What we want to ensure is that access to a renewed Royal Columbian Hospital is satisfactory in order to move emergency vehicles and, of course, ambulances to that facility in the fastest time possible.

We are almost finished that work, so I would say that the business plan and the work as part of that business plan, working with the Ministry of Transportation and the local government, is almost complete. We hope to wrap that work up in the very near future.

J. Darcy: Can the minister just put a time frame on that, please?

Hon. T. Lake: In the very, very near future.

J. Darcy: If I ask again, you’ll add another “very.” Okay. Thank you.

S. Hammell: Minister, the Mental Health Commission of Canada has encouraged jurisdictions to spend approximately 9 percent of their budget on mental health issues. Last year we spent, if I recall, somewhere around 8 percent or 8.3 percent. I’m not absolutely sure on that number. Can the minister tell me if we have reached that 9 percent, if we have improved on last year’s figure?

[1120]

Hon. T. Lake: We spend just under $1.4 billion of the $17 billion health care budget on mental health and substance use. That equates to approximately 8.2 percent of the health care budget.

However, there are funds spent through other ministries in government. Child and youth mental health is in the Ministry of Children and Family Development, and I’m told there’s about $94 million that is spent there. There would be some programming in Justice aimed to mental health as well, but I don’t know that number, and it probably wouldn’t be that sizeable compared to the MCFD. If we counted the MCFD roughly, we’d be at about 8.7 percent. We’re certainly getting there.

Those guidelines from the Mental Health Commission of Canada are guidelines, for sure. Each province would be different. If you look at the needs of each province, they would vary. If you look at the demographics of a province like Alberta, for instance — much younger demographic than British Columbia — so presumably the need for some services might be different there than
[ Page 8546 ]
they are here. There are a lot of factors that come in, and it is a guideline. We are close to that.

I would say this, though. Since I’ve become minister, I have recognized the need to invest in mental health and substance use, particularly when we’re looking at children and youth. So we’ve made some really concerted efforts for severely addicted, mentally ill patients. We have direct targeted money in the Lower Mainland and in regional health authorities, so those are extra resources that have gone out. We have taken targeted year-end funding when available to help mental health and substance use organizations, such as Turning Point in the Lower Mainland, who we gave a grant of $1 million just recently; to Coast Mental Health last year, $1 million. Most of that is for helping to support youth at risk.

We are really trying to, when we have the opportunity, augment the resources to support those families and individuals that are challenged with mental health and substance use issues.

S. Hammell: The amount different health authorities spend on mental health and substance abuse varies quite significantly. Last year we discussed that it ranged from 5.8 percent up to 9 percent, depending on the health authority.

Is that range still in place of widely ranging use of health dollars for mental health and addictions?

[1125]

Hon. T. Lake: We’re just trying to tease out the percentages for each of the health authorities. We have the gross numbers and then just trying to do the calculation.

It does vary from region to other regions of the province. If you look at Northern Health, they spend 7.3 percent of their budget on mental health and substance use; Interior Health, 5.9 percent; Fraser Health, 7 percent; Vancouver Island Health, 8 percent; Vancouver Coastal, 8.6 percent.

PHSA is a smaller percentage because most of the mental health and substance use is, in fact, delivered by regional health authorities. PHSA still has a role to play in some mental health tertiary systems, and 4.3 percent is their total budget.

Now, of course, funds that are in, for instance, the PharmaCare program that would support patients with mental health and substance use diagnoses would be separate from that. This is just the health authority budget. So methadone, for instance, would be a separate program outside of the amounts that the health authorities are spending.

S. Hammell: Island Health has gone up, and Vancouver Coastal has gone down. Is there any explanation? And some are quite significant. If you’ve gone from 9 percent to 8.6 percent or up from 7.2 percent to 8 percent, those are moves that are noticeable. So is there any explanation for the moves?

Hon. T. Lake: The numbers I quoted were the ’15-16 budgets that have been put forward by those health authorities. They do reflect some changes. For instance, Vancouver Coastal was responsible for the…. I just want to check something before I complete that thought.

[1130]

The Burnaby centre for mental health and substance use was funded through Vancouver Coastal. Money flowed from PHSA through to Vancouver Coastal, so that would have appeared in their budget in previous years. That has been repatriated to Provincial Health Services Authority, so that would be part of the reason that Vancouver Coastal expenditures have gone down.

Vancouver Island — I don’t have a definitive reason. They are investing more resources in mental health and substance use. Part of that is likely attributable to the SAMI funding that we’ve made available so health authorities can access provincial Ministry of Health money through the severely addicted mentally ill program that we created if they will match the dollars in their budget. I’m speculating that Vancouver Island Health has been out of the gate faster on that than others in terms of accessing that opportunity.

S. Hammell: That would mean that if the provincial health services repatriated a program, their amount spent would go up, and that’s why Vancouver Coastal has gone down — because of the repatriation of the Burnaby mental health centre. Is that what you’re saying?

Hon. T. Lake: It’s hard to be definitive. We know that that occurred, so that may explain why Vancouver Coastal spending has gone down. But the delivery of mental health and substance use services changes year to year depending on the needs of the community. Each health authority board, working with their executive team, would assess the needs in their communities. Conditions do change. As I say, I’m speculating that that move may be one of the reasons — just one of the reasons — that the percentage of spending may have been reduced in Vancouver Coastal.

S. Hammell: A report was released by the Auditor General in 2013 and illustrated this sort of significant difference between health authorities based on the budget they’re being given. You have a wide range from 5-point-something in Interior Health through to Vancouver Coastal, which is up and down. Have you considered having a bottom-line amount of money or recommended targets that the health authorities must try to follow?

Hon. T. Lake: The funding for health authorities is based on a formula that looks at the population of the community, the demographics. For instance, we know that caring for an older population requires more health care resources than a younger population. That’s called a
[ Page 8547 ]
population needs–based funding formula.

That is why you see differences in the amount of money spent per capita in different health authorities. It really does reflect the population that they serve, which is a strength of the regional system rather than having a one-size-fits-all across the province. In Vancouver Coastal, for instance, where we see a higher concentration of people living with substance use issues and often mental health issues concentrated, particularly, in some areas of the city like the Downtown Eastside, you would expect their needs to be higher to service that population.

So no, we don’t want to create a one-size-fits-all. We really expect health authorities to look at the needs of their populations in the region and tailor their services, whether they be surgical or whether they be mental health and substance use, to the needs of the population.

[1135]

S. Hammell: On May 7, 2015, the Canadian Institute for Health Information released a report titled Care for Children and Youth with Mental Disorders. The report shows that rates — and that’s defined as patients per 100,000 — of emergency visits for mental disorders among children and youth age five to 24 increased by 45 percent from 2006-2007 to 2013-14. Similar rates of in-patient hospitalizations that involved at least one overnight stay increased by 37 percent for Canadian children and youth over the same period.

We see this around the province in terms of more mental health issues in children. Does the minister see this same trend happening here in British Columbia?

Hon. T. Lake: That was a very informative report, and I think the authors noted that it was unclear whether this represented an increased prevalence of mental health issues with children and youth or increased awareness. In fact, more families were seeking care for their children because of, I think, a successful effort to reduce the stigma around mental health. The authors acknowledge that.

Here in British Columbia we are putting a lot of resources into child and youth mental health. I think, while we don’t have the numbers in terms of British Columbia facilities, we do know that the prevalence of mental health issues among children and youth in British Columbia is likely similar to other parts of Canada. I think it is safe to conclude that more children and youth are seeking acute care services for mental health issues today than they were a number of years ago.

This is why we’ve done a number of different things. We’ve established a Parliamentary Secretary for Child Mental Health. We announced recently $850,000 for the FORCE Society for Kids Mental Health. They connect families to the resources that are available in the community, and importantly, they connect families that are dealing with child and youth mental health issues to each other to provide that support.

We’ve spent about $4.4 million with the Doctors of B.C. on the Child and Youth Mental Health and Substance Use Collaborative, which was piloted in the Interior Health to connect children and families, struggling with mental health and substance use, with physicians, social workers, health authorities as well as MCFD, trying to break down the silos which often make accessing the system difficult.

We are, I think, no different than other provinces. We are seeing more children and families seeking help for mental health issues, and we are committed to providing more supports in ways, some of which, I’ve mentioned already.

S. Hammell: It doesn’t really matter whether it’s prevalence or awareness. The consequences are: there’s a 37 percent overnight stay increase. The system, it seems to me, has to react and mitigate that kind of challenge. If I’ve heard the minister correctly….

Or maybe I’ll ask a different question. Is the minister engaged in on-the-ground capital projects to react to this problem?

[1140]

Hon. T. Lake: The Representative for Children and Youth released a report in April of 2013. In response to that report and as a direction that was provided in our Healthy Minds, Healthy People ten-year mental health plan, a review of acute care services for children and youth diagnosed with mental health and/or substance-use issues was initiated by the ministry. The main objectives were to conduct an assessment of hospital acute care utilization regionally and across demographic groups, including transition-aged youth.

We looked at the system. We found, as indicated in the report by the Canadian Institute for Health Information, that the number of children and youth accessing acute care had outpaced the population growth. All of this information is informing what we do in terms of the reshaping of the health care system.

Some of that work has been done. For instance, in Royal Inland Hospital in Kamloops there has been renovation to the psychiatric wing of the hospital to make it safer for adolescents. That was in the last six months that we opened that.

[1145]

Victoria General had renovations to their in-patient pediatric wing for child and youth psychiatry. St. Paul’s has been doing some renovations to accommodate youth with mental health and substance-use challenges. And at Surrey Memorial Hospital there is a plan for adolescent psychiatry intake improvements as well. Across the system, now that we have this information from our review, we can help health authorities plan for improvements to acute care services.

But I will say this. Our goal is not to have children and youth having to go to acute care. That’s why the child and
[ Page 8548 ]
youth collaborative in the Interior, now spreading out across the province, is so important, connecting primary care providers with health authorities, with social workers, with counsellors to make sure that all the resources are brought to bear further upstream to help that young person and that family dealing with mental health issues earlier in the spectrum of their challenge so that they don’t end up having to rely on acute care services.

S. Hammell: I’ll just switch slightly, because I have a number of questions that have been given to me that people want me to ask on their behalf.

In 2014-15 through to 2016-17 the service plan for the Ministry of Health stated a commitment to increasing addiction treatments through the creation of 500 addiction spaces. These spaces have been announced and were previously in last year’s Health estimates. At that point, it was stated that the health authorities were identifying the needs in their regions.

From that, I can assume that the 500 beds have not been started. Can the government confirm if health authorities have moved into the later phases of this work? We have 500 spaces available and that a systematic planning approach for the use of these spaces…. When does the minister see those spaces actually coming on line?

Hon. T. Lake: The health authorities are working hard on this increase of 500 spaces.

They are doing it in phases — so a three-phased approach. I can say that in phase 1, there has been a total of 76 new beds spaces created. In phases 2 and 3, the health authorities have identified a further 475. With successful completion of phases 1 through 3, we project there to be 521 additional beds created.

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

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:48 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