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

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 26, Number 7

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

THURSDAY, MAY 14, 2015

The House met at 1:32 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. T. Stone: I call committee stage of Bill 20, the Election Amendment Act, 2015; in the Douglas Fir Committee Room the continued estimates of the Ministry of Natural Gas Development, followed by the Ministry of Finance estimates; and in the Birch Committee Room the continued estimates for the Ministry of Health.

[1335]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 20 — ELECTION AMENDMENT
ACT, 2015

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 20; D. Horne in the chair.

The committee met at 1:36 p.m.

On section 1.

Hon. S. Anton: I’m joined today by Neil Reimer, senior policy and legislation analyst in the Ministry of Justice.

A. Weaver: I was wondering if the minister could please let me know the rationale behind replacing “the 8th day after an election” to “the day after an election.”

Hon. S. Anton: One of the recommended policy changes contained in this act is that there be two additional days of advance voting. In light of those two additional days, in order to accommodate them, this particular amendment was recommended by Elections B.C. staff.

A. Weaver: Does “8th day” mean eighth calendar day or eighth business day?

Hon. S. Anton: That’s in the current legislation, which, of course, we’re recommending be changed. That would be now, currently, the eighth calendar day.

A. Weaver: In the report was it recommended the specific number “8”? Or were other possibilities given on that recommendation coming out of the report?

Hon. S. Anton: Chair, I’d just remind the member that the words “the 8th day after an election” are being proposed to be struck and what will be substituted is “the day after an election.”

A. Weaver: With apologies, hon. Chair. I must confess to not having planned to ask an awful lot of questions on section 1. But the critic was not here, so I felt it imperative to understand the details of this date for future generations because there may be some question down the road. In doing so, I have given the member for Saanich North and the Islands a bit of time to actually gather his notes together.

I do have another pressing question on section 1(b). With respect to section 270, it says here: “As soon as possible after an election is called, the chief electoral officer must have published in accordance with section 270 a notice stating….” Why is this being repealed? What’s the rationale for that?

[1340]

Hon. S. Anton: The former section (2), or the section (2) that we’re proposing to repeal and then replace, dealt with notices to be given by the Chief Electoral Officer relating to how a voter could register between the first day and the eighth day. With the proposed changes relating to advanced voting, those would no longer be applicable. So they have been replaced with a new subsection (2) by which the Chief Electoral Officer is directed to publish, in accordance with section 270, the information that an individual can register or update voter information in conjunction with voting. In other words, when they go to vote, they can update their information.

G. Holman: With regard to section 1, were these changes recommended by the Chief Electoral Officer? If not, what’s the fundamental rationale? What’s the problem being fixed here?

Hon. S. Anton: I believe I answered this question a moment ago, but I will answer it again. The proposal in this act is that there be two additional advance voting days. In order to accommodate those two additional advance voting days, we did consult with Elections British Columbia, and they recommended a form of amendment of this nature as a result of adding those two additional advance voting days.

G. Holman: So this wasn’t discussed with the Chief Electoral Officer, then?

Hon. S. Anton: It was discussed with his staff.

G. Holman: Will this provision affect the ability of unregistered voters to vote?

Hon. S. Anton: A person who wishes their information to be on a voters list can at any time go onto the British Columbia government website and update their information, update changes of address. That will update their information on the voters list. They can do that at any time. You could do it today if you’ve changed your information.
[ Page 8550 ]

The previous regime for the Chief Electoral Officer was that when the election was called, the Chief Electoral Officer would notify the world that they had eight days to change their information. It is proposed now that that system change. On the decision of government to recommend two additional advance voting days after consultation with Elections B.C., the Chief Electoral Officer advised that that eight-day period was no longer…. He couldn’t do it.

[1345]

On the beginning, the first day of the election period, the final voters list will be prepared. Anyone who wishes to correct information at that point will do it when they go in to vote. So when you go into your local voting station, you will correct your information at that time.

A. Weaver: Would it be a correct interpretation, then, from what the minister just put forward, that this is being done for administrative reasons exclusively — that is, to save workload for the electoral officer — as opposed to actually improving the access to the system for British Columbia voters?

Hon. S. Anton: The answer is yes. This is generally an administrative change. Elections B.C. needs to ensure that all voters can receive their where-to-vote cards in the mail before advance voting begins. In order to do that, the Chief Electoral Officer will work with the list that he or she has at the beginning of the election period. That will create the voters list. The where-to-vote cards will then be mailed, and as I said, people who need to change their information after that will have to do it and will be able to do it in conjunction with voting.

A. Weaver: That’s a very helpful answer. It’s clear, then, that this is government implementing one of the recommendations from the report of the Chief Electoral Officer.

My question, then, is: what rationale went into government thinking to pick and choose this particular recommendation and not choose, for example, the two main recommendations from the Chief Electoral Officer, which were with respect to facilitating youth participation and trialling new voter technologies?

This particular amendment is one of the more minor recommendations being put forward by the Chief Electoral Officer. I’m wondering what rationale went into government choosing this one over the No.1 and No. 2 recommendations, which the government has not implemented.

Hon. S. Anton: I’d like to say again what I said a moment ago, which is that this is a government recommendation. It is a government proposal for an amendment to the Election Act, which is that we add two days of advanced voting.

As the result of government making this recommendation, we consulted with Elections B.C., and we received their advice, which led to this section. Let me be doubly clear. I did say it earlier, and I’ll say it again. The particular recommendation for the two advance voting days is a government recommendation. This is a consequential amendment as a result of getting advice from Elections British Columbia.

A. Weaver: Well, I have in my hands the report to which I’m referring — not as a prop but for information here. I’d like to read from it.

Under the section “Flexibility for advance voting opportunities,” it talks specifically…. It says that the Election Act requires that advanced voting opportunities be held from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. “To make this voting opportunity available to a larger number of voters, the Chief Electoral Officer recommends that legislators consider providing greater flexibility to district electoral officers to establish advance voting opportunities on any of the days of the advanced voting period or for a limited numbers of hours during the day. Elections B.C. does not intend to reduce the length of advanced voting in communities that traditionally warrant an advance voting opportunity,” etc.

[1350]

The point of me reading this into the record is that it’s very clear to me that the Chief Electoral Officer was indeed actually recommending to government — as opposed to government claiming it is its recommendation — flexibility for advanced voting. Here we have one such response to the recommendation, being that two additional days be added.

Coming back to my question: why did the government choose to directly address the flexibility recommendation and not the other two with respect to trialling new voting technologies and facilitating youth participation?

Hon. S. Anton: The question might be better answered in conjunction with section 8, where the two new advance voting days are proposed. However, I’ll answer it now because this is a consequential amendment which is being recommended.

I’d like to be really clear. The CEO did recommend changes to advance voting, but he did not recommend the specific changes which government is recommending here. If I were to claim that he recommended exactly what we are proposing here, that would be inaccurate.

It is more accurate to say that he did recommend changes to advance voting, and what we have chosen to do is create two more advance voting days all across British Columbia, all at the same time. We believe that this benefits more British Columbia voters.

A. Weaver: I recognize that, and I am appreciative of the answer. But to remind the Chair, my question was: why did the government choose, of the three recommendations made by the Chief Electoral Officer, only to act
[ Page 8551 ]
upon the third one, which is flexible for advance voting opportunities?

The minister has not answered the question as to why the facilitating youth participation and trialling new technologies recommendations were not acted upon. Would the minister please respond in terms of why government chose the third and not the first two to act upon?

[1355]

Hon. S. Anton: These are policy choices that government has made, balancing what we view in terms of resources required and benefits achieved. To us, to government, it’s very clear that two more advanced polling days are extremely beneficial to all of British Columbia.

The idea of registering youth who cannot yet vote — sort of preregistering them, if you like — is a new idea in Canada. Some provinces are starting to do it, and we are choosing to assess that and watch it as it does unroll in other parts of the country.

In terms of new technologies, again, there are fairly significant potential costs involved with those. If we were to implement new technologies, we would want to implement them universally around British Columbia, and, as I said, that would be costly as well. Both of those things are rather high-cost items which are unproven as compared with the advanced polling days, which we believe will be very well received.

I should add one more thing on the new technologies, because, of course, we always have to be aware of challenges that people may have around voting. I will observe that the ballots in British Columbia are very straightforward. They’re very simple to manage and very easy to follow.

A. Weaver: That left another follow-up question. The minister kindly suggested it would be costly to implement the new technologies, but I would like to read precisely what the Chief Electoral Officer recommended here.

He said: “The Chief Electoral Officer recommends that legislators consider providing greater flexibility to the Chief Electoral Officer to introduce, on a pilot basis, a variety of new voting technologies.”

The Chief Electoral Officer was not recommending a widespread introduction of new technologies but was recommending that on a pilot basis, new technologies be introduced. That could, for example, perhaps be something Internet-based in one riding. It could perhaps be something that’s electronic in a slightly different format, where you are pressing buttons, in another riding.

The Electoral Officer was looking at ways of introducing not widespread change but pilot change.

[1400]

Why that’s important is that we hear time after time in question period here — and I have witnessed this for the last two years — the official opposition pointing out numerous examples where technology introduction on a widespread basis, done by this government, has failed.

The question, coming back to the minister, is: why did the minister choose, why did the government choose, not to allow, specifically, the Chief Electoral Officer’s recommendation that new technologies be introduced on a pilot basis and instead chose only to address flexibility of advanced voting? And their way of doing it was introducing two additional days with the consequential amendment being required in section 37, as we’re discussing here. That’s section 37 of the Election Act, as we’re discussing here in section 1 of the Election Amendment Act.

The Chair: I believe the member for Abbotsford-Mission seeks leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

S. Gibson: It’s a pleasure for me to introduce some students from the Dasmesh Punjabi School in the riding of Abbotsford-Mission, along with their principal, Mr. George Peary, and Mrs. Peary and many accompanying them. This is a wonderful school in the heart of the Abbotsford-Mission riding. Please, would the House welcome these fine folks.

[1405]

Debate Continued

Hon. S. Anton: The ballot-marking devices — they do work, so there’s not necessarily a great benefit in a pilot. What we would need to do, if we were convinced of their necessity, is deploy them around British Columbia. But that being said, we are satisfied that voters can mark their ballot according to their own wishes. If they do need help, they can be helped by a friend or they can be helped by an election official.

As to the second thing suggested by the Chief Electoral Officer, optical ballot scanners, again we do not view them as being needed. As I said a few moments ago, our ballots are very simple in British Columbia, the counting of them is straightforward, and our system is extremely transparent.

People who are in the room as scrutineers or election officials…. Everyone can see clearly the counting of the ballots and the totalling of the ballots. It’s a very, very transparent system right now, so we’re simply not convinced that to add a layer of scanning to that would add to the system.

M. Farnworth: Just a of couple of questions. The minister said that the Chief Electoral Officer made some recommendations but didn’t recommend specific changes in terms of the establishment of the two days.
[ Page 8552 ]

I’m just wondering. When the government decided on that particular number or to go about those particular changes, how did the government do that? Did they do a consultation process outside? Did they look at what other provinces are doing? Was it done strictly in-house within the ministry? Did it go to cabinet? I’m just wondering if the minister could outline how that took place.

[1410]

Hon. S. Anton: We did consider options around advance voting days. We did consider the Chief Electoral Officer’s report. We do believe this to be the best option — the two additional advance voting days. So that is what we are proposing in the proposed amendments.

M. Farnworth: My next question relates to a comment the minister made to my colleague from Oak Bay–Gordon Head. I was somewhat interested in the answer that the minister gave. When my colleague from Oak Bay–Gordon Head asked about the changes in the advance voting days and then asked about the other areas that had not been included, particularly in relation to youth voting, the minister said that this was new to Canada — that, you know, we’re not quite ready in B.C. — and she was watching what was happening in other jurisdictions.

I’m wondering. Are there any specific concerns about the registration of younger voters prior to an election that the minister is particularly concerned about? Is there anything that the minister is concerned about? Are they concerned that there’s a difference between, let’s say, being 20 and registering at 21, as opposed to being 17 and registering? You know, when you turn 18, you’re already registered.

I’m wondering what concerns the minister has about that particular issue that they feel they need to see how it unfolds. Particularly given that British Columbia has been a bit of a…. We have done other, I think one would say, progressive or proactive voting measures, such as the driver’s licence voting registration method, for example.

[1415]

Hon. S. Anton: The question was: were there specific concerns? The answer is no. As I said earlier, it’s new in Canada to kind of preregister voters, if you like. We are choosing to watch and assess how this is working out in the rest of the country.

M. Farnworth: If there are no specific concerns, can the minister tell us, then, what it is that needs to be assessed or looked at? I’m somewhat puzzled to know that if you are…. We have voter registration drives, and we encourage people to register to vote who are, let’s say, 19, 20. We try and encourage young people to vote, to register.

Minister, I know the voting age is 18. What I’m trying to tell you is that to encourage young people to register to vote, it doesn’t matter whether they’re 19, 20, 21, 22 or 18. We have campaigns to encourage younger people to vote, and we encourage them to register. I’m trying to understand what needs to be assessed in terms of having a program that would seem pretty straightforward, which is that you are in grade 12, you are 17 years of age, and you are taking courses on political science. You have social studies classes. You have teachers. You’re engaged in civics courses and civics lessons and an understanding of how our system works.

What is so unusual about saying: “You know what? You get to register so that you are able to vote in the next election”? Does it not strike the minister that that would be a very efficient way to ensure that as people are coming out of high school, they’re registered? The reality is that if you did that, you probably wouldn’t have to have so much effort — what effort there is — in terms of trying to get people who are 19, 20, 21, 22, because it has already taken place ahead of time.

I just need to understand: what is the minister’s thinking about what is so difficult and why it seems to be a bit of a challenge for registering people in the final year of school, as opposed to once they leave school?

[1420]

Hon. S. Anton: There are choices to be made in this. There’s a choice whether or not to go with the Chief Electoral Officer’s recommendation about preregistering younger voters, a choice about whether or not to deploy additional equipment around British Columbia and a choice whether or not to go with some form of advance voting.

All of these have a cost in terms of time and resources. We concluded that the most beneficial allocation of time and resources is in the advance voting days, the advance polling days, because those are and have been proven to be extremely popular with voters.

M. Farnworth: I think the minister’s answer actually elicits some additional questions. The minister said that it’s about choices and that additional advance days would be popular with voters.

Did the ministry do any studies to see whether or not the ability to register to vote in grade 12, for example, is an unpopular thing to do? Would students find it unpopular to be able to register to vote in grade 12? Was it seen as an imposition, for example?

The minister said there are cost issues. Did the ministry do any cost analysis on what it would cost, for example, to register students in grade 12? Did they ask the Chief Electoral Officer what the cost implications were?

I mean, I can understand about putting technology in. That does seem to come with a cost, and when it comes to technology and cost implications, this government does have a record on that. But in terms of something that the Chief Electoral Officer has recommended and the minis-
[ Page 8553 ]
ter has raised, that there are always cost implications…. Were there studies done or cost analysis done on what it would be to register students who are in grade 12 and who are 17 years of age and would, therefore, be eligible to vote once they’ve turned 18?

Hon. S. Anton: As I said a moment ago, we made a choice between the different things that might be considered — the younger voters, the technological devices and the possibility of additional advance voting time — and we chose to go with advance voting time. Everything you do comes with costs and with its challenges. We decided that the most beneficial allocation of resources is adding additional advance voting days, because that’s what voters like.

M. Farnworth: The minister said it’s about choices, and I agree: government is about choices. But the question I asked was…. You’ve outlined three choices that you said you wanted to do. Did you do any cost-benefit analysis of what the costs were for each of the choices that you have just spoken about to the members on this side of the House?

[1425]

Hon. S. Anton: The government did not do an independent assessment of the cost, but things do all come at a cost. There are administrative kinds of costs with all of these things. The conclusion was that the most beneficial, the way to help more people get out to vote, was to add the additional two voting days.

M. Farnworth: The minister has stood here, in these sections, saying that there were a number of choices that they looked at and has made the point, and it’s a valid point, that all of them come with different costs associated with them. Yet when asked the direct question, the minister said that no cost analysis was done on the different options.

If this were second reading, I could go into a long debate on that, but I won’t, because I know we are at committee stage. So I will confine my questions to the minister’s response.

This is what I find particularly puzzling. Surely the minister would acknowledge that extending two voter days comes with a cost, and you would want to know that. But we’re already doing…. We run voter registration campaigns.

Surely the idea that you would just register in grade 12 when you’re 17, in the year prior to turning 18.… That would not come with a cost but would in fact be much the same as what you currently do when you go in to register. You renew your driver’s licence, and you register to vote at the same time.

Again, I’m puzzled as to why the minister would rule out an option that would expand the pool of registered voters, when we’re concerned about voter turnout and ensuring, in particular, that young people participate in our democracy — and saying that one of the reasons is that there’s a cost associated with it but make that decision without having done any cost analysis of it.

Can the minister tell us why no cost analysis of it was done?

Hon. S. Anton: I have answered the question as to the reasons for the choice.

M. Farnworth: With all due respect, Minister, you haven’t answered the question, which was….

The minister is the one who has said that there were choices that government made. The minister is the one who said that these choices come with cost implications. The minister is the one who said, when I asked, that there were no cost analyses done on these particular options.

The question I have just asked the minister is: why was there no cost analysis done — particularly when it comes to a recommendation that was made by the Chief Electoral Officer?

[1430]

Hon. S. Anton: As I have said several times already, we made a choice as to what we concluded was the most beneficial way of increasing voter participation and turnout, something that we know to be popular with voters, and that was to increase the advance voting days.

M. Farnworth: That’s still not answering the question I asked, which was…. And it’s not me who’s saying this. It’s the minister who has said: “These are the choices that we made.” It’s the minister who stated that there were costs associated with each of those choices. Again, it is the minister who, in response to my question, said: “We did not do a cost analysis on these choices.”

Again, I ask the question. If you’re saying there’s a cost to these things, why didn’t you do a cost analysis on a recommendation that was made by the Chief Electoral Officer?

Hon. S. Anton: I’ve answered the question.

M. Farnworth: Well, you haven’t answered the question, and, unfortunately….

The Chair: Through the Chair.

M. Farnworth: I get the feeling that I could ask this question over and over again, and I won’t get an answer. That’s fine. That’s fine, because the minister has admitted that they have made choices that they did not do a cost analysis on, even though the minister said that they do come with costs.

The minister has stated, around this particular recommendation — which was made by the Chief Electoral
[ Page 8554 ]
Officer as a way to review, to increase and improve voter turnout and, in particular, voter registration amongst young people — that no analysis was done on that, which I think is unfortunate.

The minister has also said that they are watching how this takes place in other provinces, and the minister has failed to be able to provide even the most basic answers in terms of questions or concerns that there might possibly be to having 17-year-olds register.

I don’t know. Does it create a challenge in schools in terms of discipline? Are they anticipating that they would have to hire security to stop mobs of young people charging into an office to register to vote? Is it going to be too expensive to provide the level of security that’s required? Just exactly what the concerns are the minister hasn’t been able to tell us.

I am puzzled, because we spend, during an election campaign, hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars encouraging people to register to vote. For the life of me, I don’t know what is so terribly wrong or what is so problematic about 17-year-olds registering to vote and encouraging them to vote, and it’s something that is put forward by the Chief Electoral Officer.

I don’t think I’m going to get an answer to this question, so I will move on at this time, because there may be colleagues of mine who might be able to get answers out of the minister. Sadly, there are none coming at this particular point.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I request leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I’d like to introduce the grade 5 class from Carnarvon Elementary in Vancouver, which is within my riding. The teacher, Ms. Eve Simon, is up there in the top right with 29 students and, I believe, five accompanying parents and student teachers. Would the House please make them welcome.

[1435]

Debate Continued

G. Holman: I do want to pursue this a little further. It’s going to come up later in the discussion in different sections of the bill.

I think there is a concern here that this legislation is being put forward in a very hurried fashion. Government has presented a couple of amendments just in the last couple of days on section 6.

Further to my colleague’s questions about the lack of cost-benefit analysis. Even though early voter registration was one of the top priorities — in fact, the top priority — of the Chief Electoral Officer…. The troubling aspect of this legislation is that there’s a real sense of, you know, kind of making it up as you go along. There’s a real sense of decisions being made without due diligence, decisions being made without cost-benefit analysis.

The purpose of the legislation here should be to improve access to voters, improve the ability of voters to register. It should be about enhancing participation in the political process. One gets the sense in this and other sections as we go through that, in fact, that doesn’t seem to be the top priority. The top priority is around administrative efficiencies and perhaps other objectives.

I do want to get back to the early voter registration. I believe the minister said earlier — I may have misunderstood, and the minister can correct me if I’m wrong — that early voter registration is new to Canada. I believe that’s the phrase that she used. I do want to read, as my colleagues have done with other recommendations by the CEO — that in fact a number of jurisdictions in Canada have already implemented these changes.

For example, reading from the CEO report: “Other jurisdictions have already taken steps to address the issue by allowing provisional registration of otherwise eligible individuals under the age of 18.” Nova Scotia legislation permits the Chief Electoral Officer to collect registration information of 16- and 17-year-olds who may become eligible to vote.

Quebec also has a provisional register of potential voters who, unless they decline, are automatically added to the voters list when they turn 18. That doesn’t sound like a costly venture. In Alberta, although the amendment has not yet come into force, the legislature has passed legislation enabling the Chief Electoral Officer to request directly from school boards the registration information of 16- and 17-year-olds for the purposes of provisionally registering them to vote.

Again, this does not seem to be a huge, costly exercise. Nine American states currently have provisional registration for 16- and 17 –year-olds. Australia has addressed the issue. The U.K. Electoral Commission registered 16- and 17-year-olds in Scotland in order to facilitate their participation in the 2014 Scottish independence referendum.

I think the point is being made here, very clearly, that in fact this has been adopted not only in other provinces in Canada but throughout the world. The issue is very clear. This is why the CEO identified this. Declining voter participation in British Columbia and Canada is…. It has got to be one of the most troubling trends that we have in our democracy today.

The lowest voter registration rates are for young voters between 18 and 24 years of age. The CEO goes on to say there’s a positive correlation between voting and being registered as a voter before general voting day. And the most effective means of registering youth may be to approach them before they graduate from high school,
[ Page 8555 ]
precisely the point that my colleague was making earlier. Currently voter registration is restricted to those at least 18 years of age.

[1440]

The case has been made here. The CEO of British Columbia identified it as the top of the three main priorities that he is recommending to government. Again, one has to ask…. There doesn’t seem to be any really serious consideration of the most serious problem we have in our democracy today, which is declining participation rates and, particularly, extremely low participation rates by youth.

Again, the question to the minister is: why wasn’t there at least an assessment, an evaluation, of the benefits and the costs of the number one priority of the CEO?

Hon. S. Anton: As I said earlier, it is fairly new in Canada, and we are choosing to watch and assess as it rolls out in the jurisdictions mentioned by the member.

G. Holman: I won’t be belabour this much further. To me, even as a novice MLA, I can read the report by the CEO as well as anyone, and clearly, early voter registration is being applied in a number of jurisdictions in the world. It’s been applied and been in place for a number of years. For the minister to suggest that we’re watching to see how it unfolds….

It has unfolded. It’s in place. It’s being implemented in a number of jurisdictions, including a number of provinces in Canada. So quite honestly, I really don’t understand the answer the minister has just provided about seeing how it’s unfolded when, in fact, it’s been in place for a number of years in many, many jurisdictions.

S. Chandra Herbert: I’m a supporter of giving 16-year-olds the vote, not just preregistration. But preregistration, I think, is a good step, and it’s clear Elections B.C. supports it. It’s clear that it’s being supported in many other jurisdictions across the world.

This government refuses to do this today, saying they need to look at other jurisdictions. The question is: when will they have an answer on if it’s working in other jurisdictions? Can we expect to see, potentially, legislation next spring, in time for the 2017 election? How long is this review going to take?

Hon. S. Anton: I think it’s too early to say when changes might come to British Columbia in that regard, because we will watch what’s going on in the other provinces, as I said, and assess what’s going on in the other provinces.

The Chair: I will note we seem to be getting into the hypothetical and future policy issues, which, of course, would not be in order in front of this committee, so I’ll warn the member.

S. Chandra Herbert: I think it was a very political answer the minister gave. It’s an answer that’s often given. “Well, we’ll review. We’ll keep an eye. We’ll look to the future. We’ll think about it.” In this case that really seems to be that, no, they’re not interested in giving 16-year-olds even preregistration to vote.

I think it’s a shame, because you’ll have people come and say during the elections: “Oh, we really need to work hard to give youth the vote, to make sure they come out and vote.”

[1445]

Here’s a practical way to do it. Here’s a way to ensure that young people can get registered before voting and get in there. I think if the minister went to her local high schools and asked them if they supported it, they would tell her the same thing, and they certainly tell me that in Vancouver–West End. It’s very disappointing that this isn’t included and that the government has decided to, in a sense, continue allowing young people to fall off the track and not be on the voters list.

V. Huntington: I wasn’t in the House at the beginning of committee. However, I understand the minister said that voters could still register after the writ drops via the Internet. Is that correct?

Hon. S. Anton: You may register the day the election is called. At that point, the Chief Electoral Officer prepares the voters list. To change any information on that list, you will then do it in person when you go in to vote, whether it’s an advance voting day or the regular election day. That is when you can make changes to your own voter registration.

V. Huntington: I’m just wondering if the minister and her staff, in making this change, have any idea of the numbers of voters that tend to make use of the electoral offices throughout the writ period to register. I know offices or candidates are often…. So “I haven’t registered” or “I’m not on the list. How do I go and get on the list?” Do we know how many voters in the aggregate have taken advantage of that over the last couple of elections?

Hon. S. Anton: Just to remind the member of the change which was proposed in section 1, it has been the case up till now that you can change your voter registration between the first day and the eighth day. The Chief Electoral Officer prepared the new list on the eighth day.

Because of the proposal of adding the advance voting days, as I stated earlier, advice from Elections B.C. is that that doesn’t leave enough time to prepare the voters list. Hence, that period between the first day and the eighth day is proposed to be removed so that you can now register on the day the election is called or when you vote.

I think the question was: are there statistics? The answer is: I don’t have statistics. They might be available
[ Page 8556 ]
through the Chief Electoral Officer. We are advised that there were not a lot of people updating their registration in that time period between the first day and the eighth day. But I can’t quantify that. I don’t have a number.

C. Trevena: Going back to the youth voting, youth registration, I just wanted to ask the minister…. My colleague from Saanich North and the Islands enumerated all the different jurisdictions where you have young people registering to vote early and indeed voting early.

[1450]

I think the best example for that in a liberal western democracy that we recognize is Scotland, where we recently had 16-year-olds not just registered but allowed to vote. This was done very deliberately to ensure that the widest participation possible could be involved in what was going to be a very momentous decision. I think that if we recognize and respect our parliamentary democracy, every election should be regarded as a very momentous decision.

The concept that we are just going to watch and see what happens in other jurisdictions, I think, is really not a very clear or even valid reason not to bring it in here, because we have seen that it works elsewhere. We have seen a massive uptake in Scotland. There was a huge uptake by young people being able to vote. It was extraordinary to see.

My question to the minister is the obverse. I’m wondering whether…. She obviously never did any study and never did any cost-benefit analysis of which of the priorities to go for. I mean, I’ve got to say it is typical of this government that decisions are made without any analysis done. But I was wondering whether the minister or her staff — or maybe her political party she can talk about — have done any analysis of the obverse, the impact of voter suppression, by not allowing young people to register.

The Chair: We have actually canvassed this fairly extensively on section 1, which is where we’re at, at this point. I’ll give the minister an opportunity to respond if she’d like. Otherwise, I think we should move on.

Hon. S. Thomson: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Hon. S. Thomson: I’d like to have the House make welcome a number of students here today, visiting from Springvalley Middle School in my riding, 30 students accompanied by teachers and parents. They’ve had a great tour of the buildings and other parts of Victoria. I’d just like to have the House make them welcome here today, and I hope they have a great time here.

Debate Continued

A. Weaver: I’m sorry. I stepped out for a couple of minutes because I had to discuss some important information with my staff downstairs.

I did have a question. I recognize that there is an attempt to move us forward, and there’s perhaps a recognition, although I clearly don’t think so, that we’re belabouring some important matters on section 1. I think they’re actually critical and fundamental, and I think you’ve seen a consensus here, hon. Chair, from all members on this side of the House, independent and official opposition, with respect to the choices the government has made.

I don’t know whether this question has been asked in my absence, but I think it’s a very important one. It builds on the questions that were asked previously about the desire for government to choose the direction or the one recommendation to make some steps on and not the other two. The question my colleague from Port Coquitlam asked was with respect to: did government do cost-benefit analysis in making this decision not to introduce the 16- and 17-year-old early registration? It was picked up again by my colleague from Saanich–Gulf Islands, and I don’t know where it went from there.

One of the counter-questions to that is: rather than the questions as to the costs and merits of registering 16- and 17-year-olds, I’m wondering if the government did any studies on the effects of this on voter suppression of an age demographic of 16- to 17-year-olds, and whether or not this actually turns voters off from actually registering when they become 18, 19 or 20.

The question is specific to the minister. Has the minister or has the government done specific studies on voter suppression targeted at youth and the effects that not actually registering 16- to 17-year-olds would have on such voter suppression strategies?

[1455]

The Chair: I think that for quite some time we have explored the choices that were made in coming to section 1 and the choices, clearly, that weren’t made. I’d really like to bring the committee back to section 1, which has to do with changes to the period in which people can become part of the voters list and when that voters list is basically made available by the Chief Electoral Officer.

Are there any further questions on section 1?

C. Trevena: I respect your decision here. I just wondered if the minister — she has had the same question twice — could just give a yes or no response.

The Chair: Does the minister wish to make a response?

C. Trevena: The question was whether the minister or her staff had done any study about the impacts of restricting or preventing young people from registering to
[ Page 8557 ]
vote. I think it’s very interesting. We have young people in the gallery now watching this who would be absolutely in the demographic of people who could register to vote, as was promoted by the Chief Electoral Officer.

I was wondering, and my colleague from Oak Bay–Gordon Head had also asked this question: whether there had been any work done, any analysis done, on the obverse of this, and that is voter suppression — direct voter suppression by this move.

The Chair: As I have just noted, the Chair has provided considerable leniency with a number of questions for over an hour. I don’t believe that the question is germane to section 1.

I would ask if anyone has another question germane to section 1.

A. Weaver: This directly relates to section 1. Section 1 only requires the Chief Electoral Officer to do one publication of the voters list now the day after as opposed to two, in my understanding. It’s speeding up the efficiency there.

My question then comes directly to that. Would the introduction of preregistration of 16- to 17-year-olds have affected the government’s decision in making this recommendation before us today that we are discussing? In particular, has the government actually investigated, done studies to determine whether or not the implementation of this section will actually suppress youth voter turnout in the ages of the 18-to-24 demographic?

In particular, has the government done studies, polling studies, to determine which party youth typically vote for, or parties, and did that play, in any of their decisions, into actually introducing section 1 of this act here, which relates to amendments to section 37 of the Election Act?

V. Huntington: Just one last question following up on my previous one. I just want the minister and her staff to confirm that the Chief Electoral Officer is not concerned that there will be lineups at the door on election day in some ridings. If so, has there been any discussion of additional staffing that might be required as a result of voter registration now happening on election day?

Hon. S. Anton: Again, I don’t want to try and quantify this, because that’s really for the Chief Electoral Officer. The advice from the Chief Electoral Officer is that in that first week, which is no longer going to be a week for updating your information — days 1 to 8, if you like…. Very few people register to vote in the first week of an election campaign period. It should not be an issue any more than it is an issue now that people can go and do go to update their registration when they go in to vote.

G. Holman: Thank you, hon. Chair, for your indulgence on the questioning. It’s much appreciated.

[1500]

Again, specifically with respect to section 1, and following up on the question of my colleague, the rationale that the government, the minister, has provided for the changes being proposed is to essentially increase administrative efficiencies.

What appears to be, again, an issue here is that there hasn’t really been an analysis of the actual cost implications of doing this. In fact, if eliminating one avenue for voters who currently aren’t registered in a particular constituency…. You’re essentially eliminating that eight-day period, so now you have to show up in person — might result in longer lineups. I guess the question to the minister is: was that considered in determining to make these changes?

By the way, I do want to remind everyone in the House that these changes were not recommended by the CEO. The minister, government, may well have had discussions with the CEO about these changes, but my understanding is that they weren’t recommended by the CEO. Clearly, the Chief Electoral Officer had much, much higher priorities that he wanted government to act on. This wasn’t, apparently, one of them.

But the question is, again: was there an evaluation of the cost implications of eliminating that eight-day period for registering? Now: people showing up and perhaps increasing the length of the lineups, which means that you’ve got returning officers staying there longer. Was there really an evaluation of the cost implications of this?

Hon. S. Anton: As I’ve answered several times…. I don’t think that the member for Saanich North and the Islands heard the answer, so I’ll repeat it.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

The government, through the recommended amendments, the proposed amendments, is proposing two additional advanced voting days. Having made that proposal, consultation was held with Elections British Columbia. Elections B.C. recommended, to accommodate the extra two days, that the Chief Electoral Officer would need to prepare the final voters list early — so eliminating the need for day 1 to day 8 when people could update their voter information.

As I have said at least three times, but I’ll say it again, we are told by Elections B.C. that very few people register to vote in the first week of that election campaign period. Now, I can’t quantify that. I don’t have the number. But their information is very few people, so I think that the chances of there being extra-long lineups sound rather low. I would observe, as well, that there are two extra advance voting days, which is something that we do know is popular with the public. So any extra people that might be updating their information will be able to actually do it on two extra days.

Section 1 approved on division.
[ Page 8558 ]

The Chair: The committee will be recessed for ten minutes.

The committee recessed from 3:04 p.m. to 3:18 p.m.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

On section 2.

G. Holman: As I understand it, this section tightens up vouching rules for family members and personal care providers, making them consistent with the identification requirements for friends. It is our understanding that this is in response to a Chief Electoral Officer recommendation. Can the minister explain how this rule works in practice?

[1520]

Hon. S. Anton: The propositions put forward by the member in his question are correct. The amendment was recommended by the Chief Electoral Officer. The recommendation is that when anyone is being vouched for, the identity documents by the voucher don’t change according to the voucher’s status. It used to be different whether you were a family member or another voter. Now everybody needs to have the same identity requirements.

G. Holman: Thanks to the minister for that response.

Did government, the minister…? Have you done any research on the impact of this requirement on the ability of voters to register? Are there any impacts of this change or, for that matter, even the current rules around the ability of unregistered voters to vote?

Hon. S. Anton: Research, if any, would have been done by the Chief Electoral Officer. It is his recommendation, and the recommendation is that the inconsistency in identification requirements could result in a perception that vouching is open to abuse. By making all vouchers have to first prove their identity, this inconsistency would be removed, and the process of administering vouching would be standardized.

G. Holman: Did government, the minister, look at similar rules elsewhere in Canada? Are the rules similar to what’s being proposed here?

Hon. S. Anton: As I said, this is the CEO’s recommendation. It’s a technical change, as recommended by the CEO.

G. Holman: To be clear, then, there was no examination of rules in other provinces regarding this particular measure?

R. Lee: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

R. Lee: In the gallery today is a group of about 60 grade 5, 6 and 7 students, and parents and teachers from Brentwood Park Elementary School. Brentwood Park Elementary is very close to the Brentwood Town Centre, which is having a lot of development now. The school itself has about 450 students. Thanks to Mrs. Estelle Keeler and Mrs. Kelly Davis for leading this tour.

I talked to the students before they came to the House, and I know they are very excited to learn more about the history of British Columbia, our democratic system and the parliamentary process. Would the House please help me welcome all the visitors from Brentwood Park Elementary School.

[1525]

Debate Continued

Hon. S. Anton: Any research in this would have been done by the Chief Electoral Officer. It’s a technical change, as recommended by the CEO.

A. Weaver: For a couple of seconds, I’d like to tell the students what I’m talking about now, because they’re wondering what we’re discussing. We actually are discussing here Bill 20, the Election Amendment Act, at committee stage. Particularly, we’re discussing section 2 of that act. That section is changing the vouching of how people have to vouch for others to sign up in registration.

This brings me to a question on that. The question is with respect to….

First off, let me say that I applaud this. In fact, I never understood why in the old Election Act, section 41.1(b)(1) contained the words “who has produced” referred to in section 41.3, the documents, as such. It excluded parents, guardians and others from actually having to produce that. Just their word — “I am this person’s relative” — seemed to be okay. Whereas, if you weren’t the relative, you had to produce documentation. Absolutely, I support this amendment.

However, I would ask how one knows from the documentation produced under section 41.3 that there is actually relationship between the person being attested to and the spouse, parent, grandparent, adult child, adult grandchild, etc.? In particular, if somebody has a different last name, how does one determine whether or not this change is actually going to ensure that somebody is a spouse, parent or grandparent? And as such, why did we even bother referring to a spouse, parent, grandparents, adult children, etc.? It seems to me that you don’t need to actually have the (ii) in this in light of the revision that the government is bringing forward under section 2.
[ Page 8559 ]

Hon. S. Anton: The model for the original section (b), which this is replacing, did have the three different groups: the voter in the same electoral district, the family member or the personal care decision-maker. Those three groups actually derived from a 2008 amendment to the Canada Elections Act, so we were, in 2008, somewhat mirroring that act.

[1530]

The difference between, one, the voter registered in the applicant’s electoral district…. In two, the family member does not have to reside in the same electoral district; nor does the personal care decision-maker.

A. Weaver: I understand that answer with respect to, perhaps, a parent, a spouse or a grandparent.

Now let’s come to (iii), where it talks to having authority under common law. Under common law would suggest that you’re actually in the same riding, so it’s not clear to me why these words, “under the common law,” are retained in this, in light of the revision that has essentially brought the words “has produced documents referred to in section 41 (3)” right up front so that it applies to all three categories as opposed to just category (i).

It strikes me, with respect, that in fact some other revisions should have been made to this section. I wholeheartedly support this section. But the section, in just bringing that information up further, actually has left some language hanging around from before that probably should have been removed — in particular, the words “common law” or perhaps “spouse.” Perhaps not “spouse” but certainly some of the other ones. Or at least clarify the role a little better.

Perhaps the minister could provide some guidance as to why these weren’t changed.

Hon. S. Anton: This, again, as I have said a couple of times, is a recommendation of the CEO. The CEO did not recommend taking out those words — “the common law.” I will observe, as well, that if you are an applicant and a voucher, you must each make a solemn declaration — in the case of a person under common law, the nature of the relationship with the person who is being vouched for.

A. Weaver: I appreciate the minister’s response. It’s very clear. Again, the minister points out that this was recommended by the Chief Electoral Officer. My question, then, again coming back to the Chief Electoral Officer’s recommendations: why did the minister choose to implement this recommendation and not the Chief Electoral Officer’s first and second — prime — recommendations?

The first, of course, was facilitating youth participation in our democratic system, specifically referring to, as we discussed earlier, registration of youth at the ages of 16 and 17. The second was trialling new voting technologies.

Why did the minister choose to introduce this recommendation and not the two primary recommendations as put forward by the Chief Electoral Officer?

Hon. S. Anton: I question the relevance of that question to section 2. Insofar as it might possibly be relevant, I’ve already answered the question quite a few times.

M. Farnworth: On this recommendation in section 2. I think we’re all in favour of this. I’d just like to go through with the minister.

[1535]

The Chief Electoral Officer has this report. There are the recommendations made. Does the minister talk with the Chief Electoral Officer about specific recommendations — namely, this one? I’m looking at the kinds of problems and challenges that it’s trying to overcome.

I know that the minister says: “Oh, the recommendation was made, and we accepted it.” Is there any discussion between the minister and the Chief Electoral Officer about the acceptance or the rejection of recommendations or the issues being raised by the Chief Electoral Officer in terms of a particular recommendation that they have made? I’m referring to the issue and recommendation here in section 2.

Hon. S. Anton: The liaison with the office of the CEO is through staff to staff. Their communication is so that there is a mutual understanding between them of the issues which come up in amendments, recommendations and so on.

M. Farnworth: I just want to be absolutely sure on the process here. The liaison is staff to staff, but of course, as we all know in the House, the decisions are made by the minister and the cabinet at the cabinet table. That’s why I’m wondering. The staff make the recommendations to the minister, and the minister makes the decision, which goes to cabinet? Or is it that the discussion at the cabinet takes the staff recommendations and decides which ones we want to go ahead with or not go ahead with?

I just want to get a sense in terms of…. When a recommendation comes like this, does the minister take that recommendation to cabinet because staff has made that recommendation? Or does the minister review the staff recommendations and then the minister makes that decision to recommend to cabinet?

Hon. S. Anton: Government is, of course, responsible for proposals coming forward in proposed legislation.

M. Farnworth: I understand government…. That’s why I just want to be really clear here on the question I’m asking.

The Chief Electoral Officer makes a report with a series of recommendations. Those recommendations, from what I’m hearing from the minister, are…. Staff look at them.

[1540]

Then the question I’m asking is…. So those recommendations — the decision to go ahead, for example, on section 2 here with a particular recommendation here, and I would expect it would apply to all recommendations, but I know we’re talking about section 2 — would come to the minister from staff with a recommendation to approve or disapprove? Or is it that they just come straight from the Chief Electoral Officer, and the staff say, “Here you go, Minister,” and they go to government?

I’m just wondering. Minister: when you go to the cabinet, are you taking a “section 2 here does this, and I recommend that we move ahead with this recommendation”?

I really want to be clear on just how the recommendations get to the cabinet — whether to approve a particular recommendation or to say: “Let’s not do this particular recommendation.” Is that made at the staff level, or is the minister doing it? Or is the minister just taking them all to cabinet: “Let’s just have a discussion at the cabinet table”?

Hon. S. Anton: Government, as I said a moment ago, is responsible for proposed legislation coming forward. As the minister responsible, I am responsible for the conduct of the bill.

M. Farnworth: Then, I would be correct when I say that the minister receives the report that staff has reviewed, and the minister will take forward recommendations to cabinet that she, as minister, is recommending. So this particular recommendation on section 2 — the report would be on the minister’s desk, staff would review it, and the minister would go: “Yes, let us take this recommendation to cabinet.” Or in the case of an additional section the minister would go: “I think we should recommend to cabinet that we do not do this recommendation.”

I just want to make sure that that’s how the minister approached the particular issue of the Chief Electoral Officer’s report.

Hon. S. Anton: First of all, a reminder that we are on section 2, which talks about vouching and identification required. Maybe we could go back to section 2, if I might suggest. I don’t have anything to add to what I have previously said on this line of questioning.

M. Farnworth: I must say I do find it fascinating that whenever the minister gets into a difficult situation, she wants to say this has nothing to do with the section or some other excuse.

The reality is I have been very specific in my question about section 2 and the change that is taking place. It is a recommendation out of the Chief Electoral Officer’s report. What I’m asking about is the process by which this recommendation comes to the bill. It relates entirely to this section.

What I am asking and what I would like to know is, when the Chief Electoral Officer makes a report…. The minister said that staff review it. I was wondering whether or not the minister has a discussion about these particular recommendations with the Chief Electoral Officer. I accept what the minister said, which is that it goes to staff and staff review the report.

[1545]

It clearly must come to the minister in the form of a note, a brief, that goes to the cabinet. Is the decision on a particular recommendation — in this case it’s this recommendation in section 2 — in fact made by the minister, to decide to say: “Yes, let’s accept this particular recommendation”?

Minister, if you’re concerned that I’m being critical of you, I’m not. In fact, I could be just…

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: That’s actually my point. I want to know — because we support this particular recommendation — who I give the credit to. Do I give it to the Chief Electoral Officer for coming up with this recommendation? Or do I give it to the minister, who is saying: “You know what? This recommendation is in this report, and I think it’s a good recommendation. I am going to recommend to cabinet that we adopt this particular recommendation”?

That’s all I’m trying to understand. When those recommendations are on the minister’s desk, after they’ve been reviewed by staff, is it the minister who recommends to the cabinet whether or not a particular recommendation goes forward? That’s what I’d like an answer to.

Hon. S. Anton: I am so happy that the member opposite likes this section, and I think it would be a very good time to vote on it. The process by which we get here is not terribly material. What is material is that government has put forward the proposed legislation, the proposed amendments to the Election Act, and as minister responsible, I am responsible, standing here, for conduct of the bill through committee. Here we are. Since the member has expressed his enthusiasm for the section, let’s vote on it.

A. Weaver: I, too, want to thank the minister, and I, too, am looking for that answer that the member for Port Coquitlam has been seeking. We need to know who to give credit for this. It is a good piece of legislation.

It is relevant to discuss this section. We want to know not only who to give credit to but who the minister and government discussed this with, so that we can ensure that the people around that we can talk to, the minister’s constituents, the government’s constituents…. We can tell them what a good job the minister has done with this section in responding to the Chief Electoral Officer’s report.

Again, I think it’s a very relevant question asked by the member for Port Coquitlam, and I urge the minister to answer it.

V. Huntington: I would like to ask the minister — for the benefit, perhaps, of those who are watching — if she could tell us what the documents are that are referred to in section 41(3), upon which rest subsections (i), (ii) and (iii).

Hon. S. Anton: I think the question was about the documents required. As set out in the current section 41(3):

“…an applicant may produce to the election official (a) one document, issued by the Government of British Columbia or Canada, that contains the applicant’s name and photograph, and place of residence, (b) one document, issued by the Government of Canada, that certifies that the applicant is registered as an Indian under the Indian Act (Canada), or (c) at least 2 documents of a type authorized by the chief electoral officer, both of which contain the applicant’s name and at least one of which contains the applicant’s place of residence.”

V. Huntington: Is the minister aware whether any of the requirements from the Chief Electoral Officer would include a statutory declaration?

[1550]

Hon. S. Anton: Section 41.1 (3) says:

“(3) The applicant and the voucher must each make a solemn declaration, in writing, as to the applicant’s identity and place of residence within the meaning of section 32, and stating all of the following: (a) in the case of the applicant, (i) that the applicant meets all the qualifications to be registered as a voter of the electoral district, and (ii) the matters set out in section 111 (4) (b) to (e); (b) in the case of a voucher described in subsection (2) (b) (i), (i) that the voucher is a person described in subsection (2) (b) (i), and (ii) the matters set out in section 111 (4) (b) to (d); (c) in the case of a voucher described in subsection (2) (b) (ii) or (iii), (i) that the voucher is a person described in subsection (2) (b) (ii) or (iii), as applicable, and setting out the nature of the relationship to the applicant, and (ii) the matters set out in section 111 (4) (d).”

V. Huntington: Thank you very much. That’s very helpful.

One of the requirements to be a voter is citizenship. I see nothing here that requires documentary proof that a person is a citizen when they’re being vouched for. Is the minister concerned with that at all? Is the Chief Electoral Officer concerned with that at all? Vouching is to be done by somebody that is a registered voter, but vouching doesn’t need to declare that you are a Canadian citizen. Can the minister discuss that issue for me a little bit, please?

Hon. S. Anton: In order to vote under section 111, which I quoted a moment ago, the solemn declaration must state that the individual meets the qualifications to be registered as a voter, and one of those qualifications is that you be a Canadian citizen.

V. Huntington: Is there anything within the solemn declaration that specifies an individual is a Canadian citizen? This is a very critical issue for me — and for others, I’m hoping — because less and less do we find, even if you’re being put on the voters list….

Well, let me step back a little bit. One of my concerns is, having asked somebody…. The last time in living memory that there was a knock on the door that asked if you were on the voters list and to register you, they didn’t ask me for citizenship. I said: “Do you not require proof of citizenship?”

They said no, and I said: “Why not?” They said: “Because we have been told that it is considered to be a discriminatory question.” I considered that just the worst thing I’ve heard in terms of the requirement to be a citizen and what it should take to be a voter in this country.

[1555]

I’m wondering if the minister and her staff can tell me if there is any way to protect the reality that you should be a Canadian citizen in this province to vote.

Hon. S. Anton: I’m not sure that this is directly related to the amendment in section 2, the amendment proposed. It is very clear in section 29 of the Election Act that you do need to be a Canadian citizen in order to vote.

V. Huntington: I will say again that an individual representing either Elections Canada or Elections B.C., I cannot remember which, whose duty it was to register voters told me that they were not allowed to ask the question about citizenship because it was considered discriminatory.

If that is the case and it is no longer required to prove you are a citizen of this country, then what are we even doing talking about this act? Because it makes a mockery of the whole act.

The very fundamental purpose of citizenship is to enable you to vote in this country. The very fundamental purpose of being a voter is to be a citizen in order to choose the governance of your country or your province. Yet we have no mechanism, it would appear, that requires you to prove you are a citizen at the time of registration.

In fact, you can have a third party say that, yes, you live next door. I can provide these documents that prove I’m a registered voter, but there’s nothing requiring that individual, or even the person vouching for them, to prove they are citizens.

I guess I think this is a fundamental failure both of sub 41(3) and of the new act, because there is no amendment to require that guarantee. Could the minister please tell this House whether she herself feels this is a failure of the act and is leaving a wide-open door to abuse should it be desired by any person choosing to register?

Hon. S. Anton: A couple of things. As to the particular incident, if the member believes that to be an Elections
[ Page 8562 ]
B.C. official, she should be reporting that to the Chief Electoral Officer. I’ll make that observation.

Secondly, in subsection (3), which is not new, which is the existing subsection (3) to section 41.1, with the proposed amendment to subsection (2)…. Subsection (3) says that the applicant and the voucher must both make a solemn declaration, and in the case of the applicant, the applicant must declare that he or she “meets all the qualifications to be registered as a voter of the electoral district.” One of those qualifications is that you be a Canadian citizen.

V. Huntington: At the time of making the solemn declaration or oath, is there a requirement on the individual taking that oath, hearing that oath, to list what the requirements to be a voter are?

[1600]

In other words, is there a list put in front of the person registering that requires them to understand they must a citizen?

Hon. S. Anton: I don’t have the solemn declaration here. This is subsection (3). We are dealing here with a proposed amendment to subsection (2), so I think, again, that would be a matter for the Chief Electoral Officer.

G. Holman: Just to be absolutely clear — and the member from Delta did allude to it very quickly: does the person vouching for the applicant have to be an eligible voter or Canadian citizen?

Hon. S. Anton: Again, this is subsection (3), not subsection (2). But it is the case that the voucher has to satisfy the matters set out in section 111(4)(b) to (d), which includes “is entitled to vote” — which includes being a Canadian citizen.

Section 2 approved.

On section 3.

G. Holman: Section 3, as I understand it, amends section 47 regarding voters list preparation by removing records of the preliminary revised lists of voters and requires that one official voters list be prepared as soon as possible after an election is called. This is related to the change in subsection (1), eliminating the task of preparing two official lists, a preliminary one and the revised voters list.

From a practical perspective, it seems to be a positive, simplifying kind of change, creating one official voters list. The question I have — and I do want to make another point as well: did the Chief Electoral Officer ask for the elimination of preliminary and revised voters lists?

Hon. S. Anton: This is the same way as section 1. When the proposed two additional advance voting days were proposed to Elections B.C., they did propose that there would only really be, practically, time to create one voters list, rather than a preliminary and then a final. This is taking out the preliminary and substituting simply a final voters list, as we discussed a couple of sections ago.

[1605]

G. Holman: At this point I would like to move an amendment standing in my name to address the concerns that were canvassed earlier regarding early registration of youth and to correct this, in our view, omission by government, the number one priority of the Chief Electoral Officer.

I would move this amendment:

[SECTION 3, by adding the underlined text as shown:

Preparation of list of voters for use in election

47 (1) For each election for an electoral district, the chief electoral officer must have prepared a list of voters for the electoral district.

(2) Only a list of voters prepared under subsection (1) may be used for the purposes of conducting an election.

(3) The list of voters for an electoral district must

(a) be prepared as soon as possible after the election is called,

(b) include the names and residential addresses of those individuals who, on the basis of the Provincial list of voters, appear to be resident in the electoral district, including individuals who voluntarily registered under youth voter registration and will have turned eighteen by voting day, ]

On the amendment.

A. Weaver: I’d like to seek some clarity and pose a number of questions to the member with respect to the intent of this amendment. Can the member please describe the type of youth that he’s referring to under the “registered under youth voter registration”?

G. Holman: The intent would be, as the Chief Electoral Officer has recommended — and I’ll read out that recommendation: “That legislators consider allowing the provisional registration of individuals when they are 16 years of age. The voting age would remain at 18, with provisional registration becoming an active registration on the individual’s 18th birthday.”

That is the intent of the amendment.

A. Weaver: To clarify, then, to the member who is putting the amendment forward, this is, in essence, implementing the primary recommendation of the Chief Electoral Officer in the amendment act?

G. Holman: Thanks for the question. Yes, it is the intent.

A. Weaver: I have a further question to the member on this amendment, which I clearly support now that that’s been clarified. It’s a fine amendment, I think, to bring in place the recommendations of the Chief Electoral Officer.

I did have a question to the member with respect to how he perceives this being implemented in practice, if this were to pass, with respect to potentially any engagement of the Chief Electoral Officer with, say driver’s licence agencies or a school district. Has the member envisioned the means and ways that this would come into effect practically?

G. Holman: Well, that could happen in a number of ways. Again, the intent…. The Chief Electoral Officer has made some suggestions along those lines — in fact, suggesting methods suggested by the member. For example — I’m reading from the Chief Electoral Officer’s report: “Permitting early registration at the age of 16 would permit Elections B.C. to work with schools and the driver-licensing program to ensure maximum exposure to the registration process for young voters.”

The CEO also indicated in his report that many high school teachers have expressed support for this concept, as it would allow for meaningful action by their students in the context of civic education, which the member from Oak Bay spoke to earlier.

There could be a number of ways in which this measure would be implemented. Clearly, the responsibility for doing it would rest with Elections B.C.

S. Chandra Herbert: My question to the member: why does he feel it’s so important for 16- and 17-year-olds to have the right to preregister to vote? What is the intent behind his amendment?

[1610-1615]

The Chair: Hon. Members, the question is amendment to section 3 of Bill 20.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

[1620]

G. Holman: I just wanted to make a comment on the vote that just occurred and just to express disappointment from this side of the House to have government vote down an issue that the Chief Electoral Officer identified as the number one priority in terms of increasing participation in the voting process.

The Chief Electoral Officer made it very clear in his work, in the research that he’s done, that young voters 18 to 24 have the lowest registration rates and voting rates of any demographic in our population and also made the point very clearly — and this is why he recommended it as his number one priority — that there is a positive correlation between voting and being registered as a voter before general voting day, and the most effective means of registering youth would be to approach them before they graduate from high school.

I just wanted to reiterate. A number of speakers have made a similar point, I realize, but again just to express disappointment on this side of the House that this very clear priority identified by the Chief Electoral Officer to increase voter participation, particularly among youth…. We had numbers of classes visiting the precinct, observing the process. It’s very ironic and sad. I feel that government voted down this very simple provision, and that’s my comment on what’s just occurred.

A. Weaver: I did have a question on this just to try to see if my understanding of the rationale and reasoning for bringing in the section 3 amendment, which is actually going to section 47 of the Election Act, which is discussing preparation of lists of voters for use in an election….

My understanding is that — and perhaps the minister can correct me if I’m wrong — this section is being brought in to actually do two things.

One, it’s eliminating, along with section 1, the requirement for two sets of…. It’s essentially saying there’s no preliminary list of voters being distributed and then a secondary one down the road. In addition, it gets out the voter ID numbers faster to those seeking to have voter lists. And this is coming from one of the recommendations, or the government’s interpretation of one of the recommendations, that the Chief Electoral Officer did under “Flexibility for advance voting opportunities.”
[ Page 8564 ]

Can the minister correct me if I’m wrong in my understanding?

[1625]

Hon. S. Anton: This is a consequential amendment to having the two extra advance voting days, our consultations with the office of the Chief Electoral Officer — their recommendation that that first eight-day period, the preliminary and then final list was no longer needed; that we would have a final list starting right at the beginning of the election so that the voter numbers, or the pieces of the voters list, will go out right at the beginning of the election.

As I have said quite a few times already, if you are correcting your voter registration information, you will do that when you vote.

A. Weaver: Coming back, then, my question to the minister is: why did the minister choose, again…? What process went into the selection of this particular recommendation from the Chief Electoral Officer? Why did the minister not consider the two primary recommendations, which were, one, facilitating youth participation — which we see clearly the minister and her government do not support, based on the vote on my colleague’s amendment — and, second, the trialling of new voting technologies?

Yet again, hon. Chair, I’m seeking justification as to why the minister chose only to deal with this one section, which is flexibility for advance voting options as recommended under the Chief Electoral Officer’s report, and, hence, this consequential amendment being brought in as part of the process of only looking at the one.

Section 3 approved.

On section 4.

G. Holman: I just want to clarify our understanding of the purpose of this section, which appears to, again, eliminate references to preliminary and revised lists of voters. It appears consequential to changes made earlier in the bill, and so it’s our understanding that candidates would still have access to the voters list, but now there will be only one, not just a preliminary one and then a revised one. Could the minister confirm the understanding of this section?

Hon. S. Anton: That’s correct.

M. Farnworth: I have a couple of questions on this particular section, and they’re related to inquiries that I have received on a number of occasions from constituents in my riding. I would be grateful if the minister was able to provide some clarification to the questions that I’m about to ask.

That is on subsection (2), where it says: “(2) A copy of the list of voters prepared under section 47 must be available for public inspection in the following offices during their regular office hours, from the time the list is received until the close of general voting: (a) the office of the district registrar of voters; (b) the office of the district electoral officer of the electoral district.”

Is an individual who wants to inspect the voters list required to give any reason why they wish to inspect the voters list? Do they have to register that they want to inspect the voters list?

[1630]

Hon. S. Anton: The person wishing to inspect the record may have to satisfy requirements listed in section 275(4). I will add, just for completeness, that there is a proposed minor amendment to that section, but it does not change the effect of what I said just now.

M. Farnworth: If the minister could just kind of outline a little more what that satisfaction process would involve, I would appreciate that.

Hon. S. Anton: Sub (4) says: “An election official or voter registration official may require an individual who wishes to inspect or obtain a copy of a record referred to in subsection (3) to (a) satisfy the official that any purpose for which personal information is to be used is permitted by that subsection…” — we are proposing to change that to this section — “and (b) provide a signed statement that the individual…will not use personal information…except for a purpose permitted under this Act.” I’ve shortened that somewhat.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

M. Farnworth: Just further on this line of inquiry…. The minister will appreciate that people do ask questions. Constituents come into our office, particularly at election time.

An individual, for example, particularly as technology has changed, would not be allowed to take their cell phone camera or their smartphone and take a picture of the list, the record, and leave with that, would they?

Hon. S. Anton: We will in due course come to sections dealing with obtaining copies of voters records and voters lists. However, the provision here in section (4) talks about public inspection. The public inspection does not, in my view, encompass taking a picture with your phone. Ultimately these things are administered by the Chief Electoral Officer. But that would certainly not be my understanding of any form of inspection — that the inspection would mean looking.

[1635]

M. Farnworth: That’s the point I am trying to make. I’m not dealing with making the list available to other
[ Page 8565 ]
people but rather with this particular section that deals with public inspection. We do get those questions from time to time, particularly in an election year or in an election period. People do ask: “Who is allowed to go in and inspect a voters list and under what conditions? How do you get to inspect a voters list?”

Given the advances that we see in technology and particularly in the ability to take an image, that’s why I’m asking those questions at this section. In a way, it’s kind of separate from the broader debate. But rather it’s the ability to answer questions that constituents come into the constituency office and do, in fact, ask.

If I understand the minister correctly, and if there was any issue around this particular section or the issue of the public inspection of the voters list, it would certainly be the minister’s intent that the legislation would not allow for the duplication of a record using, for example, a smartphone or an iPhone or some technology of that nature.

Hon. S. Anton: That’s correct.

V. Huntington: I wonder if the minister could just explain why they felt it important to add the words: “Each candidate in an election for an electoral district.” Why is that so critical to changing and requiring the amendment in this regard?

Hon. S. Anton: This is a clarification that the candidate is entitled to receive the voters list for their district.

V. Huntington: With respect to the minister, I don’t see the language saying that. It’s striking out, “Candidates in an election are entitled without charge to copies of the list of voters,” to substitute: “Each candidate in an election for an electoral district is entitled without charge to a copy of the list of voters.”

The list of voters is the list of voters. There’s nothing specific here to a list of voters for that district only. I just would like the minister to comment on whether this is clear enough to provide and ensure the attention that she is giving it.

Hon. S. Anton: The qualification is found in (a) and (b).

V. Huntington: I’m sorry. The qualification is on (a) and (b)? I either don’t understand the minister or I don’t see where that qualifies, specifically, the list of voters as being specifically that of the electoral district.

[1640]

She’s saying the candidate in the electoral district is entitled to a copy of the list of voters. But she’s not saying the list of voters is that which is for that district alone. She’s saying “the list of voters,” which is referred to in that language elsewhere throughout the bill.

Hon. S. Anton: Section 48(1)(a) says: “the district registrar of voters must provide each candidate with one electronic copy…of the list of voters…for the electoral district,” and (b), similarly, if you are getting a printed copy, it’s for the electoral district.

Section 4 approved.

On section 5.

G. Holman: With regard to section 5 — again, just to make sure that we understand the intent here. It seems to be pretty straightforward and following up from changes back in section 1. Again, this eliminates a reference to the revised list of voters. There’s only one list, not a preliminary and a revised, so that there’s only one official list. I just wanted to clarify that there is nothing more significant in here than that fairly simple amendment consequential to the changes earlier in the bill.

Hon. S. Anton: That’s correct.

Section 5 approved.

On section 6.

Hon. S. Anton: I move the amendment to section 6 standing in my name on the orders of the day.

[SECTION 6, by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the underlined text as shown:

6 Section 51 (2) is repealed and the following substituted:is amended

(a) in subsection (1) by striking out “Subject to section 275, the chief electoral officer” and substituting “The chief electoral officer”, and

(b) by repealing subsection (2) and substituting the following:

(2) Without limiting subsection (1), onOn request and on payment of the reasonable costs of reproduction, the chief electoral officer must provide the following:

(a) to a registered political party or member of the Legislative Assembly, a list of voters;

(b) to a registered political party,

(i) in respect of athe most recent general election for which the last writ of election was returned, a list of voters that indicates which voters on the list voted in the generalthat election, and

(ii) in respect of a by-election that takes place between the date of the most recent general election and the date the next general election is called, a list of voters that indicates which voters on the list voted in that by-election;

(c) to a registered political party, in respect of a by-election that takes place between the date the writ referred to in paragraph (b) was returned and the date the next general election is called, a list of voters that indicates which voters on the list voted in the by-election.

(c) to a candidate or an individual who was a candidate in an election referred to in subparagraph (i) or a by-election referred to in subparagraph (ii),

(i) in respect of the most recent general election, a list of voters in the electoral district for which the individual is a candidate or was a candidate that indicates which voters on the list voted in that election, and
[ Page 8566 ]

(ii) in respect of a by-election that takes place between the date of the most recent general election and the date the next general election is called, a list of voters in the electoral district for which the individual is a candidate or was a candidate that indicates which voters on the list voted in that by-election.]

On the amendment.

G. Holman: This is a section of the bill that’s created a lot of controversy and concern by the Privacy Commissioner as well. And to go back to the Chief Electoral Officer, we’ve had this ongoing discussion about recommendations that the CEO made or didn’t make and why has government chosen to pick some and not others. To make clear that this issue of providing voter turnout information to candidates….

This is not a recommendation from the Chief Electoral Officer. He’s indicated that this is not an operational requirement of Elections B.C., and the chief officer does not take a position on the request.

Just to briefly summarize our understanding, at least in terms of the official opposition…. I realize that the independents and Green MLAs may have other comments to make and, of course, questions to ask. Our understanding is that the intent of this amendment…. And to give credit to government, to give credit to the minister, there is an attempt here, it appears, to respond to at least some of the concerns expressed about the original provisions of Bill 20 which do at least make two fundamental changes.

They require the Chief Electoral Officer to provide voter turnout lists to political parties and to register political parties. There are two concerns that have been raised there. One is…. The member from Delta has raised the concerns that if the voter turnout lists are to be provided at all….

[1645]

To be clear, the member from Delta, as I understand it, doesn’t support the requirement for the CEO to provide this data. But if it is to be provided, the concern expressed by the member and others is that at least in the original bill it was only to be provided to registered political parties. There’s an attempt here to broaden the distribution of that data to candidates, not just registered political parties.

Now, this most recent amendment…. Again, there’s a troubling trend here by this government, certainly as it applies to this bill — that is, changes being made on the fly. Within just the last two days there have been two amendments put forward to this particular section by government.

On the one hand the minister should be given credit for trying to respond to concerns raised. On the other hand there’s a sense that we’re kind of making this up as we go along, that we’re making these changes on the fly.

Kind of an anecdotal comment is that the latest amendment that came out had a number of spelling mistakes, for example, which indicated that it hadn’t really been thoroughly vetted, thoroughly reviewed. There is a concern about how these amendments are coming forward and a concern that they’re not receiving the due diligence that they should by government and by government staff.

Another concern raised is if this information on voter turnout is being provided…. There’s the question of who it’s being provided to, but there’s also a very serious concern raised by the Privacy Commissioner about the use to which this information can be put.

I’ll just read briefly from a letter sent by the Privacy Commissioner, April 13, to the minister regarding the proposed changes in Bill 20.

Again, this current amendment, as we understand it, is trying to at least partly address the concerns here, addressed by the commissioner. It’s not at all clear that they have been entirely addressed. Amendments that we proposed and put on the order paper had a much more restrictive definition of the uses that this information could be put to.

Just to indicate the concerns expressed by the Privacy Commissioner, I’ll read from her recommendations. The letter goes into a fair bit of detail outlining her concerns. This is what she recommends:

“Given the above, I urge the government to withdraw the proposed amendment to section 51(2). Personal information compiled for efficiently administering elections should not, from a privacy point of view, be provided to political parties for their broader use.

“However, if the section 51(2) amendment does proceed, there must be clear limits on the use and disclosure of this personal information by political parties. For example, permitted use of the information for electoral purposes as set out in section 275 of the Election Act should be clearly defined, and political parties should be prohibited from using the information for commercial purposes or disclosing this information to any other organization or public body.”

The Privacy Commissioner also goes on to state:

“I would also recommend that Bill 20 require that voter participation information disclosed, pursuant to sections 96 and 97, be destroyed following the election.”

Very serious concerns here expressed by the Privacy Commissioner. It’s my understanding that the minister has indicated that there has been a discussion with the commissioner. What’s not at all clear is that the specific changes being now proposed by government — the first amendment yesterday and now another version of the amendment today….

[1650]

It’s not at all clear that the Privacy Commissioner actually agrees with those changes, that they have been properly vetted. So very, very serious concerns here about the amendments being put forward by government — concerns about the original bill, and we still have concerns about these amendments, which appear to be done on the fly.

There will be further, more detailed questions on the amendment. Others here, I know, want to speak to this. Those are some general comments I have about the amendment.
[ Page 8567 ]

We still feel that the additional privacy provisions in the government’s amendment still don’t fully address the concerns of the commissioner. It’s still not as stringent as the amendment we put forward and have placed on the order paper.

We’re also very concerned that in this most recent amendment the information can be applied to candidates both in the previous and an upcoming election. That, potentially, could be several hundred. The member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head has made the point that there are real concerns about this broad distribution of this information — a broad distribution, and there are still not adequate privacy provisions that govern the use of the information.

Those two put together really summarize our concern with this amendment. I’ll leave it there at this point, but I reserve my right to, again, ask further questions and make further comments. I will take my place and allow others to make their comments and ask questions on the amendment.

A. Weaver: Thank you to the minister for bringing in this amendment. Unfortunately, I, too, like the member before me, just cannot support this legislation.

This amendment is actually the second amendment we got in 24 hours. We received, late in the day yesterday, a copy of an amendment to reflect some concerns that had been raised by members in this House. Then later on, after members in this House had gone home, we get a subamendment, or an amendment of the amendment, at 7:05 p.m. last night.

I recognize that the government is trying to modify and take into account some of the concerns about the Privacy Commissioner with respect to people signing agreements, but it has taken this to an entirely new level.

What it has done is…. From a situation whereby political parties could acquire voters lists with information as to who has or who has not voted, it’s now extended to candidates who ran in the last election, to candidates who will run in the next election.

We have people who run in some elections as a protest vote. We are now saying that anybody in the province of British Columbia who was a candidate, who will be a candidate, who might be a candidate, who wishes they were a candidate is, essentially, getting access. As a protest vote, they get access to this information.

I don’t have a problem with people having a fair and level playing field. That’s not the issue here. The issue here is who needs to know whether you voted or not. It is nobody’s business to know if I voted or if I did not vote, except to me and the Chief Electoral Officer.

We’ve gone from a situation where British Columbians across the province have stood up and said, “We don’t like this; we don’t like it when government is actually giving political parties information on whether I did or I did not vote,” and what’s the government’s response? To bring in an amendment to, first off, give political parties and all candidates that same information. A wonderful way of listening to the voices of British Columbians. They expand it further.

Then, at 7:05 last night, they take it another level. They give it to future candidates as well. This is a government that is so out of touch with British Columbians that not only does it not listen to them, it actually, when it hears them — or doesn’t hear them — takes it to another level.

[1655]

It’s unbelievable that we have this amendment before us today. It’s unbelievable that this government is trying to actually give information — private information, information as to whether I vote, information as to whether the member for Saanich South votes, information as to whether my daughter votes — to political parties, to every candidate who will run, to every candidate who has run.

What possible purpose could this information be used for? It is not going to be used to help voter turnout. Absolutely no way this can be helpful for improving voter turnout, and yet this is the justification government is giving British Columbians — that this somehow is going to improve voter turnout.

What this is saying, what we’re seeing through this amendment and what we’ve seen through the selective use of the recommendations coming from the Chief Electoral Officer is a government that recognizes that it’s losing touch with the people and so is initiating tactics designed for voter suppression of youth, tactics to give them an unfair advantage because they can’t get volunteers anymore. They’re finding it a tough time in the Liberal Party of British Columbia to get volunteers to go to be scrutineers.

The Green Party of British Columbia has no problem with that. The independent member for Delta South has no problem with that. I won’t speak for the opposition, but I suspect they have no problem with that. It’s because this government has turned off voters. They cannot get voters to help them out, so they want the government to help itself out through providing information to the government on which they can target voters based on their voting patterns.

This is so fundamentally wrong that I’m surprised that the government, rather than pulling this section, takes it to another level and tries to create this so-called level playing field. This amendment must fail. This amendment should fail. If there’s anything that the opposition on this side will do, I’m sure we will all vote unanimously so that this amendment does not pass.

Sadly, it is government who will have to look British Columbians in the face and say: “You know what? We don’t listen to you anymore. You know what, British Columbians? We’re going to get your private information because we want to target you. We want to target you for messaging, target you if you voted or not, because we can’t get volunteers because people are straying from our party, and we’re desperate to stay in power.
[ Page 8568 ]

“We know that our promises of LNG are not going to materialize. We know we’re saying this and that and the other, but they’re not materializing. Instead, what we’re going to do is use your personal information to try to manipulate” — yes, hon. Chair, manipulate — “future elections, to suppress the youth.”

The only possible way this could be brought in is to turn off voters, for voter suppression tactics. This is absolutely egregious, and this amendment must fail.

The Chair: The question is the amendment proposed.

M. Farnworth: I’ve listened to my colleague from Saanich North and the Islands. I’ve listened to my colleague from Oak Bay–Gordon Head. There are a number of questions that have come out of their remarks that I would like the Attorney General to answer.

I think it’s important that the Attorney understand the depth of feeling, whether one agrees with all of an argument or some of an argument or even none of the argument. I think it’s important that when members stand up and make their points, on whatever side it is on the debate, the Attorney General listens and tries to get a grasp of what those concerns and those issues are.

I can tell you that the point made by the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head about how an amendment is on the order paper, and then another amendment comes in at 7:05…. It leads to all kinds of questions around the process involved.

I hear the Attorney General kind of muttering under her breath. I think that’s part of the problem. It’s that when you’re doing that, you’re not listening.

[1700]

When we’re developing legislation like this that is of fundamental importance to how elections are conducted, I think it’s important that we have a real understanding at the end of the day of the changes that are being proposed and how those changes came into being, regardless of how people or how political parties or how independents end up voting on those particular sections or those particular amendments.

The question that I will be putting to the Attorney General…. I look forward to hearing her response, and I have no doubt that my other colleagues will look forward to hearing her response. There is an amendment that is on the order paper. The government has put it there because they want to be seen or they feel that this will deal with some of the issues that have been raised by the Privacy Commissioner.

Subsequently there is another amendment that is put on at 7:05 when the House is not sitting. There’s nothing wrong with that. That is appropriate. But I do think it raises the question: how was the amendment developed? What kind of process did the Attorney General and the government go through on this?

Was there consultation with the Privacy Commissioner, for example? Was there consultation with the cabinet? Was there consultation with the caucus? What was the rationale and what was the methodology that was used to come up with the second amendment? What did the government feel was the problem with their original amendment, and what issues were they trying to address with their revised amendment that came on at 7:05?

When my colleague asks that question and seems to be met with, “Well, let’s vote on the section,” I’m sorry, but we on this side of the House have an issue with that. Our job as legislators is to scrutinize legislation. It is to scrutinize amendments that are on the order paper. It is to ask questions. We’ve had second reading debates. I am not at all involved in second reading debate but rather wanting to find out how this particular amendment….

This section is an important section, whatever your views, so it’s important that the Attorney General is able to answer those questions. We have seen from dealing with other sections on this particular piece of legislation that when we’ve asked how the process has taken place, it has been one of, well, no answer.

That’s why I asked earlier on, for example: just what is the process when a report is received from the Chief Electoral Officer? The minister indicated in her answer to me that it goes to staff, that the minister herself does not have those conversations with the Chief Electoral Officer. It goes to staff, and then staff give it to the minister.

What I got from what the minister has said is that then the minister looks at these recommendations, and the minister goes to cabinet and says, “Yes, we should do this,” or “No, we should not do that.” This is what goes to cabinet, and at the end of the day, cabinet will make a decision.

We have a section 6 that is before us that is clearly a recommendation that went to cabinet. Subsequent to that, there have been events and discussions, both in this House and outside this House, on the nature and on the meaning of section 6 and issues raised by the Privacy Commissioner.

We on our side have proposed amendments, and the independent from Delta South has proposed amendments. The member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head, amendments also. And the government has amendments. Clearly, this section is one of some import in the discussion and the debate of this particular piece of legislation, especially at committee stage.

[1705]

The questions that I believe are important and would like to have an answer from the minister are: could she outline in detail how the amendments, the original amendments, came to be? What was the minister trying to accomplish with the introduction of the first set of amendments that were tabled on the order paper? And then why the need for the second amendment?

Am I wrong in surmising that one of the reasons why there was the second amendment is because, as in much of what we’ve seen sometimes from this government,
[ Page 8569 ]
things tend to be rushed and not thought through?

I mean, is it in response to try and deal with the concerns raised by an amendment put forward by the opposition? To be seen to, you know…. “We don’t want to do the opposition’s amendment, but we’ll do our own amendment.” In the rush to do that, they did not get it right and deal with all the issues that we have raised.

Is it something that was raised out of their caucus in terms of saying, “You know what? We still have these concerns,” and then the result being a subsequent amendment that came on at 7:05?

The point is that we have seen too many examples in this House…. We’ll be dealing with one on Tuesday when there is a bill that has, I think, 20-some-odd amendments, including one to amend the title. What I want to make sure, in what the government is proposing to do by amending section 6, is that we’re not dealing with an amendment that is rushed and has not been thought through by the government to try and address the concerns, either in whole or in part, that have been raised by the independent officer of the Legislature — the freedom-of-information and privacy commissioner — or people outside this House and, as I said, members inside this House.

That’s what I’d like the minister to be able to answer. If she could give that detailed explanation, I’m sure there may be other questions arising out of that that colleagues may have. I look forward to the minister’s response.

Hon. S. Anton: It’s interesting. If you have a long debate and government stays with what it’s got, you’re not listening. If you have a long debate and government responds, you’re still doing the wrong thing. It’s fascinating.

What happened here is that government listened. We listened to concerns raised that perhaps individual candidates were not dealt with in the same way as political parties, and we responded. We responded to the concerns that we heard in debate about the use of information. We responded to concerns raised by the Privacy Commissioner about use of information.

So we have proposed some amendments. We are proposing some amendments to both section 6, as originally presented, and now to section 275 to respond to the concerns that echoed through this chamber that information might possibly not be properly used and that the right people — namely, individual candidates — might possibly not be able to get the same information that a political party could get. That’s why we’ve made the changes: in response to the things that were raised in this chamber and also by the Privacy Commissioner.

On a couple of matters, the Privacy Commissioner was concerned. Yes, she was concerned. She has written a letter today to say…. In part, she says:

“On April 13, 2015, I wrote to the Attorney General and Minister of Justice recommending that government withdraw certain sections of the bill. However, if the bill proceeded, I recommended that it be amended in order to put clear limits on the use and disclosure of this sensitive personal information.

“Today Minister Anton advanced several amendments to Bill 20. These amendments, if passed, would prohibit the use of voter participation information for commercial purposes and limit its use to the purposes of the Election Act. Further, it would require all political parties and candidates receiving the personal information of voters to have a privacy policy in place that protects against unauthorized use and disclosure and is acceptable to the Chief Electoral Officer.

“I acknowledge the efforts of the Minister of Justice to make amendments to Bill 20 to address the privacy concerns of citizens and those of my office. I also wish to acknowledge members of the Legislative Assembly for their contributions to the debate and their commitment to the protection of privacy rights with respect to voter information.

“As stated in my April 13 letter, I will pursue discussions with the Chief Electoral Officer to offer my perspective as to how new regulations can protect the personal information of B.C. voters should this bill pass.”

[1710]

In other words, we have responded to these concerns by making additional changes to section 275 that were not in the original proposed legislation. We will come to 275 in due course, but 275 adds that the information may only be used for the purposes of this act. It adds that it must not be used for commercial purposes. It adds that anyone receiving this information…. Be you an individual candidate or a political party, you must demonstrate that you have an acceptable privacy policy, acceptable to the Chief Electoral Officer, or you will not get this information.

You have to have been a candidate in the election, and you may get it. But you have to abide by the conditions of section 275 as proposed, and you have to show your privacy policy. I think that that very much satisfies concerns of the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head. It is very clear that this information must be treated carefully.

At the same time, the Chief Electoral Officer does have regulation-making authority. That’s the authority referred to in the last paragraph of the letter of the Privacy Commissioner. He or, should it be, she has authority to make additional regulations should the proposed changes to section 275 be insufficient. As I have said numerous times, I support that regulation-making authority. Should it not be sufficient, what we are proposing in section 275, then we would welcome additional changes made by regulation by the Chief Electoral Officer because there is no question that information of this nature is only to be used for electoral purposes.

Let me address a couple of other things. The issue about voter turnout being public, whether or not you voted being public…. I hate to break it to the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head, but it is public. It’s public right now. It’s public for two reasons.

Most often, when you walk into your local voting area — your high school gym, your elementary school gym or your church room, whatever it is, wherever the election is being held — who do you see there? You see your friends and your neighbours. That is public. Not only that, but should there be any doubt, once the person has come in
[ Page 8570 ]
to vote, the election official responsible must announce the name and voter number of the individual. That would be a public announcement.

At that time the scrutineers, of whatever political party, can take down that name and number. Indeed, that information goes back to get out the vote, generally, for most candidates, most serious candidates. It goes back to their get-out-the-vote people, and that information is scrutinized during the day to see who has voted and who has not.

I think most of us know that if you haven’t voted or if somebody in your household hasn’t voted, your phone is ringing. That indeed is public. That’s information used during the course of the day. There is one thing that is sacrosanct and never public, and that is how you voted. It is a secret ballot, and that is not public. But the fact of voting is public.

I hate to break it to the Green member and the NDP, but this was a change recommended by all political party representatives on the Election Advisory Committee requesting that the Election Act be amended to require this information to be passed to the parties after the election. The Chief Electoral Officer did not take a position on that, because, as he said, it was not an operational requirement.

Moving forward with that recommendation, we have proposed this change, this amendment to section 51 of the Election Act so that this information can be provided to political parties and, indeed, to individual candidates.

It is kind of fascinating. If you listen and you make changes, you’re at fault. If you listen and you don’t make changes, you’re at fault. I must say I’m certainly not complaining about being in government. I’m thankful every day to be in this position for the last two years, but sometimes it does have its ironies. This is one of those days.

[1715]

M. Farnworth: I appreciate the minister’s comments. The reason I say that is because what we want to hear from government is their rationale, their logic, how they see a particular piece of legislation working. Our job is to ask those questions, and that’s what we’ve been doing. The minister may think it’s ironic, but the fact is that is how the system works.

The minister has just laid out a number of things, defending why she thinks that the piece of legislation is good and, in particular, why she thinks this particular amendment to this section — she believes and the government thinks — is the right way to go.

What was interesting was that the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head made a statement, asked a question, and the minister was quite happy to say nothing and for the Chair to call: “All those in favour.” It’s only when we, on this side, stand up and say: “Hang on a sec. We want to ask questions. We want to know what is the process and what is the government thinking….” Then we get a response from government, and that’s how the process works. As I said, that is how the process works.

As I’ve said earlier on this particular piece of legislation, it doesn’t matter in the sense of the different positions that people are taking on the legislation or the different positions that members or parties take on the amendments that are proposed. What we want to get a thorough understanding of is: what is the government’s rationale? What is it they’re hoping to accomplish?

I can tell by the clock on the wall that it is not quite 20 after five. I know that the Lieutenant-Governor will be entering the precinct, and we will be reporting out at 5:30. I just want the minister to know that we will not be, by any means, close to finishing this particular bill this evening.

Hon. S. Anton: Quelle surprise.

M. Farnworth: I know the minister says: “Quelle surprise.” I think that’s appropriate, because as I said, this section is important.

The committee stage will go to 5:30 tonight, and then the LG will be coming to give royal assent to a number of pieces of legislation. I can see a look on one of my colleagues’ faces.

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: Unfortunately, I’m not government, so I cannot…. But I think there are mechanisms by which the independent member can register concern over that. But I want to assure the member that the one thing that the arrival of the LG at 5:30 today will not do, is it does not….

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: The committees report out at 5:30, right? They report out at 5:30. The debate in this chamber will adjourn at 5:30 at committee stage, and we will continue that. The LG will come in, and we will do our thing.

Anyway, for the member for Delta South, so that she fully understands, in us doing that — adjourning the debate at 5:30 — that will not in any way limit her ability to participate in this debate. It will not in any way limit the ability of any member of this chamber to participate in this particular debate. She may well have a question that I know she will want to ask.

I will now come back to where I was going with the Attorney General. That is, this is an important section. The government has put amendments, and we want to fully explore the nature of the amendments and what the government expects to accomplish with the amendments and, in particular, how the amendments were developed.

A question I have for the Attorney General is: these amendments that the government has tabled — were they developed in direct consultation and direct discussion with the freedom-of-information and privacy commissioner?

[1720]

Hon. S. Anton: I have the original letter of the Privacy Commissioner with her opinion in it.

A. Weaver: For the record. Yesterday we contacted the privacy commission office to see whether or not there was comment. The privacy information office had no idea that there was an amendment. The privacy information office got the amendment from my office.

To me, that suggests that government had no discussion with the Privacy Commissioner before putting the amendment forward because it was my office that provided the amendment to their office.

V. Huntington: I find that an interesting revelation in itself.

Just before I start my broader comments on section 6, I’d like to say that the second amendment does come as a result, I think, of a chat I had across the aisle with the minister yesterday afternoon, late afternoon, on her first amendment.

I said: “Obviously you’ve tried to fix my concerns that independent candidates are now not equal in the electoral system in British Columbia and that you have tried to correct that inequality.” I did hear the Premier say that they had moved to fix the inequality and that they were levelling the playing field and ensuring that all candidates had equal access to the process.

I went over to the minister and sat down beside her and said: “Ma’am, I do not think your amendment does that. It talks about a candidate, an individual…. A candidate that was a candidate can receive the voter turnout list. That does not mean that a candidate in the next election, the forthcoming election, would be able to receive it. They had to have been a candidate in the previous election. So you have not resolved the problem of all candidates in an election receiving equal data, equal information from the Chief Electoral Officer.” I maintain my position that the amendment thus biases the Chief Electoral Officer in his distribution of voter information to all eligible candidates.

I believe the minister at the time said, “I see your point,” and to her credit did put out a second amendment to try and correct that. I am not sure it has corrected it appropriately, but I want to thank the minister very much for responding, because this was one of my two enormous concerns with this section.

I am not supportive of the section in its entirety at all. But if it were to pass with the issue of discrimination toward independent candidates written into an elections act in British Columbia, I felt that that was appalling.

I was also of the understanding that the official opposition didn’t see my position on this, and I was extremely concerned about that. I hope they now understand what the issue was.

I do want to thank the minister. She’s right. She did respond, and responded twice, to my significant concerns about this, and I appreciate it enormously.

[1725]

That is the reason why the second amendment came after closing hours, after we had put out a press release saying the first amendment didn’t fix the problem. So we put out a second one saying that the second amendment looks like it may have, and I thank her.

On the broader issue of section 6. When I first read the Election Act amendment, I was appalled — absolutely appalled. One, because of what I saw as a total invasion of voter privacy, and second, as I mentioned, because it discriminated against independent, legitimate registered candidates receiving the same information as every other candidate in an election.

I immediately asked for a briefing, which we received. At that briefing I asked the specific question: “Is this an oversight?” Is this an oversight that the words were left out that are apparent in every other section of the act — every other clause — wherein it says “candidate,” “registered constituency association”…? Some mention “Member of the Legislative Assembly,” “registered political party.”

“Is it an oversight that you left out candidate, registered constituency association, Member of the Legislative Assembly?” I was met with dead silence from officials. I asked again: “Is this an oversight?” No answer. I looked over at the ministerial staff and said: “If this is not an oversight, then I will fight this because you are doing something that is absolutely opposed to our democratic traditions in this province, in this country.” That gentleman looked at me and said: “Noted.”

I was driven to the conclusion that this was a deliberate omission. Whether that is so, or would be confirmed, I do not know. I don’t really care. The amendment is on the table, and I am grateful for that. But the fact that they put an act on the table that was discriminatory in the first instance is, in my estimation, absolutely appalling.

Following that briefing, I immediately wrote a letter to the minister. We put forward two amendments and attached them to the letter. I’d like to read this letter into the record.

“I am writing your office to advise you of my objection to Bill 20’s proposed section 6 and to inform you of two amendments I will be introducing at committee stage. Please find the amendments attached.

“The first amendment would strike out the sections that require Elections B.C., upon a request from a registered political party, to distribute a list of those who voted in the previous election, to that party.

“This is an obviously self-interested and partisan decision. It is quite clear there is no appetite for this change among voters. Further, the amendment is neither a recommendation of B.C.’s independent Chief Electoral Officer, nor is it supported by the Information and Privacy Commissioner, who considers it a violation of the spirit of the Election Act.”

I would remind the minister at this point that I am reading her the letter I sent on April 22, before any amendments were tabled.

“Moreover, section 6 of the act, in my opinion, compromises the independence of the Chief Electoral Officer. The independence of Elections B.C. is absolutely paramount to maintaining trust in the electoral process.
[ Page 8572 ]

“To citizens of a democracy, their ballot is sacrosanct and an essential element of their freedom. It is therefore unthinkable that government would create a situation in which Elections B.C. is required to assist political parties in their analytical efforts to identify and persuade voters.

“No official effort should ever be contemplated that might cause skepticism among the voting public about the important and independent role of the Chief Electoral Officer.

“The second amendment I propose, should the first not succeed, is to correct a nakedly partisan effort to marginalize independent members and candidates in future elections. Whether deliberately or by oversight, section 6 prohibits independents from accessing voter data that has been made available to registered political parties. The bill thus requires the Chief Electoral Officer to distribute voter data in a preferential matter.

[1730]

“In my opinion, this change undermines the independence of Elections B.C. and compromises their stated mission: ‘To serve democracy in British Columbia through the fair and impartial administration of the provincial electoral process.’”

Following that letter, I introduced two amendments and put them on the order paper — the first two amendments, I might add to my colleagues. The minister has seen fit to provide an amendment that changes my opinion on the marginalization of independent members, and I respect that.

I will say to the House, however, that I continue to oppose the other sections of this section 6. I do not support the section as it stands and have a number of questions in regard to that. I reserve my opportunity to ask a significant list of questions on section 6.

In view of time, how would you like me to proceed, Mr. Chair?

The Chair: We’ll continue, and if you’re finished, perhaps the minister could respond.

Interjection.

The Chair: Member, I know the minister would like to respond too.

V. Huntington: All right. Then one of us shall rise again like the phoenix, okay?

Hon. S. Anton: Just in relation to the comment made by the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head, the Privacy Commissioner’s staff were advised by my staff in the afternoon that government was proposing to amend and were given the final copy of the amendments early this morning. So there’s plenty of communication between the offices.

A. Weaver: That precisely confirms exactly what I said yesterday when members of this House were given the amendment, the first version of the amendment. It had not gone through the Privacy Commissioner’s office. It was this morning — not yesterday, this morning — after it was written that the Privacy Commissioner’s office was informed of the amendment, not consulted about the establishment and construction of the amendment. I think that’s important to be on record.

I agree with the member for Delta South that it is a fine step, that the government has listened to the independent members’ concerns about inclusiveness with respect to treating candidates who may be independent the same as political parties. I do appreciate that, and I do recognize that the government has responded to the legitimate concerns of the member for Delta South.

However, obviously I, too, like the member for Delta South and the official opposition, believe fundamentally that this is the wrong direction that the amendment is taking in that it is actually seeking to provide information…. It’s information that the minister argued was public — that a person would vote by going into an election booth, making it public.

The reality is that whether you go into your neighbourhood polling station and see your neighbours is one thing; if you go into the neighbourhood polling station and the central office in some other jurisdiction gets information on you as an individual — your number, with your street address and puts the two together — knowing that you voted in an election versus didn’t vote, that can be used for no other reason than targeted messaging and/or voter suppression techniques.

This amendment does not fix the overarching concerns of both the opposition as well as the independent members. All it does is entrench their objections further. With that, I reserve my right in two weeks, when we come back, to ask further questions.

The Chair: There’s no need to reserve your right, Member.

I’ll ask for, noting the hour, the minister.

Hon. S. Anton: I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:34 p.m.

The House resumed; Madame Speaker in the chair.

[1735]

Committee of the Whole (Section B), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

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

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

Madame Speaker: Hon. Members, I’m advised that the Administrator is in the precinct. Please remain in your seats.

[1740-1745]

His Honour the Administrator requested to attend the House, was admitted to the chamber and took his place in the chair.

Royal Assent to Bills

Deputy Clerk:

BC Transportation Financing Authority Transit Assets and Liabilities Act

Workers Compensation Amendment Act, 2015

Education Statutes Amendment Act, 2015

Tobacco Control Amendment Act, 2015

Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 2015

Guide Dog and Service Dog Act

Administrative Tribunals Statutes Amendment Act, 2015

Civil Resolution Tribunal Amendment Act, 2015

Fish and Seafood Act

Special Wine Store Licence Auction Act

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2015

Societies Act

Liquefied Natural Gas Income Tax Amendment Act, 2015

Liquor Control and Licensing Act

World Wide Marriage Encounter Society (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2015

In Her Majesty’s name, His Honour the Administrator doth assent to these acts.

His Honour the Administrator retired from the chamber.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

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

Motion approved.

Madame Speaker: This House, at its rising, stands adjourned until the morning of May 25 at 10 a.m.

Safe travels.

The House adjourned at 5:50 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
NATURAL GAS DEVELOPMENT

(continued)

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

The committee met at 1:36 p.m.

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

S. Robinson: My question for the minister has to do, of course, with Riverview lands. It’s just come to my attention that a job posting has been made for the manager of Riverview lands development. I’m wondering if the minister could tell us what the role is for this manager of Riverview lands development, what the intention is and what the expectations are for this position.

Hon. R. Coleman: Just before we start, I promised the member opposite, when he was questioning me earlier, the list of transferred properties for last year — if we could just pass that over to the member.

The Riverview lands were, basically, transferred to B.C. Housing on February 2. This person’s job will be to continue to complete the visioning process with regards to Riverview lands; deal with the various ministries that are looking at possible future projects on the lands, including mental health projects for children and families and projects for other supports for people who would need it — vulnerable citizens.

That part is running through the various ministries now, and this individual would be the person that would be overseeing that work with the municipalities and continuing the completion of the visioning process, which is ongoing.

S. Robinson: I do have a follow-up question. I appreciate that the visioning process is ongoing, and I’ve certainly noted that there has been substantial community engagement around that. I applaud B.C. Housing for ensuring that there was substantial community engagement, which is often hard to do, but there’s certainly been lots of interest.

There is recognition even in this job description — that the key part of this person’s “role will be to establish and manage sensitive relationships with a variety of partners and stakeholders.” I appreciate that there’s recognition about the sensitivity of this piece of property.

[1340]

My question relates to the actual job description. I’ve managed to get a hold of it right here. It says: “You will be responsible for managing the project development of a variety of complex properties on the Riverview lands, including multi-unit residential social housing, supportive housing, affordable rental housing, complex health care facilities and specialized group homes.”

Are all of those going to be a part of the visioning, or is that already envisioned, or is that still yet to be determined? This reads as though it’s a fait accompli.

Hon. R. Coleman: The ad is basically so that we can catch what we think might be some of the things coming out of the visioning process that the municipality may want to look at. When you’re hiring somebody, you want to know that they can manage the public process, that they can manage the visioning process. But at the
[ Page 8574 ]
end of the day, there’s been a clear message that some people think that there should be some mental health or health care facilities put back on the site. There have been questions in and around the mental health and addictions side.

In looking for the person, we want them to be a generalist enough. We’ve included that in the job description so that we get somebody that can actually take the process and then work with the various stakeholders that could end up….

The stakeholders, for the most part, even if you went down the road with mental health and some of the other facilities, would be related back to Health, to Children and Families and those types of ministries. Somebody has to be able to interconnect with those folks within government. So it’s a generalist job, and that’s why the job description states it the way it is.

G. Heyman: A couple of questions about the Little Mountain housing redevelopment. My first question is: has the title for the lands actually been transferred to Holborn Properties?

Hon. R. Coleman: Yeah. It was transferred in July 2014.

G. Heyman: I know the government has booked the money, but has the government actually received the cheque for the full amount of payment at this point?

Hon. R. Coleman: The structure of the deal is, basically, a deposit — non-refundable — for a down payment on the property of tens of millions of dollars. The rest of it is paid out in phases over the time period of the development.

G. Heyman: Does the minister have an exact figure of the tens of millions of dollars?

[1345]

Hon. R. Coleman: It’s $40 million.

G. Heyman: When I questioned the minister in the Legislature around the timetable and the scale of the replacement of the units at Little Mountain, currently about five years behind the original projection and only about 20 percent of the number of units that were slated to be replaced, the minister commented on the use of the money from the sale for housing the homeless.

But as the minister knows, there’s housing the homeless and there’s also social housing and need for social housing in Vancouver and specifically in that community. Does the minister have a timetable for the completion of the 234 units of social housing that were originally committed to be built along with ten units for the Musqueam?

Hon. R. Coleman: There were 224 units on the site when it was shut down, and 234 will be the number of social housing units on the site after the project is complete. The other ten is for the Musqueam as part of an arrangement with the Musqueam for First Nations housing. There are 53 built.

I will tell you that we’ve been disappointed in a number of processes along here through this. One bid on the developer…. Some disappointment on the fact that the memorandum of understanding that we signed with the city was not lived up to by the new administration of the city and has actually caused us some delays. The rezoning process of the city has been, in my opinion, a little bit slow. But everybody will give you an opinion on why that is.

Our plan is, the hope is, that the rezoning process will be complete this year and we’ll start construction. The balance of the social housing units to be replaced on this site, starting early in the new year or by the end of the year, are all included in the next phase of the development. So they’d all get built in the next year.

And just so the member knows, we’re replacing social housing here, but we’re not building social housing elsewhere. We have moved away from the purpose-built social housing projects a few years back to go to the rent assistance program and concentrate our capital on the most vulnerable — mental health, addictions, homelessness, those sorts of things — as far as projects to be built.

H. Bains: My questions are a couple of questions about manufactured home owners. I think we canvassed this in the past. The Surrey Manufactured Home Owners Association visited my office, Mr. Minister. I’m very concerned about your quote in the paper they brought me, in the Province of December of last year, suggesting that this was the code and that the discussion will be held soon with the view to perhaps allowing the level of increases to be set higher.

Their concern is that they already are paying under the act. It’s the inflation rate plus 2 percent plus the other proportional increases of different costs that they may incur. I think that’s one concern. The question would be whether the minister was talking about manufactured home owners also included in that discussion to have their rent increased. They are saying it’s becoming unaffordable now as the act allows the rent increases. That’s one question.

[1350]

If the minister could advise whether those people are overly worried about something, or is the minster really looking at having those rents increased as part of the discussion?

Hon. R. Coleman: They shouldn’t worry at all. But I will explain how that may have come in some correspondence. It’s not unusual for apartment owners associa-
[ Page 8575 ]
tions and manufactured home park owners associations to routinely write, maybe once a year, once every two years, saying they’d like to see a different form of increase. Nothing is going to change. That message has been given to them whenever they’ve talked to us. But they still will persist in hoping somebody might change their minds. We’re not changing our minds.

H. Bains: Thank you for that answer. I have written, as a result of that letter, to you. You probably would have got it by now. It was April 30 when I wrote the letter listing those concerns. So that’s good. I’ll pass this on to them.

The second part is, as you know, if the park owner decides to redevelop the land for other uses. As there are no new parks being set aside and these homes are older, many of them can’t even be moved. So I think these folks are rightfully worried.

We have a case now. I think it’s called Park homes on 96th Avenue at King George Highway. There’s a proposal to develop it for something else, for another use. They’re saying: (1) there are no other spaces for them to move to; (2) the moving expenses allowed under the act aren’t sufficient; (3) even if they are able to find a new space somewhere, their homes are too old to meet the requirement of transportation. They will not be able to move them, so they basically have to leave them behind. Then they’re made homeless.

Some of the municipalities have some protection. Coquitlam, being one of them, comes to mind. They said that before the application is considered for redevelopment, they must put a transition plan together and look at the demographics of the people involved and, also, how to deal with the homes that cannot be moved.

My suggestion to the minister is that that is the difficulty. And being that I think the minister has said in the past that this is part of the affordable home strategy for the province, isn’t it time now that we look at a provincewide plan to put together dealing with park homes that are being redeveloped for other uses and then what to do with the homeowners in a situation like that — what kind of protection, what kind of compensation they get, and how we relocate them?

Hon. R. Coleman: This is an ongoing challenge, as the member knows. First of all, the tenancy act deals with the relationship between the landlord and the tenant with regards to their pad rent and what have you. Because they’re renting land, it has always become a concern.

You’re right about Coquitlam. There were some provisions done on a couple of projects out in Abbotsford at one time as well. When municipalities come to see me at UBCM, there are usually five or six or seven that bring up this issue. The zoning power sits with the municipality on the land below the units — to change the zoning to allow for different densities or uses. Coquitlam stepped up and decided that was going to be the case. They put some rules in place for developers if they wanted to do that. I know they have shared that with other communities that have similar issues.

At the same time some communities have taken my advice — not many, but some — that perhaps what they should look at is maybe forgiving development cost charges for a mobile home park that wishes to do a bare land strata, which would allow the owner of the park to actually sell the lots to the tenants, which changes the entire financial picture with regards to whatever age the home is.

First of all, if the home is old and it can’t be moved, if you owned the land underneath it, you’d be able to go mortgage it like any other mortgage and be able to buy the lot and put a new unit on there. That has taken place in some places, more outside the Lower Mainland than in the Lower Mainland.

There’s also an opportunity, when you do that, to look at the size of the lot to see if you can add more units. That density would be of benefit to the person who owns the land to try and make the decision that they’re prepared to make that long-term-use decision by basically selling the units to their tenants.

[1355]

We think there’s a place for us on innovation programs. We’ve looked at it a couple of times, as well as how we could help finance some of those things. Nobody has brought us a project yet that we would look at as far as: would we help with the financing of the purchase of the lots for some people, or whatever the case may be?

The pad rental they’re paying today in some of these parks with today’s interest rates is substantial enough that they could afford to buy the lot if the lot was put to them at a reasonable price. That’s one of the solutions.

The challenge with it is that each local government has the opinion that the zoning of the land is their responsibility. So they take that responsibility. We have looked at a number of ways to do this, but to overarch take away the zoning powers from a municipality wouldn’t be one of them that we could do, simply because of the relationship between their laws and our laws.

The other challenge is, of course…. You actually mentioned the second challenge. That is, even though there are some really, really nice parks — some of them with bare land strata lots in my community, for instance…. Very nice parks for seniors in my community where they do own a long-term lease or the strata lot.

I don’t understand the resistance from municipalities to allow more of them if they’re actually designed. They could put the same development permit criteria — form, design, the look of the units in a new park — in place and actually get some affordability in housing that way in their communities.

H. Bains: Just quickly, because the time is very limited…. We just passed legislation standardizing building codes in the province. Wouldn’t it be something that
[ Page 8576 ]
the minister would look at? I’m not talking about the development and the zoning. I’m talking about the protection as some of that protection is provided under the tenancy act — if they are to move into redeveloping that land for some other use, that some protection is built in, in the landlord tenancy act. They must provide certain protection to these manufactured home owners if they decide to develop that land for some other use.

Hon. R. Coleman: First of all, the Building Act has nothing to do with it other than the construction of buildings. These are actually constructed in factories, but they fall in the building code in the factory to build them. That doesn’t have anything to do with land use. It’s not our jurisdiction. The municipalities are on the land use piece.

The only place the Residential Tenancy Act…. It does outline notice and support, if they’re going to close down a park.

What has happened in a number of the projects that I have seen is that the developer and the municipality, particularly, have…. The municipality has pushed the developer to offer more than is included in the act for people if they have to move.

Then the last challenge is: the very municipality that would be complaining about the fact that these guys want to develop and they want more money from the developer — to give them some money to move their unit — is the same municipality that won’t zone land to build a new park. It’s the land use bumping up at the wrong way at both ends of the equation.

K. Corrigan: One of the things that I’ve been hearing about quite a bit over the past several months or year is problems with on-campus student housing. There was, for example, a closure of a residence at Simon Fraser University, Louis Riel House, because it was not maintained.

I’m not blaming the institutions involved, but they’re not receiving funding for building student housing. They’re also generally under real pressure in terms of funding. One of the things they’re doing is increasing rent substantially, which is making housing more expensive and less affordable for students.

[1400]

There are numerous issues with student housing. At the moment student housing at universities and colleges is not covered by the Residential Tenancy Act. I have two questions. The first one is: why it is that student housing is not covered by the Residential Tenancy Act? Related to that, I guess, is: has the minister considered whether at least some of the protections under the Residential Tenancy Act would be appropriate for students in campus housing?

Hon. R. Coleman: Student housing hasn’t been covered under the rental side of the Residential Tenancy Act for over 30 years. The reason for that is multifold. Some of them are residence-type units where there’s a shared kitchen. There are ones where there would be six people living in one place with one shared kitchen. Difficult to manage those under the Residential Tenancy Act.

In addition, some of the housing, or a lot of the housing, has other conditions in and around it that we wouldn’t find in a normal landlord-tenant relationship, like how many courses you’ve got to be taking and those sorts of things in order to be in student housing.

As far as the actual work with B.C. Housing, obviously, student housing is not part of the mandate. But they have tried to work with a couple, unsuccessfully so far, to deal with universities and see if there’s a way we could work with them to find some solutions to some of their housing. They haven’t been able to, for lack of a better description, get their act together with regards to how they would do that.

K. Corrigan: I think the suggestion is that perhaps…. The minister has rightly pointed out that there are some unique conditions in much of the housing, particularly the multi-resident units — five or six people to a unit. Perhaps protections of the Residential Tenancy Act holus-bolus wouldn’t be the right thing. Perhaps a different piece of legislation that would come under this ministry…. I just wanted to get it on the record that there are some real problems at campuses around the province.

Another part of the problem…. I recognize from the top this is not within this ministry, but it’s something I think the minister could be involved with in talking to his colleagues. It has to do with housing, and I know the minister is very interested in housing.

One of the problems is we have decaying buildings, rents going up, unaffordable rents, no protections for the students. Again, I’m not blaming the institutions, because they’re under a lot of pressure. But there are no protections, no increased caps and so on.

But the other end of the problem is that institutions are not able to borrow money. The institutions don’t get separate funding for student housing. They’re not able to borrow the money. Under the present rules they are not allowed to borrow money in order to build housing.

So perhaps more of an ask — that the minister work with the appropriate other ministries in order to ensure that student housing can be built.

Hon. R. Coleman: My guys here don’t have any expertise on whether they can or can’t borrow money on it, because it’s over in Advanced Education. But we’ll look into it. My recollection is there is the odd entity, foundation, whatever, on university lands — I think there’s one out at UBC — with regards to development. They use that entity to make money for the university on their lands. They wouldn’t touch us except for on the issue of…. Actually, they couldn’t touch us hardly at all except the building code.

[1405]

The other side of it is…. I’ll just have to look into that a bit deeper. It really hasn’t come up as a question — other than the fact that it’s not in the Residential Tenancy Act — in the number of years I’ve had this particular role.

The financing side — I mean, they should be in a position, if they can come up with a business plan, that would actually cash-flow out. It definitely would make some sense. We do that on other projects, but we just don’t do it on campus housing.

J. Kwan: I have, I think, about 13 constituency cases that I’d like to ask the minister about. Then I will pass the information over to the minister and, hopefully, he and his staff could assist me.

The first case is for a constituent — her name is Cynthia — who has lost her home because her illness flared up, leaving her unable to work. She is a PWD recipient who’d been paying almost her entire shelter and allowance portion both toward her rent.

She’s been surviving on a very little bit of earnings. Once she wasn’t able to earn the income and, as a result, wasn’t able to pay her rent, that resulted in her being evicted. She’s now homeless and couch-surfing. She’s had a couple of very temporary accommodations, none of which is long term.

The Ministry of Social Development would not fill out an intent-to-rent for her. In any event, she is out of support money. She is homeless, in desperate need. I am asking if the minster could assist Cynthia in securing housing of some form where she could stabilize her living environment and, hopefully, gain her health and get back into the work environment — for which I have the consent that I can pass on to the minister, along with the detailed information on her case.

I have another case with another constituent, Ms. Blair. She’s a senior citizen currently residing on East 3rd Avenue. She has requested a transfer from her unit because the current unit that she’s living in is causing some medical challenges for her, which is exacerbating her health conditions. Her doctor has suggested that she also remove herself from that living environment.

This request has been put to the minister, I think, since 2014, and to this day we are still struggling with trying to find appropriate housing so that she could get on to restoring her health. Because she’s a senior, I think there is an opportunity. If no immediate housing is available, perhaps a portable rent supplement could be made available to her. I ask the minister to please review this case for Ms. Blair.

I have another case for the minister. In a way, this is kind of a good-news, bad-news case. This is an individual — Cameron Graves — who has been in need of safe, secure, affordable housing outside of the Downtown Eastside for some time. Recently he actually got the good news from the city that the Quality Inn at 1335 Howe Street is available for him but only for 18 months. It is, therefore, a temporary situation.

He’s not immediately homeless at the moment. He is at a place. But of course, after the 18 months, he will sort of be at square one. The request here is for B.C. Housing not to close his file. He’s actually still actively in need of affordable housing after this temporary situation comes to an end.

Another case that I have. With this one, the application has been made to B.C. Housing since 2007. At my office, I have written numerous letters to the minister over the years. His current accommodations were too costly for him after he had a stroke and was unable to work.

Then he got on to PWD and was paying much more for the shelter than his allowance provides for, for the unit. He was scraping by for some time, and then he was renovicted from that unit, even though he was managing to scrape by in some way.

[1410]

We helped the individual to connect with the B.C. Housing homeless outreach worker, who relocated him into a unit that was trying to illegally charge him for cooking amenities — for the fridge and for the hot plate. As a result of that situation, he left the place. He has been homeless ever since.

Then, in following up with the ministry, he did get a call to go look at a unit out in Surrey, and he said he would take it. He’s happy to look at it. He will do whatever in order to get out of the precarious situation that he was in. He heard nothing more after that. He actually did not go see the unit at all, and then there was just no response after that. We don’t know what happened there with respect to this offer of housing. It just kind of ended nowhere. I wonder if the minister can look into that. Hopefully, that Surrey unit is available somewhere or, if not, an alternate unit is available for him.

Ms. Edward is another individual who, nearly a year ago to this day, had applied for housing. She is also another individual who is in desperate need, and Ms. Edward has not heard from the ministry. She currently resides over at Rainier. This may also be relevant to the Minister of Health because Rainier provides for detox services as well. I wonder if the two ministers can work together to coordinate the efforts so that Ms. Edward can get into appropriate housing for the long term.

The significant factor here is this. She’s a single mother, and she has two children, aged 15 and 12. They’re currently not living with her at the moment, although she would like to reconnect with her children, but she’s not able to do that until she’s able to find stable housing. That’s a condition that is required for her to reunite with her family. So it is of some urgency, in that sense, for the family to be reunited in that regard.

Another case that I have is with Mr. G in my constituency here. He’s not staying at a shelter. At the moment he’s homeless, and he cannot stay at a shelter due to previous experiences at a shelter that caused challenges for
[ Page 8578 ]
him, which is a triggering factor for him. He finds that he cannot actually be in a shelter.

He did get a call from B.C. Housing asking that he submit another supplemental application. He has already done so and has submitted one and then resubmitted another one. He’s desperately, again, working to try and find housing. I am really hoping that the minister can look into this and assist as well.

Our office recently got a call from his sister from Toronto, who is greatly worried about her brother’s situation because of his health and mental health challenges that he faces. There is some urgency, particularly from a health perspective, related to this individual who is homeless at the moment.

Another constituent of mine, Marie Smallboy, is, as well, in desperate need of housing. She had phoned the B.C. Housing register. She had to leave British Columbia to travel to another province due to some family issues related to her grandchildren. Those issues have been resolved, and she actually has custody of her grandchildren now. They are now actually back in British Columbia. She did get a call from B.C. Housing asking her if she would accept a three bedroom unit. She immediately said yes.

Again, unfortunately though, after that call was made, we don’t know what happened. Nothing else happened. Nothing else was followed up with, and as a result, she is still sort of sitting there in limbo wondering what’s happening. She is now the legal guardian of four of her grandchildren and currently still homeless.

Another case is in the instance of Mr. Russell. He has requested assistance, again, through a lengthy period of hardship where he was without a stable home for many, many years. Mr. Russell applied for B.C. Housing more than ten years ago, and he said he waited for many years to receive a unit with no result.

[1415]

He has kept his information as current as possible over the years, but while following up with B.C. Housing about possible available units, he had heard a reply from B.C. Housing that the buildings were full or that they did not consider him a suitable tenant. This is going on and on and on.

Mr. Russell is in need of housing. He recently went to an addiction treatment service and has successfully completed the program. But, again, even upon completion of that program, he has no proper housing to go to and is still homeless. He’s really hoping that with the successful completion of his treatment program, he can get an offer of some stable housing somewhere so that he can, hopefully, stabilize his life and move on to, perhaps, the next journey and the next phase.

Then another case I have is Mr. Tran, who is a PWD recipient. His doctor also advises that he should not be living in the current location that he’s at — he lives in a market housing unit, by the way — because the building that he lives at has stairwells which he can’t negotiate because of his poor health condition. As well, his rent is $700 a month and pretty well takes up most of his income, as someone who’s on PWD. I wonder if the minister could assist, or have his staff assist, in this instance so that the individual can find alternate housing. He is going to be evicted any moment now because he can’t make his rent. Effectively, he is actually homeless in that sense.

I have three more cases that I just passed on to the minister’s staff as well.

This is a constituent who has been requesting a request for transfer with B.C. Housing. Again, the current location that she’s at is not appropriate for her due to health and medical reasons. Her doctor has provided supporting information for that. I know that that information was received by the minister’s office or B.C. Housing. I wonder whether or not, if a transfer unit is not available, if an offer of portable rent supplement could be made available to this constituent. Again, I’ll pass the information to the minister when I’m done here.

Another constituent of mine — also another request for a transfer of unit and, again, another person with medical issues with the current location that she’s at and that her doctors recommended she also not stay at. Again, if a transfer of unit is not available, I wonder whether or not there is an opportunity for a rent supplement for this individual, who is really hoping to move to a different location so that she can improve her health and have those issues addressed.

Then the last case I have here. Two more just arrived. I have another case here for another individual who is also homeless and looking for stability, for housing. This is also another case where the individual is trying to reunify with her family. They’ve gone through quite a lot. The Ministry of Family Development actually supports her effort in reuniting with the family. Again, though, that can only happen if she has appropriate housing. She will not be able to reunite with her family unless she’s able to show the ministry that she has appropriate housing.

I know that the minister will appreciate with all of these cases what I’m talking about, in his capacity of trying to address these issues. All of these cases have been ongoing for some time in my office. We’ve been working with the constituents, trying to get these cases addressed. I wonder if I could at this time pass these cases on to the minister so that we could get some assistance to get the folks who are homeless off the streets, the people who need a transfer into a place where they could ensure that their health stabilizes and the single parents who are trying to reunite with their families — that they actually have housing so that they could be with their children.

With that, I have two other quick sets of questions on two other topics. But I’m just going to give a moment for the minister to respond to this.

Hon. R. Coleman: Not much response to the member opposite. A little more letters than in previous years.
[ Page 8579 ]
I assume that’s because she’s moving on to other places. Normally she would have passed a number of these on to me in the hallway in the last four months that we’ve been sitting in Victoria. We will take the files and have a look at them for the member.

[1420]

J. Kwan: Actually, per every estimates debates, I pretty well come up routinely with my stack of files that I want to bring to the minister’s attention. Some of these cases are recent cases that just came forward in the last couple of months; others have been lingering for quite some time. Yes, no matter what, we do want to move forward with these cases, and I would love for the minister to find some way to resolve them for the constituents — not so much for my sake — who are in desperate need.

I have two other cases. I won’t belabour these cases, but rather just to let the minister know that these two cases actually arrived on my desk just this week. We have written up the files for the minister along with the letters.

Two other issues that I know I must get on to because other people have other questions. With respect to Stamps Place, I have four questions.

I wonder if the minister can tell me if there’s been a housing provider selected for Stamps Place, and I wonder whether or not the minister can tell me: what is the deferred maintenance for Stamps Place? Also, can he confirm for me that for the deferred maintenance for Stamps Place, the new housing provided by the non-profit would not be responsible for that? In other words, that deferred maintenance cost would be supported by government, in some fashion, so that the maintenance work could be done.

Lastly, if the minister can confirm for me that the subsidies for Stamps Place, after the project has been transferred over to the non-profit provider — that future tenants who move into Stamps Place would also be given the subsidies? In other words, the site itself would be maintained as an affordable housing site. Therefore, the affordability of the units there would not be lost over time.

That’s for Stamps Place. I’m also obliged to ask a question on behalf of my colleague the member from West End with respect to Nicholson Tower. He is interested in knowing: who is the housing provider, if the decision has been made, for Nicholson Tower?

Hon. R. Coleman: We have four proposals on each of the properties that the member has described. With regards to both of them, there would be a 35-year operating agreement that would continue with full subsidy to the tenants.

In addition to that, when the member talks about deferred maintenance on Stamps, it’s a bit…. Obviously, we would negotiate this in the agreement — we work with every non-profit — but I can tell the member the building underwent a major retrofit in 2012.

The scope of the work included elevators and controls replaced, lighting upgrades in the interior and exterior, new condensing boiler plant with DDC controls, new elevator controls, 12-amp main, 60-amp house feeder, in-suite breaker panels, 26-camera security system, low-fuel water fixtures and an asphalt roadway in front of the building repaved.

J. Kwan: Just to clarify. Is the minister saying, then, there’s no deferred maintenance for Stamps?

Hon. R. Coleman: I just told the member we retrofitted the building in 2012. So I don’t know. It is over 35 years old, so there will be ongoing maintenance, which will be part of the negotiated deal with B.C. Housing for the non-profit to be able to maintain it.

J. Kwan: Well, I’ll be very quick with this. My understanding from the information that’s been provided to me is that there’s something to the tune of some $50 million in terms of deferred maintenance for Stamps. Maybe I’m incorrect in that, and maybe that’s all been dealt with, but it is an important point.

[1425]

My concern about this is that for the non-profit to take over the operation, it means that they would actually be responsible for it. Of course, as we know, non-profits are stretched, usually, often to the limit. Without ongoing government support or commitment for support to address the maintenance issues, then there are going to be some real problems down the road.

I know that there have been some renovations done. I know the building well, actually, having represented the area for 19 years. I do know it well. That said, it is still a concern, and I do want to flag that for the minister.

Just a final question for the minister, then. In terms of the decision on the housing provider for both of these projects, when does the minister expect that the decision will be made?

Hon. R. Coleman: First of all, I’m going to tell the member straight up: the assertion you made a minute ago is absolutely not true. It’s absurd. It’s not true.

If the member would pay attention to how full subsidies work, actually, in housing, they include the subsidy for the tenant and the subsidy for ongoing maintenance of the buildings. But there is no $15 million outstanding deferred maintenance bill at this particular project. The full subsidy covers the operation. I recognize that it’s just out there as a story, but the member should know that it’s not true.

The second part of the question was the timing for the decision. It’s in the hands of the board of directors of B.C. Housing. They haven’t given me a time for the decision, because it’s their decision to make and not mine.
[ Page 8580 ]

J. Kwan: Then just one response. The minister is saying that there is no deferred maintenance for Stamps, that all of that work has been done, that the list that he put on the record means that there’s zero outstanding work that needs to be done. It is an old building. He acknowledged that — and I acknowledge that as well — and that there are ongoing negotiations. Maybe the minister doesn’t like this, but this actually came from people in the community who are in the know around that.

I would find it incredulous, really, for the minister to simply suggest that there’s no deferred maintenance. I would find that really surprising.

Hon. R. Coleman: I’ll say again to the member that they’re built into the subsidy to the project — any maintenance that’s needed for the building. Every building has maintenance that goes in different cycles.

When you build your capital reserve with the full subsidy on a project, you put away a cap reserve for things like if you’re going to replace the roof in ten years. Or if you’re going to do doors or windows, you actually build a capital reserve into your budget. In the full-subsidy world, we help fund that. That’s how it works.

I know there are some rumours out there in the community. They’re just not true, and I’ll reiterate that to the member.

D. Eby: On the sales of B.C. Housing property to non-profits, a number of these are subject to mortgages. Can the minister advise the interest rates on the mortgages, the terms on these mortgages that are being issued to the non-profits?

Hon. R. Coleman: The lease properties have mortgages over 25 years. The direct-owned properties would have mortgages of 35 years. That is negotiable with the non-profit. B.C. Housing is a National Housing Act insured lender. Their interest rates would be basically the best around — typically 80 to 100 basis points above the same term Canada bought.

[J. Martin in the chair.]

D. Eby: I’m just going to ask the minister to clarify that last part. Basically the same rate Canada-wide? These rates are set somewhere else, and they’re a national rate somehow?

[1430]

Hon. R. Coleman: B.C. Housing monthly tenders mortgages for lenders to come in and do business with us. We are typically way low. I’ll give one example because it’s easier to give an example. We just placed a mortgage the other day for a ten-year term, 35-year amortization, at 2.76 percent. What we do, because we have the National Housing Act insurance, is we have the rating of this particular organization, and we’re able to go into the market and basically borrow money lower than anybody else.

D. Eby: If I understand that, then, mortgages are actually being provided by outside firms rather than the government. And there are two pieces to the mortgage rate. There is 0.81 percent insurance, and then there’s the actual interest rate.

Hon. R. Coleman: Hon. Chair, just to sort of explain it together in one package would maybe be best for the member. There is no mortgage insurance on mortgages that we do, so there is no CMHC fee or any other fees attached to the mortgages for the non-profits when they borrow, because the mortgages are backed up by us.

We were talking about the basis points. Let’s say that tomorrow there was a ten-year Canada bond issued at 2 percent. We would be, typically, 0.8 to 1.0 above that on the borrowing. So the rate we have on the ten-year term I just mentioned to you a second ago — that’s reflected. That’s why we can get 2.76 percent money for ten years.

D. Eby: I thank the minister for that clarification.

There are two B.C. Housing properties that are currently in the tendering process for sale, Stamps and Nicholson, which were canvassed by my colleague the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant. Can the minister advise which properties are next on the list for sale?

Hon. R. Coleman: That’s still going through the process at B.C. Housing. We haven’t determined which ones are next.

D. Eby: Can the minister advise, with respect to these sales, the difference between…? There’s a net book value for these properties, and then there’s the actual transfer price. What is the impact on the budget of that gap between the book value of these properties and the actual transfer price? How does that affect the housing budget generally? I’m trying to understand the accounting implications of something that’s booked at $2 million but sold for $40 million.

[1435]

Hon. R. Coleman: That’s reflected as a gain on sales. So you have a book value. You have a sale. The sale price, the gain on sale, is reflected in the balance sheet of the Provincial Rental Housing Corporation.

D. Eby: In my research, I came across the term “forecasted cash inflows from mortgage takeouts.” Is B.C. Housing projecting such cash inflows, and if so, where do they come from? What is a forecasted cash inflow from mortgage takeouts?
[ Page 8581 ]

Hon. R. Coleman: I don’t know where you got that term from, so that was a bit of confusion. I don’t think we have it yet. If the member is able to, in a second, just tell me where that is.

Page 15, as we talked earlier, is where the reflection is over the term “financial summary outlook” with regards to these. I think what the member is asking is: when you do the gain on a sale — somebody buys it from you; a mortgage is put in place — that reflects back into two places. The mortgages that are put in place pay for the gain on sale, or some of the gain on sale, which is reflected in PRHC’s balance sheet.

B.C. Housing continues in the relationship it has with the non-profit. In some cases, it’s a remortgaging of a property or whatever the case, because they’re buying the entire property, but continues with the principal and interest subsidy over the life of the relationship. So that subsidy, which would normally have been there under, let’s say, a 35-year lease, is now in place with regards to the ownership of the property.

D. Eby: I can tell the minister that that comes from a B.C. Housing document — I’m afraid it’s untitled — that has a list of properties on it. Phased transfers, community transfer price, net book value, property transfer tax, potential gain on sales and forecasted cash inflows from mortgage takeouts — I’m afraid that’s all I can advise.

Interjection.

D. Eby: The minister advises that that’s consistent with the explanation that he just provided. What happens if a non-profit defaults on the mortgage to this third-party lender and the lender comes collecting for the mortgage value?

[1440]

Hon. R. Coleman: So, what we would do — the group would come to us if they’re in trouble. We would work on finding a new provider and dealing with that particular issue. The member should know that, in the history of our relationship with non-profits in British Columbia, not one mortgage has been defaulted on.

D. Eby: In the service plan — and the minister drew my attention to it earlier — there’s a list of new non-market housing units that will be brought on, paid for in part by the sales proceeds. Can the minister advise how many of these units are actually brand-new, bricks-and-mortar social housing units versus, for example, the SROs, which would have been, admittedly, low-standard, low-income housing before and were renovated and reopened?

I’m interested in brand-new units that would be brought on, as opposed to renovated and reopened units.

Hon. R. Coleman: We’ll just go back to “Objective: increase housing options,” back on page nine of the service plan. Basically, what it says is: “Number of new units/beds created by priority groups.” It’s 1,557 in ’13-14, 1,218 in ’14-15, 1,113 in ’15-16, and so on.

Mind you, most of those would be new units — like brand-new units. In some cases where we’re in a market, we will find that we’ll be looking at doing something new to our portfolio — maybe a property that can be brought in, renovated and put in our portfolio as additional units. There could be a couple of those in those numbers.

D. Eby: What concerns people when they look at the numbers, and certainly myself included, is that beds like shelter beds are often included in these numbers, and people don’t consider that social housing — or temporary motel rooms or these kinds of things.

I’m wondering if the minister has solid numbers on, for example, breaking out the shelter beds versus the social housing, and so on.

[1445]

Hon. R. Coleman: These are units. There are mixed projects where you’ll have…. For instance, at the Gateway of Hope in Langley there is actually a shelter piece, a meal piece and then there are units. The units are supportive housing, but then there’s also shelter beds that are mixed into that project. But the units are the count I’m talking about.

I just wanted to give the member an example as to why sometimes we buy something rather than build it. We recently concluded a sales agreement. I can’t disclose the agreement until we actually hit our closing date, but we’ve removed subjects on some things.

We went into a community that had an issue with some housing. We thought maybe 60 units would help it, if we could find a place to build and subsidize. The cost of those would be somewhere around 100-some-odd-thousand dollars per unit, because it was new build, it’s development costs, it’s all the new construction.

We managed to pick up a building that doesn’t need a lot of work for 120 units and for $60,000 a unit. Obviously, it’s a better deal for us to go in and now renovate that product, which wasn’t going to be available in the marketplace unless we did it, and get an extra 60 units for half the price.

D. Eby: I wonder if the minister has the list of projects that make up those numbers and whether he’d be willing to provide that. I’ll just leave that with him to think about while I ask the next question.

One of the concerns that’s been raised to me from residents at Steeves Manor is their impression that the nature of the people who are housed in the community there has shifted from seniors and people with profound disabilities to people with active addictions and active mental health issues. This is something I’ve heard from other communities as well.
[ Page 8582 ]

In particular, they were concerned about assaults. Does the minister have data on assaults at B.C. Housing projects? Have there been increases, decreases and so on, given this shift in policy of housing people with active mental health issues and addictions with seniors?

Hon. R. Coleman: The member just described one of our challenges, on two fronts actually. We have some senior housing where people don’t want the studio suites anymore. They are vacant, so we try and adapt them to new clientele.

We have an aging population in some of our buildings that are also finding themselves with some other medical and mental health issues that can affect the mix. We have folks that are coming into housing, in some cases, because mental health has definitely become a higher and higher visible issue, I guess you could say. I don’t know if that’s because we as a society have started to pay attention to it and are trying to understand it more.

What we do is we work with our providers, and if there’s an issue around a particular tenant that isn’t fitting in or whatever, we will work to move them into another building where they can fit in with the mix.

D. Eby: I’ll just return to the earlier question about whether the minister would consider releasing a list of projects that make up these numbers of new units…

Interjection.

D. Eby: No problem. I piled the two together there.

…and also whether the minister would release any data B.C. Housing has on assaults — whether it’s staff or tenants — in B.C. Housing projects.

[1450]

Hon. R. Coleman: I should’ve said at the beginning that what numbers make up those numbers we’ll provide the member. Obviously, some of them are projected numbers because you haven’t built the 2016-2017 units yet, and those projects come through. But we can give a sense of what’s in the forecast in 2014-15 to be built or completed or started and the same thing for the previous year. We’ll work on that.

We get serious incident reports from projects that we have. They’re sent in. Non-profits will advise us sometimes, but they actually keep their own information. We don’t issue any information with regards to the parties involved in an incident, obviously for privacy issues for the both sides. We could probably add up those numbers on the incident reports and provide them to the member.

D. Eby: I thank the minister for that commitment. My next set of questions relates to the SRO renovations being done with HHI under the P3 agreement. Construction is, or was, anticipated to be complete in spring 2016. Is that project still on schedule?

Hon. R. Coleman: It’s on budget. It was originally scheduled to have all 900 units completely renovated and open by January 2016. They will be completely renovated and open by February 2016.

This has been a remarkable project. We have 900 units in 13 hundred-year-old buildings. The engineering and the technical side to actually give these buildings another 50-plus years of life — it has been a remarkable project. The work that has been done on these has been incredible. People are starting to come and look at it because it is really a very good example of how you can take stock if you put the right deal together to renovate something and continue its best life.

Having seen the work that had to be done in some of these buildings as we came through it, it’s likely that none of them would’ve been here ten years later if we hadn’t done something about this particular group of stock. It has actually received an award for the best P3 social infrastructure project in the Americas.

D. Eby: I certainly agree with the minister that much of that stock was headed for vacancy and was in really serious trouble. I remember the Backpackers, as well, as being a very dangerous and awful place.

There were a number of performance standards that HHI was required to meet, and if they didn’t, there was an impact on building payments. Have they met all the performance standards?

[1455]

Hon. R. Coleman: Yes, they’ve met them all.

D. Eby: The contract permits adjustments to the annual service payment of what was estimated at $134 million at present cost at the time of the signing of the contract. That could be adjusted for a change in law, a compensation event or a B.C. Housing variation. Has there been an adjustment to the ASP? If so, by how much?

Hon. R. Coleman: There has been no adjustment to the ASP.

D. Eby: There is an option for B.C. Housing to audit HHI’s monthly monitoring reports. Has B.C. Housing done so? If so, what were the findings?

Hon. R. Coleman: Our staff monitor the projects, for lack of a better description, and audit the…. We’ve had no reason to bring in a third-party auditor on any of the projects. We review and inspect the buildings. The contractor isn’t paid for the work until the building is complete to our satisfaction.

D. Eby: Has the project agreement been amended since it was originally signed with HHI? If so, why was it amended?
[ Page 8583 ]

Hon. R. Coleman: There have been no material changes to the agreements.

D. Eby: My final question. The province and the feds issued a press release on March 4, 2014, in relation to a shared investment of $300 million over five years. Can the minister advise, with respect to the last fiscal and the current fiscal, where the $60 million for each of those years has gone or where that money is intended to be spent? And I’d be glad to receive a list from the minister of the projects and the allocations of this funding.

Hon. R. Coleman: So it’s $30 million from the federal government and $30 million from us. This is how it is broken out: $12.5 million has gone to the homelessness prevention program, which is a subsidy for people who are at risk of homelessness or who are homeless or in shelters; and $12.5 million will go to RAP, the rental assistance program, and the expansion of the seniors’ SAFER program, Shelter Aid For Elderly Renters. Imagine — I couldn’t even remember my own acronym there for a second.

[1500]

Also, $5 million will go to HAFI, which is homeowner adaptations and things for people that put disability changes into their homes. And the other $30 million goes into capital for new builds.

D. Eby: Those are all my questions. Thank you to the minister and staff for their assistance.

Hon. R. Coleman: Thank you very much for your interjections, Member. It’s been good, and I appreciate your research in coming into here. I think it makes it very worthwhile. We always learn something when we do these kinds of debates, even when you think you’ve had a file for a long time.

On that matter, I think there are two other votes we have to move, but we’ll move this vote first.

Vote 38: ministry operations, $23,872,000 — approved.

Vote 39: housing, $408,393,000 — approved.

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

The committee recessed from 3:01 p.m. to 3:10 p.m.

[J. Martin in the chair.]

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FINANCE

On Vote 23: ministry operations, $144,862,000.

Hon. M. de Jong: I will simply alert the committee to the presence of Tara Richards, Cheryl Wenezenki-Yolland, George Farkas, Dave Riley, and Steve Klak. Of course, the deputy, Peter Milburn, is beside me. I look forward to the discussion that will unfold.

C. James: Thanks to the minister. I look forward to our conversation as well. I expect that we’ll have a chance to get into a few items today and a little bit more, perhaps, on the Monday that we come back.

I look forward, as I’ve talked about the subject areas and the things that we’ll touch on — a little bit around the assumptions that the minister uses around setting budgets, a number of the areas of responsibility, a little bit about other revenue that comes to British Columbia and federal government issues as well.

Perhaps I’ll start off with just some basic questions for the minister around the budget. It appears that the minister’s budget has increased basically in the revenue division from $151 million to $169 million for this year. I wonder if the minister could tell us where that increase comes from. And is it specific to the revenue services area?

Hon. M. de Jong: The general but, I think, relatively specific answer is that the bulk, if not all, of the increase relates to the PST division — the processing of PST and additional personnel and resources to fulfil that now renewed obligation.

C. James: I wonder if the minister could tell us what staff changes there were. It appears it’s in the staff salary division to do with the revenue, as the minister says, to do with the PST change. I wonder if he could tell us how many FTEs were added in that budget.

Hon. M. de Jong: The establishment now is 284 individuals. It’s possible that I can’t, at the moment, compare that for the member to what might have existed in 2010 prior to the shift to the HST. But today it is 284.

C. James: I wonder if the minister could identify how much money is spent in the Ministry of Finance on outside contracts, not internal staff, throughout the ministry.

Hon. M. de Jong: The information I’m providing to the member and the committee derives from STOB 60, 61 and 63 for fiscal year ’14-15 — total, $112,422,726.

[1515]

C. James: I wonder if the minister could talk a little bit about what areas are contracted out in the ministry. Perhaps, at the same time — I’ll just add a couple of questions — if the minister could just say if that’s an increase over last year, and what’s the expectation for next year around the contract budget?

Hon. M. de Jong: I’ll give general areas. The specifics are contained in the public accounts, and I can provide
[ Page 8584 ]
the member with aggregate information as well.

On the professional services side of the amount I gave, that accounts for about $91 million. To be clear, the bulk of that, $87 million, relates to HP Advanced Solutions. We talked about, in previous discussions this session with respect to legislation, some of the work they do on the revenue services side.

Advisory professional services. For agencies like Deloitte, Ernst and Young, KPMG and others that totals just over $1 million.

Then information systems accounts for the balance, at just over $20 million, and there are a variety of vendors. Looks like the largest there would be Fast Canadian Enterprises and Fujitsu Consulting, both with contracts of just in excess of $5½ million each.

C. James: I’ll ask a specific question around the information services, just because we’ve had some questions in other ministries and other areas on information services — whether the Ministry of Finance is looking at all at any kind of major upgrade or major project around information services over this next year.

[1520]

Hon. M. de Jong: I wanted to make sure I could provide, obviously, accurate and exhaustive information. I would say that whilst there is nothing, perhaps, on the scale or that would fit into the broad category of IT projects of the sort that the member and her colleagues have discussed with other ministries, it is certainly the case that with respect to the reintroduction of the PST, there has been a concerted attempt to upgrade the abilities and the use of technology for interaction with the consumer and with the taxpaying public.

On-line payment with respect to PST is a good example of that. I’ve been reminded that building upon that new platform — now I’m using terminology that frightens me — there will be, in the future, an interest and desire to expand a similar approach to some of the other revenue streams — taxes, mineral, logging, some of the other revenue instruments — that link the state with the taxpaying public. That’s probably the single most significant…. I’m not even sure, again, that it qualifies as IT as much as it does…. Well, I guess IT is information technology.

I hope I’m being a bit helpful in differentiating between some of the grand system replacements versus what we’re trying to do in terms of building on the new PST systems that are in place now.

C. James: I didn’t want to set the minister off, starting about technology right at the start. My apologies, but that’s helpful. Thank you.

Just so I’m clear. It’s really a focus, as the minister is talking about, on business and consumer strength and ability to be able to interact with systems and ability to be able to easier file and gather information they need, etc., as part of that.

I just wondered: if they’ve gotten further along enough, are they looking at direct awards around that technology work? Are they looking at RFPs? Has there been a process at all? Is the ministry that far along in any kinds of changes that are occurring?

Hon. M. de Jong: I can advise the member and the committee that the ministry issued an RFQ for the work that we’ve been referring to back in July 2013. That resulted in one of the companies that I alluded to in the earlier question — Fast Canadian Enterprises — as being qualified as the supplier and performing that work.

I can also advise the member that the RFQ provided that there could be additional phases — which is what we were just talking about, in the moment — and, drawing from the RFQ itself, may include other programs — such as real property tax and oil and gas royalties, as two specific examples of where that work could expand into.

C. James: Thanks to the minister. That’s helpful.

Just one other area that I noticed in the budget was the issue of internal recoveries from the comptroller general. They seem to have shifted in this year’s budget. I wonder if the minister could just explain a little bit of why that happened.

[1525]

Hon. M. de Jong: We’re just, obviously, getting some information. May I ask the hon. member, internal recoveries generally, or was there a particular part of the budget that captured her attention that she’d like to us focus on?

C. James: It was the gross number. It talked about $3 million as internal recoveries and that it dropped to only $0.9 million this year. I just wondered what the difference was.

Hon. M. de Jong: What the member astutely observed was the difference following the recovery in ’14-15 of just over $2 million for upgrades to the corporate accounting services. That took place in ’14-15. It was a chargeback for that work, and that therefore doesn’t appear in the budget going forward in ’15-16.

C. James: Thanks to the minister.

Now I want to talk a little bit about some of the areas that were changed in this year’s budget, some of the changes that have been made, and do that based on the minister’s service plan.

Taking a look at the service plan, in goal 2, there’s an objective 2.1 that talks about a fair and competitive tax and regulatory environment as an objective. The first sentence underneath that says: “A tax system that is per-
[ Page 8585 ]
ceived by British Columbians to be fair increases their confidence in government.”

I want to begin by talking a little bit about the 2 percent tax break to the top 2 percent income earners in British Columbia and ask the minister how he believes that tax break, or that tax relief to the top 2 percent, helps support this goal and this objective in the minister’s workplan — to have a tax system that is perceived by British Columbians to be fair to increase their confidence.

Hon. M. de Jong: It’s an appropriate topic, in my view, for discussion here.

I suppose I would begin by, in the most civil way possible, quarrelling with the hon. member’s choice of terminology, because of course, what is taking place is in accordance with legislation that was passed two years ago, the elimination of what was, in effect, a surtax.

There was a tax system in place in British Columbia that set certain rates. In 2013 the government very purposely — and, I might add, uncharacteristically — said to a group of taxpayers, albeit a group that occupied a higher rung on the income ladder…. Instead of continuing to pay taxes at the rate that had been set and that we as a government thought was fair, we asked them to pay more. We increased their taxes, but we said it was temporary.

The member and her colleagues know that, because they voted on a specific piece of legislation that made it clear that this was a temporary measure aimed at securing some additional revenue to achieve a specific objective, and that was to bring British Columbia’s budget back into balance.

[1530]

I’m sure the member has other thoughts that she will want to share with me and the committee. I must confess that in circumstances where a piece of legislation has been introduced and, from the outset, makes clear that the measure is in place for two years and then is statutorily set to expire and return to the pre-existing rates, I candidly don’t characterize that measure and that step in the same way that the hon. member and her colleagues choose to.

I understand, of course, that the member and her colleagues may favour charging higher tax rates to those in certain tax brackets. That, of course, is a choice that political leaders and representatives are entitled to make. But the suggestion that has been made — that following through on a statutory commitment to allow a tax increase to lapse somehow equates with a massive and significant tax relief or tax cut — is not a line of logic or characterization that I share with the hon. member.

[S. Sullivan in the chair.]

C. James: Yes, the minister is right that we will agree to disagree on this particular issue. The minister talks about the importance of following through on the expiration of the statutory notice of the increase on high-income earners. I think it’s important to note that there have been many other times where promises have been made by government that government has changed their minds on, where government has made a different decision. There have been other rationales and other reasons where government has gone in a different direction.

I also think it’s important to note that there are many, many tax areas where government has decided to extend a tax break, for example, or a targeted tax rate for a particular industry or a particular group or organization — not something that was in the budget but something that was determined by the minister. He has the right to do that when he brings his budget forward — to make a determination that this was important and, therefore, we will continue this on.

That’s where I agree to disagree with the minister because I believe that this 2 percent is exactly the same issue. It is a choice. It is a determination by government, as happens every single budget, when a budget comes forward, for government to make a decision about whether they will look at the tax area and make changes. On this 2 percent tax, although the minister would like to say it’s simply an expiration of something that was there, it was still a choice. In a budget that had very few additional costs, it was an area that in fact had a cost of $230 million. So in fact, it did have a cost.

One question on this, and then I just want to give my colleague a chance, before he has to leave, to ask a specific question of the minister. Did the minister do any kind of research or any kind of work within the ministry around this 2 percent tax break to look at the impact it would have both on the budget and the economy itself?

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, we certainly do an analysis in terms of endeavouring to quantify the impact, from a fiscal point of view, on the budget. That involves forecasts and analysis of what a particular measure — any measure, actually — will result in. That’s where the estimates that form part of the budget come from, and I haven’t been at all hesitant to share that information. It’s contained within the budget, and it’s why the member is able to point to specific figures.

There are other choices, of course, that are contained within the budget with respect to low-income British Columbians and once again raising the threshold so that there are even more British Columbians at the lower end of the income ladder who pay no provincial income tax. These are choices that we make.

[1535]

I don’t think the member is uncertain about this, but I might as well put this on the record as well. It was not either my or the government’s preference to increase taxes in 2013. In fact, it was uncharacteristic of the government, based on, at that point a 12-year term in office.

The government is of a view, and I am, that, where pos-
[ Page 8586 ]
sible, we should endeavour to reduce the taxation burden facing British Columbians, particularly with respect to what I would call nondiscretionary taxes, which is another way to describe income tax, because it is a levy that the Crown administers against income earned by people irrespective of their behaviour or the choices they make.

We have endeavoured to achieve the most competitive…. Maybe I’m being cute with the terminology. Competitive means lowest. We have endeavoured to achieve the lowest income tax rates for British Columbians today below the level of $122,000. We have that.

I accept and I recognize that there are folks who take a different view, who believe that the income tax British Columbians pay should be higher. I understand from the criticism administered and levied by the opposition that given an opportunity, they would raise the income taxes that British Columbians pay — most assuredly, the income taxes that those earning in excess of $150,000 pay. That is a logical conclusion that one draws from both the opposition’s support for the initial measure and their now opposition to its expiration.

The member is correct. These are choices. The income tax rate structure in British Columbia has changed appreciably in the last 14 years. Candidly, it is something that I and the government are proud of. It dates back to June of 2001 when the then new government instituted a 25 percent reduction in provincial income tax rates, the largest single reduction, I think, in the history of the province — maybe the country — at one time.

I accept that if the opposition had their druthers, British Columbians would pay higher income tax. That, by the way, based on the changes that have been made, would include lower-income British Columbians, because they paid significantly higher income taxes 14 and 15 years ago. I have no doubt, based on what the hon. member and her colleagues have said, that given the opportunity and the choice, those earning more in British Columbia would pay significantly higher income taxes.

In exercising the choice that we have, clearly I am revealing a different bias and a different objective, but I’m candidly appreciative of the opportunity to have the exchange here today.

D. Donaldson: I have a situation I’m going to describe to the minister and then just ask him a question about it. It’s a letter I wrote to him February 27 on a specific case of a constituent of mine that I haven’t got a response back yet.

The constituent applied to the temporary education support for parents program that was administered through his ministry. She followed all the guidelines and procedures on the Ministry of Finance website, but she doesn’t believe she was treated fairly.

I’ll just give a little bit of detail. Then the minister can refer to the letter and her extensive e-mails with the ministry that I attached to the letter for all the details.

[1540]

She read the information on the website during her application process and determined that under those guidelines, she qualified as the primary caregiver; that the payment cannot be assigned to another caregiver; that payments will only be issued to one caregiver, and parents will decide amongst themselves how that payment is to be divided, if needed.

She had evidence that she was not in a situation of shared custody and that her status as primary caregiver was established by CRA audits. Based on that, she expected to receive the full amount under the program, and, to her dissatisfaction, the payment was split between her and her estranged husband.

She’s been informed that there is no appeal process. She has been in touch with Sue Tung, manager of corporate and income tax and related programs, income tax branch, with the Ministry of Finance — but no correspondence with her or with the minister’s office since my February 27 letter.

What I’m asking is if the minister will review the letter I wrote to him and the e-mail that was attached to that, where Ms. Pluack goes back and forth with her ministry’s staff, that Ms. Pluack be given an opportunity to provide any clarification or additional information needed and that further consideration be given to her request about herself being the sole recipient of the full temporary education support program for parents payment.

Hon. M. de Jong: The short answer is yes. I will say, however, that the dilemma may well be, as the member has pointed out — and I think did in his letter, as well — that half of the proceeds — and I can’t remember if this related to one child or two — would have gone to what was determined to be the other custodial parent. I’m not certain how that would work in terms of reapportioning the amount. I will find it. So yes, I will endeavour to have a look.

It was certainly, despite some initial skepticism from some sources, a program that was almost fully subscribed by parents who were impacted by workplace dislocation. There were cases, and we expected this, where confusion or even disputes about who the custodial parent was gave rise to the need for some decisions. But most of those seem to have been resolved equitably and fairly. If this is a case where that is not so, then I’ll endeavour to have a look at it.

G. Heyman: Before I ask some questions about what the minister knows is one of my favourite subjects, targeted tax credits, I note that my colleague from Victoria–Beacon Hill has graciously given myself and a couple of my colleagues the opportunity to ask some questions. So before it gets stale — I know she will take this up as well — I do want to respond to some of the statements the minister felt he should read into the record, some of which were somewhat suppositional.
[ Page 8587 ]

I do appreciate that the minister accepts that some of us have different points of view on taxation. But to say that it is our view in the opposition that we should generally raise taxes is based on, essentially, nothing. It is true that we propose the same 2 percent upper income tax for people earning over $150,000 a year, for income over $150,000 a year, that the government took up in 2013 and that we would maintain it.

[1545]

It’s also important to note that while the minister talks about tax cuts and a low tax regime, we have spoken out for a fair and progressive tax regime and not one that cuts a progressive tax system and the income taxes while consistently raising fees, hydro rates, car insurance fees, ferry fares — virtually every flat fee around that is a regressive form of taxation — because the truth is that for the average British Columbian family or individual, if it’s coming out of their pockets for things that they need, it’s a tax. They don’t see the difference. It is not a discretionary tax. These are all non-discretionary.

Having addressed what I think were perhaps some inaccuracies, or at least suppositions, by the Finance Minister that I thought were necessary to challenge, I have a question with respect to the extension of the digital animation or visual effects tax credit to post-production work, which was contained in this budget and for which I commended the minister.

I asked the minister a year ago in estimates, given that this was a promise in the Liberal Party’s platform in the 2013 election, when we might expect it. At the time the minister, a year ago, indicated that it was the government’s commitment to bring it in, but there was the cost factor and the government needed to examine it and ensure that it would be brought in at an appropriate and affordable time.

As it turns out, the value of this tax credit in this budget year is — as I read it, in any event — $2 million, which, while not a small amount of money, in the context of the budget is relatively insignificant. People in the industry talk about the significant boost this will have to both the post-production work that’s done in British Columbia as well as the ability to draw in productions that are attracted by the ability to go from point A to point Z, including post-production.

My question to the minister is: a year ago, had the ministry not actually costed this tax credit? Was it indeterminate what the quantum would be, or was it just simply a matter of deciding that that $2 million would be better brought in at a different time than in the previous budget year?

Hon. M. de Jong: I won’t dwell on this, because I think we’re moving on to other areas, but the member offered some pre-emptory comments.

I think my assessment or my characterization of taxation priorities from the opposition, which the member has characterized as suspect or, perhaps more strongly, as unfair…. I will simply add this observation.

When the initial provision was tabled and debated…. I don’t know that the hon. member was here in 2013. I don’t believe he was here in February of 2013. When this conversation re-emerged, I searched in vain for some commentary from members of the opposition taking issue with the statutory sunset provision that was contained within the legislation at the time. I did search in vain. There was no such criticism or observation.

I will, to use the words of the member’s colleague, agree to disagree with the hon. member. I think a fundamental component of the debate that should take place here in this place, besides the passage of the laws that govern society, is the allocation of fiscal resources. That is one of the two main functions we serve when we are elected here.

We will both — the government by virtue of the choices we make through instruments like the budget — reveal our priorities and our sense of what is fair and how society’s interests and family interests are best served.

[1550]

The opposition, through its criticism of those choices — and, hopefully, occasionally by injecting an element of its specific view of the alternatives — will ultimately provide some insight into its choices and its priorities.

Maybe I should also add this, because the member offered his thoughts on the question of the regressive nature of fees and other charges, and they undoubtedly add a burden. I would say that I would embrace the member’s observations more fully were it not for the fact that in a number of the examples that the member and his colleagues have raised over time, there is a specific element of relief for the lowest-income British Columbians.

I think the member’s argument and submission would be stronger in the case of MSP, which undoubtedly represents a burden. It is an additional burden on families. The charges, the costs associated with administering the health care system are very real. I think the member knows that — billions upon billions of dollars.

Were it not true that upwards of 800,000 British Columbians pay no MSP premiums, and a billion pay very much reduced MSP premiums, I think his argument would be stronger. But in that example and in others there is relief, purposeful relief — the member might argue not sufficient relief, but specific relief given to lower-income British Columbians.

The question that the member ultimately advanced related to the extension of the tax credits, which he has correctly quantified from the budget as being in the range of $2 million. There were two reasons for the decision to delay moving ahead with that until this budget year.

The main reason related to the fact that we were still doing work endeavouring to quantify what it would cost and were reluctant to move ahead without having had the discussions that some of the officials had with the studios
[ Page 8588 ]
about what the definitions would mean, how much of the work would be captured and what it was likely to translate into in terms of costs.

I will concede to the hon. member that, absent that analysis and that work, given what we thought was the narrow margin for error related to the projected surplus, I was reluctant to move ahead without having some of that additional work done. He has seen the product of that work and has correctly identified the amount we now believe that this extended credit represents in terms of a budgetary cost.

G. Heyman: At the risk of the minister continuing to have the last word on this subject, I’d simply say that, while low-income relief on fees is welcome, it doesn’t necessarily address middle-income families or individuals, and the whole nature of a progressive tax system is that it is, in fact, structured in stages to deal with those issues.

My next question for the minister has to do with the tech sector, a sector that is doing very well in B.C. I acknowledge that. The minister acknowledges that. People on both sides of the House acknowledge that, and we welcome that, because it helps cushion and insulate British Columbia and British Columbian workers from boom-and-bust resource cycles, notwithstanding how important resources are to our economy.

Some time ago, as the minister is aware, the B.C. Technology Industry Association outlined a four-point plan for continuing to grow the sector beyond its fairly considerable 8 percent, I believe, of provincial gross domestic product and somewhere in the neighbourhood of 85,000 highly paid workers.

[1555]

What the BCTIA pointed out was that we are experiencing a potential venture capital capacity grant for early-stage investment in B.C. tech companies. While the curve is going up in growth in the tech sector based on the current level of venture capital, if venture capital were to fall off more, the curve would level out and possibly dip.

On the other hand, if we can attract more venture capital by some targeted measures of both the provincial and federal government — which would leverage private sector investment, I think the industry assumed, at about 3 to 1 — we could see a very substantial increase in the contribution of the sector.

I think they projected a difference of about 31,000 additional jobs between 2014 and 2020, notwithstanding the fact that we’re now in 2015, and a doubling of GDP to about 16 percent.

I wouldn’t expect the minister or his staff to simply take the work of the Technology Industry Association at face value but to do research. But there were some very specific asks.

One of the things that the sector proposed — which may be a bit moot now in terms of availability of federal matching funds — was that the province attempt to work with the federal government to establish, admittedly, a sizeable $100 million venture capital fund of funds that could be used to invest in early-stage venture capital in the tech sector and leverage private sector investment. That has not been done.

My question for the minister is threefold. Besides the obvious, that it costs money, what were the reasons why the minister chose not to act to any degree on this request, whether it be at the $50 million provincial level that was requested or some smaller level?

What analysis of the beneficial impact and tax return that could be gained by such a fund was done by the ministry, if any? I would ask if that can be provided in writing at some point. There may be aspects of such analysis that can’t be provided for whatever reason. Perhaps they’re proprietary or advice to cabinet. But whatever could be provided, I’d like to see.

My third question is: is the ministry actively looking at other means by which, over the next two to three years, steps could be taken by this government to enhance early-stage venture capital investment in the tech sector in B.C.?

[1600]

Hon. M. de Jong: Apologies for the delay. I hope I’ll cover all of the areas that the member has expressed an interest in.

He’s correct in pointing out that there was interest being expressed within the tech sector. Well, let me back up. I am gratified to hear, or learn, here again, of the enthusiasm that exists on the part of the member for growth in the tech sector, gratified to hear the recognition being offered for what has taken place thus far and the enthusiasm for seeing that continue and even accelerate.

The member is correct about the interest that existed around the possibility, and the invitation that existed, to participate in a federal initiative around venture capital. I would say this to the member. At the end of the day…. And there was analysis undertaken. I don’t want to suggest there were reams and pages of reports done. Ultimately, the hesitation related to two things the member has anticipated. One of them is the amount — $50 million — although I suppose it would have been an option for us to explore a lesser amount, if that was something that we wanted to explore.

The way the fund was structured, however — and the member may know this or may not — made it clear to us that in participating in that endeavour, there was no guarantee that those funds would be invested in British Columbia. We saw that as a flaw in the structure from the point of view of management of the fund.

I don’t want to suggest that we were concerned that none of it would have been invested in British Columbia. I think we have a robust sector that fund managers would have recognized. And as I recall, we may have even had some exploratory conversations about where fund man-
[ Page 8589 ]
agement would have been located as a way of trying to compensate for our concerns on that front.

At the end of the day, we made the decision that it would be difficult for us to justify that measure of investment in circumstances where it was far from clear whether the funds, or even a sizeable portion of the funds, would be put to work in British Columbia.

We also had some structural concerns around the risk elements and who was going in first and the security associated. Now, these are venture capital funds, and there is inherent risk involved.

The performance, on the other hand, is something like the Renaissance Fund, where the government, I think in ’05 or ’06, set aside $90 million. I can advise the member $60 million of that is now at play, and there remains about $30 million for allocation.

So therein lies, to the member’s question about what represents an alternative approach…. Of course, the budget also increased by $3 million the allocation to the venture capital tax credit.

That’s, I hope, a fairly direct answer about what our hesitation was around participating in the scheme being advanced by the federal government. No doubt there were people in the tech sector that saw that as a positive opportunity. For the reasons I’ve alluded to, we chose not to participate.

[1605]

G. Heyman: The minister anticipated my next question, which had to do with the $3 million lift to the small business venture capital tax credit. I believe it’s a one-time lift, if I’m not mistaken.

The rest of the question has to do with…. Again, this is a quantum substantially less than that proposed. I understand people may start with bigger asks than they expect or they need. Or they may not. That is not always the case. But was there a rationale for picking that number, as opposed to a bigger number? Did it have to do with money available? Did it have to do with what the minister and his staff thought the investment market could absorb, or is there another reason?

Hon. M. de Jong: The $3 million, I’m reminded, brings the aggregate amount to $33 million, which facilitates, on the part of the companies, access to upwards of $110 million in equity. And the member is correct. There are certainly advocates for more than that.

I am told the subscription rates on this are very healthy, so that’s good news and a sign, I suppose, of demand and maybe a sign, as well, of the health of the sector, as alluded to by the member in his introductory comments. So it’s one of those circumstances where the rationale for doing more is there. We settled on an amount that we thought was affordable and justifiable. We remain hopeful that we will continue to see the positive outcomes that we’ve seen thus far.

G. Heyman: Finally, there was a request by the BCTIA to consider a lift in the total capitalization in the eligible business tax credit, from $5 million to $10 million, as well as eliminating the cap and expanding the carry-forward duration from five to ten years. This was not in the budget. Is this something that the ministry is taking under consideration? And if not, why not?

Hon. M. de Jong: Thanks to the member for raising these issues and questions relating to the tech sector.

I think what I would first say, just in a general way, is when we’re dealing with tax credits, it quite legitimately attracts scrutiny in terms of what kind of behaviour the government is endeavouring to incent and, secondly, whether we are incenting that behaviour. We’re monitoring.

I don’t want to leave the member of the committee with the suggestion that there was some hostility to the notion being advanced, but I think that we’re still at a stage where we’re wanting to monitor the behaviour that the existing program is incenting. This will undoubtedly come up through the budgeting cycle.

[The bells were rung.]

The Chair: Division has been called in the main House, so we will recess.

The committee recessed from 4:10 p.m. to 4:22 p.m.

[M. Morris in the chair.]

G. Heyman: As the bells were ringing, I want to make sure I understood the last question. The ministry had some question about the value of changing that particular tax credit, either the quantum of the capitalization or the duration, but there is some consideration being continually given to it?

Hon. M. de Jong: That is correct.

G. Heyman: My final question for the minister has to do with the scientific research and experimental development tax credit, the SR&ED credit. Anecdotally, I’ve talked to a number of people in this sector who talk about the application process being extremely lengthy and onerous — granted, this is primarily a federal issue — and that the nature of the application actually no longer reflects the way they keep records or the way things are done in the tech sector.

There’s a bit of dissonance. The application form and the necessary information haven’t evolved as the nature of developing the businesses has evolved. I’m just curious whether the minister has heard the same thing and whether there are any discussions being undertaken with the federal government to try to ease for many small
[ Page 8590 ]
companies, in particular, in the tech sector what is a bit of an onerous process to get a very valuable tax credit.

Hon. M. de Jong: The member has correctly identified the fact that the province, in this case, sort of tacks onto a process that is driven largely by the federal program.

[1625]

I’m reminded that some changes were made seven or eight years ago relating to challenges that arose with respect to agencies conducting the research and then applying and then discovering that someone had determined they weren’t eligible. Some changes were made in that respect.

We’re not, I’m advised, alive to the details of the concerns that the member has brought to the committee. Our next step, in that respect, would be, one, to contact the federal administrators of the program to ascertain whether or not some of those challenges are revealing themselves and, secondly, to take from the member any more specific information that he might want to pass along relating to challenges that have arisen for constituents or members of the tech sector.

G. Heyman: In fact, the issue, as it was expressed to me quite a few months ago, was not so much one of eligibility but just as an onerous process that appeared to contain steps or requests for documentation that no longer seemed relevant. But I appreciate the minister inviting me to bring details to his attention, and if I gather up some specifics, I’ll accept that invitation.

With that, I am done with my questions. I thank the minister and his staff very much.

S. Fraser: Hello to the minister and his staff. Now, this may seem somewhat obscure, but if the minister would bear with me, it is totally applicable to these estimates.

On May 1, 2012, the B.C. Court of Appeal allowed the appeal of Musqueam Indian band and ruled that Musqueam-controlled companies that hold the lands in trust for the band under a reconciliation agreement with the province should not have to pay tax on the land as per the exemption granted under section 15(1)(h) of the Taxation (Rural Area) Act.

That victory for the Musqueam was very short-lived. On May 14, 2012, the government quietly passed — it was in an omnibus bill — an amendment to the Taxation (Rural Area) Act in that omnibus bill, effectively overturning the decision that had been made in favour of the Musqueam Nation.

There was a strongly worded resolution that came from the First Nations Summit that went to the Premier and the ministers at the time. I’m just wondering if the minister…. First of all, what’s the position of the government? I can’t find it anywhere. What was the position taken by the government on the resolution made by the summit calling for, at the time, immediate steps to be taken to restore the exemption?

Hon. M. de Jong: Insofar as the member’s question is concerned, I’m advised that the only chronological correction might relate to the fact that the statutory instrument was part of the budget legislation in 2012, so it would have been tabled in February. Royal assent would have taken place — I think the member referred to a date — in May. I’m not sure how much turns on that, but that would’ve been the chronology.

[1630]

I won’t endeavour in this forum to provide an exhaustive analysis of what was before the court and before the Court of Appeal except to say that it appears to have been a question around the interpretation of property tax exemption legislation.

The position of the Crown throughout, and for decades, has been that the exemption for property held in trust for a First Nation should only apply to property held in trust by the Crown. To the extent that there was ambiguity around that, the legislation that was introduced was intended to clarify that ambiguity. I can say that the language aligns with the long-standing policy of the exemption and is consistent with over 100 years of tax administration.

The other thing I would say…. I think the member may be aware of this, having studied the matter very closely. The amendment was purposely not made retroactive so that the extent to which the decision did bestow a benefit…. That might not be the right word. To the extent that the decision conferred — well, I can’t think of another word — something of a benefit on the Musqueam for the years 2009 through 2011, they maintained that benefit. But the decision also revealed, to the minds of the Crown, that there was ambiguity in the legislation.

The Court of Appeal resolved that ambiguity, but not in a way that reconciled with the Crown’s intentions. Therefore, the legislation was introduced to make clear that the Crown sought to have the exemptions applied, going forward, in a way similar to what had taken place over the previous century.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for the answer, but the amendment essentially reversed the court decision. The implications maybe were not as clear at the time, but we’re looking at the current situation.

There are a number of nations, Musqueam being one , of course — Westbank, Squamish, Beecher Bay, Nanaimo, Te’mexw, Sliammon and more nations —potentially affected in modern day by the change, by a reversal of a court decision made. This was done very quietly.

Next question: does the minister believe in, when you make significant changes, reversing a court decision that directly affects First Nations at the time and certainly rolling into present day in the future…? Doesn’t the minister believe in the need for consultation with First Nations on these important changes on laws that affect them?
[ Page 8591 ]

Hon. M. de Jong: I think I understand the member’s interest and concern that, where public policy is being considered, those impacted certainly have an opportunity to convey their position.

I would say this, however. I would take issue with the proposition that this happened quietly. A decision of the Court of Appeal coupled with the passage of a statute in the most public forum we have, the Legislative Assembly, would seem to me to be the antithesis of a secret or quiet process. It is the epitome of a very public exercise. Perhaps where the member and I…. Well, I shouldn’t say our views differ. They may or may not.

As I recall, the court was asked to interpret a statute that had been applied a certain way for the better part of a century. The Court of Appeal rendered an opinion on how the wording of that statute should be applied and, to be fair, settled on an interpretation different from that of the Crown.

[1635]

That is what our courts do. They interpret legislation. But to be fair, the interpretation they settled upon was different than the Legislature and governments had intended for the better part of a century, governments of various political stripes.

The legislative change that was brought in, the statutory instrument that was introduced was to ensure that in the future there was no doubt about what the intention of the Legislative Assembly was with respect to these taxation exemptions. That would be my analysis of what took place. The member may have his own.

I am certain, by the way, that First Nations communities would have a marked preference for the expanded interpretation that the Court of Appeal settled upon with respect to the legislation that was in place at that time. But that was not the intention of the Legislature at the time or the previous decades; nor was it the intention of the government going forward. Accordingly, a statute was introduced to reconfirm what the government’s intentions or the Legislative Assembly’s intentions were with respect to that particular taxation exemption.

S. Fraser: I take issue on a number of statements made by the minister. This was done indeed quietly, secretly, in a covert way. The Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation at the time, who is the current Minister of Environment, knew nothing of this when questioned about this by the B.C. summit. It went right under her radar screen, as it would have with…. I was the critic. I didn’t see it either, and I take responsibility for that.

Moving forward now, the question…. This is directly overturning a court decision that had a direct implication at the time, and moving forward, with reconciliation agreements, with ITAs with First Nations. It has a huge effect. The question I had was: was there any consultation with First Nations before making this clandestine decision?

Hon. M. de Jong: I won’t belabour this, but I beg to differ with the member that the passage of a statutory instrument could be characterized as clandestine. That is in no way intended to be critical of anyone. It is merely a suggestion that the presentation of legislation is the most public exercise we have of law-making and rule-making in our society.

I hope the member, in examining this situation, doesn’t believe or conclude that somehow what took place here is extraordinarily different. We have a body of law, and they exist behind the member, where he sits in the assembly, and behind me, where we sit in this place.

[1640]

We pass these laws, and many times we have a difference of opinion about the nature of the law. Many times we do not, and we have a shared objective for what that law is intended to achieve.

In this case, there was a law, a statute that was intended, not just by this government but by governments dating back years and years and decades and decades, to convey a benefit or create an exemption in certain circumstances where land was held in trust by the Crown.

That is a policy that successive governments had applied. The First Nation, in this case, challenged that. The court, in effect, said — without endeavouring to put words into the mouth of the court: “Whatever the Legislative Assembly’s intention might have been, that intention is not accurately reflected in the existing statute. If that is what you wish to do, if you wish to restrict the application of the exemption to those circumstances, you need to rewrite your statute.” That is what the government did.

That occurs with relative regularity, where the court will analyze taxation legislation — or other statutes, for that matter — and say: “You’ve explained what the intention of the Crown is with respect to a PST piece of legislation, but that’s not what your statute says.” So if that’s what you want to accomplish, the Legislative Assembly has to articulate that with greater clarity via a different statutory instrument or an amended statutory instrument. That is what occurred here.

Now, I think what the member might ultimately be leading to, which is entirely legitimate, is a question that says: why doesn’t the Crown expand the application of these exemptions? Or why not let the ruling of the Court of Appeal stand and simply allow for the expansion of the exemption that the court’s interpretation would have facilitated?

That wasn’t the original intention. That wasn’t the intention that the government today had, but it may well be the member’s argument, that today the exemption should be applied more broadly, that the government should amend the legislation to facilitate that. I think there’s probably a discussion to be had about that.

What took place here wasn’t unusual, where the court offered up an interpretation of a statutory instrument
[ Page 8592 ]
that was very different from what successive governments had believed and intended for that statute to accomplish.

S. Fraser: While the minister said many words and endeavoured to speculate on what my questions are, he hasn’t answered my question. Was there consultation with First Nations before this decision was made, which overturned a significant court decision involving First Nations? I’m going to assume from this evasive series of answers that there was no consultation. The question is why not?

Hon. M. de Jong: I hope the member, through the years, has engaged in debates with me long enough to know that I try not to be evasive. I try to answer the questions as directly and honestly as I can. If the member deems them unsatisfactory or requires additional information, I’ll endeavour to provide it.

In this case, the Crown, confronted by a decision that altered a long-held view of statutory interpretation, on the strength of the decision rendered by the court and in response to the decision rendered by the court, sought to clarify that ambiguity and return and reinstitute and reconstitute the law to conform with what the intention had been all along.

[1645]

The answer is not more complicated than that. The Crown argued, through the case, for an interpretation of the statute to take place in a certain way. The court disagreed. In the aftermath of that, the legislative branch of government and the executive branch of government took steps to address the matter, as settled by the court, and return and reconstitute the law so that the statutory instrument reflected what the original intention had been all along. I hope the member does not construe that as being evasive.

S. Fraser: No, I consider the answers evasive. The fact is that, at the time, in 2012 there was still some semblance of the new relationship, which was brought in by Gordon Campbell. That talked about working closely with First Nations and consultation with First Nations on decisions that directly affect First Nations. That did not happen, and the minister has given no explanation of why it didn’t happen.

A bit of context here, if I may. The government is making agreements with First Nations — incremental treaty agreements, for instance — that often involve land with First Nations. These lands are transferred to First Nations as part of those agreements, as part of reconciliation, and it becomes the responsibility of the First Nations, with these changes, for paying taxes. Now, this occurs regardless of whether the First Nation is in a position to develop the lands or gain any revenue from the lands in the short term. It becomes a hardship. The First Nations can lose this land as opposed to gaining something that they’re supposed to get through a reconciliation agreement.

I hate to paraphrase the court, but that seems to be why the court made its decision. The government just overturned that. How can the government say it’s advancing reconciliation by burdening First Nations with additional property taxes that makes them worse off than they were before the transfer of the lands?

The minister served as the Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation for a time. I know he understands this. I am trying to get an answer, any answer, on any of the questions that I’ve asked so far. Does he not understand?

Does he not agree with me that reconciliation shouldn’t be about placing burdens on First Nations, and decisions that directly affect First Nations — directly negatively affect First Nations — made by government need to happen with consultation with those First Nations?

Hon. M. de Jong: I’m not sure I’m going to be able to offer anything in this debate that alters the member’s opinion of the situation or his view.

There was a matter brought before the courts that worked its way to the Court of Appeal. At each stage in that process the Crown, in the right of the province of British Columbia, argued for the interpretation of a statute to occur in a certain way, in a way that had been applied for the better part of the century.

At various stages along that litigious path there was agreement with the Crown. That agreement ended at the Court of Appeal, which said: “That may well be what has taken place over the decade. That may well be the intention of the executive branch and the legislative branch of government, but we don’t believe you have properly expressed that intention in this statutory instrument that is before the court.”

[1650]

Implicit in that statement, as it is in every instance where a court embarks upon a process of statutory interpretation, is the option for the legislative branch of government to amend the statute to conform and to do so on the strength of advice that has been received, or decisions that have been received, by the court.

In this instance the intention to address what was then the ambiguity was included in budget legislation, which I think was tabled before the decision itself was rendered by the court. I’ll check that, but I think I’m advised that it was.

There was no ambiguity whatsoever about what the Crown’s view was on how the pre-existing statute should be interpreted and what its intentions were. The amendment that was subsequently proclaimed — introduced before the decision and proclaimed thereafter — made that clear.

The member’s view is: “I don’t like the amendment, and I don’t support what it purports to accomplish or
[ Page 8593 ]
enshrine or continue with respect to taxation exemptions.” I accept that. That’s fair enough. But there was nothing surreptitious here with respect to the process that was followed.

S. Fraser: I’m not a lawyer. I understand the minister is. I mean, I’m not equipped to get into a legal sparring match on this. I realize it’s not, maybe, the appropriate place for that anyway. But the issue I’ve raised has not been as the minister is characterizing it.

This is about changes being made by government. They lost a court decision. Then they changed the law — that’s the layperson’s take on this — without, again, my key issue, any consultation with the First Nations that would be most affected.

The minister has seen the resolution that came from the First Nations Summit. I don’t believe there has been any adequate response to that. It’s the decisions that were made in 2012 without consultation that are having a direct impact on a number of First Nations right now, and I’ve named them on the record.

I guess my final question would be: will the minister be willing to speak with members of the B.C. summit and/or those First Nations most affected by the decision that was made without consultation, which was required, according to the government’s own position, through the new relationship? Will the minister be willing to have this discussion, which has not gone too far, with those most affected — the First Nations involved?

Hon. M. de Jong: I have, I do and I will continue to welcome the opportunity to meet with representatives of First Nations communities, the leadership council.

The member generously reminded the committee a few moments ago about the role I had a number of years ago as minister, at what I would immodestly characterize as an important time in the relationship between First Nations and aboriginal peoples and the government of British Columbia. It is, as I look back over the time I have spent in government, one of the features of an evolving relationship and my work in government that I am proudest of.

Without, again, belabouring that point, I take seriously his admonishment to continue to work with First Nations and to engage with them in all areas, particularly areas that are of direct consequence to the aboriginal First Nation communities.

[1655]

C. James: I’ll take us back — I know it seems like a while now — to the discussion we were having around the tax break for the top 2 percent income earners in our province.

I appreciate the minister’s willingness to engage in some questions from members who had some time constraints and needed to get those done. I think the minister knows that I wasn’t going to pass by the opportunity to respond to the minister’s view of budgeting, the minister’s view of taxes and the minister’s discussion around his belief on our side’s direction and the direction that he outlined.

I think it’s important to note, and the minister has talked about it in his remarks, that a budget and looking at the spending of taxpayer dollars is a very important and serious role that is undertaken by individuals who are elected into government. Certainly, we in the opposition also play a role in providing our critiques and providing our constructive ideas and approaches for taking a look at that.

The bottom line, as I started off this discussion with, is that a budget is about choices, and every choice has an impact. I certainly wasn’t going to go all the way back to 2001. Since the minister raised it and the minister took us back to 2001 to talk about the 25 percent tax cut that was given by his government when they were elected in 2001, I think it’s important to note the government was duly elected. The government had every opportunity to make the decision they made.

I think the important piece, and the piece that I didn’t hear the minister referring to, was the impact of those choices. As someone who lived through the social services sector, who was working in the area of child welfare during that time period, I can tell you there were huge, serious, tragic implications for many of those 25 percent tax cuts. With a loss in revenue to government, there were huge losses in revenue to community organizations, to groups and organizations, to people living in poverty, to the disabled, to people struggling in British Columbia.

There were huge impacts to staff who had their contracts ripped up by this government in order to provide resources for the 25 percent that was now missing because of that tax cut. A loss in government revenue meant a loss in programs and services.

Certainly, people who were higher income then, just as they did now — and I’ll bring us back to the 2 percent — and just as they did then gained a benefit out of this. There’s no question, and that is the choice of government to make that decision about who gets the benefit and who doesn’t. But I just want to remind the minister that there was a flip side to that 25 percent tax cut that was lived by many in our province who are still struggling to get out of the challenges that were faced during that time period by very clear choices being made by a government that had a very clear impact.

It is similar, with this 2 percent tax break or rolling back — or expiration, as the minister calls it, of this 2 percent tax break — that there is again an impact, that there is again a loss of revenue to government. It is government’s right and government’s choice to be able to determine where those dollars are spent. This government made a choice to spend those on the top 2 percent income earners.
[ Page 8594 ]

My question to the minister on the budget of this year is: what analysis was done on that loss of revenue to government when the government took a look at this 2 percent? Did the government do an analysis, or did they simply let that revenue go? Who did the government consult in making a decision about continuing on with letting this 2 percent tax increase expire?

[1700]

Hon. M. de Jong: Maybe I’ll begin by offering this observation to the committee and the member. I accept responsibility for having taken us back to the halcyon days of 2001. I hope the member will quietly give me credit for not having gone back to the 1990s. I have begun at 2001, that period for which she correctly assigns responsibility to the government I was a member of.

It is true we made a decision relating to the income taxes that individuals paid in British Columbia. That is correct. There were consequences associated with that. It is incorrect, though, to suggest that, as a result of that decision, revenue to government dramatically decreased by anything approaching 25 percent.

Interjection.

Hon. M. de Jong: The member says she didn’t say that, and I accept that as true.

I hope she will accept as valid the fact that, within a year or two, revenues were greatly in excess of what they had been under the old, higher rates. There was an impact.

I guess there are different ways to regard the tool of taxation within the hands of government and vis-à-vis a society. One way, I suppose, is: how much can we take? What is the breaking point? How much can we squeeze out of the population at various income levels?

I would suggest that there is another consideration that relates to our relative competitiveness as a jurisdiction, from the perspective of both attracting and keeping people in British Columbia and that a competitive taxation regime can also act as a stimulant in attracting people and investment to the province. We have seen ample evidence of that.

We saw it through the period of 2001, certainly, to 2008, and we are seeing it again in the aftermath of the worldwide recession. We are seeing it here in British Columbia, where vaunted agencies like the Conference Board say British Columbia will lead the nation in economic growth.

These are choices. There is no question about that. Some jurisdictions have chosen to impose much, much higher income taxation rates on their population.

The member has asked about the process by which…. And I think she meant with respect to this budget. What I would point out to the member is — and I hope this won’t come as a surprise or shock to her — the analysis was undertaken in 2012 and 2013. The decision was made then. The decision was made, again, in as public a way as I can imagine, by including it in the budget legislation of February 2013.

The analysis included a quantification of what the forgone revenue would be — or, in the case of the added tax, the additional revenue. That was in the fiscal plan. Remember, we’re talking about three-year fiscal plans.

[1705]

Even in 2013 the budget would have revealed the additional revenue for ’13-14, ’14-15. And the forgone revenue, if that’s the term the member is most comfortable with, for…. And I think I got the years…. It would be ’13-14, ’14-15.

Interjection.

Hon. M. de Jong: That’s right. We’re talking about taxation years, as opposed to fiscal years.

All of that calculation, analysis and decision-making was conducted at that time and resulted in the instrument that the member saw before the House in February of 2013. I’m clear on what her view of the decision and this choice was. But I think she’ll agree with me that that was the process that was followed and understand that that is where the analysis and the decision was taken — in December 2012 and January 2013 as part of that budgeting exercise.

C. James: To touch on the taxation issue discussion — I won’t call it a debate — the minister is raising. I would agree that a competitive tax environment is important. I would agree that that helps spur growth in the economy. I would also say that targeted tax incentives and key investments in opportunity in the province are also going to help spur investment. Those are the pieces I believe have been missing in that balance of a tax decrease, a tax break, versus spending, on this side.

I do not believe that it’s an either-or. I think part of the challenge that we faced over the last 12 years in this province has been that the government has been driven on the tax end and, on the other side, has forgotten the key opportunities to invest in that actually provide growth in the economy. Give people an opportunity to be able to access growth, access jobs and access success. That’s where I’d certainly disagree with the government and with the direction that’s gone. I think there is a big missing piece there in that balances between the two.

To touch on the issue of the tax expiring. I take the minister’s point that the discussion occurred previously because it was legislated. I would have expected that there might have been, as there always is with Finance Ministers and with budgets, reconsideration of all of the decisions in a budget — a reconsideration or a relook, depending on how the economy is doing on issues.

The government certainly relooked at charging for
[ Page 8595 ]
adult basic education and decided that was something they were going to add in to the budget this time. Economically, they felt they wanted to bring money in. I’m presuming that was the rationale.

The government decided that they would take money back from school boards, claw money back from school boards. That’s something new in this budget. That was not a consideration previously. The government decided to consider that.

The government reconsidered raising hydro rates. Government every year, in the budget, takes a look at things and makes a determination. So my question was basically…. I take the minister’s point that there wasn’t any reconsideration that had occurred. It was related to every decision that I believe comes forward — that the government makes a decision about whether they’re going to make changes or whether they’re going to bring it forward the same.

To me, it’s disappointing that the government, in this decision, as they did with post-secondary education and school boards and hydro rates, didn’t take a look at reconsidering whether to expire the tax break for the top 2 percent income earners. I take the minister’s point that that was something that they decided on and they weren’t going to reconsider it.

I just want to talk a little bit about a few of the fees and services and costs that the government has introduced over the last number of years. Because we had a little bit of a discussion earlier around MSP, perhaps I’ll begin with the MSP premiums.

[1710]

The minister raised the number of people who do not have to pay MSP and receive MSP. I wonder if the minister could mention the cutoff for MSP, where people start paying MSP, and tell us, tell myself, whether he believes that that is a reasonable amount of money for people to be able to have to start paying on MSP premiums.

Hon. M. de Jong: I’m getting some initial information. I can also tell the member that there is a chart I recall seeing that I’m happy to provide to her. But I’ll come to that part of her question maybe while we’re just verifying the material relating to MSP.

I promise not to belabour this, but this occurred to me as the member was offering her final thoughts around the budget and taxation decisions that were made and the surtax on high-income earners.

There was one other feature that I don’t want the member to think wasn’t in the government’s mind and, more particularly, in my mind. The budget that gave rise to that additional tax, that uncharacteristic tax increase, as I have characterized it, was a pre-election budget. In her role and her colleagues’ role as the opposition, they criticized the budget. They disputed its correctness, validity, accuracy — all of the things that oppositions are expected to do.

In the aftermath of the election, the government and I were resolved to reintroduce the same budget, because a lot of the criticism that took place at the time revolved around the accuracy or whether or not this was a pre-election — whether the budget could be balanced and whether this was accurate and whether the forecasting was accurate.

I will confess that I was adamant that, having presented that budget and having campaigned on it, in my view and the view of the government and the Premier, people were entitled to see us reintroduce the same budgetary instrument and stick to the pledges that were contained within that.

I won’t say any more about that, except to say that that, too, was in my mind and is, I think, a distinguishing characteristic about the components that were contained within that budget that was tabled in February of 2013.

Now, with respect to MSP, hopefully this is in the ballpark of what the member was looking for in terms of basic information.

I’m talking about an individual now. An individual with an adjusted net income of up to $22,000 pays no MSP premiums, pays partial premiums up to $30,000 and thereafter pays the full amount. A family of four with adjusted net income of up to $30,000 pays no MSP premiums and then partial premiums up to $39,000. A senior couple with adjusted net income of $30,000 pays no MSP premiums and only pays partial premiums up to $39,000 as well.

As I say, there’s a chart that breaks this down in terms of individuals and couples and income levels that I’m happy to share with the member.

C. James: Thank you to the minister. I appreciate that. I have the specifics. It was more the minister’s analysis of those specifics that I felt was important for the House, for the public to be able to hear.

I take the point, as the minister has made, that the government ran on a pre-election budget and were elected on a pre-election budget. I completely take that point, but I think it’s also important to note that that pre-election budget did not mention cuts to education, did not mention charging for adult basic education, did not mention increases in hydro rates and did not mention another increase in ICBC.

While the minister can say that they ran on a budget that said, “Here’s what we’re going to do, and this is exactly what we’ll do,” in fact, there were many changes that occurred.

[1715]

I think it’s important to not leave the impression that the budget didn’t change. The budget, in fact, did change. There were changes, and there were changes that were not talked about before the election.

Just to come back to the minister’s service plan and goal 2, which talks about a strong, competitive and vi-
[ Page 8596 ]
brant economy. I’m back to objective 2, which says that part of the minister’s role is to create a tax system that is perceived by British Columbians to be fair, that increases their confidence in government, and to continue to improve the fairness and competitiveness of the tax system.

Looking at these numbers for MSP, a family of four, at $38,000, is paying full rate, the same as someone making $1 million; an individual at $30,000 the same as someone making $1 million — paying the same rates in MSP. Does the minister believe that that meets his goal in the service plan?

Hon. M. de Jong: I suppose I would begin by offering this observation, and that is in rating the progressiveness of a taxation system, it is necessary, in my view, to examine, in a very holistic way, all of those taxes, fees, charges that confront a family.

There has been analysis conducted — some by government, some by agencies outside of government — that compares the burden faced by families within British Columbia — low-income, middle-income, high-income families — as compared to families in similar circumstances outside of British Columbia. In every instance, in every analysis, British Columbians fare very, very well.

Part of that relates to the adjustments that have been made to the income tax system and the significant benefits that accrue to families vis-à-vis other jurisdictions. There are other features to the budget and what is made available to families — families with younger children, families who are intent upon wanting to save for their children’s educational and training futures.

There are a series of benefits, as well, that I understand critics are not inclined to factor into the analysis but which a fulsome analysis must take into account.

The member has not, I hope, nor will she hear me deny…. MSP premiums represent a burden on those who are obliged to pay them. I understand that. I appreciate that.

[1720]

I also feel obliged, however, when asked about that burden by people, as I occasionally am in my travels across the province, to point out the benefits associated with our expenditures on health care — a budget that has tripled in the last dozen years or thereabouts. The fiscal demands that places on the province are real also.

Jurisdictions that have tried to ignore or unrealistically shield society from the burden associated with financing that health care system are today finding themselves in very, very dire straits. We don’t have to look far.

I think, perhaps, the underlying point the member is making is that on its own, the MSP premium grid, if I can use that clinical term, does not represent the high point in progressiveness. Coupled, though, with all of the other features of what characterize the taxation and fee structure and the other benefits that are provided for families as part of our fiscal plan, I would say — on the strength of analysis that has been conducted by others and analysis that has been conducted by government — that we fare very, very well in British Columbia.

C. James: I’d be interested in receiving that analysis from the minister on the various families and the various fees and services, all included along with the taxation. I think that would be interesting to take a look at.

The question is around MSP in itself. Because the MSP tax in itself is regressive. The MSP tax does not look at a sliding scale based on income. It does not say, other than once you reach…. I take the minister’s point that under $30,000 you are looking at not paying. There is a place between $20,000 and $30,000 where you’re paying a portion, and you’re not paying under $22,000, I believe it is now, with the changes that have just occurred.

I think from the public’s point of view — and to go back to the minister’s requirement to look at the perception of the public…. I’m sure the minister has heard the same arguments that we have. The average public out there wonder and question why the government hasn’t taken a look at the threshold, why the government hasn’t agreed to suggest, perhaps, that the threshold be looked at up to another number so that you’re not saying to someone making $1 million versus $35,000 that you’re paying exactly the same amount in MSP.

I just would like the minister to answer whether there has been any discussion or any review of the issue of the tax. Has the threshold been taken a look at and the regressivity of that tax been reviewed by the Finance Ministry?

Hon. M. de Jong: We’ll certainly get the table and the analysis…. As I recall, the analysis that we’ve included and maybe even published has also referenced third-party analysis. So the member will have the benefit of that as well.

[1725]

I should say, as well — again, working from memory and at the risk of opening up a different door for the member to enthusiastically walk through — that in those analyses, the one area where, depending on where you live in British Columbia, there is a marked difference with most areas in Canada is on the cost of housing. So that is, candidly, an area that reveals itself in the same analysis. In the other areas, though, the analysis operates in a very favourable way for British Columbians.

Are we prepared or able to conduct an analysis around the structure of MSP? The member has mentioned that there have been changes. There have been changes in the threshold in the past. There have been increases. I think the underlying point of the member’s question is to point to those increases, particularly since 2010. I say with all candor that, as a politician, believe me, I understand the challenge associated with increasing the fees or burdens that are placed on families.
[ Page 8597 ]

I also say with all candor that with a health budget due to exceed $18 billion in this fiscal plan, one cannot pretend that…. Some mechanism must be found to address those costs and cover those costs. Much of our discussion, I suppose, relates to what that mechanism is and how to do so.

I’m not at all hesitant to indicate to the member a willingness to examine the structure of payments that is included within the MSP realm. I don’t want to leave the impression — and I always say this when I have this conversation — that it is within the realm of possible to eliminate MSP premiums, because in my view, it’s not. But is there a philosophical willingness to examine the structure of payments, and particularly for that group? As the member has fairly pointed out, it’s not an issue for folks earning below $30,000, but perhaps more of an issue for what we still might term “the middle class.” Yes.

I would say this: as the fiscal performance of the province improves, we acquire a greater licence to do that. One of the signals I will take from the discussion that we are having today is that that is an area that the hon. opposition member would urge the government to focus upon, and I accept that.

I move the committee rise and report resolution and completion of the Ministry of Natural Gas Development and report progress on the Ministry of Finance and seek leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:29 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
BIRCH ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HEALTH

(continued)

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

The committee met at 1:37 p.m.

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

J. Darcy: We’re continuing on capital costs, and I want to ask some questions specifically related to facilities maintenance — the capital budget as it relates to that. There is a section of the budget — the minister is familiar with it — that has a whole lot of renovations. It’s not the huge capital projects but the smaller ones, which include building maintenance under $50 million.

My first question is: how does the ministry track facility conditions across health authorities? Is there a central repository of this information in the ministry, or do health authorities keep that data?

[1340]

Hon. T. Lake: The ministry and health authorities in 2005 did a provincewide inventory of 498 health facilities. In July 2012 the ministry signed a new agreement with VFA Canada Corp. to do a comprehensive facility assessment for approximately 500 health facilities across B.C. The 2012 agreement is a five-year agreement, with two five-year options for renewal at the discretion of the ministry.

The company goes in and assesses about 20 percent of health facilities per year, so throughout the five-year term all of the health facilities will have been assessed. The assessments do things like establish and maintain an inventory of facilities and their physical condition. Those will inform long-term capital plans and, obviously, ensure that the facilities continue to meet the needs of patients in British Columbia.

The assessment process uses a common indicator called the facility condition index, or FCI. It looks at the relative physical condition of a facility and basically says how much would be needed in renovations and investment to bring it up to sort of a new condition. The lower the FCI, the better. An FCI of 0.1 would be excellent, meaning there would be little investment needed to bring it up to a new standard, whereas if there was an FCI of 0.6, that would mean there would be significant investment needed to bring it back to that state of renewal.

J. Darcy: Of the entire budget for capital projects under $50 million — and I understand some of those are actually for construction, not renovation — can the minister give a figure on how much of that money is spent on facility condition upgrading?

Hon. T. Lake: The routine capital investments occur every year. It is a mix of replacement of critical infrastructure…. I believe one of the hospitals here in Victoria just had a new boiler system put in, which would bring it up to a new standard, reduce emissions and reduce utility costs. Others might be IM/IT renewals in a facility. Some will be minor equipment projects. For instance, in Burnaby Hospital, there’s a seventh operating room that’s being added. Those would come under the routine capital investment.

Some of it is identified through the assessments done in establishing a facility’s condition index. Some of it is responding to the needs of the community and the need to add room to the ER or add room to the sterilization unit. It’s a mix of different investments.

[1345]

J. Darcy: Does the minister have a figure for facility conditions — upgrading facility conditions, in particular?

Hon. T. Lake: No, it’s not broken out in that level of detail in terms of how much is a renovation to meet the needs of the community versus an infrastructure replacement that is sort of critical infrastructure, like a boiler system or a lighting system.

J. Darcy: The minister said there was a provincewide audit. Was that the term? So an assessment of facility conditions in 2005. If you could just repeat for me, as I don’t have the transcript, of course, the Blues from Hansard yet. Who was it that you indicated was contracted with in 2012 to do the assessment?

Hon. T. Lake: The name of the company is VFA Canada Corp., and Vanderweil Facility Advisors is what VFA stands for. They have contracted in July of 2012 on a five-year contract with the option of two five-year renewals. As I’ve said, they will assess approximately 20 percent of health facilities per year, so about 100 facilities each year will be assessed. They will be assigned a facility condition index.

If we take a hospital, they would look at the parkade, for instance. They would look at the main tower. They would look at different parts of a major property like that and score each of those components with a facility condition index. So reading from….

Let’s take Surrey Memorial. They would take the A block north building, B block north building, building D south, building E energy centre. Each one of those would be assigned an FCI. That helps the health authorities when they’re going down the list. They say: “Oh, building F has a relatively high FCI. We better put some planning dollars into our routine capital to address that assessment.”

J. Darcy: There was a provincewide assessment done in 2005. What is the status…? Is there a central repository of that information at this time? Do we have a current assessment of facility conditions — when this consultant was brought in, in 2012? That’s seven years since the original provincewide audit. So is there a central repository that informs what needs to be assessed next, and what has been done on the work that was indicated needed to be done in the provincewide audit in 2005?

[1350]

Hon. T. Lake: The data is kept by the Ministry of Health, and we provided, actually, the whole list to the Vancouver Sun recently. They were doing a story on facility conditions, an index of all the facilities. So when I look through this list here, there is some of this data that is from the old assessment. If I look at Burnaby Hospital, most of the information on Burnaby Hospital was done in the initial assessments back before our renewed contract with VFA. They will get reassessed now that we’ve got this long-term contract with VFA.

That was the point of having a five-year contract with two five-year renewal options: so that they can continuously go around and sequentially look at the different facilities. Some of this information would be dated from 2003, some from 2004, some from 2013, some from 2012. It’s a continuous assessment that, you know…. You kind of start at the beginning, go around and then repeat with this long-term contract that we have. This information is used by health authority planners when they’re looking at investing their dollars.

J. Darcy: If the minister shared it with the Vancouver Sun, he could share it with the official opposition.

Hon. T. Lake: I think for the low cost of $2, you can buy it. No, I’m just kidding.

We will be happy to supply it to the opposition.

J. Darcy: It is Thursday afternoon. We’ve been here for a while.

Just for clarity’s sake, is there…? The minister referred to some that are current as of ’03, some as of ’04, some as of ’12, some ’13. Is there a central repository of information? I think the minister said yes. How often is it updated? How are health authorities involved in that process?

Hon. T. Lake: The information is updated as the contractor goes around and does their assessments. Once they have assessed a particular building, that information would go to the health authority and to the ministry, so it’s all tracked by the individual health authority and then cumulatively by the ministry.

I’ll just give some more examples. Hillside Centre in Kamloops is the adult tertiary psychiatric centre. It was constructed in 2005. It was assessed in 2013, and it was given a facility condition score of 0.11. You would expect that. It’s only eight years old, and so it’s in very good shape.

If I can compare that, then, to another part of the hospital, the main part of the hospital was built in 1965. It was assessed at the same time as Hillside, and it has a facility condition index of 0.39. Again, it represents the age of the facility, so the score is higher, meaning it would take more investment in order to bring it up to a modern standard.

J. Darcy: So renovations and upgrades are reported as they are done. Is that correct?

Hon. T. Lake: I said that as the assessments are done, the information is tracked by the health authority and the ministry.
[ Page 8599 ]

Let’s say a facility had an assessment done in 2012, and then some renovations were done in 2013. A new FCI would not be reported to us until the VFA group went in and did a further assessment, and that could take anywhere from two to five years, depending on the cycle of assessments that they’re doing. Scores come in as they’re assessed.

I’ll give a hypothetical. A building was assessed in 2012, given an FCI of 0.25. In 2013 it had some renovations, and then in 2015 or 2016, it was assessed again. After those renovations, you would expect that facility condition index to come down from 0.25, lower than that, showing that the investment had reduced the amount of investment needed to bring it up to a modern standard.

[1355]

J. Darcy: So the need for an upgrade is reported in to health authorities and to the ministry. The upgrades that need to be done, you really don’t know — sometimes for many years. Some of the figures you referred to go back as far as 2003-2004. Is that correct? It won’t be until you bring in this new company, until they make a round of assessments, that you’ll know whether the upgrades were done?

Hon. T. Lake: Sorry, I’m not making myself clear. We know when renovations are being done. We see the capital projects that they have. For instance, if I look here, you can see minor projects in Vancouver Coastal. Each one of these is broken down, so at any one time…. For instance, in Royal Inland Hospital — I guess that’s most familiar for me — they did a renovation of the adolescent psychiatric facility. We know that’s going on, but that work…. We know about it. It’s been done. It’s being used, but it won’t impact the facility condition index that we track until the assessor comes around again.

It’s much like when your house is assessed. Let’s say you do a renovation in your basement. Your house value doesn’t go up as soon as you’ve done the renovation. It only goes up when it’s assessed again the next year. So there’s a lag phase between the work that we know is being done and the FCI score that is done when the assessor goes around and does their work.

J. Darcy: The purpose of these questions is to get at planning for capital expenditures, obviously. So a further question: how are seismic assessments tracked?

Hon. T. Lake: Before I answer the question, I wanted to just make one thing clear. Again, I’ll use an example. It’s probably easier.

Let’s say you had a hospital built in 1965, and they had rooms to house four patients, which was not uncommon in that era. Over time, obviously, the structure deteriorates. Floors need replacing. Ceiling needs replacing. You could go in there and renovate that four-bed room and bring it to what it looked like in 1965. The FCI would go down, but you’ve still got a four-bed room, so it actually doesn’t meet the needs of today.

The FCI isn’t the only input when deciding renovations or capital investments in an existing facility. You need to look at: is the facility providing the right services? Is it over or under capacity? Is it adaptable to current standards?

That’s probably the big one there — current standards. When we looked at St. Paul’s, one of the reasons the decision was made to build it at another site was that even with all of the investment that was planned to be made on the Burrard Street site, it would still leave us with an unacceptable number of multi-patient rooms, which is not the standard today.

[1400]

I just wanted to say that to help clarify the inputs required to decide on the types of renovations and investments that are made in facilities.

In terms of seismic screening, the agreement with VFA Canada is, as well as doing the FCI scores, to conduct seismic screening assessments of health facilities. The structural portion of the seismic screening assessment consists of a review of the relevant structural documents, as well as a visual walk-through inspection. In this screening stage, VFA reviews building age, materials of construction, lateral load–resisting elements, building irregularities, separation from adjacent buildings and building importance and occupancy.

This is important too. The non-structural portion of the seismic assessment is important as well. That is looking at potential seismic hazards from things like falling hazards — from masonry chimneys, from parapets, from veneer, canopies, ceilings, lights over exits and walkways — as well as masonry partitions, non–safety glass. All those sorts of things are looked at — structural and non-structural components — to assess the seismic risk of the facility.

J. Darcy: Is there a central repository on the need for seismic upgrades that is separate from the general facility information?

Hon. T. Lake: The assessments that are done by VFA when they are doing their cycle of visits to the different facilities will look at, from a relatively high level, the structural and non-structural seismic risks of each building. That information will then be taken by health authorities and used for their planning and work for seismic mitigation.

[1405]

Obviously, in different parts of the province there are different levels of risks. For Northern Health and Interior Health, the level of seismic mitigation is essentially very, very low. That’s why in Kamloops we have two extremely large data storage facilities, because the seismic risk is so low.
[ Page 8600 ]

Obviously, in the Lower Mainland, Vancouver Island, those risks would be higher. On Vancouver Island they have had a large capital replacement program. Victoria Royal Jubilee Hospital and Victoria General — both would be of relatively low seismic concern because of the structural components that have gone into those facilities in the modern era. Anything that’s constructed in the last 20 to 25 years, through the building code, would be much more seismically resilient than older buildings like St. Paul’s or facilities in Penticton and Kamloops that were built in the 1960s.

Interjection.

Hon. T. Lake: Royal Columbian, yes.

Now, in the Lower Mainland they used information, did a deeper dive, and went through and developed a seismic database. The Lower Mainland health authorities — that’s Vancouver Coastal, Providence Health Care, as well as PHSA and Fraser Health — have created a seismic database for the Lower Mainland, which is a model similar to that used for schools.

It has included common assessment criteria, standards for evaluation, and currently the database has been populated with baseline facility data for about 60 percent of Lower Mainland facilities. It is in process. That database is being populated as those seismic assessments are being done.

J. Darcy: How many of the facilities in the province have been deemed to be in need of seismic upgrades? And of those, which ones are considered…? What is the level of risk attached to each of them?

Hon. T. Lake: As the member knows, a seismic upgrade program was developed by the government for schools in parts of the province where it was needed. That similar program has not extended to health care facilities. Each health authority will do this work in their own planning. In the Lower Mainland they’ve combined to do an integrated planning approach to the seismic upgrade. We don’t have a list of every facility and its seismic resilience, but the Lower Mainland, for instance, has their database for their facilities.

What has, essentially, happened over the years with the very aggressive capital program is that facilities are being upgraded and replaced. Of course, when that happens — a good example is the hospital in Queen Charlotte — obviously they are built to the seismic standard of today.

J. Darcy: Let’s just turn to Island Health for a minute. You mentioned Vic General and Royal Jubilee and recent new facilities, renovations that mean that they are of lower concern. What are the other facilities on Vancouver Island that need to be seismically upgraded, and what is their level of risk?

[1410]

Hon. T. Lake: I think I said before that I don’t have a database or a data set that lists each facility and their seismic resilience. What I do have is a list of facilities and the age that they were built. Obviously, newer buildings will have less of a concern than older buildings.

If we look at Campbell River and District General Hospital, we know that is being rebuilt. That will be built to seismic standards. In Comox a new hospital there will be built to seismic standards. If you look at Chemainus Health Care Centre, that was built in 1996, so that would be to a relatively modern standard. Cowichan — 1967, so one that likely needs to have some work done and probably is in the planning stage, I believe, for renewal in the future.

It really does depend on the age of the hospital and component of the hospital as to their seismic resiliency. But we don’t, as the ministry, keep a list — a score, if you like — for each of the facilities throughout the province as it relates to seismic resiliency.

J. Darcy: I’m finding it a little difficult to understand how the ministry can do planning several years out — we’ve talked about capital renovations, in this case about seismic upgrading — without the ministry having information about…. Clearly, the minister knows what the age of the hospitals is, and the ministry has indicated that facilities beyond a certain age would require seismic upgrades. Is there no data available that indicates: these facilities need to be seismically upgraded, and this is the time frame within which that’s going to happen?

Hon. T. Lake: I think I’ve described the capital planning process, but I’ll do it again. There are a number of inputs that are used to determine whether a hospital should be rebuilt, renovated or replaced. Those are the population needs of the community, the age of the facility, the changing standards and whether that facility can adapt to the standards. Certainly, the seismic resiliency or fragility of the building would come into it.

Each health authority looks at their capital needs and will determine their priorities. Then they submit those priorities to the ministry, and the ministry will balance those priorities given the scope of the capital budget.

St. Paul’s is a very good example. I think part of the building was built in the ’80s, but certainly the older part of the building — it’s been known for a very long time that that building was seismically fragile. Some seismic mitigation was done on St. Paul’s, but eventually, the decision was made to rebuild St. Paul’s.

Part of the decision to locate it at a new location was the fact that you could build it to modern standards, whereas even with seismic mitigation, renovation, new buildings added, you would still end up with a facility that doesn’t meet, throughout the building, the modern standards.
[ Page 8601 ]

Of course, there is a lot of planning work that goes in. Health authorities will develop a master concept plan. That will come to the ministry so that we can see, okay, down the road the health authority is thinking that this facility has a vision — a ten-year vision for redevelopment, perhaps. Then each of the components of that master site plan will be phased, in most cases. It’s rare that the whole building gets done at once.

[1415]

They’ll be phased, and then each phase will have a business plan attached to it. In that business plan, it will talk about the seismic fragility or resiliency of the building. It will talk about whether it can be adapted to modern standards — all of those inputs. These are documents that are binders full of material that is pored over by project boards, engineers, health experts.

All of that information is collated, and a design is put forward and either approved or sent back by the ministry and then eventually goes to Treasury Board. Then it’s balanced against the needs across government, from a capital point of view, and either goes forward or is sent back for more work or simply delayed because there’s not enough room in the capital budget.

It’s a very, very rigorous process, and it starts with inventory, with looking to the future, what the needs are of the population, and putting all of these inputs together to come up with, first of all, a master site plan and then a business case for each component.

J. Darcy: I appreciate the minister’s explanation about St. Paul’s. I had asked a specific question about Island Health facilities.

Why don’t we turn to the Lower Mainland? The minister says that the Lower Mainland has a database involving Providence, Fraser, Coastal and PHSA. Can the minister indicate — based on the assessment that they’ve done, what the minister referred to as a deeper dive — which facilities are on the list to be seismically upgraded and what their level of risk is deemed to be?

Hon. T. Lake: The Lower Mainland health authorities are working together and doing seismic assessments. They have populated that database with baseline facility data for about 60 percent of the Lower Mainland facilities — with actual, up-to-date seismic assessment for about 25 percent of the facilities. That includes most of the hospitals in the Lower Mainland.

The report for the acute hospitals in the Lower Mainland showed that there were 14 hospital campuses and that 40 of the 71 acute buildings are considered at-risk and require structural upgrading to meet current seismic standards. Obviously, St. Paul’s would be one of those. That will be looked after by investments at a new site.

Royal Columbian Hospital — components of that, I’m sure, would be part of that. We know that we are nearing the final approval process for Royal Columbian Hospital in the near future. Once that’s completed, in the very, very near future, that will obviously take care of some of that. So the Lower Mainland has the more…. That’s sort of a summary that we have in front of us now, but I don’t have the detail on each of the facilities.

J. Darcy: I just want to make sure I understand. The database for the Lower Mainland seismic upgrading, you said, is 60 percent populated. Then you referred to 25 percent of hospitals. I don’t want to get caught up in numbers, but I’m struggling to understand how those two figures are different.

Hon. T. Lake: There are a lot of health authority buildings. This isn’t just hospitals. This is all of their buildings.

Baseline data for 60 percent of their buildings has been entered. That would be probably some very basic information about each of the buildings. Then a detailed seismic assessment of the building…. So far, about 25 percent of the facilities have had that deeper dive into the seismic assessment of each building, but that 25 percent includes most of the hospital campuses in the Lower Mainland.

J. Darcy: The minister indicated that 40 of 71 were at risk. Was that in reference to hospitals or buildings?

Hon. T. Lake: That’s in reference to buildings on 14 hospital campuses.

[1420]

J. Darcy: Can the minister indicate what level of risk those facilities have?

Hon. T. Lake: I don’t have that level of detail. That is held by the health authorities. I’m not sure if we would be able to have that available or not. I could certainly check.

J. Darcy: Is there a reason why it would not be able to be made available? I understand you don’t have it now.

Hon. T. Lake: I simply don’t know. I’ll have a look and check.

J. Darcy: So a question to the minister. The minister needs access to that kind of information in order to be able to do long-term planning. I mean, the ministry is trying to plan on a longer cycle. The minister has spoken of that. Surely, the minister will be able to access that information.

Hon. T. Lake: Health authorities use all of this information to put forward their priorities for capital planning purposes. The ministry takes that information from all the health authorities, and then priorities are developed.
[ Page 8602 ]
For instance, we know in the Lower Mainland we’ve talked about St. Paul’s and Royal Columbian Hospital. We balance that against the needs of the other health authorities.

The planning for the health authority is done by the health authority, and then that is moved up forward into the ministry. Their information…. Let’s say a business plan is put forward for a hospital in Vancouver. That business plan will include information about the seismic risk involved, and that will form part of the decision-making process when the ministry balances that against other priorities in other health authorities.

We may have a facility in the Lower Mainland that is functioning well but needs seismic investment, versus one in the Interior, let’s say, that doesn’t have the same seismic risk. All of those factors come in when we’re deciding where to put the scarce resources of the taxpayer in investments. All of that information is tracked and put into the business plans as they’re moved forward into the Ministry of Health.

J. Darcy: I understand the minister saying that health authorities are responsible for planning and making proposals about priorities for capital projects and so on, but the provincial government is surely responsible for public safety.

I come back to my question about whether the minister…. If the minister doesn’t have it now, does he not believe that he should have access to information about all health care facilities — in particular, hospitals, residential care facilities — and what their requirements are for seismic upgrades, since it is the provincial government that is responsible for public safety?

[1425]

Hon. T. Lake: Regional health authorities, as I mentioned, are responsible for their facilities and planning. There’s no question that the older the building, the more likely it is to need seismic upgrading. We know this building that we are in is one of the biggest seismic risks in the province of British Columbia. So the question, I guess, could be: why aren’t we investing the $250 million or whatever it would take to do seismic upgrades? Choices are made, obviously.

When we look at hospital facilities, they have all been built to seismic standards since the 1950s. The seismic risk has been known for a long time. I would venture to say that almost all facilities — St. Paul’s being an exception — have been built since the 1950s, so they would be built to seismic standards.

The code was updated for health facilities in 1975. Any facilities built in the last 40 years would have been built to that standard. Now, having said that, that doesn’t mean you wouldn’t have some impact. Of course, it would vary depending on the severity of the seismic activity. We’ve all seen in Nepal that the devastation that can occur is related to the severity of the seismic event but also the structure of the buildings and the proximity of buildings to each other. There are a lot of factors that go into that.

Inside the building the non-structural components are important to keep people safe as well. We have provided funding over the years to pursue a number of non-structural seismic mitigation projects. These are things like installing shelving restraints, securing critical equipment and installing flexible fuel lines to reduce the risk of breaking. Those projects are very cost-effective, because they will mitigate the significant damage and repair expenses that could occur with a seismic event.

The information is used by health authorities. But as I mentioned, hospitals built certainly since 1975 should be built to a standard that allows them to function after an earthquake. Again, that is based on, I presume, a prediction of an earthquake of a particular severity. If we had an earthquake of 8.0, I’m not sure that even the newest, most resilient building would escape damage.

J. Darcy: Just one last question on this area. Will the minister provide a list of the health care facilities that require seismic upgrades in the province and their level of risk?

Hon. T. Lake: I think I’ve made it clear that we do not have a complete list. Each health authority has that. I thought I had made that clear.

J. Darcy: Will the minister request those lists from health authorities and provide them?

Hon. T. Lake: I said I would endeavour to get that information.

J. Darcy: Thank you to the minister.

Let me move on to another issue related to capital projects. On Tuesday my colleague the member for Burnaby–Deer Lake joined me and asked the minister a question about Burnaby Hospital to follow up on a meeting that she had been involved in with the minister and with other Burnaby MLAs quite recently.

[1430]

My colleague also followed up on some discussion that took place, I gather, in that meeting. That was querying the minister about what impact the different arrangement for capital costs for facilities in the Lower Mainland…. There’s a difference between how that’s handled in the Lower Mainland because of earlier understandings about transit funding from how it’s handled in other parts of the province — namely, in other parts of the province they would contribute 40 percent of the cost towards capital projects.

[J. Thornthwaite in the chair.]
[ Page 8603 ]

Leaving aside the issue of whether or not Lower Mainland governments have actually been in a position to generate the funds in order to do what they want to do with transit, which is a question for a different minister and a different ministry. My colleague asked the question about whether this might skew decisions that are made about capital projects in Lower Mainland projects because 40 percent would not be contributed towards the cost of the project.

The minister, I gather, in the meeting with MLAs from Burnaby, said: “It influences to some degree where the priorities are.” In our discussion just a few days ago here, the minister, when he was asked about this again, the minister said: “So the quid pro quo, I would argue, not being from the Lower Mainland, really hasn’t been realized. Having said that, we look at the priorities. That is one of the factors, but it is not the main factor” — that being where the health authority is and where the proposed hospital is being built.

I wonder if the minister can elaborate on that. Is there, in fact, a difference in how the ministry approaches funding for capital projects in the Metro Vancouver area than there is in other parts of the province? What kind of a priority does that issue play?

Hon. T. Lake: As I mentioned, each health authority creates their own list of capital priority projects. Those projects come through the system up to the provincial government, and then they are balanced against the varying needs around the province and the limits of our fiscal ability to do those projects.

For example, if a regional hospital district in the Interior locally went to the Interior Health Authority and said, “We want to go to our regional taxpayers and fund a redevelopment of our hospital,” the regional health authority would say: “Okay, well, what are the needs?” If the needs of that community warrant that process, they would encourage the regional hospital district to go to their taxpayers and ask for that 40 percent contribution.

If there was another community that had higher needs, they would probably say to that regional health district: “Listen. The other community down the road has a higher need. So we’re happy to have you participate, but perhaps it would be in a different year into the future while this community has its needs met.” It is a factor in all stages of planning.

Often there are communities that are very enthusiastic and actually go out and will raise their regional hospital district taxes in anticipation of the need to replace or renovate their hospitals. That was the case in Penticton, for instance, where the regional hospital district started taxing in preparation for replacement of the hospital, even though they didn’t know when that would occur, because it has to go up through the regional system and then through the provincial system. It is a factor at various stages.

If a community says, “You know what? We don’t support raising money locally for a hospital. We don’t think it’s a priority for us as a community,” then it’s a different consideration for the regional health authority, because they are following the wishes of the community saying: “Actually, we don’t think that’s the biggest priority for us as a community.”

[1435]

There are many, many factors, and I certainly did not want to leave the impression that if a hospital facility needs investment to meet the needs of any British Columbian, the government would not invest in it. As it goes through this process, there’s no question that regional hospital districts will have influence on the regional health authorities in terms of where investments occur. But it is always a balance of the needs of the population and, then, the willingness, of course, and the capacity of the system to be able to make those investments.

J. Darcy: Just to be clear, because the minister talked about priorities within health authorities…. The Lower Mainland health authorities have a different understanding, have a different arrangement — and have had for a number of years.

Can the minister confirm…? Well, the question is: are Lower Mainland communities treated any differently when it comes to setting priorities for capital projects because the government has to pay 100 percent of the capital costs instead of 60 percent like other regions?

[1440]

Hon. T. Lake: There are a number of factors that go into decisions, as I have mentioned. Regional hospital district contribution is one of them. Foundation contributions are another. If we look at, for instance, Children’s and Women’s Hospital, provincial funding is $478 million, but the foundation is $145 million. So there are other large contributors that come into this discussion.

If we look at the capital budget from 2015-16 through to 2017-18…. I went through it myself because I was curious about this kind of question — Lower Mainland versus outside the Lower Mainland.

In that budget, from 2015-16 through to 2017-18, our three-year capital plan, there is a total of $1.537 billion being spent outside of the Lower Mainland and $3.157 billion being spent in the Lower Mainland. So over twice as much investment in the Lower Mainland in this three-year planning cycle than non–Lower Mainland. There is a significant investment being made in the Lower Mainland.

There are a variety of different funding sources. Outside of the Lower Mainland foundations contribute, and regional hospital districts do. In the Lower Mainland there is more capacity in foundations, so their contribution is somewhat larger in the Lower Mainland.
[ Page 8604 ]

J. Darcy: Thank you to the minister for that response.

Moving on, I understand that the minister’s approval is required for any health authorities to sell land or facilities. Can the minister provide a list of all land, facilities or other major assets sold or otherwise divested? And can he indicate whether any major sites have changed hands?

Hon. T. Lake: Ever?

J. Darcy: Okay, let’s talk about in the last three or four years’ planning cycle.

[1445]

Hon. T. Lake: The ministry and the minister can delegate some responsibilities down to senior staff, but essentially, if significant investments have been made in a facility under the Hospital Act, then the ministry must sign off on any land sale.

For instance, in St. Paul’s, because that land was…. The faith-based community, Providence Health Care, owned the land, but significant taxpayer dollars have gone into that facility over the years. Under the Hospital Act the ministry essentially has the right to approve or not approve of a land sale.

There is sometimes a change in ownership of minor pieces of land, like road rights-of-way, and sometimes municipalities and hospital districts will do land exchanges. But on the larger facilities, certainly, where there has been significant investment by taxpayers, then the ministry has approval.

I can say, through the release of assets for economic generation program, a list of properties that have been sold, health authority properties…. I have a list there. I’m happy to provide it to the member. It shows that the target for those properties, a number of different properties throughout the province, was $316.85 million, and the actual sale of the properties was $338,479,460 — so an increase over the target of just over $21 million.

[1450]

I just wanted to correct — sorry — my last answer, because I was miscounting some of the figures here. The target for the release of assets for economic generation was $312.309 million. The ones that have been sold or are in the planning stage would be $328 million, so a difference of about $16 million.

J. Darcy: This is for the current year? Which time period are we speaking about?

Hon. T. Lake: This is the release of assets for economic generation program, which began, I believe, in 2013, but I will just double-check that number.

This is in 2013-14 through 2014-15. So it was a two-year program, starting in ’13-14 and going through ’14-15.

J. Darcy: Does the minister have a list of assets that are now up for sale or are being put up for sale, since this brings us to the end of a previous fiscal year, not going forward?

Hon. T. Lake: I can give a list here. Properties that have been sold include the Tranquille property in Kamloops; a portion of Mission Memorial Hospital in Mission; the Triangle property, which is part of Victoria General Hospital; Vantage Way — that’s the old Tilbury Laundry — in Delta; 1651 East Broadway, Vancouver Coastal; 990 22nd Street in West Vancouver; 1415 Ellis Street in Kelowna; the Dogwood Lodge in Vancouver; the George Pearson Centre in Vancouver.

Not completed at this point is a property in Prince George, on 6th Avenue, and the old MSA Hospital site in Abbotsford.

J. Darcy: Just to clarify. You said: “Not completed yet.” Does that mean the others are already listed and sold? The majority of the facilities on there are listed and sold. That’s in this fiscal year?

Hon. T. Lake: For the Kamloops property, the target year for selling was ’13-14; Mission, ’13-14; Victoria, ’13-14; Delta, ’13-14; Vancouver, ’13-14; West Van, ’13-14; Kelowna, ’14-15. The Dogwood and Pearson would close out in the ’15-16 year.

J. Darcy: Perhaps I wasn’t clear. My second-last question was about which properties are for sale now. Where are we as far as the current fiscal year? Presumably they’re not sold yet.

[1455]

Hon. T. Lake: The Dogwood and the Pearson Centre have been sold in this current year. Still pending are the Prince George property and the Abbotsford property.

J. Darcy: Which properties does the minister plan to put up for sale in the coming year?

Hon. T. Lake: Those are the only ones — the Prince George and the Abbotsford locations.

J. Darcy: Separate from the initial capital cost of the P3s — public-private partnerships — of course, are the ongoing contractual obligation payments. The health payments are listed, I understand. I have in front of me “Contractual Obligations — supplementary detail information” from the Public Accounts, province of British Columbia. Health payments are listed on page 1 of the contractual obligations in the annual Public Accounts.

Can the minister confirm that these payments come out of health authority operating budgets and represent fixed costs to health authorities?

[1500]

Hon. T. Lake: The money for the life of the project comes out of the health authority’s operating funds, but that is built into the planning for the health authority funding that comes from the Ministry of Health.

Let’s take Children’s and Women’s Hospital, for instance. That is under the auspices of the Provincial Health Services Authority. That, over the 30-year life of that rebuild of Women’s and Children’s, will be $941.8 million. That would consist of annual payments over those 30 years. When we’re building the budget for Provincial Health Services Authority, they would get a line for that annual payment that goes towards the cost, the 30-year cost, of that hospital.

If they didn’t have that capital in their authority, if Children’s and Women’s wasn’t being rebuilt, then their budget would reflect that. It wouldn’t have that lift in it that represents the cost of the annual payment of the capital project.

J. Darcy: Just some examples, some information. The capital costs taken from Partnerships B.C. and the total P3 payments taken from public accounts would indicate that the Abbotsford Regional Hospital and Cancer Centre P3 — $355 million from capital costs, $1,100 million…. Sorry, that’s $1.1 billion. It’s late, Minister. I’ve got to get the decimal in the right place, otherwise we’ll be hearing math jokes as with the Premier who recently lost in the province of Alberta. We’re all tired.

Continuing, Jim Pattison Outpatient Care and Surgery Centre P3 — $239.1 million of capital costs, $353 million in total P3 payments. Surrey Memorial Hospital emergency department critical care tower P3 — $512 million capital, $736 million operating. Kelowna-Vernon Hospitals P3 — $432.9 million capital, $736 million total P3 payments. Fort St. John Hospital P3 — $301.8 million in capital costs, $291 million in total P3 payments. B.C. Cancer Centre for the North P3 — $69.9 million capital costs, $87 million in total P3 payments. Gordon and Leslie Diamond Centre P3 — $95 million in capital costs, $112 million in total P3 payments. Royal Jubilee P3 — $282.5 million capital costs and $495 million in total P3 payments.

I want to confirm with the minister that those figures correspond with the minister’s understanding of what comes out of capital costs and what comes out of ongoing P3 operating costs.

[1505]

Hon. T. Lake: The annual service payment on a P3 project consists of more than the capital cost, which is the cost plus the interest on building it. The whole idea is that in that service payment is built in a maintenance and facilities management fee.

If we take the Children and Women’s, for instance — I mentioned $941.8 million — the life-cycle costs of that are $123.2 million. That’s over the 30 years — you know, things that need to be replaced, like they do in your house on a regular basis. Facilities management costs. This is where the operator now is making their part of the income from facilities management. That would be $358.1 million. Special-purpose vehicle costs, $16.2 million, and capital repayment, $444.3 million.

What the ministry does is look at the incremental costs to the health authority — with this project, without this project. The incremental costs of all those pieces of the annual service plan are then added to the budget for the Provincial Health Services Authority so that they’re not, all of a sudden, having to take money from other operating to fund this incremental increase in capital that is there. That is built into their budget by the ministry on the basis of the incremental addition that this project requires.

J. Darcy: Can the minister indicate — I know that there are different pieces that make up those ongoing operating costs and maintenance costs — which line items they would appear in? In which line items would those contractual obligations appear for the health authorities? Are they all together, or are they in different line items? If it’s different line items, which line items would those be?

Hon. T. Lake: Those would show up in the health authority budgets. We don’t have that information here with us. In the Ministry of Health budget it would show, under the regional health authorities, the contribution to the regional health authorities, and then within that, each health authority would break it down into the different line items for different components of their budgets.

J. Darcy: I understand the minister…. I appreciate he doesn’t have that information at his fingertips just now. Can the minister get back to us on where one would find it in the health authority budgets?

Sorry, perhaps I wasn’t clear. My question was whether you could get back to us on that.

Hon. T. Lake: I’m not sure. That’s what I’m trying to find out.

J. Darcy: Okay.

[1510]

Hon. T. Lake: Each health authority posts their financial statements on line, and we’re just checking the format there. The income statement would contain their life-cycle cost component of the annual service payments, and the note on debt obligation would show the capital costs and the repayment obligation that they have. That information is available publicly on each health authority’s website.
[ Page 8606 ]

J. Darcy: These P3 projects are subject to private refinancing from time to time. Can the minister confirm whether any or all of these P3 contracts include provisions that turn over savings from refinancing back to health authorities? If, for instance, the financing costs for the private sector went down, would the savings from refinancing go back to health authorities?

[1515]

Hon. T. Lake: If a proponent, a company that is the successful proponent for a P3…. They’ve got a 30-year contract with the health authority, and the annual service payments come out from the health authority to pay off that contract. But the P3 proponent would have a business decision to make, generally speaking, about financing costs.

If financing costs went down and they wanted to renegotiate their financing with their bank, that would be a business decision that they make. In many cases, of course, the banks would charge a fee for refinancing. The proponent would make a business decision whether or not it made sense to do that.

So unless specified under the contract that is set originally, when the proponent and the health authority come to an agreement, it would be a business decision on the part of the proponent whether to refinance or not. Then any savings…. The proponent would reap those savings, again, unless specified otherwise in the contract.

J. Darcy: If there aren’t any such provisions then…? As we know, interest rates can fluctuate wildly. Can the minister confirm that the private partner could potentially take savings from refinancing as profit, while health authorities continue to pay a fixed cost for the P3 contract?

Hon. T. Lake: As I said, the contracts in our initial P3s did not have a provision for sharing of any gains realized through refinancing. Subsequent contracts, I’m informed, do have provisions.

[1520]

Some of these newer contracts do have provisions for gain-sharing, from refinancing, between the proponent and the health authority. From our perspective, that gives us an ability to share on the upside, but we don’t have the same downside risks.

When we sign a contract, we know what our annual service plan payments will be for the debt, and the proponent assumes the risk if financing costs were to go higher. If they did not have a fixed rate for those 30 years and interest rates were to go up, then it’s the proponent which takes that risk, not the health authority.

J. Darcy: I want to quote from B.C.’s new Auditor General, from her October 2014 report, where she says: “It is interesting to note that while government’s weighted average cost of borrowing is approximately 4 percent, on the $2.3 billion that government borrowed through public-private partnerships, this is 7.5 percent.”

In other words, government is paying nearly twice as much for borrowing through a P3 as it would if it borrowed the money itself. Over the 35 years that many of these projects run, the difference in borrowing costs could come to hundreds of millions of dollars. That’s an enormous amount of money to spend on private financing — money that could be going into public health.

Can the minister reflect on the Auditor General’s findings, which can be found on page 18 of the Auditor General’s report?

Hon. T. Lake: I feel we are getting outside of the bounds of Health, in that the Ministry of Finance is responsible for borrowing and decisions, through Treasury Board, on the decision around P3s versus government debt.

I will say, though, that it’s important to recognize that this is a business decision that’s made to transfer risk. These are risk-adjusted interest rates. Under ideal circumstances, if government were to borrow the money and the projects came in exactly as predicted, that may well be the case. But the transfer of risk means that the proponent assumes the risk of any changes in the costs. We have, essentially, a guarantee of the costs of the project, and the proponent, then, will assume the risk.

I would also say…. The member is espousing that not carrying a higher debt means that you can spend more on front-line health care. That is exactly why we are so focused on balancing a budget and having a triple-A credit rating. It’s because that reduces the operating debt, obviously, and having a triple-A credit rating reduces the interest we pay on that debt. That means that there is far more in the operating budget for all front-line services throughout government.

J. Darcy: Well, the reality is that the Auditor General is essentially saying that this is not a good deal for taxpayers and that it costs the Health budget and the government more than if the cost was assumed by the public system. Surely, the Auditor General’s findings…. The Health Ministry, as the minister has said repeatedly, is 42 percent of the provincial budget. This has a huge impact on the Health budget and on overall budget for government.

[1525]

I wonder if the minister can provide a number for additional costs borne by his ministry as a result of this discrepancy in borrowing rates, as cited by the Auditor General.

Hon. T. Lake: Auditor General reports to do with finance are best answered by Finance. I don’t have…. That information would be held by the Finance Minister, who I believe is downstairs doing his estimates. So perhaps at the break the member could run down and ask that question.
[ Page 8607 ]

Interjection.

Hon. T. Lake: That would be nice.

This is a debate that goes on around P3s. We as a government have decided that projects over a certain amount — it used to be $50 million, and now it’s $100 million — need to be put through a P3 lens. So we look at it and ask ourselves: “Is there better value for money, for the taxpayer, to do a project in a P3 or a design-build with government financing?”

Even with the P3s there are different aspects to the financing. Some of it would come from a regional hospital district that borrows that money at the low, low government rate they are able to borrow through, I believe, the Municipal Finance Authority. Some of the money would be borrowed privately, and that would be at a higher rate. As I say, I hesitate to comment. But if I remember correctly, on the Fort St. John project, for instance, there was only a small portion that was borrowed at the high rate.

Now, the other argument that I think is really important here is that if you do a design-build rather than a P3 that has a facilities management contract attached to it, the design of the hospital or any facility will vary. It will be designed to build it as cheaply…. I shouldn’t say as cheaply but as economically as possible.

[M. Hunt in the chair.]

Whereas in a P3, where you have a facilities maintenance contract over 30 years, the proponent will design that facility to reduce and make more efficient the maintenance and cleaning of that hospital or that other facility.

[1530]

It is in the best interests of the P3 proponent to design that facility in a way that will allow them to reap the benefits of economical servicing of that facility over the life of the contract. That is the transfer of risk, and it often results in better design that leads to a longer life cycle of the facility.

J. Darcy: I’m not in a position to go down and question the Finance Minister on this, as the Health Minister knows. I would think since, according to our Auditor General, we’re talking about hundreds of millions of dollars in additional costs because of using the P3 model, it would be something that the minister would be able to answer.

Let me refer to a report by the Ontario Auditor General, who issued a report in December of 2014. A report from the Ontario Auditor General in December 2014 looked at the cost of building infrastructure using P3s rather than public financing. She found, in looking at 74 projects, including hospitals, a nearly $8 billion discrepancy over nine years. It cost Ontario $8 billion more to build using a P3 model than if they had used public financing. Has the minister reviewed this information from Ontario, and has he considered asking B.C.’s Auditor General to do a similar review?

The Chair: Mr. Minister.

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

That is the purview of the Finance Minister. They have responsibility for Partnerships B.C.

J. Darcy: Since there are potentially hundreds of millions…. Well, in the case of Ontario, $8 billion in additional money was spent that the Auditor General there said didn’t need to be spent. Does the minister not think it’s wise to advise the Finance Minister to ask for a review by British Columbia’s Auditor General such as the one conducted by the Ontario Auditor General?

Hon. T. Lake: That would be at the discretion of the Finance Minister.

J. Darcy: Well, we are now ten years into this experiment in British Columbia. I would certainly think and would strongly recommend that the minister recommend to the Finance Minister that it would be prudent to consider a further review of that and to study very carefully the Ontario Auditor General’s report.

Particularly as the minister is contemplating a P3 model for the new St. Paul’s Hospital, does the minister not believe that he should have all the information possible available to him before potentially wasting hundreds of millions of taxpayers’ dollars on more expensive private financing?

Hon. T. Lake: That is the purview of the Finance Minister.

J. Darcy: There are individual MLAs coming in to ask specific questions, so this seemed like a good time to break, but we have canvassed in estimates the last couple of years whether the commitment by the MLA from Dawson Creek to build a new hospital there was, in fact, a commitment of this government. I see that it does not appear in the ministry service plan, so can we assume that the hospital in Dawson Creek is not in the ministry’s plans?

Hon. T. Lake: I’ve been through the capital planning process. I’d be happy to walk through it again. The regional health authorities will look at their needs across the region. They will decide what is the priority for their regional health authority and then advance it up to the ministry through a master site development plan and a business case. So it is really up to, in this case, Northern Health to prioritize the projects in their health authority. That is really where the impetus lies.
[ Page 8608 ]

The Chair: I will call a ten-minute recess.

The committee recessed from 3:35 p.m. to 3:50 p.m.

[M. Hunt in the chair.]

S. Robinson: I have a number of questions for the minister. The first one relates to the Health Care Costs Recovery Act that was enacted in 2009. My question relates to some information that I just learned about, and I just wanted to get a bit more information.

There’s a brief statement that the Health Ministry provided not too long ago, back in March, that the ministry has recouped approximately $21.8 million in health care costs via the act. I’d like to know how much of that has come from local governments.

Hon. T. Lake: The Health Care Costs Recovery Act was passed May 29, 2008, and the regulation bringing it in, of course, for April 1, 2009. It allows B.C. to recover the past and future costs of health care provided to a beneficiary where the costs are the result of a personal injury caused by a third party. So the member is aware of that.

It allows us to expand the scope of health care costs that can be recovered from medical care, hospital services, some continuing care services, ambulance services, PharmaCare and potentially other costs covered by provincially funded programs. So it can come from insurance companies that would cover individuals, or it would in some cases come from municipalities.

I have a summary of how much we have recouped over the last number of years. I don’t have it broken down by municipality. As you can imagine, as each recovery is made, it would be in some cases relatively small, in other cases, larger. But we don’t have it in this room.

Sorry. My mike is not on.

The Chair: This one is on. We’re having a little trouble with the one mike, so we’re going back and forth to what works.

Hon. T. Lake: Okay. Thank you.

We don’t break it down in terms of municipalities versus other creditors that have funds recouped through this act and regulations.

[1555]

S. Robinson: Well, it sort of makes it really challenging, given that I follow the local government file and I’m trying to get an assessment about how local government taxpayers wind up paying some of those health care costs through their taxes to local governments. I’m just trying to get a sense of what the differences are. Is there any possibility of getting those numbers in the near future?

Hon. T. Lake: I will certainly have our staff endeavour to do that.

I must say, though, that if we look at 2014-15, it’s about $5.6 million recovered on a $16.5 billion budget. So relatively small and that…. Of course, municipalities would only be a portion of that. I will try to get for the member the percentage of that $5.6 million that comes from municipalities.

S. Robinson: That would be very helpful.

Along the lines of municipalities, given that we’re on that theme, the UBCM has come and done their lobby day to a number of MLAs in this Legislature. They talked about mental health and policing and the challenges that local governments are facing. They would really like to hear from the minister about their concerns regarding how mental health issues in their communities are impacting on their budgets around policing and what the minister’s plans are to help address some of those issues.

[1600]

The Chair: Just so that you know what’s happening, we are having a problem with the PA system. Right now they are in the process of rebooting it.

[Interruption.]

Hon. T. Lake: The question was around the local governments that are responsible for policing and the increasing role of police officers in dealing with, managing and helping people with mental health and substance use issues. I believe, Member, that’s kind of the question.

There’s no question that society generally, and B.C. in particular, has made a decision away from institutionalization of people with mental health challenges — the decision made as a society. In fact, in the 1990s a large decision was made around the Riverview project and to return people with mental health to the community, with supports in place through group homes and through other supports in the community. People with mental health challenges are far more visible than they would have been in earlier decades.

[1605]

That means that…. People with mental health challenges — at times their behaviour can pose perceived, at least, threats to people. The data shows, however, that people with mental health challenges are more likely to be victims of crime than to perpetrate crime.

Having said all that, there’s no question that — as a former mayor and as someone who lives in the downtown of my city — you do see people in public that in other years, other decades, you would not have. That is a decision we’ve made as a society. It’s natural that police officers would encounter people with mental health challenges to a greater degree than they would have previously. Having said that, it’s important to put the sup-
[ Page 8609 ]
ports in place, to work with police and to help support people in the community. There are a number of initiatives that we do.

First of all, we have ACT teams in place. These are assertive community treatment teams — teams of psychiatrists, counsellors, physicians, nurses — that work with people with mental health challenges and connect with them on a daily basis. I did some rounds with a psychiatrist in the Downtown Eastside, visiting his clients with their permission. I talked with them and understood the process that they go through when they’re supporting people in a community.

Police officers today get a lot of mental health training, and that is a very good thing, because they’re often the public face that encounters people in public spaces and often have to de-escalate situations or help people find the social supports they need.

We work closely with the police. Examples are Car 40 in Kamloops; Car 87, I believe, is in Surrey — where a mental health or psychiatric nurse will partner with a police officer. So if they encounter someone that’s having some challenges in public, rather than have that person go to the emergency department, they can connect that person to the social supports they need directly without having to go through and cause pressure on the emergency department.

Now, the Vancouver police and the city of Vancouver expressed some real concern in 2013. I had conversations with Mayor Gregor Robertson at that time and with some of the councillors. We had a big discussion in terms of Vancouver Coastal and the Ministry of Health, and we put together a 120-day plan, what we call our severely addicted mentally ill plan, which was to help those suffering from the worst form of mental health and substance abuse issues. That plan was rolled out — it was, I believe, $20 million — and resulted in a number of early interventions.

First, an assertive outreach team partnered with the Vancouver police department. That offers high-needs patients from St. Paul’s and Vancouver General Hospital’s emergency departments…. When someone with mental health/substance abuse challenges comes into the emergency department, immediately they would be connected with a member of the assertive outreach team that can follow them into community and connect them with the services they need in the community.

We also created a new nine-bed acute behavioural stabilization unit at St. Paul’s, two new assertive community treatment teams and the expansion of the inner-city youth program, doubling its capacity in Vancouver.

Also what we did was to say to all regional health authorities: “If you have needs in your community, here is a fund, and we will match your dollars to direct to this population.” In Kamloops there was an ACT team created for the first time and, I believe, in Kelowna as well. In the Cariboo a two-person crisis management team was put in place.

These are the kinds of supports that we have initiated, along with all of the programming that went with the redistribution of services from the Riverview project. I believe there was $138 million in capital to create regional psychiatric centres and group homes to move people from the former Riverview site into communities around the province.

S. Robinson: I got quite the detailed response — I appreciate that — from the minister.

Specifically, the UBCM put together three simple requests, based on their canvassing of their members, local governments from around the province — not just Vancouver, because, as I’m sure the minister knows full well, there are people with mental illness all over the province.

[The bells were rung.]

Interjection.

S. Robinson: I’ll just get this into the record.

The three requests are to implement a provincewide agreement between police and mental health officials on the management of mental health patients in emergency rooms; develop integrated teams of health, police and other officials on a 24-hour basis to manage individuals with mental health issues; and provide additional long-term beds to deal with mental illness cases.

This will take certainly some of the burden off of local governments, and this is what they have come requesting. I hope that the minister has an opportunity to meet with them and explore what would be possible.

The Chair: With the sounding of the bells, we must recess until we return from the vote.

The committee recessed from 4:10 p.m. to 4:22 p.m.

[M. Hunt in the chair.]

Hon. T. Lake: The member for Coquitlam-Maillardville asked questions on behalf of local government that have called for certain actions and reflect, generally speaking, some of what we have heard from the city of Vancouver. I wanted to put on the record that while we, I think, all agree that supports in community are critical…. And I outlined a number of new supports that have been put in the community over the last year and a half, and we will continue to make investments in community to support police, local governments and their residents in dealing with mental health and substance use issues.

A common theme that we hear from local governments and police is the call for more institutionalization of people with mental health. I know that isn’t a blanket statement. For instance, the city of Vancouver has called
[ Page 8610 ]
for 300 more institutional beds. I just wanted to put on the record that this isn’t a view shared by everyone who does work in this field.

Thomas Kerr and Jade Boyd are highly respected researchers associated with UBC, St. Paul’s Hospital and the B.C. Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS. They did a paper, published in February of this year, and have actually said that the discourse around reinstitutionalization needs a different lens. To quote the report here:

“‘The VPD reports…shift discourse and practice away from health and community supports, social supports, livable housing and peer-run organizations for those most affected,’ it states. ‘Reinstitutionalization and secure units in hospitals are assumed to be a solution, alongside increased surveillance. Thus, the VPD’s production of the mental health crisis and their proposed solutions have material effects.’

“Kerr and Boyd’s report goes on to note the VPD’s call for additional resources for mental health calls have come as cities have grown safer.”

The crime rates are going down. The number of police members are going up.

[1625]

This is all in this report that is from Thomas Kerr and Jade Boyd. I think it just says that there are different sides to this discussion around supports in community and the role of acute care systems and institutions to help people with mental health and that we shouldn’t get fooled into thinking necessarily that the solution is to look for institutions for people that are dealing with mental health challenges.

D. Routley: I have a couple of questions for the minister related to the paramedic service. The paramedics in mid–Vancouver Island have told me, through membership and through station chiefs, that in recent years and on particular days we’ve had very little coverage.

As an example I would use Christmas Eve of the last couple of years, where there has been no ambulance in Chemainus, Ladysmith or Mill Bay. The Duncan area was down to one ambulance and Nanaimo down to two, which is actually less than half of their usual coverage. The members had requested greater coverage. There were no paramedics willing to give up those important holidays for the $2 an hour on-call standby or the $11 on call. So the request for full-time or full-pay cars on standby was rejected.

Can the minister reassure the residents of these communities that we will not suffer such a low level of coverage and that the appropriate resources will be made available to ensure that paramedics are on duty at these important times?

Hon. T. Lake: I’m happy to comment on this. The B.C. Ambulance Service is a provincewide service, and there are areas of the province where the number of calls don’t warrant a full-time service.

There are paramedics that are on call. They will carry a pager, and then if they are called…. They carry a pager and are paid a certain amount of money per hour — you know, a nominal amount. If they are called out, then they get the higher rate for a minimum number of hours. If they are on standby at the station in some of these smaller communities, then they will be paid. I believe it’s $10 or $11 an hour. Again, if they are called out, they get their higher rate.

I would be surprised that there were only two ambulances available in Nanaimo. I don’t know for sure. Nanaimo and Kamloops are about the same size, so I would think they would have equivalent kind of coverage.

Having said that, we recognize that in order to…. If you want a full-time career as a paramedic, you need to get the hours in. You need to be active, and you want to make a living at it. The current system in smaller communities is challenging in that regard. Yet it would be difficult to have people being paid at the high rate when the call volumes are so low. We’ve discussed this with the B.C. Ambulance Paramedics CUPE local. Bronwyn Barter, the president, and I have had some really good discussions around this.

As part of our rural health strategy, we looked at proposals from the paramedics and from B.C. emergency health services for a model that is called community paramedicine. Community paramedicine basically says that in some smaller communities particularly, where you’re relying on standby paramedics, you would hire them full-time and then find other areas of health care where they could use their expertise. That model is used in a limited way in Ontario and in other parts of North America.

We are working with the B.C. Ambulance Service and are piloting community paramedicine in three rural communities at the moment: Chetwynd, Fort St. James and Hazelton. Once we have had an opportunity to pilot community paramedicine in those communities, then we hope that we can roll it out to other communities. The member mentioned Chemainus, Mill Bay and Ladysmith, which would, I think, be suitable communities for a paramedicine model.

[M. Bernier in the chair.]

We’ll work through this through the pilots, evaluate it and then expand it out around the province. I think there’s a commitment for 80 new paramedics around the province in the next year to fill these roles. So we’re working to address the member’s concern about the ability to have a sustainable system in areas of the province where the call volumes are relatively low and backfilling on holidays is a challenge.

[1630]

D. Routley: I understand that the study of resources in the greater Vancouver regional district is underway and there may be other studies of resource deployment
[ Page 8611 ]
in the Ambulance Service. My understanding is that the people doing this study have been instructed not to consider new or more ambulances or cars to be deployed. Is this in fact the case?

The Chair: Minister.

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

We were under the understanding that ambulance service would be canvassed at the next session, so we will have a definitive answer for the member then. But let me just say, while I have the opportunity, that we have increased the B.C. Ambulance Service significantly. It’s gone up 115 percent in the past 11 years. I’m looking for the number of new ambulances that have been added in that time. It is significant.

The study that the member is referring to is by Operational Research in Health. This is a group from the United Kingdom that has expertise in this area, and they are doing a deep review of response times, demographics and population needs in the Lower Mainland.

They will be consulting with communities, with first responders, and they’ll be working with B.C. emergency health services. It’s a 20-week project that will deliver a five-year projection for B.C. emergency health services to enhance their ability to look at the service they’re providing, identify any inconsistencies in resources and demand-matching and identify optimization of resources so that we can optimize response times and resources in the service.

I don’t have the terms of reference for that particular work, but I will endeavour to get that for the member at the next sitting.

R. Austin: I’d like to move the discussion now to a topic that is of grave concern to folks who live in the northwest. It’s a public health issue around the increase of SO₂ emissions in, essentially, the Kitimat-Terrace airshed.

I should just inform the minister that I have already learned lots about what the Minister of Environment, his colleague, has to say about this issue. I’ve also canvassed this in estimates with the minister for labour to discuss what this has in terms of WorkSafe B.C. But at the end of the day, I think the minister will agree that this topic is, first and foremost, a public health issue.

While I know that the minister’s staff will probably be very well aware of the issue, just to provide context for these questions…. Rio Tinto’s new smelter is hopefully going to come on line in the next few months, and it’s got brand-new technology. The good news is that out of the five toxic substances that have been monitored for the last 50 years, four of them are coming dramatically down. One, unfortunately — SO₂ emissions — is going dramatically up, 56 percent.

The reason for that is twofold. There’s going to be an increase in production of aluminum, and it’s a requirement to have petroleum coke used in the process for making aluminum.

As a result of this, the company applied for a permit to increase the SO₂ from 27 million tonnes to 42 million tonnes, and this was given to them, with conditions. But this, of course, is causing grave concern to folks who live up there as to what the outcomes will be in terms of public health.

[1635]

My first question to the minister is this. Has there been any effort from the public health officials from Northern Health to have input into the decisions around how to mitigate this increase in in SO₂ emissions?

Hon. T. Lake: The modernization at Rio Tinto Alcan certainly is a good-news story in terms of the amount of money invested, obviously. As the member noted, four components into the atmosphere are dramatically reduced — probably no more good example than greenhouse gases. I believe there’s a 40 percent reduction. It’s significant.

I don’t have the study in front of me. I apologize for that. But when I read the study that was done, the modelling indicated that there were two areas where SO₂ levels were in an area considered at risk if a person were to spend a long period of time in those areas. I believe those areas were in non-residential areas. Having said that, there is work going on, because we recognize that going from one level to a higher level of any chemical of potential concern is troublesome.

The Ministry of Environment has committed to increased air monitoring. The medical health officer from Northern Health is part of those discussions. There is a commitment, I understand, by Rio Tinto Alcan to participate in a human health study as this process moves forward.

We understand from the modelling done already where there are potential concerns. With increased air monitoring, data will be able to be gathered to determine if, in fact, that modelling is real. If there are chemicals of potential concern that are elevated above a level that causes a risk to human health, then Rio Tinto is committed to doing a health study.

I have sat down with the company myself, personally. I’ve sat down with the regional district, Stoney Stoltenberg and members of the regional district, at UBCM and discussed this. I’ve sat down with the executive team at Rio Tinto Alcan and discussed this, so I know that they are aware of the concerns. We have delivered the concern of the community to the company, and the Ministry of Health and Ministry of Environment are working together with the medical health officer to increase monitoring and have a plan in place, should this modelling prove to result in any risk to human health.

[1640]

R. Austin: I’m glad that the minister has spent time discussing this with the folks up there. Of course, the two main forms of mitigation that the company is offering — or the two choices that the company has — are to install scrubbers…. As the minister probably knows, the new design for the smelter was designed to be able to engineer scrubbers in. They weren’t put in, but it is, at least, built ready to have scrubbers put in at a later point.

The other offer that the company is making, of course, and the modelling that the minister talks about, is around dispersing these extra millions of tonnes of SO₂ higher into the atmosphere than was current with the previous smelter. The hope is that the airshed, the size of the airshed and the airflow…. I’m no expert on this, but the airflow of this airshed will be such that it will disperse this high quantity of SO₂ over a further reach and therefore will not be as toxic as if it was just sent out the way it is now.

My question to the minister is this. If the monitoring proves that it is dangerous, what’s the government going to do about it? What’s the plan for the ministry? No one wants to see this brand-new smelter shut down. If the monitoring proves that the SO₂ emissions are not within the guidelines accepted by Health Canada, is the government then going to basically do their regulatory job and tell Rio Tinto that some form of scrubbers have to be installed? Is that the plan?

Hon. T. Lake: Let’s go through a scenario. I think that would be helpful for me to kind of go through.

[1645]

The modelling says we expect it to be this amount in these particular areas. Once the increased air monitoring system is in place, the Rio Tinto Alcan smelter starts production, and the monitoring shows that, oh, in fact, the modelling was not quite right — as modelling is an estimate — and they’re below. Everything’s fine. That would be the best-case scenario, and increased monitoring would provide that reassurance if that was the case.

If the air monitors show that the modelling was too conservative and, in fact, the levels of SO₂ are above that limit, that would trigger a number of actions on the part of both MOE and the medical health officer to get the SO₂ levels down. They would work with the company to mitigate.

I understand there are different ways to mitigate. The member mentioned scrubbers. The alternative would be to use a different type of fuel in the plant.

There would be action taken, and….

R. Austin: Pet coke. A different source of petroleum….

Hon. T. Lake: Yes, so there would be a different fuel source.

The environmental effects management plan that has been approved by Ministry of Environment lays all of this out and the mitigation that is required if, in fact, the SO₂ limits were exceeded.

R. Austin: I think the challenge with using or trying to find a cleaner type of petroleum coke — my understanding — is that the sources of low-sodium petroleum coke have been used up in the world. There’s a shortage of petroleum coke, and the kind of petroleum coke that’s used today is now significantly higher in salt than it was ten or 15 years ago. That’s the challenge there, of trying to find a different source of that, so that may not work at all.

I’m happy to hear the minister say that the public health officer is very active on this file in the northwest. Of course, the retired public health officer, Dr. David Bowering — who would not know, but some of his staff would know — is somebody with a very great reputation who has come out saying that he’s very concerned about these increases in SO₂ emissions and what effect it would have on health — particularly of seniors and children and anyone who has any kind of problem with regard to their lungs. That is something that we really have to be careful of.

I have another question. That is this. I have it on the record that the federal government is looking at reducing the acceptable levels of SO₂ by law right across the country. In fact, RTA are one of the companies that’s at the table in Ottawa working with the federal government in terms of what these reductions would mean for them. If this was to become law, it would significantly affect the cement industry in British Columbia, RTA’s smelter as well as the smelter in Trail.

My question to the minister is this. If the companies are at the table working on this issue, is it also fair to assume that public health officers from the British Columbia government and other provinces are also at the table giving the public health point of view to the government as they look at making recommendations to lower SO₂ emissions in Canada?

Hon. T. Lake: I believe the member is referring to the Canadian ambient air quality standards that are scheduled for introduction next year. My officials tell me that they will be consulted on those standards before they’re implemented.

C. Trevena: Continuing on the public health side, I’ve got one question on public health and one on the hospital in Campbell River.

The Legislature’s Select Standing Committee on Health a few years ago recommended that 6 percent of the health care budget should be spent on public health in the province. I wonder if the minister could tell me the proportion that is being spent directly on public health, as distinct from primary health care, both provincially and through Island Health.

[1650]

Hon. T. Lake: Of course, there are various opinions on how to spend money. We had a good discussion yesterday about mental health and substance use, and the percentage of the total budget that should be spent in those areas. I think it is not always easy to have a formula that every jurisdiction should follow.

To answer the member’s question, we spend about 4 percent of our total budget on population health and wellness — $529.8 million out of our ’14-15 budget, which is about 4 percent. However, when you look at the outcomes that we have here in British Columbia, as gauged by any number of surveys, indicators would demonstrate that across Canada we have one of the healthiest populations, despite the demographic that we have, which is older than many provinces.

Could we invest more in health promotion and population health? Of course. But choices are made in terms of where the greatest needs are, and it is always a challenge to shift money from one part of the budget to another because there are impacts both ways. We hear about people waiting for surgery, and when I think about putting more money into health and wellness programs versus reducing the wait times for hip surgery, those are the kinds of decisions that have to be made.

I would say, if we use an outcome-based kind of decision-making process, that with the amount we’re spending — while we would always like to spend more — we are getting very good results in terms of population health.

C. Trevena: I’m not going to go on along that line because of limited time. But I just did want to mention to the minister that I’m not talking about health promotion, which is the sort of, “Eat your vegetables,” but the actual public health — how we’re dealing with the bigger picture of public health as a society, and how that is being managed. But I’m very aware that we haven’t got time for that sort of discussion here.

I want to move on to the question about Campbell River’s hospital. We are going to get our new hospital in a little more than two years. We’re very happy about that. Apart from concerns that it’s not going to meet the bed capacity, we are still very eager to get the hospital. But at a public meeting I was at recently, there were some concerns raised that while we’re going to get the new hospital, there may not actually be the staff to adequately service it.

[1655]

We’re going to get the four operating rooms, 12 surgical day care rooms, ten post-anaesthetic recovery rooms, five procedure rooms, seven chemo beds, seven medical day care beds and 29 emergency spaces, as well as the focus on aboriginal maternal health and the various other places where we’re going to become a centre of excellence, we hope.

People are very excited about all of this, but then they look at this big picture and say: “Yeah, but will it be staffed? Will all this actually be operating?” This comes against the backdrop of Island Health’s recent RFP for private surgeries to perform 55,000 operations over the coming five years. There is a concern that there just will not be adequate staffing available, whether it’s doctors, nurses — the whole gamut — to ensure that we have this fabulous hospital and that we have the operating dollars and the operating people to make sure the hospital operates to its full capacity.

Hon. T. Lake: I just want to preface my answer by noting that the RFP Island Health issued was for between 3,000 and 4,000 day care procedures, including general surgery, orthopedics, plastics, vascular and dental — so not 55,000 but between 3,000 and 4,000. That is really a short-term mitigation on the south Island because of the backlog in some of those areas.

Campbell River Hospital is a 95-bed facility, and it’s replacing the 79-bed facility. Typically, these facilities are designed for the next ten-year population horizon.

As the member will note through our priorities document and the work we’ve been doing over the last year and a half, we want to reduce the reliance on acute facilities and provide more care in home and in community. The last thing we want to do is overbuild hospitals, because we are moving away from the reliance that we have had in health care on the hospital system. The member may have read the Globe and Mail article which was really extensive about the end of hospitals, essentially — talking about shifting resources into primary and community care.

Now, having said that, the hospital is larger than the hospital that it is replacing. I am not aware of any challenges in terms of staffing levels. We do know that there are challenges in parts of the province in certain areas. For instance, anaesthesiologists in my own region are scarce, and that sometimes is a limiting factor in the number of surgeries that can be done. We talked today about nurses and specialist nurses that are in short supply in some areas of the province.

[1700]

Other than to give a general sort of response, I don’t know of any specific concerns related to Campbell River in terms of staffing levels.

K. Conroy: I have two questions for the minister — very different questions. The first question relates to a constituent issue. I had a 51-year-old constituent contact me. He had been taking care of his 56-year-old wife with MS at home for a number of years now, and recently she had to move into a full residential care facility.

She’s adjusted to residential care in the facility, but what has shocked her and the family is that she only gets a bath once a week. She’s only 56. She has MS. I don’t think any of us could survive by that, but they were told when they raised it that that was all the government would pay
[ Page 8614 ]
for. They raised it with the management of the facility, who has raised it with the IHA. They have been told that that’s all that will be paid for.

They can’t bring in home support because it’s full care. They can’t pay the facility staff to give additional baths because that’s a conflict of interest. They could have family members — or he himself could — go in and give additional baths as long as they sign a waiver that in case anything happened to her, the facility wouldn’t be responsible. None of the family are trained, so we don’t need to go there.

There are a number of young people in this province — in their 50s, which I think is relatively quite young — who have debilitating diseases and have ended up in residential care and are affected by this policy that, like seniors, they only get one bath a week. Now, these are young people. I’m just wondering if the minister has thought about this, if there’s anything that’s going to happen to change this. This is affecting a large number of people across the province.

Hon. T. Lake: I would encourage the member to provide us with details. We certainly will follow up on that particular case.

There is certainly no policy that says people only get a bath once a week. Each individual is assessed for their needs. If a family or patient is not happy…. Well, first of all, I want to follow up personally with this particular constituent. But generally speaking, if someone in residential care is not happy with the kind of care they are receiving, the patient care quality offices — which we set up, I think, in 2006 — are designed to look into those individual situations.

As the member well knows, the seniors advocate is also doing work on housing around the province. We will pass this information on to her as we look into it to make sure her office is aware of it. I would be happy to take information from the member on this specific case and look into it.

K. Conroy: Thank you to the minister. I will bring this issue to the minister, but I would advise him that this isn’t the only person, and it’s not dealing with seniors. These are young people that are dealing with this. Just a reminder that it’s something that the seniors advocate would not be dealing with. It’s a young person’s issue.

My other issue is another issue near and dear to my heart — what’s happening in the province right now with kidney disease. I know the minister is well aware of what the Kidney Foundation is doing. They’ve had community conversations across the province, talking to people about what needs to happen with kidney disease, dialysis and transplantation.

[1705]

There was recently a summit held in Vancouver where people got together and heard different issues around kidney disease and what should happen not only to encourage more people to register to be an organ donor but also how we can get more transplants in the province.

We have one of the lowest records of transplantation in the country, and people are looking at how we can change that. There were some suggestions that were made. I am going to list them off and ask the minister to comment on where the ministry is going to go with these suggestions.

One of them was…. Although the government has moved towards making sure that people can register to be an organ donor in government services, the suggestion is that they be in all government buildings, like ICBC. You should be able to register in your doctor’s office and also in local pharmacies. Is that something that the government is looking towards doing?

One of the other suggestions is…. How can not only recipients but donors be assisted financially to ensure that transplantation can take place? It’s incredibly expensive for people from up north to travel to Vancouver, which is the only place in the province that does transplantation. For them to travel down here, and then they have to stay here for two to three months…. I’ve talked to people that are on dialysis that have turned down the opportunity for a transplant because they can’t afford it. I think that’s wrong in this province. We have to look at that.

I’ve also talked to people who are more than willing, are interested in donating a kidney, but they can’t afford it because of the financial barriers to that. Is that also something that the ministry is looking at? We all know the cost savings of getting somebody off dialysis. A $200,000 savings is incredible. Just for a transplant is $50,000. The cost savings are huge. For all the people that are on dialysis to be able to access a transplant is a considerable savings.

I also want to know if the ministry is going to be engaged in getting the information out to high-risk communities. Some of the ethnic communities have a really high level of kidney disease and a low level of organ transplantation. How can we ensure that there is a public, active campaign to ensure that there is research done to get the message out to the different communities?

The last one is the issue on presumed consent. This was a topic that was raised at the summit. It was supported by the majority of the people at the summit. In jurisdictions where presumed consent is part of their jurisdiction, transplants have increased. People agreed that presumed consent should be a policy that should be discussed — presumed consent with the option to opt out for people who are not comfortable with it.

For those that don’t know, presumed consent means that you are automatically a donor when you die, as opposed to having to sign up to become a donor. Is this something that the ministry would be looking at?

The suggestion was that we need to have this conversation in the province. We need to ensure that people not only understand what presumed consent is but that it’s a conversation that is carried out throughout the province.
[ Page 8615 ]
In jurisdictions where it’s been successful, they have had bipartisan committees that have gone around the province and talked to people about their feelings on this.

I would ask the minister for his feedback on those four topics.

[1710]

Hon. T. Lake: I know the member is extremely passionate about this, and I commend her for that.

We have a passionate member on our side as well. The member for Shuswap has really championed increasing awareness around registering as a donor. It was his initiative that saw us pilot a sign-up of requests to be a donor at Service B.C. offices. That has now spread around all Service B.C. centres around British Columbia.

We are also…. The Ministry of Transportation is working with ICBC to look at the feasibility of seeing if we can implement sign-up at the time of renewal of a driver’s licence or purchasing of insurance. That is underway, and we hope to have some success there as well.

I want to let everyone know that you don’t need to go to a doctor’s office or ICBC or a B.C. government office to sign up. You can do it on line. We really encourage as many people as possible to sign up on line. It used to be the old system that you had a sticker on your driver’s licence. Some people may think that they’re registered as a donor, and they’re not. Others registered a while ago and have forgotten. You know, I went on line to ensure that I was registered as a donor, and I had, obviously.

Increasing awareness. We are working with B.C. Kidney Foundation and stakeholder groups to raise awareness. In the cultural community, Dr. Kendall Ho and his group at iCON at UBC are doing outreach into the ethnic community to increase awareness. Certainly there are ethnicities that have a higher rate of kidney disease. It’s important to target them, which is the work he is doing.

In terms of the supports that are available for people when they are either donating or receiving a transplant, we do have a travel assistance program. It is, admittedly, limited because, as always, resources are scarce. But we know that philanthropic organizations step up, and philanthropy has always been a big part of health care — as many of us who work with hospital foundations and auxiliaries know — through the years.

If someone finds themselves in a situation where they are under financial stress in order to have these services through their Provincial Health Services Authority, PHSA will work with individuals and help them with those challenges. We’d never want to leave someone without some supports in place, and we work with individuals as best we can.

[1715]

In terms of presumed consent, this is a subject of great discussion, and we have had it in the Ministry of Health. I note that the former chief executive of B.C. Transplant, Bill Barrable, had an editorial in the Globe and Mail essentially saying that it really is not the panacea. It is not black and white, presumed consent. In countries that do have presumed consent — there are only three, apparently, that have a higher rate of donor registration than Canada — the differences are not necessarily attributable to presumed consent but to other factors.

So in the transplant community, if you like, there is not a consensus around presumed consent, whether it would make a difference or not. I think we always have to look for ways of increasing awareness, getting people activated.

Global does a tremendous campaign to register donors over a 48-hour period. That is gaining momentum. We certainly support that and try to highlight it as much as possible in social media. And I think we have actually seen an increase, since we went into registering at B.C. government services offices, in the number of people that are registering as potential donors in the province of B.C.

S. Fraser: As far as context goes, I lost a close friend in Tofino a few years ago to hepatitis C, so I want to ask a few questions. I’m not going to have time to ask all of them, so I will read some into the record as concisely as possible when I run out of time, which will be very soon, and I’d like to have a written answer to those.

If I could just start…. I just want to acknowledge that there have been some big advancements made in direct-acting antivirals. They show a lot of promise for people that have been diagnosed with hep C, and I appreciate that. But only a small portion of those that have been diagnosed with hepatitis C are actually getting treatment.

The question that I’d like to ask directly to the minister is…. I understand that treatment is expensive, but not treating early is more expensive down the road. How is the minister justifying not opening up treatment to all people who are infected with hepatitis C? That would be my first question.

Hon. T. Lake: The new hepatitis C drugs are such an improvement over what we have had previously, and we have approved recently two new hepatitis C drugs that are extremely effective. But like every province that has approved these types of drugs, they are approved on a clinical practice guideline basis.

They first of all have to have the right type of genotype of the hepatitis C in order to qualify because they are only effective against certain genotypes of the virus. The score, or, in other words, the severity of hepatitis has to meet a certain threshold before people would qualify.

The member is saying: “Well, why don’t you just open it up to everyone who has hepatitis?” And the answer is: managing scarce resources, as we do with everything we do in health care. We don’t replace hips at the first sign of degenerative arthritis. It is managed, and the surgery is undertaken when the situation warrants.

At the cost of these drugs, which are tens of thousands
[ Page 8616 ]
of dollars per person…. They are extremely expensive, and the assumption that it would save money I’m not sure is clearly defined.

As every province, we are putting clinical guidelines around the prescription of these hepatitis drugs. We know it will make a big difference for those that are on the medications, those that are in most need. As the cost of those drugs comes down, like everything else, we will review, and if we’re able to make those changes, then we will certainly consider doing that in the future.

[1720]

S. Fraser: I know, and the minister knows, too, that the costs of cirrhosis, which will or can develop, or of other complications or liver transplants are far, far in excess of the cost of the medication if it’s provided early. I understand the antivirals are expensive. I’ve stated that.

I’ll move on. I’m going to ask a few questions of the minister right now. I was hoping to get a written answer, just in the interest of time.

Interjections.

S. Fraser: No, we are running out of time.

The first one for written answers I’m hoping for is: who will be screened? When people are screened and found to be infected, which ones will be treated?

I’d also like to raise the issue in the context of the geography. Somebody in Dawson Creek is diagnosed. Are they going to have access to treatments that may be available in Vancouver? People in northern and remote communities and First Nations peoples — an especially high estimated number in aboriginal communities are infected. What’s the strategy for dealing with that?

Then 35 percent of people who have hep C are people born outside of Canada. The minister, I’m sure, is aware that language can be a barrier there for education. What kind of outreach is planned to try to address that?

GPs or nurses. When will they be trained specifically and certified to treat hepatitis C? Not all GPs are, so I’m just wondering if we can get some edification on that.

What programs does the B.C. government have available to educate prisoners about diseases like hep C? They’re particularly vulnerable to that — both current and former prisoners who may have been exposed.

What is being done by the B.C. government to acknowledge and support National Aboriginal Hepatitis C Awareness Month? If there’s a particular program in place for that, it would be very helpful to know that.

I still have a few minutes, according to my ten minutes that I was given. I just wanted to raise a completely different issue. I wish we had more time so that I could actually hear these answers on the hepatitis.

West Coast General Hospital in Port Alberni. Their emergency room expansion has been a priority. It has been cited as a priority for a while now. It has been put off until, we’ve learned, 2018, according to the director of planning for Island Health. Some of the reasons cited were capital costs like boiler replacements, including for other facilities. I’m just wondering how the minister…? Can he respond to that?

We in Port Alberni will not be getting the upgrades till 2018. They’ll be put off —the expansion of the emergency room — to pay for a boiler somewhere? Is that how we’re making decisions on critical health care issues?

Hon. T. Lake: Well, I know the member is not trying…. The capital decision-making process — I feel like I’ve said this before — goes through different sequences. I can understand the member advocating for his hospital, as we all do. But the regional health authority has to prioritize all of the capital projects in their health authority. I know that this project got pushed out, I believe, a year from when it was envisioned happening, because an unexpected need arose.

The member, I think, is correct in that it was a boiler system for another hospital. It sounds trivial, but if you don’t have a boiler, you don’t have heat and you don’t have steam for sterilization. Without a boiler, the hospital can’t function. That is critical infrastructure — as critical as an operating room.

Those are difficult decisions. I appreciate that the member is disappointed and his community is disappointed. But those are the difficult decisions that are made in capital planning and regional health authorities.

[1725]

S. Fraser: Well, I’m not happy with the answer. I know the priority of expanding the emergency room at the West Coast General was identified in 2014 as a priority. So having it put off to 2018 because a boiler needs to be replaced in another hospital….

I understand. I’ve worked in steam engineering. I’ve seen scenarios before, and I know what it’s all about. But what’s to say that if a boiler or a leaky roof at Tofino General, or whatever, happens…? We’ll just put this off again.

How can we have a priority list that just gets bumped because of things that really are not directly related to health care? These are structural problems in a hospital. I know you’ve got to heat a hospital. But taking away….

I see incredulity from the minister here. But we’re talking about a hospital with a priority need for expanded emergency service, and that’s being put off to deal with a structural problem, essentially, in another hospital. What’s to say that will not continue, and West Coast General will have their expansion put off yet again?

Hon. T. Lake: Firstly, I’d like to just list some of the investments that have been made in West Coast General Hospital. In progress at the moment are some energy efficiency upgrades for $450,000. We did mechanical up-
[ Page 8617 ]
grades that are still in progress, for $510,000. So there’s about $1 million worth of work going on at the moment. The MRI trailer pad was completed in 2013. Four negative-pressure rooms, over $1 million, in 2012. The nursery was renovated in 2010. Insulation of a CT scanner in 2009. A negative-pressure room in 2007. The list is just about complete there — about $4 million over the last ten years.

I would say to the member…. The question is: what if something else happens? I know the member understands the concept of triage in health care. If you’re treating a particular person in the emergency room with a simple fracture of an arm and someone comes in with a heart attack, you’re going to look after the person with the heart attack.

That is the case with planning. When something catastrophic potentially could occur in a major facility, and it was unexpected, you have to address it. That’s how priorities shift. It’s based on a triage system.

I would say that decisions like that get made a lot. Interior Health is looking at having to put $10 million into laundry equipment. They’re looking for alternatives so that they can use that money for front-line health care. Those are the hard decisions. I totally sympathize with the member and his community that has their project bumped because of something out of their control.

I know Island Health is committed to West Coast and the emergency department. It’s unfortunate that it’s taking another year. But these are some of the things that we deal with in health care and we deal with in many areas of our lives. As things change, we have to deal with them on a dynamic basis.

J. Darcy: I guess we’ll have time for one last question. This is one that a number of seniors and seniors organizations have raised with me on numerous occasions. It has to do with shingles immunization.

The minister is aware, of course, that shingles vaccinations are not publicly funded. This is a condition that affects older British Columbians, as the minister is well aware. A significant percentage of seniors can be expected to contract shingles in the course of their lifetime — a debilitating disease that has significant health care costs down the road.

I know that there are some jurisdictions — U.K. and France — that have launched national shingles immunization programs that are publicly covered. In Ontario there’s a recommendation to go forward on this.

Is the minister planning to proceed with a universal shingles immunization program in British Columbia?

[1730]

Hon. T. Lake: I’m delighted that Dr. Perry Kendall, our chief medical health officer, finally got to come in and assist me with the question. He’s been here all week and supporting us. I really rely on his sage advice, along with Warren O’Briain, who works with him.

The zoster vaccine for shingles is a relatively expensive vaccine, as the member will know. Even with the purchasing power of the province of British Columbia, because it’s not part of a national purchasing scheme, it is estimated to be about $100 a dose. If we were to look at the number of people 65 and over in British Columbia, it’s about 800,000. Of course, you would vaccinate a cohort of those each year — about 44,000 — which is about $4.4 million.

When we look at our vaccine program, there are things that we do review from time to time, whether it’s HPV vaccines, an expansion of different meningococcal vaccines. These are things that we look at all the time and make decisions about when we can offer a program.

We are, at this point, still in discussion about the zoster vaccine. I think if we were to go with a zoster vaccine program, we would consider it on an income-tested basis so that those with low incomes would have an opportunity that may not be available to them otherwise because of the cost of the vaccine.

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

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:33 p.m.

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

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