2015 Legislative Session: Fourth Session, 40th Parliament
HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Tuesday, May 26, 2015

Morning Sitting

Volume 27, Number 3

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

TUESDAY, MAY 26, 2015

The House met at 10:02 a.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

J. Yap: We have some good news. The stork has made another delivery. I’d like to share the good news with government caucus colleagues and members of this House. My communications officer, Olivia Cheung — also the communications officer to other colleagues, including yourself, Madame Speaker — and her husband Alex recently welcomed their first child, a daughter, into the world. Jessie Si Yu Cheung was born on May 14, weighing a healthy 5 pounds and 9 ounces.

Would the House please welcome Jessie and congratulate Olivia and her husband Alex on this wonderful addition to their family.

Hon. T. Lake: Later my colleague and I will have a further scientific discussion about how babies are delivered.

In the gallery today are some guests from the Heart and Stroke Foundation. They’re in the precinct today to help us learn more about stroke awareness and prevention. I’d invite all members of the House to join us at the front steps at 12:15 for more news on this front.

With us today are: Adrienne Baker, CEO of Heart and Stroke Foundation; Dr. Chris Lane, an electrophysiologist from here in Victoria; Erika Callowhill, director of communications and regional marketing, Heart and Stroke Foundation; and Mark Collison, the director of advocacy and stakeholder relations.

I’d ask the House to please make them all very welcome.

[1005]

M. Dalton: I’d like to take a moment before the House to recognize and thank Doug Lauson, who is retiring this month. Since 2002 Doug has been the president of the Federation of Independent School Associations, which represents over 70,000 of B.C.’s 80,000 independent school students. He’s also been the superintendent for Catholic Independent Schools of the Vancouver Archdiocese for many years.

When I was parliamentary secretary of independent schools, I got to know him and gained a real admiration of Doug for his clarity of thought, passion and dedication for students. Would the members join me in wishing him and his wife, Judy, a happy retirement.

Hon. T. Stone: Joining us in the member’s gallery from Ottawa this morning is His Excellency, Kamrul Ahsan, the High Commissioner to Canada from the People’s Republic of Bangladesh. I will be meeting with His Excellency later this afternoon to discuss a variety of transportation items, including port management. I would ask that the House please join me in welcoming the high commissioner to the House today.

Tributes

FRANK MITCHELL WALSH

Hon. T. Stone: It’s with a great deal of sadness that I announce to the House the passing of a dear friend in Kamloops. Frank Mitchell Walsh passed away a week ago at the age of 58 years old.

Frank is survived by his loving wife Janet, who is a teacher at a school in our neighbourhood — she taught both of our first two daughters; she is an amazing woman — as well as his two children, Michael and Taylor.

Frank was a very high-energy individual who had a great degree of passion for life, whether it was out on his boat on Shuswap Lake or throwing himself into his well-known business in Kamloops. He was successful at everything that he did. He was very gregarious — always had a huge smile on his face.

I recall a number of Halloweens, taking my kids to their door, and the size of his smile was only matched by the largest chocolate bars in the neighbourhood, which he took great pleasure in doling out to the kids.

On behalf of the Minister of Health and myself, I would ask that this House please join me in sending condolences to Frank’s loving wife and his two sons.

Introductions by Members

Hon. A. Virk: It’s my pleasure to have in the House two women that keep my office running smoothly and on time. One has been with government for a decade — the other one for less than 90 days. They are my administrative coordinator Sarah Blonde and my administrative assistant Rebecca Grice. They do great work. Would the House please make them feel welcome.

G. Holman: Today in the precinct there were grade 10 students from Stelly’s Secondary on the Saanich Peninsula. I was able to speak to them about democratic reform and the importance of participating in voting and in elections. Would the House please make these students welcome

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

BILL M223 — ANTI-SLAPP ACT, 2015

L. Krog presented a bill intituled Anti-SLAPP Act, 2015.
[ Page 8712 ]

L. Krog: I move introduction of the Anti-SLAPP Act for first reading.

Motion approved.

L. Krog: I’m very pleased to reintroduce the Anti-SLAPP Act. SLAPP is an acronym which stands for strategic lawsuits against public participation. These lawsuits are very damaging to a free and democratic society, as they attempt to limit free speech by attacking individuals expressing and demonstrating their concerns on issues and projects affecting our province.

British Columbians have a strong and wonderful tradition of expressing themselves regarding matters of public interest. Sometimes this public expression is inconvenient and problematic for companies and governments too. However, it is not acceptable that a party pushing a particular agenda can exert undue influence and try to shut down that expression or intimidate the public through SLAPP suits.

SLAPPs are often baseless lawsuits which target organizations and individuals purely to force them to waste resources and time to defend themselves from these baseless attacks and thus constrain their continued active public participation.

These lawsuits also act as further intimidation of other citizens who might be wanting to also demonstrate their concerns on issues such as the protection of agriculture land, water quality and broader environmental issues.

[1010]

This bill, the Anti-SLAPP Act, would protect British Columbians from these lawsuits of questionable merit, filed specifically for the purposes of putting a chill on citizens who, for the betterment of the public interest, wish to exercise their rights to express and demonstrate their concerns about a particular project.

I should point out that this does not protect individuals who willingly damage property or inflict physical injury. This act only protects peaceful protesters exercising their right to associate and express their opinion. Promoting the freedom of the public to participate in matters of public interest should be one of the main goals of government, as it is the foundation of a working democracy.

People and organizations who care about this province enough to be active and vocal should be protected from frivolous, predatory lawsuits, and this bill affords them that protection.

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

Bill M223, Anti-SLAPP 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)

SEISMIC UPGRADE FOR
WICKANINNISH COMMUNITY SCHOOL

S. Fraser: The Wickaninnish Community School, located in the district of Tofino, is an amazing institution. It is more than an elementary school. It is a cultural melting pot where half of the students are First Nations.

The Nuu-Chah-Nulth culture and history is embraced and incorporated in a way where the students broaden their thoughts and learn from each other. I applaud them for their forward-thinking and their ability to turn challenge into success.

But there is another challenge. According to the seismic mitigation program progress report from January of this year, the Wickaninnish Community School has been rated a high 3 and is numbered 121 on a list of 126 high-risk schools requiring upgrades but not yet approved to proceed. Many, including myself, have a problem with that.

Tofino is the metaphor for rugged beauty and draws hundreds of thousands of visitors every year to walk the magnificent beaches, surf, storm-watch, whale-watch or sit on a log and contemplate the meaning of life.

It is also the most densely populated community adjacent to the Cascadia subduction zone. The community and visitors are aware of the risks associated with the subduction zone, and earthquake preparedness sort of runs in the DNA of the population. That being said, should a catastrophic event occur during school hours, almost every child between the ages of five and 12 would be injured or worse. Should such an event occur outside of school hours, our community would lose one of our only structures that could provide shelter.

Every parent wants their children to go to school in a safe structure. Every parent wants their school to be top of the list. But vulnerability ratings need to go beyond engineering standards and factor in the number of gathering buildings in a community, its remoteness and maybe even the fact that the subduction zone that will be the cause of the big one is just offshore.

WINDS OF CHANGE INITIATIVE
IN PEMBERTON AREA

J. Sturdy: In 2002 behind the elementary school in Pemberton a 15-year-old Mount Currie boy died after being badly beaten in a dispute over alcohol. The communities of Mount Currie and Pemberton struggled in disbelief that such a promising young man had his life ended so violently, tragically and needlessly.

Yet out of this tragedy, a new collaborative was born. The Winds of Change is a joint public policy initiative of the Lil’wat First Nation and the village of Pemberton. Wellness is the mission, and the members work to build
[ Page 8713 ]
safe, healthy environments for children and families by enhancing relationships within the community and bringing challenging issues to the forefront.

The collaborative produced a harm reduction strategy called A Healing Vision, which incorporates recommendations to guide efforts for achieving community well-being and community health. At its heart the strategy calls for promoting healthy lifestyle choices, increasing awareness, improving services and encouraging leadership and responsibility within the community.

After more than a decade both communities remain committed to the Winds of Change. Increased cooperation and communication between the two councils, joint council meetings, wellness fairs and cooperative programs such as the friendship trail are just some of the initiatives. The collaborative strives to be an example of what can be achieved when aboriginal and non-aboriginal communities come together, identify problems and implement solutions.

[1015]

Daily it demonstrates that we must all play a part in taking control of tough issues. It has helped us find common ground and a common goal — to create safer and stronger communities through respect, openness and trust and also to seek to ensure that a terrible tragedy was not experienced in vain.

GULF ISLANDS
TRAIL NETWORK PROJECT

G. Holman: I’ve mentioned before in this House that Saanich North and the Islands is one of the most beautiful places in a province blessed with beauty. I want to speak today about a project that will better enable everyone in B.C. to enjoy this special place — the Experience the Gulf Islands and the Salish Sea trail network projects.

Experience the Gulf Islands is a vision based on the successful Experience the Fraser trail system. In fact, now Galiano Island resident Ed Andrusiak has been the driving force behind both initiatives. Experience the Gulf Islands would reconnect the communities of the southern Gulf Islands, revitalizing their historical social and economic relationships and building sustainable communities.

The goal is to develop a system of main trails across each of the major southern Gulf Islands, linked by water taxis. Experience the Gulf Islands would link the islands to trails on southern Vancouver Island, including the Lochside and E&N trails of the capital region. There will be a Saltspring leg of this trail network, linking Fulford Harbour to Vesuvius, forming an Islands in the Salish Sea destination loop of the Trans Canada Trail and connecting the Cowichan Valley and Nanaimo regional districts to the capital region.

To demonstrate the inter-island component of this project, there will be an event on June 18 called Tour des Iles, providing an inter-island water shuttle for foot passengers. Such a service would complement existing B.C. ferries and in some cases shorten a round trip from a day or more to a few minutes. Small community buses, already a huge success on Saltspring Island, would link with water taxis and provide islanders and visitors with on-island, non-automobile transportation options.

I encourage all members to take the Tour des Iles on June 18, and I hope government sees the potential of the Experience the Gulf Islands and related projects and supports them accordingly.

LOCAL FOOD PRODUCTS AND
DOODLEBUG CHOCOLATES

L. Larson: As we move forward into summer, we will all get out and enjoy various farmers markets and purchase local products not readily available in commercial settings. Some of those products do become available in specialty stores as the popularity of the product spreads by word of mouth.

One of those “craft fair to local business” products is DoodleBug Chocolates. Terry Weiss of Castlegar is one of those entrepreneurs who has moved her product beyond the local craft fairs and markets. Fourteen years ago she lost her job in the oilfields and came home to Castlegar. She put her love of chocolate and her desire to create her own job and income into creating DoodleBug Chocolates. She was nominated for a Continuing Success award during Small Business Week in 2011 through Community Futures Boundary.

DoodleBug Chocolates are available in 16 locations throughout the Kootenay and Boundary-Similkameen, including my community of Oliver. Terry also continues to sell her product through craft fairs and farmers markets. We are extremely lucky to have access at these unique marketplaces to products like honey, jams, specialty sauces, spices and chocolate, just to name a few, that are not available at the local grocery store and are part of an outdoor market experience.

The next time you’re in the Kootenay-Boundary region, pick up some DoodleBug chocolates. I’ve heard they go very well with wine.

CULTURAL DIVERSITY AND COMMUNITY
ORGANIZATIONS IN BURNABY-EDMONDS

R. Chouhan: I’m very proud to be living in Burnaby-Edmonds. Apart from its physical beauty, this community is very diverse. We speak more than 100 different languages and dialects in Burnaby-Edmonds. People in Burnaby-Edmonds, along with the businesses and the community organizations, do their best, working day in and day out, to keep it more vibrant and prosperous.

I want to talk about two of the organizations in Burnaby-Edmonds today. One is called EPIC. It stands for Edmonds People in Community. This organization
[ Page 8714 ]
was formed in April 2013 under the leadership of Lindy McQueen. They have been working very hard and passionately to keep the community safe and also very clean.

[1020]

Over the last two years EPIC has organized many events, such as community cleanups and also music in the park night. They have attracted many people to come together to share their culture. Also, many volunteers are coming along for the last two years, helping them.

The second organization I want to talk about is called KINA — Kingsway Imperial Neighbourhood Association. KINA was formed ten years ago. For the last ten years KINA, under the leadership of Diane Gillis, has been working with the small businesses in the community to make sure the community is safe and clean, and they have made such a great difference in the community.

They have brought communities together in that neighbourhood, and we are working wonderfully all together, and I am so proud of them. I wanted to say thank you to both of these organizations, and all the best.

STROKE AWARENESS

D. Plecas: Stroke is the leading cause of serious, long-term adult disability and the third leading cause of death in British Columbia. Every nine minutes someone in Canada is affected by stroke. June is Stroke Month, and I want to remind everyone of the importance of recognizing the signs of stroke.

When someone is having a stroke, seconds count. The sooner a person gets treatment, the more likely they are to have a full recovery. The main signs of stroke include a drooping face, slurred speech and weakness in the arms and legs. Stroke can happen at any age. If you have a loved one who exhibits these signs, call 911 right away.

While recognizing stroke is important, taking steps to prevent stroke will go a long ways towards keeping people out of hospital. Up to 80 percent of premature heart disease and stroke can be prevented, so it’s important to make healthy choices — eating well, getting regular exercise and quitting smoking, if you smoke.

The Heart and Stroke Foundation supports Canadians in staying healthy through educational resources, awareness campaigns and more. According to the organization, over the last 60 years its research and investments have played a role in seeing the national death rate from heart disease and stroke decline by more than 75 percent.

Since 2001 the Ministry of Health and the Provincial Health Services Authority have provided more than $14 million to the Heart and Stroke Foundation of B.C. and Yukon and the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada in support of these programs that help Canadians be free of heart disease and stroke.

Madame Speaker: Members, the member for Delta South seeks leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

V. Huntington: My apologies to Abbotsford South. I miscounted.

It gives me great pleasure to introduce 28 students from Beach Grove Elementary in Tsawwassen. They are accompanied by Mrs. Cotter, their teacher, and 20 parents. Would the House please make them welcome.

Oral Questions

CRIME PREVENTION AND
MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

L. Krog: In June of last year the Justice Minister’s then–Parliamentary Secretary for Crime Reduction submitted a report entitled Getting Serious About Crime Reduction. In it he identified that a key concern — I’m quoting from his report — “is the lack of local access to services for both people with mental illnesses and for those with both addictions and mental illness.”

The Justice Minister’s former parliamentary secretary understands that neglect of mental health services by this government contributes to crime on our streets. Quite simply, why doesn’t she?

Hon. S. Anton: The issue of mentally ill people who are involved in the criminal justice system is, obviously, a very serious one. It’s one that is observed by police and by the justice system itself. It is a matter that we are addressing. Certainly, the parliamentary secretary addressed it in his report.

It is an issue of great concern. I know it’s a concern to Health and it’s a concern to Justice, because often people who have serious mental health issues have health issues. They end up in the justice system, but they are essentially health issues.

[1025]

It’s an area that we’re focusing on in Justice, because these are people who need to be helped. They don’t belong in jails, they don’t belong in the criminal justice system, and they deserve help. It is the focus of our justice system right now — indeed, I know it’s a matter for Health as well — that we actually help these people, and we help them get the health care that they need and keep them out of the criminal justice system, which is not the place for them.

Madame Speaker: The member for Nanaimo on a supplemental.

L. Krog: I am delighted that the Attorney General has, in her own words, described it as a very serious one — this issue. But candidly, we’re a year down the road, and nothing has happened. The burden of crime falls on munici-
[ Page 8715 ]
palities. It falls on law enforcement, but most of all, it falls on the victims and the families who feel unsafe in their own communities. The government’s neglect of mental health services was identified as a key driver of crime by their own Parliamentary Secretary for Crime Reduction.

Without sounding too cheeky — and I hope the Attorney General is paying attention because the report is entitled Getting Serious — will she finally follow her colleague’s advice and get serious about mental health services?

Hon. T. Lake: To the member opposite, who is expressing a very real concern. It’s a concern across North America. When you look at the United States, for instance, you will see that in fact prisons have become mental health institutions de facto when they shouldn’t be.

On this side of the House we are working hard to provide the mental health supports for all British Columbians. Whether they happen to be in the criminal justice system or if they are living in community, we want to make sure they have the mental health contacts and mental health supports that they need.

That is why we announced $20 million in severely addicted, mentally ill SAMI funding to make sure that people that are living in community are supported and don’t end up constantly in conflict with the criminal justice system and in incarceration where their mental health certainly is at risk of deteriorating. We are committed on this side to continue to improve mental health supports for all British Columbians.

S. Hammell: The government’s own report Getting Serious about Crime notes that many stakeholders commented on the apparent success of the assertive community treatment teams who work with people suffering from severe mental illness and with those who have not responded to any other approaches.

However, the report documents that stakeholders — this is the language of the report — deplore the fact there are not enough teams, and approximately 60 would be required for the whole province. So people with mental illness are still on the streets, are ending up in the jails, costing tens of thousands of taxpayers’ dollars.

To the Attorney General, does she think spending money on jailing the mentally ill rather than providing treatment is deplorable?

Hon. T. Lake: As I said in my prior response, no one thinks it’s acceptable to use the prison system for mental health support — in other words, to house mentally ill people. That is not the approach that we like to take.

The member mentions assertive community treatment teams. In fact, we have expanded across the entire province assertive community treatment teams — more ACT teams here in Vancouver, in Richmond, in Surrey, in Kamloops and Kelowna and, in fact, versions of ACT teams in some more rural areas as well. We are determined to put those supports in place to make sure that people can live in community, get the supports they need and avoid the criminal justice system.

Madame Speaker: The member for Surrey–Green Timbers on a supplemental.

S. Hammell: The government needs to invest in mental health and addiction services if they want to solve this problem. However, as the government’s own report showed last year, each single dollar spent could return savings of $4 to $12. These aren’t my numbers. These are the government’s numbers.

[1030]

Does the Attorney General agree with her government’s own report that their failure to provide sufficient mental health services is not only hurting patients but hurting taxpayers?

Hon. T. Lake: We spend almost $1.4 billion every year on mental health and substance use in this province. We have, when possible, put extra money into Coast Mental Health to help at-risk youth. We’ve put extra money into research for addictions with the Evan Wood group. We have put extra money into all kinds of organizations around this province to help with abstinence-based and harm reduction–based strategies to help people with mental health and substance-use issues.

We are committed to making sure people with mental health and substance use get the supports they need. This is something that I am personally committed to, and you can tell by the work we have done that this government is committed to as well.

S. Simpson: The Justice Minister knows that more than half of all the offenders in our corrections system today enter with a mental health or an addiction problem. Even before the government’s own report told them to get serious about crime reduction, the chief of police in Vancouver sounded the alarm about Liberal neglect in mental health services and the impact on police services in Vancouver.

Can the Justice Minister tell this House how she plans to respond to a growing crisis that was caused by the government’s failure in mental health services?

Hon. T. Lake: The member might want to read some of the current research on mental health and talk to people like researcher Dr. Thomas Kerr and Jane Buxton, who have done work that says that sometimes the approach that the police take in terms of dealing with mental health is not necessarily the right approach, that institutionalizing people is not the answer, that we live in a society that says that people should be supported in community.

If the members opposite think that the answer is to put people with mental health challenges behind bars, then they should say so. But that is not what we support
[ Page 8716 ]
on this side of the House. We want to support people….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members. This House will come to order.

Please continue.

Hon. T. Lake: We continue to work with police forces across the province. We have innovative programs where we team psychiatric nurses with the RCMP, with police to reach out to people and help direct them to resources so they don’t have to go through the health care system or the criminal justice system. We are devoting many resources to this to make sure that people are supported in community.

Madame Speaker: Vancouver-Hastings on a supplemental.

S. Simpson: The reality is that you have police in Vancouver, you have police elsewhere, you have service providers all crying out for a government that has failed for 14 years to deliver on this issue, saying it’s falling to them to try to provide a service and pick up the slack because the government has failed. That’s the problem we face today.

Vancouver police made more than 3,000 arrests last year under the Mental Health Act. That’s more than eight every day. Further, police estimate they handle as many as 100 calls a day for incidents that involve people with mental health conditions, people who are not getting service from this government.

Can the Justice Minister explain why police officers are having to pick up the pieces for the absolute failure of this minister and this Liberal government?

Hon. T. Lake: The member opposite can stand up in indignation, but nowhere in his platform two years ago did we see additional money for mental health. Nowhere in his platform did we see any increase of substance. Nowhere in his platform did we see increased capital, other than those that had gone through the business plan already.

[1035]

That group over there is not willing to go to the public to tell them what their plans are. They only sit over on that side of the House and criticize what is going on, on this side, which is to….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Vancouver-Hastings will come to order.

Please continue.

Hon. T. Lake: The member opposite should be ashamed of himself. He should be ashamed of himself because his platform had nothing. Our platform and our work are demonstrating support for people with mental health challenges, making sure they get the help they need and keeping them out of the criminal justice system.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT COSTS FOR POLICE
HANDLING OF MENTAL HEALTH CALLS

S. Robinson: What this minister has just demonstrated is that when you don’t have a good answer, it’s just attack somebody else.

This government has had 14 years to put programs in place for the mentally ill in this province, and there is not an ACT team in the Tri-Cities. The Port Moody police department is reporting a dramatic rise in mental health–related calls. One individual, just one individual, has generated over 2,000 calls in one year. When local police are forced to spend time on people who need mental health services instead of on crime, it’s local property tax payers who are on the hook.

Can the Minister of Justice — because this is a policing question — please explain why Port Moody property tax payers are being left to pick up the policing tab for the Liberal government’s failure to address mental health issues?

Hon. T. Lake: The police play a very important role — to keep the public safe and also to reach out to people in need in our community. In our modern society that includes all British Columbians, those who are perfectly healthy and those who are dealing with mental health and substance-use issues. Police know that that is part of their job.

I have been on field trips, interacted with police on the Downtown Eastside, and they do a tremendous job. They get to know all of the people on the streets, and they help connect them. Along with B.C. Ambulance, along with our ACT teams, they help connect them to the supports they need in community, because they know that we’re all in this together. We’re not pointing fingers. We’re in this together — police, health services and the government — making sure that we do support the people in community, and we’ll continue to do that.

Madame Speaker: The member for Coquitlam-Maillardville on a supplemental.

S. Robinson: Well, we are pointing fingers, and we’re saying that this government has not done anything for 14 years.

I, too, have been on ride-alongs with police in my community, and every single call was a mental-health- or addiction-related call. That’s not policing the way it was meant to be.

Port Moody police have limited resources. Earlier this month the department dropped one of its youth liaison
[ Page 8717 ]
officer positions in order to free up resources to create a single mental health officer position. This is a clear example of local governments dealing with off-loaded costs caused by B.C. Liberal decisions.

Can the Minister of Justice explain why police have to choose between crime prevention and handling mental health–related calls?

Hon. T. Lake: The question demonstrates the narrow view members opposite have about mental health — that it is compartmentalized into one area or another area.

This is a challenge for all of society — local governments, provincial governments, federal governments. It’s a police challenge. It’s a health challenge. The only way that we will meet this challenge is to work together, to wrap our arms around the people who need those services — not by pointing fingers and accusing people.

We are building mental health facilities.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: The Chair will hear the answer.

Please continue.

[1040]

Hon. T. Lake: Tens of millions of dollars for the HOpe Centre in North Vancouver at Lions Gate Hospital, $65 million into the Joseph and Rosalie family centre at VGH. There are more and more mental health facilities being built throughout this province, none of which I saw in the campaign platform of the people on that side of the House.

We will continue to work with our partners in community, including police and local government, to make sure we support people with mental health and substance use challenges.

K. Conroy: Let’s hear what people across the province are actually saying about this. Last year Prince George RCMP superintendent Eric Stubbs told the local newspaper that mental health–related calls were up 40 percent since 2009. In his interview Superintendent Stubbs said: “They’re difficult calls for us, obviously. If people are suffering from a mental illness — and a lot of times if they are going through a particular crisis, alcohol or drugs can be part of that — that makes it a very high-risk business for us.”

Can the Attorney General explain to the House why so many people in Prince George have been unable to find the help they need before becoming a very high risk to police and to their community?

Hon. T. Lake: As I said, we value our partners at all levels of government and in all different areas that surround this particular challenge. Policing, of course, is going to come into contact with people in community that potentially pose a safety risk to the public. That is part of policing.

That is why we work with policing and we make sure that we have partnerships with policing and also that we provide training for policing. In 2012 we launched the B.C. crisis intervention and de-escalation training program for all front-line police officers in B.C. It’s a unique program in Canada that’s designed to give front-line police the tools they need.

The fact is that the crime rate is going down. The number of police officers is going up. A big part of what they do today is dealing with people on the street, many of whom may be dealing with mental health and substance use challenges. They are our partners. They are our partners in health care. We welcome their partnership. We work well together and will continue to do that to support people in community.

Madame Speaker: The member for Kootenay West on a supplemental.

K. Conroy: The police aren’t feeling the love when they are doing the majority of the work when it comes to this situation. Merritt RCMP responded to 44 mental health–related calls in the last quarter of 2014. Sgt. Norman Fleming told the media that one of these calls can occupy an officer’s entire shift and can end with the person spending the night in jail because there is nowhere else to take them.

I’ll quote Sergeant Fleming: “It presents as a moral and legal dilemma for police. How is it helping them to spend the night in jail?” Can the Minister of Justice answer Sergeant Fleming’s question?

Interjections.

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

Hon. T. Lake: From the line of questioning, it’s pretty obvious that members on that side of the House think the answer to mental health and substance use is jail. That is the answer that I hear over there.

Interjections.

Hon. T. Lake: I seem to have touched a nerve over there.

There are many examples….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Please proceed.

Hon. T. Lake: There are many, many examples of the cooperative work that Health and police do together. Let me give you some examples.

Fraser Health’s clinical nurse educator has supported
[ Page 8718 ]
the RCMP E division with one-day workshops to discuss issues surrounding youth mental health and addictions with front-line policing members.

[1045]

Three sessions were held in Penticton, Nanaimo and the Lower Mainland, and one is to be held in Terrace. The Car 67 program is a partnership between Surrey mental health and substance use and the Surrey RCMP. The Car 40 program in Kamloops. I know they’re talking about a similar program in Prince George. Over the past year Island Health has been talking with Victoria and Saanich police on how to better integrate their services.

This is a societal challenge that policing and Health will work together on. We will wrap our arms around the people who need our support and make sure they get their support and not end up in an institution, as the members opposite think is the solution.

R. Austin: Obviously, our Health Minister is completely losing the plot today.

In Terrace the local police are also being asked to spend more time dealing with mental health calls. Often Terrace RCMP officers have to spend two to three hours at hospital when they bring someone there for a mental health issue. Not only does this leave the RCMP officers less time to deal with crime, but here is the important thing: local taxpayers are on the hook because of the Liberal government’s failure to invest in mental health services.

My question is to the Minister of Justice, if indeed she has any thoughts on this subject at all. When shall we deal with this issue so that police can focus on dealing with crime?

Hon. T. Lake: It’s interesting that the members opposite acknowledge that this is a health issue and yet seem indignant when the Health Minister gets up to respond.

The reality is that there are concerns that have been expressed by police. I’ve had conversations with chiefs of police, like former chief Jimmy Chu in Vancouver, and with RCMP members across the province. That’s why we are working cooperatively with them to make sure that they have the tools necessary, that they have the ability to direct people to resources — mental health and social supports in the community — rather than going to incarceration or to the emergency department.

We have diverted many, many British Columbians from incarceration or from hospitalization through these unique cooperative programs. They’re working. The members opposite should get behind them and support them.

M. Elmore: Superintendent Rendall Nesset of the Richmond RCMP presented a written report to city council in January of this year. In his report Superintendent Nesset says: “Richmond detachment is experiencing an escalation in mental health–related calls for service. These calls consume considerable detachment resources.”

It’s not just the number of calls. Also escalating, according to Superintendent Nesset is “the length of time officers must devote to finding both short- and long-term solutions for those who, as a result of a mental health challenge, generate calls for service.”

Will the Attorney General tell this House why Richmond RCMP officers have been tasked with finding long-term solutions for people with untreated mental illness?

Hon. T. Lake: To the member, perhaps she has not heard about the new assertive community treatment team that’s dedicated to Richmond, which will help mental health patients in Richmond. Perhaps she didn’t hear about the $200,000 that went to Turning Point Recovery centre that will go to help people in the Richmond area.

We are spending $1.4 billion on mental health and substance use in the province of British Columbia. We are building facilities in North Vancouver, in Vancouver, in New Westminster. We have built, provincially, systems in Kamloops and on the Island and in other areas of the province.

We are committed, through our actions, to making sure that people can be supported in community and avoid hospitalization and incarceration, working with all of our partners in the local government and with the police.

[1050]

CRIME PREVENTION AND
MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

M. Mungall: The thing is that the government’s own report was completed a year ago, and they’ve had plenty of time to act with meaningful programs since then. In fact, they’ve had 14 years to act. They’ve had 14 years to actually support people with mental illness. Instead, they’ve gone the other direction, and what we see on the streets of our communities around this province is people with mental illnesses not getting the supports that they need and being criminalized as a result.

This is not the answer that British Columbians want in this province. They want to see meaningful action. They want to see fulsome action going right across this province, not one-off solutions, not minimal approaches to this issue.

It’s being felt across the province. In Nelson last year the Nelson police department received 1,050 calls related to mental health. That’s up more than 6 percent from the year before. The Liberals’ failure to invest in the mental health services British Columbians need is driving up the cost of policing for communities right across this province. Worse, it’s leaving vulnerable people without the supports they need.

Doesn’t the Minister of Justice see that there is a serious problem here that needs to be fixed and that we need to stop with the more expensive solutions and start doing things that are less expensive and better for mental health patients?
[ Page 8719 ]

Hon. T. Lake: I had to remind myself again, in case I missed it somewhere in the NDP election platform from 2013, where all the new building was, where all the new services were that they promised in their election campaign. They’re not there. No new health facilities in their election campaign. None whatsoever.

We just opened the HOpe Centre at Lions Gate Hospital. We’ve got the Joseph and Rosalie Segal family health centre under construction at VGH. We announced new beds at Riverview. We have more to do, because we are investing in mental health support, both in facilities and in supports in the community.

We’ll continue to do that, unlike the NDP, who never, never said what they would do in their campaign promises. We are delivering on our promises, and we’ll continue to deliver on our promises.

USE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND
FOR CARBON OFFSETS

L. Popham: First, the Minister of Agriculture said only 1,500 hectares of the agricultural land reserve had been turned into carbon sinks, when in fact the real number is 10,581 hectares. Then the minister said that the Agricultural Land Commission could control this practice. The commission told them they can’t. Now the company at the centre of this activity has said they have planted seven million trees on agricultural land, and they plan to plant ten million more. The issue is out of control, as I’ve been telling this minister for months.

Is the minister now prepared to act and put in legislation so that the Agricultural Land Commission can properly monitor, regulate and control this practice on agricultural land? Every day that this minister waits before bringing in legislation to stop it is thousands of hectares planted. Is the minister prepared to bring in legislation before the end of this session?

Interjections.

[1055]

Madame Speaker: Members.

Ministers.

Please proceed.

Hon. N. Letnick: There are a lot of firsts that are happening in the House today. The first time I’ve heard such productivity on the land for the number of trees that have been producing. Other firsts.

First, the NDP come out with this great policy of banning foreign ownership of land in British Columbia.

Interjection.

Madame Speaker: Powell River–Sunshine Coast will come to order.

Interjection.

Madame Speaker: Saanich South will come to order.

Please proceed.

Hon. N. Letnick: In the Globe and Mail the member opposite was quoted as saying we had to look at foreign ownership and whether or not some action should be taken on that. Right after that, next, on the CBC, the member opposite didn’t mention foreign ownership anymore. Now, it’s moved on to something else.

We’re going to take due time. We’re going to look with due diligence on this matter. We’re consulting with the land commission. We’re consulting RB and consulting also with my staff. When we’re ready to come forward with a coherent plan to address the situation, we will present it to the members of the executive council before it gets announced to the public.

That is the right thing to do, as opposed to what this member is doing, which is to move from one decision to another decision to another decision. It’s like a game of Whac-a-Mole over there. We’re not going to do that on this side of the House.

[End of question period.]

Tabling Documents

Madame Speaker: I have the honour to present two reports of the Auditor General: Managing the Cumulative Effects of Natural Resource Development in British Columbia and Follow-Up Report: Environmental Assessment Office.

Reports from Committees

J. Martin: I have the honour to present the report of the Special Committee to Appoint an Ombudsperson.

I move that the report be taken as read and received.

Motion approved.

J. Martin: I ask leave of the House to move a motion to adopt the report.

Leave granted.

J. Martin: I move that the report be adopted.

Madame Speaker: Please proceed.

J. Martin: I ask leave of the House to move a further motion to appoint Jay Chalke, QC, as Ombudsperson for the province of British Columbia.

Leave granted.
[ Page 8720 ]

Motions Without Notice

APPOINTMENT OF OMBUDSPERSON

J. Martin: I move that:

[This House recommend to Her Honour the Lieutenant Governor the appointment of James Michael Chalke, Q.C., as an officer of the Legislature, to exercise the powers and duties assigned to the Ombudsperson for the province of British Columbia for a six-year term commencing on July 1, 2015, pursuant to section 2 of the Ombudsperson Act (RSBC 1996, c. 340).]

In conjunction with the moving of this motion, I would like to explain briefly why the committee was pleased to make the unanimous recommendation to appoint Mr. Chalke to the position of Ombudsperson. Mr. Chalke is currently the assistant deputy minister, justice services branch, in the Ministry of Justice, a position he has held since 2011.

Prior to his role, he was British Columbia’s first Public Guardian and Trustee. He has also served as Ontario’s Deputy Public Guardian and Trustee, an investigator for the Ontario Ombudsman and head of a review of New Brunswick correctional institutions.

Trained as a lawyer, Mr. Chalke was appointed Queen’s Counsel in 2006. He has served as governor of the Law Foundation of British Columbia and is a member of the Justice and Public Safety Council of British Columbia.

The committee was impressed with Mr. Chalke’s leadership skills, his achievement as a public sector executive, his record of fairness, dedication and compassion in providing service to the most vulnerable and disadvantaged individuals of society. Committee members concluded that Mr. Chalke’s outstanding background, experience and abilities would provide excellent leadership to the Office of the Ombudsperson. The committee considered some very excellent and qualified applicants during the search process.

On behalf of that committee, I would like to express thanks to everyone who participated in this process. I also extend my sincere appreciation to the Deputy Chair, the member for Victoria–Swan Lake, and to all committee members for their hard work and dedication in reaching a unanimous recommendation on this important appointment.

As well, I would like to acknowledge Kim Carter who has served as Ombudsperson since 2006. She has carried out her responsibilities with professionalism, dedication and integrity. On behalf of all Members of the Legislative Assembly, we express our sincere appreciation and gratitude for her service to British Columbia.

[1100]

R. Fleming: I would like to congratulate Mr. Jay Chalke for his selection as the next Ombudsperson of B.C. as well. This is a gentleman with an exceptional record of public service in British Columbia in a wide variety of senior positions in British Columbia and other parts of Canada. I know that members can have great confidence in the work that the committee has done and look forward to working with Mr. Chalke as our next Ombudsperson.

I would like to thank the Chair, the member for Chilliwack, for his thorough job that he performed in steering the committee to work within very ambitious timelines. I’d like to thank the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin, the member for Esquimalt–Royal Roads and the member for West Vancouver–Sea to Sky for their contributions to the task of unanimously selecting the best candidate for appointment to this critically important independent office of this assembly.

Echoing the Chair, I would also like to say, in welcoming Mr. Chalke to this position, a word of thanks to Kim Carter for her years of service as the Ombudsperson for the province of British Columbia. I think I would speak for all members in saying that her work speaks for itself. Her reputation and her innovation in that office are things that we will thank her for — and her achievements as the Ombudsperson.

Hon. S. Anton: Thank you to the committee Chair and co-Chair. The Office of the Ombudsperson’s gain, I have to say, is a bit of a loss for Justice. I would like to join my colleagues in welcoming and congratulating Mr. Jay Chalke on his appointment as the new Ombudsperson for British Columbia.

Over the last two years I’ve had the privilege of working with Jay in his role within my ministry, as my Assistant Deputy Minister on the justice services branch. His energy and passion for the work that he does inspires others on his team to do their greatest, and they have an outstanding team.

I have a list here of just some of the things that they are working on. They have the dispute resolution office, including the civil resolution tribunal, which is an innovative tribunal being much-watched across Canada — indeed, around the world — to see how we progress and transform people’s access to justice.

They’re working on the tribunal transformation initiative. He has the civil policy and legislation office. He has the criminal justice and legal access policy division, which administers legal aid. In legal aid there are five new innovative projects, again, to deliver access to justice around British Columbia.

He’s working on the project — I shouldn’t say is; this is all, of course, now going to be in past — has been working on the project with the lawyers and notaries. He’s head of the family justice services division. He’s head of the justice reform initiative, including the Justice Summits, which I know some of the members opposite will have attended.

He’s head of the legislation and policy division, and you may have noticed that we’ve had quite a lot of legislation and policy in the House in this session. He manages the maintenance enforcement and location services, which
[ Page 8721 ]
includes the family maintenance enforcement program, which has collected over $3 billion in the last 25 years.

The key words in Jay’s career in Justice are, indeed, the word “justice” itself and the word “innovation.” That is the team that he has led in the justice services division. I know that they’re a fantastic team. Losing their leader will be hard; although, I’m sure that they will rise to the occasion.

Jay has been a tremendous asset to Justice. I have enjoyed working with him. I know that he will continue to perform his duties as he’s always done — with distinction, dedication, fairness and the highest regard for the people of British Columbia.

Madame Speaker: Hon. Members, there are two questions. The first is the adoption of the report.

Motion approved.

Madame Speaker: The second is the adoption of the motion.

Motion approved.

Petitions

A. Weaver: I was very enthusiastic to get up to introduce this petition. It’s a petition of nearly 3,000 signatures from across British Columbia of British Columbians petitioning, respectfully, the honourable House to withdraw section 6 of Bill 20, the Election Amendment Act, 2015, and all amendments related to it. This petition was collected in just a matter of a few days.

N. Macdonald: I rise to present a petition signed by over 250 people in Revelstoke. The petitioners strongly object to restrictions in fishing opportunities on the Illecillewaet and the Upper Arrow Lake drawdown.

[1105]

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: Before I do the orders of the day, we’re getting to that point in the life of the session where the staff are grateful if we look inside our desks and remove any items that we might want to keep, and do a general cleanup.

Beyond that, in this chamber, continued committee stage debate on Bill 20, the Election Amendment Act. In the Birch Room, continued Committee of Supply, continuing estimates of the Ministry of Health. In the Douglas Fir Room, Committee of Supply, continuing estimates of the Ministry of Finance.

Madame Speaker: Victoria–Swan Lake seeks leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

R. Fleming: I know moments ago we confirmed Mr. Jay Chalke as the next Ombudsperson of British Columbia. Both the Chair and I neglected to note his presence here in the gallery. Members of the assembly can now welcome and congratulate Mr. Chalke themselves, in person.

Wonderful to see you.

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 11:07 a.m.

The Chair: The member from Burnaby wishes to seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

R. Chouhan: I would like to make an introduction. A group of students from Clinton Elementary School, with their teacher Ms. Aman Rai, are here. I would the House to please make them very welcome.

Debate Continued

On section 15 (continued).

V. Huntington: Just to clarify where we’re standing here in our discussion of section 15, I was asking the minister if she could please give us a very clear understanding of what the language amending section 203 actually means.

Subsection (h.1) reads: “the cost of any communication, other than a communication in relation to a fundraising function, transmitted to the public by any means for the primary purpose of raising funds” — which seems like a contradiction in the first instance — “for the organization or individual by whom or on whose behalf the communication was transmitted.” There is no reference to “candidate.” There is no reference to “organized political party,” “registered political party,” no reference to “registered constituency association” or “Member of the Legislative Assembly.”

[1110]

I’m trying to figure out precisely what the language of this section is intended to do. If the minister could re-
[ Page 8722 ]
spond, I would certainly appreciate it.

Hon. S. Anton: The proposed amendment to section 203 will permit political parties, registered constituency associations and candidates to incur fundraising communications expenses without those expenses counting towards candidates’ and political parties’ election expense limits.

It refers to individuals and organizations rather than referring specifically to political parties, constituency associations and candidates. However, these are the only individuals and organizations who are permitted to incur election expenses under part 10 of the Election Act. Specifically, section 193 provides that only political parties, constituency associations and candidates may incur election expenses. Of course, this section is talking about election expenses.

Insofar as third parties are concerned….If third parties, during the campaign period, conduct any advertising that advocates on behalf of a candidate or a political party, including seeking to raise funds for that candidate or political party or in regard to an issue on which a candidate or political party is associated, that would be considered election advertising by that third party and would be subject to the third-party advertising limits under section 235.1 of the act.

V. Huntington: Could the minister then explain why the language appears contradictory?

The following expenses are not to be included as election expenses: “the cost of any communication, other than a communication in relation to a fundraising function, transmitted to the public by any means for the primary purpose of raising funds.”

Am I reading this correctly, that the expense of communicating to the public by any means for the primary purpose of raising funds is not considered an election expense, whereas the communication in relation to a fundraising function is considered an election expense?

Hon. S. Anton: I’ll start with the part that’s between the commas, which says “other than a communication in relation to a fundraising function.”

The reason for taking that piece out, a communication relating to a fundraising function, is because a fundraising function is already dealt with in the act. If the member would look back to subsection (f) of the same section, 203(1)(f), that says “subject to 183(3), expenses occurred in holding a fundraising function”. To understand exactly what that’s referring to, you have to go back to section 182, where it talks about a fundraising function.

In other words, a fundraising function is defined and described and has rules around it already. So we did not have to deal with a fundraising function when proposing this amendment to section 203. That’s already dealt with. So we take that out.

[1115]

Now we’re dealing with other things, other options which are available, and these are now the options included in (h.1). “The cost of any communication” — but not the fundraising function ones, because they’re already dealt with — “transmitted to the public by any means for the primary purpose of raising funds for the organization or individual by whom or on whose behalf the communication was transmitted.” In other words, a common one of these would be a phone bank, where a political organization or indeed a candidate phones known supporters for raising funds.

The question was raised the other day whether this would include voter ID. I don’t know if the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head has ever been on a phone bank, but I certainly have. When you’re doing voter ID you’re not asking people for funds. That is a different kind of phone bank than a fundraising phone bank. They’re two completely different creatures.

When you’re doing voter ID, you never get as far on the list of questions as to whether or not people are willing to donate. You are simply asking them whether they’re going to vote and are they able to — usually you say — support your party. People will tell you or they won’t tell you — whatever they choose. That is quite different than a fundraising phone bank.

That’s the kind of expense that is proposed to be permitted under (h.1). I hope that that helps the member.

A. Weaver: Thank you to the minister for responding to this remarkably confusing language in section 15.

In response to the minister’s previous statement — obviously, I have been on phone banks — the reality is that you can use this indirectly for voter identification, because if you’re phoning on a phone tree and someone said, “Yes, I would like to donate to your party,” you can bet that within a matter of microseconds that there’d be a little “x” put in with a strong “l” right beside that name if that person actually were to donate. So it is not independent from the voters list.

But the reason why I stood is that the minister, in response to me yesterday, pointed out in response to my question about anyone — any union, any corporation, anywhere in the world — donating any amount to influence an election…. I stand by that, and the reason why I’d like the minister to comment on this again is because what we have before us here is very clear language that’s coming straight out of the Harper federal Tory language for the way they raise funds and divert around the Elections Act requirements federally.

This is language that’s coming from Ottawa — not Ottawa bipartisan, but Ottawa the Conservative government. This is yet another example of government — there’s nothing Liberal about this Liberal government — really being another form of the federal Tories masked as Liberals.

My question here goes as this….
[ Page 8723 ]

Interjection.

A. Weaver: The Minister of Agriculture says: “A coalition.” Well, it’s pretty clear in a coalition that one side dominates over the other, and in this coalition there’s no “l” in the Liberals left. Many of them are retired and spending time with their grandchildren. But back to the….

Interjections.

The Chair: Certainly, the member digresses.

A. Weaver: Hon. Chair, I do digress here.

But coming back, what’s happening here is that any person, any union, any corporation, anywhere in the world at any time can donate any amount of money they want to the B.C. Liberal Party — to me or to the B.C. Liberal party. Then the B.C. Liberal Party could take as much of that money as they want and put out an ad on the television saying: “Liberal this, Liberal that. Please donate us funds here.”

This is a way of circumventing the actual rules for election advertising, and it could be circumvented by offshore funds. Frankly, we could benefit with this. I could phone around the world and say to all environmental groups around the world, “Donate to the B.C. Greens — any amount you want,” and then we could use that resource to blanket the airwaves on Hockey Night in Canada, whenever, saying: “You know what? B.C. Greens this, B.C. Greens that. B.C. Greens are great. Please send us some money.”

Under this definition that’s not a fundraising event, I agree. But it’s certainly communication whose primary purpose is fundraising, paid for on behalf of third parties who are anywhere in the world.

I don’t think this government has thought this legislation through. Or maybe they have. Maybe they have, coming back to my point, because this is exactly the type of legislation we have federally, except you cannot donate money if you live abroad, you cannot donate money if you’re a corporation, and you cannot donate money if you’re a union.

But here in B.C. it’s the Wild West free-for-all. No wonder our voter turnout is going out. People have lost respect for the process when antics like these are introduced.

I urge the minister to withdraw this section. It does not make sense. This section is setting itself up for abuse, and I certainly hope that we see this not pass at the vote.

[1120]

Hon. S. Anton: This section does not deal with payments by third parties. This section relates to election expenses of organizations which, in effect, as I said earlier, are political parties, registered constituency associations and candidates. It is not third party. The scenario being presented by the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head would not be applicable to section 203. Regarding the description of the activity that he gave, the existing third-party rules would apply to that, and we’re not changing those.

In terms of whether or not something is a fundraising function, it has to be clearly for a fundraising function. If its primary purpose is something else, it is a normal election expense, not covered by this subsection. And if there’s some dispute, the Chief Electoral Officer will decide. I know the member has been a candidate, because he’s here. When you’re a candidate, you are extremely careful with these things. If you are not careful, if you make mistakes, the jeopardy, the possible penalty, is extremely significant. You may cease to hold office. Your seat may become vacant, and you may pay a penalty.

People running for office are careful, generally. Certainly, speaking from my own experience and many campaigns that I have been involved in, people are extremely careful because the consequences of being careless or skating too close to the edge are very serious. As I said, the primary purpose of this has to be raising funds.

A. Weaver: With respect to the minister, she’s not right. Let me just unpack this very carefully.

Can anybody anywhere in the world, any union, corporation or individual donate to the B.C. Liberal Party any amount of money they want at any time? It’s a yes or no.

The Chair: The Chair sees where the member is going with this question. If we could tie it to…. I’ll let the minister answer, but we seem to be going off on a path that doesn’t seem to be consistent with section 15.

A. Weaver: I won’t challenge the Chair’s ruling, but the answer is clearly yes. The answer is yes under the Election Act. So if it’s yes, then the government, the Liberals, can use that money that they got from anyone, any person, any union, any corporation, anywhere in the world at any time to actually take out ads whose primary purpose is fundraising.

[1125]

That is a matter of fact, despite the fact that the minister was suggesting third-party rules apply. They do not apply, because money is donated to the Liberals. The Liberals then take out ads. That is not third party, and I want the record corrected.

Hon. S. Anton: One comment, which, of course, is…. The member is correct that they don’t have to all be local funds, although I will add that they cannot be anonymous. But again I would say that the primary purpose has to be for raising funds.
[ Page 8724 ]
It has to be for the individual or the political organization, but it’s got to be for raising funds.

The ad that the member described earlier…. As a footnote, it says: “Please send money.” That is unlikely to be considered by the Chief Electoral Officer to be primarily for the purpose of raising funds.

A. Weaver: A question, then, to the minister: why did the minister not provide guidance? An ad that says, “Liberals are great. Please donate us money,” has only one purpose, which is getting money, but can be blanketed around the airwaves through money that was received from anyone in the world to convince people to raise money. But it’s clearly got ulterior purposes as well. It’s very difficult to say what is what.

If the minister truly believes this, then surely the minister would have provided guidance to the Chief Electoral Officer rather than hoping that the minister’s interpretation is going to be the one that the Chief Electoral Officer takes. Has the minister actually talked to the Chief Electoral Officer and asked him or her exactly what his or her interpretation of this is?

Hon. S. Anton: Staff have indeed consulted with the staff of the Chief Electoral Officer, and the conclusion was that you couldn’t possibly set out to describe every possibility in here. The member has suggested a few of them. Human creativity — there may be all kinds of possibilities that people may try and fudge the system. But let me say again….

Interjection.

Hon. S. Anton: Is the member suggesting that that might happen in Vancouver-Fraserview? I can guarantee that that would never happen in Vancouver-Fraserview.

The guidance in the act is under “primary purpose of raising funds.” If your ad is promotion and then asking for funds, that is probably not going to be the primary purpose of the ad.

[1130]

The primary purpose of that ad is probably going to be promotion of the candidate or of the political organization, the political party. The Chief Electoral Officer does develop guidelines for candidates, and he could certainly, in advance of the next election — in fact, he likely will — develop guidelines so that the rules are clear around this section.

As I said earlier, candidates need to be careful. As I said earlier — I’m certain everybody in this room has been involved in elections — you need to be careful in elections, and you need to certainly fit within the guidelines. You need to be sure that your material…. If indeed the primary purpose is fundraising, its primary purpose has to be fundraising.

A. Weaver: My final question on this section is: why is this section even necessary? We have clear election expense rules. We have many other rules in place. The only possible interpretation of this section is to broaden the rules to provide additional loopholes to allow parties to circumvent the rules to find other means and ways of actually using election funds to increase the amount of money they spend.

This is precisely, as I pointed out earlier, what has happened federally. The rules were put in place, very stringent spending rules, and then ways were put in place to actually circumvent them. For what possible reason is this being introduced? Why is this section necessary, if not to do that?

Hon. S. Anton: Subsection (f), I’ll observe to the member again, involves “expenses incurred in holding a fundraising function.” As I mentioned the other day, if you were to have a dinner and you spend $10,000 on your dinner and make $12,000, that $10,000 has not been considered an election expense — unless there’s a deficit. But that $10,000 is actually $10,000 that you can spend to raise the $12,000, if you know what I mean. That has been exempted for at least 20 years now in section (f).

What (h.1) proposes is that a similar principle be applied to other things that candidates or political parties will do during the course of the campaign — for example, a phone bank to raise funds or a direct mail to raise funds.

Again, I would say that it is always — and it should be, continuing on here — crystal-clear whether the phone bank is, for example, a voter ID phone bank, which is one thing, or a fundraising phone bank, which is quite different; whether your mail is a solicitation for funds or just a general “this candidate is great.” They’re two different things, and the Chief Electoral Officer is very capable of distinguishing between the two.

The reason, as I said, is that the principle has already been in the act for 20 years now. It’s expanding the principle somewhat to allow some of these other fundraising function costs to be excluded.

Section 15 approved on division.

Sections 16 and 17 approved.

On section 18.

[1135]

G. Holman: Again, I guess a similar question on section 18, just to ask the minister: what’s the rationale for this amendment? How would this amendment affect communications such as publications without charge, articles in bona fide publications, books etc.? Can the minister explain the rationale for the amendment and how it affects the non-commercial kinds of communications?

Hon. S. Anton: Section 228 takes out the 60-day pre-campaign period from the definition of “election adver-
[ Page 8725 ]
tising,” because that piece was struck down by the courts as being unconstitutional.

The sections that the member was referring to…. It doesn’t include those different things. It’s just part of the definition of “election advertising.”

Section 18 approved.

On section 19.

G. Holman: As I understand section 233, it allows get-out-the-vote messages on election day via social media. My question to the minister is: how is Elections B.C. going to monitor, how are they going to enforce and ensure that the rules are adhered to, that the message on voting day is solely for the purpose of encouraging voting?

[1140]

Hon. S. Anton: I think the question, if I got the question right, was: how does the Chief Electoral Officer know about these things? In a couple of ways people bring it to the attention of Elections officials on election day, and of course, the Chief Electoral Officer has a great number of his own officials out on election day.

The purpose of this was to clarify something that was unclear in the last election. If candidates sent out a tweet, for example, saying, “Go out and vote,” that was not considered to be permissible. I know some candidates who had done that had to stop midway through the day.

This is to say that a candidate can, for example, put on Facebook: “Go out and vote.” You can put on your Twitter or other forms of communication that you use: “Get out and vote.” What you can’t say is: “Go out and vote for me” or “Go out and vote for that person.” But you can encourage people in a general way to vote.

Sections 19 and 20 approved.

On section 21.

G. Holman: I would like to move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper regarding section 21:

[SECTION 21, by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the following section:

Section 244 (1) is amended by striking out “or the period beginning 60 days before the campaign period”.

Section 244 (1) is deleted and the following substituted

244 (1) Subject to subsection (3), if during a campaign period or the period beginning 60 days before the campaign period an individual or organization sponsors election advertising that exceeds a total value of $5 000 or any higher amount established by regulation, the sponsor must file with the chief electoral officer an election advertising disclosure report in accordance with this section and section 245.]

On the amendment.

G. Holman: Just to explain the rationale for the amendment. The purpose of the amendment is to maintain the 60-day pre-campaign period for third-party-spending disclosure rules and require disclosure of third-party spending in the 60 days before the campaign period for those who spend above $5,000.

The courts have made it clear and have said that the law can’t limit third-party spending, but in our view, there’s still a public interest in knowing which third parties are spending significant sums of money to influence the election outcome. So the intent of this amendment is to accomplish this, accomplish disclosure, but only for spending above $5,000 — in other words, only for spending a significant amount.

One could choose other numbers there. We chose $5,000. That’s the rationale for the amendment.

[1145]

Hon. S. Anton: Government is not in support of the amendment for two reasons. One is that there is no longer a pre-campaign period. That’s gone, just as it is in the rest of the country.

Secondly, in terms of the $500 or $5,000, the $500 is a better amount, in my view, because you can get a lot with $500 now, especially in this world of social media. You can get a lot of bang for your buck, and it’s better to err on the side of caution in reporting rather than allowing the bigger margin of the $5,000, which is proposed by the member.

For those reasons, I’m not in support of the amendment.

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

Two points. Part of our amendment is to restore the 60-day period, specifically with respect to disclosure. Our amendment addresses that. Also, if the minister or government wishes to propose another threshold, we’d be perfectly willing and happy to consider that.

Amendment negatived on division.

Section 21 approved.

On section 21.1.

The Chair: The minister has an additional section on the order paper.

Hon. S. Anton: I move the amendment to section 21.1 standing in my name on the orders of the day.

[SECTION 21.1, by adding the following section:

21.1 Section 275 is amended

(a) in subsection (3) by striking out “within the meaning of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act”,

(b) by adding the following subsections:

(3.2) Despite subsection (3) of this section, personal information contained in the lists referred to in sections 51 (2) (b) and (c), 96 (5) and 97 (7) may only be used for the purposes of this Act.

(3.3) For certainty, personal information contained in a record
[ Page 8726 ]
referred to in this section must not be used for commercial purposes.,

(c) in subsection (4) by striking out “subsection (3)” and substituting “this section”,

(d) in subsection (4) (a) by striking out “that subsection,” and substituting “this section,”, and

(e) by adding the following subsections:

(4.1) Subject to subsection (4.2) of this section,

(a) in the case of a registered political party that wishes to obtain a list referred to in section 51 (2) (a) or (b), the director, principal officer or principal member of the registered political party on whose behalf the list is requested must file with the chief electoral officer a privacy policy acceptable to the chief electoral officer,

(b) in the case of a candidate representative who wishes to obtain a copy of a list referred to in section 96 (5), the candidate or the official agent of the candidate on whose behalf the list is requested must file with the chief electoral officer a privacy policy acceptable to the chief electoral officer, and

(c) in all other cases, an individual who wishes to obtain a copy of a record referred to in this section must file with the chief electoral officer a privacy policy acceptable to the chief electoral officer.

(4.2) If a privacy policy has been previously filed under subsection (4.1), the chief electoral officer may waive a requirement under that subsection.

(4.3) In this section:

“personal information” means personal information within the meaning of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act;

“privacy policy” means a policy that sets out reasonable security arrangements against such risks as unauthorized access, collection, use, disclosure or disposal in respect of personal information contained in a record referred to in this section.]

On the amendment.

A. Weaver: I would like to submit a subamendment to 21.1. I will pass it along here.

[SECTION 21.1, by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the underlined text as shown:

21.1 Section 275 is amended

(a) in subsection (3) by striking out “within the meaning of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act”,

(b) by adding the following subsections:

(3.2) Despite subsection (3) of this section, personal information contained in the lists referred to in sections 51 (2) (b) and (c), 96 (5) and 97 (7) may only be used for the purposes of this Act.

(3.3) For certainty, personal information contained in a record referred to in this section must not be used for commercial purposes.,

(c) in subsection (4) by striking out “subsection (3)” and substituting “this section”,

(d) in subsection (4) (a) by striking out “that subsection,” and substituting “this section,”, and

(e) by adding the following subsections:

(4.1) Subject to subsection (4.2) of this section,

(a) in the case of a registered political party that wishes to obtain a list referred to in section 51 (2) (a) or (b), the director, principal officer or principal member of the registered political party on whose behalf the list is requested must file with the chief electoral officer privacy commissioner a privacy policy acceptable to the chief electoral officer privacy commissioner,

(b) in the case of a candidate representative who wishes to obtain a copy of a list referred to in section 96 (5), the candidate or the official agent of the candidate on whose behalf the list is requested must file with the chief electoral officer privacy commissioner a privacy policy acceptable to the chief electoral officer privacy commissioner, and

(c) in all other cases, an individual who wishes to obtain a copy of a record referred to in this section must file with the chief electoral officer privacy commissioner a privacy policy acceptable to the chief electoral officer privacy commissioner.

(4.2) If a privacy policy has been previously filed under subsection (4.1), the chief electoral officer privacy commissioner may waive a requirement under that subsection.

(4.3) In this section:

“personal information” means personal information within the meaning of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act;

“privacy policy” means a policy that sets out reasonable security arrangements against such risks as unauthorized access, collection, use, disclosure or disposal in respect of personal information contained in a record referred to in this section.]

On the subamendment.

A. Weaver: One of the big concerns I have with this bill is how it gives political parties, candidate representatives and individuals the ability to get access to personal information on whether or not a person has voted. Information on whether or not someone has voted is private information, as I’ve outlined earlier. Political parties and the candidates have no right to this information, in my view. Only the individual voter and the Chief Electoral Officer need to have such information, in my view.

The amendments to this bill make it so that any candidate or an individual — and my friend and colleague from Saanich North and the Islands will deal with that shortly — who was a candidate in the most recent general election can get access to the list of who has voted and who has not. Once this information is in their hands, what provisions are available to ensure that this information is truly protected from abuse? I’ve raised this a number of times earlier.

Obviously, the amendments now require a privacy policy, and that was a good step. But who is going to enforce that policy? What penalties will apply? Does the Chief Electoral Officer have the power to do any of this? Is the Chief Electoral Officer truly an expert in this area of privacy?

I’d argue that the protection of privacy is not the Chief Electoral Officer’s role. It’s the Information and Privacy Commissioner’s role. So why are we tasking the Chief Electoral Officer with deciding whether a privacy policy is sufficient or not?

It is for this reason that I move the subamendment to replace references to the Chief Electoral Officer in the amendment to section 21.1 to refer to the Information and Privacy Commissioner. The whole point of having an Information and Privacy Commissioner is that the commissioner can act as an independent body and expert on personal privacy law to ensure that British Columbians’ interests are met.

I think it’s concerning enough that the most recent amendments to Bill 20 were apparently not run by the
[ Page 8727 ]
Information and Privacy Commissioner in advance of their preparation. It was assumed by this government that the changes would address the commissioner’s concerns, apparently without checking with her on that. Of course, if I’m incorrect here, I certainly welcome such a correction from the minister. But alluding to the previous talks by her, the amendment was introduced to her after it was brought to us here in the Legislature.

[1150]

The point I’ve intended to make, however, is that we have an Information and Privacy Commissioner for precisely this reason — to protect the rights and privacy of British Columbians. The government is trying to take steps that I believe go too far in infringing on those privacy rights, perhaps not from a legal standpoint but certainly from an ethical standpoint.

I’ve tried to stop this from occurring. However, if these changes are going to be pushed through by this government, then at the very least let’s empower the Information and Privacy Commissioner to do the job the position was intended for — reviewing and evaluating the privacy policies that political parties and candidates would have to develop to govern the use of that personal information. As an independent officer who has raised significant concerns about this change, the Information and Privacy Commissioner is well suited for this role.

Hon. S. Anton: Just on the first thing that the member said. He said that no one has the right to this information. Of course, that’s actually not true because candidate representatives and scrutineers have that information as they sit at the polling stations.

Secondly, on the main point, though — which is whether or not the Privacy Commissioner should be responsible for this implementation of section 275 — I’ll just observe that the Chief Electoral Officer is responsible for the Election Act and the vast array of personal information which is collected under the auspices of the Election Act. He has already indicated that he will work with the Privacy Commissioner, and the Privacy Commissioner has already indicated that she will work with him. That is the kind of collaboration that you would expect between those two offices. The public, I think, can have great confidence that those two are very cognizant of their roles and responsibilities and the importance of that kind of collaboration.

Subamendment negatived.

G. Holman: An additional subamendment that we’re making to section 21.1.

[SECTION 21.1, by deleting the text highlighted by strikethrough text as shown:

SECTION 21.1, by adding the following section:

21.1 Section 275 is amended

(a) in subsection (3) by striking out “within the meaning of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act”,

(b) by adding the following subsections:

(3.2) Despite subsection (3) of this section, personal information contained in the lists referred to in sections 51 (2) (b) and (c), 96 (5) and 97 (7) may only be used for the purposes of this Act.

(3.3) For certainty, personal information contained in a record referred to in this section must not be used for commercial purposes.,

(c) in subsection (4) by striking out “subsection (3)” and substituting “this section”,

(d) in subsection (4) (a) by striking out “that subsection,” and substituting “this section,”, and

(e) by adding the following subsections:

(4.1) Subject to subsection (4.2) of this section,

(a) in the case of a registered political party that wishes to obtain a list referred to in section 51 (2) (a) or (b), the director, principal officer or principal member of the registered political party on whose behalf the list is requested must file with the chief electoral officer a privacy policy acceptable to the chief electoral officer,

(b) in the case of a candidate representative who wishes to obtain a copy of a list referred to in section 96 (5), the candidate or the official agent of the candidate on whose behalf the list is requested must file with the chief electoral officer a privacy policy acceptable to the chief electoral officer, and

(c) in all other cases, an individual who wishes to obtain a copy of a record referred to in this section must file with the chief electoral officer a privacy policy acceptable to the chief electoral officer.

(4.2) If a privacy policy has been previously filed under subsection (4.1), the chief electoral officer may waive a requirement under that subsection.

(4.3) In this section:

“personal information” means personal information within the meaning of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act;

“privacy policy” means a policy that sets out reasonable security arrangements against such risks as unauthorized access, collection, use, disclosure or disposal in respect of personal information contained in a record referred to in this section.]

On the subamendment.

G. Holman: Again, it’s further to the concerns expressed by the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head around privacy concerns.

The intent of our subamendment would be to strike section 275(4.1)(c). It would strike the reference in the legislation — essentially, the clause that would provide voter turnout information to an individual who wishes to obtain a copy of a record referred to in this section who must file with the Chief Electoral Officer a privacy policy acceptable to the Chief Electoral Officer.

This is another example of very poorly thought-out legislation, opens up the barn door very wide in terms of where this voter turnout information can be provided and raises all kinds of concerns about the breadth of the distribution of this information. Given the concerns expressed by the public, by this side of the House, our amendment would be to strike this section and to narrow the extent to which voter turnout information could be provided.

Hon. S. Anton: I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
[ Page 8728 ]

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:55 a.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 resolutions, was granted leave to sit again.

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

Hon. M. Polak moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 11:56 a.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(continued)

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

The committee met at 11:10 a.m.

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

D. Eby: I’d like to go through with the minister how commissions are paid to casino service providers. I believe I understand the concept of net win, which is simply the prizes that are paid out deducted from the gross amount gambled. How do you get from net win to the service provider commissions? When do they deduct their expenses in running the operation? Do they deduct their expenses? Is it just a percentage of the net win as a whole? How does that work?

Hon. M. de Jong: I wanted to get as much information as I could.

The first thing, operationally, I can tell the committee and the member is that, in terms of cash management, there is a system in place which sees cash transferred from the service provider’s account as it relates to the games being offered to the B.C. Lottery Corporation. That, in terms of managing the cash, is what takes place. I think the member’s more specific question relates to the calculation of what is returned to the service provider. It’s broken down by game. Let’s take slot machines as an example.

[1115]

There is the amount of money, firstly, that players wager or inject into the slot machine. The first thing that’s deducted is the win — that which is returned to players. Then the balance is transferred to the Lottery Corporation. The commission percentage is calculated from that amount and paid back to the service provider.

What I wanted to verify with folks from the Lottery Corporation is that that’s the calculation, and the question of expenses for the service provider doesn’t enter into that equation. It’s how much is bet, deduct what is paid to players in win, the balance to the Lottery Corporation. The commission is calculated off that amount and paid back to the service provider.

D. Eby: I thank the minister. That was a very clear answer. How do we get from that parcel of money which the BCLC maintains after paying off that percentage commission on slot machines, for example, to the 10 percent that is paid out to municipalities? Is that calculated based on that remaining amount of money in BCLC’s account, or does BCLC deduct its own expenses and then take 10 percent off that amount?

Hon. M. de Jong: To follow through on the example, the proceeds from the slot machines have gone to the B.C. Lottery Corporation. The commission is calculated, and that amount is returned to the service provider. Of the remaining amount with the B.C. Lottery Corporation, there is then a deduction for expenses relating to the B.C. Lottery Corporation. The calculation of the percentage payable to the community is applied to that reduced amount after the Lottery Corporation expenses.

D. Eby: Is there any level of accountability to the municipalities about what’s deducted before their 10 percent is calculated? For example, do they get a report saying: “For the River Rock Casino, we had this level of expenses, based on this, and that’s why you’re getting this amount of money”? Or is it just they get a cheque from BCLC, and that’s that?

Hon. M. de Jong: I’m going to turn around in a moment and get more detail for the member, but I just want to clarify — and this may not be what he meant.

In the calculation that we’re talking about, the expense for the service provider, the River Rock, is not relevant. The calculation of the expense for B.C. Lottery Corporation is.

[1120]

The flow…. This is actually important because it goes, I think, to the heart of the member’s question around certainty and transparency for the calculation. The flow of funds is not from, first of all, B.C. Lottery Corporation to the community. The funds go to the gaming policy and enforcement branch. So they come into the Crown proper, if I can use that term, and are then paid out from there. That payout occurs pursuant to the terms of the agreement that exists with the host community. There’s a formula contained and reference to GAAP and that sort of thing.

Most importantly, and perhaps most helpful to the member — I’ve just checked to ensure that I can get him a version of this — there is a spreadsheet that goes with the payment to the host community that breaks down how the calculation has taken place. I’ll endeavour to get a sample of one of those spreadsheets so that the member can examine in detail what’s provided.

D. Eby: The minister may be able to address this by simply pointing me to the right place to find it. I wasn’t able to. I’m looking for the gaming policy and enforcement branch’s budget or staffing levels for a three-year period — last year, this year, projected for next year — so that I can identify trends. I haven’t been able to find that information anywhere. The minister can either read it into the record or point me to the right place.

Hon. M. de Jong: I’ll start with this. It’s not as complete as the member will want. But in terms of the budget per se, Vote 24 is the separate vote for the gaming policy and enforcement branch and shows the estimates for the fiscal year. Page 90 of…. This was for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2015. There would be an equivalent for the fiscal year that we’re in, which I’ll….

D. Eby: Does that include full-time-equivalent employee numbers there?

[1125]

Hon. M. de Jong: Two things, then. The FTE for the fiscal year we’re in — 156. In the Supplement to the Estimates for fiscal year ending March 31, 2016, at Vote 24 on page 38, the member can get the more detailed breakdown, through the various subvotes, of how the budget of $19.819 million is distributed through the various subvotes.

D. Eby: What were the number of full-time-equivalents last year at the gaming policy and enforcement branch? Are we seeing an increase or a decrease in the number of staff there, and what’s projected for the coming year?

Hon. M. de Jong: The budgeted number is unchanged. The hiring freeze, though, has had an impact on the branch as well, so I’ll have to get an actual. The actual number will be below the budgeted amount.

D. Eby: With respect to BCLC’s full-time-equivalents, the last number I have was from the review on December 17, 2014, which was 919 full-time-equivalents. Where are we at now in terms of BCLC?

Hon. M. de Jong: I’m advised that the actuals right now are 880 FTEs.

D. Eby: On April 1, 2009, the 12-member RCMP integrated illegal gaming enforcement team was dissolved. At the time, the cost was $1 million a year. I understand that it was paid for by B.C. Lottery Corporation.

Can the minister advise whether BCLC has looked at restoring funding for that unit? Given considerable news stories around suspicious transactions at casinos and the significant expansion in gaming in the province — casino gaming, in particular — involving international gamblers coming to British Columbia, having the national police force have an integrated team could be useful. Has BCLC looked at restoring that funding at all for the integrated casino team?

Hon. M. de Jong: I think the short answer to the member’s question — he’s identified the decision that was made — is that there isn’t any thought being given at the moment to restoring funding in the way that existed.

[1130]

I think part of the rationale for that relates to the focus that has been brought to bear on activities within…. It’s the desire to focus on activities and identifying illegal activities taking place within the venues over which the Lottery Corporation and GPEB have authority within the casinos. For example, the agency that the member has referred to was focused on illegal gaming activities taking place outside of gaming centres and facilities.

Of course, the law enforcement agencies continue to have responsibilities there, where I think the focus is now through cooperation with agencies, work with FINTRAC — we talked about that earlier — to identify and arrest illegal activities that might be taking place within the facilities to which the Lottery Corporation is related and over which GPEB has jurisdictional authority.

D. Eby: There was a report prepared by Deloitte in relation to the proposed destination entertainment complex at B.C. Place. This is the resort and casino, the moving of the Edgewater Casino, at B.C. Place. In it Deloitte set out an annual chart of revenue that would be generated from the facility. Under casino owner-operator they set out projected annual revenues of $16.9 million from facility development commissions and accelerated facility development commissions for the casino operator and owner.

Can the minister advise what BCLC is projecting in terms of facility development commissions and accelerated facility development commissions being paid to the ca-
[ Page 8730 ]
sino owner-operator of this new facility over the near term, at least, in relation to the construction of this project? He doesn’t need to go over the $20 million for the parking garage. We already covered that exhaustively. Will there be additional commissions paid to Paragon under any agreements reached between BCLC and that company?

[1135]

Hon. M. de Jong: I can advise the committee that…. Here’s the stage that we’re at right now. The short answer is there’s no amount specifically approved, beyond what we talked about yesterday, for either facility development commissions or accelerated facility development commissions. So there is conceptual approval for the projects but no business case approval.

The numbers that get plugged in, I’m told, flow from the approval of the business case. That hasn’t occurred yet nor, of course, has construction commenced. It would be at that stage that the corporation would be in a position to agree upon and approve facility development commissions. No amounts have been approved as of this date. No amounts beyond what we talked about yesterday have been approved, and no funds have flowed to this point.

D. Eby: Does the B.C. Lottery Corporation have a cap on the amount of money they would contribute to this project? This is a half-billion-dollar project, but that includes the hotels and the restaurants and all. What portion of the casino’s total capital cost would BCLC potentially pay?

Hon. M. de Jong: First thing, there is a policy — and I’ll obtain it for the member — that guides the determination and the assessment of business cases and what would be deemed appropriate for facility development commissions or accelerated facility development commissions. The corporation, I’m advised, has not yet received a submission so hasn’t even begun to analyze the amounts that might be eligible.

The corporation has a position to approve or disapprove and set limits on the development commissions that would be payable, but there is not an amount, a specific amount, in play at the moment relative to this development.

[1140]

D. Eby: In 2013-14 fiscal BCLC made 31 payments totalling $75,000 to the Vancouver Canucks and associated agencies like Aramark catering for suites and seats at Rogers Arena. Contest winners were often accompanied by BCLC reps, which is, obviously, understandable, but on three occasions Michael Graydon and a total of eight guests over the course of the year also attended and billed taxpayers for catering. Who were they?

There were also 42 names redacted from the list of attendees at the Canucks games on the basis that revealing their names would reveal “financial, commercial, scientific or technical information that belongs to a public body or to the government of B.C. that has, or is reasonably likely to have, monetary value.”

Can the minister advise who BCLC is taking to Canucks games?

Hon. M. de Jong: I’m going to turn around and pose the question. I expect that the answer I’m going to get is: not on the spot today. I can, however…. I’ll pose the question but endeavour to get information for the member. But give me a moment, and I’ll see what I can obtain.

Two things. I can certainly obtain for the member the names of Lottery Corporation officials who were in attendance. The agreement between Play Now and the Canucks, which I believe has been discontinued…. In general, I am told that the broad group of names that would have been excluded from publication would relate to contest winners and frequent players of games, frequent winners, large-stakes players. Those were the two broad categories of names that would be excluded. I will undertake to ensure that that is the extent of who has been excluded.

D. Eby: When did the gaming policy and enforcement branch — or BCLC, or both — first become aware of the bankruptcy of Paragon’s casino in Alberta and the credit default at their other casino in Alberta? They have only ever built two casinos in Canada or anywhere, and both had serious credit defaults — one a bankruptcy. When did this come to the attention of the B.C. Lottery Corporation or the gaming policy and enforcement branch?

Hon. M. de Jong: I don’t mean to be troublesome. I just want to make sure I’m answering the right question. The member’s question relates to when both GPEB and/or the Lottery Corporation became aware of a bankruptcy for which agency?

D. Eby: Paragon Gaming, which operates the Edgewater Casino and is the proponent of the new mega-casino at B.C. Place, operated two casinos in Alberta. One went bankrupt, and the other had a major credit default. They are no longer operating in Alberta.

My question is: when did the gaming policy and enforcement branch become aware of this issue — or the B.C. Lottery Corporation, or both of them, assuming that they are aware of the issue?

[1145]

Hon. M. de Jong: Here are two dates that may be of interest to the member. I’m advised that in April of 2012 the B.C. Lottery Corporation and gaming policy and enforcement branch became aware of an ongoing business dispute involving the Enoch Cree Nation reserve and Paragon Gaming EC Company, which is apparently a
[ Page 8731 ]
subsidiary of Paragon Gaming Inc., which were partners in the operating of the River Cree Casino.

Subsequent to that, on March 24, 2014, the two agencies here in B.C. — B.C. Lottery Corporation and GPEB — became aware that litigation was filed by Paragon Gaming EC against the Alberta government and the Alberta Gaming and Liquor Commission. GPEB was sent the statement of claim, and I believe that is pursuant to terms and conditions of their licence, which require them to provide notice of such matters.

D. Eby: I just want to thank the staff who are here assisting the minister today, both behind him and in the gallery. Unfortunately, we had a very brief amount of time, so I will send some questions in writing to the minister and ask for his assistance in answering those.

And thank you, Mr. Chair, for your help here.

Vote 23: ministry operations, $144,862,000 — approved.

Hon. M. de Jong: Thank you to the members of the committee for their involvement and thoughtful questions. With the committee’s permission, I would move Vote 24.

Vote 24: gaming policy and enforcement, $19,872,000 — approved.

Vote 25: Public Service Agency, $50,957,000 — approved.

Vote 26: benefits, $1,000 — approved.

ESTIMATES:
MANAGEMENT OF PUBLIC FUNDS AND DEBT

Vote 44: management of public funds and debt, $1,266,645,000 — approved.

ESTIMATES:
OTHER APPROPRIATIONS

Vote 45: contingencies (all ministries) and new programs, $350,000,000 — approved.

[1150]

Vote 46: capital funding, $1,001,447,000 — approved.

Vote 47: commissions on collection of public funds, $1,000 — approved.

Vote 48: allowances for doubtful revenue accounts, $1,000 — approved.

Vote 49: tax transfers, $975,000,000 — approved.

ESTIMATES:
LEGISLATION

Vote 1: legislation, $69,565,000 — approved.

ESTIMATES:
OFFICERS OF THE LEGISLATURE

Vote 2: Auditor General, $16,945,000 — approved.

Vote 3: Conflict of Interest Commissioner, $567,000 — approved.

Vote 4: Elections B.C., $11,080,000 — approved.

Vote 5: Information and Privacy Commissioner, $5,636,000 — approved.

Vote 6: Merit Commissioner, $1,054,000 — approved.

Vote 7: Ombudsperson, $5,802,000 — approved.

Vote 8: Police Complaint Commissioner, $3,165,000 — approved.

Vote 9: Representative for Children and Youth, $8,138,000 — approved.

Hon. M. de Jong: I move, with thanks to the committee, that the committee rise and report completion of the Ministry of Finance and Votes 1 through 9 for the Legislative Assembly and statutory officers and seek leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:53 a.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
BIRCH ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HEALTH

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section C); P. Pimm in the chair.

The committee met at 11:14 a.m.

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

[1115]

S. Hammell: I’d like to go back to where we left off just before we adjourned last time.

I asked a question about the creation of 500 addiction spaces. They had been announced and were in last year’s Health estimates. I asked regarding them, and you indicated there was phase 1, phase 2 and phase 3. I wouldn’t mind if you were more specific. Where are they going to be located? When do you expect them to come on stream? Just a little bit more detail around those beds.

Hon. T. Lake: The progress report indicates that phase 1 has been completed, with 48 beds. These are additional beds. These include two in Vancouver Island Health Authority, 19 in Vancouver Coastal, eight in Fraser Health, 16 in Interior Health, five in Northern Health and 14 in the Provincial Health Services Authority.

Phases 2 and 3. Health authorities have submitted their development plans to the ministry. These were submitted in March of this year. Planning for these phases was informed by results of an extensive needs-based planning process conducted by the Centre for Addictions Research of B.C. as well as community consultations. The results provided the health authorities with estimates of demand for various types of substance-use services and a description of need by geographic area among subpopulations.

Phases 2 and 3 have been informed by current utilization and substance-use trend data; the prioritization of models that are effective and cost-efficient; input gathered from key stakeholders, including non-profit providers; and the needs of youth, adults, older adults as well as subpopulations such as First Nations and aboriginal people and those with severe addiction and mental illness. We are looking at those plans and evaluating those plans. They will be implemented over the next number of months.

In Vancouver Island Health Authority there are 94 additional spaces in phases 2 and 3. Vancouver Coastal has 116 additional spaces; Fraser Health, 143 additional spaces; Interior, 73 additional spaces; Northern Health, 31 additional spaces; and Provincial Health Services Authority, 18 additional spaces. So if we look at the total spaces, we’ll actually have 539 additional spaces, which exceeds the goal of having 500 additional spaces.

S. Hammell: When we last spoke, you said that…. Or in Hansard it says — I can’t say I remember precisely the number — that in phase 1 there were 76 beds or spaces created. So that should be amended to 48. Am I hearing you correctly?

[1120]

Hon. T. Lake: I want to thank the member for pointing out the discrepancy. We have two different charts, and one had not been updated. I apologize for that. I read the non-updated one. We’ll start that again.

Phase 1 will see a total of 76 spaces. That includes 16 in Vancouver Island Health Authority, 17 in Vancouver Coastal, eight in Fraser Health, 16 in Interior Health, five in Northern Health and 14 in Provincial Health Services Authority.

The numbers in phases 2 and 3, I believe, are the same — 94 in VIHA, 116 in Vancouver Coastal, 143 in Fraser Health, 73 in IH and 31 in Northern — except there will be no additional beds in 2 and 3 for Provincial Health Services Authority. It comes to a total of 521, I believe, altogether, when we have the updated numbers in the entire plan — rather than 500, as we had in our goal.

S. Hammell: In terms of just having me understand how the funding works, is there separate money for this initiative from the ministry to the health authorities, or do the health authorities have to fund these spaces from within their budgets?

Hon. T. Lake: Thirty-four of those spaces were as a result of the extra money that we put into the severely addicted, mentally ill initiative, which was $20.25 million. That was essentially one-time money to help with the SAMI population and really geared to try to provide more spaces immediately.

The other mental health and substance-use beds that are being created will be created from the global budgets of the regional health authorities, so each health authority is receiving incremental increases year over year which are higher than the general increase for Health, as we try to make sure that front-line services are preserved.

In our priorities document for the health care system in B.C. we have said that we need to make a shift of resources into home and community care, away from acute care as much as possible. That includes mental health and substance-use services — to provide the services in-community and ensure that there are places.

That will take some time to shift, but this is the challenge for health care and for health authorities — to make that shift. They will detail, through their detailed working papers that they have to submit to the ministry in October, how they are making that shift and putting resources into mental health and substance use specifically.

[1125]

S. Hammell: I assume these numbers are serious — these numbers that you have given for phase 2 and phase 3. But I do look at the numbers and give an example of the Fraser Health Authority, who has the highest set of numbers here and probably has the most pressure on its budget from a budget perspective.

Now, I did ask for the per-capita budgeting by health authority, and I was told that it was very complicated. I understand that. But if this health authority is to find the money for those beds, plus it is to deal with 1,000 new people a month just in Surrey, which is only a very small part of this huge health authority, it doesn’t seem that that’s reasonable.
[ Page 8733 ]

You have 143 beds in the lowest-per-capita-funded region and the region that’s growing the fastest. Can you sort of explain how this works?

Hon. T. Lake: The model used to allocate funding to the different health authorities — the member and I have had this discussion, I think, in previous estimates — is not based on population. It is based on a number of different factors. It looks at the demographics of the area, because we know that younger populations have a lower health care cost per person than older people do.

That’s the argument we make to the federal government over the changes to the Canada health transfer — that they should recognize the demographic changes that mean that older people will require more health care and so the Canada health transfer should be based on population needs rather than just on a per-capita basis.

It would be, I think, wrong-headed to do what the federal government is doing and essentially base the health funding on a per-population basis. So we don’t do that with the regional health authorities, because the characteristics of the population in Northern Health are quite different from the characteristics of the population of Vancouver Coastal.

When it comes to Fraser Health, the review that we did, an extensive review of the Fraser Health Authority, looked at the funding model. Essentially, the review showed that the funding model was sound and that the model, which reflects the population needs of the health authority, was in fact the correct model to use.

[1130]

Although on a per-capita basis Fraser Health gets less money than, say, Vancouver Coastal, the reality is that with the younger population and with the access of tertiary and quaternary services that people from Fraser Health actually access in Vancouver Coastal Health, the amount of funding for Fraser Health is appropriate for the health needs of their community.

It is a challenge of the boards of each health authority and the leadership team of each health authority to make sure that they are looking after the health needs of their population in the global budget that is determined by this population needs–based funding formula.

S. Hammell: The Fraser Health Authority is funded to a significantly lower level. I have been aware enough of the activity around Surrey Memorial and do not believe…. I agree with the notion and the strategy that you move as much as you can out of the acute care system. I think it is the most expensive system, and it’s not where you want to put most of your health care. I think that in many ways people are using the emergency because they do not have doctors or are starting to use it as their doctor’s office.

I just do not see that you can apply that model in such a growing district without some other support to actually move the people out of going first into Surrey Memorial. For example, if somebody who is homeless and on the streets has terminal cancer, they go to Surrey Memorial. They don’t have any kind of system that’s up there to support them.

It seems to me these beds may be where you need to have people who have serious illness but are maybe not ill enough to be in the hospital. I’m just saying to you I’m very skeptical. I think the direction is correct, but I think you’re asking for an impossible task.

Hon. T. Lake: Well, I would acknowledge that it’s a difficult task for all health authorities. I would also suggest that residents of every health authority would say they would like more funding. That’s the nature of the beast that we have in health care. The demand is nearly insatiable.

However, let me just go again over the population needs–based funding model. The member said that this is a growing population, so how can they possibly have the level of funding they have when they’re growing so much?

The population needs–based formula takes into account the following factors.

Population demographics, including the size. That includes a growth factor, the demographic composition and rate of change of regional populations by age, gender and socioeconomic status to determine the need for health care services.

Utilization. The utilization of health care services in the B.C. population varies significantly by age, gender and socioeconomic status and is estimated for each health authority.

Interregional flows, which I mentioned previously. Residents receive services in other health authorities, and the model reallocates workload to the health authorities providing the services.

Regional costs. Adjustments are made to recognize the differences in the costs of delivering health care in the regions due to remoteness or the higher costs inherent in large, specialized acute care facilities.

The member’s concern about population growth and the other factors are, in fact, taken into account through this population needs–based funding model.

The Fraser Health review did acknowledge that in order to get the ship turned around, they would require a top-up. Last year an additional $40 million was given to Fraser Health to manage that change to reach some of the goals identified in the Fraser Health review, which included more home and community care and less reliance on acute care.

[1135]

That was acknowledged, and $40 million extra was allocated to Fraser Health. In this year $20 million has been allocated. They’re making that shift, and we are working with them closely to provide the fiscal resources to make that shift.
[ Page 8734 ]

S. Hammell: Just a quick question. The $40 million and the $20 million are not built into the base. They are on top. In essence, $40 million last year, and then it doesn’t return. It returned at $20 million.

Hon. T. Lake: Yes, the member is correct. For ’14-15 an additional $40 million was used to help start turning the ship in the right direction; in ’15-16, $20 million on top of the base — not on top of the $40 million. The $40 million was one year, on top of the base. This year it’s $20 million on top of the base to make that transition.

S. Hammell: I’ll just switch. I would like to just spend a few minutes on your ten-year Healthy Minds, Healthy People. I’ll just make that comment.

The minister said during the 2014 estimates that the 2013 annual report would be approved early in 2014. We could not locate — and maybe this is our problem — a 2013 annual updated report on progress. Is there a 2013 annual update report and, hopefully, a 2014 report?

Hon. T. Lake: The Healthy Minds, Healthy People ten-year mental health plan. We committed to reviewing and doing an update. Staff have been working diligently across ministries as well. They presented a draft report to me recently, but I wasn’t satisfied with it, so I sent it back and asked for more specificity.

When we’re dealing with plans like this, there is a tendency always, I think, to have goals that are difficult to apply metrics to. I was concerned about the data and whether or not we could actually, in updates, have the right metrics to show that we were in fact making progress.

We also have had, really, in the last year a much more collaborative engagement with the Minister of Children and Family Development. We have a new parliamentary secretary for child and youth mental health. So I didn’t feel that the update really reflected the work that we’ve been doing with Children and Families — and Education, actually — on the child and youth mental health file.

I asked staff to take it back and rework it to reflect the work that we’re doing with MCFD, with Education, and come back with more specificity in the plan. It is probably my fault that we haven’t posted that report yet, because I’m not at this point satisfied with where we’re at with that update.

[1140]

S. Hammell: To the minister, just so I’m absolutely clear, we do not have a 2013 report, and we do not have a 2014 report.

Hon. T. Lake: The goal was to post an update on the original plan but then to present a refreshed plan in three-year cycles throughout the rest of the plan. That is what was presented to me, and I was not satisfied with it. I didn’t want to just post something without having a new plan, a refreshed plan, that shows where we’re going from here to the end of the ten-year plan.

We have not posted an update because I’m not happy with the amount of work or the type of work that we’ve done to date in terms of the update. It doesn’t really reflect the actual work that we’re doing interministerially, particularly on child and youth mental health. Once that work is done, we will post an update and also the new refreshed plan for the second part of the ten-year mental health plan.

S. Hammell: So, Minister, there’s not a 2013, and there’s not a 2014. There’ll be a sort of mid-term report that is more specific. Okay.

I’d just like to ask a kind of general question first. These goals are…. They can lack specificity, being specific. It also leads to the thought: how do you influence the regions to then take these goals seriously? Do you expect to see them in the service plans of the ministry? How do you move general goals from a very high level down to actual work on the ground?

Hon. T. Lake: The member has hit the nail squarely on the head, and that is a challenge with frameworks or plans that are created by ministries that don’t really acknowledge the translation of the plan into the actual work by the people delivering health care. That was exactly my concern with the ten-year mental health plan. We didn’t have really detailed working plans to show how the health authorities would implement. Part of that was the lack of specificity in the plan itself.

We need a plan that is more specific and that reflects the work we’re doing on child and youth mental health. For instance, the collaborative work that has gone on in the Interior Health Authority. That should serve as a model for all health authorities. We want to make sure that that is properly highlighted in the Healthy Minds, Healthy People document and that other health authorities see the way that work was done and can emulate it in their health authorities as well.

I mentioned yesterday, when we were looking at our policy papers and setting priorities for the health care system, that we are really attempting to align more and more with health authorities. Rather than just sort of be the overseer and the issuer of edicts, we want to work with health authorities to say: “We all agree that this is where we need to go. How are we going to get there?”

We need health authorities to show us exactly the actions they’re going to take that will meet the goals that we put in policy papers. Much more collaboration is going on with health authorities so that when we in fact say, “This is our goal,” we know how the health authorities can implement actions that will achieve those goals.

The member is exactly correct. We need to make sure that we see how health authorities are implementing
[ Page 8735 ]
the goals that we create. Our responsibility is to create documents that have goals that are achievable, that are actionable by health authorities, and that’s what we’re working on.

S. Hammell: Minister, are you suggesting or implying that you’re actually going to be adjusting the Healthy Minds, Healthy People report? Are you actually making changes to it in terms of…? Because you’re expecting reporting to be more specific, does that imply and mean that the general framework will be adjusted?

[1145]

Hon. T. Lake: Documents like the ten-year mental health plan are living documents. Obviously, when data comes in that provides additional information, when techniques are proven out, when research shows you a better way of doing things, you need to adjust your document. So that’s what we’re doing — looking at the document itself, what we’ve been able to accomplish and then refresh it for the second part of the framework to really reflect best practices today.

We have things like the Canadian Institute for Health Information report that just came out, which shows that young people are accessing emergency departments more and more for psychiatric and mental health conditions. Yet the prevalence of mental health conditions among young people doesn’t appear to be increasing. That’s very informative.

I think it would not serve us well to not update and readjust our plan without taking that kind of information into account. If more and more young people are showing up at emergency departments, what does that mean? Does it mean that we need to have specific emergency entries for young and adolescent people, or does it mean we need more support in community so that they don’t have to end up in emergency?

Those are the things that we will look at, as we’re refreshing this document, to make sure it that it reflects best practices in 2015.

S. Hammell: Are there specific goals in the report that you are finding you cannot measure with any accuracy?

The Chair: Minister, and noting the hour.

Hon. T. Lake: I know the time is getting near for a break, so I will just answer the question and then accede to the Chair.

The second milestone, which is that the number of young B.C. children who are vulnerable in terms of social and emotional development will decrease by 15 percent by 2015 — that one is a difficult one. It’s a school-based assessment tool.

This was the difficulty I was having in the plan presented to me. When you look at some of the statistics, the research is often done in one country and transposed to British Columbia. I was not particularly convinced that what was true in Australia or South America necessarily reflected the situation in British Columbia. That’s why I want to have more B.C., and certainly Canadian, information, and that’s why the CIHI report gives us better numbers.

I think there are better metrics that we can use. The metrics in this particular one, I think, are problematic. That’s why we want to take another look at it. That would be one, I think, that we will address.

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

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:49 a.m.

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

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