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)

Monday, May 25, 2015

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 27, Number 2

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

MONDAY, MAY 25, 2015

The House met at 1:32 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

L. Krog: Joining us for her last visit today as a high school student is a member of my executive, a hard-working young woman. This will be the last kick as a student, as I say. Prom is in sight. Graduation is in sight. Would the House please make Avery Valerio welcome.

J. Tegart: It gives me great pleasure today to introduce a number of very important guests from my riding of Fraser-Nicola.

Seated in the public gallery are Chief Harvey McLeod of the Upper Nicola Indian Band, Chief Aaron Sam of the Lower Nicola Indian Band, Chief Lee Spahan of the Coldwater Indian band, Chief Marcel Shackelly of the Nooaitch Indian Band and Grand Chief Percy Joe from the Shackan Indian Band. Joining the chiefs are elders Annie Major, Jimmy Toolikan, Joyce Dick, Amelia Washington and Howard Holmes.

I look forward to meeting with them later this afternoon. Would the House please give these people a very warm welcome.

M. Karagianis: Today we are joined in the gallery by HepCBC. They’ve been with us this morning doing testing and education on hep C. I hope that some members of the House were able to take advantage of that opportunity to get tested.

In the gallery with us today we have Cynthia Carter, who is the Hepatitis B.C. Education and Prevention Society board member, who has lived with hep C. She is also joined by her daughter Caitlin. We have Cheryl Reitz from the education and prevention society, a board member as well, who has also lived with hep C; and Bronwyn Black, who is the office manager.

Would the House please give them a very warm welcome and thank them for coming here today and helping do the testing.

[1335]

P. Pimm: I have a very special guest to announce today. My grandson, Lucas Laurie Waugh, was born on May 22, 2015, at 7:08 a.m. in Fort St. John. He was 7 pounds 6 ounces and 20½ inches long. He was born to my daughter Jennifer and her husband, Karl.

There were some complications, with the mother and baby having to be assessed by a team of professionals from B.C. Children’s Hospital and eventually airlifted to NICU ward in Prince George. Mom and baby are doing excellent. I want to thank all for their fantastic care of my daughter and grandson.

Will you please help me make them very welcome.

V. Huntington: In the gallery today are both of my extremely hard-working constituency assistants, Yvonne Parenteau and Bernadette Kudzin. Could the House please make them welcome.

D. Ashton: A lot happens in Penticton. There are a lot of events, a lot of functions. Behind that, there is always a hard-working individual. That young lady is here with us today. Her name is Barb Sheppard. She’s also a brand-new member of the school board in Penticton. I’d like the House to make her welcome.

Madame Speaker: Member for Stikine. Alberni–Pacific Rim. I apologize.

S. Fraser: This happened before. We’ll have to do something…. We’ll change our hairstyles.

I would like to join the member for Fraser-Nicola in welcoming the members from the Nicola Valley. I would note that Wilfred Tom is here, too, so I’d like to add his name to the list to be welcomed. By my count, there are other people from the Nicola Valley here today to attend the rally. All of you: I’d like to welcome you and wish you safe journeys and best of luck.

G. Hogg: The memories of our lives seem to be made up of significant people and significant events. Mark Twain once said: “The two most important days in our lives are the day we are born and the day we find out why.”

Two delightful members of our caucus staff have recently found out why. They have found each other, and a significant event, their wedding, will take place Saturday, May 30. Please join me in wishing Tracy Pellizzari and Jordan Grimsrud the very best that life has to offer.

J. Rice: I’d like to introduce three members in the House today. They’re not from my constituency, but nonetheless, they are my guests. Would the House please welcome Ken and Betty Cairns from the Victoria area as well as Margaret Briggs, who is the mother of a constituent of mine in Haida Gwaii.

I had the pleasure of having lunch with them today. The three of them knew each other in their youth, born in Manitoba and have gone west and east and come full circle and are now living in the Victoria area and have rekindled that long friendship. Would the House make them feel welcome.

Hon. N. Yamamoto: Today joining us for question period will be 26 students and their teacher and parents from Alcuin College. It’s a kindergarten-to-grade-12 school.
[ Page 8638 ]
Their mission is that each student’s unique talents be uncovered and cultivated for a life that is full, rewarding and characterized by compassion and a love for learning. I would like the House to please make them feel welcome.

A. Weaver: Coming off a very successful annual general meeting, I’m pleased to introduce a number of our members who are visiting the Legislature here. Adam Olsen, the interim leader of the B.C. Green Party, Steve Sxwithul’txw, who is the newest member of the B.C. Green Party provincial council, Justin Whitehead, member of the UVic Greens, which is now the largest club on the campus of the University of Victoria, Nicole Charlwood, B.C. Green Party representative from Kootenay-Columbia, Robert Mellalieu from Kelowna, Gary Adams and Derek Pinto. Would the House please make them feel very welcome.

Statements

FLOODING IN CACHE CREEK

J. Tegart: I know that residents in the community of Cache Creek have been impacted in any number of ways by a flash flood which resulted from this Saturday’s intense rainstorm. Hard to believe we live in desert.

I would like to let the House know that I spoke with Mayor Ranta over the weekend to assure him that we are here to assist. I’m pleased to let the community know that disaster financial assistance has been approved by the province. I’m sure all of us in this House send our support as the cleanup begins.

[1340]

Tributes

MERVIN KRYWA

Hon. B. Bennett: It’s an honour for me to rise today and pay tribute to the memory of Merv Krywa, a Revelstoke man who many of us in this chamber knew well because of his enormous dedication to community service. From Merv’s days working on the Mica and Revelstoke dams to his time spent in search and rescue and firefighting, everybody remembered him as a man dedicated to improving his local community in our beloved province of British Columbia.

Many of us in this place knew him from his time being involved in politics. I suspect there are many here who didn’t agree with him from time to time. I would include myself in that category. He was a wonderful guy to spend time with and have a beer and argue about politics.

In any case, he was also a dedicated community supporter of hockey. He won coach of the year at the junior level. The players that he coached are better people for having known him.

On behalf of all the members of the B.C. Legislature, I’d like to convey our sincere sympathy to Merv’s family and friends, including his wife, Judy, and his children and grandchildren. Our thoughts and prayers are with them during this difficult time. Revelstoke has lost a favourite son, and we are all the poorer for it.

Introductions by Members

G. Holman: I also want to acknowledge Adam Olsen, who is a constituent of mine and a member of the Tsartlip Nation, and also acknowledge that there are other members of the Tsartlip here today in recognition of the situation in Nicola Valley — members of the Simon family and also Chief Don Tom.

Would the House please make them feel welcome.

M. Bernier: I’m very lucky today to have two important people in my life with us today. First, my youngest son, Trevor, is with us. Trevor wouldn’t be here if it wasn’t for my beautiful, amazing and supportive wife, Valerie. We thought: what better way to spend our 24th anniversary today than with all of you during question period?

I’d just like to again welcome both of them and say to my love: happy anniversary.

G. Hogg: In order to make the welcome to Adam Olsen unanimous, I’d like to provide our welcome as well to Adam.

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

BILL M222 — BRITISH COLUMBIA
LOCAL FOOD ACT, 2015

L. Popham presented a bill intituled British Columbia Local Food Act, 2015.

L. Popham: I move that the British Columbia Local Food Act, 2015, of which notice has been given in my name on the order paper, be introduced and read for a first time now.

Motion approved.

L. Popham: The purpose of the British Columbia Local Food Act is to improve and maximize food security, economic return and population health outcomes from our public land trust, the agriculture land reserve. The legislation will accomplish these purposes through five core elements:

(1) Eliminating the two-tier ALR created under Bill 24 by transferring all ALR areas currently categorized in zone 2 into zone 1 and eliminating the zone 2 designation.

(2) Establishing a legislative committee on food and
[ Page 8639 ]
agriculture, which will have a voice in determining the chair and other members of the Agricultural Land Commission.

(3) Mandating this committee to prepare, in consultation with the Agriculture Minister, a plan to increase local food production, marketing and processing. The plan would set targets and implement policies to meet those targets, which would be reported annually to the Legislature.

(4) Implementing a comprehensive strategy on government purchasing locally grown food.

(5) Reintroducing the successful Buy B.C. program.

Our province currently lacks a comprehensive strategy that ensures we are fully capitalizing on our agricultural land base in a way that grows our economy and improves population health and food security. Instead, what the government has is a strategy to undermine our sacred land trust. By forcing the passage of Bill 24 last year, it created a two-tier ALR. Then, as a follow-up this spring, it unilaterally terminated the chair of the ALC solely out of political convenience.

Madame Speaker: Member, you’re speaking to your bill?

L. Popham: Yes, I am. Thank you for the reminder.

Meanwhile, other jurisdictions are ahead of B.C. in terms of encouraging farming and food processing to support, expand and sustain their agriculture sector. For example, Ontario, which has a greenbelt, has legislation that supports increasing local food production from its land base through establishing targets that the Minister of Agriculture needs to report on annually.

[1345]

Madame Speaker: The member needs to move second reading.

L. Popham: I move that it be placed on the order paper for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill M222, British Columbia Local Food Act, 2015, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

MAY DAY CELEBRATIONS
IN BOSTON BAR

L. Throness: On Saturday I had the pleasure of attending the 88th annual May Day celebration in Boston Bar, the only community in Canada for which the Trans-Canada Highway is shut down every year for the May Day parade.

The parade had pretty much everything that big-city parades have, but few parades have royalty in attendance. One of the more interesting floats carried the royal family, made up of about a dozen well-dressed young people.

After the parade the royal family proceeded to the May Day stage where the new May Day queen, Tyra Isaac, was crowned by last year’s queen, Betty Davidson. There were speeches to their loyal subjects and even a young ring bearer to present a ring to the new queen. After that there were prizes for the best parade entries, dancing around the maypole, with me standing at a safe distance.

Thanks to organizers like Pat Davison and Shirley Crow, who has served as parade marshal for many years. Special honour was given to Lloyd Forman, who helped set up tents on the fairgrounds, drove a float in the parade and emceed the awards ceremony while his wife, Lillian, sold tickets in the background.

Lloyd and Lillian, who celebrated their 60th wedding anniversary last year, are integral to just about everything that happens in Boston Bar. For a generation they have farmed and logged and trucked in the area, while raising six fine children. Lloyd also served as a regional district director for 19 years and still volunteers for anything that needs getting done.

What I like about towns such as Boston Bar are these kinds of people — people who have deep roots in their community and are committed to its success, people who pitch in with a will to create fun events without monster cinemas and big-box stores.

Congratulations and thanks to May Day queens Tyra and Betty, and also Pat, Shirley, Lloyd, Lillian and so many other volunteers on a very successful 88th May Day festival in Boston Bar.

CENTENNIAL OF
ECOLE QUADRA ELEMENTARY

R. Fleming: In a couple of weeks a great school in my community will celebrate its centennial anniversary. Named after Don Juan Francisco Quadra, a Spanish explorer on the northwest coast, Ecole Quadra School enjoys a long and significant history in my community.

The school’s first class was taught in a tent until the main building was completed in 1914. Consisting then of only eight classrooms and an auditorium, the school would continue to expand over the years, adding 11 more classrooms, a gymnasium, administration office, adventure playgrounds and a French immersion program in 1979 and converting the old auditorium into the beautiful wood-panelled library that students enjoy today.

At present the school supports over 400 students from kindergarten to grade 4 from wonderfully diverse backgrounds. It also features a unique First Nations program, teaching cultural awareness. With a strong focus on pro-
[ Page 8640 ]
moting acceptance and respect, this year, led by local artist Renee Sala, the students at Ecole Quadra participated in a friendship flags project. Students created colourful canvas flags in the spirit of friendship which now hang proudly in the hallways of their historic school.

On June 6 the school will celebrate a century of learning. To acknowledge this significant milestone, the Quadra parent advisory committee commissioned local artist Tony Hunt Jr. to carve a commemorative totem. Tony’s carving tent has been set up in the school’s playground since March, when the large cedar log first arrived. Students have had the special opportunity to watch Tony at work. When the totem is completed, it will stand tall at the front entrance of the school.

I invite all members of the House to join me in congratulating the students, parents, teachers and staff at Ecole Quadra, and the entire community, on this historic anniversary. I want to thank all of those who are involved with the school for providing children in my community with such an enriching educational experience. Happy 100th, Ecole Quadra.

YARROW DAYS AND CELEBRATION OF
LOCAL CULTURE AND HERITAGE

J. Martin: Each and every one of us has within our constituency those unique and special districts, neighbourhoods and villages within the larger community. For instance, in my riding of Chilliwack I have Camp River, Greendale and the small community of Yarrow. Originally settled by Mennonites in the late 1920s, Yarrow has grown over the years with a strong agricultural economy, including dairy farms, poultry production and field crops.

[1350]

As this spring session winds up, I am reminded of an upcoming small-town festival happening next week. Yarrow Days is an outstanding celebration of local heritage and culture. Organized by Carol Bell, Jim Brenner and others in the Yarrow community, the annual Yarrow Days, held the first weekend in June, are always highly anticipated. Local businesses, churches and service clubs come together to host breakfasts; barbecues — mmm, barbecues; a community dance; entertainment stages; children’s activities; farmers markets; and of course, the Yarrow Days parade.

Within a population of 3,000 people, Yarrow residents always make us proud with their incredible spirit of community and volunteerism. As each of us heads back to our constituencies, I would encourage everyone to seek out these small towns, these unique neighbourhoods. Cheer on those hard-working organizing committees and volunteers hosting local festivals and events.

If each of us takes a staycation this summer, we’ll continue to share the importance of preserving local heritage and culture, supporting B.C. tourism, small business and encouraging others to do the same. Whether you’re heading up to Cultus Lake, or passing en route to the Okanagan, be sure to visit the village of Yarrow for a unique, small-town experience you’ll always remember.

FORT STREET SPRING SCRUB-UP

C. James: Early one Sunday morning Oscar and Libby’s merchant Teri Hustins left her shop to grab a coffee. She noticed the streets looked messy, and she remembered that long-time Victoria councillor Helen Hughes used to organize a scrub-up in the downtown area. Terry decided it was time to reinvigorate the tradition with a focus on Fort Street. The Fort Street Business Association got involved, and this little idea became big action.

Now in its second year, the scrub-up in May brings businesses, not-for-profits and property owners on Fort Street together with a common cause. It develops stronger community relationships and helps build local pride and a sense of accomplishment.

The event kicks off at the Bay Centre, and participants clean their way eastward from Government Street to Cook Street. This year there will be pink brooms, balloons and boas. There will be drawing with sidewalk chalk from artistic stores. There will be coffee from local businesses and music provided by the local radio stations.

Several community leaders will be taking part too, including Victoria Police Chief Frank Elsner and Victoria Fire Chief Paul Bruce. MP Murray Rankin’s office and my own office will also be taking part, as we’re both proudly located on the 1000 block of Fort Street.

To recognize the amazing community services on the street, Together Against Poverty was featured last year, and this year Power To Be will be highlighted.

For more information, check out their Facebook page called Fabulous Fort. I hope all members will join me in saying congratulations to the organizers and participants of the Fort Street Scrub-up. They’re creating a fabulous sense of pride through their commitment and their leadership.

ROTARY CLUB
RIDE FOR RESCUE FUNDRAISER

R. Sultan: Here’s a riddle. What do St. Paul’s Hospital operating room, people in T-shirts and flip-flops getting lost in cougar country and world polio all have in common? That’s easy. Sunrise Rotary Ride for the Rescue.

Five years ago members of this smallish rotary chapter were exploring ideas for a new fundraiser. It’s but one of 34,000 chapters worldwide and 1.2 million members globally.

Cycling was growing fast. A cycling event on the North Shore was suggested. A B.C. Parks employee suggested a climb up Cypress Mountain. North Shore Rescue was identified as a main recipient of the funds raised. The late Tim Jones was enthusiastic.

Now, I can work up a sweat serving pancakes at the
[ Page 8641 ]
finish line, as spandex squadrons wearing the colours of Wedgewood Hotel, St. Paul’s OR doctors and Polygon Homes flash on by. Seventy percent of the substantial funds raised go to support North Shore Rescue, a growth business if ever there was one, as strangers to our shores and naive locals get into deep trouble in our wilderness.

The balance of funds will be devoted to such Rotary causes as abolishing world polio, virtually done except for Afghanistan and Pakistan; youth programs such as sending local students to Ottawa; and clean drinking water in Guatemala. Join us on June 13. Trevor Linden cranked his way to the top in only 38 minutes.

[1355]

HUB CYCLING ADVOCACY ORGANIZATION

G. Heyman: At the start of Bike to Work Week I’m pleased to profile a Vancouver-Fairview–based organization that encourages and facilitates cycling infrastructure and safety. HUB cycling is a community coalition founded in 1996 to make cycling safer and better across Metro Vancouver through infrastructure, laws and education.

Cycling is an efficient and healthy form of transportation, one that is necessary for many, but safety concerns can be a strong inhibitor to strapping on a bike helmet and getting in gear.

Housed within HUB and the B.C. Cycling Coalition is a program called Right to Bike, which advocates for a provincial youth cycling education framework. Last February I met campaign coordinator Sarah FioRito. Sarah explained that greater emphasis is needed on providing cycling education for all kids and families.

Between 2000 and 2010 the proportion of five-to-17-year-olds across Canada who use only inactive transportation modes to and from school increased from 51 to 62 percent. Evidence from the U.K. suggests a very strong correlation between cycling education and increased rates of cycling to school. Right to Bike is proposing a provincial framework for cycling promotion and safety for children and youth in both large and small communities that includes bicycle skills, responsible riding, sharing the road with traffic, education standards and instructor training. Their working group includes representation from 14 communities across B.C., including educators, local government and public health officials.

Between 2008 and 2014 the number of daily cycling trips in Vancouver doubled to reach 100,000. With organizations like HUB supporting programs like Right to Bike, the bike to school challenge as well as Bike to Work Week, we can expect to see many more confident and safe cyclists throughout B.C.

Thank you, HUB; thank you, Right to Bike activists; and special thanks to all those who are cycling to work or school this week.

Madame Speaker: The Minister of Advanced Education seeks leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I hope the House will welcome my two children in the gallery, Michael and Kate. During question period I hope to earn their respect.

Oral Questions

YOUTH DEATH CASE AND
GOVERNMENT SUPPORT FOR YOUTH
IN CARE AND AGING OUT OF CARE

D. Donaldson: Paige was a young First Nations girl who died at 19 of a drug overdose in a communal washroom near Oppenheimer Park in Vancouver. She was intimately connected with the Ministry of Children and Family Development her entire life.

In that young life she was subject to 30 child protection reports from Kamloops, Fort St. James, as well as in Vancouver. As a 16-to-18-year-old, she moved 50 times between foster homes, safe houses, homeless shelters, detox centres and decrepit hotels in Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside.

Yet when Paige turned 19 this government severed her ties with the ministry. She aged out of care, and 11 months later she was dead. How could this government allow that to happen?

Hon. S. Cadieux: Like anyone who has read the report on this tragic circumstance will know, it is a horrible story. It is a tragic story. Anyone who reads it will be deeply, deeply saddened to know that this happened in British Columbia. There is no tougher challenge for social workers dealing with these issues. There is no easy solution when we are faced with issues of intergenerational poverty, violence and addiction.

Despite the dedicated and well-intentioned efforts of MCFD staff and service providers, both in government and outside of government, the reality is that the system ultimately failed to keep this young woman from harm. That result is unacceptable. Our job now is to learn from what has happened and from this young woman’s interactions with the ministry over a period of 20 years to see what we can do better to ensure that vulnerable people in our province, especially vulnerable children, do not see a similar thing happen to them.

[1400]

Madame Speaker: The member for Stikine on a supplemental.
[ Page 8642 ]

D. Donaldson: The Representative for Children and Youth said Paige’s Story was perhaps the most difficult report her office has ever undertaken. She said the ministry mishandled Paige’s file and described the role the Ministry of Children and Family Development played in her life as “haphazard.” They failed to protect Paige from sexual abuse, to help extended family take care of her, to investigate Paige’s death.

To the minister: is the tragic death of this young First Nations girl due to a lack of leadership by this government or a lack of resources to get the job done for Paige and other vulnerable children?

Hon. S. Cadieux: As I said, the result in this circumstance is unacceptable. We have to learn from what has happened. I have asked my deputy to broaden discussions that have already taken place and are already underway with all of our partners who would serve a vulnerable population like this.

I believe we need to look at the service delivery model, especially on the Downtown Eastside, to ensure that we are indeed wrapping around and seeking out individuals to ensure that services are brought to them and not rely on having individuals be responsible for coming to access the services themselves.

We are going to learn from what has occurred over a 20-year period. Much of what is in place today is different than what was in place in the early years of this young woman’s life. When we look back at something over a long period of time, we have the opportunity to gain insight. We don’t have the opportunity to reverse it. What we will do is move forward.

Madame Speaker: The member for Stikine on a further supplemental.

D. Donaldson: It’s been two years since Paige’s death, and the ministry appears to have learned nothing. Youth are still being forced out of care, as a matter of course, at 19, while children in Alberta get continuing support until age 24. Every step of the way the focus is on the government’s bottom line, not the health and safety of children in their care.

On the day Paige turned 19, the ministry directed her foster home to pack up all her belongings in a garbage bag and leave them at her school. A garbage bag.

Will the minister promise today that not one more child in her care will be forced out at 19?

Hon. S. Cadieux: This government is committed to ensuring that young people transition as smoothly as possible to adulthood. When you are a child or youth in care, that transition is very difficult — much more difficult than it is for a child whose parents are there to support them. We understand that.

As a government we have the obligation to, and we do, look cross-jurisdictionally at what is happening in other jurisdictions to compare what we do with those jurisdictions to see where we might learn from programs or services that are offered in other jurisdictions as best practices. In fact, today British Columbia’s supports to youth leaving care already match or exceed most of what is available in the rest of Canada.

That is not to say that we cannot do more or that we will not do more. In fact, we have more initiatives underway now that we’ll look forward to speaking about in the coming weeks.

J. Rice: In February of 2013 the Minister of Children and Families pledged that she would “strengthen safe living options and life skills education for youth in care who are transitioning into adulthood.” A month later Paige was forced out of her foster care at age 19. She died soon after.

My question is to the Minister of Children and Families. How could this government have failed Paige so badly?

[1405]

Hon. S. Cadieux: As I’ve said, we are constantly looking at the ways we can improve the services we deliver. In fact, one of the things that we did last year was a partnership with the YWCA called Strive, which is a program that they offer in Vancouver to develop and work with youth leaving care, from ages 17 to 24, on life skills and transition.

That program has been very successful. We heard on Friday from a number of participants in that program what it means to them. In fact, we are continuing that program and expanding it now to include the North Shore, and we are looking to find ways with our partners around the province to be able to take that program further. We do recognize that for youth leaving care, there are additional challenges, and there are additional things we need to do to ensure that those transitions are smooth.

Madame Speaker: The member for North Coast on a supplemental.

J. Rice: Less than a year after Paige died, the current minister was asked about providing extended supports to children after age 19. She responded by saying the government provides sufficient services for youth who have aged out of care. Having read about Paige’s life and death, does the minister still believe that’s true?

Hon. S. Cadieux: For any youth who is leaving care, there is a difficult transition. There is no argument. But what we know is that what we have in place is a very comprehensive system of supports and services. We know, as well, that we would like to see that system work more cohesively together to make it easier for the youth who are leaving care to access those services — to continue to work with youth, in fact, to ensure that what we design in
[ Page 8643 ]
the way of services meets their needs, the needs that they are expressing to us. We are going to continue to do that.

C. James: It’s very clear that the system is not meeting the needs of children in care. It is very clear that the system did not meet the needs of Paige and other children out there. The children’s representative only received one report about Paige during the young girl’s life. The report said: “Paige is trading sex for alcohol, with older men.” It’s also acknowledged that Paige’s mother was still on the streets. And it suggested that Paige was “trying to get a youth agreement but has a serious alcohol problem.”

This government knew that Paige was being sexually abused. They knew she was homeless. They knew she wasn’t in school, and they knew she suffered from addiction. Yet she was forced out of care by this government. Will the minister acknowledge that forcing Paige out of care was the wrong decision?

Hon. S. Cadieux: I think what anyone who reads this report will understand is that despite the fact that there are systems, programs and services in place and despite the fact that there is lots of money being spent, the reality is that in these complex circumstances with families and individuals who have a history of deep intergenerational poverty, addiction and violence, there are no simple solutions.

We are learning from the report. We are continuing to make changes, and those changes come on top of the many, many changes that have strengthened child protection in this province over the last 20 years — including but not limited to the introduction of the Child, Family and Community Service Act and the subsequent changes we’ve made in terms of our reporting structure, thanks to the Hughes report.

Madame Speaker: Victoria–Beacon Hill on a supplemental.

C. James: The minister’s response to Paige’s death is unacceptable, just as the care that was given to Paige when she was alive was unacceptable. One-off funding for limited services in just a few communities is an insulting, inadequate response. It is difficult to help children like Paige, but that is the government’s responsibility.

It takes political will, and it takes resources to make this happen. We have seen reports come forward before. We have heard commitments before to make changes that have not occurred. Specific action is needed now. Will the minister today order a full review for all children in care turning 19, to ensure that they have the supports that they need to prevent another tragedy in our province?

[1410]

Hon. S. Cadieux: To reiterate for the member, anyone who reads this report will be horrified by the tragedies that this young woman went through, throughout her entire life, despite the ongoing and multitude of interactions with MCFD, other ministries and other service providers. Unfortunately, collectively, the system did not support this woman.

I have asked my deputy to look at what we’re doing on the Downtown Eastside to broaden our discussion to include stakeholders we haven’t previously involved ourselves with, like the city of Vancouver. We’re going to learn from what we’ve already seen, in terms of changes in how we deliver service in the Downtown Eastside and other areas. We’re going to act to implement, for lack of a better term, a rapid response team model for the Downtown Eastside, involving all of those partners, to ensure that any time a youth comes in contact and is in need of protection, all of the necessary agencies are brought in immediately.

For youth who are turning 19 and leaving government care, we have a vast array of services and supports available. We need to make sure that youth have access to them.

J. Horgan: We’ve had two years of discussion about preparing a rapid response. That’s unacceptable.

We had knowledge that Paige was abused by men. We have knowledge that she was selling sexual favours for access to alcohol. We knew all of that. The state knew all of that. The ministry knew all of that. Despite that information, the government of British Columbia allowed Paige to drift away from the only thing that she had to hold onto. That was a foster family.

Will the minister ensure that this does not happen in the future, by taking action today and making sure that we don’t age people out because it’s cheap and convenient, that we take care of British Columbians to the best of our ability? It’s not happening now. Paige is an example of that.

How about a legacy, a lasting legacy in her name, that 19-year-olds will be protected, just as 20-year-olds and 21-year-olds should be — and, as Alberta does, to the age of 24? Will the minister commit to that today?

Hon. S. Cadieux: No one in this House, least of all myself, would hope to see a young woman go through what this young woman went through — nor, and especially not, to die such a tragic death at such a young age.

Government has a multitude of services in place, and we have social workers who work diligently every day, some of them for more than 20 years, on the Downtown Eastside to try and support individuals like this young woman. When families come in contact with the ministry and children are young, we have one set of things we can do. As children age, they actually have more say in what services they receive from the ministry, or don’t, and in what they access, or don’t.

Yes, that is a challenge, but we are committed, in the ministry, to ensuring the safety and well-being of the children and youth that come in contact with us. We will do everything in our power to ensure that that happens.
[ Page 8644 ]

FIRST NATIONS CONSULTATION ON SEWAGE
WASTE DISPOSAL IN NICOLA VALLEY

S. Fraser: This government has authorized the dumping of sewage waste in the Nicola Valley. This very controversial decision was made without consultation with the Nicola Valley Indian bands, who are represented well here today. To the Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation, who holds the responsibility to ensure that real and meaningful consultation actually happens: why didn’t it happen?

[1415]

Hon. M. Polak: Just to advise the member, as well as welcoming the chiefs here to the Legislature, I will be meeting with the chiefs later on, after question period today.

We’ve had ongoing dialogue about how to ensure that there is confidence in the safety of the materials that are used. But it’s important to note that these materials have been used by ranchers to enhance soils in the Nicola Valley and all around the province for well over ten years.

In terms of the composting facility, the composting facility is certainly regulated by the Ministry of Environment to ensure that they engage in safe practices. The location of the composting facility — and we’ve had this discussion with the Thompson-Nicola regional district and also with the chiefs — is one that is governed by local zoning, because the composting for commercial purposes is not a farm use.

I’m confident that with continued dialogue with the chiefs, we can find a collaborative circumstance that will enable us to assure their people that the proper practices are being engaged in so that indeed this can be done safely.

Madame Speaker: The member for Alberni–Pacific Rim on a supplemental.

S. Fraser: The focus of the rally here today, if any of the members had come out, the government members…. Nicola Indian chiefs are looking for a real dialogue with the province, with this government, about their decision to dump sewage waste in their territory. The people here today have no interest in platitudes. They are here to protect their territory for future generations. They travelled here all the way from the Nicola Valley because of this government’s failures — failure to fulfil its constitutional obligations, already failed, and failure to uphold the honour of the Crown.

Again, to the Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation, will he acknowledge those failures and correct them by ensuring that his government engages in real and meaningful consultation with the Nicola Valley Indian bands?

Hon. M. Polak: Let me be clear to the member that the dialogue with the chiefs has been ongoing. I have met on a number of occasions with them. Other officials have met with them and continue to dialogue with them. We will indeed meet again today.

Perhaps the member would like to clarify what it is he’s suggesting around the types of constitutional obligations there are on private land. In this case, we are talking about private landowners who then are engaged in a farm practice that has been going on in the Nicola Valley for more than ten years.

We certainly know that the First Nations have concerns around the safe use of these materials, but that’s a matter for some collaborative discussion. In terms of a constitutional obligation, we take those very seriously. But in terms of private land and farm use on private land, if the member believes that that’s a subject for constitutional obligations to consult, then he should rise and say that.

B.C. HYDRO MANAGEMENT AND
HIRING OF FORMER POLITICAL STAFF

A. Dix: During this session, at B.C. Hydro we’ve been witness to project failures, missed targets, overruns, faulty towers, huge losses on private power contracts, out-of-control contracting out and IT schemes and chaos. It’s the ratepayers that have had to pick up the price tag for all of this, to the tune of 28 percent rate increases caused by decisions made in the Liberal cabinet room.

Well, we got a response from the minister last week to all of this. His response is to force B.C. Hydro to hire his political assistant to a newly created, high-priced job at B.C. Hydro. What message does the minister think…?

Interjections.

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

Just wait. Please continue.

A. Dix: Thank you, hon. Speaker. You can imagine that there’s no outrage for the ratepayers paying 28 percent over there. What message does it send? What message does the minister think forcing B.C. Hydro to hire his political assistant as the director for policy and reporting sends to ratepayers burdened by outrageous B.C. Liberal hydro rate increases?

[1420]

Hon. B. Bennett: I think what I just heard is the member opposite saying that if you work in this building as a political assistant, as a political staffer, you won’t have the skill set or the work ethic or the brains to actually earn a way to improve your life and to go to a different job, perhaps a better thing for you and your family. I think that’s what the member said. I think the member just suggested that without patronage, it’s not possible for any political staffer in this building, on either side of the House….
[ Page 8645 ]

On this side of the House we actually honour the people who work as political staffers for us. They work long, long hours. They work on weekends. In this case, there was a competition for this job.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Hon. B. Bennett: There were 30 applicants who applied for this job. There were four people who were interviewed — two of them from inside Hydro, two from outside Hydro. I’m really proud of the fact that this young man, who works his you-know-what off and who is very, very bright, earned the chance to get this job.

A. Dix: You know, it’s not a fair competition when 29 candidates have to run all of the bases while the other saunters home from third base. The winning formula for this job competition, this Liberal job competition, was to have no utility experience, no experience in energy policy other than time spent with the minister, no Crown corporation experience, no regulatory experience and no policy analyst experience. Presumably, the 29 unsuccessful candidates had never been B.C. Liberal field organizers or political assistants to Liberal cabinet members.

Treating B.C. Hydro as his personal version of the Canadian Senate is a sorry response to the problems the Liberal cabinet has caused to front-line workers of B.C. Hydro.. Will the minister do the right thing and ask the Hydro president, Jessica McDonald, to rescind this unfortunate nomination by him?

Hon. B. Bennett: There….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Minister, just take your seat.

Should members wish question period to continue, the Chair will hear the answer and the question.

Hon. B. Bennett: There have been a number of political staffers over the years who have come through this place and who have moved on. I have to believe that they didn’t all move on and take good jobs as a result of patronage.

There was a fairly well-known NDP staffer, former staffer, who just won an election in Alberta. I’m sure that she didn’t get to where she is today on the basis of patronage.

I wonder what the member thinks of his friend who was also an adviser at the same time that that member was an adviser to the NDP government. When he took an appointment with the utility in 1999, he moved from Victoria to work for a utility. He was paid $90,000 in those days. The Leader of the Opposition moved as an adviser to the NDP government over to the Columbia Power Corporation.

He earned the vast sum, in those days, of $90,000. It equates to about $125,000 today. I would suggest to the House that he probably did that on the basis of merit, just the same as Mr. Sandve won his job, earned his job, on the basis of merit.

[1425]

EXPENSES OF
KWANTLEN UNIVERSITY BOARD

K. Corrigan: The Minister of Citizens’ Services approved a variety of trips for board members, including trips to San Francisco, Orlando and Maryland. Then in February of 2013 he authorized a $6,700 board retreat at the River Rock Casino in Richmond. Student dollars funded meals, valet parking, martinis and $50 bottles of Pinot Gris. But it doesn’t end there. Students also footed the bill for 14 attendees to stay overnight.

My question, to the Minister of Advanced Education: can the minister explain why board members were put up for the night when they were already in their own hometown?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I think the members opposite, on this occasion, would join me in endorsing the important principle that publicly funded higher education must be delivered to students and must be used to provide teaching and research. That is exactly what our ministry has done last week — ensured that funds that were attributed to this goal were actually spent on that goal.

That is why we’ve called upon the institution in question to require reimbursement from the individuals involved for inappropriate expenses. That is already underway. We’ve also asked for an inventory from the other institutions, more than half of whom have already responded to say that there is no such inappropriate expenditure on their board expense sheets.

The member opposite can be satisfied that this matter has been pursued diligently and the results will be entirely satisfactory.

Madame Speaker: Burnaby–Deer Lake on a supplemental.

K. Corrigan: Well, I’m not sure what’s more troubling about this whole waste of student dollars — the fact that the Minister of Citizens’ Services approved of them while he was the vice-chair at Kwantlen, the fact that the Minister of Citizens’ Services did nothing to change this practice while he was Minister of Advanced Education or the fact that the current minister knew nothing about it until someone else FOI’d the records.

Can the Minister of Advanced Education tell the House why he’s relying on third-party FOIs to scrutinize university expenses? And maybe the minister can also tell the House if other boards are approving lavish expenditures
[ Page 8646 ]
with student funds or if this was a practice limited to the Minister of Citizens’ Services.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: It’s truly a sad use of our time in this House during question period that the facts are simply stated incorrectly. The taxpayer accountability principles…

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: …were imported almost a year ago. The policies that the member opposite says have only been reinstated during my tenure were in fact put into place almost two years ago.

This horse left the barn long ago. We are now in the cleanup phase. We’re tidying up some loose ends. The member opposite and her entire caucus can be assured that the house of Advanced Education is in very good order.

[End of question period.]

Petitions

L. Reimer: I’d like to present a petition gathered by the dock management plan working group containing approximately 1,955 signatures.

S. Simpson: I’m presenting a petition — over 300 signatures from students from Vancouver Technical Secondary School. They are petitioning this House to call upon the Ministry of Education to specifically mandate mental health education into the public education curriculum, with a focus on topics of depression, anxiety and psychosis, in collaboration with the Ministry of Health.

L. Throness: I’d like to present a petition from 375 residents of Hope and its surrounding area. Because they consider themselves to be part of the Fraser Valley in geography, economy, culture and administration, they do not wish to be part of the constituency of Fraser-Nicola but want to express their desire to remain in the constituency of Chilliwack-Hope.

[1430]

Tabling Documents

Madame Speaker: Hon. Members, I have the honour to present the 2014-2015 Annual Report, Office of the Merit Commissioner.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: I call Motion 18 in this chamber; in the Birch Committee Room, Section C, the continued Committee of Supply estimates of the Ministry of Health; and in Section A, the Douglas Fir Room, Committee of Supply, the ongoing estimates of the Ministry of Finance.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

Government Motions on Notice

MOTION 18 — AMENDMENTS TO
NISGA’A FINAL AGREEMENT

Hon. J. Rustad: I move Motion 18 standing in my name on the order paper.

[Be it resolved that, pursuant to section 38 of Chapter 2 of the Nisga’a Final Agreement, the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia consents to the amendments to the Nisga’a Final Agreement set out in the attached Nisga’a Final Agreement Amending Agreement (No. 3).

THIS AMENDING AGREEMENT is dated for reference October 29, 2014.

BETWEEN:

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA, as represented by the Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation

(“British Columbia”)

AND

THE NISGA’A NATION, as represented by the Nisga’a Lisims Government Executive

(“Nisga’a Nation”).

WHEREAS:

A. On May 11, 2000 the Nisga’a Final Agreement came into effect.

B. The Nisga’a Final Agreement provides for its amendment and specifies requirements for amendment of various of its provisions.

C. The parties to the Nisga’a Final Agreement previously agreed to make certain amendments to the Nisga’a Final Agreement so as to alter the boundaries of Anhluut’ukwsim Laxmihl Angwinga’asanskwhl Nisga’a, also known as the Nisga’a Memorial Lava Bed Park (the “Park”), by removing certain lands from the Park and specifying the requirements for making alterations to the boundaries of the Park in paragraph 104 of Chapter 3 — Lands.

D. The Parties have determined that under paragraph 104 of Chapter 3 — Lands (as amended), only the consents of the Nisga’a Nation and British Columbia are required to alter the boundaries of the Park, and that the processes set out in paragraphs 38 and 40 of Chapter 2 — General Provisions apply to the amendments proposed in this Amending Agreement.

E. The Parties now propose additional amendments to the Nisga’a Final Agreement set out in Part II of this Amending Agreement to further alter the boundaries of the Park by removing certain lands from the Park.

F. The alterations to the boundaries of the Park set out in Part II of this Amending Agreement will also be included in amendments proposed to Schedule “D” to the Protected Areas of British Columbia Act, S.B.C. 2000, c. 17 (the “Protected Areas Amendment”).

G. The Parties acknowledge that the amendments to the Nisga’a Final Agreement set out in Part II of this Amending Agreement should precede the Protected Areas Amendment.

NOW THEREFORE the Parties agree that:
[ Page 8647 ]

a) the proposed amendments to the Nisga’a Final Agreement set out in Part II of this Amending Agreement be recommended

i. by the Nisga’a Lisims Government Executive to Wilp Si’ayuukhl Nisga’a, and

ii. by the Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation to the Legislature of British Columbia; and

b) British Columbia will not bring the Protected Areas Amendment into force until the proposed amendments set out in Part II of this Amending Agreement take effect in accordance Part III of this Amending Agreement.

PART I — DEFINITIONS

1. In this Amending Agreement:

a) “Nisga’a Final Agreement” means the Nisga’a Final Agreement among the Nisga’a Nation, Her Majesty the Queen in right of Canada and Her Majesty the Queen in right of British Columbia, as it took effect on May 11, 2000, as amended;

b) “Appendices” means the part of the Nisga’a Final Agreement containing the Introduction and Appendices A - M, and includes the table of contents to that part;

c) “Parties” means the parties to this Amending Agreement and “Party” means any one of them;

d) a reference to a Chapter by number or name is a reference to the chapter of that number or name in the part of the Nisga’a Final Agreement containing the Preamble and Chapters 1 - 22; and

e) a reference to an Appendix by letter or number is a reference to the Appendix of that letter or number in the Appendices.

2. Words and expressions appearing in this Amending Agreement that are not defined in this Amending Agreement but are defined in the Nisga’a Final Agreement have the meanings ascribed to them in the Nisga’a Final Agreement.

PART II — AMENDMENTS REQUIRING CONSENT

3. Appendix G-1 is deleted, and the document entitled “Appendix G-1” and the map following that document attached to this Amending Agreement are substituted.

PART III — PROCEDURES

4. The proposed amendments set out in Part II of this Amending Agreement will take effect in accordance with paragraph 41 of Chapter 2 — General Provisions, on the date that the last Party required to consent to the amendments gives its consent.

5. This Amending Agreement may be signed in one or more counterparts. A signed counterpart may be delivered by one Party to another Party by facsimile transmission and a facsimile so transmitted will constitute an original document. Signed counterparts held by a Party, taken together, will constitute one and the same instrument.

FOR HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA, as represented by the Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation, signed this _______ day of ______________________, 2014.

___________________________________

The Honourable John Rustad, Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation

Witnessed by _________

FOR THE NISGA’A NATION, as represented by the Nisga’a Lisims Government Executive, signed this _______ day of ______________________, 2014.

___________________________________

H. Mitchell Stevens, President

Witnessed by _________

Schedule

APPENDIX G PARKS AND ECOLOGICAL RESERVE

Appendix G-1 Map and description of Anhluut’ukwsim Laxmihl Angwinga’asanskwhl Nisga’a, the Nisga’a Memorial Lava Bed Park]

It’s my honour to rise in the House today to move the amendment to the Nisga’a final agreement, British Columbia’s first modern-day treaty. The purpose of this amendment is to update the description of the Nisga’a Memorial Lava Bed Park that is set out in the treaty. The amendment removes 63.5 hectares from the park in order to support the construction and operations of the proposed Prince Rupert gas transmission line. Now that the pipeline project has received an environmental assessment certificate and pursuant to the B.C. Nisga’a treaty amending agreement, I am now moving this motion to amend the treaty.

The Ministry of Environment supports amending the park boundaries, and the Nisga’a Lisims Government approves amending their treaty. As you know, the Nisga’a Nation is a strong partner with the province in the development of liquefied natural gas in British Columbia.

I’d like to take this opportunity to thank the Nisga’a Nation and the Ministry of Environment in making this amendment happen. It’s a key step in the process to permit construction of the natural gas pipeline that will run about 900 kilometres from the northeast out to the coast. This motion demonstrates the continued common vision of British Columbia and the Nisga’a Nation to create building blocks for liquefied natural gas.

S. Fraser: I’m honoured to stand in this House once again and to deal with this motion. I want to thank the minister first off. He provided me with a briefing and information available for the motion. I have had some inquiries around the nature of the motion and the implications of the motion and actually how it came about and how it will affect the future — from First Nations and from non-First Nations. I would like to read some of this into the record to try to clarify it. But I want to thank the minister for providing that briefing, first off.

[1435]

There will be approximately 64 hectares of the Prince Rupert Gas Transmission Ltd. proposed pipeline project that crosses the Nisga’a Memorial Lava Bed Park. I know we’ve dealt in a previous session with the lava bed park issue, and I would note that this is an ongoing issue. A motion seems an unusual process, I thought at first, to deal with this. Just a legislative amendment, I thought, would have been appropriate. But I do understand the role of the motion here.

In order for the regulatory permits to be issued to construct that portion of the proposed pipeline project that I just cited, the area must be removed from the park. As a description of the park boundary is set — that was in appendix G1 of the Nisga’a final agreement and as a schedule to the Protected Areas of British Columbia Act — I would note that it all must be amended to reflect the removal of the 63.5 hectares.

It was last year — October 29, actually — that the Nisga’a Lisims Government consented to amend the
[ Page 8648 ]
Nisga’a treaty, as described in the amending agreement, No. 3. Today we’re dealing with that. That is the motion. On November 25 the environmental assessment certificate — this is the order that it needs to proceed in — was issued. It needed to be issued prior to this process that’s happening today in the form of a motion in the House, of the Legislature. I would note that this is being supported fully by the Nisga’a Lisims Government.

Under the Nisga’a final agreement, the park boundary description is paramount over any other description in a provincial statute. Accordingly, the park description set out in the Protected Areas of British Columbia Act will be amended by regulation following the passing of the motion described above. During the fall 2014 session B.C. passed the required amendment to the Protected Areas of British Columbia Act but did not bring it into force.

I must say that I was remiss. I didn’t catch the subtleties of that at the time. As I turns out, to complete the remaining steps under A3, B.C. must carry out the following, in order. This is critical, I think.

One is to introduce the resolution as a motion of the Legislative Assembly to consent to amend the Nisga’a Final Agreement Act. This resolution also causes the Nisga’a final agreement to automatically be amended. I know that some may find that confusing, and I still find it a little confusing. However, I think it’s important that this get read back into the record so that people can refer back to the process that’s required through this motion today.

The second issue that must be carried out is to seek a regulation to bring the amendment to the Protected Areas of British Columbia Act into force. Now, that is the purpose of the motion today. Again, for the public watching and for First Nations watching, for Nisga’a watching, I would like to read into the record the formal position taken, leading up to this motion, by the Nisga’a themselves. This is dated May 11 of this year:

“I am writing with respect to the proposed amendments to the Nisga’a final agreement, as set out in part II of the agreement, the amendments. The amendments will alter the boundaries of ….”

Now, I’m not going to try to do this pronunciation. I have some experience with speaking some Nuu-chah-nulth phrases, but this one, I believe, I would butcher. I will just refer to it as the Nisga’a Memorial Lava Bed Park, all of which is described in appendix G-1 to the Nisga’a final agreement.

[1440]

“On October 29, 2014, Wilp Si’ayuukhl, the elected members of the Nisga’a Lisims Government, passed a resolution consenting to the amendments on behalf of the Nisga’a Nation, which consent was effective upon Prince Rupert Gas Transmission Ltd. obtaining an environmental assessment certificate under the Assessment Act, SBC 2002, c. 43, with respect to the Prince Rupert gas transmission project.

“British Columbia issued the relevant environmental assessment certificate on November 25, 2014. Accordingly, on November 27, 2014” — and this is directed directly to the minister today, the minister of the day — “you and I executed the agreement on behalf of British Columbia and the Nisga’a Nation respectively.

“I am, therefore, pleased to hear that in accordance with the terms of the agreement, you will be recommending that the Legislature consent to the amendment by way of resolution to be considered during the current legislative session.

“As also provided in the agreement, we understand that the resulting legislative amendments to the Protected Areas of British Columbia Act — SBC 2000 c.17 — will be brought into force following the amendments of the Nisga’a’s final agreement.”

This letter was signed on behalf of the Nisga’a Lisims Government by President Mitchell Stevens. I would note that the Nisga’a people are looking forward to this amendment. It’s part of a long list.

I have been informed in the government briefing — for those that have asked this question of me — that there should be no subsequent amendments or motions required to proceed and that this motion is, indeed, in order in this House.

I also note that we are at the very end of this legislative session. This is the last week, the first day of the last week, of the session, and it’s timely that this motion be heard today. I’m confident that certainly as far as the opposition is concerned, we will not be in any way opposing the decision made.

I would also like to commend the minister on working closely with the Nisga’a government. The Nisga’a treaty predates many of us in this House — I believe, the minister included, certainly myself. I just had my tenth year in this place. The anniversary was a week ago yesterday.

The Nisga’a agreement is a creation of a process that happened millennia ago, before, actually, the inception and the creation of the B.C. treaty process in this province. The Nisga’a government have evolved in a way, I think, as an example to other nations, and they should be applauded for the work they do.

As I would give credit where credit is due, the minister’s work here on this file is particularly appropriate. It was done very well and in a government-to-government manner befitting the Nisga’a government. Also, it was done with respect and recognition of that role of government, Nisga’a being the first nation in this province to come out from under the yoke of the Indian Act, which was a cause for celebration.

While I was not sitting, myself, as a member of this House during that time, I do remember it well. It was inspiring, and I would submit, it worked as the impetus and inspiration for what is today’s current B.C. treaty process. I still think that we can all learn from the process that predated the B.C. treaty process. I believe that the treaty process as it is today needs work, as I’m sure the minister has mentioned before.

I don’t think it was ever intended to be a static thing. It was supposed to be a dynamic process that reflected changes in case law and international declarations, like the UN declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples. But that being said, that’s today and that’s today’s treaty process.

[1445]

I’m hopeful we will see other treaties coming out in the near future that will be successful, and other nations being
[ Page 8649 ]
able to make these decisions and as a government, with the government of British Columbia, working with respect and recognition on a government-to-government basis.

I must say that I still have some questions of the minister or his staff on this, as far as the process following this day or the voting on this motion. I will just continue a little bit longer to highlight several of the questions that have been put to me which I was not able to answer.

On the record, I have been asked, around this motion, if there was a timeline set for work to begin on the pipeline that would follow from this resolution. I’ve also been asked if any work has occurred leading up to this resolution, if that was required, and if anything has happened that was preparatory to bringing in the motion following the environmental assessment certificate when it was issued not that long ago.

I guess one of the other issues around such a motion would be whether or not it is necessary in order for regulatory permits to be issued — if that’s a requirement from this motion. Also, does this ever have to come back to this Legislature? These are questions that I’m sure the minister and his staff will help me with. They have come in very recently. They’ve come in during the last week that we were not sitting.

I would also like to mention that there were questions around whether the amendment would affect the Protected Areas of British Columbia Act, 2000 — if there was any direct correlation there. I’m sure we will find all of this out.

I understand, with a motion as opposed to legislation…. Again, this was asked of me, regarding this motion: whether or not there would be a chance, actually, for a committee stage. Of course, my understanding is that the motion does not allow for that, so that is why I think it’s important that the questions that were put to me as the critic or the spokesperson for Aboriginal Relations can be laid out here in the House today.

I guess the final question around this motion is why this is being done as a motion as opposed to an amendment to legislation. As I mentioned, along with that, the question was put whether other amendments would be required. I do not believe so. But again, I would stand corrected on that by the minister or his staff when they do get a chance for that.

With that, I would take my seat and express on behalf of the official opposition that we will be supporting the motion. I congratulate Nisga’a and the government for working closely together on a government-to-government relationship.

Hon. J. Rustad: I’m assuming that I’m up for closing comments, so I just want to thank the member for his comments and the discussion around treaty that he gave — some interesting comments.

Directly to the questions that he asked, we will make sure that we prepare some responses and get them to you. This isn’t an estimates process, so I can’t give you the direct answers here at this point. But regarding the one question around work to date, there was, of course….

As any permits go through and have to be addressed, in a park, there is exploratory work that needs to be done. To the best of my knowledge, construction work has not started to this date. But like I say, I’ll get that to you in writing in a direct response.

With that, we’re very pleased to be working with Nisga’a on this. I think that liquefied natural gas represents a tremendous opportunity for all British Columbians, but especially for First Nations. Nisga’a has proven time and time again that they’re interested in engaging, being part of the economy and working towards a prosperous future. I’m very pleased that we’re able to partner together.

With those comments, once again, thank you for the support from the opposition, and I move the motion.

Motion approved.

[1450]

Hon. M. Polak: I call continued committee stage debate on Bill 20.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 20 — ELECTION
AMENDMENT ACT, 2015

(continued)

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

The committee met at 2:54 p.m.

On the amendment to section 6 (continued).

G. Holman: As provided to the Clerk, I would like to propose a subamendment to section 6, to which the government has recently proposed an amendment to the original legislation.

[1455]

I have additional copies here for other members of the House.

[SECTION 6, by deleting the text highlighted by strikethrough 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, or a registered constituency association as defined in section 157 (1) (b),

(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, registered political party, or a registered constituency association as defined in section 157 (1) (b), 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

(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.

(d) Despite section 275(3), records released under section 51 may not be used for any purposes other than electoral purposes consistent with this Act, subject to any restrictions or requirements established by regulation, and any other use constitutes an offense under s.267.

(e) For the purposes of this section, “electoral purposes” means uses that enable candidates of registered political parties, registered constituency associations as defined in s.157 1(b) and registered political parties to, directly or indirectly, communicate with voters to promote or oppose a political party or candidate, or take a position on an issue with which a party or candidate is associated.

(f) For greater certainty, a person must not

(i) disclose the information about an individual’s voting to another unaffiliated person.

(g) Registered political parties must develop a policy on the use, distribution and safeguards of information released under section 51(2)(b) and (c) and file a copy of this policy with the chief electoral officer.]

On the subamendment.

The Chair: Member for Saanich North and the Islands, do you wish to speak to your subamendment?

G. Holman: I won’t bother to read the subamendment but just describe in more general terms the intent here. The intent is to get clearly on record what we think is wrong with the government’s amendment.

I do want to say, as well, that we do appreciate the government’s and the minister’s attempt to address some of the concerns that we and the independents have expressed around Bill 20 — the concern around privacy, the concerns around who would actually get the voter turnout records.

I do want to say I want to commend government to at least try to respond, to some degree, to these concerns. We don’t feel that the amendment presented by government to its own legislation, which was done very quickly….

The member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head has pointed out — as well as myself and others have — that the amendments being brought forward by the government have been rather hurried — in fact, two, one right after another — giving this side of the House very little chance to respond. There is a sense that this legislation is being changed on the fly.

I do want to acknowledge government for at least making an effort there, but we want to put on record the strengthening of the provisions around privacy, to clarify the issue around distribution of voter turnout records to the various candidates.

We want to make it clear, with this subamendment, where we stand — at least in terms of the official opposition on this particular section of the bill. The subamendment removes government references to past candidates but does retain the reference to current candidates.

There is a concern expressed there, as I understand it, even by the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head, around distribution of this voter turnout record to candidates who ran in the previous election but who may not be running in the current election. That seems to us to be a clear flaw in the government’s proposed amendments. So that’s some of the language we’re proposing to strike because we feel that it broadens the distribution too wide and makes it open to abuse.

[1500]

This all harkens back to the letter by the Privacy Commissioner expressing great concern about Bill 20 — and this section, in particular. Our subamendment also adds to it key pieces from our original amendment, which was on the order paper and, I guess, in a way is superseded by government’s amendment. In this subamendment we’re trying to, again, bring us back and trying to make clear what our view as official opposition is on this particular section.

We’ve added to it, added to the government’s proposed amendments language regarding registered constituency associations; language referring to current candidates; all of our language on privacy protection, which restricts usage to electoral purposes only and makes any other use an offence. It more narrowly defines “electoral purposes” and prohibits providing this information to an unaffiliated person. And again, as our original amendment on the order paper did, we require a privacy policy to be filed with the Privacy Commissioner.

That’s a summary of our subamendment. I’m assuming others may want to speak to this. Basically, our view is that if we can strengthen the privacy provisions…. They have to be stronger than what government has proposed. Even though government has come some way to addressing those concerns, in our view, those provisions are still not strong enough around privacy and around wide distribution of the voter turnout information.
[ Page 8651 ]

If we can’t come to an agreement with government on strengthening these provisions, we will not be supporting this section and we will not be supporting this bill.

V. Huntington: Before I speak on the opposition subamendment, I would like some clarification by the Chair on what the process would be, because I, too, have a subamendment. And I would like to know…. My subamendment would move to strike paragraphs (2)(b) and (c) from this section, so I would like to know how to proceed.

I also have comments on the opposition subamendment.

The Chair: Certainly. We will move forward with the subamendment as proposed by the member for Saanich North and the Islands. Should that subamendment indeed pass, obviously then we will have the subamendment as part of the amendment. Perhaps if the member would like to amend the amended amendment, then the member can propose such. Should that subamendment fail, then it would be in order at that time for the member to put forward an additional subamendment to the amendment.

V. Huntington: Quite clear, with the exception that by that time I won’t have the correct wording for my subamendment, and I don’t know how to get it into the Clerk’s possession quickly enough. I don’t even have a copy of the subamendment actually.

The Chair: Should the subamendment pass, I will give ample time to be able to deal with it.

V. Huntington: To have my staff fix it up and get it to you?

The Chair: Yes.

V. Huntington: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: The member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head.

A. Weaver: Thank you, hon. Chair, and soon you will be saying that far more often. I recognize that.

I know that the member for Delta South wanted to speak further. I did note that she sat down, so I wanted to also speak. Unfortunately, I must speak against this subamendment. The reason why I must speak against this subamendment is that it falls into precisely the criticism that I made with the amendment brought forward by the government.

The government’s amendment was put on the table at the last minute. It was amended again. The subamendment was subamended and put on the following day. We’ve had a week break, for which we could have put this and gained some consultative process.

[1505]

I just received this. So how can I in good conscience speak to the support of a subamendment and not be viewed as a hypocrite, having criticized government for precisely the approach that the official opposition has done here — that is, provide a detailed, substantive subamendment that I simply have not had time to read? It has not even been read into the record.

As far as I can tell, it does not go far enough. I will be voting against this section, against the amendment first. This whole subsection — section 6, as amended by the minister — is, in my view, a flagrant abuse of privacy. British Columbians do not want this. This subamendment, which may have been put forward with all the good intentions that it has, simply does not address that, simply has not been given to the independent members with any amount of time and does not bring us back to an amendment that was on the order paper.

Both the member for Delta South and I had amendments on the order paper for quite some time, in particular with section 6. Of course, my amendment that was on the order paper is now moot in light of the fact that the government itself has introduced an amendment.

I’m assuming, if the track record in this House is consistent, that the government’s amendment will pass in light of the fact that we don’t very often see much opposition to legislation being put forward by the government from within its own caucus.

So unfortunately, this amendment…. While it may have been put forward with the best of intentions, nobody here knows. How can the minister speak either for or against this subamendment, when the minister is busy reading it right now, I’m sure?

I had to speak before I could read it. At least I’m giving the minister a chance to read it. So if the minister is asking me to keep raising some issues because the minister actually hasn’t read it yet either…. I’m going to pass the floor off to my friend from Delta South because I suspect she would like to speak on this topic as well.

G. Holman: I do understand the member for Delta South does want to speak to this. Just to the MLA for Oak Bay–Gordon Head: I share your pain. I absolutely understand the fact that these amendments and subamendments are being dealt with on the fly, particularly for legislation that’s so important, that’s so foundational as the Election Act of British Columbia. We should not be dealing with this legislation in this way.

My only defence is that this is the nature of the beast. This is the rushed, hurried process that the government has forced us into. This subamendment is being put forward in the spirit of trying to strengthen the legislation. But I absolutely agree with the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head. It’s being done on the fly. Folks don’t have sufficient time to read it and process it and understand it and respond, and that includes everyone in this House.

My only defence is that this is the process we’re forced
[ Page 8652 ]
into. It’s not fitting for foundational legislation like this, the Election Act of British Columbia, to be dealt with in this manner. But quite honestly, we felt that we didn’t have a choice in the matter.

V. Huntington: I like those words. It’s not fitting that legislation of a foundational matter be dealt with in this way. I couldn’t agree more. It is a foundational piece of legislation that is of importance to every single citizen in this province, so many of whom have expressed true concern about this section in particular.

If I had my way, I would get down on my hands and knees and ask the minister to please take further time on this bill, and this section in particular, and do what’s right and listen to the concerns of the province.

However, I’ll speak just very briefly to the subamendment. Firstly, I appreciate the member’s comments about the wording of the amendment, which was in the bill, the first bill, the previous bill, the non-amended bill — “an individual who was a candidate.” It’s a fundamental flaw that I saw from the beginning.

[1510]

Not only did it leave out candidates of the election at that point, but “an individual who was a candidate” isn’t defined. It could be the former Premier asking for a list of those who voted. It could be anybody because it’s not defined.

I think that it should be restricted, as this subamendment does, to at least that individual who is a candidate in the coming election — the election, hopefully, referred to here, although I do have some questions about some of that language.

While I think that it is very good that this subamendment goes back to the original language of “a candidate, registered political party or registered constituency association,” which is found throughout the amended act itself and suddenly disappears in section 6…. If you go back to it, it solves all of the issues.

While I support that element of this and feel that there is a flaw here with an individual who “was a candidate” remaining, I would strongly urge yet another amendment come forward by the province if they can’t see their way to supporting this amendment.

On the whole, I can’t support the amendment because I do not support, fundamentally, the issuance of a list of voters who voted being given to anybody from the Chief Electoral Officer. I’m split on my support for elements of this, and I would strongly suggest that the government do take a good, hard look at the words “an individual who was a candidate.”

G. Holman: A point of order in terms of process here. Do I need to read this subamendment into the record, Mr. Speaker? The fact that we provided hard copies to the Clerk and all…. Do I need to read this subamendment into the record, or does it stand as presented?

The Chair: I’m being told that you have to read it into the record. So if the member could read it into the record.

G. Holman: All right. My apologies to all in the House about, again, doing this on the fly, but section 6 is amended as follows. I'll read out the subamendment.

“(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) On 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 or a registered constituency association as defined in section 157 (1) (b),

“(i) in respect of the most recent general election, a list of voters that indicates which voters on the list voted in that election, and…”

My apologies, because I’m trying to discern between struck-out and new language.

“…(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.”

Then replacing section (c) to read:

“(c) to a candidate, registered political party or a registered constituency association as defined in section 157 (1) (b).”

[1515]

In this section (c), that’s where we’re trying to address the member for Delta South’s concern about distribution of the material to all candidates, not just constituency associations and registered parties. We’re trying to acknowledge that in this subamendment.

“(i) in respect of the most recent general election, a list of voters in the electoral district for which the individual is a candidate that indicates which voters on the list voted in that 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 in the electoral district for which the individual is a candidate” — and “or was a candidate” is struck out — “that indicates which voters on the list voted in that by-election.”

And then:

“(d) Despite section 275(3), records released under section 51 may not be used for any purposes other than electoral purposes consistent with this act, subject to any restrictions or requirements established by regulation, and any other use constitutes an offence under s. 267.

“(e) For the purposes of this section, ‘electoral purposes’ means uses that enable candidates of registered political parties, registered constituency associations as defined in s. 157 1(b) and registered political parties to, directly or indirectly, communicate with voters to promote or oppose a political party or candidate or take a position on an issue with which a party or candidate is associated.

“(f) For greater certainty, a person must not

“(i) disclose the information about an individual’s voting to another unaffiliated person.”

And finally:

“(g): Registered political parties must develop a policy on the use, distribution and safeguards of information released under section 51(2)(b) and (c) and file a copy of this policy with the chief electoral officer.”

Again, to repeat, the intent here is to…. Essentially, this wording reflects very closely, if not almost exactly,
[ Page 8653 ]
the amendment to section 6 which appears on the order paper. My view, our view, is that we’re still making these amendments on the fly. In fact, this particular subamendment brings us back to an amendment that has been on the order paper for however long — a couple of weeks. So again, in defence of this subamendment, all we’re doing here is once again clarifying what the official opposition feels needs to happen for section 6 to be acceptable and for Bill 20 to be acceptable.

Hon. S. Anton: It is certainly my position that the subamendment is not required, and I’ll say why. First of all, in terms of the critique that the response is too fast, too quick…. Several people have voiced that criticism, but I would observe that the amendment which I’m proposing simply adds to the original act as proposed originally, as originally submitted to this House. There are no fundamental changes to the act except that there are some additions to the act as originally proposed, and those additions are in response to some of the debate that we heard earlier. That included the members for Delta South and for Oak Bay–Gordon Head. So we are proposing some additions, as I said, which are in the amendment which I have proposed.

In terms of the amendment which the member for Saanich North and the Islands has proposed, I would disagree with it for three reasons. He has three things in his amendment. One is that he wants to take out people who were a candidate. It’s very clear that the candidates must have been candidates in the most recent election. When you read the sections together in their entirety, that’s where you get to. So the proposition that we might be talking about candidates long past…. That is obviously not the intent, and it’s not the way the act itself reads. It must be the most recent election.

This particular piece was added in the proposed amendment which I put in recently in response to comments as to equality of opportunity. The opportunity should be equally between political parties and between candidates.

[1520]

In terms of concern about who should get the information — as I said, equality of opportunity but subject to having a privacy policy satisfactory to the Chief Electoral Officer. You cannot handle this information and you may not possess this information unless you can satisfy the Chief Electoral Officer as to your privacy policy. That comes a little later in the act.

The member is proposing to add a registered constituency association, but I’ll just point out that registered constituency associations are creatures of political parties themselves, so they are covered by the ability of the political party to receive the information.

As to privacy considerations and other things that are added or are proposed to be added in the subamendment, I would just observe two things. One is that in my proposed amendments on section 21.1 there are much more significant privacy considerations added in response to some of the debate we heard in this House.

Secondly, I will observe, as well, that the Chief Electoral Officer has already got regulation-making authority in this area. I have said publicly on a number of occasions and I’ll say again right now that I will be fully in support should he wish to make additional changes — and obviously also at the request of the chief Privacy Commissioner.

For those reasons, it is my position that the subamendment does not add anything to it and, in fact, detracts from the amendment as proposed by myself earlier.

K. Corrigan: I just wanted to get on the record my support for this subamendment. Essentially, what it does is it reinforces or repeats, in many ways, what our original amendment was. I think one of the keys to it is the earlier language as well, making sure that the information is only used for electoral purposes. I think that is key and makes it very clear that removal of the references to past candidates getting the list…. Despite what the minister has said, that’s open to interpretation, and I think we wanted to be clear in limiting that.

Really, the basis of this is to strengthen the privacy provisions with respect to use of this information. For that reason, I’m going to support the subamendment.

G. Holman: Thanks to the minister for your comments. Just in brief response, at the risk of repeating myself, the concern about candidates in previous elections was not so much about whether it was just the immediate previous election or a historical election. The concern is that, regardless, a candidate in a previous election may not be running in the current election. This is the issue.

Government, essentially, has opened the door to giving voter turnout information to someone who ran in the most recent previous election and who is not running in the subsequent election, in the current election to which this bill would…. That’s the concern, not whether it’s the immediate, previous or historical elections. Government has opened the door to giving voter turnout lists to somebody who ran in the most immediate previous election and who’s not running in the current one. That just seems bizarre to me, to this side of the House.

In terms of privacy, there are some very significant differences in our subamendment, which harkens back to our original amendment on the order paper. The language that’s still retained, as we understand it, in the government’s bill and in the government’s amendment is that these are conditions under which the voter turnout list can be distributed.

These lists, according to the government legislation…. Our amendment would remove this. It would narrow the purposes for which this voter turnout information could be provided quite substantially. Still, the government’s bill and amendment would include using the list to identify in-
[ Page 8654 ]
dividuals to be called to serve as jurors under the Jury Act. Now, what relevance voter turnout information has for the selection of jurors under the Jury Act is a puzzlement to us.

[1525]

The government legislation would also allow the turnout list to be used for purposes authorized by the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. Again, there’s a concern there that you’re opening the barn door somewhat. It’s not at all clear how much the barn door is widened, but we struck that provision from our amendment. We’ve been narrowing the use to which these turnout lists can be applied, again in response to the concerns expressed by the Privacy Commissioner.

Another purpose specified in the legislation to which the voter turnout list could be used is “for other purposes specified by regulation, subject to any restrictions or requirements that may be established by regulation.” Again, that language is very broad, and there’s a concern there that the use of these lists can be more broad than would be appropriate, given the concerns of the Privacy Commissioner.

It’s also our understanding, and we stand to be corrected if it’s not the case, that the voter turnout information can be provided to any individual who wishes to inspect or obtain a copy of the record. So as we understand it, the government bill, as proposed and as amended, again would provide this voter turnout information to virtually any individual who requests it as long as they submit some kind of privacy policy to the Electoral Officer.

There are a number of uses to which this voter turnout information can be applied, that is allowed under government legislation, that we have struck from our amendment, again to make the point that we’re trying to narrow the use of this information strictly for electoral purposes. We’ve tried to close that barn door.

V. Huntington: Can I ask a question at this point, of the minister?

The Chair: Please do.

V. Huntington: I wonder if the minister could explain the language to see how the government is thinking. If you are a candidate, you can get the voter turnout list from the most recent election.

The Chair: Actually, I’m sorry, Member. Perhaps we can…. I thought the question was to do with the subamendment.

V. Huntington: It is. It relates to my understanding of the government’s position on subamendment language and the misunderstanding that seems to be occurring from both sides and myself that if you are a candidate you’re entitled, with the amendments, to the most recent voter turnout list. But if you were a candidate, you’re also entitled to it because of the language — “an individual who was a candidate” — that’s in the minister’s amendment.

This amendment strikes out the language “if an individual was a candidate,” so I’m trying to ask why the government feels having both in there satisfies the same issue. If you are a candidate, you can get the list from the most recent general election. If you were a candidate, why do you want the list?

If you were a candidate and you could get the list, yes, you could only use it for electoral purposes, but why would you even want to give a failed candidate the list in the next election? I’m just struggling to understand why the government thinks that both languages are the same.

[1530]

Hon. S. Anton: One of the ways that this information will be able to be used by candidates or political organizations is to evaluate voter turnout efforts. What it does is it puts everyone on the same footing, whether you be a political party and your candidate may have won or lost in a particular riding or whether you may be an individual who may have won or lost in a riding.

As I said, this is in response to the request that everybody be on the same footing. That’s what we have done.

A. Weaver: I’m sorry. I didn’t…. I wanted to clarify, then. Let me give an example. If I am a candidate who runs as an independent in the riding of Oak Bay–Gordon Head and I am unsuccessful…. Now, I know that the elections boundaries are all being rejigged, so I could not formally declare myself as an independent candidate in the next election because we don’t know yet whether those ridings will or will not exist. That’s kind of my understanding.

My question, then, is: is the government introducing this to make a level playing field? It’s possible that an independent candidate who lost and so chooses to actually run again would not, during that intervening time, have access to the information that somebody who was with a political party would. Or is that understanding incorrect?

Hon. S. Anton: The amendment which government has proposed, as opposed to the subamendment, allows the kind of information that the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head is describing.

The Chair: That being said, we are currently on the subamendment.

G. Heyman: I want to speak in support of the subamendment and acknowledge what has been raised by the members for Delta South, and Oak Bay–Gordon Head, and Saanich North and the Islands — that we are in many ways dealing with this on the fly. This is a complicated issue, and it’s one on which the public has expressed great concern. That great concern has been reported on at length.

At issue for the public is not whether life is easier for
[ Page 8655 ]
political parties and candidates but whether all reasonable measures are being taken to protect their privacy. Certainly, that was voiced by the Privacy Commissioner quite articulately, who suggested that the disclosure of this information needed to be done with care, if at all, and with great limitations.

We — and my colleague from Saanich North and the Islands — have tried, in putting forward this subamendment, to meet the concerns that have been expressed by members of the public and the Privacy Commissioner, not simply to paper it over or make some token attempt to address it while still leaving the door open wide enough for virtually anybody to come in to take information or for any amount of information to get out.

First of all, let me speak to the part of the subamendment that adds the requirement for “a registered constituency association” to registered political parties. I think we have seen tremendous contributions and questioning on any number of issues from independents in this Legislature. In some cases they belong to a registered political party — in some cases not. The provision to allow a registered constituency association access to the information on the same basis as registered political parties and candidates for registered political parties, seems to me to be a fundamental issue of respect for every member of this House and the contributions that they make.

There’s not a lot more to be said about that. It’s just, I think, simply equality. Its recognition that voters, certainly in Delta South, have indicated that they’re quite fine voting for somebody who isn’t a member of a registered political party if they believe the candidate is somebody who will represent their views to the best of her ability and in the way they want it represented.

[1535]

I’ll go on to say, as my colleague from Saanich North has said, that I cannot think of a single reason to release information to somebody who is not going to be a candidate but simply has been a candidate. What possible purpose could that person have for the information that’s consistent with the political purposes of the bill and the restrictions which we are proposing, and which the Privacy Commissioner has proposed, to severely curtail the scope of the uses of that information? I just don’t get it, and I suspect that the public certainly won’t get it. I don’t know why it’s in here. I don’t know who dreamed it up, and I don’t know why it should stay there. We’re simply proposing to remove it because it shouldn’t be here.

If somebody is going to be a candidate and we are going to, at some point, agree on the scope of information to be released — whom should receive the information and what the restrictions on its use should be — then that’s fine. That may not meet the concerns of everyone in the public, but we’re struggling here to take an ill-conceived, ill-drafted piece of legislation that goes right to the root of people’s concerns about protection of privacy and make it manageable and constrain it.

But “was a candidate”? There are many people who have been candidates for office in British Columbia. Why would any of them have need of this information if they weren’t about to be a candidate again?

Let me simply continue by saying that it is important, and that’s why we’re introducing this subamendment. It is, I believe, critically important to constrain in as specific a way as possible the uses to which the information may be put, because everybody’s experience is that in the absence of such clearly defined constraint, people will find the cracks, the loopholes, the spaces with which to maneuver for the purposes that they wish.

That’s not good enough for the people of B.C. It’s not good enough for the Privacy Commissioner. It’s not good enough for us on this side of the House, and it should not be good enough for us as legislators.

I will simply say, notwithstanding the haste with which we’re having to react to this bill and to changes contemplated by the government side and by the Minister of Justice in order to appear to be addressing concerns…. They have been raised by everyone from columnists to members of general public — who are feeding information in to us on a daily basis — to the Privacy Commissioner, who has the advantage of having studied at some length what is acceptable practice in other jurisdictions in the context of accepted practice in protecting people’s personal privacy and information.

We are trying to put forward changes that will be specific, that will define the uses of information, that will limit the people who can access the information and that will also honour the role of independents in this Legislature. I and my colleagues will be supporting this subamendment.

[1540]

The Chair: If members could take their seats for the taking of the division.

[1545]

The question is the subamendment proposed by the member for Saanich North and the Islands to the amendment to section 6 of Bill 20.

Subamendment negatived on the following division:

The Chair: Moving back to the amendment, perhaps we’ll wait a moment until those members return to their other duties.

V. Huntington: I would also like to propose a subamendment to section 6 of the bill. I move as follows:

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

6 Section 51 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) (b) and (c) 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 the most recent general election, a list of voters that indicates which voters on the list voted in that 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 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 iandicates which voters on the list voted in that 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 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 subamendment.

[1550]

V. Huntington: Obviously, what this does is repeal what I consider to be the offending paragraphs of section 6. I have not nor do I support the concept of distributing a list of voter turnout.

While the government has taken pains to introduce a number of privacy protections in an amendment to a later section of this bill, I must say with all respect that people aren’t looking for privacy protections; they are looking for privacy — period — privacy from state and political intrusion and privacy surrounding their vote, their right to vote and their sense that it is nobody’s business whether they vote or not.

My concerns and the feedback I received from constituents will not be addressed by saying that this data cannot be used, for example, for commercial purposes. For anyone in this House who intends to support section 6 generally and the government’s amendments to the section, I would ask: have you talked to your constituents? If you take the time to hear what people have to say, they are overwhelmingly opposed to giving parties access to this data.

Am I in order?

The Chair: Proceed, please, Member.

Perhaps in your remarks…. It has been brought to the Chair’s attention that the proposed subamendment appears to substantially, basically, remove all of the force of the amendment, and therefore, perhaps if the member could show the substance, other than simply defeating the amendment itself, that the subamendment would actually cause.

V. Huntington: Repeat that, Mr. Chair. Show the what?

The Chair: In other words, voting against the amendment itself would have the same practical effect as the subamendment being proposed.

V. Huntington: I disagree, because what I am doing is keeping the subsection, subparagraph…. Now I need the whole thing here. I’m still enabling a registered political party or a member of the Legislative Assembly to obtain the list of voters from the Chief Electoral Officer.

Voting against section 6 in its entirety, we would therefore not enable any of the parties or the candidates to get the list of voters, which is generally what we always do get. Here I am saying that we would not get a list of voter turnout, but we would retain the right to get the list of voters. I do not think voting against section 6 in its entirety….

The Chair: I was speaking to the amendment on the floor, not section 6 in its entirety.

V. Huntington: Sorry, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: I understand. And I know that the member’s comments are meant to provide guidance and not
[ Page 8657 ]
challenge the Chair as well.

Does the member have any further comments on the subamendment proposed?

V. Huntington: If I can understand the Chair’s ruling here — and I’m certainly not arguing with you — retaining the section, the clause that retains the right to obtain a list of voters and repealing or requesting the repeal of the clause that would enable you to get a list of voters who voted.

The Chair: I understand what the member is saying. Does the member have any further comments on the subamendment?

V. Huntington: Yes. Providing easy access to a list of citizens who voted represents an increasing invasion of privacy for both voters and non-voters, in my opinion.

Despite the government’s defence that they have no interest in increasing the number of phone calls or contacts with people at home, we know exactly that that is what is going to happen, (1) because now they’ll know who didn’t vote by meshing and merging the two lists and (2) because people who didn’t show up to vote in the last election can expect to be targeted in new ways. “We know you didn’t vote. Why not? What can we do to make you vote?”

[1555]

I am quite clearly distinguishing between obtaining a list of those who voted as opposed to obtaining the general voters list that is public in the first instance. The Privacy Commissioner has looked at the amendment that’s currently before the House, and she says she will work with government and the Chief Electoral Officer in regulations. But has there been enough time for due diligence on the part of all parties?

If there are privacy concerns about the section as amended, the Privacy Commissioner has yet to comment on them. The fact that the list is being provided stands in direct opposition to her original concerns.

The government’s amendments to section 6 do not adequately respond to the concerns raised, in my opinion, by the Information and Privacy Commissioner or the concerns I raised during second reading, as did members for Oak Bay–Gordon Head and Vancouver-Langara.

By all means, we should keep the language found in the proposed subsection 2(a), which represents an improvement to the act by making phrasing tweaks. It is a good change, and it retains the right to obtain the voters list. But the proposal to share data on who voted and who did not is not supportable. It’s not the state’s business.

I am therefore proposing this subamendment to respond to both the public’s concerns and the Privacy Commissioner’s initial concerns. It would remove paragraph 2(b) and (c) that require the CEO, the Chief Electoral Officer, to provide a list of who voted to political parties and candidates.

A. Weaver: I rise to support this subamendment as brought to us by the member for Delta South. Privacy rights are a significant human value. They are a human right and also a constitutional right under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. To quote from David Flaherty and his piece Reflections on Reform of the Federal Privacy Act:

“Canadians lobbied hard for privacy protection in the 1970s and early 1980s. Privacy was first recognized as a human right in the Canadian Human Rights Act and was subsequently entrenched in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. As a result, Canadians have come to expect and deserve adequate privacy protection as an essential component of our human dignity in western societies.

“Appropriate resourcing of the implementation of data protection may also be problematic and therefore requires an ongoing commitment to the human rights goals of the legislation which Parliament and legislatures frequently forget. Data protection is part of a legal framework intended to afford reasonable expectations of privacy rights articulated by the courts under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

“A privacy law is supposed to be about protecting human rights which gives privacy an elevated stature in the pantheon of Canadian values protected by law. Speaking for the entire Supreme Court in the 1997 case, Justice La Forest stated: ‘The protection of privacy is a fundamental value in a modern, democratic state. An expression of an individual’s unique personality or personhood, privacy is grounded on physical and moral autonomy, the freedom to engage in one’s own thoughts, actions and decisions.

“‘Privacy is also recognized in Canada as worthy of constitutional protection, at least insofar as it is encompassed by the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures under section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.’”

It’s for this reason that I stand and speak in support of the subamendment brought to us by the member for Delta South. We know that in the last elections something like 45 percent of eligible voters chose not to for whatever reason — cynicism, apathy, resentment, frustration.

This is indeed action that needs to be addressed. But it does need to be addressed in a manner that reflects the privacy of the individual voters in British Columbia. As Privacy Commissioner Elizabeth Denham said:

“The original reason the Legislature authorized Elections B.C. to compile a list of voters was for the purpose of administering elections. I am deeply concerned that the proposed amendments allow for other uses and expand the already broad ability of political parties to collect information about voter participation. It would also certainly exceed what British Columbians anticipate when they provide their name to Elections B.C. I do not believe there has been any consultation on this expanded use of voters list.”

Giving voter turnout information to political parties after the fact, after the election has occurred, seems to actually contradict the government’s claims that this has anything to do with increasing voter turnout, as suggested by the Privacy Commissioner and as recognized by the member for Delta South, who is proposing the subamendment to the government’s amendment accordingly.

[1600]

We’ve got concrete options in front of us right now that we could, in fact, and should use to address voter turnout.
[ Page 8658 ]
I covered those earlier in my discussions on this piece. Undermining the privacy of citizens of British Columbia is not in the best interests of British Columbians, and it is not what British Columbians want. As the member for Delta South says, I ask the members opposite, each and every one of them: “Did you actually talk to your constituents?”

I don’t think they did. I don’t think they did, because if they did, they would recognize that their constituents would have found this egregious. This subamendment actually deals with that — removes the most concerning aspects of the bill before us, which are the privacy concerns, as demonstrated in section 6.

With that, I offer my unreserved support for this amendment. I certainly hope members opposite will think and reflect. This is a bellwether issue. This is an issue that is going right to the very core of our democracy. It is an issue that will come back to haunt them in 2017, when British Columbians recognize that what government is doing here is not trying to increase voter turnout but attempting to increase voter suppression accordingly.

The Chair: I thank the member.

Although I felt it important for the members to be heard on this, upon further reflection and consultation with the Clerk, I do believe that, substantially, this amendment is a direct negative to the amendment currently on the floor. Therefore, I’m going to rule it out of order and move back to the amendment.

Subamendment ruled out of order.

The Chair: On the amendment, any further speakers?

A. Weaver: With respect, I have questions on section 6, but as amended. I will raise a couple of them now simply because the context of the questions that I was going to ask on the original section 6 are still relevant in the subamendment version — expanded application and distribution of this list.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

The government has stated that the purpose of providing voter turnout lists is to help boost, bolster, voter turnout. We’ve seen dramatic declines in voter turnout over the past few years.

My question to the minister is: how does this information being provided to candidates who ran in the past election, to candidates who will run in the upcoming election and to political parties after an election has occurred actually affect voter turnout?

Hon. S. Anton: I would remind members from all parties that there was a consultation prior to the act being prepared and presented to the House. One of the pieces of consultation involved representatives from the main political parties in British Columbia, including the member’s party, where the people engaged in that consultation with the Chief Electoral Officer were in support of the change as proposed by section 6. There was all-party support for this change.

The member is asking the purpose. The purpose is to evaluate turnout in a prior election and the election gone by and to assist in voter engagement leading up to a following election. As I said the other day, I would remind the member that this information is already public information.

[1605]

When you walk into your voting station, you are there in front of your friends and neighbours. That is a public place. When you vote, when you register with the election official, your name and your voter number are read out in a loud public voice so that people can hear it. Scrutineers from political parties are present, and they make note of that information. They can be there right up until five to eight, one minute to eight, sometimes even after eight if the lineup goes out the doorway — or whoever’s in the doorway. I think you have my point.

Those people who are voting, right up until the poll is closed on election day…. Whether or not people voted is a piece of public information. I do know that the member likes to, I think, think that it is not, but in fact, the act of voting is a public act. I would just remind him of that fact.

For the purposes that I mentioned a moment ago, that is the purpose of section 6 as amended. Of course, the amendments as proposed do allow everybody the same kind of access to that information and, as we’ll come to later on, increase the privacy provisions around the use of that information.

A. Weaver: Wow. Never in my life would I have expected to hear a response like that. She didn’t answer my question, because clearly, there is no evidence that this would actually increase voter turnout. I’ll come back to that in a second with a follow-up question.

I would like to address the comments. Voting is not public. This is not a public…. I cannot go into anybody’s poll….

Interjection.

A. Weaver: What is public is the right to vote or not to vote. A political party in head office in Vancouver having access to data using the government’s information, to actually use taxpayer funding to provide information on whether a person has voted or not after an election occurred — not during the election, not scrutineers phoning in to get the voter turnout…. There’s no evidence at all. None. The minister could not provide me with any evidence as to how this would help voter turnout.

The minister talked about parties supporting it. I’ve actually spoken to the chair of the B.C. Green Party. They thought they were going into a discussion about explor-
[ Page 8659 ]
ing this further, not having a vote on a piece of legislation that no one had consulted on. The B.C. Green Party is a party that believes in consultation. Our chair went there, saying, “Yes, let’s consult further on this,” not “Hands up who votes for this.” They hadn’t seen this. This is government attempting to try to get information for purposes that it was never intended for. There is no need for it after.

My question again to the minister. In light of the fact that the minister has no evidence to put on the table here today that this will help voter turnout, I’ll just ask this one. What peer-reviewed studies are there? What peer-reviewed studies are there anywhere in the literature? And there is literature out there looking at elections and election voter turnout.

What literature is the minister referring to when she believes that giving voter information as to whether or not you vote after an election has occurred can help voter turnout, let alone in the previous one — of course it can’t, unless you invent a time machine — but in the next election? What peer-reviewed studies were referred to?

Hon. S. Anton: In answer to the peer-reviewed…. This is not based on peer-reviewed literature. This is based on election organization experience. It is a tool that may already be used by political parties because a well-organized political party will have scrutineers at the vast majority of polls and will be in possession of this information. It simply gives all parties…. In fact, this actually helps smaller parties because it gives everyone access to the information that parties may already accumulate by having scrutineers at each poll.

[1610]

A. Weaver: We understand that many parties use scrutineers. We do as well — no shortage of volunteers.

We understand, though, that what this does is actually makes parties engage in our democratic system. It means they actually have to be at the voter booth.

I have a personal opinion that it’s no one’s business who knows whether I vote or I do not vote. That’s my personal opinion. But right now we have, in polling booths, scrutineers. Those scrutineers can in fact do this. They are engaged in our electoral system. They’re there. They’re participating. This is depersonalizing it, giving at will to people after the fact.

Those voters lists are in a state of disarray in the various large political organizations. I know that. I know that the NDP vote system has got lots of data in it, but it’s not perfect. It requires them to work hard at it. I know that the Liberal data collection system is not perfect. It’s got data in it, but it’s all messy.

There are a lot of people who are in the B.C. Green Party who are former Liberals and a lot of people in the B.C. Green Party who are former NDP. This is why I know this, which is why I am addressing particularly the chuckles across the hall.

What I will assert here is that one of the best predictors of whether a person will vote in the upcoming election is whether they voted in the past election. So the only use for this will be for targeted messaging to those who have actually voted in previous elections.

My question to the minister is then: what steps is the minister taking to ensure that the information being provided to parties, candidates, before and after — anybody, frankly…? You just need two people to sign up in B.C. to become a political party, and then you can get this too. You might be able to create a political party as a tax shelter. If you donate 1,150 bucks, we might set this up as a tax shelter. You only need two people and to run people every couple of years.

What steps is the minister proposing to ensure that this data is not used for targeted messaging, not used for fundraising efforts, not used to actually turn voters off — in fact, voter suppression techniques, the exact opposite of what the government is proposing?

The only evidence we have is that these kinds of antics, which will occur here, actually increase voter suppression, turn people off, are one of the leading causes for reduced voter turnout in Canadian elections. What steps is the minister taking here to ensure that this won’t be misused?

Hon. S. Anton: The amendments I have proposed — I include amendments under section 21.1, amendments to section 275 — do include a much tougher, if you like, privacy policy requirement in section 275. I would be glad to deal with those when we get to that section.

I’d just add one more comment about voter suppression. I find the comments around voter suppression pretty offensive. I think that every political organization should find them offensive. We are all together as members of this Legislature or as people outside the House who are involved in the political process. I think it’s a universal interest of political organizations that people get out and vote. The suggestion that this would be used for a contrary purpose is, I think, offensive to everybody.

A. Weaver: With respect, hon. Chair, the Chief Electoral Officer made three recommendations:

(1) Register youth ages 16 and 17.

(2) Consider using, on a trial basis, innovative technologies for voting.

(3) Advance voting dates.

[1615]

If the government really, really, truly cared about increasing voter turnout across age demographics, it would have acted upon those recommendations. It didn’t. This was not recommended by the Chief Electoral Officer. In the report there is a little side box that says there was a little interesting discussion about parties recommending this, that and the other, which came into this legislation. It was not even a recommendation by the Chief Electoral Officer.

While the minister may be offended, the reality is
[ Page 8660 ]
British Columbians are offended by the fact that this government is hiding under a facade of trying to increase voter turnout and is actually ignoring all the recommendations of the Chief Electoral Officer and implementing recommendations whose only goal could be for targeting specific voters — that demographic who we know votes, which is based on those who voted previously.

I don’t accept that. I don’t accept the fact that this government is arguing that this is actually going to help voter turnout. They provided no evidence — no peer review studies, nothing. They’ve ignored the evidence that is there, which is the report from the Chief Electoral Officer. They’ve ignored other evidence. Here we are, once again: “Trust us. It’s in the best interests of British Columbians.” Well, it is not. With that, I will sit and vote very clearly against this subamendment.

G. Holman: I’m really appreciating the debate here in this House. Again, to pick up on my colleague’s comments about what is or isn’t offensive, what I find offensive is rushing through legislation like this which is fundamental to how our democracy functions. That’s what I find offensive. And to be making amendments on the fly — that’s what I find offensive.

I do have a simple question for the minister. Given that the provision of voter turnout lists, one might have reasonably expected, would have raised privacy concerns, why wasn’t this legislation referred to or vetted by the Privacy Commissioner before presenting it to this House?

Hon. S. Anton: In response to the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head, I would observe that the recommendation around advance voting…. We are proposing two additional advance voting days, and those are well known to provide additional opportunity to voters — particularly if they are on a weekend, which we are proposing.

In terms of this kind of information, I’ll read out on the record the report of the Chief Electoral Officer. He says:

“Candidates play an important role in voter participation. During voter proceedings candidate representatives observe voting, track who has already voted and feed that information into their get-out-the-vote efforts. Concurrent with declining voter participation, candidates have also experienced challenges in finding sufficient volunteers to act as candidate representatives, which has impacted their ability to effectively perform this function.

[1620]

“Candidate representatives have the authority to observe and inspect voting documents during voting proceedings. Elections B.C., however, does not have the authority to create records on voter turnout and provide these to candidate representatives. Elections Canada and most Canadian provincial election agencies have legislation authorizing the production of turnout records — e.g., Bingo cards — during voting.”

His proposal is “to authorize an election official to provide to a candidate…as directed by the Chief Electoral Officer, a written record of the voter sequence numbers of voters who have voted” and also to authorize this to happen in the case of advance voting.

In other words, the recommendation by the Chief Electoral Officer was right up till the end of voting day that this information be provided. The recommendation put forward in this legislation is that instead of getting the information right up till one minute to eight, you also get the information at eight. It’s actually a rather minuscule, incremental addition to the information that people may already receive right up till eight o’clock at night. So I’m a little surprised by the suggestion that this is actually something fundamentally different. It is somewhat different, but it is certainly not fundamentally different. It’s an extension of a proposal of the CEO.

G. Holman: I thank the minister for the answer, but the question that I asked was about the Privacy Commissioner and why this legislation wasn’t referred to or vetted by the Privacy Commissioner before introducing it in this House, particularly given that the government has been amending this section 6, which raises privacy issues to the point that government has provided us two amendments, one quickly on the heels of the other.

My question to the minister, which was not answered the last time, is: why wasn’t this legislation provided to the Privacy Commissioner for comment before introducing it in this House?

Hon. S. Anton: The information proposed to be available, subject to certain limitations, by this section is, as I said a moment ago, an extension of information which is already available and not fundamentally different from the current practice. In terms of the Privacy Commissioner, the Privacy Commissioner did indeed look at the legislation after it was tabled and made her comments, and she has also looked at this proposed amendment and made her comments.

[1625]

As I’ve said a number of times, I share her concern that this information not be misused, that this information be used under rather strict conditions, which is why we are proposing the amendment in section 21.1, the amendments to section 275, and why I have also publicly, several times — and I think already in this House, and I will say it again — endorsed the ability of and expressed my interest in the Chief Electoral Officer making regulations as he sees fit under section 283(p), where he has regulation-making authority to limit the uses to which information can be put.

G. Holman: Thanks for the answer. Just a quick response, because I know the member for Delta South has questions as well.

Two points. First of all, it’s very clear that the Privacy Commissioner essentially referred the legislation when it was introduced in the House — so, essentially, after the fact.

Yes, the Privacy Commissioner has now responded to the minister, still expressing concerns. But I just want to
[ Page 8661 ]
make absolutely clear that the legislation was not presented to her until it was presented to this place rather than beforehand, which really should have been done, given the fundamental nature of this legislation.

I believe the member for Delta South has a couple of questions. Then I do want to make a final comment.

V. Huntington: I want to ask the minister about some other language in the amended section that I find quite interesting and potentially problematic, depending upon the answers. Could I ask the minister to explain what the reason was behind the change in the language about “a general election for which the last writ of election was returned” to “the most recent general election”?

Hon. S. Anton: This is not intended to be a substantive change. When legislative counsel looked at it again they concluded that, actually, the new language is preferable but no different in intent than the former language.

V. Huntington: I’m glad the minister is confirming that it is no different in intent. When I read it I’m wondering if the language could in any way be problematic. “The most recent general election” could refer to that election which you are in, because an independent candidate cannot become a candidate until some time into the election.

Say it takes ten days, although I think the amended act speeds that up a little bit. If I take the case of my elections, I’m not a candidate for the purposes of that election until at least ten days into the election. That becomes the most recent general election. Whereas if it was the last writ of election, it would have been the previous election, would it not?

I’m just trying to get on the record that the information would be available in any case to the new candidate.

Hon. S. Anton: If I get the question right, the answer is yes. It is the information from the prior election not this current election in which you are a candidate. It’s really to put…. Well, the political parties likely will already have the information, and this puts an individual candidate — an independent candidate, for example — on the same footing.

[1630]

V. Huntington: My last question, then, would be on how the minister intends…. If, for instance, there is a boundary name change between the elections…. The Constitution Act says: “A member represents the electoral district for which the member was elected.” If there is a boundary name change in the interim period, would the candidate or member still be able to obtain the voter turnout list from the most recent general election? Or is there a problem with the new name?

Hon. S. Anton: The candidates should get the most relevant information, which would be the information in their own voting district.

V. Huntington: Just to be very specific, then. Perhaps the minister could answer the very specific question: do the provisions of the Election Act as amended and the Constitution Act and the language of this amendment accommodate a riding name change for all candidates in the next election?

Hon. S. Anton: The detailed calculation of these things is generally left up to the CEO, but that would certainly be government’s view.

V. Huntington: So here we are. If we pass this section, which is likely to happen, and there’s a qualification there in the minister’s comment, how do we fix this qualification as we look at the bill that we were about to pass and know there’s an unanswered question?

Hon. S. Anton: The government’s view is that the Chief Electoral Officer would provide the information relevant to the new riding.

V. Huntington: Okay. From that point of view, then, I can accept the minister’s comments, but if — and I can assure her this might happen — a person running against that candidate wanted to question whether or not they could get the information, they would certainly attempt to do so. I hope that ultimately, in any legal discussion, they can refer to the minister’s comments at the time that this bill was considered.

[1635]

The Chair: Shall the amendment pass?

G. Holman: Mr. Speaker, just a couple of final comments before we conduct the vote on this.

I did want to respond to the minister’s previous comment that government would welcome further regulations recommended by the Chief Electoral Officer. I just want to point out — and I know all members of this House are aware of this — that those will be recommendations to government. That’s why we’re trying to clarify as much as possible in the legislation what the rules are governing privacy and what the rules are governing distribution of these voter turnout lists.

Yes, I’m sure that the Chief Electoral Officer or the Privacy Commissioner…. There will be recommendations forthcoming from both of those independent offices about further regulations. But there’s no guarantee whatsoever that those recommendations will be accepted. And I need to point out there’s no further evidence of that than the previous Chief Electoral Officer report, whose top three recommendations…. Only one of those was actually adopted by government.
[ Page 8662 ]

This argument that everything will be fine and that we’ll just do it by regulation in the future…. Those regulations will be recommendations by independent offices of this House, but government does not need to accept them at all.

To clarify the view of the official opposition on this particular section, what we’ve tried to do in good faith is to amend this section to strengthen privacy concerns as raised by the Privacy Commissioner and also to narrow the uses to electoral purposes only and narrow the distribution of voter turnout lists to ensure that the information will not be used inappropriately. That’s on this side of the House. We, including the independents, have tried to amend this particular section that’s raising so many concerns.

Government appears to be rejecting, has rejected, these amendments to strengthen privacy and to narrow distribution of the voter turnout list. Government has not consulted with the Chief Electoral Officer or the Privacy Commissioner before the fact. They have with the Privacy Commissioner, after the fact.

This bill, this legislation, is fundamental. It’s being rushed through. Amendments are being done on the fly. For all these reasons, we couldn’t support the original section, and we can’t support the amendments brought forward by government, even though we do acknowledge there is some attempt to try and address concerns from this side of the House.

Those are my final comments.

A. Weaver: In dealing with section 51(2), section 6 repeals the existing section in the Election Act and replaces it with the text we have in Bill 20.

My concern is that there’s nothing done in this section 6 subamendment to recognize that in section 51(3) there’s discussion there about the Chief Electoral Officer being able to introduce spurious, fictitious voter information data into the actual voters list so that they can check that the voters list is being used for the appropriate purposes. Now, my concern here is that the amendment, which is one of the reasons why I think it’s being done so rapidly, makes no reference to the inclusion of fictitious voter information in terms of whether they voted or not.

My question to the minister is: is the intention of this subamendment to actually include, for all those candidates, fictitious information not only of the voter’s address — because that’s the voter information — but also whether or not a voter actually did vote, in 51(3)?

[1640]

Hon. S. Anton: A couple of things in response to the comments from Saanich North and the Islands. The regulation-making powers of the Chief Electoral Officer in section 283(p) are not subject to government approval. They are made on his own authority.

Secondly, the same member made comments about the uses and distribution of the information. As I have said repeatedly, and I will say again, the proposed amendments to section 275 address that.

For the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head, the use of fictitious information…. That is a tool in the toolbox of the Chief Electoral Officer, and I think we would have to leave it to him as to how it is used.

[1645]

Amendment approved on the following division:

The Chair: Shall section 6 as amended pass?

Division has been called, and the time, I understand, is waived. It’s an agreement by both sides, right?

[1650]

Section 6 as amended approved on the following division:

On section 7.

A. Weaver: Section 7 refers to striking out the “10th day” and substituting the “7th day.” We’re talking about nomination papers, when they’re being filed. I’m wondering if the minister could briefly describe why the tenth to seventh and sixth to third and tenth to seventh — why the number is chosen. What thinking went into choosing seven versus ten and three instead of six?

Hon. S. Anton: The proposal, as the member will know, is to have two more advance voting days, which are, obviously, two days even earlier in the election cycle. The advice from Elections B.C. was in order to balance two factors.

[1655]

One is that candidates be in place and have the opportunity to get into place, and second is the need of the Chief Electoral Officer printing ballots. Balancing those two factors, these dates were suggested by the Elections B.C. staff, and that’s what we have gone with.

Section 7 approved.

On section 8.

G. Holman: This addresses advance voting opportunities. This is actually one of the three priority recommendations that the Chief Electoral Officer did make, so to a certain degree we commend government for adopting at least one out of three. In the major leagues that’s not a bad average, but in parliamentary democracy, a bit poor.

The government’s choice for expanding advance voting is to add two more days — i.e., as we understand it, the Saturday and the Sunday prior to the existing Wednesday-to-Saturday advance voting days.

The question, I guess, is a fairly obvious one. Our reading of the report indicated that government could have chosen a number of ways. The CEO recommended flexibility in this regard in terms of advance voting. Why did the government choose this particular method? Why did it choose these two particular days and not other ways of responding to the Chief Electoral Officer?

Hon. S. Anton: We had the advice of the Chief Electoral Officer, and, on considering the issue, it is government’s belief that to maximize the opportunity for people to vote, to maximize the number of people who can vote in advance, the two full days of advance voting are preferable.

We do know that the Saturday advance voting day right now is a very popular day to vote, and we believe that putting the Saturday and Sunday of the prior week will also be popular with voters and so have the advantage of increasing voter turnout.

G. Holman: Thanks for the response. Were there any consultations done on how to approach this recommendation by the CEO — public or otherwise?

Hon. S. Anton: There is consultation done by the Chief Electoral Officer as described by his report. We took his advice and considered it and are proposing this amendment, which is the two full days of advance voting for maximum benefit to voters.

[1700]

A. Weaver: My question is…. There’s rather a lot of options here. Why didn’t the minister, in light of the kinds of what I perceive as somewhat odd changes in this legislation, just consider following a Namibian model or a Botswanan model or a Rwandan model and actually have a voting period that just extends ten days? Why do we only have a couple of advance polls? Why don’t we just say: “The voting starts on one day, and you could vote every day for the next ten days”?

It may sound odd, but this is what we’re doing here. I’m not quite sure of the rationale as to why the days were chosen as opposed to a kind of Third World, extended voting period–type approach, which seems to be the direction we’re heading.

Hon. S. Anton: There are obviously cost implications to these things, and so it is government’s conclusion and recommendation, as proposed in this legislation, that the Saturday and Sunday, which are weekends, easily accessible for voters, do maximize the opportunities for additional voting opportunities.
[ Page 8664 ]

Section 8 approved.

On section 9.

A. Weaver: I have an amendment that is on the order paper with respect to modifying section 9. There’s no need for me to read it out. Everyone’s seen it.

I move to amend as follows:

[SECTION 9, by adding the underlined text as shown:

Section 96 is amended

(a) in subsection (3) (b) (ii) by striking out “sequentially”, and

(b) by adding the following subsections:

(5) On request, an election official must provide to a candidate representative, without charge and in the manner and at the times directed by the chief electoral officer, a copy of the list prepared under subsection (3) (b) (ii).

(6) The voter participation information disclosed under section 96 (5) must be destroyed following the election.]

On the amendment.

A. Weaver: The reason why I raise this amendment here, of course, is again a privacy concern with respect to the voter participation information. The amendment here adds a (6) in section 96, which includes the words: “The voter participation information disclosed under section 96 (5) must be destroyed following the election.”

There are numerous reasons for doing this. It’s still relevant in the context of section 6, which was where the amendment proposed by government was supported, in light of the fact that there is information that will be available to candidates during an election. There are all sorts of candidates out there who will have access to this information now that the government’s giving it to them.

There will be candidates who may have really been running just to raise an issue. There may be candidates who move and take information with them, in a little file called voter information, when they move to Montreal. Of course, you’re not allowed to do that under the act, but they might not know.

Maybe political parties will know, but the purpose of this is to ensure that this very serious private information does not deliver all over the world as CDs in people’s boxes telling us who has or who has not voted. That is the rationale for bringing this amendment: to ensure that that voter participation information is destroyed following an election.

Those candidates who may seek that information at a time in the future because they plan to actually run again, which they can now do under this, will have a process by which they can get it through applying to the Chief Electoral Officer and perhaps paying a fee. But not everybody will want it, and the key thing is that that information needs to be destroyed. That, hence, is the purpose of this amendment.

Amendment negatived on division.

A. Weaver: Then my direct question, in light of the fact that the government voted against my amendment here, is: how do they ensure that that information is going to be kept private?

I’ll give a very specific example. Let us suppose that two people, John and Bob, say, start a party by signing off called the We’re Really Upset Party. John and Bob run in an election. They’re an official party. They get this voter information, and then John moves to Australia. Bob moves to Alberta. This information may go with them.

How is the government planning to actually ensure that this private information does not go all over the place, does not end up in dumpsters, does not end up coming up on the Internet?

[1705]

What are the steps that the government has in place to ensure that this is the case? Being referred ahead in two sections down the road is not the answer I’m looking for, because that just says you have to have a privacy plan in place. It does not talk about enforcement. My question is very specific here. What are the government’s plans to ensure that this information is not going to be going everywhere?

Hon. S. Anton: I would remind the member that if you form a political party and you run a few candidates, you get the information right now — the voters list. The member may not know that, but that is the case. People who are running in a campaign as candidates and political parties who are running candidates can get the information. If you’re a single candidate, you get it for your riding. If you’re a political party, you can get it for the province.

The member referred earlier to the section about fictitious information. That is one of the tools that the Chief Electoral Officer can use to determine whether or not information is being improperly used.

I would remind the member as well that the Chief Electoral Officer does have the authority to conduct investigations, and he can refer matters for prosecution, should he view it as being appropriate. I should add that the proposed amendments to section 275 increase the limits, if you like, or add to the limits which are proposed to be in place for the use of this information. In other words, there are privacy requirements and there are other things that prohibit certain uses of the information which were not there in the past.

Again, I would remind the member that whatever his party’s name was, if they had scrutineers in place, they could receive information right up to the end of voting day. They would have been in possession of this information.

A. Weaver: Of course, I am aware of all of this. The problem here is this is government using government money to give everybody information that is complete.
[ Page 8665 ]
This is not a bunch of scrutineers who may make mistakes. This is not incomplete databases. This is also saying specifically to everybody that you get private information as to whether or not they vote. That is the reason why I put the amendment in.

I recognize what exists for the voters list. That is available. This is the voters list and if you voted. That is a big difference. This is the voters list plus if you voted. That allows specific targeting of information.

Hon. S. Anton: I apologize to the member because I think I might have missed his question. What I would like to observe as well is that this new proposed subsection (5) on section 96 is common practice at the moment. It’s what we are doing. What we’re proposing to do in this subsection is set out in the act what is already done in practice.

A. Weaver: Hence my question. Why do we want candidates to have access to this information once the election is over? Perhaps the minister could respond.

[1710]

Hon. S. Anton: That question relates to section 6, which we have already dealt with.

This relates to information provided during the course of the day as to who has been voting during that day, so that people can get the vote out. This is done by all political parties and, I’m guessing, by the member’s party. This is information collected by scrutineers so that they can report it back to their organization. Then people work the phones and get the voters out, and that’s how an election works. This is simply putting down into legislation what is currently done in practice.

A. Weaver: With respect, again, this is not what’s currently done in practice. What’s currently done in practice is that scrutineers go there. What is happening now is that the Chief Electoral Officer is providing that information to all candidates. That information is only of any use at all during an election in a get-out-the-vote issue.

The government has not answered the question: why is it not specifically stated here that this information should be destroyed after the election? That was the essence of my question.

Hon. S. Anton: As I mentioned a moment ago, this is information which is currently collected by scrutineers. There is no such requirement now, so no intention to add it.

Section 9 approved.

On section 10.

A. Weaver: On the order papers I’ve had a proposed amendment which was analogous to the amendment that was defeated on section 9. I move to amend as follows:

[SECTION 10, by adding the underlined text as shown:

Section 97 is amended by adding the following subsections:

(7) On request, after the end of each advance voting opportunity, the district electoral officer must provide to a candidate, without charge and in the manner and at the times directed by the chief electoral officer, the following information in relation to each voter who voted at the advance voting opportunity:

(a) the voter number unless paragraph (b) applies;

(b) if the voter registered or updated his or her voter registration information in conjunction with voting at the advance voting opportunity, the information that the chief electoral officer considers appropriate.

(8) The voter participation information disclosed under section 97 (7) must be destroyed following the election.]

On the amendment.

A. Weaver: This amendment has been on the order papers for quite some time. Again, it’s a similar rationale. I needn’t go through it. This is information that is simply not needed once an election is over. This is very personal information about whether or not a person has voted. There is no need for this information to be public, so I put this on the floor. I hope that I get support from government on this, although I’m not holding my breath.

Amendment negatived.

A. Weaver: Could the minister please provide the relevant information as to why she thinks that this information should be available to people after an election?

Hon. S. Anton: Again, this is information which is currently available to scrutineers and hence to political organizations and candidates. There is no requirement at the moment that it be destroyed, and we are not proposing to add that.

A. Weaver: I just wanted to put on the record, for those riveted at home with the video streaming of this, for those who read Hansard: please put it on rewind and go back about five minutes. They’ll see my rebuttal answer to this answer as well.

G. Holman: I do have some specific questions on the privacy constraints on the use of voter turnout lists.

[1715]

My apologies. I’m not clear as to when within the Election Amendment Act I can ask those questions. If you’ll permit me. For example, it’s our understanding that the voter turnout list information can be provided to identify individuals to be called to serve as jurors under the Jury Act. That’s an example, and I cited several others when we were debating section 6.

I hope the time hasn’t passed to get specific answers about why these particular uses appear to be, as we understand it, still allowed for in this bill. Is this section the time to ask those questions or later? If you could provide some direction on that.
[ Page 8666 ]

Hon. S. Anton: I’d like to recommend that we deal with that in section 21.1.

Section 10 approved.

On section 11.

G. Holman: It’s our understanding that this essentially removes the 60-day period referenced in section 183, which removes all limits on election spending in the run-up to the drop of the writ. This recommendation, it’s our understanding, was not imposed by the courts or recommended by the CEO.

I just want to briefly read from the Court of Appeal decision dated, I believe, October 4, 2012. I’m not sure what the date is. There are too many dates on this piece of paper.

What seems to be happening here is, under the guise of a court direction to eliminate third-party spending in the 60-day pre-election period, government very clearly appears to be extending that court decision and prohibition to pre-election spending by political parties and candidates.

I’ll ask the minister: do we have that right?

Hon. S. Anton: There was a case, actually, in the B.C. Supreme Court a few years ago brought on by a third-party who wished to advertise during what I will call the pre-campaign period, the minus 60- to the minus 30-day period. The court ruled that they were entitled to advertise at that time and that the government should not purport to restrict them.

[1720]

Justice Cole then went on to make a comment about whether or not this should also apply to candidates and political parties. He said: “I have no jurisdiction to deal with those particular sections of the act…. I therefore leave it up to the Legislature to take the necessary corrective action in respect to this unfairness to the political parties and the candidates during the pre-campaign period.”

What he was saying there…. It’s not a direction to government or to the Legislature, but it is a suggestion. It’s certainly a very strong suggestion that the Legislature may wish to take a look at this. That is what we are doing. It is now the case, because of this ruling, that third parties may advertise at will up until 30 days before the election but candidates may not. It is an anomaly which we are now proposing to remove.

Two other comments. It is the case that, first, we are the only jurisdiction in Canada which has this restriction. Secondly, the larger scheme, the one that Justice Cole was dealing with, was intended to apply to everybody — third parties and candidates. Having taken out the third parties, it makes sense to take the candidates out of that as well.

G. Holman: To clarify, government is proceeding down this path which takes us closer to U.S.-style elections, where you have to be a millionaire to run as a candidate, based on a comment by a judge in a previous case. This is not under the direction of the court. It’s not according to a recommendation by the Chief Electoral Officer. It’s based on a comment made by a judge about considering this.

If the government had undertaken public consultation, if they had specifically requested the CEO for an opinion on this issue — and certainly the CEO was not recommending this — I could understand government at least bringing it forward for discussion. But what’s happened here is that under the guise of a court ruling that was a result of a referral by this government…. Under the guise of that court ruling which applies to the third-party advertisers, government is opening the barn door further to unlimited spending by political parties and candidates in the pre-election period.

There’s no rationale for this whatsoever that we can see. You look to the south, and you look where that system is in place, and I think most Canadians and most British Columbians would be thankful that, in fact, we do have election spending limits that try to level the playing field.

There’s been a lot of concern here expressed on this side of the House about the availability of voter turnout lists to independents, trying to make sure that independents have a fair shot at getting elected, not just representatives of political parties. Well, those independents will be placed at an even greater disadvantage by this bill.

Just to be clear, I’m reading from the Appeal Court decision in response to a referral by this government. The language is very clear there that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council refers to this court “a question of the constitutionality of amendments to provincial legislation that govern advertising of a political nature in advance of an election by other than political parties and candidates.”

It’s very clear that this decision has nothing to do with pre-election spending by candidates or political parties. The court decision only applies to third-party advertising. So the question that’s fairly obvious is really: what’s the rationale for this? Other than a comment by a judge made in a court case some time ago, the court is not requesting this. This is opening the barn door with no consultation with the public, no consultation with the CEO. Why are we doing this? What’s the rationale?

[1725]

Hon. S. Anton: There is a fundamental unfairness now in the system as a result of the decisions which allow third-party advertising right up until the election period. Those third parties can advertise and say whatever they want, and the candidate is actually stuck with the candidate’s limit, which may be…. I mean, the limits are all right, but it depends on what kind of third-party action is being undertaken. Certainly, the Supreme Court in that case did suggest that there was a fundamental unfairness.

Another observation. The member may have expertise in the American political system — and I think I’ll have
[ Page 8667 ]
to leave those references to him — but what we are doing is getting closer not to other countries all together, but we are closer to every other jurisdiction in Canada. Every other jurisdiction in Canada has no such limitations. So we are the same as everyone else now.

Not only that, we are the same as ourselves. There were only two elections where the limit was in place — the 2009 election and the 2013 election. It only happened twice. The court has not agreed with it insofar as third parties are concerned. The proposal of this legislation is that it be taken out insofar as candidates are concerned as well — candidates and political parties.

B. Ralston: The minister made reference in her previous response to a decision in which…. She referred, in that decision, to what I think is sometimes called obiter dicta — that is, comments by the judge that are not relevant to the decision, not binding in the decision, and are really the equivalent of, I suppose, legal musing on the record in the decision.

Is the government now going to take its policy direction from obiter dicta in Supreme Court decisions? Is that the new benchmark for legislative action here in British Columbia?

Hon. S. Anton: Perhaps the member wasn’t here earlier when I commented on the comments from the court which say that they were not direction but were a comment and that government is choosing to listen to that comment and act. That’s what we are doing.

B. Ralston: So the minister clearly agrees that it’s not a direction. It’s not required to act, and there has been no subsequent consultation other than some discussion, perhaps, in the minister’s office or at the cabinet table about the importance of moving the legislation in this direction.

Can the minister explain: is there a policy on following obiter dicta that the minister is aware of? Or is this simply a one-off that happens to suit the legislative purpose of the minister in this particular piece of legislation?

Hon. S. Anton: As I said a moment ago, there is an obvious unfairness in place, in that third parties can advertise to their heart’s content and candidates cannot. And as I said earlier as well, every other jurisdiction in Canada will now…. We will now be in the same place that every other jurisdiction in Canada is. The limits during the election period itself remain.

K. Corrigan: I wanted to follow up with a similar question.

I’m wondering why the minister chose, in this particular piece of legislation, to follow obiter dicta, to pay heed to a suggestion, and why it was that this particular case was paid attention to — as opposed to the many, many cases, the various levels of rulings, that have found against the government, particularly with regard to teachers and health care workers.

I’m just wondering why the minister chose this particular piece of legislation to heed so closely a suggestion that was not germane to the case but was a suggestion by the ruling.

[1730]

Hon. S. Anton: I think I’ve answered the question several times about the obvious unfairness that was created as a result of the court decision, which we are proposing to change with this legislation.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

K. Corrigan: I wanted to ask the minister whether, in preparing for this legislation and doing the background work for this piece of legislation, the minister had ministry staff take a look at what the expectation is of the amount of money that will be spent or whether the minister felt that that was something that was worthy of consideration — the amount of money that will be spent in future in elections — and whether or not there is an unfairness, potentially, in that as well.

Hon. S. Anton: The point of this section is that if you are not going to restrict one group of people — namely, third parties, of whom there are a lot — then you should not restrict others — namely, the candidates in the political parties. That is the system we have in all the rest of Canada.

K. Corrigan: Well, if the minister is saying that the reason for this change was because of unfairness, I wonder if the minister considered as an alternative in putting together this bill, for example, banning corporate and union donations.

Hon. S. Anton: I don’t think that question is relevant to this particular section. This section is about advertising or spending by third parties during the minus 60 to minus 30 days and, now, what political candidates and political parties may do during that time.

Chairman, if we might take a short recess.

The Chair: All right. We’ll recess for ten minutes.

The committee recessed from 5:34 p.m. to 5:45 p.m.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

K. Corrigan: I just wanted to follow up on the last response from the minister, where the minister said that section 11 simply amends section 183(1) and excludes the references to “the period beginning 60 days before a campaign period and ending at the end of the campaign
[ Page 8668 ]
period” and substitutes that with “during a campaign period.” Essentially, what this section is referring to is election expenses, and it enumerates what they are.

To me, yes, there are other sections that have to do with election expenses. But the reality is that this section, in itself, is talking about election expenses and is essentially saying that there will be no discussion about election expenses which occur in the 60 days before the campaign period. I’m not sure….

I just wanted to make that comment. It’s not really a question, but I just wanted to make the comment that it is relevant when I’m asking a question about other options. In fact, I think it’s relevant at any point. I’m sure the Chair will correct me if I’m wrong. I think it’s relevant at any point, when we’re talking about expenses or donations and so on, always to ask about what other options the minister considered when framing a piece of legislation.

A. Weaver: I have a question on section 11. I think the question should’ve been asked, quoting from the court case…. Of course, the history of this is in 2001, when the Liberals first formed government. We went to a fixed election date, and then there was some concern about the free-for-all on spending. We only have to watch Hockey Night in Canada to see this free-for-all on spending with a fixed election date.

They brought in the pre-writ period, a 60-day period. A court case, of course, was brought by a third party. That third party then won. Government came back with some legislation and went to a Court of Appeal and was told a very important quote that has not been raised yet.

That quote — I believe it was Justice Ryan — said the following: “I am not persuaded that there are not ways of dealing with election advertising that do not interfere with political speech while Legislature is in session. For example, the fixed election date might be changed to a different time of year, the campaign period extended or the definition narrowed. These are matters for the Legislature to determine.”

The key issue here, if the government is trying to address the problem — a problem that I agree is a problem, a free-for-all of pre-writ spending…. There are others that were specifically mentioned by Justice Ryan that the government has not considered: (1) to have a different fixed election date, or (2) to extend the campaign period.

My question to the minister is: why did the minister choose to do this, which, in essence, takes us back in time? That time machine that I mentioned earlier when discussing this bill is coming in handy yet again, taking us back to a time, to a post-2001 day, when the original concern existed about the free-for-all in pre-election spending with a fixed election date.

Why did the minister choose this particular approach as opposed to the other possible approaches that Justice Ryan pointed out?

[1750]

Hon. S. Anton: Government has tried twice to limit the expenses during the pre-campaign period. The first case went to the Court of Appeal. In the judgment referred to by one of the members opposite — I’m sorry; I’ve forgotten which one now — where the court said “not good enough,” made some suggestions as to what government could do.

Government then tried a second time and took it directly to the Court of Appeal by way of a reference case. Again, the court said: “Not good enough.”

Having tried twice, government is now proposing that we not try a third time but simply take British Columbia to the same position that every other province in Canada is in.

A. Weaver: Just for the record, I did quote from that Court of Appeal where those actual other options were put on the table. The government has chosen for this particular choice here, as opposed to moving the election date or extending the campaign period.

Hon. S. Anton: That was the first Court of Appeal decision. It was followed by a second one.

A. Weaver: Apologies, then.

Section 11 approved on division.

On section 12.

G. Holman: I’ll try to be brief on this because it’s a similar situation. This is a section applying specifically to political parties. The concern here is the same, that government — without a recommendation by the CEO, without public consultation — is opening the barn door here on political spending running up to the dropping of the writ, which is the situation we have in the United States.

[1755]

When asked about the rationale for these provisions in the bill, the minister indicated that it’s based on a comment from a judge in some other court case, some other court decision. While ignoring two out of three explicit recommendations by the Chief Electoral Officer, government chooses to pick up on a comment by a judge made in a previous court decision to go down this path. It, obviously, seems to be very selective.

I guess one question. The minister has indicated that they’re doing this out of concerns around fairness — fairness between third parties, who are allowed to advertise up to the dropping of the writ, and political parties and candidates. In the interests of fairness they’re eliminating the pre-election caps for candidates and political parties as well, which has nothing to do with the court case that government actually referred.

Isn’t there a concern here? We went through this long discussion about the provision of voter turnout lists
[ Page 8669 ]
to independents, to all candidates, not just candidates representing political parties. That was done, according to the minister, out of an issue of fairness. Isn’t there an issue of fairness here, where you eliminate pre-election spending caps?

Independent candidates are going to be faced with large political parties — including ours, the Liberal Party, and even, to a certain extent, the Green Party. Independents are going to be faced with having to compete with large political parties with the ability to raise funds in all kinds of ways. Those independents are going to have to compete on a very unlevel playing field, I would argue.

On the issue of fairness, why is government doing this when before, in terms of the privacy concerns, they were quite prepared to make amendments to ensure that independent candidates were treated fairly as a result of this legislation? Yet with this opening up the barn door on pre-election campaign spending, isn’t there an issue of fairness there for independent candidates as well?

Hon. S. Anton: The members opposite are having a good time with the quote from the judge, and I just would like to observe that that quote, obviously, was for illustration only. It sets out the problem, and the problem was one that government twice had tried to address — in fact, the Legislature twice had tried to address through legislation. Both times did not succeed.

For that reason, we are simply proposing to change the legislation yet a third time, as a matter of fact, but this time not to try again to restrict third parties, as we’ve been directed twice by the court that it didn’t work the first two times. Rather than trying that a third time, we will now simply open the availability of the pre-election period for all parties.

V. Huntington: Perhaps you could help me, Mr. Chair. I’m not sure whether this question is more appropriate for section 13 or 12.

Could the minister describe…? Does that mean that a third party could be an organization that supports an individual who intends to become a candidate once they have registered as a candidate after the writ drops? So could now an organization, other than a registered constituency association, be considered a third party and advertise pre-writ for somebody that intends to become a candidate?

[1800]

Hon. S. Anton: I think if I have the question right — could another organization endorse a candidate pre-writ and spend money on that candidate? — the answer is yes.

V. Huntington: Perhaps I can be a bit more specific. In the case of political parties, their candidates are known ahead of time. They go through nomination processes, and they are declared a candidate for the upcoming election. In the case of an independent, they cannot become a candidate until well into the election period and Elections B.C. has accepted their nomination. They are basically nothing until accepted as a candidate. They can’t even spend money until they are accepted as a candidate.

Could a third party, then, pre-writ, support that individual who is not yet a candidate and spend money supporting that to-become candidate prior to the writ? Just to be quite clear here.

Hon. S. Anton: I realized I’ve been misspeaking a bit. It was a 60-day pre-campaign period, so it’s actually minus 90 to minus 30, not minus 60 to minus 30. Just to clear up a couple of the earlier answers.

All candidates are the same in terms of the technical requirements. They technically are not actually a candidate until the election period, when their papers are approved for their candidacy. Generally — I would say not always but in most cases — people know that they’re going to be running.

Certainly, a third party up till now could have been advertising either for or against that candidate during the pre-campaign period. The candidate themselves could not either advertise for themselves or even in defence of themselves, should they be subject to some not so friendly ads. This, as I said earlier, is simply allowing everyone, whether they be third parties’ candidates or political parties, to advertise during that pre-campaign period.

V. Huntington: Just to recap, then. A third party could advertise for an individual who is not yet a candidate pre-writ, in the 60 days prior or any time prior, I suppose, and would have to stop advertising once the writ is dropped and until that individual became a candidate. Is that correct?

[1805]

Hon. S. Anton: For third parties, they may advertise all they wish up until the start of the campaign period. Then, after the campaign period, they are subject to limits in the act.

K. Corrigan: I wanted to ask a question about the applicability of the 2012 Court of Appeal decision with regard to the reference. I’m not going to go through the whole name, because it’s a long name for that case. But I’m sure the minister is aware of the case that I’m talking about.

Would the minister, in saying that there was a principle of fairness, not agree that in that decision on page 17…? It says: “By virtue of the definition of ‘election advertising,’ they continue to apply to a broad range of advertising unconnected with the election. Given that insofar as they limit political expression in the pre-campaign period, this court has held the 2008 amendments to be constitutionally invalid, principally because of the overbreadth of the definition of election advertising….”
[ Page 8670 ]

Does the minister not recognize that the whole reason for saying that there was a lack of fairness, at least in that case, is because those rules captured expression that was not supposed to be or not necessarily connected with an election? But the whole purpose of the advertising that is going to be undertaken to an unlimited extent with these amendments is all about election.

So in essence, really, the nub of what that decision was all about is completely irrelevant to what the minister has done. One talks about capturing expression which is not necessarily related to an election — and talks about freedom of expression generally — whereas what this bill is talking about is exactly the opposite, which is election advertising.

[1810]

Hon. S. Anton: The definition of “election advertising” is found in section 228. It is similar to the Canada Elections Act definition, which has since been copied by other provinces. So I do not agree that it is overbroad.

Sections 12 and 13 approved on division.

Section 14 approved.

On section 15.

A. Weaver: This is yet another one of these sections that I find rather egregious. I had so many questions on this. I recognize we’re getting close to the time, but I want to ask two. The question will come through two examples.

The first example is this. Under this new section 15 here, let us suppose that I decide to take out a television advertisement all across British Columbia, saying the following: “You need to vote for the B.C. Green Party. Donate money here.” Now, it’s very clear that that is me trying to convince people to vote B.C. Green and donate money here. Under this section 15, this, in my view, would be viewed as a fundraising function.

Is this what the minister is envisioning here — that all parties, all and sundry, can now take out fundraising advertisements which are actually nothing more than partisan advertisements with a fundraising call at the end of it?

[1815]

Hon. S. Anton: This is a case where the Chief Electoral Officer can easily become involved, I think, in the kinds of communications which are discussed here. The communication does have to be for the primary purpose of raising funds, and it is certainly not intended to replace existing election restrictions. For instance, a phone bank for fundraising could be included as something which is for raising funds.

This principle, I would observe, is already in the act under subsection (203)(1)(f), “expenses incurred in holding a fundraising function.” To give an example, if you were to have a fundraising dinner, you could spend $20,000 on the dinner and make $21,000 — in other words, get $1,000 out of the dinner. That $20,000 right now, currently, is not included in your election expenses.

A. Weaver: Well, I recognize all of that. With respect to the minister, it seems to me that this is another example of “it’s the Wild West here in British Columbia.” Any person, any corporation, any union anywhere in the world can donate any amount of money any time they want to take ads out to say: “Fund this party.” Wow. That’s essentially what you can do.

This legislation says…. Let’s suppose I am a not-for-profit group in Australia that wants to take money out to ensure that the B.C. Green Party gets elected — because we all want that to happen, hon. Chair, and you know it will happen. They could spend millions of dollars taking out ads across British Columbia, saying: “You need to fundraise for the B.C. Greens here.” It’s a way around it.

So my question to the minister, with respect, is: did she and her staff actually discuss the ramifications of this communications policy? Or did they think — frankly, naively, in my view — that this was communications about a function that was going to happen?

I think that’s what they were thinking. They were thinking about an expense, maybe a Facebook charge, that requires you to advertise a fundraising function. But that’s not what this says here. This says communications.

Phone banks — a great example. That was a question that was taken away from me here. I could make a phone bank and say: “Hello, I’m with the B.C. Green Party, which is a great party that I think you should vote for. Will you fund us?”

[1820]

What you’re going to do there is collect voter information data. You’re going to use the phone banks. You could actually pay third-party phone banks. And this isn’t an election expense. It clearly is, but I don’t think the government has thought this through.

Again, the question to the minister is: did you consult with staff? Did you actually think these examples through? What process led to the actual decision to have such a vague section here before us?

Hon. S. Anton: Section 203 deals with election expenses, which are the expenses of candidates, political parties and registered constituency associations — not to third parties.

A. Weaver: With respect, this is a way for a government that has lost touch with the people of British Columbia — because they can’t get volunteers — of trying to actually avoid election expenses by having data banks fundraise and actually do their voter ID for them and not count it as an election expense.

This is another example in this legislation of stuff that’s
[ Page 8671 ]
not being put forward to actually get voter turnout but actually can be used either for voter suppression or, in fact, in this case, to give the government an advantage because they can no longer get the volunteers to help them out. That is quite clear to all of us here, that this is about government trying to protect itself in power.

V. Huntington: I truly am having difficulty in comprehending precisely what the language of (h.1) means.

[1825]

If we read it a different way, this is not included as an election expense. It’s the cost of any communication “transmitted to the public by any means for the primary purpose of raising funds for the organization” — not the registered political party or candidate — “or individual” — not the candidate — “by whom or on whose behalf the communication was transmitted” except for communications in relation to a fundraising function.

Could the minister please explain what is the thinking behind this rather extraordinary language? So it’s: “the cost of any communication other than a communication in relation to fundraising, transmitted to the public by any means for the primary purpose of fundraising for the organization or individual by whom and on whose behalf….” And that’s not the party. It’s not a candidate. It’s just out there — some organization or individual.

Could the minister please explain what is the thinking behind this rather extraordinary language? You would think that subsection (e) would deal with most of the issue regarding fundraising. But no, we put in (h.1), and all of a sudden, we have a wide-open field that isn’t narrowed with any definition of organization or individual — or why.

The Chair: Perhaps, given the hour, the minister may want to take the question and respond the next time the committee sits.

Hon. S. Anton: Noting the hour, I would suggest that the committee rise and report progress and seek leave to meet again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:26 p.m.

The House resumed; Madame Speaker in the chair.

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

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

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

Hon. T. Stone moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 6:27 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(continued)

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

The committee met at 2:38 p.m.

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

C. James: Just to take us back, because it has been a week now since we were in estimates, we were having a discussion when we left around the debate of tax breaks versus fees and services and the difference of opinion that we may have on that issue. I wanted to ask the minister to speak a little bit about the work of looking holistically — the minister used the word, but the Premier has used the word as well, “holistically” — at the burden that families and individuals take on.

[1440]

I want to read a couple of the Premier’s quotes from this past year. “Rather than just talking about where our tax rates are, where are we in terms of the total burden of costs that government puts on citizens?” One of the things government needs to start doing, rather than talking about where our tax rates are, is to talk about the burden of costs.

I wonder if the minister could talk about any work going on in the Ministry of Finance related to the burden that taxpayers take on — rather than simply the tax rates but, in fact, all of the fees and services and additional costs that citizens are expected to take on.

Hon. M. de Jong: The point is an important one, and so is the work. At the end of the day, it matters, from the point of view of families, what their obligations are, particularly what their financial obligations are for matters that are non-discretionary. That can transcend mere taxation policy.

As evidence of some of the tracking and the work that
[ Page 8672 ]
has gone on — the member may have seen this — in the years that I have been responsible for tabling a budget, in the appendices we do a cross-provincial comparison of the burdens faced by British Columbians, province by province. It includes the broad gamut of what those taxes are.

I think in our conversation last time, or a week ago, I acknowledged that whilst on the one hand British Columbia compared very favorably on that front, there was one area in the expanded analysis where British Columbia, and certainly parts of British Columbia, shows a noticeable increase over other parts of the country, and that is housing costs.

On the one hand we celebrate and are proud of the fact that our tax and tax-related burden facing British Columbians is, on a comparative basis, much lower. We also need to acknowledge that some of that room — a good chunk of that room that is created for British Columbians by having those lower rates and lower taxation burden — is consumed, if I can use that term, with respect to housing costs, particularly in certain parts of British Columbia.

There’s certainly been a lot of conversation about that as it relates to greater Vancouver and that area. It might be partially true on the southern Island as well.

So there’s one area where there is some evidence — table A3 this year, page 106 of the budget and fiscal plan — and, as I indicated last week, we’ve done additional comparative work that tries to roll in some of the non-tax-related obligations that families in B.C. would face.

C. James: I take the minister’s point around the issue of housing and the burden of fees and services on top of that.

Again, I would suggest that that’s part of the reason that it’s so important to look at those additional fees and services, not simply the tax rate for families, because of the increase in housing costs, the increase in cost of living here in British Columbia when you add in the fees around hydro, add in the MSP premiums, add in tuition, etc. Some of those I recognize not every family is responsible for paying, but most families will be responsible for paying three of four, or three of five, when it comes to burden.

[1445]

I certainly would hope…. I’m not going to belabour this point, because we’d spent a fair bit of time on it when we left, but I do think it’s important for the minister and the ministry and government to recognize that the tax rate is but one measure of the kinds of challenges that families are facing and the kinds of pressures that families are facing.

With that, I’ll just move to a couple of questions for the minister on the Select Standing Committee on Finance. These are questions that have come in during the Finance tour and during the opportunity to travel around the province. I think it’s important for the public to have an idea of what happens when they make a presentation at the committee, and often that doesn’t occur. Often we don’t get back to people to say: “Here’s what happened to the presentation that you made.”

I wonder if the Minister of Finance could talk a little bit about what happens to those recommendations. What kind of process is occurring in the ministry once those recommendations come forward, and what kind of consideration is given to the recommendations that come from that tour?

Hon. M. de Jong: It’s an important question for a couple of reasons. First of all, over the years, I believe — and I sense that perhaps the member might agree with this — that the advent of the work of the committee has been an important addition to the budgeting process in British Columbia. For the members that are involved, it’s a lot of work. It takes them out of their communities and into various regions of British Columbia.

As I have examined the list of presenters, which seems, over the years, to have grown, and the desire to make submissions, presentations, provide material electronically to the committee….

For those who make those presentations, it is a lot of work also. They take the time necessary to present their ideas and their rationale for why government should respond favourably to their suggestions.

It’s not my job to ask the question. But I will say that I’m curious to know from the member, from someone who has participated in the process…. One of the things I try to do, without seeking to dictate what the committee’s voyage of exploration would look like, is to pose some specific questions that might signal where the government’s particular interest lies.

People may agree or disagree with that emphasis, but I generally believe it’s helpful for people to be forthright and say: “Look, here are some particular areas that we are interested in getting feedback on.” People can obviously provide other material.

The timing is really important. I think this goes to the heart of the member’s question. People come. They make their presentations through September and October. Then a report is prepared.

The timing around that report is significant, because while, through the year, we are compiling a list of issues and taxation and revenue-related issues, it really is in that period following the receipt of the report through, perhaps with a bit of interruption around Christmas, to the middle of January — that seven-week process — where the bulk of the decisions around the budget have to be made.

[1450]

Again, to try and address more particularly the member’s question, those submissions, the recommendations…. Yes, it helps when they are profiled by the committee in the report. The committee itself represents the first lens, if you will. So when the committee believes that something is particularly noteworthy and deserving of profile and attention, it’s a pretty good signal to me that
[ Page 8673 ]
a bipartisan group has said: “Look, the government, the ministry and the minister should consider these things.”

We do. We don’t always give the answer the committee or the presenters want, but it is in that period following the presentation of the report, around the middle of November through to middle of December and then a little bit in the beginning of January, where the bulk of the decisions are made that form the basis of the budget that is tabled in February.

C. James: To respond to the minister’s question, yes, I think the committee is very worthwhile, and I think the process is very worthwhile. That’s part of why I’ve asked the question. I think it’s important for people who make the presentations to be able to know whether their presentations are being reviewed, whether they have a chance to be looked at, whether there’s any kind of analysis that gets done, because I think, as the minister has pointed out, there is a lot of work that goes into doing those presentations. I think it’s very worthwhile.

I think that the questions and the frame from the minister are important to the committee, as well, and to the presenters. It is important. As the minister said, we’re not always going to get what we want when we present, and so I think it’s important for people to recognize that if there’s a framework that needs to be there, they have a framework to work within.

My last question on this piece is perhaps twofold. One is: is there ever any analysis done back with the presenters? Does the ministry in their analysis have the opportunity to be able to go back and talk to the people who have made presentations?

I guess the second piece is: any recommendations or any advice to people making presentations about what’s helpful when it comes forward to the Ministry of Finance? For people who are, in their good efforts, putting in recommendations that they’d like to take a look at, is there anything that the minister would give back to the presenters as well?

Hon. M. de Jong: Two questions, as I heard it. One is the degree to which there is direct follow-up with a presenter or an agency making a presentation. I think the clearest and most accurate answer I can give is that it’s a bit ad hoc, and it depends on two things. The degree to which, to be really candid, we’re seized of the idea is one; then secondly, the degree of sophistication with the organization, to the extent that it’s fair to ask them perhaps to do some additional work, to provide some additional information and perhaps exchange information.

[1455]

I can think of examples where that has taken place, and it has evolved and matured to concrete decision-making for the budget. I don’t want to leave the impression that every single presentation that is submitted to the committee generates that kind of extensive interaction. That’s not the case. But some do, and do actually end up being reflected in the budget.

I think the member’s second question or suggestion — I think it was, depending on my answer — may well have merit. In inviting the submissions, I don’t know that we have created the template for what the ideal submission looks like or what assists us in terms of analysis.

I mean, we create some prerequisites. For example, when we say, “Condition 1 is that the government is committed to balancing the budget,” that is a constraint of a sort. One can have different ideas about the validity of that constraint. It is one that this government today, obviously, is very much drawn to.

But there may be merit in saying to presenters in a different way: “Look, if it’s a taxation change that you are advocating, take a stab at presenting us with your assessment of how that would impact your organization or your sector of the economy.” That would be of assistance in terms of formulating a response or an analysis internally, so that may well have merit.

I wouldn’t want to say to groups: “Here’s how you must present to us. If you don’t do it this way, we’re not interested in hearing from you.” But to use the member’s word, it might be helpful to committees to say: “When we analyze these suggestions and when the committee analyzes these suggestions, here are the areas or the impacts that we’ll be looking at.” I think that may have merit.

C. James: Thank you to the minister. I would agree. In fact, even though the minister already sends out a form that people are to fill out when they send it in, most people don’t fill out the form either. Most people send in the kind of presentation that they want to. Even if the ministry and the minister put together a requirement around sending things in, I think people will make their presentations the way they want to make them.

But I think it never hurts to give people some guidelines, just to help with analysis at the other end — for checklists or things that they might look as they put in presentations. Certainly from the committee’s point of view, speaking as an individual on that committee, I think it’s always helpful to have some commonalities that people are looking at when you’re looking at some kind of analysis. So thank you. I appreciate that.

Just to move on now to another section of the minister’s service plan. We talked a little bit about some of the sections of the service plan. I just thought we’d take a minute to talk about the elusive prosperity fund. One of the minister’s strategies under objective 1.1, which is “Effective management of government’s fiscal plan,” is to “identify and propose options for legislation to cabinet to create the prosperity fund into which a portion of new provincial revenue from liquid natural gas development will flow.”

Then in the minister’s “Strategic Context” it also talks about creating a prosperity fund that will see a portion
[ Page 8674 ]
of new provincial revenue used to help maintain low tax rates and to make investments in health care and education, contribute to eliminating the province’s debt, lessen the burden on future generations. I wonder if the minister could give us an update on that work.

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, the member, I think, will accept my proposition that in all of our conversations about the desirability of creating a prosperity fund, the rationale has been as follows.

[1500]

Insofar as British Columbia is confronted by a unique opportunity to create a new industry in Canada that can potentially generate significant additional incremental economic activity and revenue for the Crown, the fundamental principle is that we recognize the benefit of preserving some of those benefits for future generations.

That lies at the heart of the rationale behind a prosperity fund, any kind of legacy fund of the sort that has developed in other jurisdictions. I suppose the most noteworthy one these days is in Norway, the largest single sovereign wealth fund in the world. We’re not there yet.

The reason we attach great importance to the steps we are taking with proponents in the LNG sector is because that is a prerequisite to the payment of moneys into a prosperity fund — the decision by the private sector to make these decisions that ultimately lead to the generation of the additional…. The creation of the jobs and the additional revenues that would flow to government as a result.

We’re not there yet. What we did learn in the week that we were away, of course, is that one major project is a step closer — not there yet. The member would have learned, and I can tell her now, that prior to considering legislation for a prosperity fund, the House will be asked to consider legislation relating to the project development agreement that is a prerequisite to generating fiscal benefits that would flow into a prosperity fund.

So there is a step-by-step process. I don’t think I have ever been shy about acknowledging that the prerequisite to the creation of a sizeable prosperity fund in B.C. is positive investment decisions by proponents in the burgeoning LNG industry. We’re getting close. We haven’t quite crossed the finish line on the first one. But before the government asks the House to consider legislation relating to a prosperity fund, we’ll be asking the House to consider legislation to ratify the first project development agreement.

C. James: I certainly agree with the importance of a prosperity fund for resources in British Columbia to be able to address some of the challenges that are faced in other economies to do with boom and bust and when times are going well. I think we only need to look at our neighbours to know the challenges, that when you rely on resources coming in and you don’t look at putting some of those resources away or diversifying the economy, you can face some huge challenges.

I don’t think you get disagreement. You certainly wouldn’t get disagreement from me around that direction. I don’t think anyone expected that money would be flowing into the prosperity fund, although certainly the Premier, in many of her conversations, might have led people to believe that.

The minister mentioned that project agreements were coming in first. Is there any work being done, then…? This has been a requirement in the minister’s service plan. Last year it was a requirement in the minister’s service plan. This year…. I just wondered: are the timelines changing? Is there a timeline for when options will start to be reviewed for a prosperity fund, from the minister’s perspective?

[1505]

Hon. M. de Jong: There has been a degree of thought given to some of the questions, but I don’t want to leave the member or the committee with the impression that there is a draft piece of legislation waiting for a triggering event that would then immediately find its way into the House.

The questions that we are to share with the member and the committee, the types of questions that we are endeavouring to and will need to settle in advance of presenting legislation to the House, relate to some of the issues the member has raised. What portion of the incremental revenues that flow as a result of this industry should be dedicated to debt reduction? What share should be dedicated to long-term savings? What share might be used to address short-term infrastructure needs?

Now, I didn’t mention one thing, and it flows from something the member said a few moments ago. I believe that one of the areas where jurisdictions get themselves into difficulty is when, on the strength of cyclical or incremental revenues, they begin to dramatically expand their programming obligations on the basis of the assumption that those revenues will continue in perpetuity. That can be problematic.

The member has mentioned one jurisdiction that has found itself now in great difficulty as a result of making some assumptions and, as I understand it, eating into — I think, in the Alberta case — the heritage fund equivalent and really losing some of the longer-term benefits that would flow from the development of the resources that they have there.

We will want to be cautious and very careful. We start from a pretty good place. While we were sitting here, the deputy leaned over and showed me that Standard and Poor’s has just released a report moments ago, or a portion of a report, confirming our triple-A credit rating and stable outlook, again placing B.C. at the top of the charts, if I can use that term, as it relates to credit worthiness and fiscal management.
[ Page 8675 ]

This is a chance for us to take a good story and make it better and, as I have said in the past, to address some of the borrowing that we have undertaken in the past. Maybe I can just take a moment to emphasize or highlight for the committee how I do differentiate between different types of borrowing.

Borrowing to develop infrastructure that serves generations of British Columbians I think represents a sound investment. I still think you have to be cautious, and there’s a tipping point beyond which the debt burden can overwhelm. Where I have a philosophical challenge is when we are obliged or we engage as a society and as a government and as a jurisdiction in borrowing to pay for operating expenses. Then we are, in effect, saying to future generations that we expect a level of service that we’re not actually in a position to pay for today, and we’re going to ask you to pay for it through increased debt.

We are today in a position where we have begun to pay down, in fairly significant ways, the operating debt. Yes, I am proud of that. In the short- to medium-term, LNG represents an opportunity to address that, as well, and eliminate the operating debt.

That won’t eliminate the taxpayer-supported debt in its entirety. But we’re one of few jurisdictions that is confronted by the possibility and the opportunity to do two things: (1) significantly reduce the debt burden faced by future generations and (2) sock away a little bit of money for those future generations on the basis of a new type of economic activity.

[1510]

The prosperity fund is a vehicle by which we can accomplish certainly one and possibly both of those objectives. The member is correct to point out its ongoing presence in the service plan.

The priority at the moment, legislatively, is to provide the assembly members with an opportunity to examine and review the project development agreement, one of which has now been signed, and move to final investment decision. Then we will be in a position to move with some confidence to the question of breathing statutory life into a prosperity fund.

C. James: Just to ask about the timelines, then. I take the minister’s points around the fund and putting resources into the fund. I think it is exactly part of the worry and part of the difficulty that I believe is there with the grand promises that were made around LNG, which create the illusion for the public out there that everything can be solved.

I mean, even the wording in the service plan, the wording from the Premier herself that up to $100 billion will flow to the prosperity fund over the next 30 years, that it will eliminate B.C.’s debt within 15 years, by 2028, and that it will make investments in health care and education, contribute to eliminating the province’s debt. Low taxes for individuals and families. Get rid of sales tax.

I think it’s exactly those kinds of pie-in-the-sky, grandiose promises that are exactly the worry that I believe the public has and others have, myself included, about promises and commitments being made that are not going to come to fruition.

Just a quick question to finish up on this section, then, for the minister. Does he still believe that timeline around eliminating B.C.’s debt in 15 years with the prosperity fund?

Hon. M. de Jong: I can’t recall if it was her or a colleague last year with whom I had a very similar discussion. We have clearly, as a government, set an objective and aspire to take advantage of this unique opportunity presented by liquefied natural gas and the fact that agencies the world over have identified Canada and British Columbia as a place where they aren’t just interested in investing billions of dollars; they have invested billions of dollars.

Is it possible that we might find ourselves 15 or 20 years from now with a lingering taxpayer-supported debt? I suppose that’s the case. We’re already, on a comparative basis, the envy not just of much but of most of the world, with a taxpayer-supported debt-to-GDP ratio that is going down and may one day soon rival where it was prior to the recession that hit the world in ’08.

But I think I understand the member’s point. Fifteen years from now it may be the member — it won’t be me — engaged in this conversation. But if I am reading — or, God forbid, sitting in my rocking chair watching — the debate and the criticism is that the taxpayer-supported debt has only been cut in half in that time, I’ll smile and weather that withering criticism.

There is clearly a linkage here to the degree to which the final investment decisions take place. But the commitment to the objective and the commitment to the direction…. We are resolute and believe that British Columbia, happily, is well positioned to embark in an aggressive way in pursuit of that objective.

[1515]

C. James: I’m sure I’ll pick up a phone in 15 years. I can promise the minister I will not be here in 15 years either. But I look forward to making that phone call to be able to talk about the province’s debt in 15 years, from wherever we’re sitting at that time period.

I think what the minister has identified, and certainly part of the reason that I raise this and the reason we’ve raised this before from our side, is the concern between promises and commitments and goals and aspirations. I think everyone understands goals and aspirations. Everybody understands aiming for something. I think the difficulty with the entire LNG conversation has been promises and commitments made that were unrealistic and certainly not going to happen but portrayed in that perspective. I’ll leave it at that.
[ Page 8676 ]

I do want to talk about a piece that is related somewhat to the issue of LNG, which is diversification of our economy. It is certainly a concern that I’ve raised, and it’s a concern that other members on our side of the House have raised about the need to pay attention to other parts of our economy. We certainly hope, again, that LNG will come forward and bring resources to British Columbia. But it’s also important to recognize that it is a resource industry, that we need to look at diversification of our economy if we’re truly going to provide sound economic growth for the province.

One of the things that I’ve heard the minister speak about, and it’s clear in the service plan and other areas, is measures, targets, metrics — things that the government uses to be able to measure success. I wondered about the area of diversification of our economy. I haven’t seen it anywhere. I hear jobs talked about, but I haven’t seen anything specific to diversification. I wondered if the minister could talk about any work being done in the Ministry of Finance to look at metrics or measurements or specifics to measure diversification of B.C.’s economy.

Hon. M. de Jong: I’ll have to make a point of dogging the hon. member, inviting her to more boring presentations from the Finance Minister. I actually talk….

Interjection.

Hon. M. de Jong: You wouldn’t be bored.

This is an area where…. Well, let me back up for a moment. I think one of the necessary or maybe natural consequences of endeavouring to launch a new sector of the economy is that we have spoken a lot about it. I’ve heard, in the way I’ve heard some of it from the member and her colleagues and from others: “You guys talk a lot about LNG.” And that’s true, because when you’re trying to push something new across the finish line, it necessarily requires that kind of attention.

But I am equally proud in any presentation I make within British Columbia or, more particularly, outside of British Columbia of how our economy has diversified and continues to diversify on two fronts. I’ll send over the material that I use to the member.

On the one hand, we talk about the diversified domestic economy by sector, by economic activity. And the way it looks today versus how it would have looked — I don’t want to be political, but — ten, 20, 30, 40 years ago is dramatically different. What’s striking — and I’ve got a pie chart in front of me that the member doesn’t have, and I’ll make sure she gets it — is the degree to which no one sector any longer dominates.

That isn’t to say that forestry, for example, isn’t still the foundation of employment across most of rural British Columbia. These things are all true. But the degree to which our economy has diversified such that no one sector of the economy dominates is dramatic.

Then there’s the second component of diversification — and the member, I think, has heard me talk about this, maybe ad nauseam — and that is the diversification of the markets to which we send our products and services.

[1520]

By any measure, and certainly on a comparative basis, British Columbia — and this is something that British Columbians should themselves be proud of — has left the rest of the country behind. And it is, I think, in part a product of our geographic location as the Asia-Pacific gateway for Canada and North America, but also, I would humbly — or immodestly — suggest, a product of the emphasis the government has tried to bring to bear on that fact.

I would say this as it relates to, for example, something like the forest sector, which is one of our largest manufacturing export areas. And there’s probably a timeliness here. In 2001 we were on the cusp of softwood lumber 3 or 4, whatever it is, and again were reminded of the dangers of placing all our, in that case, 2-by-4s and 2-by-6s in one basket. A very concerted effort was made to diversify our customer base, and that has met with dramatically positive results, again by comparison to any other jurisdiction in Canada.

It will be interesting to see, to the extent that the U.S. side starts sabre-rattling again in the fall, the extent to which that influences behaviour on the part of the British Columbia industry — which accounts for the majority, the largest share, of Canada’s softwood lumber trade — and how that will determine the response.

However, now I am getting off on a tangent.

There are two aspects to diversification. One is what has taken place within our local economy, and the other is how we have diversified from the point of view of trade.

There are areas, even within the pie chart, that don’t show up that I will say to the member I and the government are paying particular attention to — aerospace, in western Canada and here in southern Vancouver Island and the Lower Mainland and the Okanagan and even the Peace River. We’re building planes now and selling them all over the world. Viking is…. What a story — and markets for amphibious aircraft that will be built here in British Columbia.

People would have laughed 15 years ago or 20 years ago if we had suggested such a thing was possible. If you’re in Europe, in southern Europe along the Mediterranean coast, the aerial fire protection is provided by a B.C. company that operates aircraft and a base in southern France — Conair Aviation.

That is one area of our economy that, pardon the pun, kind of flies under the radar screen yet has shown dramatic growth and is producing remarkable family-supporting jobs and opportunities.

Diversification has occurred. I suppose, to come full circle, LNG in many ways represents the latest alliteration of that, a new industry that represents a further diversification of our market.
[ Page 8677 ]

I’ll make sure the hon. member gets the two charts that I have that show how we have evolved. But we can always do better.

C. James: Thanks to the minister. I appreciate that information.

I think it’s important to look at comparisons — comparisons to other provinces, comparisons to ourselves, past comparisons — to look at where the shifts and changes have been made. I think particularly in the area… I appreciate the minister raising the issue of aerospace and the work that’s going on there. But I think if we take a look at exports, if we take a look at manufacturing, it’s still an area where British Columbia struggles. It’s still an area where we struggle compared to other provinces.

Certainly, if you look at most of the exports that occur right now, most of those are commodities — raw commodities again. The minister mentioned it. Exports in dimension lumber and in pulp and in unprocessed metals, etc.

[1525]

We also know that we struggle as a province around a growing trade deficit, another area that truly needs to be worked on. I appreciate the changes that have occurred in our economy, to look at diversification.

Contrary to what some people sometimes believe or say about the opposition, we, as well, want the economy to grow. We want the economy to be strong. That’s a benefit for all of us in British Columbia. It’s a benefit for all British Columbians. It’s an area that, certainly I believe, over the last number of years has not had the kind of attention that we have seen, for example, in the area of LNG.

I wondered if the minister could speak specifically around the area of manufacturing and exports and any work that’s going on in the Ministry of Finance in taking a look at overall investment, in taking a look at attracting that kind of investment to our province. Even the B.C. Business Council last year said there’s a real gap in British Columbia when it comes to investments in manufacturing and exports. I wonder if the minister could speak a little bit about that.

Hon. M. de Jong: Thanks to the member, again, for the question. First of all…. Again, I’m referring to a document that the member doesn’t have. It paints a reasonably positive picture of how we have grown and diversified. But the member’s question was more specific. She has pointed to the objective of attracting a larger manufacturing base, value-added base, which are objectives, I think, it sounds like we share.

When I say this next thing, it is not meant to regurgitate an old debate or to be argumentative, and I won’t ask the member to respond. When I meet with representatives today in the business sector and in the manufacturing sector, of course they point to one lingering aspect of our taxation policy that places us in an uncompetitive position, and that is our PST.

[J. Thornthwaite in the chair.]

Leaving aside the arguments of the past and the positions that the parties represented in this committee room have taken, certainly I thought and the government thought that the decision British Columbians took, and we abided by, to move back from the HST to the PST has had consequences, at least from the point of view of competitiveness on the manufacturing side.

But the member should also know, and I want to leave no doubt about this, that in my conversations with the manufacturing sector, I have emphasized that British Columbians have made that decision. It is now a question of operating within the bounds of the specific direction that British Columbians gave.

I do feel obliged, in a conversation about public policy and taxation policy as it relates to the manufacturing sector, to point out that the decision that was made to return from the HST to the PST framework had consequences, and this is the area where it has particularly had consequences. We hear about that on a fairly regular basis, and the member may as well.

[1530]

In other sectors of the economy we are seeing positive growth in the tech sector. Through the advent of instruments like the Renaissance Fund, we are seeing exceptional growth.

The member probably has seen the same numbers I have about the exponential growth that is taking place right now in the television and film production side. We have responded…. I think the member posed some questions to me a week ago about some of the tax credits that were built into the budget for this year and future years in the film and television production side and the digital media side.

There is no question that we are seeing dramatic growth in that area. I expect that taxation policy is partially responsible. I expect perhaps it is the ingenuity and entrepreneurialism of those within the sector that is most responsible, the talents of the people located here. An 82-cent dollar probably helps as well, but there’s no question that we are seeing some very, very positive economic activity generated in that sector of the economy. These are areas….

I feel obliged to mention something else because it was a topic of conversations I had a couple of weeks ago. The member may recall that in the budget we provided some modest funding to the International Maritime Centre, the shipping centre. It has always struck me as odd that a trading centre like British Columbia, Canada, with Vancouver and Prince Rupert, should have such a dearth of shippers present. I’m not talking about shipbuilding at the moment.
[ Page 8678 ]

I’m talking about shippers. The number of companies represented here and the employment that derives from that in a whole host of different ways is dramatic. I think the sector has been underrepresented, and our partnership with the International Maritime Centre is designed to try and address that in the same way that we partnered with the aerospace sector to promote the opportunities here.

The measure for success will, in part, be: are shipping companies locating here? We’ll see over the course of the next three years whether that happens. There are opportunities. One jurisdiction’s misfortune may be our good fortune. There are jurisdictions where shippers have historically located where they may see the advantage of coming to B.C., taking advantage of cross-Pacific, Asia-Pacific trade, LNG development.

I suppose, before I sit down, I should alert the member and the committee to another area we are paying particular attention, and in fact, I should make a note. We may want to extend an invitation to the hon. member in June.

The member will know about the RMB, the renminbi, announcement. This hasn’t received a lot of popular attention because it’s kind of complicated and kind of complex. It’s not something that folks are going to sit around the campfire and talk about. But this is really another advantage that, if we take advantage, could position Canada and British Columbia very, very well, I am told, through the establishment of an RMB trading hub in Canada. We have worked, I think the member knows, between Advantage B.C. in Vancouver and the Toronto financial services sector and the federal government in a cooperative way to see this happen.

Businesses in B.C. now have access to an instrument that is not available to companies in the U.S. that, properly deployed and utilized, could provide our companies with a 3- to 5-percent advantage, which in today’s marketplace could be significant. I think we have a role to play, as government, in learning and then teaching people how to utilize the new tool. We’re bringing together folks next month or the month after. I can’t recall. I’d be happy to provide notice to the member so that she could participate.

[1535]

C. James: Thanks to the minister. I appreciate the minister’s comments around work that’s being done and around some of the opportunities that may be there. The minister mentioned the issue of LNG, but he also mentioned the RMB work and the weak dollar.

I agree that those provide opportunities, but again, I wonder about specific strategies that are being undertaken to address the issue of export. If you take a look at stats like export intensity in British Columbia, if you look at the amount of dollars compared to population compared to goods and services, we’re far behind other provinces. I think 2013 was the most recent year that the stats were out there. We’re behind everyone except Nova Scotia, P.E.I and Quebec. We’re in seventh place when it comes to export intensity.

I’m sure the minister saw the report from B.C. Business Council which, again, talked about the worry at investment intention in British Columbia, the gap that we have here in our province, a weak outlook and worries that, with all the attention happening with LNG, there wasn’t enough support right now going into the issue of manufacturing and exports.

I will await the information from the minister, but I think this is an area — certainly, when we look at diversification of the economy — that I believe some very specific strategies are going to need to be put in place to be able to take advantage of those opportunities that the minister referred to in order to truly look at how we diversify.

I agree around the high tech. We’ve certainly seen that on the Island. We’ve seen that in the rest of the province — the boom, the support, the good-paying jobs that that has created. But again, I think if we take a look at some of the tax recommendations, some of the changes that have been made that we supported, I think there were some very deliberate actions taken to be able to help encourage that work, and I would hope that same kind of encouragement would occur here.

Moving on, if I can ask the minister to speak a little bit about the Canada health transfers. It is a big change coming up, as we know. This year we’ve had changes on March 31 around how much revenue B.C. is going to lose because of the new formula. I wonder if the minister could talk a little bit about those specifics.

[The bells were rung.]

The Chair: We’ll declare a recess while we go for a vote.

The committee recessed from 3:39 p.m. to 3:53 p.m.

[J. Thornthwaite in the chair.]

Hon. M. de Jong: To the hon. member, I’m going to answer this in a way that I hope is helpful and addresses the key point of the question.

The first thing I can tell the member is that within the fiscal plan, we are anticipating transfers — over the three years of the fiscal plan — that begin in this fiscal year at $4.4 billion and in the third year of the plan are estimated to be $4.9 billion.

Those estimates take into account two changes. One is the changed formula relating to the per-capita calculation. The second…. I believe this occurs in the third year of the fiscal plan. The change from the 6 percent increase to nominal GDP estimated at $4.3 billion — that, in particular, is an estimate and a forecast.

[1555]

I think the member’s question was: what is the calculated impact of those changes in terms of the federal
[ Page 8679 ]
formula and amount? We estimate it to be between $220 million and $250 million, as you move to the second and third year, it being a bit higher than at the front end, where we estimate the impact to be in the range of $220 million — so not at all insignificant.

C. James: I wonder if the minister could tell us what B.C. is doing about that. What kind of negotiations or discussions or advocacy or work is being done on that particular issue — in particular on the issue of the demographics? In the population of British Columbia, obviously, when you look at the seniors population, I know it’s been an issue. A couple of other provinces have raised this as well — that that’s not taken into account when the health transfers are looked at, when you’re looking at population base.

I wonder what kind of efforts are continuing to be made. I recognize the government has made the decision, but I think it’s important for us to advocate for the people of British Columbia. What work is being done in that area in particular?

Hon. M. de Jong: A couple of things. Of course, this represents — as the member, I think, pointed out — a unilateral decision of the federal government. I don’t think anyone is disputing that fact. I hope no one is disputing the fact that we have from the outset made clear that we take issue with the decision — I must say particularly the change in methodology and the impact it has.

[1600]

I can tell the member that my direct involvement in this began as Health Minister three or four years ago. It carried on when I assumed this portfolio. I can tell the member that I recall a very specific series of conversations with the then federal minister, Mr. Flaherty.

It’s one of those things where you get big binders with analysis of methodologies and demographics. I remember saying to Minister Flaherty: “We can go through all that, and I know what your officials are going to tell you, and I know what my officials are going to tell me. But do you really think the province with the highest per-capita expenditures that has done the least in the country to bring health care costs under control should benefit the most? It’s Alberta that is the big winner.” I didn’t think that was fair, and I don’t think it’s fair.

We have the data. They are at the top or second in the categories relating to per-capita expenditures. The member knows the pressure that has placed on our health care system here. Now there is a different dynamic in place in Alberta than was the case when I was having my conversation with Minister Flaherty. It would be a shame, though, if…. And that probably creates an imperative that didn’t exist two or three years ago.

My point at the time was that it was counterintuitive on the part of the federal government to embark upon a strategy that rewarded the jurisdiction that was spending the most and had the effect of punishing the jurisdiction that had led the way in terms of cost control. We continue to make those submissions — the Health Minister, of course, doing so on a regular basis.

In a subject that I think was canvassed with the Premier last year in her estimates…. The Council of the Federation has become directly involved, the first ministers directly involved in attempting to address this question and the very issue that the member has pointed to, which is the very real additional costs that accrue with populations that demographically are older.

Now, I will say this. Sometimes I run into people who say to me: “We have the oldest population in Canada.” Actually, we don’t. We have to be honest about that. We are on the high side of the average, but we’re not the oldest. We need to be honest about that as well.

But the first ministers and the Premier are very much engaged in this. It won’t surprise the member of the committee that with an impact that is measured in the hundreds of millions of dollars, it is something that we are not inclined to simply let go.

C. James: Just continuing on with federal government decisions — and I appreciate the minister’s response on the issue of health — there are other decisions that are coming into place or may come into place that could have an impact on the economy of British Columbia. One of those is the tax-free savings account and the decisions that may change at the federal level around that.

I wondered if the minister could tell us whether he’s done any analysis on resources that could be lost to British Columbia because of those changes.

[1605]

Hon. M. de Jong: What I was asking was whether we had numbers at our disposal for foregone taxation revenue for the existing program — and we do, but not here — and then estimates for the change, which would be estimates.

But I also don’t want to be coy with the member or the committee. I’m actually supportive of the step that the federal government has taken. I think, to the extent that we can create voluntary instruments that encourage Canadians and British Columbians to save, that’s a good thing.

Interest rates are very low right now, so the taxation impact is minimal as a result. So is the benefit that flows to account holders in this climate, but I think that it is a positive step to the extent that Canadians end up with additional savings.

It will have a positive impact on their reliance on government and the state in the future, so philosophically I am aligned with the step that the government has taken and will endeavour to secure for the member our estimate on what the impacts of the expanded program would be for the B.C. fiscal plan.
[ Page 8680 ]

C. James: I think that is the important question — the impact on British Columbia and the loss of tax revenue to British Columbia. I appreciate the importance of tax-free savings accounts and the fact that B.C. is one of the highest-usage provinces — the province that uses tax-free savings accounts more than other provinces. So it does have a fiscal impact. I think that’s just important information.

I’m guessing the analysis was done, but just so I’m correct, my understanding is that the revised income-splitting proposal that was put forward by the federal government will no longer have a tax implication on British Columbia. It’s now being done as a credit versus something else, so there won’t be an implication financially on British Columbia.

Hon. M. de Jong: I’m advised that that is correct.

C. James: Thank you to the minister. I’ve just got a series of questions in a number of different areas.

Just a question around asset sales. We’ve had discussion and debate — and I’m not going to bring that back here — around asset sales. We see it no longer as a separate line in the 2015 budget.

I just wondered if the minister could talk about whether the asset sales, as a specific line and a specific direction in the ministry, have wound up. I recognize that there are always properties that will come up, but have asset sales as a line item been wound up? Are there any revenue targets in the coming year around asset sales that the minister would like to talk about?

[1610]

Hon. M. de Jong: To the member, the short answer to her question is to confirm the member’s observation. There is not, in this year’s budget or fiscal plan, a separate line item.

When we embarked upon the surplus asset disposal program I thought it was appropriate to, in a very clear way, highlight what we were forecasting and to break that out. Having moved through the bulk of that exercise, we have reverted back to the process that had been in place for years and decades prior too.

I should say, in terms of identifying assets for sale in the fiscal year ahead, by far the most significant transaction is the Dogwood-Pearson sale. The number I have in front of me is $271 million, which I believe was a part of the announcement that took place a month or two ago.

What I want to verify and have asked the officials to verify is that all of that is booked in ’15-16, or whether the transaction is split in two with two fiscal years being impacted. I’m just trying to confirm that for the member. But that is far and away the…. Amongst the routine sales that there will be going forward, that would be the largest one.

C. James: Just a second question around asset sales. As we know, after a great deal of debate the minister released the list of property sales, prices, the appraisals as well. I wonder if the minister will commit to doing that with the upcoming sales as well, as a routine part of a release.

Hon. M. de Jong: I think it makes sense for people to know what we sold public property for, what we thought we were going to get for it, and what we actually got for it.

C. James: I take that as a yes, then, Minister. Thank you.

Just on the next subject area, just to continue on to talk a little bit about the credit union tax. As the minister knows, the federal government eliminated the small business tax for credit unions, which is going to have an impact by default because B.C. credit unions would have to pay the full corporate income tax in British Columbia, which makes a change.

[1615]

I know there have been discussions going on with the credit union with both sides of the House — all sides of the House — on this issue to look at making an exception, as other provinces have done, to allow credit unions to continue to pay the provincial small business rate. There is obviously a very big difference between banks and credit unions. I don’t need to go through that, I’m sure, with the minister.

I wonder if the minister could tell us what considerations are going on in the Ministry of Finance right now and whether there is consideration around making the tax exemption a permanent tax exemption.

Hon. M. de Jong: I’ve just had confirmed that the figure I quoted for the Dogwood-Pearson sale was for the present fiscal year and would all be contained within the present fiscal year.

The credit union question is an interesting one, because it was something that derived, again, from a decision from another level of government, and the credit unions in, I think, early 2013 articulated their concern. The member generously points to a decision that we made to step in and provide some relief with respect to the impact of that federal decision. We did so for a three-year period.

I think the member’s specific question is: are we contemplating or have we decided to extend that beyond three years? That, by the way, as I recall, occurred statutorily in the budget legislation that ultimately passed in June 2013, if I’m not mistaken. In any event, the short answer right now is that whilst one always reserves the possibility of revisiting and examining statutory decisions and taxation policy, I wouldn’t want to leave the impression that we are poised to extend or change or prolong that. The decision was made for a three-year period.

Now, we are engaged with credit unions on a fairly significant project, which is the review of the Financial Institutions Act and the Credit Union Act. Whilst that
[ Page 8681 ]
is not specifically designed to address taxation-related issues, it does provide an opportunity to review, in a fairly general way, the public policy that guides the operation of credit unions in British Columbia. We can, if the member likes, discuss further some of the changes that have occurred and the tax burden facing credit unions today versus days when some of them were paying capital taxes — and some of them were, of course.

I think the member’s specific question was around any specific plans that the government may have to extend, beyond the three-year period, the relief — if I can use that term — that we built into the 2013-14 budget for three years. I think the most direct answer today is no, there are not plans to do that. I’m sure that credit unions will persist in wanting to initiate a further discussion around that.

[1620]

C. James: Just to follow up on that piece, I want to ask if the ministry has done an analysis around the impact that would have on credit unions. Certainly, some of the information that I’ve seen talks about credit unions actually paying a higher rate than banks within a period of time — rising from 16.5 percent in 2013, for example, to 22.6 percent, which would be higher than the 19.7 percent that banks pay currently.

I also want to know whether the ministry has taken into account the access to capital markets. The difference between banks, again, and credit unions around the price they pay for their credit, for their product, is certainly higher for credit unions than banks. So just asking the minister whether they’ve done an analysis around the impact that will have on the credit unions.

Hon. M. de Jong: I’m not in a position and, in fact, I’m a bit reluctant to endorse the numbers that the member has presented, though we seem to recall someone producing numbers along those lines.

What I can tell the member is that the good news is the timing around analysis of this and the general operation of credit unions or competitiveness questions of access to credit, questions of their operation…. All of these are questions that are very much at the forefront of the review that’s taking place, and we have struck a working group that I have met with once or twice. They are engaged directly with the ministry.

There’s a consultation paper that either has been released or will be released soon. On the strength of the meetings we had, it would be helpful for the member. The approach we’re taking is that I’ve asked that we pose specific questions to those with an interest in this area.

By way of example…. It’s going to come up, so there’s no reason why we shouldn’t feel free to bring it up here. The province presently has unlimited deposit insurance. Now, some people think that’s a good idea. Some people think that’s not such a good idea. There is certainly interest. Were there to be any change…. One of the questions that the member of the committee will see in the consultation paper is: what are your views on that, or what are the arguments for and against, from the perspective of your institution or your placement?

That’s how the paper is presented. It’s hoped that we can then elicit some specific information out of the sector that will help guide the development of policy.

C. James: I was going to ask a question around the Financial Administration Act review and the timing, so the minister has mentioned that. The paper will be coming out soon.

Just so I’m clear, the discussion, then, around the credit union tax issue will become part of that Financial Administration Act review that is part of the consultation then?

Hon. M. de Jong: I don’t think it’s one of the specific questions we’ve put in the paper, although there’s a general invitation to provide views on any issue whatsoever. At the end of the day, though, that will be a budgetary decision that goes beyond the statutory changes that might be contemplated by the review.

[1625]

Members of the credit union community are certainly free to highlight that issue as part of the review process. The decision on that, ultimately, will emerge from the budgetary process.

C. James: Just a quick question around a forum that was put together, the industry infrastructure forum. Way back in January of 2013-14 there was a report, if the minister remembers, that came out that talked about the government’s procurement practices and some concerns that the construction industry had around being able to bid in on contracts. They didn’t have the ability to join together to be able to bid in. Only large companies were bidding in.

The minister started a joint industry infrastructure forum to address some of those issues. I wonder if there’s an update on that forum and any of the work that has gone on.

Hon. M. de Jong: I think the member is referring to an exercise that was initiated — a committee that the Deputy Minister of Finance jointly chairs.

[P. Pimm in the chair.]

He incorporates the involvement of the five largest capital ministries and the B.C. Construction Association in — the member is correct — examining procurement approaches. I think she mentioned the process of bundling projects in certain regional markets and the extent to which that led to…. It may have compromised the ability of certain-sized companies to participate in the staging of procurements.
[ Page 8682 ]

What I can say is this, from memory. In the conversations that took place, the deputy and government brought to the table our emphasis on the desire to secure the best possible deal for the taxpayer with respect to capital procurement. Industry has brought to the table suggestions for how that might be achieved in ways that were not inconsistent with ensuring that companies in various regions of the province were not denied the opportunity to participate in the procurement process.

I think on balance it has…. If the measure is the degree to which the construction sector has been pursuing the minister’s office, it has largely been a success in terms of finding solutions where some issues were deemed to exist, but the member may have more specific questions.

C. James: Was there a report that was made public coming out of that process?

[1630]

Hon. M. de Jong: I neglected, in my earlier answer, to point to the involvement that Partnerships B.C. has had in that process. That’s significant because, in fact, they did produce a report to me that was made public. If the member requires a copy, we can get it for her.

C. James: Just a question now around the Pension Benefits Standards Act and the implementation of that act. I know the minister has been getting the same kinds of concerns and issues raised, I’m sure, that I’ve been getting in my office around the proclamation into law of that act and what the timeline is for that.

I’ve had a number of constituents asking when the Pension Benefits Standards Act is going to be brought into force — heartbreaking kinds of letters and concerns asking when the opportunity is going to be available to them. Unions are coming forward. Sheet Metal Workers, for example, said they can’t make key decisions about their pension plan until they know when the act is going to come into play.

I wonder if the minister could give an update on the act, given how long people have waited, and when the implementation of this law is going to happen. It’s now past the minister’s deadline that he set for himself last year.

Hon. M. de Jong: We’re all operating from memory, including me, which may be a dangerous thing in these cases. First of all, there has clearly been the interest that the member referred to, which precipitated the work in the first place. We’re going to verify all of this for the member, but I am relatively certain that in the course of the last two weeks I have signed off on the regulations that will allow for the order-in-council to move forward.

The other thing I am virtually certain of is that the order-in-council will set the beginning of September as the effective date for the regulations to take effect. I’ll verify all of that, but that, to the best of my recollection, is where we’re at.

A. Dix: Just a couple of questions for the minister with respect to the Public Service Agency and the comptroller general, who both have played significant roles in the Ministry of Health firing issues that the minister will be aware of.

In an e-mail from Mr. Graham Whitmarsh, who was the Deputy Minister of Health and former Deputy Minister of Finance…. He wrote to the Public Service Agency on October 9, 2014, and said as follows. It was a letter to Lynda Tarras, then the deputy minister responsible. It says: “You and I, both individually and together, briefed John Dyble on many occasions during the course of the investigation. While his involvement was much less than your own, he was involved in some of the key decisions and the timing of some of the key events.”

How often did Ms. Tarras brief Mr. Dyble with respect to this matter?

Hon. M. de Jong: I’m sorry. Could the member just repeat the dates to me? I’ll make notes.

A. Dix: Happy to. The e-mail from Mr. Whitmarsh to Ms. Tarras is October 9, 2014, at 8:18 a.m. It was copied to Ms. McNeil. What it says very clearly is: “You and I” — meaning Mr. Whitmarsh and Ms. Tarras — “both individually and together, briefed John Dyble on many occasions during the course of the investigation.”

[1635]

My question to the minister is: how often did the deputy minister for the Public Service Agency brief Mr. Dyble?

Hon. M. de Jong: While I regret that I don’t actually have an answer for the member, which probably derives in part from the fact that the period we’re dealing with predates the estimates period, I can endeavour to…. I am advised by officials that they are familiar with the document that the member is referring to and the notion that there were briefings, but I don’t have dates. The member would have to secure them.

A. Dix: Am I to understand from that that the minister is going to get a response to that question?

I mean, Mr. Whitmarsh put forward in detail the involvement of the Public Service Agency in this matter, for reasons that were separate. As the minister will recall, the Public Service Agency was removed from oversight of the McNeil report, in part as a result of these interventions.

What he says very clearly is that Ms. Tarras and himself on, as it says, many occasions briefed Mr. Dyble. I think it would be reasonable, given that in the immediate response to the e-mail from Ms. Tarras on behalf of the Public Service Agency — an e-mail, I’m sure, since it was so handsomely distributed at the time, that the minister or his ministry or the agency will have — in no way contradicts Mr. Whitmarsh’s view about this matter.
[ Page 8683 ]
I would be very interested in the minister getting an answer to that question.

I’ll ask the minister about briefings today, if we may come forward into the present period. As the minister will know, what was unusual about this matter…. Aside from the fact that a number of public servants were smeared at the time with an RCMP investigation, an RCMP investigation led the press release, and the Public Service Agency was directly responsible.

Public Service Agency officials led the investigation, were involved at every stage of the investigation, reviewed and were responsible for the dismissal letters in terms of their drafting, although Mr. Whitmarsh signed them.

Then Mr. Dyble was involved. Mr. Whitmarsh, the Deputy Minister of Health, was involved. Mr. Fyfe, the Deputy Attorney General was involved. Ms. McKnight was, for the period involved in the McNeil report, the Associate Deputy of Health. Then the head of the Public Service Agency, Ms. Tarras, was involved, and Ms. Mentzelopoulos was involved as the head of GCPE. All of them had a significant role in this matter in advance of the decision to wrongfully dismiss the researchers.

[1640]

The current head of the Public Service Agency, who is Ms. McKnight, as I understand it is briefing assistant deputy ministers and deputy ministers, leading a process of sessions with them with respect to the fallout from the McNeil report.

I wanted to know…. Since those sessions focus on two questions…. It appears that the facts are that the Public Service Agency was not sufficiently involved, even though it was involved at every stage in the matter; and, secondly, that the ministry — in that case, the Ministry of Health, which was actually contracting the Public Service Agency — did not seek sufficient legal counsel.

Is the minister aware of the briefings being provided by Ms. McKnight? Does he not think the fact that so many deputy ministers failing to take any responsibility…? In fact, they’re specifically cited by Ms. McNeil for not acknowledging their own role in any decision-making — deputy ministers, mind you — whether that issue of deputy ministers’ duty to document what they do and deputy ministers’ failures in this matter is a part of her briefings to ADMs and deputy ministers across government on the consequences of the firings of health researchers for human resources in government.

[The bells were rung.]

The minister will now have some time to prepare an answer.

Hon. M. de Jong: What is the question?

A. Dix: The question? The question is pretty simple. The briefings that are happening, the briefings that are occurring for deputy ministers and assistant deputy ministers, the most recent of which occurred on Tuesday, May 19: do they deal with the role of all these deputy ministers and their failure to document their meetings on these questions in an adequate way and their failure to respond in such a way that Ms. McNeil could determine their role in the matter?

The Chair: The committee will now go into recess until after the vote.

The committee recessed from 4:41 p.m. to 4:56 p.m.

[D. Plecas in the chair.]

Hon. M. de Jong: Before I get to the member for Kingsway’s question, we were talking a moment ago about the pension standards legislation. It turns out my memory was close to being sound. We issued a notice, or release, on May 13, which referred to the fact that the act will come into effect on September 30, 2015, and referred to the regulation giving effect to that that was enacted on May 11 of this year. So May 11 and September 30 of this year are the significant dates relevant to the pension standards legislation.

The member from Kingsway’s question relates to — well, let me say in general terms — a pretty dark chapter and the work that was undertaken in the aftermath of the report conducted by Ms. McNeil. If I speak to that, I hope neither the member nor the committee will think that I am in any way trying to diminish the significance or the impact of what took place for the individuals involved.

The member asked about specific follow-up steps and, I think, referred to some sessions that have taken place this spring through the Public Service Agency and the ministries. The sessions that I think he was referring to occurred in May. I will say if those are the sessions that we’re talking about, they were certainly more forward-looking than they were diagnostic about the situation that gave rise to the McNeil report in the first place.

They relate to the discussion and establishment of a checklist for making disciplinary termination decisions that touches on the various notifications of the agency. This would be a checklist for use by ministries, a checklist for confirmation of the due process roles and responsibilities for disciplinary termination decisions. I can go through it, but I think…. The member may already have it. If he doesn’t, I’m happy to provide it to him. I think he’s indicating that he already has it. So it may be better for me to await his next question with respect to that document or something else.

[1700]

A. Dix: Well, I guess what isn’t here is one of the, I think, more shameful aspects of what the minister rightly calls a dark chapter. The fact that after meetings involving
[ Page 8684 ]
several deputies — the deputy responsible at the time for GCPE, the deputy responsible for the PSA, the Deputy Minister of Health, the Deputy Minister to the Premier — the decision was taken by government to smear the employees, first by leak and then by press release, leading a press release referring to an RCMP investigation that included, on the day where the Ministry of Health, in an investigation led by the PSA, was firing a co-op student.

What it was, was an aggressive media plan to deal with the government’s problems. I think most people looking at human resources would say that is not an appropriate conduct, and in fact, some apologies have been made.

I’m curious why, in drawing the conclusions from the McNeil report, there’s nothing about the role of all these deputies, who were very much involved, nothing about the primacy of government communications over employees’ privacy rights — nothing about these questions.

In fact, the checklist puts all the responsibility back on the home ministry, essentially — what the plan does and what the briefing does. It suggests that this, in this case, was an unprecedented matter, the firing of this many employees in this significant a way on the front page of the Vancouver Sun.

The member has been here around provincial politics around the same time as I have. I don’t recall any such incident in the past. Why is the public handling of such a situation not part of the PSA’s seminars on this question and lessons learned on this question when the PSA and the government acted so reprehensibly on that aspect of the issue?

Hon. M. de Jong: I think it is clear from the McNeil report and the discussion that has flowed from that that there were serious gaps. I think the member has made clear his views on where some of the most serious gaps may lay, but I think at the heart of his question today, or his criticism, is the lack of assurance that as part of the process flowing from the McNeil report and this dark chapter there is some assurance that public communications relating to processes leading to termination are coordinated and take place in accordance with principles of fundamental fairness and justice.

[1705]

What I can tell the member and the committee is that in addition to the checklist that is in place, the briefing, the tutorial, specifically does address that question and continues to address that, in terms of the relationship between the agency and GCPE, to ensure that throughout the process, including the public communication of decisions that are taken, occurs in a way that is not just sensitive but respectful of basic principles of procedural fairness and justice.

A. Dix: The document I have is a disciplinary decisions executive overview, brought to you by the B.C. Public Service Agency — “Your ally for success.” If the minister has a PowerPoint, as he appeared to be reading from, would he be prepared to share that — that details the discussion of GCPE. I guess he refers to the McNeil process. Part of the problem with the McNeil process, though, as McNeil said, is people didn’t tell her the truth in the sense that she would not be able to identify who was responsible.

She knew who signed the letters of dismissal, but none of the people involved — and we’re talking about the most senior deputy ministers of government and others — were prepared to take responsibility for their role. This is part of the challenge, and we’ve had this experience in other dark chapters, where people have to acknowledge their role and say what they did. In this case, of course, that is far from the case.

In the interest of time, because the minister has other questioners and issues, I want to ask the minister briefly about the office of the comptroller general’s investigation with respect to this matter.

According to the terms of reference of the investigation, the OCG investigation team was supposed to report back to the Health Ministry on an ongoing basis. As the minister will know, Mr. Brown, the Deputy Minister of Health, essentially cleared the key agency contractors involved in October of 2013, presumably being in touch with the comptroller general. Then the government acted to settle with at least five of the employees.

According to the government, that meant that they were no longer interested — the Ministry of Health, at least was no longer interested — in the police investigation at the time. I want to know whether the OCG team kept Mr. Brown — Stephen Brown, the Deputy Minister of Health, who was assigned by Mr. Dyble in yet another investigation without paper — apprised of their findings of their review during the investigation.

Hon. M. de Jong: The member has referenced a report and work that was undertaken by the office of the comptroller general. I’m advised as follows, and I’m not sure I’ve been asked this directly. The review has been completed. That has taken place. That work was completed within the span of four to six weeks. Following the completion of the work, the Deputy Minister of Health was spoken with.

[1710]

There was interaction, perhaps just prior to the completion of the review, but that all would have been contained within the last two to three months. That’s the information I can relay to the member and to the committee.

A. Dix: The terms of reference of the review talked about the continuing relationship there. I’m interested in that.

Did the office of the comptroller general conduct interviews with the executive levels of the Ministry of Health, of the PSA, of people at and above the assistant deputy minister level, past and present, who set the terms for
[ Page 8685 ]
contracts and contract approvals? Did the office of the comptroller general interview the contractors and agencies, for example, whose contracts were suspended and then reinstated? Did the office of the comptroller general conduct interviews with the reinstated staff and the staff who received apologies from the Minister of Health?

Hon. M. de Jong: Specific questions about specific people. I’m a bit hesitant, off the top of my head, to say yes to one and no…. I wonder if the member would be content with an undertaking to provide a detailed response as it relates to each of the individuals or each of the agencies that the member has referred to in his question. I think the member is looking for detailed and accurate information, and I’m not sure I can guarantee that, on the fly, here today.

A. Dix: What I’m just specifically asking for, I guess, is a summary of the investigation — how many people were involved; how many interviews took place — and a response to the detailed questions that you’d be able to get from the Blues. As well, if you have the PowerPoint, please send it over.

Hon. M. de Jong: That’s helpful. Yes, I do have the Public Service Agency document that the member is referring to. I’ll be happy to provide it to him.

K. Corrigan: In the interests of time, I think what I would like to do is simply ask a number of questions. If the minister can indicate just those questions that he can’t provide the information or where it’s not available. Other than that, I will just assume that I can get all of this information back later.

My questions specifically have to do with student loans — the amount of student loans, the types of student loans, the calculation of profits and so on. I’m talking about post-secondary student loans.

[1715]

What I am interested in finding out are what the total…. Some of this information is available, but starting with the total amount that is owed in student loans, the number of students and the amount related to those students that are on both variable and fixed-rate loans and the amount of money that is owed with regard to each of those categories and, of course, the total.

In addition, if there is a separate pool that enables calculation of profit, I’d be interested in finding out how much profit government is making from student loan interest — how much that amount is.

Also, I would like to know whether or not there is data which keeps track of the unmet needs of student loans. My understanding is that when a student applies for a student loan, the application includes information not only on tuition fees but on the actual cost of education. Given there are outside fees like lab fees, residence, meal fees and so on, I’m wondering what data the government is tracking with regard to that. In addition, I’d like to know what the unmet need is.

I’m interested in all of this information that I’ve asked about over the last three years. And if there is any more data that is kept with regard to student loans, I would love to see that as well.

I think that covers it. I would appreciate receiving all of that information.

Hon. M. de Jong: I think the first part of the member’s question should be something that we can readily provide — the total amount owing. We’ll do our best around the variable- and fixed-rate categories and the amount owing there.

I’m told that this ministry, versus government itself, may have difficulty with the question of unmet needs. The role of the ministry doesn’t extend to tracking that part of the application form. I’m happy to pass that along for the member.

The one that we may disappoint the member around is this notion of the calculation of profit. What we’d be inclined to do is calculate into that, as a business would, write-offs and lost amounts. I think I know what the member’s interest is — pardon the pun — the differential interest rates. But when we start to calculate the cost of administering the program and bad debts and written-off debts, my guess is that what the member is going to get from us is: “There is no profit.”

I think the member’s interest relates to the differentiated interest rates. I will certainly endeavour to work on the matters. That’s the one that I fear I may not satisfy the member, in its entirety.

[1720]

J. Kwan: This may well be my last set of questions for the Minister of Finance.

I wrote to the minister back in early May — May 6, to be exact — about an issue that is hotly in discussion these days in the community, and that is around data collection with respect to purchases of properties, particularly foreign investments.

I wrote to the minister because a number of constituents had approached me with respect to their concerns around the housing affordability question and ownership. Many of them have expressed the point of view that increasingly they are now no longer able to afford to live in the community that they grew up in, their parents grew up in and their grandparents grew up in. So there’s a lot of discussion and a lot of concern around that.

There’s a lot of, also, I would suggest, speculation as to what is the percentage of ownership and the implications of that ownership, in terms of foreign ownership, on the affordability of the housing market. Before we sort of go too far down that road, it would be really useful and helpful to actually have information and data so that we know what the situation looks like.
[ Page 8686 ]

I do know that other jurisdictions do collect the data. I’m sure the Minister of Finance knows that. As well, Australia, for example, actually…. The United States, for example, and other jurisdictions put in a different taxation scheme in order to deal with the issues of foreign ownership and so on.

I’m not suggesting nor am I asking the minister about what he might do about this. Rather, I’m asking the question on whether or not the ministry has any data with respect to this question that could shed some light on it. If so, what kind of data is available, and can he share that information? If he does not have the data available, could the minister advise whether or not he intends to collect that data so that we can actually have an informed discussion around this very important issue?

[1725]

Hon. M. de Jong: If this is indeed the final opportunity to engage in a discussion…. The member has been here for well nigh 20 years, so I appreciate a final opportunity to discuss with her an issue that has attracted a lot of attention — certainly in her neighbourhood and, in the last number of weeks or months, in the Lower Mainland and greater Vancouver.

The short answer is that the data is not particularly readily available. The member may have heard me discussing with the staff some of the limitations that have existed in the collection of hard data.

Now, I can tell the member that in terms of consulting on a survey basis with the industry, you get numbers in the range of 5 percent of foreign purchases — 5 percent of the transactions being foreign purchases. But insofar as being able to rely upon a document that someone signs and says, “I am a foreign purchaser,” and being able to identify with certainty what portion of market activity involves foreign purchasers, that’s not data that we have. I’m told that CMHC may have additional data but, again, probably survey-related data, as opposed to empirical or factual data.

We take pretty seriously in this country and this province the protection of privacy and the questions that we can ask of people. The member has correctly pointed to jurisdictions that ask some of those questions, and it is a prerequisite to entering the market. That has not been the case here in British Columbia. I think that discussion has now begun to take shape, about whether or not these are questions that should be asked.

It’s a long-winded way of saying that the data set, from the point of view of conducting an analysis, is not complete here in British Columbia because we don’t ask those pointed questions or require the disclosure of that information in the way they do in other jurisdictions, some of which the member has mentioned.

J. Kwan: I’ll just follow up with this one question, because I know time is of the essence for other members as well. Given that we actually don’t have the data…. The minister is right. What I’ve heard and what I understand is that it’s survey information. I don’t know how you determine the accuracy of the survey information. That said, I guess it gives you some sense of perhaps where things are at.

I would suggest that I think the time has come for the minister to consider bringing in measures so that you can, in fact, collect this data on a factual basis. I do think that it’s important. This has been a long time coming. Some would argue that it has been coming for a long time, but it’s sort of here and before us.

In some ways, if you start collecting the data now, it might be too late. That said, I still think this is an important goal — to go forward and to collect that data.

You can collect that data, with measures in place, at point of sale, for example, and ask those pointed questions. Then, once you have that information, you are in the position of being better informed on how to address the issue, whether or not actions should or should not take place, and perhaps to address some unintended perspectives that might be floating out there as well.

I always believe that having that information and going from that point forward is the best way to operate, to not sort of shoot in the dark and speculate and make assumptions or just reject the issue out of hand — to say: “No, this is not possible; we can’t do it” — but rather to look into that.

I would urge the minister to undertake, perhaps with his staff, to see how other jurisdictions have done it — how they’ve collected the data, what is required to embark on that process — and begin collecting the data.

[1730]

If the minister does go down that route, I would love it — and I think, actually, all British Columbians would love it — if that information was shared so that we can all collectively engage in an informed discussion around this very important issue of affordability for people to live in their own communities.

Hon. M. de Jong: The member is astute enough in the ways of the parliamentary process to know she’s under no obligation to indulge me in this respect. But — and I’m not meaning to be mischievous here — I wonder if the member has thoughts that she might, as she embarks upon other parliamentary challenges….

[D. Ashton in the chair.]

Part of the question is: what information is it appropriate to collect? What questions is it appropriate to ask someone? Is it, for example, appropriate to ask whether they are a resident? Is it appropriate to ask whether they are a citizen? I suppose one can make an argument that all of these are questions we can decide, as a society, that we want to ask. Is it appropriate to ask whether they intend to live in the home?
[ Page 8687 ]

I wonder if the member has any thoughts she would like to leave with me and the committee on that question.

C. James: Sorry, Member. We’re running out of time — eating into your colleague’s time now.

Two last questions for the minister before we move on to let my colleague have the rest of his time. These are related to private-public partnerships. These are questions, interestingly enough, that we actually asked of the Minister of Health. The Minister of Health referred us here. He suggested that we should ask the questions of the Minister of Finance. So I come to the Minister of Finance, who can take it up with his colleague later if he wishes.

This is the area of P3s, particularly in the area of financing and health care. As we know, the Auditor General had a most recent report that looked at the cost of P3s, specifically in the area of health care, with some troubling results related to the cost of borrowing.

To quote the report, the cost of borrowing is approximately 4 percent on the government’s weighted average, and on private-public partnerships it’s about 7.5 percent. I’ll just ask all the questions at once, and then I can turn it over. Could the minister tell me if he disputes the AG’s findings? Does he recognize that this is an accurate accounting of costs for P3s?

The last question would be to ask the minister whether he doesn’t think it’s prudent, given the AG’s report, to do a full review right now of financing of P3s, to do a cost comparison, particularly with the upcoming big health project at St. Paul’s coming up. Wouldn’t it make sense to do a full review, given the AG’s results?

[1735]

Hon. M. de Jong: An important question, insofar as the government clearly has proceeded and demonstrated a preference and an enthusiasm for procurement via 3Ps. The member’s question related to a particular Auditor General report and a differential rate around the cost of borrowing.

I think one of the points I would want to make for the benefit of the committee is that whilst there is most certainly a differential, we took, perhaps, some exception to the fact that it was not made at all clear in the report that…. Or the impression, it seemed to me from my recollection, was left that this differential applied to the entire cost of the project.

Of course, in the case of health care projects through most of British Columbia, that is not the case. The differential would apply to only the portion for which there was private financing. So we took a little bit of exception to what we thought was perhaps an incorrect perception that was left around that.

The other thing I would say that, perhaps, I would respectfully argue was not canvassed or profiled to the extent that I would have thought appropriate is the value of the risk transfer that occurs. I’m reminded by the deputy that the agencies that finance these projects, whether they are financed by the Crown in Right of the Province of British Columbia or through an agency, they examine in detail the risk in who is backing up the project and settle upon borrowing rates accordingly.

But the fact that the value-for-money analyses take place…. They are publicly available. In the case of one of the earliest projects, the Abbotsford Regional Hospital and cancer treatment centre, the Auditor General himself performed a review and confirmed the value for money. But that analysis must take into account not just the cost of borrowing and, to the extent that there are differentiated rates, what they are but — in our view and in the view of the Auditor General of the day — take into account, as well, the value that the taxpayers derive from that method of procurement. A good deal of the value they derive relates to the transfer of risk.

Yes, there have been examples where the taxpayers have benefited significantly from that transfer of risk where the procuring agency has been obliged to make up the difference where that risk has visited in a way that otherwise would have accrued to the detriment of the taxpayers. I hope that helps a little bit.

D. Eby: To the minister: the remainder of the questions for today will deal with the B.C. Lottery Corporation, the gaming policy and enforcement branch and BCLC’s compliance with FINTRAC, so if you have staff here who can be released, I encourage you to send them home to their families or at least back to their offices to whatever they’re working on.

[1740]

My first set of questions relates to an issue that at first arose in 2010, which was a fine of approximately $700,000 by FINTRAC. I understand the fine was penalizing B.C. Lottery Corporation, although I’ve never seen any formal document acknowledging this. But there’s been litigation since then. Litigation is still underway. What is the cost of this FINTRAC litigation to the public to date?

[1745]

Hon. M. de Jong: Here’s what I can confirm that, hopefully, will be of some assistance to the member. Then I’ll be rather pointed about what I can’t confirm at this stage.

The member is correct — a decision by FINTRAC and the imposition of a fine, monetary sanction. The lottery corporation has initiated — I’m going to use this term with the caveat that I want to confirm this — a judicial review. I’m not sure if it’s a judicial review or an appeal before the federal court, but it is in the federal court, given the agency involved. I can’t remember off the top of my head whether the prevailing legislation provides for a right of appeal or judicial review. I’ll have to ascertain that.

That matter has been before the courts. There’s not a lot I would be able to say about it, even if I knew — which
[ Page 8688 ]
I don’t — the specific status of it. I am advised that, at a certain point, the original fine amount was reduced. The matter is still before the court for the judicial review exercise that I have alluded to.

The member’s specific question was how much this has cost to this point, in terms of the intervening two or three years that litigation has taken place. I don’t have that information. In fairness to the member, if I did, the answer I would probably give is that, customarily, what would happen is that that amount would be disclosed at the completion of the process. I don’t want to say to the member, “I’ll get you the information,” in this instance, because whilst I’ll make an inquiry, I probably won’t disclose the amount until the litigation has completed.

D. Eby: I appreciate the minister endeavouring to find out what he can about this. I can advise him that B.C. Lottery Corporation has spent a fair amount of money to fight the disclosure of any information about this litigation to the public — including what was the nature of the transgressions that BCLC was fined for — using terrorism legislation to claim that it shouldn’t be released to the public.

At least, the public should know how much BCLC is spending to keep this secret. At least, the public should know how much BCLC is spending to fight FINTRAC on these penalties, if they’re not allowed to know what the penalties were even for.

Can the minister advise how much is budgeted for litigation for the coming year for B.C. Lottery Corporation? If he can advise, at least how much are we spending on this federal court action?

Hon. M. de Jong: I can provide to the member the certainty of a number for last fiscal year and endeavour to get him a budgeted amount, anticipated amount, for the fiscal year that we are in.

D. Eby: Has BCLC had any fines imposed by FINTRAC since that 2010 $700,000 fine?

Hon. M. de Jong: I’m advised and can indicate to the member and committee that since the matter that the member began questioning around…. Subsequent audits have occurred. I’m told that FINTRAC has examined over 10,000 files. No additional fines have been administered.

[1750]

Of those 10,000 files, I’m advised that three were identified as having minor administrative irregularities, which were corrected and did not give rise to the imposition of any monetary sanction.

D. Eby: Is there a possibility that the outcome of the litigation will have an impact on fines levied in the coming fiscal year, and is BCLC setting aside any kind of financial reserve to pay fines that could be levied as a result of a negative decision in court?

Hon. M. de Jong: I’m told that the cost associated with the fine was booked in the earlier fiscal year, when they were administered. So the risk, if I can use that word, going forward, with respect to the outcome of the litigation, is upside risk insofar as if successful, it would lead to a reversal.

D. Eby: BCLC had a dispute with FINTRAC about the interpretation of what was called the 24-hour clock rule. As I understand it, BCLC’s position was that midnight began the start of the 24-hour clock, and the FINTRAC position was that any transactions within a 24-hour period would be counted towards the threshold value for reporting.

If I can say that another way, if at 11:59 p.m. I did $10,000 in transactions at a casino and then at 12:01 a.m. the following day an additional $9,999 — let’s say, just below the threshold — then BCLC’s position would be no report but FINTRAC’s position would be that this was almost $20,000 within a 24-hour period. I may have the times wrong, but I understand that that interpretation issue has been an ongoing one between BCLC and FINTRAC.

Does that mean that that’s been resolved, that there’s no issue with BCLC reporting on the 24-hour clock and that both agencies have a shared understanding there?

Hon. M. de Jong: I’m advised that there is now a shared understanding between the B.C. Lottery Corporation and FINTRAC on the issue the member has described.

D. Eby: And is that understanding that it’s a 24-hour period or that the 24-hour clock starts at 12:01 and runs for 24 hours and that you can do $20,000 in a couple of minutes?

Hon. M. de Jong: I’m advised and can advise the committee that the understanding, broadly speaking, would see the clock start ticking at the time the player arrives and begins participation in the gaming activity as opposed to the alternative. So once you start, the 24-hour clock starts ticking from that point on.

D. Eby: In the recent Crown review of the B.C. Lottery Corporation it was revealed that government policy was either broken or bent in order to grant Paragon funding for an underground parkade for its proposed new resort beside B.C. Place. BCLC policy specifically says capital funding under accelerated facility development commissions should not be granted until a project is substantially complete and in operation, in order to incent the timely development of the project. Yet in this case, Paragon will receive the money for the parkade before the resort and casino and the parkade itself are built.
[ Page 8689 ]

Can the minister advise when the decision was made to circumvent BCLC policy and grant this money to Paragon early, before the facility was constructed and actually in use?

[1755]

Hon. M. de Jong: Apologies for the delay. We are talking about the accelerated facility development initiative and, in this case, the additional accelerated facility development.

The member’s specific question I think related to the timelines around when these discussions were had and when the agreements were arrived at. The accruals began on April 1, 2012, which suggests that the discussions were underway in advance of that date. I’m just endeavouring to find out if we have a more specific date for when the discussions began. But the accrual date for the additional accelerated facility development was April 1, 2012.

I am further advised that it may be of interest to the member that, thus far, no funds have transferred under that agreement.

D. Eby: Who approved this decision? Was that made internal to B.C. Lottery Corporation, or did that approval come from the minister’s office?

[1800]

Hon. M. de Jong: Further to my earlier answer, I can advise the member and the committee that discussions between the proponent, the service provider, and the Lottery Corporation were underway as early as 2010 and that the decision to proceed with the agreement was taken within the Lottery Corporation.

D. Eby: Is the minister advising that the discussions around the parkade, around allocating money for a parkade, took place in 2010? It would be surprising to me that the B.C. Lottery Corporation would be discussing allocating $20 million to Paragon even before the 70-year development agreement had been signed. Can he just clarify for me that I’m understanding him properly, that the $20 million for the parkade was discussed even years before the agreement was signed with Paragon?

Hon. M. de Jong: Hopefully, I didn’t confuse the matter. The discussion certainly dates back. I don’t want to leave the impression that the decision was finally made. I’m just tapping into the expertise and institutional memory that exists around me.

The triggering event, I’m advised, was a decision by the city to require a specific type of parking facility, which triggered the conversation that then took place and presumably related to the additional cost that was going to represent for the development of the facility. So discussions as early as 2010, decision occurring several years thereafter.

D. Eby: The decision to give this grant to Paragon, ultimately…. I take it the minister will provide me the final date about when that decision was made. Was that before or after B.C. Lottery Corporation had an opportunity to speak to the Alberta gaming and licensing corporation about Paragon’s record with government grants in that province?

Hon. M. de Jong: I’m not quite answering the member’s question, and I will endeavour to in a moment. But I did think it was, for the purpose of this conversation, appropriate to say the following.

[1805]

The member has described the transaction, although the funding hasn’t flowed yet, as a grant. That may or may not be entirely accurate, because this relates to commissions that flow between the Lottery Corporation and the service provider in a fairly standard process that involves the development of new or expanded facilities in a standard relationship and a standard commission relationship that exists between the Lottery Corporation and service providers who may be making capital investments to expand or develop a new facility.

It may be that the member wasn’t endeavouring to mischaracterize that, but I’m not sure, in this context, that I would want to leave the impression with the committee that this is a grant in the form of a sum of money that suddenly arrives on the doorsteps of a service provider. There is a process that has developed and been in place through the years to accelerate the payment of commissions to assist with the cost of expansion.

Now, all of that by way of preliminary commentary. I haven’t answered the member’s question, which I think was related to contact between the B.C. Lottery Corporation and the Alberta Gaming branch. I will endeavour to get that information for him now.

D. Eby: Unfortunately, we’re on again tomorrow, so I can tell the minister I’m also interested in the gaming policy enforcement branch’s contact with Alberta on similar issues — namely, Paragon’s record in that province.

Now, I did want to point out to the minister…. He said this was a very standard transaction. In fact, it was singled out in the Crown review as being decidedly not standard. The auditor said…. We can quibble about whether they were auditors or not. The reviewer said, “In a separate instance, a gaming facility was permitted to accrue commissions on a project at an earlier stage than usual. The service provider will receive these commissions when construction begins rather than on substantial completion,” which, in their opinion, was not consistent with B.C. Lottery Corporation policy on this point.

I just wanted to draw that to the minister’s attention. I take no issue with his characterization of it as a grant or a commission or whatever. It’s public money that would have otherwise gone to the public. It’s going to a parking
[ Page 8690 ]
garage attached to a resort. It seems insignificant to me whether it’s a grant or a commission or what.

With respect, though, to this particular parkade, the resort itself will be two hotels, five restaurants, three lounges, retail space and a 60,000-square-foot conference centre. Can BCLC explain, or can the minister explain on their behalf, why taxpayers are footing the bill for parking for all these amenities?

Hon. M. de Jong: If I understand the member’s question…. I think it’s a straightforward one: why any arrangement at all? I think the principle that’s at play here is that the payment of commissions on the provision of gaming services that facilitate the expansion or creation of a new facility expanded revenue that benefits the corporation and therefore the taxpayer.

[1810]

The principle that’s at play here is the sharing of commissions that facilitate the development of a new or expanded gaming facility. The facilities involved that would qualify are those that are deemed to contribute to the provision of gaming services as part of that facility. That’s a general answer. But that’s the general principle that is at play here.

D. Eby: Unlike BCLC’s service plan last year, the current service plan doesn’t include a total debt figure. Last year BCLC projected its debt at $182 million. In this year’s plan they list the deficit at $39 million, projected to decrease to $38½ million and flatline for the next two years. Can the minister advise what the total debt is for the last fiscal and what it’s projected to be for the next fiscal?

Hon. M. de Jong: I’m mindful what the member said about coming back. Why don’t I send the audited financial statement for the year over? Then the member will have a chance to look at it, rather than have me spiel off a bunch of numbers, and he can poke and prod as he wishes tomorrow.

I move the committee rise, report progress and seek leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:13 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
BIRCH ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HEALTH

(continued)

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

The committee met at 2:39 p.m.

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

[1440]

J. Darcy: We’re going to be talking about issues related to drug research and evaluation for the next couple of hours. Let me begin with just a few comments.

Over the past number of months my colleagues and I have raised a number of questions about the wrongful termination of health researchers, the very real public policy consequences for patients in British Columbia, for the health care system in British Columbia and how B.C.’s standing in the area of evidence-based research has been tarnished. These wrongful terminations, as we know, shut down important drug evaluation research and damaged B.C.’s reputation as a centre for drug efficacy and safety evaluation research.

Several leading scholars in this field have spoken to this, among them Dr. Jerry Avorn, the chief of the pharmacy division at Harvard University’s medical school. He said: “Wonderful work was being done, and I hope that the bizarre actions of some politicians in British Columbia will be undone so these very, very fine scholars can go back to work that they were doing that was of such benefit, not just to Canadians but, really, to people all over the world.”

I hope that the answers the minister gives to the next set of questions indicate that he is now renewing and championing B.C.’s capacity for an involvement in objective drug evaluation research and efficacy studies. Such a course of action, I think he will agree, is absolutely critical to fully repair the damage arising out of decisions his government made in 2012 and 2013.

My first questions are around the therapeutics initiative. Therapeutics initiative’s research contract is expiring next fiscal year. Has the ministry commenced negotiations for a renewed contract with the therapeutics initiative?

Hon. T. Lake: The therapeutics initiative had their contract restored once we were confident that issues related to data management were adequately addressed according to the Privacy Commissioner’s recommendations and the consultant’s report that the ministry commissioned.

The therapeutics initiative provides health, professional education and PharmaCare program evaluations. They now are on a two-year agreement, so for ’14-15 and ’15-16. We have not yet begun negotiations on a contract post–March 31, 2016, at this point, but certainly that’s something that we will be entertaining over the next summer and into the fall.

J. Darcy: The contribution that therapeutics initiative makes to patients, to our health care system and inter-
[ Page 8691 ]
nationally, as well, is clearly significant, and it can only increase in the future. Their expertise and their framework for evaluation is very much needed as the full effect of pharmaceuticals and biologics is discerned through post-market surveillance.

[1445]

Given that we will need this level of expertise, combined with the substantial record of the therapeutics initiative, will the minister agree to make TI an ongoing line item in the budget?

Hon. T. Lake: Further to the $550,000 that we provide to the TI for health professional education and PharmaCare program evaluation, we also are finalizing discussion on another contract for a clinical evidence review of specific drugs as part of PharmaCare’s drug coverage decision process. That’s worth $170,000, which is, I believe, $20,000 more than previously.

I would like to make the point, also, that we provide $1 million each year to the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies’ common drug review — $1 million. They do clinical evidence reviews, and those reviews are shared across the country. We support that national drug review process. Then, of course, we have our Drug Benefit Council here in British Columbia that further reviews information before products are listed.

The therapeutics initiative is certainly a valuable resource. It is not the only resource that’s available for evidence-based decision-making. We’re not going to commit, as a line item, to any particular provider of clinical evidence reviews, because there is a large pool of researchers across Canada that do valuable work. I would say that the therapeutics initiative is certainly up there and has the stature and is excellent. No one would dispute that.

We want to continue to have a relationship with the therapeutics initiative, but we also want to have the ability to reach out to researchers across Canada to make sure we’re getting the very best and to make our decisions based on the very best evidence available.

J. Darcy: I’ll ask the minister to provide this in writing in the interests of time. Can he provide a breakdown of the funding to the therapeutics initiative from its inception to the present time? Thank you.

My question relates to post-market surveillance. The therapeutics initiative, on the basis of its record of expertise, was asked, as the minister knows, to become part of the Canadian Network for Observational Drug Effect Studies by its lead coordinators, Dr. David Henry and Dr. Samy Suisa. The Minister of Health agreed in 2010, and then the therapeutics initiative became the lead agency for this pan-Canadian drug safety and effectiveness initiative.

However, the unfortunate events of 2012 severely impacted the therapeutics initiative’s ability to fulfil its role of protecting patients as part of this network, and it is still to this day trying to recover. TI has been forced to divert valuable grant money away from retaining researchers for analysis towards purchasing the data needed for post-market surveillance studies from the United States, a situation that makes even less sense, given that B.C. is known as having the most comprehensive and robust data sets available for health research of its kind.

Why is the government forcing the therapeutics initiative to purchase data so that it can complete research for this national research initiative that would keep patients safe and save the health care system money when we have some of the best de-identified data available for post-market surveillance research in the world?

[1450]

Hon. T. Lake: The Drug Safety and Effectiveness Network is an organization that we look to, to do analysis. In fact, we relied on them to do work on our smoking cessation program. It is a federally funded program, not provincially funded. We obviously have relationships with them and contract some work with them, but the DSEN is a federally funded program.

The therapeutics initiative works with the DSEN and does a lot of the work for the DSEN, but again, it is federally funded, not provincially funded. The TI, as well as other researchers, have full access to data, but they do have to have fair access. All researchers have to go through the same requirements through Pop Data B.C. to access that information, and there is a cost to that. All researchers that are using the information that is held by the British Columbia taxpayer are expected to include an amount to recoup the cost of maintaining that data.

J. Darcy: Has the minister met directly with the folks at the therapeutics initiative, and is he aware of the increased financial pressures that this places on them and their ability to continue to conduct the world-leading research that they should be focusing on and using their resources to conduct?

Hon. T. Lake: Yes, I’ve met with members of the therapeutics initiative on a couple of occasions, and I certainly understand that there are challenges, because they have a number of different contracts — with the provincial government, other agencies, other levels of government. I can understand, but that is something that all researchers deal with through their academic life — managing the funds that are available.

We make decisions in the best interests of taxpayers to get the best evidence available. I want to encourage the therapeutics initiative to continue their work. They do fantastic work, and I’m happy to meet with them as we continue our relationship. But they need to manage the contracts that they have. It’s a challenge for all researchers — in Vancouver, in Toronto, in Montreal and all large research universities. This is a matter that researchers deal with on a regular basis.
[ Page 8692 ]

We know that our funding — $550,000 in one contract and $170,000 in another contract, on a yearly basis — is a really important source of funds for them to continue their work. We’re happy to support them.

J. Darcy: I asked the minister earlier to provide the breakdown of funding going back to when the therapeutics initiative was first created. Is the minister in a position to give any of the funding for the last few years at this time? Or is that information that you’ll have to dig up to bring back? I certainly would like to see it while we’re still in estimates.

[1455]

Hon. T. Lake: The therapeutics initiative is partially supported by a shared-cost arrangement from the ministry to UBC. That shared-cost arrangement was first established in 1994, renewed in 1999, 2004 and 2007. I’ll just go through a few of those periods for the member.

From April 1, ’99, to March 31, 2004, total funding to the TI and the faculty at UBC was about $700,000 per year. From April 1, 2004, to March 31, 2011, it was approximately $1 million a year. From April 1, 2011, to March 31, 2012, $850,000.

When we restructured the drug evaluation program provincially, then the contract…. That was 2012-13, where the implementation of the changes we’d made earlier took effect in terms of the contract with the therapeutics initiative. So in ’12-13 it was $550,000 for health professional and PharmaCare program evaluations. We mentioned that it was on hold during the ministrywide privacy and data investigation, so there was reduced funding in ’12-13 and ’13-14. So ’12-13 the maximum was $475,518, and then for ’13-14 it was $335,817. As I mentioned, in February of 2014, we reinstated the full contract to $550,000 each year, 2014-15 and ’15-16, and then the other contract of $170,000 is in the final stages.

J. Darcy: Thank you to the minister for being able to provide that information at this time.

Recognizing the incredibly valuable work that the therapeutics initiative does, recognizing how much that contributes to patient safety and saves costs in the health care system, why are we funding the therapeutics initiative at a cost of several hundred thousand dollars less today than we were from 2004 through to 2011?

Hon. T. Lake: I mentioned that we changed the process for doing drug evaluations. We provide nearly $1 million each year to the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies common drug review. Provinces across the country contribute to this scientific panel that reviews clinical evidence and determines a recommendation as to whether a drug should be covered or not.

We relied on the TI more before this process changed, and now we use a balance. We use the CDR, common drug review, nationally, and then we put a provincial lens on it. We use the TI for doing specific work on education of physicians, on looking at PharmaCare drug evaluations, and we have the Drug Benefit Council, which takes all that information and decides whether or not, provincially, we should be listing a drug on our PharmaCare formulary.

J. Darcy: Did the minister have something he wanted to add?

Hon. T. Lake: No.

J. Darcy: An FOI that the official opposition received this year reveals that the government was meeting with representatives of the pharmaceutical industry about providing the industry access to data from the government’s health databases for their purposes in 2011 and 2012, during the same time frame that it was cutting off therapeutics initiative’s access to the identified data for post-market surveillance research. According to the briefing and meeting notes in this FOI, these talks around giving the industry access to this data trove and selling data from this trove commenced when Mr. Dyble was Health Deputy Minister and continued after he left to become deputy to the Premier.

Are these proposals to sell our data to the pharmaceutical industry still being contemplated by the minister?

[1500]

Hon. T. Lake: Thank you to the member for her patience as we got the information that we needed.

The Pharmaceutical Services Act includes regulation around the disclosure of information for market research and prohibits the use of information for market research that contains any personal information of any person or information related to a practitioner. That’s number one.

I have not been meeting with pharmaceutical companies in terms of looking at data access, but we do, as the member said earlier, have a rich health data information base.

We certainly have been working across government, with Citizens’ Services particularly, about unlocking data that will foster innovation and collaboration between citizens, researchers, the private sector and government. This so-called B.C. centre for data innovation would have to be a secure environment for data-driven innovation, transformative research and technology development.

[1505]

We had a joint working group, the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Technology, Innovation and Citizens’ Services. The working group’s report is available on the government website. It proposes a multi-year, incremental approach to developing the B.C. centre for data innovation.

Importantly, it would make sure that personal information would be highly secure. But — and I know the
[ Page 8693 ]
member knows this herself — the key to innovation in health care is unlocking the data that we have. There is so much talk about big data, and nowhere is it more important than when we’re looking at the use in health care to make sure we get better results for our patients. So we are working with all stakeholders so that we can unlock creativity and innovation in health care.

J. Darcy: The minister says that he has not been involved in it. My question was about Mr. Dyble, who began this process when he was deputy minister in Health and, I understand, continued it after he left to become deputy to the Premier. I guess my question remains. Since it is the Health Ministry responsible for this data ultimately, are there negotiations happening now between the deputy to the Premier and the pharmaceutical industry to sell our data? Has any data been sold? If so, what is the nature of that data, and what was the cost if it was sold?

Hon. T. Lake: The FOI request was regarding Life Sciences B.C.’s interest in proposals accessing health data held by PharmaNet. Life Sciences B.C., as the member knows, is a not-for-profit, non-government industry association representing the life sciences community in British Columbia — a community, I should say, that is world-leading and providing high-quality jobs throughout the province of British Columbia. I attended the life sciences award ceremonies recently, and the room was filled with amazing people that are doing great work in health care and creating jobs in high technology throughout the province.

They wanted some discussions to look at unlocking data across the broad spectrum, as I mentioned, through the centre for data innovation. The idea would be for private industry, government, researchers to have access to the very best information to provide innovation and creativity to increase and give us the best results for patients in British Columbia.

I have not been meeting with pharmaceutical companies to discuss the purchase of data, and I am not aware of any deputies in government that have been doing that either.

J. Darcy: There has not been data sold to pharmaceutical companies, then?

[1510]

Hon. T. Lake: We do not sell patient-level data to pharmaceutical companies. Aggregate-level data is available. There are companies that get that information from jurisdictions, so it’s on a report level. It’s not at an individual patient level.

Pharmaceutical companies certainly can access that information from those companies. IMS Brogan is one such company. Pop Data B.C. does provide data, again, to researchers. Some of those researchers would be funded by pharmaceutical companies, but as I say, they’re doing research. We do not directly sell our information to pharmaceutical companies.

J. Darcy: I want to move on to research that was being conducted prior to the firings of health researchers employed by the Ministry of Health. The suspensions and wrongful terminations of health researchers resulted in the loss of extremely valuable research time and work. Can the minister please explain what the ministry is now doing with regards to research into certain drugs and classes of drugs — research that was shut down in 2012?

Perhaps in the interest of time, I’ll do these in groups so that we can shorten the intervals in between. The first two I would like to ask about are: what has the ministry been doing since the health researchers were fired, in terms of evaluating rapidly rising death rates in young people associated with opiate painkillers? And what is the ministry doing in terms of addressing rising rates of Ritalin use in children?

[1515]

Hon. T. Lake: To our knowledge the therapeutics initiative was not doing any work on opiates. Subsequently our population and public health division is, apparently, doing some research — just started doing some research — involving opiates.

In terms of Ritalin, we have no information to suggest that there’s research going on into the use of Ritalin here in the province at this time.

J. Darcy: My questions in this case were not about the therapeutics initiative. They were about health researchers in the Ministry of Health.

Hon. T. Lake: As I said, there’s some work going in in our population and public health division on opiates, none that we’re aware of involving Ritalin.

J. Darcy: Can the minister indicate when that research on opiates was undertaken? And what’s the duration of that study?

Hon. T. Lake: The work around prescribed opioid medications began after the B.C. Coroners Service in 2014 reported that 279 deaths were attributed to accidental drug overdoses. A review was started in the Interior Health Authority, a review of coroner files from 2006 to 2011. It found that the rate of non-illicit, non-methadone-prescription opioid overdose deaths was almost twice that of the rest of British Columbia.

[1520]

A preliminary analysis of prescription opioid overdose deaths determined that there are significant harms associated with opioids for the treatment of long-term pain. The
[ Page 8694 ]
analysis found that the rate of prescription opioid overdose deaths in that region was twice that of the rest of B.C.

That was the initial investigation. It is now being expanded. I believe Dr. Brian Emerson is working with the coroner’s office and expanding that work throughout the province to look at the rates of opioid overdoses, specifically as it relates to prescription opioid usage.

J. Darcy: Is the ministry presently doing any research evaluating concerns about dabigatran, a blood thinner that has been known to cause grave internal bleeding and heart attacks?

Hon. T. Lake: The medication referred to by the member, I’m told, is a newer version, if you like, of warfarin, which is a blood thinner which is important when treating heart disease. The Drug Safety and Effectiveness Network is currently researching efficacy and safety of the drugs in that class. So that would include dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban and warfarin, specifically as it relates to atrial fibrillation.

That is the work that we know of that’s going on with that drug. We are not doing any of that work that I’m aware of here in B.C.

J. Darcy: My colleague the MLA for Esquimalt–Royal Roads and spokesperson on seniors health raised the problem of seniors in our province being over-prescribed off-label antipsychotic drugs. Certainly, the minister is aware that atypical antipsychotic medications are known to cause serious side effects when used to treat non-life-threatening conditions.

Most of this prescribing, as the minister is aware — and the seniors advocate has spoken of this in her report recently — is for off-label use for patients without any diagnosis of serious mental illness. Potentially thousands of British Columbians have had their health and, potentially, their lives negatively affected as a result of these medications before and since this valuable research into this area of use of antipsychotic medications was cancelled without anybody being the wiser.

My question is: since the termination of this highly beneficial and cost-effective research into the overuse of antipsychotic medication in seniors when the health researchers were terminated in 2012, what research into the effects of atypical antipsychotics on seniors has the ministry performed or commissioned? Can the minister tell us the level of funding for such research in the current estimates, and what published research can the minister point to that was started by the ministry after the researchers were fired in 2012?

Hon. T. Lake: I need clarification from the member about research that she says was being done and was stopped during the data investigation. I’m not aware of any research that was being done on anti-anxiety medication. So I just need some clarification if there’s a specific drug that she’s referring to.

J. Darcy: There are two controversial areas of use of antipsychotic drugs. One is the use in seniors. The other, which I was about to come to, is the use of antipsychotics prescribed for youth — in particular, youth suffering from depression or who have ADHD.

[1525]

Can the minister speak to both of those? Is the minister able to speak to either or both of those?

Hon. T. Lake: Sorry, I’m still trying to get clarification. The member said, on the record, that there was research being done on antipsychotic medication that was stopped by the data investigation. I’m trying to seek clarification so that I can answer the question properly.

J. Darcy: Is there research presently being conducted by the ministry into the overuse of antipsychotic drugs by seniors? If so, what is the budget for that research, and where does it appear in the Ministry of Health budget?

Hon. T. Lake: There may be some research going on through the Michael Smith Foundation for Health Research organization that we are not aware of on antipsychotic use.

But we have recognized the concern, particularly in seniors, of the use of antipsychotics. The seniors advocate has pointed this out, and other jurisdictions have pointed to this as well. We’ve seen national stories about the overuse and sometimes off-label use of antipsychotics. Now, I spoke to the psychiatric nurses conference in Kamloops recently, and that was the subject of a great discussion there. The seniors advocate was there as well.

Physicians have the training and the background, the ability to diagnose and prescribe. It’s not the minister’s job to tell doctors what to prescribe.

But I think the point the member is making is that there seems to be, from the data we are seeing, a bit of an overreliance on antipsychotic drugs, particularly with seniors in residential care, and there’s a concern that perhaps they’re being used for behaviour management rather than for the specific diagnoses of mental health that they are designed for.

There have been a lot of initiatives, because everyone recognizes that the goal would be to use as few pharmaceuticals as possible. Let me just outline a few of these.

The therapeutics initiative and the Doctors of B.C. have done professional education activities on polypharmacy. The B.C. Patient Safety and Quality Council has supported the CLeAR initiative, which is a call for less antipsychotics in residential care. That is making sure that people in residential care, the service providers, are trained to use other types of approaches rather than depending on medications.
[ Page 8695 ]

We also pay pharmacists a medication review fee so that they can look at all the medications that any patient is taking. We know that seniors are taking more medications than the average British Columbian. So this is an important initiative, as well, to reduce and rationalize the use of polypharmacy.

We also have initiated the PIECES program, which again looks at different approaches to managing people that have some degree of Alzheimer’s or other dementia to try to reduce the use of pharmaceuticals in residential care. That started in Ontario. It was brought here by Dr. Carol Ward in Kamloops and used throughout Interior Health and now is being used throughout the province of British Columbia.

[1530]

The entire health care system working with seniors is doing a lot of work to reduce the number of drugs that seniors are on, making sure that they’re used appropriately and that where other approaches are preferred, people understand those approaches and know how to use them. We are seeing some good reviews and results in terms of that kind of approach.

J. Darcy: My second question regarding antipsychotics had to do with the inappropriate prescribing of off-label antipsychotics for children. Children in this province, children and young people, are being prescribed off-label antipsychotics at a very alarming rate.

[P. Pimm in the chair.]

What is the ministry doing in terms of the fourfold increase in prescribing children off-label antipsychotics for conditions like attention deficit hyperactivity disorder?

Hon. T. Lake: The member is probably very well aware of the Canadian Institute for Health Information’s report that was just published earlier this month: Care for Children and Youth with Mental Disorders.

[1535]

It is a very extensive report and certainly looks at the increase in in-patient hospitalizations for mental disorders among children and youth rising dramatically, between 45 percent and 37 percent.

The report acknowledges that the prevalence of mental health issues in young people does not appear to have increased, but certainly there is a greater rate of young people showing up at emergency rooms for treatment. Now, that could be because of greater awareness, reduced stigmatization of mental health and that people are seeking help when perhaps they wouldn’t in the past.

Also, there is a concern about the use of psychotropic medications, looking at a 45 percent increase in youth that are dispensed antipsychotic medication, so off-label use is a concern. The use of these in youth is a concern.

There’s a lot of debate in the medical community around the use of so-called selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, like Prozac, and their efficacy versus counselling, for instance, and cognitive behavioral therapy and other approaches. That is a very active discussion that’s going on across the country at the moment. This is something that we are not currently doing work on in the ministry at the moment but, certainly, given this report and the concern that we’ve seen across the country, may be something that would be a subject of future research.

J. Darcy: Is it not the case, Minister, that research was being done on the impact of antipsychotic drugs, the overuse of antipsychotic drugs being prescribed for children and youth for conditions like ADHD prior to the wrongful dismissal of health researchers? And is it not the case that it’s not being done at the present time by the ministry?

Hon. T. Lake: Some of the researchers were working on the subject of antipsychotic prescriptions. The report was not submitted for the ministry before it was published, but it was in fact published and concluded that the overall prevalence rate of prescribing of antipsychotics to children and youth increased 3.8-fold between 1996 to 2011. Most of those prescriptions were for off-label use.

The study that was done and concluded very much, I think, mirrors the information that we see in the CIHI report.

J. Darcy: Let me turn to the issue of Champix, which, the minister is well aware, is the subject of a class action lawsuit for lethal side effects, at the same time that this government has paid for over 230,400 prescriptions for this drug under the Premier’s smoking cessation program. Yet this government still refuses to allow the therapeutics initiative to conduct a post-market surveillance study of this drug using B.C. data.

Instead, the minister has defended a study dominated by industry-led research saying that it is sufficient to keep patients safe, as opposed to having a study conducted by an external third party like therapeutics initiative. The minister is well aware that there is considerable controversy surrounding the addition of Champix to the formula at a time when other jurisdictions have rescinded their support for it and about the government’s attempts to block the TI’s evaluation of it — at the same time, in fact, that that class action suit that I referred to was certified, leading to speculation about political interference arising from the Premier’s personal promotion not just of a smoking cessation program but of this drug in particular.

[The bells were rung.]

The Chair: Committee C will go into recess until after the vote.

The committee recessed from 3:39 p.m. to 3:50 p.m.
[ Page 8696 ]

[P. Pimm in the chair.]

Hon. T. Lake: All of this information was conveyed to the member for Vancouver-Kingsway in a response to a letter that he had written to me. I’ll just hit the highlights of this. We’re talking about….

J. Darcy: Excuse me, Chair. I hadn’t actually asked my question when the bells rang.

Hon. T. Lake: Oh. I apologize. I will wait for the question.

The Chair: I thought you had too.

J. Darcy: No, I hadn’t. I was winding up for it, but I hadn’t actually asked it.

The Chair: Member, sorry about that.

J. Darcy: I was almost there, Chair.

The Chair: My apologies. I thought you were there.

J. Darcy: What I was about to say before the bells rang was that allowing the therapeutics initiative to conduct this study would arguably remove speculation and show that patients, not politicians, are in fact this minister’s and the government’s primary concern.

Will the minister reconsider and put B.C. expertise and data to work on studying Champix?

Hon. T. Lake: All of this information is included in a response to the member for Vancouver-Kingsway when he wrote to me, including the timeline of decisions made around approval of the smoking cessation program.

The Ministry of Health used our thorough drug review process to determine whether these medications would be covered through the program, including a full review of the evidence produced from the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. Evidence-informed recommendations from the Drug Benefit Council were also considered in the ministry’s decision for making nicotine replacement therapy as well as buproprion and varenicline, which is Champix….

I’d like to tell the member that these decisions, recommendations, were made prior to the Premier’s announcement in May of 2011. Thus, the ministry did use the full scope of its usual drug review process in evaluating the efficacy, safety and cost-effectiveness of buproprion, varenicline and nicotine replacement therapies before making drug coverage decisions for the program.

I want to dispel the proposition that the member puts forth that politicians influenced the drug approval process.

In terms of the evaluation, earlier in the session the member was talking about the therapeutics initiative and their valued role in the Drug Safety and Effectiveness Network, holding it up as a very credible research group that does research and work to make sure that we are getting safety and effectiveness, as the name would indicate. In fact, we conducted research through the Drug Safety and Effectiveness Network using a meta-analysis. That, of course, is a way of looking at a whole series of reviews that have been done on particular medications and taking all of that information.

Metadata is far better than a small sample size. It allows you to look across the spectrum. In fact, this study included 183 randomized controlled trials, 39 percent of which were not sponsored by any pharmaceutical manufacturer. Forty-six were sponsored, but some of those, many of those, would be unrestricted. For the remaining 15 percent of studies, sponsorship was not reported.

Here is this organization that the member opposite was upholding as a gold standard for drug research and evaluation, and they’re the ones that did the meta-analysis showing that there are no concerns at this time — or at least concerns that don’t put people at risk or that don’t cause us to make a different decision regarding these products.

J. Darcy: I want to turn to the issue of some work that Roderick MacIsaac was working on. We are all familiar with the story of Roderick MacIsaac, who tragically took his own life in the months following his wrongful termination.

[1555]

There was a completed evaluation plan for evaluating the smoking cessation program that would have incorporated the work of Roderick MacIsaac. He was preparing an evaluation methodology for the smoking cessation program before he was unjustly fired.

Has the evaluation plan been implemented? Is there still an evaluation working group?

Hon. T. Lake: Mr. MacIsaac was not working on the comprehensive smoking cessation program. Mr. MacIsaac was reviewing an older 2007 pilot program in social services, where income assistance clients were provided access to nicotine replacement therapies. This did not include Champix, varenicline or bupropion, which are the prescription medications that are a different class than the nicotine replacement therapies.

A. Dix: Mr. MacIsaac was working on the 2007 program, which the government had launched for income assistance recipients, to develop a framework, because the new program hadn’t started yet. You weren’t going to be able to evaluate it.

Is it not the case that he was working on that in preparation for the new program?

Hon. T. Lake: As I mentioned, he was working on the older pilot program, which is nicotine replacement ther-
[ Page 8697 ]
apies. These are products that have been used for a very long period of time, and he was looking at those — not the prescription medications, including Champix.

A. Dix: But he was working on a way of assessing that program in order to prepare for an evaluation of Champix. This is a fact. The success of the previous program and how you evaluate that success includes things like people stopping smoking, which would have been the same evaluation program for Champix. It seems to me reasonable that, in fact, it was preparation for the eventual evaluation of Champix, a program that had just begun in the Ministry of Health.

[M. Hunt in the chair.]

The Chair: Mr. Minister.

Hon. T. Lake: Thank you, hon. Chair, and welcome to the debate.

Mr. MacIsaac, as part of his co-op student placement, was working, as I mentioned, on a review of a pilot program of nicotine replacement therapies. One of the goals was to look at methodologies for further study.

Subsequently, the ministry did two things. We used the Drug Safety and Effectiveness Network to do the meta-analysis. We looked at other reviews, including the “Cochrane database of systematic reviews” in May of 2013 and the October 2013 British Medical Journal, which did a real-world safety study involving nearly 120,000 adult smokers in England to look at the bupropion and varenicline side of the smoking cessation program.

[1600]

We have evaluated the nicotine replacement therapy component of the smoking cessation program, with assistance from B.C. Stats. We looked at the program in two different formats: the nicotine replacement therapy and the non–nicotine replacement therapy aspects of the program.

J. Darcy: That was exactly my question — that he was working on an evaluation methodology. But let me move on.

The program EQIP, education for quality improvement in patient care, provides physicians feedback on their prescribing patterns as well as information on different prescribing trends, as the minister is aware. The Auditor General has raised how physician groups have endorsed this program and has also stressed how programs that promote better prescribing decisions by physicians benefit the PharmaCare plan and patients.

Is the Health Ministry looking at reviving the EQIP program?

[1605]

Hon. T. Lake: The EQIP program was…. There were eight topics that were developed and distributed to physicians. That work has ended. These topics helped physicians to understand their prescribing practices against their cohorts and served to educate physicians in terms of best practices. Certainly, there’s a lot of value in that.

There currently is no EQIP contract ongoing at the moment, but our assistant deputy minister responsible for planning and innovation is actually doing some work at the moment with the Doctors of B.C. and also other research clinicians to look at not just prescribing practices but other clinical activities as well — so using data to look at how physicians are holding up, if you like, against their colleagues.

You can imagine a physician in a single-person practice that has been doing something for a while. This kind of information that we had in EQIP and that we’re looking at broadening out helps physicians to look at how their practices compare to practices of a broad range of physicians in the province and, in that way, can help develop best practices, which are very useful, obviously, for practitioners.

This is work that is ongoing at the moment in our planning and innovation division.

J. Darcy: So is the minister looking at reviving the EQIP program?

Hon. T. Lake: As I mentioned, the ADM responsible for planning and innovation is currently reviewing with the Doctors of B.C. a program that is more comprehensive, that would look at pharmaceuticals and that would look at other clinical activities as well.

J. Darcy: Another program commenced in collaboration with physician groups — specifically, the General Practice Services Committee — was OPUS, which provided training to physicians on specific drugs, drugs identified by participating physicians. Can the minister provide us an update as to whether or not the OPUS program will be restarted?

Hon. T. Lake: The OPUS initiative, through the GPSC, was never really launched. Having said that, some of the sort of approach that OPUS and EQIP were being used for…. This is the subject of the work of our ADM in planning and innovation, working with researchers and the Doctors of B.C. to look at a program that would be broad-based and that would assist physicians in clinical practice.

J. Darcy: I’m going to ask if the minister could give me a response to this next question in writing, in the interest of time, since we have a lot still to cover.

Academic detailing is another program, one that we’ve discussed in previous estimates, that encourages better prescribing. The minister and I discussed it last year in estimates and the year before. At that time the minister said there were no plans to expand the academic detailing program.
[ Page 8698 ]

[1610]

I wonder if he could provide a written update of the academic detailing program’s current budget and staffing complement and its outreach efforts since the last fiscal year and whether the government has considered the case to expand the program to close the ratio, or begin to close the ratio, of academic detailers to pharmaceutical reps.

Interjection.

J. Darcy: Excellent.

Moving right along, Alzheimer’s drug therapy initiative. Research by the Alzheimer’s drug therapy initiative to determine the clinical effectiveness of cholinesterase inhibitors was halted for a prolonged period of time because of the events of 2012, the firing of health researchers. It is our understanding that the ministry restored the contract to ADTI in October 2013, and ministry briefing materials indicate that the decisions on listing cholinesterase inhibitors based on ADTI’s findings were to be made at the start of this year.

Given the absence of any announcements from the minister, can he tell us if he has received the research from the ADTI? If yes, what are the listing decisions?

Hon. T. Lake: The Alzheimer’s drug therapy initiative was launched in 2007. This was around the coverage for the cholinesterase inhibitors that the member mentioned. The drugs continue to be covered. The results of the research, which is ongoing…. It’s coming to an end. The contracting process was completed in February of 2014, and all that information is being put together. So we expect to have the final report and recommendations to the ministry this summer.

The Drug Benefit Council will review and provide recommendations late in 2015, and the ministry will then complete its listing decisions, again, in late 2015.

J. Darcy: I have two more questions, and I’m hoping that we can get them in before the break.

B.C.’s reputation as a centre for evidence-based research into drug efficacy and evaluation was built by the very divisions in the Ministry of Health that were targeted in the wrongful dismissals. What is the current capacity of the drug intelligence and optimization branch and the policy, outcomes evaluation and research branch, both in terms of their budgets and number of staff? How does that compare to 2011 levels? What steps is the minister taking to restore staff morale in this part of the ministry and its confidence that this government believes in evidence-based research?

Hon. T. Lake: I have information in this year’s budget. I will get the information for the prior year’s budget for the member — hopefully, before the end of the day.

[1615]

In terms of the drug intelligence division, the budget is $4,705,227, and there are 53.71 FTEs. In terms of policy outcomes, evaluation and research, the budget is $2,712,863. There are 24.6 FTEs.

We will look and see if we can get the former years. I’m told by my staff that the budget has essentially remained the same year to year, but we will confirm that and get the numbers to the member.

J. Darcy: The government is currently carrying out consultations on a new framework for health information management, I understand. It became clear from the Information and Privacy Commissioner’s round tables on this topic over the past year that B.C.’s health researchers are certainly champions for a strong and coherent privacy and information management system. They recognize that such a system helps foster confidence in health research and public health researchers and improves turnaround time for data access requests.

Has the ministry reached out to groups like therapeutics initiative and other drug safety researchers for their input on an improved framework governing patient privacy and access to data?

Hon. T. Lake: This is the consultation into any new health information act and where there’s a phased approach to the stakeholder engagement.

In phase 1 there were 26 different stakeholders, most of which, in the first phase, were around colleges and associations — so nursing associations; the nurses college; physician associations — Doctors of B.C. and the College of Physicians and Surgeons; the First Nations Health Authority; the Health Research Council of B.C. — that would include some drug safety researchers; the Medical Services Commission; the Midwives Association; patient care quality offices; and the Patient Voices Network.

Phase 2, A and B, will reach out further. Certainly, as we’re planning those phases, the therapeutics initiative and other drug safety researchers will have an opportunity for input.

A. Dix: A very quick question. We’ll come back, I think, to this tomorrow.

The minister will know that in September 2012, when the health researchers were fired, the ministry led its press release with a reference to the RCMP, to referring the matter to the RCMP — something that, in my view and the view of others, constituted a smear of the reputation of those employees well beyond what was required.

On February 23, 2015, the deputy minister wrote to several of those employees, saying: “I want to assure you that the Ministry of Health is not seeking a police investigation.”

My question, I guess, to the minister is this: will he today apologize to those employees for the smear of September 2012?
[ Page 8699 ]

Hon. T. Lake: We have already acknowledged that mistakes were made, and it has taken some time to get to where we are today. I have stood up in the House and apologized on behalf of government. In some of those cases the people were treated inappropriately.

We have done that. But we must remember that there was a real concern about the privacy of people’s personal health information. The Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner characterized, in her report, that “ministry employees were able to download large amounts of personal health data onto unencrypted flash drives and share it with unauthorized persons, undetected.”

[1620]

This is something that is very serious. Having said that, we know, with hindsight, that some of the public servants involved were treated in a way that was severe and over the top. We have apologized for those mistakes. We conducted a report, through Ms. McNeil, so that the Public Service Agency will review HR procedures to ensure that that doesn’t happen in the future.

A. Dix: I guess the answer, just to be clear…. I asked the minister for an apology to all of those employees for the smear regarding the RCMP, something that he didn’t give.

I just had a question. We’re going to continue on this tomorrow, so the minister may be able to get back to me on this. I understand that at the Ministry of Health building on Blanshard Street there are pictures of employees, with the security guards at the front, of people who are undesirable in the Ministry of Health, and that includes people who’ve been cleared in this matter.

I wonder if the minister, when we come back to this matter tomorrow, will be able to let me know whether that’s in fact the case, whether employees who were cleared are still in that book — in other words, still being treated in an unacceptable way — and whether he will agree, as I believe is the case, that those pictures should be removed.

I’ll, I guess, reserve our right to continue. But that’s my request — that he get to that information — because it seems, to me anyway, that most people would find that completely regrettable.

Hon. T. Lake: I certainly will get back to the member with the answer to his question, as he said he will be resuming that line of questions tomorrow. We can certainly do that.

With the Chair’s indulgence, I would seek a brief break for comfort purposes.

The Chair: This committee will recess for ten minutes.

The committee recessed from 4:21 p.m. to 4:32 p.m.

[D. Ashton in the chair.]

B. Ralston: I’m here to pose a question that’s been asked of me by a constituent, Errol Povah. In fact, Mr. Povah is here today. He’s that motivated that he wanted to come and see the answer that the minister would provide. He’s the president of Airspace Action on Smoking and Health and a determined anti-tobacco campaigner.

What he has asked me to raise is the issue of the sale of tobacco in pharmacies. The minister will be aware, I’m sure, that this province is the only province of the nine other provinces and the three territories that permits the sale of tobacco in pharmacies. I’m sure the minister will also be aware that many agencies, whether it’s the Canadian Cancer Society, whether it’s physicians…. There’s a broad spectrum of opinion that has lobbied repeatedly for this right or privilege enjoyed by pharmacies to be ended.

Some of the retailers have responded fairly strongly to such a suggestion. Indeed, at one point the College of Pharmacists was proposing to pass a regulation. A number of those retailers wrote a letter, including the representatives of London Drugs, the Overwaitea Group, Thrifty Foods, Rexall and Sobeys, all saying that they opposed that because it was outside the purview of the Pharmacy Act.

They said, “The college, no matter what its intentions, cannot appropriate to itself the role of the elected government to regulate the perfectly legal activities of retailers,” and they go on.

[1635]

Clearly, they acknowledge that this is in the purview of the Legislature and of the minister, and so the question is: will the minister commit to ending the right of pharmacies to sell tobacco in their retail premises?

Hon. T. Lake: To the member: his constituent, who is obviously very passionate about reducing the level of tobacco use, as I am…. My mom passed away as a result of tobacco use. She had her first heart attack at 48, developed lung cancer and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. I watched her die at home on palliative care, gasping for breath. My dad has chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. No one would want to see rates of smoking reduced more than me.

Having said that, I thought that if I ever got to be Health Minister, the first thing I would do is ban the sale of tobacco in pharmacies. Then I started looking into it and discussed this with the college. I’ve discussed it with my ministry. I’ve discussed it with some of the retailers the member mentions.

What’s clear to me in other jurisdictions is that wherever this legislation has passed, it’s like water finding its own level. What happens is that if you’ve got a Costco pharmacy that no longer can sell tobacco, a booth is set up outside to sell tobacco, essentially getting around the legislation. There is a constitutional right for people to carry out business with legally authorized products. They
[ Page 8700 ]
find those ways of getting around the legislation.

I’m interested in results, not appearance. There is an argument that is made that if you are selling tobacco, probably the two places you should sell it are in liquor stores, where there’s stringent control over the age, and in pharmacies, where there are medical practitioners, pharmacists, that can talk to people that are addicted to smoking and can help them with smoking cessation programs.

When you look at the rates of tobacco smoking in British Columbia versus every other province, we have a lower rate. Now, it’s hard to ascribe that to any one thing. But it’s clear to me that just because other jurisdictions do a certain thing, it doesn’t guarantee you results.

I totally understand the member’s constituent’s concern, and I have the same goal as him — to reduce smoking, particularly among young people. But I do not believe, with the evidence I have seen, that banning the sale of tobacco in pharmacies is the answer and will result in a reduction of tobacco use.

B. Ralston: I’m sure Mr. Povah would want me to point out, I suppose, the incongruity of every other province and every other territory having it wrong and B.C. having it right and, secondly, that it still would be possible to sell smoking cessation products in a pharmacy — that would be entirely appropriate — without accompanying that by the sale of tobacco products.

As for an objection that somehow if a law is passed, people will find a way around it, one could say that for any law that the Legislature passes or that the parliament passes. It’s hardly, I would suggest, a very strong or convincing argument.

I know that tomorrow the minister may be meeting with the B.C. branch of the Canadian Cancer Society, Vancouver Island branch, and there are people there who will be making a very similar case to the one I’ve just made. I’d urge the minister to consider his position and perhaps the possibility that other provinces and other territories have it right and British Columbia does not.

With that, unless the minister wants to respond, I wanted to move to a question.

Hon. T. Lake: The member said he didn’t think I had convincing evidence. I’d challenge the member to produce evidence that shows other provinces have seen a reduction in smoking and tobacco use since such legislation was passed. We have not seen evidence of that. It may win him some political points, but it is results that we are interested in. I know he is actually interested in results. We all want fewer people to be smoking. If there was convincing evidence that passing such legislation actually resulted in reduced smoking rates, I would do it tomorrow.

[1640]

B. Ralston: Well, it wasn’t my intention, given the time, to engage in a lengthy debate. I have one other question. I’m sure that’s an issue that will be pursued and will be the subject of subsequent submissions to the minister on the points that he’s raised.

I have another constituent, whose name is Husam Ai Abuhasanein and who is originally a Palestinian, now a Canadian. He trained to be a nurse in Palestine at an American college, worked in the Gulf States not only as a nurse but as a charge nurse in a hospital. He came to Canada, and in a common experience, his credentials were not recognized.

Bearing that in mind, he entered, after a long wait, Vancouver Community College and completed the medical device reprocessing technician program. I have his certificate, his marks — I have his consent for all these — an evaluation summary with his name and some comments on his work habits, all of which are exemplary.

[The bells were rung.]

B. Ralston: Well, we’ll resume that after we come back.

The Chair: This committee will recess until after the vote.

The committee recessed from 4:41 p.m. to 4:55 p.m.

[D. Ashton in the chair.]

B. Ralston: I just want to resume the question that I was beginning at the point that we broke. I was asking about my constituent Husam Ai Abuhasanein.

I provided the minister’s staff with the certificates. He completed this certificate. You’ll also note — and I have his authorization to do this — his exam results: in the final interview, 98 percent; the mid-term review, 93 percent; strong personal qualities, in terms of speed of work, quantity of work, attitude, dependability, initiative, attendance, personal appearance, knowledge of work, adaptability, overall rating.

He applied to Fraser Health. Apparently, there’s a requirement…. There are a number of postings for this position — never been hired. He applied to Coastal Health for these positions — never been hired.

His question is, given his medical experience…. In fact, in one of the comments, it says: “His previous experience in the medical field is an asset to Husam’s performance. He’s able to comprehend easily.” Given his experience, given his exam results, given his personal qualities, his question is: why has he never been hired?

I can speculate about that. I’m sure the minister can too. But he seems eminently qualified, has never been hired and essentially, I’m afraid to say, has given up after repeated rebuffs through this process.

I’m wondering if the minister could answer that question. I’ll expect not an answer now but in writing at a subsequent date.
[ Page 8701 ]

J. Rice: I’m going to dive right into the Rural Health Services in B.C. policy paper.

My first question is in regards to funding, the funding of this policy project. How is it funded? Where are the funds coming from to take on this endeavour?

[1700]

Hon. T. Lake: The work on the policy papers that we have been working on for the last year and a half, most of which are out to public consultation, stakeholder consultation…. Most of that work is done by staff, and that would appear under the stewardship and corporate services line item in the Ministry of Health budget, which for ’15-16 is $224.271 million.

J. Rice: Getting right into the report, looking at access to care in urban centres, health authorities will be required to outline pathways for patients that enable access to higher levels of care in larger population centres. Will out-patient funding and resources be included in this plan, such as out-patient and family support accommodations?

Hon. T. Lake: As I said, these papers are currently in the consultation phase, so we are gathering all the information back from the stakeholders. We’ll be synthesizing all that information over the summer, with implementation plans starting in the fall.

As the member knows, we have a travel assistance program at the moment which assists people that are travelling for specialist appointments outside of their home community. That is typically oversubscribed, and we have actually used more than the budgeted amount, because we want to help people as much as possible that face those challenges of having to go outside of their community for care.

As I mentioned, these papers will be reviewed with all the input that’s come in, and issues like support in community for travel may form part of the input that we receive and be synthesized over the summer.

J. Rice: Over the first three months since the completion of the policy paper, the aim for the working group was to achieve “a good level of consensus across key partner and stakeholder groups of what the final set of specific actions should be.” It’s on page 39.

Since those first three months after the policy paper has concluded…. My questions. How did those stakeholders consultations go? Was there consensus within discussion? If so, what was the consensus decision? If not, what were the dividing issues in those discussions?

Hon. T. Lake: Just seeking a little bit of clarity, because we have a number of policy papers. Is the member referring to the rural health policy paper or the Setting Priorities for the B.C. Health System policy paper?

J. Rice: I’m referring to Rural Health Services in B.C.: A Policy Framework.

The Chair: Thanks, Member.

Hon. T. Lake: We are still synthesizing information. We have had a number of stakeholder engagements. My deputy informs me that we’ve had broad support for the document.

[1705]

Some of the things that we outline in the document, like community paramedicine, we are actually already starting to pilot in three Northern Health communities. Some of the things we can move on more quickly. With other things, we’ll wait until we get all of the input back and synthesize and put together implementation plans over the summer.

As the member probably can appreciate, there are a lot of concepts in this paper that will take a number of years to implement. When we talk about housing stock for seniors, for instance, that’s not something that can be turned around tomorrow. It’s something that we have to have a long-term plan for.

In working with the seniors advocate, she’s identified some of those concerns in rural areas. You don’t have the same spectrum of options available that you would in an urban centre, so we need a degree of flexibility in an approach to seniors care in rural communities. That’s something that…. We’re getting that information in, and we’ll be putting it together over the summer and the fall.

J. Rice: My next question was in regards to implementation, but I’m guessing that if you’re still synthesizing information, there are no plans as far as implementation goes. Have we started timing of that? Are there any documents on the implementation?

Hon. T. Lake: As I mentioned, it will take some time to implement many of the recommendations, but the first tranche of actions will be outlined in the detailed working papers from each health authority. That will cover the time period from October 1 to March 31 of 2016. That’s outlined in the mandate letters to health authorities. They have to provide detailed working papers by October 1 which outline the actions they will take to implement the recommendations of the policy papers.

J. Rice: Have there been any barriers to timing of implementation or aspects of policy direction that cannot be implemented?

Hon. T. Lake: We’re not at the implementation stage, so I can’t really speak to that question.

J. Rice: I would like to move on to the surgery wait times. I’m still referring to the same report. The policy
[ Page 8702 ]
paper does not clearly explain how surgical and related wait times will be reduced. Can the minister provide further information on how he plans to mitigate the rural issue of access to specialized care?

[1710]

Hon. T. Lake: The paper, I think, does a very good job of identifying the level of expectation for different levels of health service throughout the province, breaking down communities into large urban communities, such as we would have in Burnaby or Vancouver, where there are 175,000 or more people. The level of care that you would expect to see in a large urban centre like that would be highly specialized care, with subspecialties that meet the tertiary care needs of surrounding community and health authority–wide referrals.

Then we get down to the urban centre, 75,000 to 175,000. So these would be Kamloops, Kelowna situations where you’d have specialty medical surgical and intensive care, but you wouldn’t have the sort of quaternary care that you would get in a centre like Vancouver, for instance.

Small urban, 20,000 to 75,000. You’d get general in-patient care and some specialized services such as general surgery and critical care and in-patient psychiatry, diagnostics, mental health teams. And then rural, which are 3,500 to about 20,000, where the level of specialized care would go down.

You can see the sort of breakdown that we’re talking about here. In certain highly dense areas of the province you would have that very specialized care. So it’s a referral process coming up from less populated areas of the province through the system.

Health authorities have been tasked to create patient pathways to support primary and community care in smaller communities with access through telehealth and other modalities to connect in with specialized care and make sure that the referral from a smaller community to a larger community where specialized care is required is smooth.

That’s what the health authorities will be working on. So if I’m Interior Health Authority, for instance, I have to ask myself the question: if a patient is sitting in Clearwater that needs to have highly specialized surgical care, what is that patient journey through that system? With primary and community care and support through to a referral centre like Kamloops or Kelowna, how does that patient make their way through that system?

I can tell you that some of that, obviously, is going on now. I can cite an example that I’m very familiar with, which is a constituent who was experiencing some chest pains in Barriere, which is about 45 minutes north of Kamloops, and went to the Barriere community centre, saw the physician, had a point-of-care test done. The enzyme that reflects a heart attack was elevated. The helicopter flew him directly to Kelowna. He had his stents put in that night by seven o’clock and was home three days later.

That’s how it should work, and that’s what we’re trying to make sure happens in each case — that there’s a smooth referral system to make sure that people in rural areas of the province have access to specialized care.

J. Rice: The paper states that in 2015-16 “regional health authorities will develop three-year local community plans for all rural and remote communities to create environments that foster healthy behaviours. The first set of community plans will start in 2016-17 and be refreshed every three years, with updates on progress provided annually.”

My question is: what will be included in the regional health authority three-year local community plans, and how will the plans be organized?

Hon. T. Lake: That goes back to the detailed working papers that will be submitted by health authorities on October 1. They will have to outline their health promotion and disease prevention strategies as per the policy paper that we’ve created. So we’ll see how they’re going to meet these goals outlined in the policy paper in their detailed working papers that are due in October.

J. Rice: Just a point for my clarification. Was this work that he’s referring to, to be done for April, not October? Am I confusing other deadlines?

Hon. T. Lake: Well, the first set of community plans will start in 2016-17. That will be once…. The detailed working papers will cover the period October 1 to March 31. So in those working papers it will outline how the strategy will be implemented on April 1 of 2016.

J. Rice: The community plans. Where will the information on the progress be provided? Will this be accessible?

[1715]

Hon. T. Lake: These plans will start in terms of on-the-ground work April 1 of 2016, and there will be yearly updates and reports. Those reports will be publically available. The first one will be due April 1 of 2017.

J. Rice: The policy paper states that the Ministry of Health, through the health services policy and quality assurance
[ Page 8703 ]
division, will establish “public reporting, monitoring and impact/outcome assessment mechanisms for deployment starting April 2015.” Has the public reporting, monitoring and impact/outcome assessment commenced since last month?

Hon. T. Lake: Page 44 of the document talks about accountability and implementation. The Ministry of Health, through the health services policy and quality assurance division, has established a working group that is putting the framework together for public reporting, monitoring and impact/outcome assessment. That work has started in April. The work is ongoing and probably will be implemented in the fall.

The work is ongoing. The question is: was the establishment of the framework to start in April, or was the actual finished product to be deployed starting in April? Regardless, the work is ongoing, and we haven’t completed it yet, ready for deployment, but we hope to have that done by the fall.

J. Rice: Come fall will the public be able to access information, and if so, where?

Hon. T. Lake: The framework will include public reporting on health authority websites as well as the ministry website.

D. Donaldson: I’m going to ask a question about ophthalmological services.

Hon. T. Lake: Not microbiology?

D. Donaldson: Yes, we’ve canvassed that in the past, haven’t we, Minister?

The purpose is to provide the minister a chance to update on the record the actions his ministry has taken in regards to this issue.

[1720]

I got a letter from an optometrist in Smithers, Dr. Barry Lester, March 3 around concerns he had about ophthalmological services in the northwest of B.C., an area that services about 60,000 people for that type of service. I brought it to the attention of the minister on March 12, approximately.

At that point the situation was that the only ophthalmologist for the northwest was on unanticipated medical leave for three to seven months. The optometrist in Smithers, Dr. Barry Lester, informed me and wrote a letter saying that wait times were already 12 months for a consult with an ophthalmological surgeon or eye doctor in Terrace, let alone a three-month wait after that for surgery. For something as simple or as treatable as a cataract, it’s a big issue for people to improve their quality of life.

He described the situation as people sitting in limbo for that kind of service and wondered about actions that could be taken, having not just a one-off but a continual rota, perhaps, of ophthalmological locums to cover off the loss of Dr. Nagy’s services in Terrace.

He also pointed out that referring patients to on-call ophthalmological services in Prince George at a hospital there wasn’t exactly the best use of emergency care, let alone a seven-hour drive for some people in the constituency of Stikine in order to get there.

I just wanted to know if there were any updates on how that issue and that coverage has been worked out by his ministry in connection with Northern Health and other agencies.

Hon. T. Lake: Ophthalmological services are available in Terrace, Fort St. John and Prince George. Northern Health assures the ministry that they have enough ophthalmologists to meet the needs of the region. But they have recognized the need to address access to operating room time for those ophthalmologists to ensure that all patients are able to get their procedures done as quickly as possible.

They recently completed a request for qualification process and are finalizing a contract which will, in fact, increase surgical capacity for these specialized services.

In the northwest, where the member is concerned, almost everyone receives a surgery within 26 weeks, and all waits are less than 52 weeks. As the member mentioned, the ophthalmologist who normally provides services in Terrace is on a temporary personal leave of absence, but Northern Health has secured locum services during that time. People should not experience a wait through those locum services.

There may be urgent cases that do need to be seen in Prince George, which would include potential travel time. The Northern Health connections bus is available for patients that need to travel to Prince George for that service.

D. Donaldson: Just a quick follow-up to that. The surgical capacity, as far as the perspective I got, wasn’t necessarily as pressing an issue — a three-month wait for that — as the 12 months for a consult with an ophthalmological service in Terrace for people in the northwest.

When the minister said that the locum situation has dealt with that, is he able to inform whether that is a full-time locum coverage, equivalent to the service that was being provided by the ophthalmological doctor who is on medical leave right now? In other words, is it a full-time consultation service that the other doctor provided, as well as the surgery?

Hon. T. Lake: My information is that locum coverage has been secured, but I’m unable to determine if that’s the same number of hours of availability as the regular ophthalmologist. I will find that out and get that information to the member.

J. Rice: Following up on the ophthalmology question, I just wanted to clarify that Prince George, which has a catchment area of approximately 80,000, has three ophthalmologists. The ophthalmologist that’s currently on leave out of Terrace has a catchment area of approximately the same amount of people but in a large geographical area.

[1725]

Regardless of the temporary interruptions, it’s been brought to my attention by optometrists in the northwest
[ Page 8704 ]
that there is a need for a second ophthalmologist. There is appetite in other northwest communities, and ophthalmologists from the Lower Mainland have expressed interest in working in the north.

I guess my question would be if the minister would follow up and investigate the issue of ophthalmology service in the northwest.

Hon. T. Lake: Well, as I mentioned, the Northern Health Authority assures us that the ophthalmological services in the north are adequate and meet the standard that you would see in other parts of the province, in terms of areas of similar size.

You know, it is a balance that you always have to strike in terms of the amount of services that are available and the frequency with which that specialist is going to be performing their work. One of the keys to ensuring quality is making sure you see enough cases. If there’s an oversupply of any particular speciality, they may not see enough cases to provide the level of quality that is necessary.

My information is that the north is covered well with ophthalmology. When someone goes off — on a personal leave or for whatever reason — unexpectedly, then Northern Health works diligently to provide locum services to fill that gap.

J. Rice: I’m now going to refer to the two policy papers — again, the rural health services framework and the policy paper Future Directions for Surgical Services.

My question is: is there potential to integrate the priorities identified in both of those ministry policy papers, specifically around the reciprocal need to (1) address urban surgical wait times and (2) sustain small-volume rural surgical services?

[P. Pimm in the chair.]

Hon. T. Lake: The short answer on whether these papers are going to be integrated is yes.

In terms of surgical services, as I mentioned before, the rural paper does a very good job of breaking down what you could expect to see in different communities of different sizes. In small urban communities, 20,000 to 75,000, you would see some specialized services such as general surgery. When you get into smaller communities, it gets more difficult to provide general surgery, although you may see some day surgeries.

What we are attempting to do is integrate and make sure that for rural communities of a particular size, there is general surgery going on and that the volumes are there to support general surgery.

[1730]

What happens when you don’t have the volumes is you don’t attract the team members. It’s not just surgeons. It’s anaesthetists, and that could be GP-anaesthetists. It’s surgical nurses and all the team that surrounds having general surgery go on in a community. We want to ensure that that activity does occur in some of these smaller communities between 3,500 and 20,000, where possible.

There are times when the volumes are not large enough to support such a team. A good example at the moment was the Lakes District Hospital and community health centre that we just opened late last year — a beautiful, beautiful, state-of-the-art hospital in Burns Lake. They are unable to run a maternity program because they don’t have a large enough volume of surgical team members to provide that safety net that, of course, we’ve come to expect in today’s approach to medicine and surgery.

The goal would be to make sure that the volumes are there, that the teams are there where we can support those teams. Where there isn’t enough critical mass to maintain that volume — which again, as I mentioned, is necessary for quality — then we need to make sure that the patient pathway to the next urban centre where that level of care is available is seamless.

J. Rice: Is there a strategy for defining the provincial policy for rural health care, Closer to Home, with aspirational targets for level of services based on population need? It’s a long question, I realize.

Hon. T. Lake: The goal would be, as mentioned, with the breakdown by size of community, that you would have a core set of services that would be available to a community of that size and then look for opportunities to increase that level of service. One of the keys is the availability of the health care team, which I mentioned.

A very good example that comes to mind is in Ashcroft, a small rural community about an hour outside of Kamloops, where you have a husband-and-wife team of general practitioners supporting the emergency department at the hospital. But that results in them never having time off together, so one of them has made the decision to practise in another community. That leaves only one person there, so the system hasn’t got a critical mass that can be sustainable.

While we expect a core level of services and try to provide a core level of services, we look for opportunities to increase that as the team develops in the community and as that community grows.

But we always have to be aware that the sustainability of those teams is somewhat fragile in smaller communities because, for whatever reason…. And it could be unexpected. It could be that someone retires. It could be that someone makes a decision to practice in another area. It could be some unfortunate event that affects key members of that health care team, and there’s no way of snapping your fingers and replacing that person.

It is always looking for opportunities to increase services while not creating expectations that are simply not sustainable, given the critical mass necessary to maintain the service.
[ Page 8705 ]

J. Rice: My next question would be in regards to telehealth services. The minister has mentioned that already. It’s been a huge benefit for some of the rural and remote communities that I represent. Telehealth is primarily used for specialist care. I wanted to ask the minister if there is any appetite for using it for primary care in some of the really remote and dispersed populations.

Hon. T. Lake: The member is very correct in characterizing the difference this has made, particularly with specialist care. You have an opportunity for someone in a small community that is hours — many hours, in some circumstances — from a major urban centre to access a specialist with amazing technology through telehealth. That has made a tremendous difference.

[1735]

I was visiting the Kelowna General Hospital, and a neurologist was showing me how, using his iPad, he could communicate with an emergency doctor in Trail and have a CT scan done on a possible stroke patient. Looking at the CT results on his iPad, talking to the patient through FaceTime, he was able to give a recommendation to the emergency doctor to provide a clot-busting drug to treat the stroke. That’s the kind of difference telehealth can make to rural communities. It’s phenomenal.

In terms of primary and community care, those services are available through private companies like Medeo, for instance. There’s another — Livecare. They do provide and can access MSP billing to provide primary care.

Now, here’s the thing. Telehealth was designed to help rural and remote communities, primarily. When we reviewed the use of this type of telehealth for primary care consultation, we found that it’s primarily used by younger people in urban centres. The question is: is that an appropriate use? Is that good longitudinal care to have a virtual walk-in clinic, essentially, without that continuity of care that you get visiting a family physician or a nurse practitioner on a regular basis?

We are looking at that issue. We want to make sure that telehealth is being used in the most appropriate way to ensure value for money for taxpayers but, most importantly, the appropriate kind of service that patients expect and deserve.

J. Rice: Is there an interministerial strategic plan to secure and support training of physicians within a new full-scope and generalist paradigm that is needed to support rural communities?

Hon. T. Lake: We’ve done a lot of work with Ministry of Advanced Education, with the faculty of medicine at UBC. The UBC distributed-learning program is held up around the country, if not the world, as a remarkable achievement to train medical students in four different areas of the province and to send them out to do family residencies in many more communities, like Kamloops.

It means that practitioners are more likely to end up practising in rural areas where they’ve seen practice, where they trained, than if you have them all centred in large urban centres like Vancouver or Victoria.

Also, if you look at the shift that has occurred between specialists and family practitioners…. We had far too many medical school students, upon graduation, going into specialist streams and not enough going into family practice. That has shifted. There’s been a conscious effort on the parts of groups like the Doctors of B.C., like the faculty of medicine, like the Ministry of Health, to say to students and to the faculty of medicine: “We need more generalists, and we need to support generalists that will go out there.” They need to have confidence in their skill set, and they need to work in rural areas and get to know what it’s like.

You’re dealing with things without, perhaps, the support directly next to you that you would have in a large urban centre. That takes a specialized kind of training and experience. The program is actually working. We are seeing more and more family practitioners graduating and more and more of them practising in rural B.C. In fact, we have 103 more physicians practising in rural B.C. today than we did just a few years ago.

J. Rice: I’m going to move on to the travel assistance program. In October 2014, I asked the minister to adjust the program to alleviate the financial burden for families flying out of remote communities for medical attention.

At the time, he said: “We are always reviewing the travel assistance program.” My question is: can the minister provide me with an update on where the TAP review is at?

[1740]

Hon. T. Lake: The travel assistance program helps alleviate some of the transportation costs for eligible B.C. residents who have to travel within the province for specialist services that aren’t available in their own community, as the member knows.

In 2004 the ministry assumed financial responsibility for travel assistance program ferry travel subsidies, so payment is made to B.C. Ferries. Most of the travel assistance program is by the way of ferry service.

In 2014-15 there were 124,215 travel assistance program approvals. That’s an increase of 3.9 percent over 2013-14, certainly outpacing population growth. Most of those, as I said, were for fully subsidized ferry travel.

The first part of what we’re reviewing is looking at all the different modes of travel. As I said, ferry is 96.2 percent of that, but there’s also rail, bus, flights and so on. Then what we’ve also looked at is the number of trips that patients are making. We’ve broken it down into from one to five trips. How many patients does that involve? And then, you know, are they seniors? Are they on premium assistance? What is the sort of demographic of the people
[ Page 8706 ]
that are going for those trips between one and five times a year? Then, six to ten times a year — what is the demographic of those folks? — and 11 to 20, 21 to 30 and then greater than 30. There are a number of people that access travel assistance more than 30 times in a year.

The next part of the review, now that we’ve broken down the data to that extent, is to actually look at those patients and say: why are they travelling? Are they accessing specialized services around transplant, around cancer? What exactly are they accessing? If there are some large pieces there that we can see, perhaps we can have a different approach. Maybe increased use of telehealth will actually help us reduce the amount of travel that those folks will have to take.

[1745]

The review, as I say, is ongoing. We hope to have most of the data and the crunching done over the summer. Again, in the fall, with the implementation of our policy papers, this information will be integrated into the rural health paper when we get to the implementation stage.

J. Rice: Can the minister answer if they’re planning on making any adjustments to the TAPS program at this time?

Hon. T. Lake: We’re waiting for the review, obviously, before making decisions on any adjustments. As I said, we’ve got an $11 million budget. If we can divert some of those visits with a different strategy — whether it’s telehealth or whether it’s having specialist clinics at certain times in certain communities — that would provide room in the budget for supporting more people or more services. That is what the review is intended to show, and we’re not there yet.

J. Rice: In April 2015 the member for Peace River South talked about that $11 million. He spoke about $10.8 million in funding for travel assistance programs for people in rural and remote B.C.

My question is a question of clarification. Was this $10.8 million in funding specific to people in rural and remote B.C.? And if it was specific to rural and remote B.C., can the minister tell me how much funding the government provided for the entire program?

Hon. T. Lake: The program is open to all residents of British Columbia. It’s for accessing specialized services outside of their home community. Of course, that wouldn’t count if you’re in Vancouver or Victoria or most of the major centres. The vast majority of people accessing this program would come from the rural areas of the province.

J. Rice: The member for Peace River South spoke about 119,000 trips. Can the minister provide a breakdown of the regions for these trips? How many were rural and remote? Speaking about the different classifications of populations — rural-remote, urban, etc. — if he could provide a breakdown of how many trips in those particular regions were taken through the TAPS program.

Hon. T. Lake: As I mentioned previously, for the vast majority — I think over 96 percent of the patients accessing the travel assistance program — it was for ferry use. I think it’s safe to say that the vast majority were in more rural areas of the coastal communities.

J. Rice: I’m wondering if the minister could provide documentation of these stats that he quotes.

Hon. T. Lake: Here is the documentation. There were 124,215 travel assistance program approvals for 2014-15 — as I mentioned, an increase of 3.9 percent over the previous year.

By air there were 1,556 people; Angel Flight, seven people; bus, ten people; ferry, 122,589 people; rail, 53 people.

J. Rice: Keeping with the theme of travel assistance, could the minister provide the utilization rate of the northern connections health bus?

[1750]

Hon. T. Lake: Health connections buses are run by several health authorities, and they receive funding from the Ministry of Health to meet the unique needs of selected communities. In terms of the specifics around the Northern Health Authority health connections bus, I’m sorry; I don’t have the utilization data. I will endeavour to get it and provide it to the member.

J. Rice: In relation to that, I was hoping that, in writing, I could receive, at your earliest convenience, the breakdown of trips and the utilization of trips. For example, what’s the utilization rate of a Prince Rupert–to–Prince George trip or the utilization rate of Prince Rupert to Vancouver or of Prince George to Vancouver? I’m just looking at the sections of the route and what’s over- or underutilized. I’d like to examine that.

Hon. T. Lake: I’d be happy to provide that, if that data is broken down to that level. We will make the inquiries with the health authority.

J. Rice: Thank you to the minister for that. Moving on to surgical services, a surgical services review was done recently for Northern Health. This review has had significant implications. The report is not public, but I’ve had questions from constituents who have seen it and are concerned about what next steps Northern Health may make in regard to surgical services.

I’ve written to Northern Health and met with the COO for the northwest region but have not received as-
[ Page 8707 ]
surances in writing. I haven’t received assurances that there’ll be a full and extensive consultation with affected communities across Northern Health before any of the recommendations of the report are implemented or further explored.

My question to the minister is: could he commit to a robust public consultation process in regard to surgical services provided in the northwest?

Hon. T. Lake: As mentioned, Northern Health commissioned an independent review of their surgical services to help them improve those services across the health authority.

They are reviewing the recommendations and want to ensure that any changes will be appropriate and meet patients’ needs in communities. They will be consulting with stakeholders during that process, and they have assured us that any actions will be tailored to meet the needs of each community. That review will help inform the work the ministry is doing with health authorities and the Doctors of B.C. to improve how surgeries are coordinated.

[1755]

The member knows that we have a paper on surgical services in terms of the whole province and looking at decreasing wait times and coordinating access and scheduling of surgeries. The work that Northern Health has done will help to inform that paper as we go forward and consult on that paper as well. The review will be taken out to stakeholders. I think that’s what the member is looking for. Northern Health says they will be doing that.

J. Rice: When I posed my question, I said: “Would there be consultations for the northwest?” The surgical review conducted by Northern Health reviewed the northeast as well, and I care as much about the northwest as I do the northeast.

The paper, which hasn’t been implemented — and I’ve now been assured that there will be public consultation, should those recommendations be implemented — proposed some pretty dramatic changes on how surgeries would be performed in the northwest. Specifically, it talks about a hub and spoke model, essentially removing a lot of services from Prince Rupert and centralizing them in Terrace, Prince Rupert now being one of the spokes. The same thing for the northeast — the same hub and spoke model is proposed.

I guess I would just like to put on the record that I as well as many people feel that Prince Rupert is its own hub in its own way, in the sense that it does service a lot of outlying communities, including Haida Gwaii and a lot of aboriginal communities.

I just wanted to put on the record that some of the aboriginal communities listed in the rural policy framework that we were just speaking of…. It doesn’t even list all the communities within the northwest. The actual catchment area of Prince Rupert is larger than is even documented in the ministry’s own records.

Again, those constituents that raised the issue of this internal report have expressed strong needs, that they would like the Prince Rupert Regional Hospital to remain as such, a regional hospital providing surgical services. I just wanted to make sure that that was identified here now.

I wanted to ask if the minister is aware of what next steps Northern Health plans in regards to some of the issues identified in the report. For example, it’s been identified that there’s been a high prevalence of unnecessary Caesarean sections performed due to scheduling conflicts with physicians. I’m wondering if the minister could comment on next steps with this report.

Hon. T. Lake: Again, this was an external report. It is taken under advice by Northern Health and recommends a hub and spoke model. When we talked about surgery earlier, we talked about the need for volume. It’s critical, if you’re doing surgery, that there be a necessary volume. I know if I’m having surgery, I’d rather go to some surgeon that’s doing a lot of those procedures than one who only does one once a week.

Having said that, as communities grow and the volume increases, there are always opportunities to increase the services. We’ve talked about that, looking for opportunistic times when we can increase that service. When you look at Prince Rupert, for instance, as the member knows, there’s a lot of activity — real economic activity now but potential economic activity and population growth — in that region. Then the volumes, of course, would go up, and that changes the kinds of service levels that you would expect to have, because then you’ve got volumes necessary to maintain quality.

Northern Health has said that they are not implementing these without first assessing whether the recommendations make sense in the context of the whole health care delivery system, whether or not they have the capacity to implement those recommendations that they do happen to agree with — they don’t necessarily agree with them all — and what’s acceptable for those communities.

This is a process of having a recommendation put forward, going out to communities, looking at the capacity, looking at potential growth in those communities and then implementing any of those recommendations that make sense in the context of the whole region and the work that’s going on provincially. So no implementation steps taken at this time until further work is done on consultation.

[1800]

J. Rice: I’d like to move on to midwifery and maternity services in rural areas. Last year in these estimates the minister was unable to provide specifics in challenges
[ Page 8708 ]
and opportunities with regards to maternity care on Haida Gwaii. I guess what I wanted to ask was: will the new facility…? He knows. He was there for the groundbreaking. The new hospital in Queen Charlotte is nearing completion. We should be having a ribbon cutting in the near future.

My question will be: will the new facility provide service so that complicated births will be able to take place in the new hospital in Haida Gwaii?

Hon. T. Lake: The Haida Gwaii general hospital hopefully will be open in the spring of 2016, so we are a little bit away from the opening. It will have public health, mental health and addictions, home and community care services, as well as local physician and emergency services.

There are a total of nine beds, including eight acute care and one dedicated labour, delivery and recovery suite, and a new home and community care house with eight residential care beds for clients with complex needs, as well as diagnostic, imaging, laboratory and pharmacy services — at a cost of $50 million. We’re looking forward to the opening of the new facility.

Now, having said that, there is a midwife that is working collaboratively with general practitioners on Haida Gwaii. There is a low volume of births in Queen Charlotte. I think in 2013-14 there were 12, and they didn’t have Caesarean section capacity. With the new infrastructure there will be capacity in terms of the actual physical infrastructure. The question that I can’t answer at this time is whether there will be enough of the care team in place.

[1805]

I mentioned this at Burns Lake, where they have a beautiful new community hospital but they don’t have the volumes necessary to keep a surgical team — I believe there are about 12 members of a team — that has to be ready if something goes wrong in a C-section or a live birth.

I don’t know the answer to the member’s question except to say that the facility, I believe, will be able to handle it. Whether the volume and the care team are large enough, I don’t know at this time. I will endeavour to find that out.

J. Rice: Well, I don’t know that midwife on Haida Gwaii. I’ve had many constituents write to me to talk about her commendable services. I just wanted to acknowledge that. But obviously, there are limits to what the midwife can do on Haida Gwaii.

I’ve been clear that there have been challenges where people are separated from their families and their support networks in that time of need for a month or more before their due date. They’re often sitting in Prince Rupert or in the Lower Mainland. So it would be great if we could provide that service. Saying that, that may not be feasible, as the minister has outlined.

On that note, just on the hospital, before I lose this thought. Forgive me if this is out of place, but I just wanted to make sure that I was invited to the ribbon cutting in the spring of 2016. I did think the opening was in the fall of 2015, so perhaps I have my dates confused and I’m a little bit over-anxious. But I’m putting it out there with his ministry staff there to include me on the invitation for that.

The minister spoke about the services that were provided in that hospital. He spoke about the eight long-term-care beds. Currently the hospital in the Queen Charlottes has eight long-term-care beds. They’re designated long-term-care beds, but they’re over capacity and have been for some time. The last time I visited a few months ago, acute care beds were being occupied by long-term-care patients.

My question would be to the minister. Does he see that being a potential problem — that we’re building a new hospital with, again, only eight long-term-care beds? Currently that’s not serving the needs of the population.

Hon. T. Lake: The member can be assured the invitation is in the mail.

The business plan that’s put forward for a health care facility, any capital like this, looks at population needs. So Northern Health…. I can’t recall the business plan for this. It was done before my time. But the business plan would have outlined the current and future needs for the facility, including the residential care beds. I can just say that that would have been taken into account in the business plan. I presume, then, that Northern Health has determined, through the demographics and the expected population growth, that eight residential care beds would meet the needs of the community.

J. Rice: Last year during estimates the minister spoke about developing and administering a midwife emergency skills program — something important to support midwifery. My question is: how effective has the program been since its development?

[1810]

Hon. T. Lake: The Midwives Association and the ministry reached a five-year agreement on February 13 of this year. That agreement is between April 1, 2014, as the old agreement had expired, and March 31, 2019.

As part of that, there was funding for continuing midwifery education, which would include the program the member is referring to. There’s about $620,000 over the course of the five-year agreement for midwifery education. As I said, this has just been implemented in February of this year, so we don’t have any outcomes at this time, just a few months later.

J. Rice: The Midwives Association of B.C. has shared two role-related barriers that midwives face, which I’d like to ask about on their behalf. There are now midwives
[ Page 8709 ]
established in remote, low-volume communities, such as Haida Gwaii, Hazelton and Invermere, where they’ve worked tirelessly to stabilize the maternity care services in the area but are unable to make a reasonable level of income due to a low number of births.

My question is: what is the minister doing to regulate the income for rural midwives who are not able to guarantee steady clientele numbers?

Hon. T. Lake: Well, we always have to remember — and I’ve mentioned this a couple of times — that you have to have a certain level of volume to maintain quality and, obviously, if you’re a provider, to have an income. It’s simply…. We recognize that rural and remote communities have challenges in terms of accessing services because of the low volumes.

We do have a fee advisory committee that is looking at the terms of remuneration for midwives. I mentioned the continuing education support and the renewal of the midwifery rural services subsidy agreement, which allows for about $1.6 million in funding for the rural midwifery locum program and $680,000 for the midwifery rural practice and support grant program. So we do, within reasonable limits of the taxpayer, support low-volume, rural practice. This agreement with the midwives, I think, is a good example of that.

J. Rice: There are also many rural and remote communities that are in need of midwifery services, but the Midwives Association of B.C. is challenged to recruit or retain providers without the ability to adequately compensate them once they make the commitment to start up a practice.

[1815]

My question is: what is the minister doing to increase recruitment rates for those communities that are in need of midwifery services but are unable to obtain the services?

Hon. T. Lake: The answer is much the same as the previous one. The expansion of the rural and remote practice support programs and locum programs for midwives does encourage midwives to set up practice in these communities. Obviously, if you don’t have access to locum services, you never get away. So that is helping to recruit midwives into those rural communities, and I mentioned the other program as well.

Again, within a degree of reasonableness, we’re trying to support the ability for smaller communities to have access to midwife services.

J. Rice: My next question is: how effective has the maternity care for BC program — which is training family primary care practitioners in home birthing — been to date?

Hon. T. Lake: The paper that was developed — Primary Maternity Care: Moving Forward Together — in February of 2014 includes a General Practitioner Services Committee. That’s a committee of the Ministry of Heath and Doctors of B.C. providing incentives like maternity care for BC and the maternity network initiative to attract and support physicians in obstetrical work. We also have the C-section task force, the new midwife academic seats at UBC, and I mentioned the rural midwifery supports.

That work is ongoing. It’s early days, so we don’t have an evaluation of it at this particular time, but we’ve identified it as one of the priorities for rural health services and maternity services throughout the province, through the paper. It included a lot of stakeholder consultation over the last number of years, working up to this report. I certainly can provide this report to the member.

Hon. Chair, if you’ll permit me just a few seconds, I wanted to, because tomorrow will be our last day in estimates, just mention and thank some members of our staff that have been supporting me over the last several weeks of estimates, including Steve Brown, Lynn Stevenson, Sabine Feulgen, Anne Stearn, Jennifer Michell, Doug Hughes, Mark Armitage, Teri Collins, Michele Lane, Marilyn Copes, Pam Liversidge, Arlene Paton, Warren O’Briain, Matt Herman, Dr. Perry Kendall, Dr. Bonnie Henry, Barb Walman, Stephanie Power, Karen Archibald, Mitch Moneo, Eric Lun, Lindsay Kislock, Carolyn Bell, Manjit Sidhu, Shelley Moen and Mark Blandford. They’ve been remarkably supportive.

As you can imagine, when you’re spending $2 million an hour there’s a lot of stuff that goes on in a ministry, and I want to thank them for their tremendous work in supporting me to provide answers to the opposition.

With that, I move that the committee rise, report progress and seek leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:20 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