2016 Legislative Session: Fifth Session, 40th Parliament
HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Monday, March 7, 2016

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 34, Number 5

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

MONDAY, MARCH 7, 2016

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Hon. N. Yamamoto: I’d like to introduce two people who are visiting the House today. They are from the Insurance Bureau of Canada. The CEO, Don Forgeron, is here with us, as well as Aaron Sutherland. Aaron would be a familiar face in government here, but he is now the manager of government relations for western and Pacific, IBC.

IBC has been a fabulous partner to work with in emergency preparedness. They’re strong advocates for preparedness. They represent Canada’s property and casualty insurance companies, which assume the risk for Canadian homes, businesses and autos.

[1335]

I want to congratulate them for their support of the small business awards. They have been a title sponsor for that as well as a title sponsor for ShakeOut B.C. Would the House please make them feel very welcome.

V. Huntington: I thought perhaps government members would be introducing an old, old friend of mine, Michael McSweeney, who is the CEO of the Cement Association of Canada, and Mr. Pat Heale, who is the vice-president of Lehigh Hanson in my riding.

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

BILL 16 — COMMUNITY CARE AND
ASSISTED LIVING AMENDMENT ACT, 2016

Hon. T. Lake presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Community Care and Assisted Living Amendment Act, 2016.

Hon. T. Lake: I move that the Community Care and Assisted Living Amendment Act, 2016, be introduced and read for a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. T. Lake: Assisted living is a semi-independent type of housing which provides residents with hospitality services such as meal provision and laundry services. It also includes prescribed services such as help with medication and daily living activities like eating, mobility, dressing or personal hygiene, among others.

As the province’s seniors advocate noted in her report on housing last year, many seniors had to transfer to residential care sooner than they needed to because of the rules under the existing legislation. These changes being introduced today recognize the varied needs of people in assisted living and create more flexibility to accommodate the range of services they may require so they can stay longer in the more homelike setting of assisted living.

The amendments remove the limit on the number of prescribed services a resident can receive while still remaining eligible to live in an assisted-living residence.

The amendments also increase regulatory oversight for assisted-living residences, allowing the assisted-living registrar to inspect a residence at any time if they feel there is a risk to the health and safety of a resident, rather than only in the event of a complaint.

The amendments mean better care options for seniors and added protection for those in assisted-living residences.

I move that the Community Care and Assisted Living Amendment Act be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 16, Community Care and Assisted Living Amendment Act, 2016, 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)

ORGAN DONATION AND TRANSPLANTATION

G. Kyllo: March is Kidney Month, and this Thursday is World Kidney Day. In recognition of these events, I’d like to share an inspirational story of Sarah Sutherland, from my home town of Sicamous, who recently donated a kidney to her brother Aaron.

Two years ago Aaron was nearing his 40th birthday when he found out that his kidneys were functioning at only 15 percent. Sarah immediately knew that she wanted to donate one of her kidneys to her brother Aaron and began the screening process to determine if she was a match. After many tests, it was confirmed that Sarah was a suitable donor. By this time, Aaron’s kidneys were functioning at only 7 percent, and he was on dialysis four days a week.

Now, three months post-surgery, I’m happy to announce that both Sarah and her brother Aaron are doing extremely well. Aaron is now walking up to five kilometres a day. Sarah told me she is feeling almost like her old self again, albeit a little bit lighter.

“No big deal,” she says. “I would tell anyone to consider donating a kidney. It gives someone a second life, and I have noticed minimal change in mine.”
[ Page 11100 ]

Many in this House know that I’m on a bit of a personal crusade to urge as many British Columbians as possible to register their organ donation wishes on B.C. Transplant. We are continuing to make it easier for British Columbians to register as organ donors.

I’m happy to report that we had a record number of 38,000 British Columbians register their wishes on B.C. Transplant last year, largely due to efforts of the Service B.C. centres to raise awareness and improve access as well as focused access and efforts by organizations like the Kidney Foundation of Canada.

Now B.C. Transplant and ICBC have announced a new pilot project at four ICBC offices across the province, again to help improve the access to registering on B.C. Transplant.

Remember that one organ donor can save up to eight lives, so please join me in registering your intention to become an organ donor.

[1340]

WOMEN IN LABOUR MOVEMENT

J. Darcy: This week, International Women’s Day is being celebrated across B.C. and around the world. It will no doubt also be the subject of some very slick marketing campaigns, so I think it’s important to recall the origins of International Women’s Day over 100 years ago — the struggle of working women for safe workplaces, for higher pay, for a better quality of life. As the anthem of the women’s movement born then says: “We fight for bread, but we fight for roses too.”

Today I want to salute the women from the labour movement, some of whom are here today, for the wonderful work that they do every single day for equal pay, safety at work, seniors care, reproductive rights, poverty reduction, justice for murdered and missing indigenous women and girls, and an end to harassment and discrimination in all its forms. Today union women are meeting with MLAs to discuss child care, the minimum wage and support for victims of sexual assault.

These women have also fought hard to gain their rightful place in the labour movement, which I know a little bit about, having once been the only woman to lead a national union in Canada. As Nancy Riche, a dear friend to many of us, once said: “I’ve hit my head up against that glass ceiling, and I discovered it’s made of golf balls.”

Today one union woman reminded us of what she learned to say when she studied to become a child care worker: “Use your words.” Good advice, she said, for the labour movement — and for us in this House too.

Thank you to union members for the work they do every single day to advance equality. They give real meaning to the words: “What we desire for ourselves, we wish for all.”

COMMUNITY FOREST PROJECT
IN CHILLIWACK

J. Martin: One of the truly rewarding aspects of being a member of this Legislature is having the opportunity, over and over again, to witness community groups, businesses, non-profits and individuals working together, being able to support local projects. Well, these are inspiring projects. They’re creative, and they’re all community-driven.

One of the local initiatives in my area is the Chilliwack Park Society and its community forest project. Revitalizing existing trails and creating new trails, the park society advocates for providing opportunity for active and healthy lifestyles while protecting associated flora and fauna.

In partnership with the city of Chilliwack, park society volunteers set out to convert an underutilized, city-owned, 100-acre forest into a multi-use community park, including picnic facilities and a trail system for hiking, biking and running. Marc Greidanus of the park society, Vanessa Oddy of Tourism Chilliwack, Kevin Koopmans of Chilliwack Futures South Fraser and other local leaders have been pivotal in developing these plans and engaging families to be part of the trail-building process.

I had a chance to hike up one of the trails recently, and I have to say that it’s truly exciting to see what has been accomplished in the eastern hillsides of Chilliwack. Locals and tourists alike will certainly enjoy what is being created in the community forest project, and I encourage everyone to make this trail system part of their next staycation plan in the eastern Fraser Valley.

I wish to thank and congratulate my constituents in Chilliwack for their participation in the first phase of the community forest project. I am eager and excited to be a part of their continued progress.

NELSON HYDRO AND
SOLAR GARDEN PROJECT

M. Mungall: Nelson is home to B.C.’s very first hydroelectric plant. Under the ownership of John Houston, it began operations in 1896 at Cottonwood Creek Falls, just behind today’s farmers market and rod and gun club hall. Then, in 1897, Nelson became a city and John Houston its first mayor.

Shortly after, the new mayor, acting on behalf of the city, bought Nelson Electric Light Company from its private owner — yes, it was himself — and thus began Nelson Hydro, a utility owned and operated by the public.

One hundred and nineteen years later, Nelson Hydro remains one of the few municipally owned electricity generators, transmitters and distributors. Without a doubt, Nelson Hydro gives Nelson and district considerable power — and not just to turn on the lights or charge our phone batteries. Nelson Hydro gives us the power to
[ Page 11101 ]
generate revenue for the city and to find sustainable, renewable ways to do it.

As energy demand grows, Nelson Hydro is committed to finding innovative ways to meet that demand with as little impact as possible on the earth. The recent announcement — and success — of Canada’s first community solar garden shows that they are meeting that commitment.

[1345]

Nelson Hydro customers were given the opportunity to directly invest in the solar panels for the solar garden, and we jumped on it. The incredible interest has resulted in a minimum of 200 solar panels for the array at the Bonnington generating station, and more than 200 customer investors will see our bills credited with the proportion of our investments.

This is just a beginning. Whether in 1896 or 2016, Nelson Hydro is leading the way in energy production, showing that our public utility gives us the power to leave a legacy.

COMMUNITY PROJECTS BY
YOUTH IN VANCOUVER

S. Sullivan: I’d like to share some ways that young people are contributing to their community. Throughout the month of March, a group of LGBTQ young people, led by Cory Ashworth, will be hosting the March Sweater project. This recognizes the older LGBTQ pioneers who’ve done such hard work in creating a more inclusive and welcoming society.

The project will feature a documentary, fundraising sweatshirts and a public art exhibition at the Burrard Arts Foundation, 108 Broadway, led by another young person, Christian Chan. They have a gallery near Main and Broadway. They will feature a portrait series, video installation and interactive social sculpture.

The March Sweater displays an inverted pink triangle that LGBTQ people were made to wear in concentration camps in Europe during the Second World War. How thoughtful that young people would make this effort to acknowledge these pioneers.

Many of you have seen a Shreddies commercial on TV featuring Jordan Kerton teaching people with disabilities how to paddleboard. This summer, she will be bringing this program to False Creek, the centre of my riding. The adaptive paddling program, or APP, will happen adjacent to the Creekside Community Centre and Science World. In the fully accessible facility, they will bring this first program of its kind in the world.

There will be two full-time staff throughout the summer. They hope to recruit up to 30 volunteers. Jordan Kerton will direct the staff and the volunteers. They hope to log 500 unique life-changing paddleboarding experiences. Each paddler will be on an Onit paddleboard and have a volunteer either accompanying them or on a paddleboard beside them.

I’d like to congratulate all the young people who are making our world a better place.

RESPONSE TO CYCLONE IN FIJI

S. Hammell: Cyclone Winston, the most powerful storm ever recorded in the southern hemisphere, hit the shores of the island nation of Fiji on February 20. This massive storm brought with it devastating winds measuring 330 kilometres an hour at their peak and left destruction and carnage in every corner of the country. And 42 Fijians lost their lives. That number is predicted to rise.

An estimated 24,000 homes were destroyed or damaged, leaving 120,000 residents in need of immediate shelter assistance. Currently, the damage is being assessed at over half a billion U.S. dollars. That number is rising daily, as the toll of the cyclone continues to be tabulated. With over 130 schools destroyed or damaged and medical trauma centres being stretched to their limits, the effects of the cyclone will be felt for months, even years to come.

With aid starting to pour in from nations around the world, at the local level, the large Fijian population in B.C. has banded together to collect supplies and funds to send to the many Fijians left with nothing.

An ongoing disaster supply drive at the Delta Pentecostal Church will be held Wednesdays and Saturdays throughout the month of March. During the International Rugby Sevens tournament being held in Vancouver later this week, Rugby Canada will be donating $2 from every program sold to aid in the disaster relief operation currently underway in Fiji.

Over $100 million in aid has already been pledged from countries like Malaysia, Australia and New Zealand. I hope Canada and B.C. will join in supporting our friends in the South Pacific. Let’s all keep the Fijian people in our thoughts as they try and recover from one of the largest national disasters in the country.

[1350]

Oral Questions

ACUTE CARE BEDS IN
FRASER HEALTH AUTHORITY

J. Darcy: Over the last few weeks, the emergency department at Surrey Memorial Hospital has been so overcrowded that some days 95 patients have been waiting to be admitted into hospital beds. Critically ill patients are waiting up to four hours just to be triaged and sometimes several days to be admitted. At Royal Columbian Hospital, the story of hallway medicine is the same.

Despite this, this government is closing over 100 acute care hospital beds throughout Fraser Health. Why is the Minister of Health proceeding with this reckless act of closing acute care beds in British Columbia’s fastest-growing region?
[ Page 11102 ]

Hon. T. Lake: We know that during the winter months we will run into congestion in our hospitals as a result of flu season, primarily. This particularly affects older seniors — patients that have chronic complex problems, like congestive heart failure or COPD — and often will send them into a situation where they need to go to emergency.

We’re working very closely with our health authorities to make sure that we get the flow looked after to ensure that patients are seen on a timely basis. We also know that we have to provide support in community, and that’s what we’re doing.

The member mentions that Fraser Health is looking to restructure and provide care not in the acute care hospital but in the community. This will create appropriate care for particularly our seniors, and we’re committed to doing that.

Madame Speaker: The member for New Westminster on a supplemental.

J. Darcy: Of course we need more home care and we need more residential care beds in Fraser Health, but there’s already a very, very long wait-list for those long-promised residential care beds as a direct result of this government’s failures to keep its earlier promises.

There are also thousands of people waiting in pain for months, sometimes for years, to be admitted for surgery because there aren’t enough acute care beds. Yesterday a constituent of mine who’s having difficulty walking told me that she will have to wait at least a year and maybe two to get a knee replacement.

What the government is doing is a shell game. Once again, they are giving with one hand and taking away with the other. To the Minister of Health: why is this government closing acute care beds while patients wait in hallways and on wait-lists to get into those acute care beds?

Hon. T. Lake: The member has been associated with health care for a very long time, associated with health care in the 1990s, when more than 3,000 hospital beds were closed. More than 1,600 full-time nursing positions were cut.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Please continue.

Hon. T. Lake: This government has put over $10 billion into building health care facilities around the province of British Columbia, and we are spending a great deal of effort working with health authorities to make sure we provide the appropriate care, that we make sure that we’re not having people in the acute care system that do not need to be in the acute care system. That’s by providing more beds in community, in residential care, in hospice care, in home support care. Our goal is to make sure that British Columbians get the appropriate care, and that’s what we’re going to continue to do.

Madame Speaker: The member for New Westminster on a final supplemental.

J. Darcy: The seniors who are waiting in hallways with indignity at Royal Columbian Hospital or Surrey Memorial Hospital don’t care about the 1990s. They want to make sure that they get the care they deserve right now.

The minister should go back and check the commitments made by this government since they were elected 15 years ago and all the broken promises to build those very residential care beds that the minister is talking about today.

[1355]

The minister should get into the real world — out of his briefing books, into the real world. This is what’s happening: 35 beds, it’s estimated, are closing at Surrey Memorial; 11 in Burnaby; ten in Chilliwack; ten at Peace Arch; seven at Ridge Meadows; 12 in Langley. Those cuts have already started.

Can the Liberal government be so out of touch with today’s reality that they would think that leaving patients in hallways and languishing on wait-lists is acceptable in British Columbia’s fastest-growing region. Is that acceptable to this Health Minister and to this government?

Hon. T. Lake: In the member’s own riding, we are rebuilding Royal Columbian Hospital — the first phase is $258 million — in that member’s riding. As I mentioned, over $10 billion…. If you look at our three-year capital plan, billions and billions of dollars are being spent on hospitals around the province. We can name them.

We can talk about Penticton. We can talk about Kelowna. We can talk about Vernon. We can talk about Kamloops. We can talk about Comox and Courtenay. Communities that that government, when they were in power, ignored are getting new facilities under this B.C. Liberal government. We’ll continue to invest in health care all around the province.

S. Hammell: The promise was: “Health care where you need it, when you need it.” These cuts are happening at a time when patients are struggling to have basic medical needs met. At Abbotsford hospital, two out of three patients are not admitted within the government’s own benchmark of ten hours. Nurses and ambulance paramedics have been sounding the alarm that patients need medical attention and were still waiting for a bed at Abbotsford general 48 hours after arriving at the ER.

Yet in B.C.’s fastest-growing region, this government is cutting acute care beds — ten in Abbotsford alone. The Liberal government has ignored recommendations
[ Page 11103 ]
made years ago that the region would need more acute care beds and community care beds to cope with rising demand. Why is the government closing acute care beds in Abbotsford and the majority of hospitals in the Fraser Health region?

Hon. T. Lake: I wonder if the member realizes who built Abbotsford Regional Hospital, who built Surrey Memorial Hospital. We’re investing billions of dollars. But if I can channel my Kevin Falcon….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Please wait.

Members, we will listen to the question and the answer.

Please continue.

Hon. T. Lake: If I can channel a former Health Minister, Kevin Falcon: in NDP world, nothing should ever change; that’s for sure.

What we are doing is we are changing the way we provide services. Fraser Health is opening over 400 beds in the community, but those members don’t recognize that.

We know we need to look after people in the community to take pressure off the acute care system. We know if the members opposite had their way, we would not have a sustainable health care system, and we would not have the results we have. We are committed to having a first-class health care system in the province of British Columbia.

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

S. Hammell: That just makes a lot of sense. [Applause.] You’re closing hospitals…. So the sense you’re clapping about is you build hospitals, and then you close the beds within them, in a region that is growing as fast as any region in the province.

[1400]

The health authority’s own report card shows that 60 percent of patients wait more than ten hours for admission to hospital from the emergency ward — 60 percent. This government was told years ago that it needed to increase both acute care beds and community care beds to meet the growing patient demand, and these recommendations are not being followed. You build hospitals, and then you close the beds within them.

Why is this government cutting acute care capacity when it will result in longer wait times for patients?

Hon. T. Lake: The members opposite, I guess, do not understand the way health care has to change to meet the needs of an aging population. We need to ensure….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Just wait.

Continue.

Hon. T. Lake: The reality is people need to be supported in their home, in residential care, in the community, and we’re happy that the federal government has seen this as a priority as well. We know we can’t be sustainable to have people that are better looked after in home and community if they’re sitting in the acute care system at $1,200 to $1,500 a day. That makes no sense. But the members opposite don’t understand that. We’ll continue to evolve health care to make sure we’ve got appropriate, first-class health care, as we have here in British Columbia.

POST-SECONDARY TUITION POLICY
AND FEE INCREASES

K. Corrigan: Last Thursday the Minister of Advanced Education defended taking more money out of students’ pockets. The minister said that he would only approve new fees “where they have been imposed with consultation with the students.”

The student union at Vancouver Island University is pretty clear about what it thinks of the proposed 6.5 percent fee increase. It said: “We have received no evidence that charging students more money to attend VIU is in our members’ best interests.”

My question is to the Minister of Advanced Education. Why is he going to impose a 6.5 percent fee on students at Vancouver Island University despite their objections?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I’ll just take a moment to unravel the tangled ball that the member put on the table.

Interjections.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I’m glad to see they’re paying attention.

I met with the students union representatives of Vancouver Island University and with the administration on January 22nd of this year and, in a more orderly fashion, raised the issue of fees with the students. The issue became: are the students going to get value for money? I asked the students to verify that with me, if they thought they were getting value for money out of these fees, and I put it to the administration that these new fees had to be justified by benefits to students.

We have now advised all the institutions in the province that we will be doing a review of these fees at the end of the term to make sure that students are getting value for money, and we’ve asked the student associations to provide input to that review. So this matter is well in hand, and our job is to make sure students are getting the education they need to be prosperous in this great province of British Columbia.
[ Page 11104 ]

Madame Speaker: Burnaby–Deer Lake on a supplemental.

K. Corrigan: I think what I heard the minister say was that consultation is…. They’re going to do a survey after they’ve imposed, after the term is over. That’s like surveying homeowners after they’ve had a tax hike and asking them if they’re happy about it. That is not consultation.

The minister may have dashed off a letter to the colleges after question period last week as sort of clarification of his earlier clarification, but it won’t help students facing huge fee increases. At Selkirk College, students were pretty clear about the minister’s plan. The students union said the college is circumventing provincial tuition policy. The students union also said: “As students, we find it unreasonable that we have to pay for this.”

[1405]

If the minister is going to impose new fees on students despite their objections, then why is he even bothering to consult with them in the first place?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: We’ve become very accustomed to the members opposite having a hue and cry in claiming political interference every time something comes up in this chamber.

We have 25 autonomous institutions with their own boards of governors and the letter we have written to them says — perhaps I can quote, if they would care to listen: “Proactive consultation and engagement with students should be undertaken prior to board review and approval of new fees. Institutions should also consult with the ministry early in the process when new fees are being considered. Institutions will need to track the benefits to students of the new fees, and the ministry will collect this information as part of the annual tuition- and fees-reporting process.”

We have a very clear eye on this. We have the fourth-lowest tuition in the country — 430,000 very happy students in the system, because they are getting the skills to lead to a prosperous future for themselves and their families right here in British Columbia.

M. Mark: So the Minister of Advanced Education says new fees can only be imposed in consultation with students.

When Vancouver Community College proposed new fees based on direction from the minister, the students union’s response was unequivocal. It said: “We ask you to ensure that government policy is enforced and that these fee increases are avoided.”

My question for the minister is: who is he going to listen to — Vancouver Community College students or the VCC board that he appointed?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Well, I should introduce my response by saying I had the great pleasure about a year ago of giving an award to the now member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, and I was impressed at the time and continue to be impressed with her skills, her ability and her superior intellect.

With that in mind, I can only encourage the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant to draft her own questions rather than read out the ones foisted upon her by her leader.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members will come to order.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Now, the member may not be aware that a number of fees proposed by Vancouver Community College have not been approved by their board, and we’re keeping a close eye on the matter to make sure that education in British Columbia continues to be affordable.

Madame Speaker: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant on a supplemental.

VANCOUVER COMMUNITY COLLEGE
FEE INCREASES AND ROLE OF BOARD

M. Mark: Last year we asked the minister about college boards hiring lobbyists. The minister was outraged and said he would put an end to this practice. The minister just started appointing lobbyists, like Steve Kukucha, to the board of Vancouver college instead.

My question for the minister is: will Mr. Kukucha lobbying to protect students from this fee increase, or will he be lobbying to impose the fee increase?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Clearly, the team on this side was waiting with bated breath for the answer.

We’ve been delighted to be able to appoint hundreds of skilled individuals to boards around British Columbia, notably to those in the Ministry of Advanced Education’s 25 higher education institutions.

Of course, we have been very pleased to pick up talent wherever we can on non-partisan lines, including former NDP Premier Dan Miller, former NDP MLA Gwen O’Mahony and a few others that we are more than happy to have work for the betterment of British Columbia, regardless of partisan lines.

[1410]

DISABILITY BENEFITS AND
BUS PASS PROGRAM CHANGES

S. Fraser: My constituent Susan’s two adult sons have developmental disabilities. They rely on the bus pass to get to day programs, to recreational activities, to have some level of independence.
[ Page 11105 ]

Susan wrote to the Minister of Social Development about the challenges her sons face. Instead of listening, the minister replied by saying she apologizes for any confusion Susan may have experienced due to the misinformation being circulated. Susan is not confused. She has the information. After years of stagnant disability rates, she knows her sons need every nickel for food, for utilities, for clothing.

Does the Minister of Social Development think that this kind of patronizing response to people whose families are struggling to get by on disability assistance is the right approach?

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: The $170 million investment we have made to increase the rates for people with disabilities across this province creates fairness and equity. I understand that people across this province would like to have seen a bigger increase.

That is something we will continue to build on, something we will continue to invest in on top of all the other changes and policy reforms we have made in this ministry over the last number of years, on top of the gifting and assets, on top of the annualized earning exemptions, on top of the single-parent employment initiative — all ways that we are working towards finding ways for people with disabilities to reach their full potential, to gain their independence and to be able to be part of community.

Madame Speaker: Alberni–Pacific Rim on a supplemental.

S. Fraser: My constituent wrote the minister in response. She said: “Your response goes to prove how out of touch your government is with the developmentally disabled community.” She goes on: “People with disabilities across the province are united in the need for a rate increase, not divided by the difference in transportation subsidies.” Further, she states: “Just do the right thing: raise the rates and leave the bus pass alone. Your government should be ashamed.”

Will the Minister of Social Development do the right thing? Will she end the bus pass clawback?

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: We did, in fact, do just that. We increased the rates with a $170 million investment. The constituent that the member opposite speaks of still has the bus pass. They will see a $25 rate increase each and every month to ensure that they have more money in their pocket today than they did yesterday.

I can attest to the fact that…. I do apologize that there has been misinformation out there. In fact, on Twitter, on Friday, the national anti-poverty advocacy group B.C. ACORN called the NDP rhetoric fake outrage. They agree that the bus pass program isn’t the place to focus on. They have exposed the NDP tactics by saying it is working in their benefit to help raise the interest in the fact that they want the rates increased. It’s not the bus pass; it’s the rates. It is something we will continue to work on.

COURT RULING ON
ICBC HANDLING OF ACCIDENT CLAIM

A. Dix: To the minister responsible for ICBC, the minister is in the habit of blaming customers for rising rates at ICBC. Yet in the Arsenovski case, ICBC displayed reckless and litigious behaviour, and it is ratepayers who are going to have to pay for it.

In August 2011, ICBC actually made a settlement offer of $10,000, which Mrs. Arsenovski accepted because she was more concerned with clearing her name than in making money. What happened? ICBC withdrew the $10,000 offer. They gambled and lost with ratepayers’ money, and their misconduct led directly to a $360,000 judgement against them.

[1415]

The minister was unwilling to apologize to the Arsenovskis on Thursday. Is he prepared to apologize today?

Hon. T. Stone: I will repeat, for the member’s benefit, what I said in response to the exact same question last Thursday. Nothing has changed from then to now. I cannot, I will not comment on the specifics of a matter that is before the courts. ICBC is mulling its options in light of the decision that was rendered last week. One of those options could be an appeal of this decision.

I did say, also, last week, which I will reiterate again, that certainly this government expects — and I expect, as the minister responsible — that ICBC treat all motorists who find themselves in a situation like this with fairness. ICBC is continuously striving to improve that experience that motorists have.

Madame Speaker: Thank you, Minister. Please take your seat.

Hon. T. Stone: At the end of the day, it is also important that ICBC balance those efforts with cracking down on fraud where fraud does exist in the system.

Madame Speaker: Member for Vancouver-Kingsway on a supplemental.

A. Dix: ICBC has missed all its targets. The minister constantly blames its customers for problems of Liberal management at ICBC. In this case, it’s surely a case study of this kind of behaviour.

Madam Justice Griffin ruled that ICBC’s conduct was “so high-handed, reprehensible and malicious” that it offends this court’s sense of dignity. What was that? Misstating evidence, making trumped-up criminal charges as a means to dissuade claims — remember, Mrs.
[ Page 11106 ]
Arsenovski didn’t make a claim against ICBC — trying to convince other arms of government that the couple was committing fraud. These are the judge’s findings of fact in this case.

In light of the court’s findings that ICBC attempted to enlist other agencies, including Immigration, Fraser Health, the Medical Services Plan, in their abuse of claimants in the Arsenovski case, what actual directives is the minister planning to correct this practice? Does he view those practices as standard at ICBC?

Hon. T. Stone: Again, in the matter of this particular case, I’m not going to comment on the specifics. ICBC will determine its next course of action.

On the broader question, I would expect that the members opposite would support ICBC in the interests of applying as much downward pressure on rates as possible, doing everything that they can in the corporation to ensure that where fraud exists, a bright light is shone on it so that we can actually begin to see fraud coming back down. That’s what ICBC does as a matter of course.

That being said, ICBC is constantly striving to improve their practices to ensure that they are as fair and as reasonable with every British Columbian who finds themselves in the unfortunate situation of having to move forward with a claim.

VACANT PROPERTIES AND HOUSING
AVAILABILITY IN METRO VANCOUVER

D. Eby: Vacant investment homes and condos have been a source of concern for Vancouver residents for years. Now a long-awaited study on empty homes is being presented at Vancouver city council tomorrow. The mayor of Vancouver wrote to the Premier about this months ago, asking for a change to the Vancouver Charter to help deal with the issue. He got a polite non-response and no action.

I asked the Housing Minister — well, the minister we’re told is responsible for housing — about this last week, and he had no answer either. He took it on notice. So again to the Housing Minister, who was answering media questions about this in the hall today: with growing concern that Metro Vancouver houses and condos are being kept vacant as investments during an affordability crisis, why hasn’t this government acted on the mayor of Vancouver’s request for assistance?

[1420]

Hon. M. de Jong: Thank you to the member for the question. Like him, I understand there is a report that will be tabled before the council for the city of Vancouver. I’m interested to see what it includes, what the methodology was.

To characterize, as the member has, that the government has taken no action, I think is incorrect. Clearly, there is an interest on the part of the government — I think, on most members of the chamber — to better ascertain the circumstances that prevail within that part of British Columbia’s housing market. That’s why we announced the changes relating to the collection of data and information. I think that will better help make informed choices.

I will simply, and finally, say this. There are many reasons that a residence can be vacant. In proceeding along some of these recommended paths, we’d best ensure that we do not have unintended consequences. We’ll look for the report from Vancouver, collect the data and then be in a better position to make informed choices on behalf of all British Columbians.

[End of question period.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: In Committee A, Committee of Supply, for the information of members, it’s the estimates of the Ministry of Forests; and in this chamber, it’s continued second reading debate on Bill 3.

[R. Lee in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 3 — EMPLOYMENT AND ASSISTANCE
FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES
AMENDMENT ACT, 2016

(continued)

L. Popham: I’m rising to continue debate on Bill 3, which we started on Thursday. Bill 3 is the Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Amendment Act.

What we see happening in this act is something that I think is quite welcome. This bill amends two sections of the Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Act to allow the government to directly designate classes of persons, as defined in regulations, persons with disabilities, without requiring them to fill out the current onerous, 28-page application form or requiring additional assessments by medical practitioners.

When you look at a bill like this and the amendments that are going to take place, you wonder why it’s taken so long, to begin with. A 28-page form, for just about anybody, is onerous, but when you think about who is actually affected by this bill.…

I think that for every one of us, as MLAs, who runs a constituency office and spends time in that office, a lot of the constituents that we will see come into our offices are people that, in some ways, are trying to navigate the system, navigate paperwork, in a lot of cases. It takes some assistance to work through those forms and then direct
[ Page 11107 ]
them in the right direction of where they need to go next. From that experience that we’ve all had, I think that we can all agree that reducing paperwork is the right way to go.

Because we’ve been dealing with this for so long, it’s almost…. It’s irritating that the government would come up with a day, during the last year, called Red Tape Reduction Day and pat themselves on the back for something that of course they should be doing anyway. But now we have a day to celebrate.

[1425]

It’s like a festival for the B.C. Liberals to celebrate something that should have been done anyway. For me, when I see the paperwork being reduced in this case, it’s not a moment to celebrate. It’s a moment just to get to work and do it. It should have been done a long time ago.

I think one of the reasons why I feel that way is because you think about the people that are affected by this paperwork and the implications it has had in their lives. When you look at each individual story and how they’re affected, it’s beyond me how this could be a celebration — Red Tape Reduction Day.

This, I’m sure, will be one of the things that’s touted as: “We did it. We reduced red tape.” But you don’t get to see the individual stories that walk into our constituency offices. There are many people — just specifically around this, these types of forms — that fall through the cracks. It’s often people who need assistance most. Now, in this this case, with this form, people that are having a severe challenge getting through this paperwork are people that might live on the streets or that don’t have a family doctor.

The participation by a general practitioner is something that they need in order to complete these forms. They can either have a GP fill the form out in completion, or they can use a general practitioner and an advocate to help them. But either way, each part of these forms — and this is on a good day — would take about 30 minutes per section. If you think about going into a walk-in clinic…. I know there are examples around Victoria where you can actually go to a walk-in clinic, put your name on a wait-list for the walk-in clinic and come back hours later or else be referred to a wait-list for the next day.

You put your name on a wait-list. You get in to see a doctor who’s working at the walk-in clinic, who’s never seen you before, and this general practitioner is expected to fill out 30 minutes’ worth of paperwork — the first section of the form. It’s 30 minutes’ worth of paperwork which looks at quite a lot of detail around how the person is living day to day. This would require an extensive interview and time to get to know the patient.

In a walk-in clinic, it’s very unlikely that a GP would have the time available to be able to assess a person properly in order to fill out this form. Sitting down for 30 minutes on paperwork doesn’t include the interview on getting to know the person. If the person is lucky, they may have an advocate that joins them that is able to continue filling out the other section of the form, which also takes 30 minutes.

This has been a form that has been living in our system, and people have been grappling with it. You think about specific examples in your constituency and, as I said, the implications to people’s lives — those who can’t get this form filled out. I’m going to tell you about a specific example. It starts to help us put faces and situations on this form and the implications that it’s causing.

I don’t think “inconvenience” is really a word that you can use around the paperwork. I think a more appropriate word might be “devastation.” What I’ve seen is that this form has been devastating to people’s lives. It has put them into a position that they should never, ever have been put into, simply because there was too much to do on this form, and it’s not acceptable.

I have a family who lived in Saanich South. They were contributing to our community. The father was the main income person in the family. There were two children. One of them had some special needs, and the mom took care of the kids during the day while the husband went out and was the primary income provider.

[1430]

One day, the gentleman went out to work and got a serious back injury, so serious that he was unable to continue working. This family rented their residence. Almost immediately the family was thrown into very serious financial distress. The employment insurance ran out very quickly and became exhausted. Any savings that they had became exhausted.

Their situation was not unlike many families that we meet today. They didn’t have any extended family in the area, so they had nobody else to fall back on. They’re living in rented accommodation with their kids. The father, of course, is struggling around his own injury, and they’re completely broke.

What he needed to do was to be able to fill out this form. If he could have filled it out himself, possibly it would have gone faster. But he couldn’t fill it out because he needed a portion of the form to be filled out by a doctor. So his form was sent to a doctor, who is known to be one of the busiest doctors that there is. It’s a maternity doctor in the area and extremely, extremely busy. There is no way that this doctor would have an extra 30 minutes or more to sit at the desk and fill out a form.

What happened to this family? This is not about celebrating a Red Tape Reduction Day and creating something celebratory around it. This is a disaster for this family. An eviction notice was given because they were waiting and waiting and waiting for this form to be filled out.

You have a family of four who are contributing to our community. The children were being raised in a very loving environment, and the parents were doing everything they could to make sure that everything was great for those kids.

Then an eviction notice was given. An eviction notice was given because they’re completely broke. Meanwhile, my office is calling to see if the form can be done any
[ Page 11108 ]
sooner, but it wasn’t possible. And there’s no blame going to the doctor, because what was required of the doctor — it wasn’t something that that doctor should have had to do.

An eviction notice was given. This family, this lovely family, was basically, in an instant, facing homelessness — a family of four living in Saanich South facing homelessness because of a 28-page form that this government couldn’t see fit to do anything about until just now.

The application sat on the desk for weeks. In the meantime, my office had to step in and chatted with the landlord of the family. Fortunately, in this situation, the landlord was very reasonable. Once we explained what was happening, they gave them an extension, and they weren’t kicked out. But the crisis that the family was thrown into, prior to having that conversation with the landlord, was excruciating.

Can you imagine, as a parent, having to tell your kids that you’re going to have to go live in your car because you just couldn’t get help filling out a form? There were no exceptions made. They had to go live in their car, potentially.

The family got an extension. Eventually the form was filled out, and they were able to move on into a different housing situation. But I think this delay added such an enormous amount of stress into this family’s life. It would be what you would call an absolutely unfair situation.

Obviously, I am in support of creating a form that’s easier for people to navigate. But as for doing this, there’s no need to stand up and have a parade talking about a red-tape-reduction celebratory day. What we need to do is think about every situation that was caused by having paperwork like this, every single situation. This is just one of them. But could you imagine? Just this form alone has created such havoc in people’s lives, and it’s pushed them to the edge.

[1435]

I’m going to support this amendment bill, but I certainly am not going to stand up and celebrate it like it’s something that’s been amazing, that somebody has created something new and fabulous by having a form that’s easier for people to fill out.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no more speakers…. Oh, member for Delta South.

V. Huntington: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m so used to hearing opposition, Liberal, that I just normally assume that the Liberals will be up.

I would like to rise and speak briefly to Bill 3. When I attended the minister’s announcement in the rotunda a week or so ago, it was nice to hear that there was an opportunity being presented that will make the transition, for many people, from certain programs to PWD much easier and less costly in the long run.

The very act of smoothing out some of the red tape and cutting assessments from programs such as Community Living B.C., the At Home program, PharmaCare palliative plan and CPP disability…. Making those programs smoothly transition to PWD for about 1,000 people in the province is an excellent move. While it isn’t earth-shattering, it is indeed smoothing the transition to disability assistance for many people.

However, there remain serious problems within the disability application process itself. I’ve spoken to those briefly in the House previously, when I mentioned that the January 2014 report of the Ombudsperson reviewed complaints that had been received about the length of time it took disability application reconsiderations to be heard within the ministry. It was taking far longer than the legislated time period permitted, and the Ombudsperson suggested quite firmly that the ministry needed to review its reconsideration process.

In so doing, the Ombudsperson noticed that of the reconsiderations that were being undertaken, two-thirds were overturning the original decision to deny. Thus, the Ombudsperson recommended strongly that the ministry review not only the reconsideration process but the application process itself.

It did review the reconsideration process, and in fact, our office has noticed that a very speedy, smooth reconsideration time frame is in place and is working well, in our opinion. However, the application process itself, while reviewed last summer, basically has not changed, and the reconsideration rates remain very high.

So I think the minister has a lot more work to do. She has got to have her staff consider the application process itself. She has to move to make that smoother, to make it faster and to make it better. You cannot have a process where the majority of applications that go to reconsideration are being overturned. The minister has got to ensure that her staff look at that and change this process and create one that is working well for the department and for their clients.

I’ve spoken to the minister before, in estimates last year and again in a meeting with the minister and her two deputies, about what our office feels is a significant vacuum of service within Delta South. In its efforts to create financial efficiencies within the ministry, they have moved all of the services from the ministry and, indeed, from income assistance also. The two ministries have moved all their services out of Delta South.

Now residents of Delta South who need these services must access Surrey offices, which is a two-hour bus ride, one way, away from Delta South, or Richmond. If you’re disabled, the Richmond office is not on a bus route, nor is it on a sidewalk. There is a whole problem here in servicing clients within those communities that the ministry has moved out of entirely.

[1440]

I spoke with the minister. We presented quite a lengthy report, trying to factually explain what the issues were and the fact that our office, the Member of the Legislative
[ Page 11109 ]
Assembly for Delta South, is being forced to pick up a great deal of the work that would otherwise be done by employees of her ministry. But because these individuals can’t access human contact, because some of them have no computer systems, because some who have come to our office are illiterate, and it takes a while to uncover that that’s the problem, we are spending many, many hours a day on disability assistance applications in our office.

I suggested to the minister…. It wasn’t a criticism of the need to create efficiencies, but if they’re going to do that and create vacuums in communities of the size of Delta South, then you have to look at how else you can provide that service. I suggested that they consider a mobile office, that once every two weeks, for instance, the office come to Delta South, to Ladner and Tsawwassen. We could create a list of individuals who needed to speak to somebody. That would ease the pressure on our office and would also smooth the ability of clients to access the services they so badly needed.

What did we get? We got a list of contacts, all of whom we already used and spoke with routinely and regularly. The list was nice. It contained many contacts that we didn’t need, because they weren’t in our community or in our service area, but all of the ones that we routinely accessed.

I must say those individuals that were on the list are extremely helpful. They are the contacts for Members of the Legislative Assembly for assistance within the ministry to help individuals that come to our offices. They are very knowledgable. They are very helpful. We have absolutely no criticism of the way that they conduct their business on behalf of the ministry. However, they aren’t the people that the client needs to access.

We need to have assistance from the minister’s staff who do the job, who understand the job and who understand the process. We need to have them be able to sit down with clients who need the service.

We were told that they have a wonderful phone system, that the client can access the services by phone. Well, we’ve heard so many stories — and, I dare say, every other MLA in this House has heard so many stories — that the phone service simply is not adequate and that the wait times are long, up to 50 minutes, 60 minutes. Often the phone is disconnected. They have to try again. Disconnected again.

We decided that we would also phone up the service and just see for ourselves what the problems were. Sure enough, a 50-minute wait the first time, a 45-minute wait the second time, two hangups in the process. We gave up. If we’re going to give up, what does a client do who hasn’t got access to a phone in his own home or who is using an expensive cell phone or visiting a neighbour so that he can be on the other end of a telephone when he’s expecting a call?

There are problems in this ministry that need to be resolved. We can talk ad infinitum, but we need to see some changes — some revisions to process, some changes to the way the ministry conducts business and contacts its own clients. Many, many wonderful things happen through this ministry. We know the service it provides. But when it isn’t providing a service in an efficient, caring way, then the minister herself should be taking a look at it.

I just wanted to have those few words. Bill 3, as far as it goes, is a good step forward, but there is a great deal more work to do, work that this minister should be taking a personal look at, because there are ways of solving the problem. Mobile offices, or having an individual come to our office or a community office once every two weeks or so to see clients in the flesh, would go a long way to solving the problems that we’re facing in my office in Delta South and that the clients, the people who need assistance in this community, are facing on a daily basis.

[1445]

J. Wickens: I’d like to stand today to talk to Bill 3. I’ll start by saying that we should always strive to remove barriers for those in our communities that already face incredible challenges. I certainly am in favour of reducing red tape, and I certainly believe in cutting down the bureaucracies that make life challenging for people and families living with disabilities. But I don’t believe that it is something to be boasted about.

Reducing red tape, eliminating barriers and cutting down on bureaucracy should be a central theme to any government, always — period. We need less talk about it and more action. That is what would be good for families and individuals with disabilities.

Government puts incredible obstacles in the way of individuals and families living with disabilities in the province of British Columbia — whether it be with the amount and type of paperwork that is necessary, whether it be with dealing with different ministries that very much act like silos sometimes, or in just accessing some of the most basic supports. I could really go on and on.

Bill 3 is a bill that makes an effort to reduce one of the onerous tasks that people with disabilities face. But I’m pretty sure I’m not the only one, or the first one, to point out that this bill only tinkers with a problem that this B.C. Liberal government created.

A couple of years ago I was taking classes, at Douglas College, in disability studies. I was learning about children and families. I was learning about disability and applied behaviour analysis. It truly transformed my life. I met amazing disability advocates in our community. I worked in practicums, at Vancouver Community College, with adults with disabilities wanting to find employment. I worked with children and youth at risk, and I got to hear many self-advocates and people in the disability community come and speak, who had far more experience than I had up to that point.

I remember one particular class where a practitioner in adult services came to talk about her organization, its
[ Page 11110 ]
strengths and its challenges in serving adults within the system in this province currently. Now, to be honest, I can’t remember everything that this woman was talking about. I can’t remember her name or even the organization that she worked for, but what I do remember was sitting in the class — as a parent of a very young child with a disability, about to transition into kindergarten — and thinking: “It never ends.”

It never ends — the constant advocacy, the chronic advocacy, the constant navigation of supports. If you have a child with disabilities, you have to start working and navigating adult supports at about the age of 13. Forms, like the one that is being talked about in this bill, are just one small part of that problem. When we talk about employment and assistance for people with disabilities, we have an obligation, as elected officials, to try to support things that will make life easier and allow for as much independence and self-determination as possible.

However, when we look at what has been rolled out with the budget, that is not what we have seen being done. We have heard from people with disabilities themselves, and we have heard from leaders in our community asking this government to raise the rates for people with disabilities and leave the bus pass program as it currently stands.

There’s a very well-known saying within the disability community — which I live by and a lot of people with disabilities say: “Nothing about us without us.” People with disabilities want to be meaningfully consulted about their programs, about their supports and about their money.

This government did not do that, and they continue to ignore the pleas of people with disabilities. Using words like “equity” and “choice” is condescending and demeaning to the hard-working people in our community that are appealing to this government today to change some of these choices that they have made around employment and assistance for people with disabilities.

[1450]

From December 3 of 2013 to March of 2014, British Columbians were invited to share their thoughts about how government, businesses and communities can better support people living with disabilities to fully participate in their communities. Everyone was invited to participate, whether it was someone with a disability, whether it was a parent of someone with a disability, whether it was an employer, a neighbour, a friend.

I would say that this disability white paper discussion took an incredible amount of resources, and it’s something that this government should use as a guide to its decision around supporting people with disabilities.

I’ve taken the time to go through and read many of the findings of this consultation. Interestingly, nowhere in this consultation does it come anywhere close to supporting what has been done in regards to this decision around employment assistance and bus passes. So why are we making decisions like this and ignoring the consultation that has already been done?

I happen to believe, in my own personal life, that it is never too late to reverse a bad decision. It’s never too late to realize that a mistake was made. Some of the most powerful learning comes from our own mistakes. I have certainly made lots of them in my life.

This government right now has the opportunity to show a little bit of humility and show a little bit of humanity and listen to people that have come forward and said: “This is not what we want.” After all, we keep hearing over and over again in this House that we have the best economy in the world because of the actions of this government. Why not use that economy to do the right thing for people with disabilities?

R. Austin: I rise to join in the debate on second reading of Bill 3, the Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Amendment Act, 2016.

As has been noted, this is a very small bill that seeks to make a change that allows people who are already recognized as disabled in another program, in some cases a federal program, such as the Canadian Pension Plan…. It enables those folks who are already deemed to have qualified for disability in a different program to be able to go on to the provincial program of disability without having to fill out the 28-page form.

Now, my understanding — and listening to the minister who brought this bill forward — is that that will assist approximately 1,000 British Columbians. I have to commend the government for making this change and for helping those 1,000. But the reality is that for those lucky 1,000 who get to not have to go through this onerous process there are thousands of others on disability or seeking disability who have to spend endless hours traipsing from one place to another to prove to the government that they have indeed a right to gain benefits for whatever disability it is or whatever challenge it is they have.

As has been alluded to by other members here, it’s fundamentally wrong, I think, to make people who are already having huge challenges in their life have to figure out how to fill out such an onerous form.

The government spent several months last year going around the province doing consultation with those who are disabled throughout British Columbia, and often we criticize the government on this side of the House for not properly consulting with British Columbians. But on this occasion — let’s give them some credit — a great deal of work went into the committee that went around and listened to those with disabilities and listened to the difficulties and challenges that they have.

[1455]

It’s kind of surprising, then, to think that several months later the only change we have coming out of that consultative process is, essentially, a two-section bill. You’d have thought that during that process they would have heard about many issues from the disability community, and you’d have thought that a government that’s
[ Page 11111 ]
bringing in a new bill for this year would actually have brought in far more changes than this simple one. That is certainly a huge disappointment, and I wish that more good work that had come out of that consultation committee had actually reached it into law here today.

I’d like to talk for a second just about the role that physicians play in helping people with disabilities to fill out the form and to confirm their medical condition, whatever it be, to make sure that they are able to get some assistance from the government.

I’m sure people are aware that there are a number of British Columbians — probably around 300,000 — who don’t even have access to a family physician. That is a huge problem. Also, I think that people will recognize that family physicians are already incredibly busy with the workload that they have, taking in and seeing patients and spending time with them.

Certainly, in my neck of the woods, when you approach the medical building, you will see in the elevator, when you get out of the elevator at the registration or even when you’re going into a doctor’s waiting room, big signs there that state all the things that the doctors do that are covered by MSP and the things that doctors don’t do, for which there is a charge.

Listed in that, of course, is the kind of form-filling that is required here in British Columbia for someone to prove that they are, in fact, disabled and are able to get the kind of help that they deserve. Right there, you have a gigantic barrier to some of the most vulnerable people in our society who are trying to get help and trying to prove to the government that they are deserving of that help.

When this bill came forward…. I think the government needs to find ways to get around this and to assist. I have some solutions. For those of us who have MLA offices, all of us, I’m sure…. Our CAs spend a great deal of time helping people with disabilities in this form-filling process and with a whole host of issues around the Ministry of Social Development and Social Innovation.

I think that it’s wrong that there isn’t a central coordinated effort through people who work for the Ministry of Social Development and Social Innovation to take on that role. It shouldn’t be up to community activists, NGOs, MLA CAs and a whole host of other people to be able to try and help as advocates to help people with disabilities to fill out this form. It should be something that is the core role of people who work within the ministry to actually coordinate this.

We heard the member for Delta South a few minutes ago talk about how her CAs occasionally call the ministry to get some help with one of their constituents, and what they get is a list of other people to call. Well honestly, surely to goodness, it’s not the job of the ministry simply to be handing out or faxing a list of other people to do work which really, I think, should be done right there.

The ministry, in its title, has the name Social Development and Social Innovation. It seems kind of ironic to me that the Ministry of Social Innovation, in this day and age, in 2016, hasn’t innovated and come out with a better way of helping people with disabilities.

It is such a challenge for many people with disabilities to get the kinds of services that they require. It reminds me. The attitude sometimes — and not all, but in certain cases — of the ministry and of this government is almost similar to what we perceive in WorkSafe B.C. I’m sure there are people from both sides of this House who could tell the kinds of stories that, frankly, are horror stories in terms of dealing with WorkSafe B.C.

Very often, when you are trying to get help for a constituent who has been injured at the workplace, the reaction when they file with WorkSafe B.C. is one of automatically thinking as though the person is being less than truthful. That seems to be the given attitude of that department within government — that people who are injured are obviously faking it.

As a result of that, people who are injured…. I’m assuming that they are telling the truth. Yes, there are some who would take advantage of it. But the majority, of course, are telling the truth and can prove that they were injured and have witnesses and all of that.

[1500]

But WorkSafe B.C. often treats them as though…. It’s like an insurance company where you pay your premium, but when it comes time to make a claim, of course there are all kinds of excuses as to why you don’t qualify.

I think somehow this is also some of the attitude that comes out of the Ministry of Social Development in terms of helping people with disabilities. If you are already marginalized, if you are already suffering from some kind of challenge, then surely the Ministry of Social Development and Social Innovation should be the most caring ministry of all. You are dealing with the most vulnerable people, some of the most vulnerable people. Surely the attitude of this ministry…. All its staff, its training should be there to help and assist those who are seeking some kind of benefit and have some problem.

I’m going to speak for a second of those who are going into CLBC. Now, here you have a client group of people who are suffering with developmental delays, disabilities. There is no way that they have the cognitive ability to be able to fill out a form like this. So there you have a section…. That’s why it’s a good thing that under this change, we are seeing people who are being transferred over to CLBC, very often from the Ministry of Children and Family Development…. Those who are going into CLBC now find they don’t have to fill out this form.

But there are plenty of others who might not have actually qualified under CLBC but who have cognitive issues, for whom form-filling is a very difficult issue. Surely it is up to the government to recognize that and not be expecting other people in the community to be somehow spending endless hours of their time….
[ Page 11112 ]

When I say this, I don’t want to suggest that people who are working in, for example, MLA offices don’t want to give the time and attention. But the reality is that offices are busy, and there are all kinds of people coming in with all kinds of issues. So if somebody comes in who requires filling of this form, it becomes very, very challenging to do all the other work in addition to helping somebody fill out such an onerous form.

While I have the floor and I’m on second debate, I want to just speak to the major issue that has really, I would say, transformed this period of our Legislature in terms of question period. That is the treatment of people with disabilities around the issue of bus passes. We heard that again today, back and forth, in question period.

The government seems to think that this is just a matter of the opposition creating falsehoods here. But really, those who are disabled who have come into my community office did not need to be riled up or to be spun by anybody in my office around the issue. They themselves see this as something that they always had, in terms of having a bus pass, which in small-town B.C. is a critical, critical thing.

Deputy Speaker: Member, on Bill 3.

R. Austin: Certainly. I’m speaking to a disability issue. Certainly, I’ll stick to the bill. But I just wanted to comment that when we’re dealing with people with disabilities, whether it’s filling out a form or whether it’s giving something and taking it back, it’s an overall statement as to how we in society help those who need it the most.

I think that while this bill makes some good changes, small changes, there are a whole host of other changes that could have been added into this bill to make it a substantive piece of legislation, where the disability community would not just be praising the one change that we’re seeing here but would also be able to praise this government for having made a whole slew of changes that are required to make their lives better.

M. Farnworth: It’s my pleasure to rise and take my place and speak to Bill 3, the Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Amendment Act. It’s particularly interesting that at this point in time, we’re debating this particular piece of legislation, because there has been a significant amount of focus so far this session on the government’s approach to people with disabilities.

[1505]

We saw it in the budget. We’ve seen it with the issue around the bus pass, which has received a lot of attention here in this chamber and outside of this chamber — in fact, most recently on the steps of the Legislature, where people protested the government’s decision to claw back the bus pass, to claw back a benefit that many people in British Columbia, people with disabilities, rely on. So it shines a focus on this particular legislation and the changes that the government is making.

These are changes that, as my colleagues have previously said, are changes that we will be supporting. But it’s particularly interesting — the reason why this particular piece of legislation is here.

What’s also interesting is that, again, as I have stated in this House on other pieces of legislation, much of what this government does is cloaked in rhetoric, using the words “historic” and “outstanding,” using the words that somehow this is something really, really particularly special and that people should, in essence, bow down and thank the government for bringing in this piece of legislation because it is so long overdue and it will make people’s lives so much easier — that people really don’t truly understand how grateful they should be.

The problem is…. I see the minister smiling over there and rolling her eyes. Oh, rolling her eyes and not smiling. Well, the reality is that this legislation is here because this government brought in the changes which this piece of legislation is trying to fix. This government made life difficult for people with disabilities. This government took a punitive approach to dealing with people with disabilities back in the early 2000s.

This is a government that brought in a form so long and so complicated that it turned people off. This is a piece of legislation that is in response to a government that failed to recognize that not everybody has access to a computer, that not everybody has the literacy skills to fill in a form that was excessively long.

This is a government that brought in legislation that made it so that if you, for example, had Down syndrome, you had to, each year, justify, confirm that you still had Down syndrome. That’s just ridiculous. This is a government that failed to recognize that for many people with a disability, the disability does not go away. It is always with them.

This piece of legislation is, in fact, here to do one thing. I mean, yes, it will make life easier for many people with disabilities, with developmental disabilities. But it’s also here to correct the misguided policies that this government implemented when it decided that its direction, its way of viewing the world through an ideological lens, was the right approach to take.

To talk about the particular bill, we want to look at exactly what this will do. This bill will amend two sections of the Employment and Assistance for People with Disabilities Act, the EAPWD, to allow the government to directly designate classes of persons as defined in regulation, persons with disabilities, without requiring them to fill out the current onerous 28-page application form or requiring additional assessments by medical practitioners.

Hon. Speaker, think about that for a minute: 28 pages — an application form 28 pages long. I mean, the long-form census was less than that. When you apply for a passport, which is an important document, you don’t need to fill in a 28-page form. Yet this government, in its wisdom, or should I say lack of wisdom, decided that
[ Page 11113 ]
people with disabilities, in order to be eligible for benefits and to access programs available to them, should have to fill in a 28-page form.

That’s a daunting task for most people, looking and saying: “I’ve got to sit down, and I’ve got to work through 28 pages of a form to fill in.” If you make a mistake, there’s no easy way to fix it. You can phone a number that may or may not be there, may or may not be in service, but you’ll wait and wait and wait.

[1510]

As you know, we have documented many times in this House when people have phoned for government services, particularly people requiring social assistance. You often end up waiting extreme amounts of time, and of course, if you’re using a cell phone, for example, you’re paying for that cost. That’s not right. A 28-page form was a considerable hardship for people, yet it has taken over a decade for government to come to its senses and recognize that changes need to be made.

As previous speakers on our side have said, we’re supporting this change. But the reality is, in essence, it is tinkering at the edges. There needs to be a much broader and much more fulsome look at how programs are delivered, how people are able to access them and how issues around disabilities are dealt with.

It is my hope that the government will learn from the debacle it has created in its budget around the bus pass and the clawback of the bus pass, for example, and that in future those kinds of mistakes will be avoided by working with the disabilities community to ensure that when something is announced, it is, in fact, what it is and not something that when you read the fine print or get into the details….

As we all know, when it comes to legislation and the budget, the devil is very much in the details. As we have seen in this particular situation, the budgetary changes around the bus pass and the clawback of the bus pass have caused a real devil of a conundrum for many people with disabilities in the province of British Columbia. And that’s not right. That is not how the legislative process or the budgetary process should work.

People should have confidence that when an announcement is made, it is, in fact, what it is supposed to be and what they expect it to be — not, as we have seen, a case of giving with one hand and then taking back with another. Not, as we have seen, when it is faced with criticism….

The minister says, “Oh, it’s just a photoop,” when no one from the government side had the courage to go out and to talk with the people who were protesting on the legislative steps — to go out and hear their stories and to understand. They weren’t there for a photo op. They didn’t travel, many with great difficulty, for a photo op. They travelled, many in great difficulty, to make a point to the government — to let them know about their concerns.

This kind of legislation, which the government trumpets as addressing concerns, as I said, only goes partway. It only goes partway in terms of dealing with the challenges that many people in the disabled community face on a day-to-day basis in the province of British Columbia.

Again, nothing illustrates that more than a 28-page form that they were having to fill out. Nothing illustrates how out of touch the government is than when they trumpet the reduction of a 28-page form as red-tape reduction and say: “Oh, aren’t we great for reducing red tape? Aren’t we wonderful for making your lives easier?” In fact, it was this very government that brought in all this red tape in the first place.

It’s always quite interesting. I mean, the government tries to say they’re reducing red tape. They trumpet and they make a big deal out of, “Oh, we’re cutting red tape,” and spend all this time and energy. They spent all this time and energy, for example, in a previous session, introducing Red Tape Reduction Day and trying to give it some kind of holy grail status that it is worthy of being up there with B.C. Day, Terry Fox Day and Remembrance Day — days that we honour and set aside by legislation in this province.

They go: “Oh, Red Tape Reduction Day.” Then, when you actually look at their record, when you actually look at their real efforts, they hadn’t even done anything like this. When they were proclaiming Red Tape Reduction Day, people with disabilities were having to fill out a 28-page form.

[1515]

People with developmental disabilities were going to have to go and get medical confirmation that they were still disabled. In many cases, they had been born with that disability. It is not going away. It boggles the mind that the government failed to understand that or maybe just didn’t care. As they say, government is about choices.

The choices for this government have been pretty clear. In the budget, it was to claw back the bus pass from people with disabilities. At the same time, it was to give a $230 million tax break last year to the top 1 percent and to do the same thing again this year — for almost a half a billion dollars in tax breaks — while people on disabilities were having to fill out a 28-page form.

The government thinks it should be congratulated for bringing forward this change. As we’ve said, we will support the change. But if they think that the opposition is going to praise them for their wisdom or if they think the opposition is going to thank them for deigning to be so gracious to people in this province, they can think again. It’s a point that needs to be reinforced. This government is making this change because it is this government that brought in the original changes, that brought in the original forms that have caused so many people so much difficulty and so many issues and problems with filling out the form.

Just the additional cost, for example, of going to see a physician to get a form signed or certified. That takes time out of people’s busy days, time out of people’s busy lives. I mean, this is a government, as I said, that wants to
[ Page 11114 ]
talk about doing away with red tape. They put rolls and rolls of red tape in front of people in order to have them fill out a 28-page form.

Besides ourselves, people are supportive of the amendments. At the same time, it’s because they have waited so long for those amendments to come.

When looking at this, you really have to question. If it’s taken this long to be able to deal with something that impacts, every day, the ability of people on disabilities in terms of navigating the system…. If it’s taken more than a decade for the government to wake up and realize the problems that they have created, one wonders how long it will take before they start to address the other issues that people in the disability community face. Will this government finally, for example, wake up and realize the huge mistake, the huge pain they have caused over their bus pass issue? Will they step back and take the opportunity and go: “You know what? We need to take a second look. We need to take a second look and do the right thing and restore the bus pass”?

It wouldn’t take a legislative change to do that, unlike this particular piece of legislation, which has taken so long to get here. It is just three small, simple changes — three small, simple changes that will mean…. I keep coming back to it because I find it amazing. I really do find it amazing, when you think about it: a 28-page form. I mean, briefing notes for ministers are usually only two or three pages at most. I see….

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: I know. The Minister of Environment says not hers. I know hers will be a one-page briefing note.

[1520]

I make the point, having sat there. I know. Most ministers will tell you that if you cannot tell them about what the issue is, if you cannot do a brief on what your piece of legislation is, no matter how complex that legislation is, in a short, to-the-point briefing note, too often it gets lost. Or when delegations come or someone wants to talk to the minister about a policy change they want, often they will do the classic thing of leaving a stack of material. But they must, in order for it to be successful, be able to tell their story to the minister in a briefing note that is succinct, that is easily readable, that is easily understandable and gets right to the point.

A 28-page form is not that. A 28-page form is not that for someone, for example, with Down syndrome. A 28-page form is not simple, plain and easy to understand for someone with a developmental disability. And it’s not fair when the original diagnosis has been put in place, confirmed by a physician and accepted by the ministry, and then you’re having to do it again and again and again. That’s not fair, and it’s not right.

In that sense, I do give credit to the government for finally coming to the realization of the difficulty that its own red tape — its own red tape that it placed in front of individuals — has caused.

I wonder how this came about. I know the government says that they like to cut red tape. Then, only when they’ve cut some red tape, will additional regulations come into place. And you think about it and you go, gosh, if you’d cut this red tape ages ago, not only would they have actually done something that made sense, but they would have been able to really stand up and say, “You know what? Our red-tape program really has accomplished something. Our red-tape-reduction program really has accomplished something because we have made life easier for people” — when the reality is this is a government that brought this in.

As I said earlier, they brought it in at the same time that they had the…. Well, let me back up a sec. They brought it in saying what a great thing it is that they’re doing it, and we’ve said we’re supportive. But again, you still have to contrast that with their approach last session before this one, where we were treated to Red Tape Reduction Day.

You do have to wonder about the disconnect between the government that, as I said, put so much time and effort and energy into that and then finally realized, so much later, that this particular red tape that they had created really needs to be undone. It needs to be unraveled. We’re pleased to help to untie this particular roll of red tape. But it does not stop at second reading, which is the principle stage of the bill, as we all know. As I’ve remarked in my remarks this afternoon, the devil is often in the details.

As I said, we saw that in the budget around the bus pass issue and this government clawing back the bus pass from people with disabilities and how unfortunate and how unfair and how uncaring that is. When we go through this particular piece of legislation at committee stage, even though it is not long in terms of length, the clauses still have considerable meaning. The clauses will need to be explored thoroughly, and there will be extensive questions asked at committee stage so we can have a full understanding of exactly how the government intends to implement this particular bill.

One of the things I hope that we can get clarified are issues that relate to any ability or any issues that might be done by regulation, for example. We will be able to explore other areas where people can reduce red tape in terms of how it relates to the lives of people with developmental disabilities and the disabled community.

[1525]

Are there ways that we can perhaps improve the legislation so that we do not have to wait for another decade, for example? Are there other areas where government can make changes legislatively or in the regulatory framework so that so that we can do away with more red tape? More red tape that this government…. They say they’re keen to do away with it, yet — I keep coming back to it — their record is often just the opposite.
[ Page 11115 ]

I know that members on our side have considerable interest in that. I know the minister will be fully prepared to answer any and all questions as they pertain to this particular piece of legislation, because I know that the minister wants to do the right thing. I know the minister wants to do away with barriers for people with disabilities. I think all of us do. It’s just that sometimes I know how difficult it can be to get things through your cabinet colleagues.

The fact that this has taken so long to get here is an example of why, on this side of the House, we are making sure that the government understands that from our perspective, from the perspective of the opposition doing its job, this is a crucial issue that government needs to pay attention to. This is a crucial issue that the public are concerned about.

I mean, that’s why we saw so many people the other day on the front steps of the Legislature wanting to talk to members of this chamber and let them know about how the government’s decisions at budget time have impacted them — the pain and the anguish that those changes around the bus pass, for example, have caused. As I said, on this particular piece of legislation, it’s our opportunity to bring those concerns here into this chamber.

It is unfortunate that government chose not to talk with people. It’s unfortunate that, for example, the Premier did not have the courage of her convictions when she was in opposition and was quite happy to raise the issue of people with disabilities and the challenges that they were facing.

She was more than happy to do it if it meant trying to aid her in her climb to defeat the government of the day and get into power. Somehow, once having achieved power, then it seems that those concerns have been discarded, along with so many other issues that the Premier used to champion, once the goal of power had been achieved.

That’s unfortunate, but it means that we in the opposition then must take up that challenge of pointing these issues out to the government, pointing to the failings of the government when it has failed to live up to what it said it would want, what it had planned on doing — failing, I think, to work with people, to ensure that their policies and their legislation and their goals and their regulatory changes would not have a negative impact. Again, that’s why this legislation is so very, very important.

I’m not sure how much time I have longer. I see about five minutes.

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: My colleague says that’s too much. I will say this about my colleague across the way. I have known him to be a quick study and a quick learner, so it is not him that I am worried about in terms of their ability to grasp the arguments before us here today.

Deputy Speaker: Member, on Bill 3.

M. Farnworth: No, no, I’m very much talking about Bill 3. I know that when it comes to understanding the issues facing people with disabilities and just the sheer ridiculousness of someone with a developmental disability having to fill in a 28-page form and then go to a physician, for example, to get that signed on a regular basis, on an annual basis….

[1530]

He would thoroughly understand the problems inherent with that. I know that he would not need five minutes of my time, talking on this particular piece of legislation, this important bill, in order to understand why it’s so important that with the passage of this bill, the government also recognizes this is just the beginning. This is just a small step on an issue that needs much greater attention paid to it by the government. It needs a much greater commitment from government to ensure that, as I said, the pain and anguish that has been caused to too many people over the last years around these forms and these assessments is done away with.

We will be supporting this particular piece of legislation. We will be examining it in close detail at committee stage, which, as you know, will be an important part of the bill. In second reading, we’re just debating the principle of the bill — if we agree with it in principle, which we do. But as I have also said, the issues around the implementation, how it’s implemented, will be up for discussion during committee stage. It is in that committee stage that the minister, I know, will be more than pleased to answer questions and concerns we have about the legislation.

I expect that all members will be participating, and I look forward to further debate and discussion from my colleagues in this chamber, from both sides of the chamber.

With that, I am going to take my seat, and others may take the floor.

D. McRae: I rise to speak to take my place to speak to Bill 3. At first, I thought the debate was going to be much shorter than it was. Now I know that people are so passionate about it, and obviously, the debate is extended. One of the things that inspired me to speak was maybe some of the….

I know some individuals here are wanting to make sure they are speaking for the most impactful 30 minutes they possibly can and perhaps have misspoken. There were some things said in this chamber that I thought I’d like to stand up and defend and correct.

Hon. Speaker, you may know that I actually had the honour — and I call it a very distinct honour — to serve as Minister of Social Development and Social Innovation for almost two years. I had the honour before that to be Minister of Education and Minister of Agriculture. But
[ Page 11116 ]
I will argue in this chamber and outside of this chamber that the most impactful experience I’ve ever had in government was my time with this ministry.

It is often, sadly, one of the most misunderstood ministries in all of government. I’ll use this as an example. Every year — usually in Vancouver, maybe Victoria, sometimes Whistler — the Union of British Columbia Municipalities gathers and speaks with government. They want to speak with individuals from Ministry of Transportation or Ministry of Environment or Ministry of Attorney General. Ministers want to be there to make sure that communities are hearing about their concerns and come forward.

I’ve been there in two other portfolios, as I mentioned earlier. As Minister of Social Development, I was there to attend twice at UBCM. It saddened me that both times, of all the municipalities — between regional district government, between villages and towns and cities, which are almost like 200 different municipalities in British Columbia — I think the record I had for the number of people wishing to speak to the minister and the ministry at this time was five. And of those five, I believe two cancelled.

That was the best I ever had, yet across this province in communities large and small, the ministry has either direct offices or indirectly, through Work B.C., has offices. It has, you’d be surprised to know, one of the largest budgets in government of about $2.5 billion and, also, one of the largest workforces of all government ministries. Approximately 2,400 individuals work in the Ministry of Social Development and Social Innovation.

I want to say in this chamber — I think it was said earlier by members opposite, whether intentional or unintentional — that there was perhaps a disconnect with the hard work. I think the members of this ministry, whether they work as an emergency assistant worker on the Downtown Eastside or work in a management position in Victoria, they work so incredibly hard.

[1535]

They’re so passionate, and they work under trying circumstances in regards to people who probably don’t want to actually come to see the government at that time.

There are approximately, give or take, from my time in the ministry, 170,000 individuals who the ministry supports. Probably about 70,000, as they go on and off, are on income assistance — temporary individuals, maybe there for three to five months. Their goal, of course, is…. They’ve had some bad luck, some bad circumstances or just unfortunate circumstances in their life, and they need help. Government is there to help them for a short period of time, hopefully get them back on their feet and get them back into that self-sufficient world.

There’s also this other group, the persons with disabilities, about 100,000 individuals. I’m sure, whether you’re a person who is on income assistance because you temporarily lost your job or a person who was born with a disability, that you don’t want to have government helping you. You’d love to be self-sufficient, and it’s a challenge.

Some individuals, whether born with a cognitive disability or a physical disability, are sort of trapped through the system. They’re working with the system from the time they’re born. They enter the zero- to five-year-old before they go into the public school system, the time in the public school system, and then they leave the public school system. There’s sort of a road map. Though challenging, I will admit, there’s a road map of supports and action going forward.

Then there’s another group — those who never expected to come to the Ministry of Social Development, come to the government of British Columbia and say: “I need help.” These are individuals. Maybe there was a medical condition. Maybe there was an accident. Maybe there was a situation where, perhaps, mental illness came which wasn’t apparent or maybe debilitating in the younger stages or prior stages of life. Then they get to a phase where they need assistance.

When people come forward and they are saying to the government, “We need help,” they’re not always in the best mindset. They are stressed out. They’re panicking. They’re under challenging circumstances. And yes, there is paperwork that needs to be filled out. There is documentation that needs to be there. There needs to be some rigour and some checks and balances.

I know, through my time in this government, that there’s a continual way to look at some of the paperwork, look at some of the opportunities, and say: “How can we be more fair yet make sure we’re saying that those who deserve services get them and that those who are not eligible do not?” If we want to make it so that we have a broader range of individuals eligible, everybody who’s eligible when we expand that horizon will get those services. It’s a challenge — some of the paperwork, some of the medical tests. Yes, there is rigour attached to it, and yes, for some of the people, when they’re going through this phase, it is trying.

As MLAs, all of us have had in our office…. Whether you’ve been an MLA for weeks or 20 years, you’ve seen these individuals come to see us, and they need assistance. Now, sometimes they go straight through the ministry and they ask the right questions, they work properly with the individuals, and they’re successful through the processes. If we don’t like the processes, well, that’s a different question. Sometimes they go through a non-profit, an advocacy group to get those supports. I’m really proud that in communities large and small, there are individuals there to support families and individuals in this incredibly trying time.

Then there’s that other group, the group that I never really knew existed before I became an MLA. When I became an MLA in 2009, I had actually never ever…. Oh, that’s not true — once. In my first 39 years of life, I had actually gone into the MLA’s office once, and I didn’t really know who would go into those offices.
[ Page 11117 ]

Well, now, after seven years, I know that everybody comes into an MLA office, whether you’re in a large community, a small community. I think I might argue that in a smaller community, when your MLA office is on the ground floor, everybody knows where you are, everybody knows how to come and see you, and they’re coming to talk.

But those who come to see us…. I would say, as MLA, one of the things I do notice is that it’s not that the people don’t deserve help and aren’t eligible for help. They just need some help on how to make sure they present themselves to the adjudicator, to the test, to make sure they’re eligible.

I’m so pleased. I know it happens on both sides of the House. Whether it’s the MLA or a constituency assistant, they are there to work with these individuals and make sure that they are presenting themselves in the light that is necessary to make sure that if they are eligible for the supports, they get them.

But remember, I said there are 170,000 people this ministry supports. So when I have individuals on the other side of the House who come forward and say, with these anecdotal evidence pieces, about challenging times, I get it: 170,000 individuals. I know the ministry would love to say: “We’re batting 100 percent. We’re getting everybody who deserves supports. We’re getting them perfectly through.”

[1540]

But it doesn’t work that way. There is a ton of individuals who just need that extra help.

I’m pleased to say, because I know it happened on my side and on that side of the floor, that when MLAs come forward and they help those individuals, there is success, a lot of success. The question might be: “Did we do enough?” That’s another conversation for another time. So when I see Bill 3 come forward, what are they doing in Bill 3? They’re saying: “Let’s make the system just a little bit better.”

I remember when I first became Minister of Social Development, in one of those aforementioned briefing binders, we talked about the lean process. One of the things I was really pleased to see is that the Ministry of Social Development, like other ministries, look around, and they say: “How can we do business just a little bit more efficiently — a little bit more fair, a little bit more streamlined — both for the individual workers, but definitely for the individuals who are coming for help?”

The staff make suggestions about how it can be a little bit better. The management of SDSI — all the way up from a regional manager to an assistant deputy minister, deputy minister to the minister, in the end — recognize that there are some skills and talents and understanding in that ministry and will make those changes. It’s a phenomenal opportunity.

Remember, like I said, some of these individuals work in different kinds of offices. As Social Development Minister, I had the opportunity many times to visit the Downtown Eastside. There are individuals who need many supports from government, not just one ministry’s support. They are not willing to go into an office often. What do the emergency assistance workers do? They go out to the individuals.

Work is done on the corners of streets, not in offices where traditionally, maybe, the average person thinks government work is done. They literally stand on a street corner to make sure those individuals are getting the supports that are necessary, and those are because we have hard-working men and women who are in the ministries who will want to make sure that they are reaching out to those individuals, and if those individuals are deserved of services that they’re getting those services.

The other thing I did notice too in my travels around the province to various social development offices is that oftentimes — I called it, I don’t know whether it’s fair or not, and it’s all purely anecdote — there is this sort of this reverse camel effect in terms of employment time.

There will often be many people who work for the Ministry of Social Development for maybe less than five years. They are relatively new employees to government. They have been there for a short period of time. They’re learning the system. They might have been in another government position prior to, but they’ve come into this one, and after one or two or three years, they’re getting their feet on ground. They’re understanding how to deal with a really complex caseload.

Then you have another group of individuals, which I was really impressed with: people who have been in the Ministry of Social Development for 25, 35, sometimes 40 years. These individuals have incredibly wide-ranging knowledge, incredible experiences, incredible networks of individuals they know how to support.

One of the goals that I think this government had and I know I had as a minister is: how do we make social development a ministry where people want to come and work in it, where they realize that they are valued by government?

I can say from this side of the House that the members in this government value the work. Whether you are an emergency assistance worker, a deputy minister, a regional manager, you are helping the residents of British Columbia, and this chamber could not function without the hard work of those individuals working across the province of British Columbia.

The other thing I was really pleased to do when tasked with my first time in the ministry is we had this vision called Accessibility 2024. It was about how to become the most progressive province in Canada for persons with disabilities.

This bill is part of that process. How can we do this job just a little bit better? The first thing we did is — and there’s a culture in the disability community; I believe one of the words of the lines is “Nothing about us without us”
[ Page 11118 ]
— we had to go out and talk to the disability community to see what was working, what wasn’t working, how can we be better. You know what? I will argue from this side of the chamber that we can always be a little bit better.

There is a culture of the ministry, of the minister today: “How do we just take it from here to here to here? Are we ever done our work? Is it ever perfect?” I guarantee you. No minister will ever say that. There’s always something more that can be done. A program can be tweaked. A program can be improved. A program can be added. Maybe there are resources that could be brought in.

We can always do it better, but the question is: are we making steps forward continually? I will argue that we are doing this.

In fact, I’m pleased to see…. One of the individuals who I got to know during my time in the ministry was a lady by the name of Carla Qualtrough, well-known across British Columbia both as a Paralympian and as a legal expert.

She also was a person who volunteered her time. She volunteered her time because ministers before I asked her and created a venue called the Minister’s Council on Employment and Accessibility, an opportunity to talk to disability leaders, whether they actually had a disability themselves or were basically working in that field — a chance to come together to make recommendations about reforms about how government could be better for persons with disabilities.

[1545]

Now, you might say: “How do you know that name, Carla Qualtrough?” Well, honestly, she’s now the new federal Minister of Sport and Persons with Disabilities in the federal government. She’s a brand-new minister, a brand-new MP, but this woman comes with an incredible passion, energy, intellect and, I believe, a drive to make the world better.

What’s she doing? Well, the federal government is wanting to do consultations about a federal piece of disability legislation, and they haven’t done this before. Some provinces have gone forward, but the federal government is talking about doing it.

How are they managing or how are they going to, basically, have this consultation with provinces across Canada, with individuals across Canada, with organizations? They’re looking to the province of British Columbia and saying: “How did you do Accessibility 2024? How did you reach out to stakeholders across a really large geographic area, in communities small, like the town of Williams Lake, or large, like the city of Surrey, or perhaps remote, say like the Peace River, where you are just so far from the Lower Mainland?” Literally, we’re talking a country away in some ways. You have the issues that they would face there, with cold weather in the north, to an incredible wet environment down south, let’s say in the Tofino and Ucluelet areas.

There’s a recognition that B.C. is doing something right. We’re doing something right because we’re revising, improving and getting better for persons with disabilities.

Once more, I look and see some of the things that just happened in the recent past. If I look at just some of the programs, in the last two years, that have come about….

For example, earning exemptions. If you have a child with a disability, we’ve increased it from $300 to $500 a month. Is it going to change the world and make everything better? No, but it’s an example of one more step about how this province and this government recognizes we can make life perhaps, for some, just a little bit better.

We are also doing something called annualized earning exemption. One of the things I heard when I was travelling the province is sometimes you might live in a community where, perhaps, employment is challenging to get 12 months a year, but you might get, maybe, some really targeted employment for a short period of time and have a chance to make some decent money.

A prime example. You live in the Okanagan — fruit season. Cherry growers, believe it or not…. A skilled cherry picker might make $20 to $25 an hour picking cherries, but they’re only going to do it for a limited amount of time.

Well, a person with a disability now has the ability to annualize their earning exemption. So $9,600 a year can be earned by those individuals. Why? It was a good policy move recommended by many organizations, including the Minister’s Council on Employment and Accessibility. The government recognized there was opportunity there, took advantage of that opportunity, and again, for a group of individuals in the province of British Columbia, we made life just a little bit better.

We also talked about opportunities in the last budget. I know there’s some criticism. I would love the world to be perfect for all. I really would. But it is so pleasing to see 170 million new dollars coming for persons with disabilities in the budget for Social Development and Social Innovation.

Now, I know that people are upset with the bus pass. I get it. But I think the fair complaint is this one. You’ll argue, if you’re a person who was on the special transportation allowance, $11 a month, or approximately $225 a year, is not enough of an increase plus bus pass. It’s fair to argue that $25 a month for the people who were getting a bus pass, which works out to $300 a year plus bus pass, is not enough. But it’s still $300 a year more. And for the 45,000 individuals who were receiving nothing…. You take $77, and you times it by 12 months. Now you’re into the $900 range a year more.

The one commonality between all three of those pieces…. Again, I know prices are going up, and I’m not trying to say this is the magic solution. The argument is, yes, you raise disability rates by a small amount, a medium or a larger amount, but we wanted to keep bus pass. No matter how you argue it, every single individual in the province of British Columbia — those 96,000 individuals — received either a little bit more, a little bit more than that or the $77.
[ Page 11119 ]

If that’s the criticism, fair enough. Those are the facts. But I’ve had individuals in my office and I’ve had individuals on the streets in my community come to say: “Why am I getting less money now because of your choices in government?” I said: “That’s not true.”

[1550]

I said: “How do you get that?” “That’s what I got an email about.” I said: “That’s not right. You can be mad that you got $11. You can be mad that you got $25 a month more. You can be mad that you got $77 a month more. Fair enough.” But not one of them was mad for those reasons.

Now, I’m sure someone is mad. I’m not saying there aren’t. But there wasn’t a single individual who came to me and said that they didn’t get it after we explained it. They just had to get the understanding that there was a little bit more. Fair enough.

If the members opposite want to say, “You know what? That $25 a month more is not enough,” I get it. Because that $20 a month that you guys opposite promised in the last election wasn’t enough either. But you have to make choices about where we invest in health care. Where do we invest in education? Where do we invest in disability payments? How much do we borrow to have our children pay back? Those are all choices you get to make in government. And the only time you know if you did it right is at the end of a four-year term. You go back to your shareholders. You go back to your voters, and you say: “Did we do okay?” If you did okay, you know you did okay, because you’re sitting back on this side of the chamber. If you didn’t, you’re over there.

The way you get over to this side if you’re over there is you come up with ideas that are progressive. I will challenge that in the last election of 2013, there was a platform that was progressive, that dealt with a lot of individuals, and the voters saw that. I know the members opposite are not happy about that. But the reality is we all put it in there.

Deputy Speaker: Member, on second reading of Bill 3.

D. McRae: By all means, hon. Speaker. I apologize.

Now, we’re talking about Bill 3. The other thing I want to say is that as we expand opportunities for persons with disabilities, one of the things that makes me excited is the number of individuals working in British Columbia. We want to make sure persons with disabilities, through this bill and other actions of government, have the ability to take part in the workforce. Not every person with a disability, sadly, is going to be able to. Not everyone is going to be able to in a traditional 40-hour-workweek sense.

But individuals with disabilities or persons with disabilities, through changes like Bill 3 and changes about supports that come before — part of that Accessibility 2024 platform, where you want to make sure we are becoming the most progressive place in Canada for persons with disabilities — are getting an opportunity.

I remember meeting an individual from southern Ontario, a franchise owner. Nine Tim Hortons. Twenty-five percent of his workforce were persons with disabilities. He says: “I hire persons with disabilities for two reasons. One, it’s the right thing to do. Two, because it’s a good economic thing to do.” I said: “Well, I get the right thing to do, sir. I get that one. Why is it good economics?”

He goes: “In Tim Hortons, the average employee in southern Ontario stays for nine months. Every time they leave, I have to retrain and apply for new staff. I have to make sure we have hiring going out there. Productivity is reduced.” He said “Every time I have to replace someone, that’s $4,000 out of my pocket.” He said, “But persons with disabilities, on average, stay not nine months like average individuals. They’ll stay, on average, five years. They get meaningful employment. They get an opportunity to participate like everybody in society.”

If you meet someone new in society, you don’t usually ask: “What’s your disability?” What do you ask? “What do you do for a living?”

They have employment opportunities. Twenty-five percent of his workforce are persons with disabilities because there are supports for those individuals. They are making sure that government is reaching out to support individuals and employers to make sure that we can pair the two groups. In the end, they are getting an opportunity to earn a wage, get some disability supports along the way and be, like everybody else, active members of our society. It is the right thing to do.

As we go forward, I’m sure it’s been noticed that we are one of the exceptions in all of Canada. Balanced budget. We have the fastest-growing economy. There’s opportunity for work in this province that has never been present anywhere else in the history of this province. As we go forward, every British Columbian needs to take part in these opportunities, including persons with disabilities.

As we look forward for employees, we look forward for people retiring as they get to that next stage of life, as we have an aging society, all British Columbians…. Whether you live in the north, whether you live in the south, whether you want to work in a university, in a trade or want to work in a restaurant, we need to make sure there are opportunities for all British Columbians. This bill, Bill 3, is just another example of one more thing this government has done — on top of its many, many items in the last several years — about how we are becoming the most progressive jurisdiction in all of Canada for persons with a disability.

[1555]

Hon. Speaker, if I may…. There will be people on the other side who will stand up and have concerns, but let me just leave with this. The Ministry of Social Development has amazing individuals working in towns large and small, making a difference for people’s lives on a daily basis. Constituency assistants on this side of the House and on that side of the House make sure you reach out to
[ Page 11120 ]
individuals and support those people to make sure they are able to present themselves for the programs that they deserve and that they should have because that’s what we have legislated.

Three, make sure that we as this government continue to go forward and that we work hard to make sure we are the most progressive place in Canada for persons with disabilities. It is the right thing to do. It is the best thing to do.

I’m a proud member of this party and this government because we have made substantial changes in the last five years, and I thoroughly support Bill 3.

M. Karagianis: I’m very happy to take my place here in the debate on Bill 3. Bill 3 is the Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Amendment Act, and I’d like to speak a little bit about this bill, about my views on this bill and maybe the origins of some actions that are required here today on it and other topics around this.

It was interesting listening to the previous speaker. I’d like to note for the record that often we hear members of that side of the House refer to the hard-working people on the front lines of ministries. I don’t think anyone in this House would for a moment not want to acknowledge the very hard-working individuals in communities right across British Columbia who provide services, whether it’s for children and families, whether it’s in the Social Development Ministry. They do hard work every day. But we should not confuse good or bad public policy with how hard the people on the front lines work.

I see that there’s often a lot of sort of crossover where we seem to think we can compare or praise or abandon public policy based on how hard-working the staff is, and I think the two are very, very separate issues.

This bill, Bill 3, makes some amendments. Two sections of the Employment and Assistance for People with Disabilities Act are being changed. The government is being directed to designate the classes of persons as defined in regulation, persons with disabilities, without requiring them to fill out the current onerous 28-page application form or requiring additional assessments by medical practitioners. That is one, the first, very clear action in here.

Now, I want to talk a little bit about this because the government very conveniently seems to have forgotten that, in fact, this tinkering with this act is something that is a change to legislation that they themselves put in place in 2001. In 2001, when Gordon Campbell was first elected to run the province, he undertook a very infamous activity called the core review.

The core review had a chilling effect on a very particular group of individuals, and those were the most vulnerable people in this province. The core review went out to try and find ways to examine and cross-examine all of those people who were on some form of income assistance, whether it was persons with disabilities or people on income assistance. The government was testing their legitimacy to be on income assistance.

In particular, the effect that it had on the community, the people with disabilities in this province, I think was particularly nasty. I have a very close affiliation with this community. I’m going to talk about that in a short moment as well.

But the core review itself is the genesis of this heinous form that we are now trying to tinker with here in Bill 3, this 28-page application form. It’s interesting, because the government itself put this huge, onerous, complicated and complex form into place as part of their response to the core review, as if they assumed somehow that all people with disabilities needed to go through such a rigorous screening process. I did hear the previous speaker even talk about sort of rigorous screening processes when dealing with people with disabilities.

[1600]

Very often when people come in for assistance, it’s very obvious that they do have some form of disability. It is uncommon — in fact, I would say fairly rare — for people to not pass the rigour with which this government has tried to enforce examination of their qualifications to be a person with a disability.

Of course, this 28-page form was developed, this incredible piece of red tape, by a government that at the same time was undertaking this whole red-tape reduction that started in 2001. We’ve heard about it endlessly for 16 years. One would think that after 16 years, you would have actually gotten rid of all of the red tape that you needed to reduce. But apparently, no, that’s not the case. We’re still at it.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Of course we’re at it, because the government, on the one hand, is trying to do away with red tape, while on the other hand, they are creating red tape all the time. Nothing speaks more to that than this 28-page form that was put in place for persons with disabilities to fill out.

Bill 3, as laudable as it is, is a little, tiny baby step — a small tinkering with the legislation that was put in place. Basically, the whole persons-with-disabilities act — many parts of it have been a screen through which people with disabilities have had to fight their way. As much as I certainly think the bill is supportable, I think, in many ways, it’s very laughable. It seems like such a double standard to me.

The previous speaker talked about the government always trying to take steps forward. This is kind of staggering — steps backward, to the side and all over the place — and one tiny, little baby step forward. This will affect 1,000 people out of 100,000 people. Is this a huge, sweeping amendment that is going to affect all people with disabilities? No. In fact, 1,000 people are going to be affected by this — of the vast number, of 100,000 people.
[ Page 11121 ]

It’s interesting that the government considers that, somehow, a massive step forward or some celebratory step that they have taken here in amending this act. Nonetheless, we will take it for what it is. When I see that there’s some validation here from organizations like the Disability Alliance B.C., I absolutely believe there would be.

Everyone in the disability community deeply appreciates each small step forward that the government can take to back away from…. I know I heard the previous speaker talk about progressive government. In fact, regressive government is more like it. Each step that can be taken to sort of mitigate these steps is deeply appreciated.

While the government is taking credit for reducing red tape and taking a big bow for having taken some small steps here to reduce the ridiculous amount of red tape that persons with disabilities have to wander through, let’s put it in perspective. It is a small number of people being affected by a very small move, and there are still many, many big issues facing this community.

I mentioned earlier that I have some firsthand experience with this community. In fact, I have a family member who works in the disabled community, works with persons with disability and who has a disability himself. I have been watching with great interest and with a close personal understanding of the impacts of government’s decisions like the changes that they’re proposing in Bill 3 or, of course, the more interesting lightning rod of an issue that the government has brought down on itself here around the recent bus pass announcements.

I think it’s a phenomenon. It’s interesting when you hear members from the other side of the House say…. I heard the previous speaker say that very few people have come forward to complain about the bus pass issue to that member. It’s interesting that so many people on our side of the House would be hearing from so many British Columbians, yet people on that side of the House are hearing from few people on the issue around the bus pass.

It does play very closely to these minor changes made in Bill 3. In fact, while that was a good-news item — maybe we will say a hit, small though it may be…. We look at the flip side of this, the bus pass issue, which of course was a giant miss and huge bad news to the community. Now, I know the other side’s going to get all excited and up in arms about: “We haven’t done anything.” But the reality….

[1605]

I think the previous speaker actually mentioned something here which goes to the core of the issue around the bus pass. The previous speaker noted a previous kind of consultation agreement that the government had accepted from the disabilities community, which was “nothing about us without us.” That is simple yet deeply meaningful. The lack of consultation and engagement with the disabilities community on the bus pass speaks very strongly to the government’s disconnect with real people in real communities.

Now, while Bill 3 may address a small segment of a large population and give a small, tiny little step forward, on the other hand, the huge impact of this bus pass issue I think wipes out any good, any well-being that the government should feel over Bill 3 — completely overrides it and overshadows it.

I know the government has argued back and forth, tried to defend themselves, but the reality is, in this budget, there was a promise made to the disabilities community. It was a very clear promise. It wasn’t equivocal at the beginning. It was a simple statement that persons on disabilities were going to get a $77-a-month increase. That was the announcement. That was the good news that came out of the budget speech. Of course, there was a huge round of applause. Everyone here in the gallery was excited. People in the disabilities community were very excited.

As with all things to do with this government, the devil is always in the details. It didn’t take long for people to begin to examine exactly what the $77 lift would mean to them. Now, this was a lift in disability income that had been waited for, for a very, very long time. While the government wants to send out little placebos, like this amendment to Bill 3, there was a much deeper, growing need over the last number of years.

The cost of living has increased dramatically for everyone in this province, in this country as this government has loaded on more costs for hydro, more costs to drive your car, more fees everywhere you turn. Of course, those who are on fixed incomes are the first and most dramatically affected and hurt by increases in the cost of living around them. Food has gone up. Transportation has gone up. We can list off all the costs that even for average working families are a hardship. But when you are on a fixed income, I think it’s even more dramatic.

Those individuals who are living on a disability income were so incredibly excited to hear that, after all these years, they were going to get a lift of $77. Now, let’s look at the meagre amount of money that individuals are living on and the fact that their disability categorization brought with it a couple of perks. Aside from a small stipend to live on, you also got a free bus pass every year as long as you paid a $45 administration fee. That allowed you to get around and travel. For people with disabilities, in many, many cases, their only way to transport themselves around is on the bus.

I’m going to go back to the fact that I said a member of my family worked with the disability community, so I know how often these members of the disability community travelled by bus: every day. To go to a training program. To go to the movies. To go to the park, to go outdoors, have recreation. To meet with their friends. Sometimes they would go accompanied with caregivers. Sometimes it would be with just groups of individuals. I know many of these individuals, and I know how precious the bus pass was to them — and still is to them.
[ Page 11122 ]

When you see the government say, “We’re going to give you a lift. Your current circumstances are going to be better. We’re going to give you a lift of $77,” you can imagine the deep disappointment, the deep sadness and disappointment that individuals living with a disability felt when they saw the details of what was really going to happen to them. It affected them and their families and their caregivers and their employers and their program providers because, of course, the government was going to claw back most of that money.

[1610]

They were going to say, “We’re giving you $77,” and then they’re going to say: “The bus pass that used to be free you are now going to pay $52 for every month.” Under the guise of giving them choice, which I think is probably some of the most disingenuous categorization that I ever heard coming out of the mouths of the government side, this idea of choice…. “We’ll give you a choice. You can not buy a bus pass. You can stay home — you can not go to your program, you can not meet your friends, you can not go to work — and you can keep all of the $77. or you can pay. For what you used to get for free, you can now pay $52 — and the $45 fee that you already paid per year.”

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members. The member has the floor.

M. Karagianis: Bill 3 gave us a great opportunity. It’s given us a great insight into the generosity of the government. It’s a little tiny change for the disability community, while the disability community has to grapple with the idea that the government has snatched away this largesse. This generosity that they promised in the budget — they have clawed it back.

Now instead of $77, some individuals will only get $11. Some individuals will get $25. Or else they will choose not to travel, and they will get all of the $77.

How can you on the one hand….

Interjection.

M. Karagianis: The Minister of Health had his chance to speak, and I didn’t come in here and heckle him. The Minister of Health has…. I’ve heard him speak wide-ranging on these bills.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members. The Chair understands what the bill is about. The member has the floor. She’ll continue.

M. Karagianis: Thank you very much, Chair.

Now, when we look at Bill 3 and we compare it with the actual actions of government here, it shows the deep level of cynicism of government. It believes that this small little change to an act that affects 1,000 people, while 50,000 people are affected by this cynical move to claw back a promised raise to people with disabilities….

The government doesn’t like to hear it. We hear more heckling and more catcalling and more interruptions every time we talk about this. It cannot possibly be that the government side is not hearing from these people. There was a rally here with hundreds of people on the front steps only a few days ago. The disability community gathered here. Were they here to praise Bill 3 and the 1,000 members of that community who are not going to have to fill out a 28-page form? No, they were not.

Deputy Speaker: Member, keep your comments related to Bill 3, please.

M. Karagianis: Yes. Did the disability community come here to praise Bill 3? Did they come in support of Bill 3? They never even spoke about Bill 3. They were here trying to tell the government that they’re unhappy about the clawback of their bus passes. I did not hear one person say: “But it’s a great boon in my life that Bill 3 has now made a small amendment to two sections of the bill that make it easier for 1,000 of us to fill out a disability form.”

The reality is that even with Bill 3, there is still going to be a requirement. Doctors and nurses and practitioners will still be left to spend precious time, paid for by our health care dollars — you’d think the Minister of Health would be more worried about that — filling out all of these long forms. In fact, of the 100,000 people affected with a disability, only 1,000 of them are going to be given a break on this 28-page form. Many others are still going to have to go through this huge and onerous process.

How are they going to get there? Well, some of them won’t be getting there on the bus because their bus pass is being clawed back. How are they supposed to even get to the doctor? They have to make a choice: keep our $77 that we were promised or pay for the bus pass that this government has demanded.

The issue of the bus pass is contentious enough. It’s a cruel decision. The government is hearing about it. They can’t possibly not be hearing about it.

If they had had the good grace to go out and talk to the people…. All the disability community was here, hundreds of people. They could have gone out and said: “How do you feel about Bill 3?” In Bill 3, 1,000 people in this province will not have to fill out the 28-page form, this complicated, ridiculous form that the government put in place itself, this great bundle of red tape. Did the government go out there and say: “How do you feel about that?” No.

[1615]

Nobody went out and asked the community. They were right here. What was the promise at one point to the community? “Nothing about us without us.” Well, in fact,
[ Page 11123 ]
lots of things have been happening to that community, including the bus pass clawback, and that has been without their consultation or approval. Deeply disappointed.

If you talk to the people who gathered here on the steps, they were not concerned about the 28-page form. Many of them have already been through the painful process over and over again. But they were very concerned about a government so cynical it would promise them something that was not true. It would hold up a big shiny object and say: “Well, no, you can’t actually have it. We’re going to strip all the shininess off, and you can have the little hard nut of a core at the bottom of it. You can have $11, not $77.”

When I look at Bill 3, I think this is what…. We’re here in the Legislature, hours and hours of everybody’s time, for this small amendment. What a profound comparison to what the disability community feels about the bus pass clawback, the bad news that they got — 50,000 people affected by that; 1,000 people affected by this bill. Of course it’s good news, but it’s pretty tiny good news in the big scheme of things.

For all the people I know, just in my direct community, all the calls that I have been receiving, the people who’ve come to my office, the people that I know who stop me in the streets, the people that my family member works with who depend on their bus pass to get around — none of them have said to me: “I’m really glad I don’t have to fill out the 28-page form anymore.” What they have said is: “I thought the government was giving me $77. Instead, my free bus pass is now going to cost me most of that every month.” That’s what they are affected by.

When I come to this House and try to wrap my head around why I should support Bill 3, I understand on the surface of it that this is a tweaking of legislation. But it makes it very difficult not to compare it with the other things happening in this community….

Deputy Speaker: Member, keep your remarks relevant to Bill 3, please.

M. Karagianis: Yes, thank you very much.

The interesting part of this bill — again, the government’s claims around sort of massive steps forward — is these are not steps forward. These small incremental steps are, in some ways, a bit of a distraction from the larger issue that’s going on here.

The government’s idea of red-tape reduction is laughable. I know we’ve just had Red Tape Reduction Day. I confess I found it really hard to understand what we’d be celebrating on that day. If it’s this, the reduction of some complicated application form for 1,000 people while 99,000 people who could be affected by this have been left out….

A simpler PWD process, yes. The government didn’t need to make it so complicated in the first place. If they hadn’t undertaken the core review with this idea that somehow those in the disability community were not worthy, were not qualified, had to come in and prove somehow their level of disability before they could get funding or keep their funding…. The core review was a heinous time for vulnerable people in this province. I think they deserve better. They deserve better treatment than what they’re getting from the government.

Bill 3, on the surface of it — yeah, it’s innocuous. It’s a small little step that affects a few people. I don’t think I would actually call it a huge step forward, as the previous speaker did. I don’t think the government should pin all their hopes on this. Certainly, it’s not going to bail them out from the larger criticism that the public and the media have been sending their way around what they’ve done in the rest of the disability file.

I don’t have any issue with this. I don’t have any issue with the language in this. I’ll support it because it’s small potatoes. On the larger issue — the big bad news, the big game here that went on around announcing a lift in fees and then snatching it back — the government is feeling heat on this. I have no doubt they will continue to do that.

[1620]

They can say as much as they want about how it’s not true. People in the front lines know what they are experiencing. People — caregivers have written to us. Mothers have written to us. Signatures — there’s a huge petition going around. The media itself gets it. They went out and talked to people here, so they know what the real issue is here.

It’s not Bill 3. It’s not making a little bit less red tape for the disabilities community. It’s about the broken promise — the big broken promise of: “We’re giving you a raise, but not really. We’re going to claw it all back. Too bad for you. You have to be happy with your 11 bucks or your 25 bucks.” It’s not fair. It is rotten public policy — not to be confused with any hard-working people in either or all ministries. It is bad public policy, and I will continue to speak out against that at every opportunity I have.

G. Heyman: I wish I could say it gave me pleasure to stand in this place to speak to Bill 3, but all I can really say is that I will stand and speak in support of the bill.

There’s a comment often made that one should not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. In the case of Bill 3, I think we should say we should not let the perfect be the enemy of the average.

When we’re talking about measures that will really make a positive impact in the lives of people with disabilities, we should be talking about much, much, much more than the simple elimination of some red tape that many people with disabilities have already been subjected to, which was put in place by this government itself when it first took office, along with a number of other measures that really disadvantaged people with disabilities in very significant ways, many of which have only been partially reversed or not reversed at all.
[ Page 11124 ]

It’s impossible to talk about Bill 3 without talking about all the other things that people with disabilities have to deal with on a day-to-day basis. Their struggle for subsistence. Their attempts to survive on very limited support, which needs to be increased and which this government has truly said it would increase yet only increased for some, while clawing back from others. I expect, as we talk about this, that the heckling from the other side will re-emerge, as it apparently just did.

I think it’s important for people on the government side to realize there’s another old saying that applies quite significantly to this instance, and that’s that in politics, perception is reality. In this case, the perception and the reality are one and the same. For people who have had their bus pass clawed back or their increase clawed back in the form of having to purchase a bus pass that they used to receive, they are facing something that’s far, far, far more significant to them than the changes contained in Bill 3 — the changes in Bill 3 that do in fact allow things to be somewhat easier in terms of applying for benefits for people with disabilities.

It is important to note that in the grand scheme of things, in all the measures and issues that are faced by people with disabilities on a day-to-day basis, this, while making a difference and making it less onerous for many people, does not address all of the ways in which the application and contact process for people with disabilities is onerous. I will return to that later.

In fact, Bill 3 really could’ve gone much, much further in streamlining and smoothing the process of application and contact for people with disabilities than simply removing a requirement to fill out a lengthy questionnaire to justify their benefits that was introduced many years ago by the then minister, Murray Coell.

[1625]

It was intimidating to people at the time. People were forced to justify their benefits. It cost taxpayers a lot of money. It caused hardships and anxiety for thousands of British Columbians.

The government today says that it wants to make it simpler. It wants to remove the burden of that red tape from people with disabilities.

If this government cared a quarter as much about obstacles to people with disabilities and about processes that are inclusive and not processes that make it harder for people to qualify, it would have paid much, much more attention to not implementing red tape for people with disabilities — which it then would turn around, many years later, and make a big deal of removing. It would have paid attention to that from the start, instead of focusing all of its attention on things that it characterized as red tape many years ago — which really were important regulations to protect people’s health and safety and that later had to be reinstated.

It is, of course, beneficial. Of course it’s beneficial to make the application process simpler. To that extent, I and others on this side of the House will support this bill.

I think it’s also important that we look at some of the other things that people with disabilities are facing. As my colleague from Esquimalt–Royal Roads has said, it is a challenge for people who are waiting and waiting many years for some increase in their benefit. To be told…. One day they’re getting an increase, and on another day, for many of them, most of it was being clawed back, about two-thirds of it. Then to be told that they should be thankful that some red tape is being removed — red tape which, for many of them, they were already subjected to…. Many of them had to fight very hard to keep their eligibility.

For those people, on the one hand, they look at Bill 3. On the other hand, they say: “Why has the government been so cruel, to make us think that we were getting a modest increase in our benefits and to then tell us that if we want a bus pass, we now have to pay for it, whereas in the past, we didn’t?”

The Minister of Social Development and Social Innovation has said that that action was about giving people choice. On the one hand, we’re telling people with disabilities, and their advocates and their families, that Bill 3 is making their life simpler and easier. On the other hand, we’re telling them that they have choice about how they’re going to get from point A to point B, that they don’t have to buy a bus pass. For many people with disabilities, this is no choice. For many people with disabilities, it is top of mind.

If everything else were going well…. If they were getting an increase and getting support in the form of benefits and legitimately reduced obstacles to interfacing with the ministry, to applying and getting some of the supports they needed, and we were to tell them, “And Bill 3 is the icing on the cake, because it’s going to reduce red tape and it’s going to make your life easier,” then they might say: “That’s great. Thank you for this bill. Thank you for taking steps not only to perhaps make my life easier but to make lives easier for others in my situation.”

But in fact, so much of their lives is difficult. So much more has to be done for full inclusion, and there’s a lengthy list of recommendations from the Auditor General about things that could be done to enable the government to really become the most progressive jurisdiction in Canada for people living with disabilities — which this government has said it wants to. This government will probably hold up Bill 3 as an example of their work toward that goal.

If this government really wanted to do that, let’s take a look at some of the other Auditor General recommendations that could have been included in Bill 3 but weren’t included in Bill 3. It’s important to put things about Bill 3 in context, because if we’re going to discuss a bill that purports to make life significantly better for people with disabilities, to improve their assistance, let’s talk about some of the other things that could have been done.

[1630]

The disability assistance program, as this bill purports to address, is not easy to access. Among the findings of the Auditor General was: “We found a number of barriers that are currently reducing the accessibility of the system.” Obviously, a 28-page application form, which Bill 3 addresses, is one of those, but it’s not the only one. In fact, I might argue that…. Despite the fact that I will support the bill because, as far as it goes, it’s useful, in a small way, it doesn’t address any of the many, many other issues that truly providing assistance for people with disabilities could have included in an amendment act.

The disability assistance system is administratively complex and difficult to navigate. The government will argue that that’s precisely why they brought in Bill 3 — to simplify the application form. But that’s not the only way in which it’s administratively complex and difficult to navigate. I’m again quoting the report of the Auditor General: “Both the on-line and telephone services are not consistently accessible for clients, and there are challenges with the physical accessibility of a small number of service delivery sites.”

Whether it was in Bill 3 or whether it was in the budget, it seems to me that much, much more could be done by the government — should be done by the government — in order to really offer assistance in a meaningful way to people with disabilities. We should understand here that we’re not simply talking about people with physical disabilities. We’re talking about people with developmental disabilities who may be able to interface and interact at some level with the ministry but who, the more complex and difficult we make the system, will find it increasingly complex and difficult to do.

The Auditor General goes on to say: “While the ministry has done some analysis and consulted with stakeholders, we found that it has not fully assessed the accessibility needs of its clients.”

My colleague from Coquitlam–Burke Mountain talked about: “Nothing about us without us.” That is something that people in the disability community say and say often, and it’s not just people in the disability community. It’s said for a reason. If we’re talking about inclusion, it is not useful to proceed in a paternalistic fashion that assumes that we know what people need. We assume that we know what their priorities are, and we assume that we know best and we know better than they do.

If we asked people with disabilities and their advocates — for instance, the Disability Alliance B.C., which has its offices in Vancouver-Fairview and whose executive director, Jane Dyson, has met with me on a number of occasions…. If we ask those people: “What’s more important to you? Is it eliminating the need for an exclusionary 28-page application form, raising benefits, ensuring that people aren’t subjected to lengthy waits on a telephone system, ensuring that people have physical access to offices and staff who are accessible and ensuring that people get a decent raise to their benefits, on the one hand, and not be told, on the other hand, that we’re clawing most of that back in the form of bus passes because not everybody in the province has a bus pass…?”

If we ask people: “What would you like — on the one hand, the thin gruel in Bill 3 or these other issues that impact you on a daily basis?” — I suspect the answer would be: “We want all of it. Because it’s all important. Because we don’t have access. Because, yes, the application form is difficult. It’s challenging, it’s exclusionary, it’s a barrier, and it was put in place to limit the number of people who are receiving benefits.”

Very clearly this wasn’t red tape put in place in the form of a regulation to make life better for people with disabilities or make them safer. It was part of a whole program brought in by this government to limit access to supports in order to drive down costs on the backs of the most vulnerable in this province.

[1635]

People would say: “Yes, get rid of that form. That part of Bill 3 is good. Why isn’t there more? Why did you give us a raise with one hand — which is long overdue, which we desperately need, which still won’t give us much more than bare, bare subsistence living — and then claw most of it back by telling us we have a choice between being able to take a bus or take the extra money that we so desperately need?”

They would likely also have said that Bill 3 could have included some of the other recommendations of the Auditor General. Let me read not all of them but some of them, all of which could have been part of Bill 3, all of which could have made life simpler for people with disabilities and not fit quite so neatly into a narrative about: “We’re all about reducing red tape. And see? We’re not just doing it for business. We’re doing it for people with disabilities.”

The Auditor General recommends that the Ministry of Social Development and Social Innovation “collect additional information on its clients’ needs and use this to address accessibility barriers for vulnerable clients.” It also asked that the ministry “ensure that front-line staff training is relevant, current and addresses topics such as client-centred services, accommodation and working with people who have a wide range of barriers and disabilities.”

We’ve been here now for almost four weeks. We’ve been debating the throne speech. We’ve been debating the budget. We’ve been looking at measures that the ministry is putting into place. But I don’t actually recall these measures being either funded or talked about by either the Minister of Social Development and Social Innovation or by the Minister of Finance.

“Develop a comprehensive evaluation framework for the persons with disabilities program that” — this is again from the Auditor General — “sets objectives, targets, benchmarks to define what it means to meet clients’ basic needs.” Had the government done this, it might have found out that meeting clients’ basic needs includ-
[ Page 11126 ]
ed what we see here in Bill 3 today, which is to remove an onerous and lengthy application form and allow government to designate people as members of a designated group that is defined in regulation — a class of persons — that therefore does not require them to fill out the current onerous 28-page application or additional assessments by medical practitioners.

Surely, a comprehensive evaluation framework that set objectives, targets and benchmarks to define what it means to meet clients’ basic needs would have talked about an increase in benefits that made life easier for them. It wouldn’t have talked about giving people choice by taking away some of that benefit. It might have talked about: what can we do to make transportation easier for people who don’t live in areas where a bus pass is relevant?

There are two ways to bring equality through choice. One of them is to lift everyone up, and another one is to play an almost zero-sum game that pits people in one part of the province against people in the other by taking from people who had bus passes and saying to the people who never had them: “It just wasn’t fair to you.” It doesn’t particularly make life better for the people who never had the bus pass. They still have the issue, as do people who had the bus pass, of subsistence coupled with the issue of mobility.

The Auditor General went on to say that a comprehensive evaluation framework would set standard measures “to track whether clients can access appropriate shelter, food and other necessities.” On the one hand, we have Bill 3 that eliminates, as I said and as the act says, the onerous 28-page application form for many, many people. But it doesn’t talk — and it could have talked, should have talked, might have talked, and people with disabilities would have welcomed it if it talked — about what other standard measures could be put in place to ensure that we get appropriate shelter, food and other necessities.

[1640]

The Auditor General said we should establish a baseline and targets to measure employment success for clients and, in partnership with other agencies, define, track and monitor a range of health and social indicators to assess this broader range of outcomes.

We will support this bill. Obviously, no one on this side of the House has any desire to perpetuate something we disagreed with in the first place, and that was a lengthy application form that was almost guaranteed to ensure that some people who legitimately should have had access to persons-with-disability benefits didn’t get those benefits. Of course we’re going to support the elimination of that requirement, and that’s what Bill 3 does.

But we’re not going to stand up and salute it and say, “This is great,” because it’s not enough and because it’s in a context that is, frankly, cruel to very many people with disabilities — holding out some hope, on the one hand, with an increase and then taking most of it back with the other hand. That’s not what some of the people in our community who face the hardest challenges getting by on a day-to-day basis really need and want.

What they would have liked to see in Bill 3 was some recognition of the hardships and challenges that they face. They would have liked to see some of the measures recommended by the Auditor General put into place.

They would have liked to see some acknowledgment by the government that when, on the one hand, it set up a $100 million prosperity fantasy fund to be used as a slush fund in the next election…. Some of that money, much of that money, could have been used for many things that would benefit not just them but others — that could have supported them and ensured that, instead of living as second-class citizens on subsistence, being forced to make choices that nobody should have to make…. “Do I eat today, or do I take a bus? Do I eat tomorrow, or do I take a bus? Am I able to afford some small joy or pleasure once every couple of months, or do I take a bus?”

Bill 3 eliminates red tape that was put into place by this government. It wasn’t just red tape; it was a barrier. It was a tangible, actual, palpable barrier to people with disabilities, put in with a clear purpose — as was much of the legislation from that period of the first Liberal government — to disentitle people, to remove government expenditure that supported the neediest people in this society, all so the government could say it was building a better economy and a better British Columbia by reducing income taxes by 25 percent.

So when we discuss Bill 3 and when we discuss Bill 3 in the context of cutting red tape, let’s understand that what Bill 3 really does is, finally, after 15 years, constitute an admission by this government that it put people with disabilities, the most vulnerable in our society, in a terrible position — in a position that was set up to disqualify many of them — and that, finally, this government is removing that. It is ironic that this government removes that barrier in the same session that it introduces a budget that has been, frankly, a cruel, cruel hoax on many people with disabilities.

Members on the other side of the House will say this bill is great, and they will say that we are inaccurate when we say that they’ve clawed back the bus pass, but it’s not just us who are saying that. People on disability who want to have the bus pass option will have $52 a month deducted from their assistance directly. Inclusion B.C. started a petition on this issue, and it has thousands and thousands of signatures. The change will affect more than 50,000 people.

[1645]

On the one hand, we have Bill 3 removing red tape, which in reality, was a barrier created by this government — cynically, consciously punishing people with disabilities in order to balance a budget. On the other hand, we have the real needs of people with disabilities for a raise in their income assistance, their disability benefits, without being forced to make terrible choices — choices
[ Page 11127 ]
about whether or not they should still buy a bus pass so they have some freedom and some mobility.

One of these days, I may get to stand in this House and unreservedly support a piece of legislation brought in by a government much of whose legislation I, frankly, find abhorrent. But this bill certainly isn’t it.

I will vote for it. My colleagues will vote for it. But we’ll vote for it with a heavy heart because we know that no matter what members opposite say, no matter what government ministers say, no matter what spin their communications people put on it, people with disabilities are being given a tiny amount with one hand and having most of it clawed back with the other. And it is creating outrage. It is creating cynicism.

Advocates for people in the disability community have said very clearly that it is mean-spirited to hold out with one hand and claw back with the other. But this government is tone-deaf.

If Bill 3 is the very best this government can come up with to say they’re doing something for people with disabilities, it has a long, long way to go to convince the people that are affected by this, people with disabilities, that they have their best interests at heart. They have a long, long way to go to convince advocates for people with disabilities that they have their best interests at heart. They even have a long way to go to convince some of the most cynical people in the media that that is their goal, because it is not working. It is simply not working.

The quotes are legion. The response of the media has been uniform. People don’t get why this government is trying to pretend that it is not clawing back most of an increase to people with disability benefits by making them pay for a bus pass. The “choice” language isn’t doing it.

Now we have this bill. We have Bill 3 to eliminate red tape and obstacles to application for disability benefits by people with disabilities. It’s long overdue. The reason it’s long overdue is because this government introduced the red tape in the first place.

They introduced the barriers in the first place. They did it along with a suite of other actions, when they took office, that made it difficult for people with disabilities and for seniors, that promised long-term-care beds on the one hand and cut services on the other, that made it difficult for people who provided support to people with disabilities by forcing them to cut their wages and forcing them to take concessions.

There was a suite of actions, and this bill reverses and overturns one tiny portion of it. One wonders how this government actually chose this measure and what thinking went into the choice of this so-called red-tape-reduction bill that would allow the government to think that it was really doing something it could take out to the British Columbia citizenry, take out to advocates for people with disabilities and take out, most importantly, to people with disabilities themselves and convince them that it was really a great thing that they would experience when this bill was passed.

[1650]

I’ll vote for it, but I’d rather be standing in this House and voting for a suite of measures, included in Bill 3, that significantly increased the supports for people with disabilities, that significantly reduced the bureaucratic and other barriers that they face on a day-to-day basis and took significant action to consult with people with disabilities and actually address their real needs, not pretend that they were being helped, not pretend that they were getting a real increase that wasn’t being clawed back.

This government is tone-deaf. If Bill 3 is the best that this government can do, then the people of B.C. will judge.

Hon. M. Morris: As our economy in British Columbia improves and as we see LNG improve and commodity prices improve, I’m sure we’re going to give the member opposite who just finished speaking the opportunity to vote on some amendments coming forward that will supply more benefits for those that are in need in our province.

We’ve heard all kinds of accolades from the members opposite — although they try to frame their words a little bit carefully there so they don’t throw any accolades our way —appreciating the fact that we are reducing the 28-page application form for persons with disabilities, appreciating the fact that we’re making the process much simpler with Bill 3 here.

When it comes into force, the application processes are going to benefit folks with Community Living B.C., the Ministry of Children and Family Development’s At Home program, the B.C. PharmaCare plan for palliative care and the Canada Pension Plan disability aspects.

As of December 31, we’ve got more than 96,000 British Columbians who are designated as persons with disabilities and who receive disability assistance. On average, there are approximately 8,000 people who apply for and receive disability assistance each year.

Initially, about 1,000 people each year will benefit from the change that we’re going to introduce with Bill 3 here, most of whom will be transitioning into Community Living B.C. services.

But I have to go back to some comments that the member for Esquimalt–Royal Roads made when she was speaking on behalf of this bill. I came in after she’d already started speaking here. She referred to it as small, with little effect that affects few people. She said: “I’ll support it because it’s small potatoes.” She said it’s “rotten public policy.”

In listening to the comments she made, I have to say I don’t believe that it’s small potatoes. I don’t believe that’s it’s supporting very few people. Every individual with disabilities in this province deserves the attention of this government.

The $1,000 home-renovation tax credit is now available to people with disabilities to help increase accessibility at home. That’s not small potatoes.
[ Page 11128 ]

We’ve introduced significant changes that allow people on disability assistance to live more independent lives. A single person with a disability designation can now hold up to $100,000 in assets while continuing to receive disability assistance. That’s not small potatoes. That’s up from $5,000. For a family where two people have disability designations, the asset limit is $200,000, up from $10,000. That’s not small potatoes.

Persons with disabilities can now receive recurring gifts of cash without losing their eligibility for assistance. I don’t call that small potatoes either. People receiving disability assistance will be able to receive more financial help from family, friends or other supporters, so there are all kinds of opportunities there. Families will be able to leave an inheritance to their children without having to set up a trust, which can be costly. In my books, those aren’t small potatoes.

We’re simplifying the application process to make it easier for people applying for disability assistance. Under the proposed legislation, people who are already approved for eligible provincial and federal programs will no longer have to complete an application for the persons-with-disabilities designation in order to access assistance. That’s not small potatoes. To a lot of these people that were continually filling out these forms, I think that’s a pretty significant step forward.

[1655]

We’ve also made balanced changes to our policy to ensure we’re providing the supports people need to get back into the workforce, while helping to improve the financial picture for B.C.’s most vulnerable people. I think that’s significant. My colleague for Prince George–Valemount and myself both employ persons with disabilities in our office up there. It’s been a rewarding experience for us and our staff, but it has also been a very rewarding experience for the people who are coming in and providing that service for us.

Our government continues to refine other income assistance policies in ways that help people increase their household income and create greater independence for them throughout British Columbia here.

Child support payments are now fully exempt, providing an additional $32 million over the next three years for 3,200 families. Earning exemptions have doubled, from $200 to $400 per month for all families with children, and have increased from $300 to $500 per month for families who have a child with a disability. That’s not small potatoes.

For people on disability assistance, we increased earning exemptions from $500 to $800 a month. In January 2015, B.C. became the first province to annualize earning exemptions up to $9,600 a year — the first province to do that. That’s a significant step, considering that some folks might have had opportunities for seasonal work where they made considerably more than what the monthly exemption provided for. Again, that’s not small potatoes. That has benefited a lot of people.

We’ve made significant changes so that people on disability assistance can hold more assets and receive cash and gifts, making our policies the most generous in Canada. Although the members opposite characterize this bill as small potatoes and not really addressing the issues, they all say they’re going to support it, as they should. I think it’s a step in the right direction.

Are we doing everything that we can? We are, at the moment. Can we do more? Yes, there’s always something more that we can do in every aspect of what we do and the services that we provide as government. But it’s based upon the economics that we face at the time.

Once LNG is on board and once the commodity prices return to our mining sector and once the economy is running on all cylinders again, our budgets will reflect that. I’m sure we’re going to see some added benefits to those that are most in need in this province.

I support Bill 3. I’m very happy to hear the members opposite supporting Bill 3. It’s not small potatoes. It’s not small. It’s quite significant in what we do. I look forward to moving ahead with this bill.

K. Corrigan: I’m rising, as well, to speak on Bill 3, the Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Amendment Act, 2016. What this bill does is it allows a government to directly designate classes of persons as defined in regulations. It can designate classes that will end the requirement for a small number of people to fill out the current 28-page application form for persons with disabilities — and the requirement, as well, for additional assessments by medical practitioners.

I don’t think there is an MLA that sits in this House that has not had desperate people coming to their office — over the last almost 15 years that people have had to fill that form out and had doctors fill it out and others fill it out for them, or parts of it — saying that it’s very complicated.

For persons with disabilities, it’s a challenge to be dealing with a 28-page form. The moment in 2002 that the government brought the form in, it created a lot of angst. We have 96,000 people who are designated as persons with disabilities. This is going to help about 1,000 of them.

[1700]

When members were talking about the fact that it was not wide-ranging, they were simply talking about the scope of how many people it’s going to affect. When you compare that with the tens of thousands of people who are going to be negatively impacted by the fact that government is going to be clawing back the bus pass from the $77 per month increase…. If you look at the scale of those that it’s going to impact, it’s certainly way more people being affected negatively by the clawback compared to, positively, not having to fill out this 28-page form.

That form includes things like how many steps somebody can go up — zero, one to two, three to five. I mean, it’s so detailed. But it is good that there are a few people,
[ Page 11129 ]
, largely children transitioning to Community Living B.C., that will be positively impacted. That’s a good thing.

I want to put Bill 3 in just a little bit of context. The Minister of Public Safety was saying that this is not small potatoes. To those people, not having to do that form is probably not small potatoes. However, the context that we need to look at is that this is a small step back, a very small step back, compared with the devastating cuts that this government brought in from the time that it was first elected in 2001. We have a small step here that is going to help a few people, 1,000 people, but not the other 95,000 that have to fill out the 28-page form. It’s going to help some people. Compare that with what this government did back in 2002, shortly after being elected.

First of all, one of the things they did was they created the 28-page form. It was this government that created it. It’s looking for us to give them credit for 1,000 people, out of 96,000, that are not going to have to fill it out anymore as they transition, but they were the ones that created the 28-page form in the first place. Back then it was tens of thousands of people with disabilities that had to fill out that form. It was a creation of this government. So thank you. Thank you for allowing 1,000 people, of the 96,000, not to have to fill it out now. But this government was the one that created this form that we’re talking about in the first place.

I want to talk about some of the other things that happened at the same time and why members on the opposite side maybe, perhaps, can forgive us for being a little bit cynical on this side. Here are the things that happened in 2002. Elimination of earnings exemptions for those without persons-with-disabilities or PPMB status. Income earned, clawed back dollar for dollar. That was a change in 2002. Elimination of the child support exemption. That was a change by this government in 2002. We’re getting a little bit back, but these are changes that were made.

Single parents expected to work earlier, another change by the government. Benefit rate cuts for single parents. Benefit rate cuts back in 2002 — very significant to the lives of those individuals.

Directing clients to apply via a 1-866 line. We’ve heard many, many people talking about how difficult it is for people with disabilities, people on income assistance to even get through to the 1-800 line. I had somebody come into my office just in the last seven or eight days — a week or so — saying that they were having a terrible time. They came to us because they had spent hours on the telephone trying to get some help on the 1-800 line and simply had given up and thought that the line was broken. Well, for them, it was.

[1705]

We had employability screens, the two-year independence test, the two-year time limit, clients without…. These are all changes that happened out of this government in 2002, very shortly after it came in. This was after a promise by then Premier Gordon Campbell, before the election, that he was not going to reduce welfare rates. Well, the government did under his premiership and, in addition, put all sorts of hurdles there and made it more difficult for persons on income assistance and persons with disabilities.

Clients without persons with disabilities in 2002 were no longer permitted to pursue post-secondary studies. That was another change. The persons-with-disabilities status was made far more complicated, and that’s…. Well, we’re talking about the 28-page form.

The appeal process was weakened. The options for appealing individual welfare decisions concerning the denial, discontinuance or reduction of benefits were limited.

Here’s one that’s close to my heart. Another change was funding for poverty law legal aid was eliminated. You’ll remember also, under this government, funding for legal aid generally has decreased. We have a huge number of people being self-represented in court. It’s creating huge congestion in our courts as well as creating a lack of access, and therefore a lack of justice, for many people.

We have a very small step back here. Remember also, in 2010, this is a government that had a press release, an information bulletin, titled, in a classic example of doublespeak…. On March 4, 2010, the headline was: “Province Protects Services for Low-Income Clients.” However, the release then went on to outline a long list of services and programs that were no longer to be available to people with disabilities, seniors and people who lived on low incomes or collected income assistance.

Some of those cuts in 2010 included the elimination of medical equipment and supplies such as glucometers for diabetes, electrotherapy devices for people suffering joint and muscle pain, orthotics, medication delivery devices and contraceptives. They also eliminated the minimum shelter allowance of $75 for people living with disabilities.

We have a very short act, I think, just three sections — oh, two sections, really, and one that says it’ll come into force when they decide it’s going to come into force. Those March 10 cuts were a complete surprise — absolutely no consultation, for example, with the B.C. Coalition of People with Disabilities. They said: “This was totally unexpected. We only heard about this late on the afternoon of March 4. There was no previous consultation or even indication that these changes were going to happen.”

Dr. Gabor Maté, a doctor working in Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside, said in 2010, with the cuts then: “It doesn’t need a medical genius to know that cutting essential supports for people on income assistance will simply leave them in worse health. This government is the only provincial government in Canada that seems to have money to keep supporting the Own the Podium program. Clearly, their priority is that gold medals are more important than people’s lives.”

There has been a long history. Members from the other side repeatedly talk about “having the ability.” “As money becomes available, we’ll have the ability.” The re-
[ Page 11130 ]
ality is that people who are low income…. We have had, for many of the last years, the highest rate of child poverty. We have had the greatest inequality in the country, the difference between the lowest-income members of our province and the highest income. We have the greatest spread, the greatest inequality, of any province in the country.

[1710]

When we have these things…. We’ve had these conditions, made by government, by the policies of government, for the last 15 years. When you have that, it’s not very comforting to the child who has grown up in poverty, the family that has struggled with low incomes, the working poor who are finding it more and more difficult to make ends meet, who are being punished by this government’s policies in the past — the punishment of people on income assistance, as I’ve outlined.

You have that, and then you have B.C. Hydro rates going up, and you have medical services premiums going up. You have college tuition going up. You have a government that’s breaking its own rules on college tuition and increasing tuition by 6 percent, in many cases, next year.

When you have all of those things that are making it more and more difficult for British Columbians, it is really hard to hear: “Well, you know, when things…. In a while, maybe we’ll have something for you. Here’s a little piece right now.” The reality is that it really doesn’t help those kids that have been living in poverty for the last 15 years. They’ve spent their whole lives, through school, living in poverty and being punished by this government because of the decisions that it has repeatedly made and not addressed.

I wanted to take a look at the…. It was interesting. I was reading the release, and I noticed that Richard Faucher, who is executive director of the Burnaby Association for Community Inclusion, was quoted, I believe, in the press release. It said that young people and families who are part of the Burnaby Association for Community Inclusion will welcome this announcement. They told us that the time of transition from children to adult services is very challenging for many reasons, including the process to qualify for persons with disabilities.

Certainly, the Burnaby Association for Community Inclusion, which both the Speaker and I know very well, appreciates this. I just want to take a second to mention something, since they were mentioned in the press release on Bill 3. This is a fantastic organization, which does deserve to be recognized. It’s been around since 1956, and it is a non-profit organization that provides services to over 1,000 children, youth and adults with developmental disabilities, and their families, in Metro Vancouver.

Mr. Speaker, you and I both know — from going to their annual general meetings, keeping in close touch with them, going to the fabulous barbecues that they have every summer — what great work they do with things like supported child development, programs for adults, work opportunities for adults. They do a great job, so I just wanted to recognize them for the great work that they do.

They do say this is welcome, but it’s interesting. I was on their website today to see if I could find something else about Bill 3. I didn’t find this quote on their website, but what I did find right on the front page of the website of the Burnaby Association for Community Inclusion, which is mentioned positively and quoted in the government press release — at least, that’s my understanding — was an invitation to sign the petition to raise the rates and: “Leave our bus pass alone.”

The government is certainly happy to quote them, but they are not happy about another piece of what government has done in its budget, which is to give with one hand and then take with another. In that case, it’s that government gave a $77-a-month lift to rates. Unfortunately, if you want to have a bus pass, which used to cost you $45 a year, now you’re going to have to pay the $45, but it’s going to cost you $52 a month.

[1715]

If you also received a transit subsidy, you end up only gaining by $11 a month. Eleven dollars a month, over time, does not even cover inflation. I think $11 a month works out to less than 1 percent over time, because there hasn’t been an increase for years. So it works out to the annual increase. If you had a transportation subsidy, the $77 increase with the subsidy clawed back means that they’re only up $11 dollars a month. That’s minor; 0.13 percent is what it works out to.

The Minister of Finance, when asked whether or not that was an unfair amount, said: “For that group, the impact is very modest.” No kidding.

We have a bus pass which is going to cost $52 a month. People are going to have to make choices about whether or not they get the bus pass or take their very small increase to go to food or other necessities of life — but certainly not enough of an increase for many, many people who rely on buses to make any significant difference.

I want to also say that we do have a change here. We have a change that’s going to make it a little easier for some people to have their persons-with-disability designation. But I want to say that there are so many other things that need to be done.

There was a report by the Auditor General in May of 2014 on persons-with-disabilities supports. What the Auditor General found in that report a couple of years ago is that the disability assistance program is not easy to access for clients — that the risks are not being fully managed to ensure benefits are provided to the right individuals or that eligibility decisions are made in a timely manner. That wasn’t happening. The ministry hadn’t completed a comprehensive evaluation of the disability assistance program.

The level of assistance provided is not enough to meet the basic needs of clients. That’s a tough finding — that
[ Page 11131 ]
the level of assistance provided is not enough to meet the basic needs of clients.

If the basic needs of clients were not being met two years ago and we’ve had two more years of inflation — costs for housing in Vancouver have skyrocketed — then it’s going to be very difficult. I don’t believe that the basic needs of clients are going to be met with the lift. Certainly, for those people who had the subsidy, $11 a month is certainly not enough to lift somebody out of poverty or even, in many cases, to meet their very basic needs.

I want to also note that the AG pointed out particularly that the disability assistance program is not easy to access. Here’s what the report says. Here are a couple of quotes from it. “We found a number of barriers that are currently reducing the accessibility of the system. The disability assistance system is administratively complex and difficult to navigate. Both the online and telephone services are not consistently accessible for clients, and there are challenges with the physical accessibility of a small number of service delivery sites.”

These are all quotes. “While the ministry has done some analysis and consulted with stakeholders, we found that it has not fully assessed the accessibility needs of its clients.”

A lot of work, a number of recommendations and instead of a comprehensive response from government, what we get instead is a small change. And remember that people’s lives in between changes….

[1720]

People’s lives from 2002 up to 2016 have been negatively impacted by this government, and it’s been very, very difficult to be a person with disabilities in British Columbia. Many people are living in poverty.

I want to just take a moment on the issue of the bus pass. I want to quote from a letter that I received from Parent Support Services Society of B.C.

Parent Support Services Society of B.C. is located in my riding of Burnaby–Deer Lake. It’s on Imperial Street, right across the street from Mr. Speaker’s riding. It’s right on the border there. What they said in a February 18 letter to the Premier…. I’ll just read a part of it. It says:

“The increase in assistance for individuals who have a person-with-disabilities designations is welcome. However, this small increase is largely offset by the addition of a $52 monthly fee for persons with disabilities who utilize the $45-per-year transit pass.

“We have heard from our families the life-saving difference this bus pass makes in their lives. It allows these citizens to freely access community resources, get to volunteer and paid work and travel to recreational activities. We call on the government to reconsider this additional monthly fee.

“Parent Support Services” — I’m continuing to quote — “also has questions about the logistics of how individuals with persons-with-disabilities designations will pay this $52-per-month fee.

“Many of the families we know would be unable to apply on line or use a debit or credit card due to their limitations. Accessing disability assistance already requires assistance for those for whom English is an additional language, who struggle with literacy or who do not know how to use computers.”

They go on to say:

“Ninety percent of the families we work with live in poverty. We would have welcomed the adoption of a poverty reduction strategy.”

They do have real concerns about the bus pass clawback.

I want to thank Carol Madsen, who is the executive director of Parent Support Services Society of B.C., for the great work that Parent Support Services Society of B.C. does for families around this province, the work they do and the advocacy they provide on behalf of families. I’m really pleased that they have their headquarters in my community, because they’re a fine organization.

This is a small measure. It’s a two-section measure that will make it easier for some people to access disability and to access the designation of persons with disabilities. But remember that this is in the wake of 15 years of attack against people who are low income, people who are on disability — 15 years of attack. Yes, I guess it’s good to have a very small step back, but remember the context: people’s lives for 15 years, many people’s lives, have been very, very difficult. We see the result of that in the streets — people apartment-surfing, people on the streets, people in food bank lineups.

Yes, this is an improvement for a small number of people, but the reality is that this is a government which has decided that people on income assistance or people with disabilities are not a priority. That’s been their attitude for the last 15 years — that people who are on income assistance or have disabilities are not a priority.

[1725]

I have no doubt. I heard one of the members opposite say: “Well, you know, you can probably expect some announcements.” My guess is…. That’s the way this government does things. It takes and takes and takes and hurts and hurts and hurts, and then, coincidentally, just before we have an election, we have a small piece. No doubt there’ll be some announcements — many, many announcements — over the next year of how wonderful they are, and promises, many of which they never follow through with.

When I was reading out about Richard Faucher, the executive director of Burnaby Association for Community Inclusion, I neglected to mention some of the other people who are so fantastic at Burnaby Association for Community Inclusion.
[ Page 11132 ]
I think of people like Paul Miller, who is the chair of the board and has done a great job there. And we have co-directors at BACI, so Richard Faucher and Tanya Sather are co-chairs.

I have to mention my friend Susan Anthony, who is on the board, and her son Jake. They are constituents of mine. I always love to see it when they come and visit me in the office. We’ve helped them a few times with some challenges that they’ve had with government. They are wonderful constituents. Susan gives an awful lot to the board, as do all the other board members and volunteers as well as the staff at the Burnaby Association for Community Inclusion.

I will be supporting this bill because it’s a small step back. But remember the context. This is a small step that’ll be important to some people, but there is so much more that needs to be done and so much more that we have to get back for people, because they have been punished and lost so much over the last number of years under this government.

D. Plecas: It is my pleasure, on behalf of my constituents in Abbotsford South, to speak to Bill 3 — that is, the 2016 Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Amendment Act. I’m especially pleased that this is another measure which reflects our government’s commitment to helping people with disabilities — in this case, by making it easier for them to access the services they need.

The proposed legislation will allow government to prescribe groups of people as persons with disabilities without making them have to complete a 28-page application or additional assessments by medical practitioners. These proposed changes will not only reduce red tape for people with disabilities and their families; they will also cut paperwork for doctors and other health care professionals who need to fill out forms on behalf of clients.

When the legislation comes into force, people in the following provincial and federal programs will complete a much simpler PWD application process, including Community Living B.C., the Ministry of Children and Family Development’s At Home program, B.C. PharmaCare plan palliative care, Canada Pension Plan disability. This legislation is just one of the ways our government has been working to streamline the disability assistance application process.

The ministry has also reduced the amount of time it takes to process an application for persons-with-disabilities designation and created a simpler form for youth transitioning to CLBC services. Our government remains committed to working with people with disabilities in order to make their lives easier.

If passed, the proposed Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Amendment Act changes will come into effect with regulations which are anticipated in September of this year.

[1730]

As of September 30, 2015, more than 96,000 British Columbians are designated as PWD and receive disability assistance. On average, about 8,000 people apply for and receive disability assistance each year. Initially, about 1,000 people each year will benefit from the change, most of whom will be youth transitioning into CLBC services.

Our government continues to refine our income assistance policies in ways that help people increase their household income and create greater independence. Child support payments are now fully exempt, providing an additional $32 million over the next three years for 3,200 families.

Earnings exemptions doubled from $200 to $400 per month for all families with children and increased from $300 to $500 per month for families who have a child with a disability. For people on disability assistance, we increased earnings exemptions from $500 to $800 per month. In January ’15, B.C. became the first province to annualize earnings exemptions up to $9,600 a year. As the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives pointed out, earnings exemptions are a valuable path into the paid workforce.

People can now keep their basic health supplement coverage for a full year when they leave income assistance for employment.

[R. Lee in the chair.]

We have also made significant changes so that people on disability assistance can hold more assets and receive cash gifts, making our policies the most generous in Canada. Budget ’16 provides an additional $170 million over three years to increase assistance for 100,000 people on disability assistance.

Beginning in September ’16, people who choose not to receive a bus pass will receive an increase of $77 per month. That’s over $900 per year. People who choose to keep their existing pass will receive a $25 monthly rate increase in addition to the subsidized bus pass. The low-income seniors bus pass program is not changing.

We know there will always be more that we can do when the financial situation allows, and we will. Any further changes we make will always be designed to give people a helping hand to get back on their feet and to break the cycle of income assistance dependency. By providing temporary help to those who can work and longer-term aid for those who, through disability or other barriers, have a more difficult time working or who cannot work, our government is ensuring that the needs of all British Columbians are respected.

We’re also concerned about low-income supports. British Columbia is home to some of the most comprehensive supports for low-income individuals and their families in the country.

Supports for people with disabilities. For example, British Columbia has a wide-ranging system of disability assistance supports for individuals who cannot work or who have difficulty working full-time. That support includes total disability rates and other supports, such as the earnings exemption, discounted bus passes, medical supplies, fuel tax rebates and ICBC discounts. A $1,000 home renovation tax credit is now available to people with disabilities to help increase accessibility at home.

We have introduced significant changes that allow people on disability assistance to live more independent lives while building a more secure financial future and giving their families more peace of mind. A single person with a PWD designation can now hold $100,000 in assets
[ Page 11133 ]
while continuing to receive disability assistance. That’s up from $5,000. For a family where two people have PWD designations, the asset limit has increased to $200,000, and that’s up from $10,000.

[1735]

Persons with disabilities can now receive recurring gifts of cash without losing their eligibility for assistance. People receiving disability assistance will be able to receive more financial help from family, friends and supporters. Family will be able to leave an inheritance to their children without having to set up a trust, which can be costly, and they can do so without affecting their assistance.

We have also made balanced changes to our policies to ensure we’re providing the supports people need to get back into the workforce while helping to improve the financial picture for B.C.’s most vulnerable people.

For example, we have increased the earnings exemption for individuals receiving disability to $800 a month so those who are able to work are supported and encouraged to find employment without compromising their benefits. B.C. is the first jurisdiction in Canada to introduce a way that this earnings exemption can be calculated annually, rather than monthly, to provide more flexibility for people on disability who can work occasionally during the year.

For those who are able to work, the employment program of B.C. has helped nearly 18,000 people with disabilities reach their employment goals since 2012. The program provides a range of services, including assistive technologies like communication and hearing devices and restorative supports for people with disabilities. All of this, again, reflects our government’s strong commitment to helping people with disabilities.

M. Elmore: I’m rising to speak to Bill 3, the Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Amendment Act, 2016. I’m speaking in favour of this.

I want to just lay out some of the context in terms of where we find ourselves today and these changes that are proposed in this bill — what that means in terms of people with disabilities and the specific references to the changes, some administrative changes that are made. Also, I think it’s important to understand Bill 3 in the context of the longer history of the B.C. Liberals in terms of the approach that they’ve taken with respect to bringing in administrative changes and some of the impacts to people with disabilities.

The bill amends two sections of the Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Act, the EAPD, to allow the government to directly designate classes of persons — as defined in regulation, the persons with disabilities — without requiring them to fill out the current onerous 28-page application form or requiring additional assessments by medical practitioners.

Through the government press releases, we note that when the legislation comes into force, people in the following provincial and federal programs will complete a much simpler person with disabilities application process. That includes, as stated, Community Living B.C., CLBC; the Ministry of Children and Family Development At Home program; the B.C. PharmaCare palliative care program P; and the Canadian Pension Plan disability.

These are clearly changes that I support and this side of the House supports. In response to this bill, it should be noted that these changes are positive changes. Really, they’re very minor. They’re kind of at the edges in terms of making improvements that certainly will be appreciated and will go towards facilitating and supporting people with disabilities in the difficult process of filling out the required paperwork and in terms of being able to access services.

[1740]

We should understand that these changes are minor changes, and they are changes to the current state. It’s going to be reducing the current 28-page form, so a reduction that is appreciated.

We’ve heard a number of stories and reports from colleagues. Certainly, I know the remarks from my colleague the MLA for Port Coquitlam referenced that the previous long-form census and a number of different application processes are not as onerous as the previous 28-page requirement for people with disabilities. Filling out an application to apply for a passport, your driver’s licence, filling out applications for student loans — that certainly doesn’t come anywhere close to the 28 pages.

Now, where did the 28 pages come from? Where did it originate? We have Bill 3 before us, looking to improve and to reduce the onerous burden on people with disabilities. Well, the 28-page requirement, the form, was created by this very government, by the B.C. Liberal government.

In their wisdom, they brought in this 28-page form that now Bill 3 is addressing, looking to reduce the burden, to streamline for some individuals, trying to simplify the persons-with-disabilities application process for the previously stated programs. We have a situation where we have a bill before us that we’re discussing that is going to reduce the administrative burden for people with disabilities to access services.

I also want to reference and just reflect on the remarks previously from my colleague for Abbotsford South claiming credit for the government in terms of these changes — that they were working to streamline the administrative process and reduce red tape, that this was a great step forward and that it was a great accomplishment of this government.

The point is: to claim to reduce red tape — and that this is a great example of the commitment of the B.C. Liberal government to reduce red tape — flies in the face that it’s the B.C. Liberal government that originally brought in the requirement for the 28-page form.

We have now the situation where we hear remarks from the government, the B.C. Liberals, and from my
[ Page 11134 ]
previous colleague, Abbotsford South, claiming that they’re great champions of wanting to support people with disabilities and reducing the difficulty that many people with disabilities, in their very complex situations, have in terms of navigating the system and fulfilling all the requirements to be able to access services.

It’s not an easy process, and certainly there are a number of requirements and paperwork that is necessary to fill out. But it just really flies in the face and is an example of what we have here. The B.C. Liberal government bringing as a priority…. They claim that they’re reducing red tape, which they themselves have created. While these changes are positive, I think it also has to be stated that these changes on the previous 28-page form were brought in by the previous government.

[1745]

Bill 3 will reduce some of the red tape, the administrative hurdles, and simplify the application process — the difficulties created by the government — but it’s not the continuum. The bill addresses and will certainly simplify the process for some people with disabilities applying under certain programs, yet the requirements are not reduced across the board. We see that the vast majority of people trying to access disability supports will still face quite a daunting task, in terms of finding their way through the required application forms.

I’ve spoken to a number of folks that receive persons-with-disabilities assistance and are going through the process of navigating the system. It’s not an easy task. The individuals who apply….

I want to share, in particular, the story of one of my constituents, Kyla Kilby, who went through…. I really have to credit her perseverance in terms of going through the process and meeting the bars in terms of being able to qualify to be designated as a person with a disability. The story that she shared with me was around her disappointment around the clawback of the bus pass and the impact to her and some of her friends in the area, in Vancouver.

We have Bill 3, which simplifies the application process for some individuals who are applying for a persons-with-disabilities designation through a limited number of programs — still leaving the vast majority subject to a very onerous process that is really unprecedented in terms of making applications through many other ministries or other avenues. This is on top of….

Kyla shared her experience with me around the challenges she faces and the efforts that she’s taking to live her life, rebuild her life, adjust to her disability and really live to her potential. It also is very telling that she shared that she felt betrayed about the recent announcement.

On the one hand, we heard in the 2016 budget that after nine long years of no increases to persons with disabilities, the government would be making a significant increase — not a overwhelming increase, but they were lauding an increase of $77 a month in addition to the base amount of $906.

That was certainly initially met with support. However, when the details came out that it actually wasn’t $77 up front…. On the one hand, we’ve heard that the government was increasing rates by $77 a month, but on the other hand, part of the details and the fine print on the bottom was that the government would be clawing back bus passes that had previously been provided for a $45 administration fee.

[1750]

The current change in the administration, the provision of the bus pass, would be that individuals would have to pay the monthly fee, the $52 a month, in addition to the previous $45 administrative fee.

Kyla shared with me that she was very disappointed to hear that. It would be a step back for her and her friends. Really, a mean-spirited announcement — on the one hand to claim that there was a significant increase for people with disabilities but not being upfront about the clawback of the bus pass.

We heard earlier today from the Minister of Social Development and Social Innovation criticism of…. We’ve heard criticisms that she levelled, I think, that were also quite disrespectful of persons with disabilities who took the time to visit us here in the Legislature, bring their concerns forward and talk about the impact to them. These are the folks who come from all walks of life and through many different circumstances. They find themselves having applied and being designated as persons with disabilities.

I had a chance to meet many of them and talk to many of them when they came to the Legislature last week and shared their stories. The one characteristic that really struck me was that these individuals were very resilient. They had a very strong fighting spirit, and they had a very clear message — that they expected and were asking for this government to show respect for people with disabilities and to reverse the decision on the clawback of the bus pass.

It struck me that the individuals who were here on the lawn and who spoke quite eloquently about their situations and their experiences really showed an ability to be well organized. Certainly, coordinating not only the gathering that they held here at the Legislature, but when they talked about how they…. Many of them shared, also, experiences of the process to either apply for designation or in terms of the different services that are available and the ability to coordinate the different activities to express that.

That really raised it, I think, into the public eye and really got attention. Certainly, it was a very strong message that I heard here and that was delivered to the Legislature, as well as from communities across Metro Vancouver that gathered that day.

I also want to reference the…. When we heard earlier the Ministry of Social Development and Social Innovation claim…. Quite dismissive in terms of individuals who had come together to express their opin-
[ Page 11135 ]
ions about the clawback — that they were here just for a photo op. I think that’s a very unfair characterization and quite disrespectful.

As well, we see that there are comments from B.C. ACORN today. On the one hand, B.C. ACORN was previously quoted as saying that they were criticizing the NDP and critical of the NDP for taking advantage and really using it as being opportunistic.

Deputy Speaker: Member, on Bill 3.

[1755]

M. Elmore: Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On Bill 3, the response from B.C. ACORN to the minister was that their members who they represent…. They have a committee that is a member of ACORN Canada. They have a B.C. disability rights committee, and the chair, Tom Page, stated that the province’s decisions regarding social assistance have been very regressive and that, in the instance of the bus pass, it’s a move backwards.

B.C. ACORN reiterated today that their members are furious about the tiny increase for the persons-with-disability rate, and they ask the minister not to use their tweets out of context in question period.

I think what we’re seeing, what I’m hearing from my constituents, sharing their experience, going through the process…. Folks across Metro Vancouver and the experiences coming forward are really asserting a clear voice and a very assertive voice on behalf of people with disabilities advocating on their position and advocating on their behalf, really expressing a very strong ability to communicate that people with disabilities in our province expect to be treated with respect. They’re asking the B.C. Liberal government to respect their wishes and to show that they are ensuring that there are adequate supports for people with disabilities to live a life not in poverty.

When we look at Bill 3, Bill 3 takes a small step in terms of addressing, on the administrative end, some of the challenges that people in the community, people with disabilities, encounter and face, and this is one small piece in terms of the overall experience of people with disabilities in our province.

I’d like to also reference that while B.C. has set the goal to become the most progressive jurisdiction in Canada for people living with disabilities, we know that the Auditor General put out a report recently and summarized that while B.C. has set the goal of becoming the most progressive jurisdiction in Canada for people living with disabilities, the Auditor General report shows that we have a long way to go.

When we are discussing Bill 3 and the changes that are being brought in, I think it’s a good reference to look at the context of: what is the current experience and situation for people with disabilities? What is the reality? What is their experience that they face in British Columbia? And certainly, what are the steps needed to address some of the shortfalls? And what are some of the areas that, as a province, we can improve?

Bill 3 is a very small piece around the bigger context, around the reality of people with disabilities and the type of steps and the type of improvements that people with disabilities expect this government, expect changes…. Certainly, Bill 3 falls short of meeting the test of even coming a short distance towards achieving some of the areas and the recommendations to improve the lives of people with disabilities.

We know what are — from the Auditor General, the report — some of the conclusions in terms of what would be a significant step towards supporting and improving the experience and lives of people with disabilities. We have the conclusions that….

Well, it’s not a surprise that the disability assistance program is not easy to access for clients, that risks are not being fully managed to ensure benefits are provided to eligible individuals and eligibility decisions are made in a timely manner. That’s a challenge.

[1800]

Also, the ministry has not completed a comprehensive evaluation of the disability assistance program. We’re certainly behind on that. In terms of understanding what it is that needs to happen, certainly from my perspective, Bill 3 does not even come close, because we need a comprehensive overview and evaluation, as the recommendation states.

Also, we hear that the level of assistance provided is not enough to meet the basic needs of clients. We’ve been hearing that loud and clear from people with disabilities, who have been very outspoken, and that the ministry has not defined clear objectives and measurable targets that define what it means to meet the basic needs of clients.

Falling short of that and falling short of an audit…. The purpose of an audit would be to determine if the ministry’s disability assistance services are accessible; to determine — these are some outstanding areas of concerns — if the ministry can demonstrate its eligibility decisions and payments for disability assistance are accurate and timely; to determine if the ministry can demonstrate whether it contributes to improved outcomes for its disability assistance clients.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Short of that and having a framework, a context, to be able to measure, this bill falls short of being able to address the broader issues, concerns and realities that we’re hearing from people with disabilities every day and more frequently in the news. Certainly, it lays out the bigger picture of what needs to happen, coming from the perspectives, the voices and the experiences of people with disabilities. I think that their stories and perspectives are important to take into consideration with respect to
[ Page 11136 ]
when we look at what’s before us today, Bill 3 — improving and making the administrative processes simpler to access these services under a limited number of programs.

Bill 3 falls short when we look at the broader view and in the context of the recommendations that came down from the Auditor General with respect to having a full picture of what is the current situation for people with disabilities and, certainly, how those services are administered and accessed and if they are adequate.

We hear from constituents I meet with and from organizations that advocate on behalf of people with disabilities. We’re hearing in a more direct way from many more people with disabilities — through the public, through rallies they’re organizing, through more interviews with the media and through, also, their on-line petition to reverse the clawback of this government — that it’s important to take into account the perspectives and experiences of people with disabilities.

I think that when we look at Bill 3 in terms of the broader scope of the experience of people with disabilities and the recommendations laid out by the Auditor General, it falls short.

Madame Speaker: Speaking to the bill?

M. Elmore: Yep, speaking to the bill.

We hear from the experience of people with disabilities going through the process to access services that indeed it is very onerous. The recommendations to simplify that process for a limited number of programs is a positive step in that direction, but it’s certainly clear to me that it falls short of what’s needed.

[1805]

Hearing and engaging in these conversations with my constituents who come into my office to talk about their experiences, to express their concerns, particularly around their disappointment with the clawback of the bus pass, there are more issues that need to be addressed.

It’s a priority — and I think we will be well served, collectively — to take into account and consideration the voices, experiences and perspectives of people with disabilities. They are advocates, organizations and individuals who, through no fault of their own, find themselves having to access support once they achieve the designation of persons with disabilities.

Certainly, the individuals that I’ve had the opportunity to meet and work with over the years have shown great resilience and great courage in their lives and also a real willingness to advocate on behalf of themselves and their friends and other individuals who find themselves in that situation of having to access supports.

I’ll be in support, but it falls far short.

J. Rice: I’m happy to rise today and talk, to offer my contribution to Bill 3, the Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Amendment Act, 2016.

Just to reiterate, in summary, this bill amends two sections of the Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Act, the EAPD, to allow the government to directly designate “classes of persons,” as defined in regulation — persons with disabilities — without requiring them to fill out the current, onerous 28-page application form or requiring additional assessments by medical practitioners.

In my summary, I think what this is saying is that it’s going to be a lot easier for folks to do their paperwork to apply for disability. That is something that I can stand here today and say that I support. I’m not too fond of this Red Tape Reduction Day Act and all the amount of energy and resources that we’re spending on this whole theme of red-tape reduction, but here’s an example of a piece of red tape that I do support reducing.

The government press release notes that when the legislation comes into force, people in the following provincial and federal programs will complete a much simpler person-with-disabilities application process. That would be Community Living B.C., otherwise known as CLBC; the Ministry of Children and Family Development’s At Home program; the B.C. PharmaCare plan P, palliative care program; and CPP, or Canada Pension Plan, disability benefits.

Well, as I said earlier, I do support us reducing the red tape in this situation. I do want to note that this government has been in power for so long. I want to remind everyone that this is red tape that they themselves have created, and now we’re spending energy, money, resources in reducing the red tape. Hardly efficient.

What I would like to mention is an example of a piece of red tape for persons with disabilities that I think we could do better on. Some examples would be the fact that the Social Development and Social Innovation offices now reduce the amount of hours that people are actually on the front lines serving people.

[1810]

In the local Prince Rupert office, it’s only open for half a day or less than that. It’s open for three hours, which makes it really difficult for people who would need to see someone in the morning. That would be an example of red tape that I think we could reduce and assist people with disabilities, and those that are on other forms of social assistance.

People are expected to use a central line. They’re calling a 1-800 number, often waiting hours and hours to talk to a real person. For those of us that live in the north, that is a person they would talk to, or we would talk to, in Victoria or elsewhere in the province that has no idea of our local conditions or of the local people and their particular characteristics and the barriers that they pose.

There seems to be no way of personalizing the service that we offer these people. In fact, we’re depersonalizing it. We’re making it less personal. We’re expecting people to apply on line for benefits. We have many people that
[ Page 11137 ]
have barriers to using that technology. So that’s a piece of red tape that we’ve actually incorporated, making it harder for people to apply for social assistance. We’re not actually reducing the red tape.

In fact, the computers at the SDSI office in Prince Rupert have had an out-of-order sign on them for months. Not only are we encouraging people to use technology; we don’t even make it available to them. So how are we reducing red tape in this situation — for helping people apply for their benefits?

I’d like to share a letter that a parent of an adult child with a disability has written to ministry officials at SDSI. I’ve changed the name just to protect the people involved.

“Brian receives disability benefits because he has a mental handicap — autism — and suffers from anxiety. Any communication, especially written letters, notices and other mail from your office, is never written with the intent for him to read and understand it. Otherwise, there would be an effort made to write it in simple and understandable language.

“I had talked with you before” — I’m continuing on in quoting this parent — “regarding the timeline of his monthly reports, and I was under the impression it was already looked after. Since I am working out of town, it is not possible for me to get his pay stubs and his report sheets into the local office on time.

“The point needs to be made that he is allowed to earn up to $800 a month in addition to his benefits, and his actual earnings from his paper route add up to approximately $60 a month. This is clearly and understandably not an amount for which to stop his benefit payments, even if his report does not reach the office in time.”

I’m just going to skip down to another part of the letter.

“The same day that I arrived back in town from work, I made sure to get the pay stub sheet and the monthly report sheet filled out and had Brian sign it. I enclosed them into an envelope and let Brian bring it into the office.

“He was supposed to drop it in the drop box, but he decided to bring it inside. I met him later. He was upset, and he showed me two loose-leaf sheets the lady gave him.

“He explained that she gave him heck because he brought our forms inside an envelope. He said he was not supposed to put them in an envelope. The two loose-leaf sheets she gave him had cheques attached. They were not enclosed into an envelope. I don’t consider it safe to hand him two letters with cheques attached without them being inside an envelope. That’s why I had given him our forms inside an envelope.

“He also told me that she asked him if he worked any other jobs.”

Now, who she’s referring to is the front-desk person.

“He said to her that he works at a local not-for-profit. She told him that we have to report that too. This was the other reason why he was upset. He felt that he had done something wrong. He did not tell her that the job is a volunteer job because it did not occur to him. He has a mental handicap. It cannot be expected of him to remember these details. If she had had a look at the amount of the cheque, she would have figured that out herself, since he gets this volunteer supplement.

[1815]

“My son did everything possible to follow the rules and regulations he is supposed to follow. He even goes one step further and volunteers. He did so years earlier, before the supplement was even offered. He works a paper route, and he’s trying to learn as much as he can to try to look after himself. I expect him to get treated with respect and courtesy by your office staff.”

What I’d like to identify here that I’ve read within the excerpts of this letter is the fact that this person, this adult child with a developmental disability and anxiety and, obviously, some other compounding issues, is not being served. In fact, we’re putting up more barriers and more red tape for this person.

I think this is an example of how in Bill 3, in this legislation for Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Amendment Act, we could actually do better. We could incorporate more into the bill because, clearly, we’re not doing a good enough job of serving these people.

From the 2014 Auditor General report, some of the findings were:

“We found a number of barriers that are currently reducing the accessibility of the system. The disability assistance system is administratively complex and difficult to navigate. Both the on-line and telephone services are not consistently accessible for clients, and there are challenges with the physical accessibility of a small number of service delivery sites.

“While the ministry has done some analysis and consulted with stakeholders, we found that it has not fully assessed the accessibility needs of its clients…Risks are not being fully managed to ensure benefits are provided only to eligible individuals and eligibility decisions are made in a timely manner.”

What I’m trying to point out here is that we’re taking a step in the right direction with Bill 3, the Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Amendment Act, but there’s so much more that we could do. There are so many barriers that we could remove for people with disabilities, just like this person that I talked about here, with this letter from this mother who wrote me. I mean, we’re giving someone with multiple barriers and disabilities a loose-leaf cheque, not in an envelope. That’s a huge responsibility for that person who clearly needs supports.

Then, furthermore, the mother — who doesn’t work in town, who works a month off and a month on — when she’s not there to help him do his paperwork so that he can get his PWD cheque, they claw back. They don’t even pay him. They don’t even give him his basic amount which allows him to pay his rent and his hydro and buy his food, because he has a $60-a-month paper route.

Madame Speaker: If I can draw you back to Bill 3.

J. Rice: Madame Speaker, I’m drawing this to Bill 3 in the fact that we’re taking one little, tiny, incremental step of reducing red tape that this government created themselves, and we’re missing a whole other range of pieces of red tape that we could help with. This is how this relates to Bill 3. We are failing these people.

The mother applied for an exemption, saying things are not going to change for her adult child with disabilities. While she’s away, she can’t meet the reporting timelines to just claim a $60-a-month paper route. Clearly, we could do something that allows him to continue his disability payments, because he’s not earning a substantial amount. He’s not earning over the $800 a month that he’s allowed to earn. He has a paper route, and he does volunteer work.

This government is talking about reducing red tape, even though the red tape was created by them. What can
[ Page 11138 ]
we do? There’s got to be more we can do to reduce red tape for people with disabilities. I haven’t even touched on the bus pass issue. I think you would probably tell me to bring it back to Bill 3, although every other speaker has talked about the bus pass issue.

[1820]

Here’s a bus pass that was provided for people with disabilities, and now they have to apply and do more paperwork and more red tape. In the spirit of cutting red tape, why doesn’t this government just give people their bus passes back?

Why hasn’t the government looked at the Auditor General report from 2014? There are pages and pages of recommendations. There are all kinds of findings. There are all kinds of suggestions that we could do to make life better for people with disabilities. We haven’t even talked about them. Are we even assessing if we’re serving people with disabilities? Are the new phone lines working? Are people able to access them?

Reducing the hours that the Ministry of Social Development and Social Innovation is open — is that working? Is that serving people? It’s clearly not serving people in my community. For example, I had a woman in my office. She’s a grandmother. She has three adopted children, two of which have special needs. They’re all under eight years of age, and she’s lugging them around in taxis trying to get to the office between one o’clock and four o’clock, meanwhile taking so-and-so to school and daycare and juggling all that. The reduced hours are not serving her. It’s creating more red tape.

Let’s not forget that the 28-page onerous application process that’s now going to be streamlined — which, as I said earlier, I am supporting — is still a timely process, and valuable time will be gobbled up by nurse practitioners and physicians in completing these forms. Why aren’t we streamlining the other application processes? Why is this very specific in this bill?

Have we developed a comprehensive evaluation framework for the persons-with-disabilities program? Are we looking at that? I haven’t seen any of that within this bill, this very thin bill, Bill 3.

There are at least 10, 12, 14 recommendations that I’m looking at right now from the Auditor General report from 2014. These are some great suggestions on how we can actually make life better for people with disabilities.

Again, I will support Bill 3, the Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Amendment Act, 2016, because I support making it easier for people with multiple barriers and disabilities in accessing the services they need in a more efficient manner. I absolutely do. I support that. However, I do think we could do better, and I am a bit grumpy at the fact that we are now spending resources on talking about reducing red tape for red tape that was created by that side of the House.

J. Rice moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

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

Hon. T. Stone moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 6:23 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
FORESTS, LANDS AND
NATURAL RESOURCE OPERATIONS

(continued)

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

The committee met at 2:28 p.m.

On Vote 27: ministry operations, $426,148,000 (continued).

H. Bains: Before we start, there were a few questions left with the minister Thursday and Wednesday.

One was on…. The question that I had was for the minister to confirm that the ministry gives fee exemptions for hydraulic fracking and if potable water is used. There was a question on that, and the minister said he would get back to me. The other question my colleague asked was about the $19 million stumpage rate.

The minister promised to bring those answers back, so if I could ask if he has those answers today.

[1430]

Hon. S. Thomson: I’ll respond to the second part of the question first. To confirm, the values the member opposite recited are roughly accurate. The average stumpage rate is low because of development costs, roads and bridges, percentage slope, location.

The rate was set in 2014 for those permits, with a stumpage rate that reflected the market factors at the time on the coast of B.C. In 2009, the coastal industry endured the worst economic recession in memory. Market conditions have improved since then. They’re taking some time to recover.
[ Page 11139 ]

Every individual cutting permit varies significantly in rate due to factors such as development cost, location, species, slope — for example.

Overall, the province generates significant return for the resource. The return has continued to grow, as I’ve demonstrated, since that time. Again, to confirm, the values that the member opposite recited are roughly accurate.

H. Bains: What about the answer to my other question?

[1435]

Hon. S. Thomson: The member asked for information on the unit price charge for ’15-16 to arrive at the $441 million. The unit price for power in 2015 was in tier 1. These are dollars per megawatt hour — tier 1, $1.30; tier 2, $6.066; tier 3, $7.298 per megawatt hour.

For 2016, tier 1 will be $1.315; tier 2, $6.133; and tier 3, $7.378. The new Water Sustainability Act fees, regulations, rental charges and tariff regulations were deposited with the registrar of regulations at the end of February — February 29 this year. It outlines all of the rental rates for power and other water uses for 2016 and upcoming years.

H. Bains: Thank you for the answer, but I also had the other question which the minister promised to bring me the answer for. Would the minister confirm that the ministry gives exemptions for hydraulic fracking if non-potable water is used, and would the minister provide the actual and forecast water rents of the oil and gas sector?

I hope that was the answer for the second part that I asked. Or is it the answer that I asked about the water usage? What were the rates prior to ’15-16, and what are the rates going forward? The minister was suggesting that there would be a new water use rental pricing regime introduced. There were two questions there, actually three. Could the minister confirm which one he was answering with the last answer?

Hon. S. Thomson: Just so I can confirm, can I get clarification and ask the member opposite to restate the three questions? I just want to make sure that I provide the specific responses that he is looking for here, because I believe I’ve covered off most of the answers already.

H. Bains: I think the three questions were…. The first one was…. As we looked at the financial report and the minister suggested the rates for water uses or the total revenue, the minister said it was $441 million for ’15-16, then it will be $480 million for ’16-17, $444 million for ’17-18 and $450 million for ’18-19.

The rate was lower for ’15-16 — the total revenue of $441 million. Then it goes up to $481 million for ’16-17. Then it comes down to what it used to be prior to this increase of ’16-17 — down to $444 million. Then it stays around there — $444 million and $450 million.

My question was: why is there a decrease? You gave us some explanation of why the increase and then decrease. My question then was: what were the water rates to arrive at that revenue for ’15-16, ’16-17, ’17-18 and ’18-19 — the per-unit rate? That was one question.

[1440]

The second question was if the minister can confirm that the ministry gives exemptions by hydraulic fracking if non-potable water is used. That question was needed.

Also, would the minister provide the actual and forecast water rents from the oil and gas sector for hydraulic fracking for ’15 and ’16 respectively? Those were the three questions. I hope I’m clear on that.

[1445]

Hon. S. Thomson: First, a couple of things off the top. The water rates. Why do water rates fluctuate from year to year? Now, 96 percent of water rentals are attributed to hydroelectric facilities, and changes in the available water resource — rain, snowpack — result in significant changes in water rentals from year to year in the power sector. Changes in the rental rates change with the water rental from the various sectors.

I did confirm previously that in ’17-18…. I talked about the rates in the various tiers in ’17-18. Tier 3, which is the water rental rate in fiscal 2018, will be eliminated. That will reduce revenue by about $35 million per year or so. Then we’d offset that with some of the other increases and projections that are coming into play.

I did confirm, in the questions and the responses last week, that there is an exemption for water taken in that deep saline level, non-potable water in deep saline. That is where we want the water to be accessed from, so there is an exemption for deep-saline, non-potable water.

H. Bains: The answer that the minister gave, earlier on, to my question — the rents from oil and gas sector for hydraulic fracking: is that the answer that you gave earlier? Was that for this question — the rates you gave me? Or do you have some rates…? If you could repeat the rates for this question that I asked already, I think: the water rents from the oil and gas sector for hydraulic fracking for 2015 and 2016.

Hon. S. Thomson: The amounts billed for water rentals in 2015: $22,510; for 2016, $33,066. I don’t have the rate per unit on those, but we will provide that further. That wasn’t in the information that was provided.

The Oil and Gas Commission issues short-term uses for oil and field injection, which are exempt from fees and rentals. This is per water regulation, 13(3), which continues under the Water Sustainability Act Fees, Rentals, Charges and Tariff Regulation. All of those regulations, as I’ve indicated, have been tabled with the registrar of regulations on February 29 of this year.
[ Page 11140 ]

H. Bains: Now we will move to a couple of different areas. I want to have a few questions on the Forest Enhancement Society, and then my colleague from Kootenay West will be asking some questions on allocations and hunting. Then the member for Surrey-Whalley is coming for the softwood lumber agreement later on today.

[1450]

I understand we also have one hour tomorrow morning. Then we still have some issues about forestry vis-à-vis BCTS and some other areas that we need to explore, so I probably will get into that tomorrow — so the minister knows.

On the Forest Enhancement Society, can the minister first explain…? He mentioned there was $85 million being allocated to this society. One thing: if he could confirm that again. The second thing: what is the mandate of this society?

Hon. S. Thomson: Yes, I can confirm that the amount of money being provided to the society is $85 million. We provided, also, an additional $10 million through UBCM to the strategic wildfire interface program, adding onto the $5 million previously — so $85 million to the society, $10 million to the strategic wildfire interface program with UBCM.

The Forest Enhancement Society and the program. The mandate is to advance environmental resource stewardship through funding activities designed to enhance the forest, reduce wildfire risk, and is focused on four key areas.

Wildfire fuel management. That will include thinning, pruning, removing woody debris from forests, including those impacted by mountain pine beetle, to reduce the risks of wildfire to communities, infrastructure, timber and non-timber values.

Forest rehabilitation: clearing stands damaged by fire or at a high risk for fire, and restocking them.

Wildlife habitat restoration: designing fuel management and rehabilitation activities in meeting the first mandates around wildfire fuel management and forest rehabilitation to make sure that it has a lens of wildlife habitat restoration as part of it and activities to account for wildlife needs, to promote desired wildlife habitat characteristics.

And a component of FireSmart: educating local governments and rural property owners on the steps that they can take to protect homes and businesses from wildfire and assisting in the implementation and monitoring of those. A component of recognizing that this is a shared initiative will be part of that.

Those are the four broad areas in the mandate of the society. We’ve appointed the initial inaugural board, who will now be working to develop the workplan, the initiatives under that, in consultation with key stakeholders: communities, industry, wildlife groups. All of those groups will have…. Community forests…. Everybody who’s operating in those areas will be part of that process.

The board has been tasked and mandated with the funding to develop the programming to seek partnerships and leveraging for the support of the society, and we’re looking forward to them getting underway. They’ve had their first meeting. They’re going to be working very, very hard, and actively, to implement the programming.

H. Bains: Can the minister explain how that mandate is different than what the ministry’s mandate is under wildfire management responsibilities?

[1455]

Hon. S. Thomson: Through the society, what we’ve done is enhanced our ability and enhanced the resources to be able to focus on mitigation rather than resources on direct fire suppression that we incur each year in responding to the fire season. It’s to take available resources as a result of the fiscal discipline. As a result of the balanced budget, we found resources to be able to do that.

We felt, given all of the partners we talked about in terms of designing the initiative for the partnerships in that approach, that it would work more efficiently in an arm’s-length entity. The arm’s-length entity also has a greater ability to leverage and attract additional funding into the society. We’re in discussions with the federal government about a possible contribution to that initiative. Those discussions will continue, given the nature of the season across the country in other provinces.

We think there’s an opportunity there, but it was really looking at an entity that would put a greater focus on mitigation, would complement efforts within the branch currently and also be complementary to the efforts through the strategic wildfire interface program, the community efforts, by bringing all of those and having it in a separate entity. That was the rationale for doing that and enhancing our ability to focus on mitigation.

H. Bains: Going back to 2003, the Filmon report came in, and government said they would adopt that report. That was part of the fire prevention responsibility that the government took the responsibility for. On an ongoing basis, regardless of whether we have the Filmon report or not, ongoing responsibility for fire prevention is with the ministry. It always has been, was my understanding. And if the minister says we didn’t have the responsibility prior to this society, the minister should say so. Fire prevention and strategies around it were part of the ministry mandate.

My question is: why create a new…? You gave a lot of explanation, or tried to give the explanation, about the society, their responsibility and the mandate. But all of those responsibilities and the mandate existed under the current mandate for the minister’s responsibility and the ministry’s responsibilities in all of those areas. I just
[ Page 11141 ]
don’t understand. How is this any different than what you currently have as a responsibility when it comes to fire prevention?

[1500]

Hon. S. Thomson: I believe I’ve addressed this question. First of all, I’m not saying we didn’t have that responsibility. We have, and we’ve invested dollars over time in that through the strategic wildfire prevention interface program — $78 million. The member opposite may argue that that wasn’t enough. We had quite a discussion on that last week, on the issue.

What we have done is found the opportunity for additional dollars to grow our ability to do this, and to do it in a way that, I believe, provides an opportunity to leverage those dollars, to provide additional resources in those areas by having an entity that can work with communities, work with industry, work with all the groups. To be able to grow our ability to do that, to bring in dollars that…. I think the vehicle has greater opportunity to do that than to simply have the funding within government.

These are government resources focused for a purpose. It is government taking responsibility, taking additional efforts which the members opposite, I know, have been calling for.

We have found the means to do this, but we think we’ve found a way that is strategic, will provide us with additional capacity and will also bring in some of those other values as part of the work. When we talk about enhancing wildlife values as a component of that work, in doing that…. I think that provides some broader context to the work they’re going to do while undertaking the wildfire risk reduction.

It’s an initiative that’s been very, very positively received out in the communities, within the industry, within groups, and we’ll continue to work very hard to develop the programming. We’re going to continue to work very hard to find additional leverage in dollars for their efforts and to build that collective work through this entity.

In my view, we’ve appointed a very good inaugural board to get this underway, some very well-respected individuals who will be providing the leadership and the stewardship of those resources. That board may have some strategic additions to it over time, as they start. We wanted to get it off to good start, and I think we’ve got a very good group in there to get things going.

H. Bains: I still fail to understand. I don’t quarrel with the $85 million. We’ve been saying that the minister is, and this government is, about 15 years behind in dealing with this issue that was identified after the Kelowna fire through the Filmon report. The question is: how are you going about it?

You have, since 2003, invested some money. At the rate you are going, it would take you 100 years to complete that task that was identified by the Filmon report. That was the way it was under the ministry. But now you’re creating a new identity, a new society, which I just don’t understand the purpose. How will that do any better than what the minister has been doing before, provided that you have resources behind it?

My question is: where is this $85 million listed in the fiscal plan?

[1505]

Hon. S. Thomson: Firstly, going back to the Filmon report and the member’s assertions around the response to the Kelowna fire, the Filmon report was much more than simply a response to the Kelowna fire. It was the season that happened that year. In fact, it was British Columbia that suggested and led the process for the Filmon report.

We supported all the recommendations. We talked on it last week, about how this was always viewed to be a long-term initiative. We’ve invested through the strategic wildfire interface program to do that. We had the extensive discussion last week around pace and timing, but it is expensive work on the interface to do this. As we’ve found capacity in the past, we’ve contributed to that program.

What we have found here is some additional capacity to enhance our efforts. The 85 million was in the Q3 forecast in statutory appropriation for our ministry. That has provided us the opportunity to provide the 85 million for the society and $10 million into UBCM. So it comes out of ’15-16 statutory appropriation capacity for our ministry and has provided us the opportunity to do that.

I think, as I said, that this has been well received across the communities. Everybody is looking forward to the programming, working together and making sure that we can enhance and grow our efforts in this area. We will work very, very hard through the entity to be able to leverage that commitment and that resource on the part of the province with other resources to provide even greater opportunity for the society to meet the objectives and the terms of reference.

H. Bains: The minister, as I understand, is saying that it’s not listed in any of the budgetary documents. It is money that was approved in the quarter 3 forecast, so it is the money that is being rolled over from the previous year’s revenue, and you’re continuing on to apply that to create this enhancement society. Is that correct?

[1510]

Hon. S. Thomson: It’s in the Q3 forecast, table A7, on page 121 in the fiscal plan. This is funding that was projected, potentially, for wildfire suppression. Fortunately, due to the way the season finished, we were able to have those resources that provide us the opportunity to move resources into enhanced efforts in mitigation, which is something I think the members opposite should support. It’s something they’ve been, as I said, calling for.
[ Page 11142 ]

Again, with the vehicle and the society, we look forward to their programming. But even more importantly, I look forward to their ability to leverage additional support that can be provided to that as an effective vehicle and working collectively with the communities across the province, with community forests, with licensees and with First Nations as a key partner in the program. We have First Nations participation on the inaugural board, because we recognize that First Nations communities throughout the province are a key partner in key communities at risk in the process as well.

I think it’s a very, very important initiative and one that I would hope the members opposite support and one that they will look forward to — the programming that’s being developed, the initiatives that’ll come forward. I think we have a great opportunity here to help mitigate risks to the community, to the landscape, through this funding and to bring in some of those other values that I talked about. I’m really excited about the opportunity and about the initiative, and I know the inaugural members of the society are. Their work is underway. I look forward over the next months to see the results of all of their work.

H. Bains: We have very limited time, as the minister knows. We don’t need to repeat all of the stuff that is being said here. I think three times the minister has repeated the same thing over and over. It was a simple question. Where is it listed? He said it’s page 121 of the fiscal plan. I looked at it. It’s “Fire Management.” For ’15-16, it says $373 million. So $85 million comes out of that. It is a one-shot deal, because then it goes on to say, for ’16-17, ’17-18 and ’18-19, $63 million, $63 million and $63 million. So $85 million is part of the $373 million?

Hon. S. Thomson: I’ll try not to repeat myself. I’ll try to shorten up the answers. The answer is yes. That’s in that total there, so it is a one-time allocation to it. But it’s important to point out that, depending on the fiscal plan, depending on the season, each year we will look for and hope we will have continued opportunities to provide additional provincial support to the society, and we’ll look to those. When we have those opportunities, we will do that.

[1515]

H. Bains: Who are they accountable to? Is it subject to public reports? Will they be making annual reports? Is this going to be a continuous operation, as long as this is a total of $85 million?

Is their task going to be completed at some point? Is there a deadline to it? Is it spread over a number of years, and then will you revisit it again? What is the deal on the timelines here?

Hon. S. Thomson: Just in terms of the question around: will there be reporting? Yes. This is a society governed by the Society Act. They’ll be required to provide annual reports. In the transfer of the funding that will go to them, there will be a transfer agreement that outlines the accountabilities back to government for the funds.

There will be independent financial oversight to work with the society in the first year, and there is no set timeline on the society. As long as there’s funding, the society will continue.

I hope that, with the earlier comments I made around the efforts to add additional funding through leveraging and other partners, through the opportunity for the province to provide additional support when the fiscal plan provides for it, we’ll look for this to be an ongoing initiative. So there is no set timeline.

As long as they have the funding and are able to achieve that, we’ll have the programming and the workplans, and the program will be geared upon the amount of funding they have. As additional funding comes in, they’ll be able to adjust workplans and scope and level of activity, but there will be accountability. There will be public reporting.

H. Bains: So it could be five years. It could be ten years. It could last 30 years, or it could last 50 years, because there’s no deadline.

There are no timelines when their mandate will end or when their mandate will suggest that they must complete this task by this date or this time, this year. So there’s no such thing? It could go on for 50 years. Is that correct?

Hon. S. Thomson: Theoretically, that’s correct. If we continue to have the funding and can do that, as long as there’s still a risk and a need out there, then, theoretically, that’s correct.

You know, we talked earlier about the amount of work that needs to be done out there, so I’m hoping very sincerely that this is not a short-term initiative, that we’re going be able to provide additional funding and support when we have the opportunity and that they can leverage other dollars and that they will develop and build the programming.

I’m not looking for this to be a short-term initiative, but I’m also not saying that it’s set for a certain number of years. We’ll continue to look at opportunities. We’ll continue to evaluate the work, as part of the accountability and the reporting. As long as they’re doing a good job and there continues to be need, which we’ve clearly identified, then, hopefully, this initiative will continue for some period of time.

[1520]

H. Bains: How are the members appointed, and how do you determine their qualifications? Is there a process to reach out into the community? Is the mandate of the society to have representation from all the different stakeholders — for example, the wildlife federation,
[ Page 11143 ]
First Nations, the forest industry? I mean, you name it — communities.

There are so many stakeholders in this one area. So my question is: how will they be appointed, what process will be used, and what are their remunerations, if any?

Hon. S. Thomson: In looking for the initial members of the board, or the members of the society, we looked to get that type of representation that the member opposite talked about.

The forest industry. I think you probably know the initial members that we’ve appointed: Wayne Clogg, who is the former senior vice-president of woodlands, in the industry; Derek Orr, who’s the Chief of the McLeod Lake Indian Band, actively involved in the forest sector; and Jim Snetsinger, who’s the well-respected former chief forester of the province, particularly with the understanding, with the technical information. With the connection to government, we’ve got two assistant deputy ministers bringing the connection to resource stewardship and wildfire management components of government to the society.

I know the society, at their initial meeting, had their discussions around the structure of the board. They want to keep something that’s very efficient in terms of operation. They recognized that they couldn’t have every stakeholder group on the society, but they will look to add strategic additions to the society as they move forward.

They will also have a…. One of their tasks and one of the first things they discussed very much at their first meeting was their engagement strategy — how to make sure that they can bring all of these wide range of stakeholders that you mentioned into the process and the discussions. They’ll be reaching out and engaging with those groups so that they all feel they have input and participation in the development of the program.

[1525]

As far as remuneration, the remuneration policy, they will be paid expenses. The non-government members of the board will be paid expenses and a daily per diem for the meeting days — no additional honorarium or payment, just a daily per diem.

I think these three individuals who have stepped forward and agreed to do this are actually doing a great public service by taking on this role and helping us to help the society set its initial priorities and getting things under way. They’ll continue to evolve as they do that.

H. Bains: So the minister can confirm that this is the board, then — the five-member board — and that they are not expanding? What’s their term?

Also, I asked for the remuneration, and you said there would be a daily per diem. Maybe the minister could tell us what that daily per diem is, if the size of the board is decided — that it’s a five-member — and what the length of their term will be.

Hon. S. Thomson: Firstly, I think I mentioned that this was the inaugural board. Then I think I said that they would be looking to potentially add a board member or members for it, depending on the strategic initiative.

We wanted to get the group in to get them started. I’m not saying that it’s held exactly at this number, but we wanted to make sure — and they’ve already had that discussion — that they keep it as efficient as possible. There are no terms currently, but as members of the society, they will be developing governance and some terms and will look to do that work that they will do. That will be one of the responsibilities of the society. The per-diem rate is $300 per day.

H. Bains: Now we will move on to the member for Kootenay West about hunting questions.

K. Conroy: I’m not quite going to hunting yet. I have a few forestry…. Just to continue with the enhancement society, what is the time schedule? When can folks expect to be hearing of some ability to consult on this? When will the board be reaching out to the many, many groups that the minister referred to that will want to consult and be consulted on this?

Hon. S. Thomson: Thank you to the member opposite for the question. I think the very quick answer to that is: as soon as possible.

As I mentioned, there has been a great deal of interest in this, so they will be doing that. We are also cognizant that…. Through all of the analysts’ work that has been done coming out of the Filmon report, we know the areas of risk too.

We want to get going too. We don’t want to go into a long, overextensive engagement process when we know there are initiatives that could be undertaken that will be well supported by everybody, so it’ll be a combination. I think the board understands, because of the interest, the need to take the input from those groups.

The short answer is: as quickly as they can. They’ve had one meeting and are planning their work — so, soon.

[J. Thornthwaite in the chair.]

K. Conroy: Just one more forestry question. I don’t know if it will end up being one question. I wanted to ask the minister about the issue with the western toad at Summit Lake, outside of Nakusp. I did raise this in the Ministry of Environment estimates.

[1530]

It is a red-listed species — actually, blue-listed provincially. It’s a species at risk, red-listed with IUCN. It’s an issue that has pitted a community against…. We’ve got the people that want to log an area that’s the habitat for the western toad, with the people that want to save the
[ Page 11144 ]
toad. It’s created a real issue within the community. It’s my understanding….

There are a couple of questions to the Ministry of Forests. There are a couple of issues. The community asked if NACFOR, the Nakusp Community Forest, could exchange a piece of land, if they could log another piece of land and actually save this habitat for the western toads.

The response was that it was going to be logged regardless of who was responsible for it, that it wouldn’t be saved for the toads — which seems pretty shortsighted. I mean, FLNRO as well as Environment as well as highways as well as Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife, the local highways contractor — there’s a large group of people that have all put a lot of money and effort into saving these toads. They were told, through the Ministry of Forests, FLNRO, that it was getting logged regardless.

NACFOR has done a lot of work to try to make sure that it’s done properly. People are concerned that it still can’t be done without hurting the toads. There was a question of why we can’t take one piece and exchange it for another. The response was that there wasn’t any other land, which seems a little hard to believe in our region. In fact, B.C. Timber Sales has a number of pieces of land, but the response was, “Well, they need money for those pieces,” and there was no money. This would be a direct exchange of toad habitat for B.C. Timber Sales.

I’m asking the minister for his input as to why we can’t do something to save the toads, why there can’t be an exchange of forestry land, why this land would be logged regardless. Like the one message: it doesn’t matter who logs it. Either it’s NACFOR, which is putting a lot of time and energy and three years’ worth of studies with biologists into ensuring that it’s done appropriately…. Then there are still people who don’t feel that it can be done appropriately. There are a number of questions there that I hope the minister can address.

[1535]

The Chair: Minister.

Hon. S. Thomson: Thank you, and welcome to the chair.

It’s certainly an issue that I’m familiar with, one that recognized the unique nature of the western toad, the value that it brings and its importance on the list. This is a challenge because, as the member opposite knows, there’s just not other land available.

We can’t simply go to B.C. Timber Sales. B.C. Timber sales, as part of its timber-harvesting land base, has a mandate to make sure that we can meet the market pricing system, which is particularly important. That also provides fibre for the industry. It creates jobs as well, same as the community forest does in that area for that community.

I appreciated the member opposite’s comments when this was in the press around that balance between jobs and economic contribution to that community. This is a forest run for the community, and the community is the direct beneficiary.

We work very closely with our other agencies on this. We’ve provided research dollars. I know the community forest is working hard to make sure that the activities that they undertake respect the nature of the habitat for the toad and all the work that’s being done to protect their migration across the highway and everything like that.

I don’t have a quick answer or a direct answer. I think what we need to continue to do is to work with — and I’m committed to continue to work with — our partner agencies to see how we can address this longer term. But also, at the same time, I know that the community forest directors understand those values and are working to make sure that they can protect those.

We need to let that…. They need to continue to do that work. We can talk to our other partner agencies to see if there’s any other longer-term solution. Again, it’s not as simple as just finding other land. It doesn’t really exist.

K. Conroy: I don’t think it’s a matter that the land doesn’t exist. It’s a matter that the land that does exist, the minister has targeted as “market pricing system,” so they need money for that land. They will not exchange it for land that you’re not going to get any money out of.

We’re once again looking at the cost of a chunk of land that we’re going to save toads on. What’s of more value, I guess, is what we have to…. We’re not going to argue that one today.

We’re going to move on. I have a number of questions related to hunting, conservation, wildlife habitat — and funding of all of that in the province. Before I get into my questions, my colleague the member for Stikine is going to ask his question first, because he just has one.

D. Donaldson: It’s a wildlife-related question, so I’m not sure if the minister has the staff he needs at this moment.

Hon. S. Thomson: I think they’re here. Fire away, and then we’ll see.

D. Donaldson: Okay, sure, no problem.

The moose population has crashed in the Nass wildlife area on the Gitanyow First Nation traditional territory, from about 1,600 moose in 2001 to 517 in 2011, even with ministry initiatives between 2007 and 2011 to address the alarming decline.

Moose are an important part of the Gitanyow food security and culture — very important — yet only three moose were harvested by Gitanyow members in the 2014-15 season. There’s been a 65- to 68-percent decline in harvest rates by Gitanyow members compared to the early 2000s.

[1540]

The ministry has not initiated any consultation with the Gitanyow on an annual management plan for the Nass wildlife area, despite repeated requests over several years. In fact, the Gitanyow only learned of the ministry’s intended total allowable harvest level for the 2015-16 hunting season through a neighbouring First Nation’s website.

My question under these budget estimates is: will the minister commit, under this budget, for his ministry to consult and, if necessary, accommodate the Gitanyow on the annual setting of the total allowable harvest of moose in the Nass wildlife area and also to consult and accommodate, if necessary, the Gitanyow on the impacts of annual management plans for designated species, such as moose?

Hon. S. Thomson: Thank you to the member opposite for the question.

I’m advised that for the last two years, we’ve offered to develop a moose management plan with the Gitanyow and other First Nations. Included in that is the offer to consult around a total annual harvest, as part of that process.

I think the member opposite will also be aware that all around the management plan and everything, there is litigation involved here. So in the House, here, I will not be able to comment on the specific aspects of that legislation. Just to say that we recognize the population challenges in that area and we have offered to develop and consult on a moose management plan, including total allowable harvest.

[1545]

K. Conroy: Just to start, I have been talking to resident hunters across the province, as well as guide-outfitters, trappers, people from the ecotourism sector and many others who care a lot about the conservation of our province and who care about ensuring that the best practices are utilized when taking care of our wildlife and their habitat.

All have expressed concern to me in one way or another that this just isn’t happening, that the government continues to introduce divisive policies that haven’t been in the best interest of all the folks at the table. I think the member previously spoke to that in some ways.

An example of this is the recent decision made when the ministry had classified government-to-government negotiations between themselves and the Tsilhqot’in First Nation with no disclosure and successfully took yet more allocations from resident hunters. There was no other discussion with any other users through this process, and the government didn’t reach out to anyone else. But the Tsilhqot’in did.

They reached out to resident hunters. In fact, they reached out to the B.C. Wildlife Federation and asked: “How can we work together?” Chief Joe Alphonse recognizes that the moose population is down about 75 percent in their territory. He feels that they’re in crisis mode. He said that we need to find out where the moose have gone.

I want to quote the chief. He said: “We want other groups to come to work with us and come up with something to help the moose. The whole ecosystem is out of whack, and we’ve got to get things back to as normal a state as we can.” I think that’s a fairly strong statement. “The whole ecosystem is out of whack.”

This, of course, leads to a number of questions. What is the government going to do to solve this problem? And also — the government and the minister just said this — the government is consulting with wildlife stakeholders. But those same stakeholders aren’t feeling the love. They’re not feeling the consultation. What will the government do to ensure that the voices of all wildlife stakeholders are, in fact, at the table? Will the government follow the lead of the Tsilhqot’in and commit to transparent consultation?

[1550]

Hon. S. Thomson: Thank you to the member opposite for the question. It is a very important overall issue that has been raised. Firstly, in working on the legal and constitutional obligations that we have in responding to court direction and things around the government-to-government negotiations that need to take place to secure overall reconciliation and to meet our legal constitutional obligations, it’s always that challenge, in the process, of maintaining the confidentiality of those negotiations on a government-to-government basis.

When we look at the wildlife management component of it, we manage, from an overall perspective, first for conservation, secondly for First Nations and their rights, and then for residents and guides in the overall population.

We recognize that we need to look at how we enhance the consultation process with the stakeholders in that area. We know the population impacts, not just there but in other parts of the problem. We are in discussions with those key groups about how we can do an enhanced process or a better job of looking at that consultation process, not just for here and in this specific case but on a broader basis.

K. Conroy: I think the majority of the stakeholders would agree that better consultation needs to happen.

To that end, another message I’m hearing from groups across the province is that we don’t have an accurate or comprehensive inventory of wildlife in the province. I think because of that, we end up with some of the situations that are happening, and we see species are in decline. We haven’t seen complete closure with some of those species. We see issues and deals that are being struck.

Again, these divisive policies are really hurting the resident hunters as well as other people in the province who like to enjoy conservation. An example of that is
[ Page 11146 ]
the moose management in the Peace-Liard country, and again, what my colleague had referred to. Everybody understands that conservation is the number one priority, but there also needs to be some kind of a commitment to a comprehensive inventory of wildlife in the province.

In the minister’s goal 2, “Coordinated, sustainable management of B.C.’s natural resources,” one of the strategies was to “support better decision-making and contribute to the province’s diversity of hunting and fishing opportunities by maintaining a current comprehensive inventory of the province’s priority fish and wildlife populations.”

There are a number of questions with this. Does this mean that certain fish and wildlife in this province are a priority, and not the others? Does this mean that it is a priority, that we need to get an inventory in this province? I want to know when the inventory is going to be completed, and if it’s not going to be completed, why not? If it is going to be completed, when is it going to be done?

[1555]

Hon. S. Thomson: Annually the province invests about $800,000 in wildlife inventory. That work is prioritized in consultation with wildlife organizations and within regional considerations. It shifts annually. Depending on the result of the inventory work for that current year, you may look at further inventory work in that species or you may look at other priorities that come in from the region. About $800,000 annually.

We are in the final stages of completing an overall strategic wildlife inventory plan which has been developed with the groups. We should be completing that and bringing that forward in the not-too-distant future — sometime in April, with that strategic inventory plan that has been developed from the industry and from the regions.

K. Conroy: I’d really like to believe that the ministry is actually conducting this and that the actual consultation with the region and organizations will be a part of this, because a few years ago there was intensive input from the Kootenay region about general open season on the elk. The ministry, in its wisdom, decided to ignore the massive amount of input from the region and went to general open season, and now we’re finding that we just don’t see the elk with the big horns like we used to. We just don’t see those racks. The big guys are going because it’s general open season and everybody’s coming in to get them.

At the same time, as people are coming in to hunt the open season on the six-point-or-bigger elk, they’re also going after more whitetail, and they’re seeing a distinct lowering of the numbers of whitetail in the area too. The ministry was warned that this would happen. The ministry was warned that if you open up the season, it’s going to have effects on other animals in the region.

I truly hope that the ministry is going to listen to people in the region, and in other regions, because the people in the Kootenays weren’t listened to, and it’s come home to roost. We don’t see the animals like we used to in that area. I’d hate to see that happening in other areas of the province. Hopefully, the strategic plan will ensure that there is going to be actual consultation where peoples’ input is listened to.

I just wanted to ask a few questions around inventory issues. I’m wondering if the minister would take action on making the harvest report mandatory so that all of B.C.’s big-game animals from all licensed and unlicensed hunters in B.C. have to report out as a means of determining a more accurate number of animals that are taken during a season.

[1600]

Hon. S. Thomson: With respect to the reporting, the member opposite may know we have over 35 years of hunter survey response data. We believe that it’s a very robust system, but we always recognize that there are ways to improve that. We are looking for opportunities as we move to electronic systems for LEH, electronic systems for licensing and tags, which is the direction that we’re going, supported by the wildlife federation and other groups.

We believe that’s going to provide us with the platform and the opportunity to have a more robust reporting process, and we believe that will provide us with additional information that will help us make informed decisions. It’s an objective to move to that, and we believe the new platforms that are coming in are going to provide us with that opportunity.

I just wanted to comment on the general open season for elk because the member opposite left the impression that we didn’t listen to the groups and we didn’t consult. That’s certainly not the case. This had a very, very extensive consultation. The movement to general open season for the six point was a specific request in response to the requests of the B.C. Wildlife Federation. It was their policy and their strong recommendation that we do that.

We believe, with all the work, that it is a sustainable hunt. As the member opposite knows, when you deal with the hunting community, there are often diverse views and diverse opinions. In this case, this was the recommendation of the provincial organization. There was extensive consultation during that process and before the regulation change or the decision was made.

[1605]

K. Conroy: I just want to put it on record that there was substantial consultation from people in our area, and they didn’t agree with it. Like, thousands — I’ve never had larger petitions; I’ve never had more input from people in the region — not agreeing with it. And still, to this day, they don’t agree with it.
[ Page 11147 ]

I’m just wondering if it’s possible, if there’s regulation or policy that could be made, that conservation officers could inspect logbooks of the game cutters at season’s end and periodically in between as a means of monitoring harvest information and deterring poaching.

Hon. S. Thomson: I’m advised that they currently have that authority and ability. The conservation officers, as the member opposite knows, are under the Ministry of Environment. What I can do is undertake to raise the member opposite’s point and concern with my colleague.

I know the estimates of the Ministry of Environment have already been completed, but I understand the rationale or the background behind the question. So I’ll certainly take note and can talk to my colleague on that and get back to the member opposite. But I do know — at least, I’m advised, and I’m pretty sure it’s correct — that they currently do have that ability to do that.

K. Conroy: This leads right into a perfect question. Is it not awkward that the people who are responsible for a lot of the issues to do with wildlife in this province…? Wildlife is under the bailiwick of this ministry, yet the conservation officers that are out there are under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Environment. Is there a commitment of a working group between the two ministries if there are issues that come up, if there are policies that should be implemented? Because these people are working….

I get lots of input from people who don’t feel there are enough conservation officers. We’ve got Revelstoke, which to this day doesn’t have a conservation officer and hasn’t had for a while. They call out to Golden. The person has to get all the way over from Golden.

It’s the same thing in the Kootenays. In the lower Kootenays, there’s a lack of conservation officers. I know the minister said that there’s a lot of them and that their work has been streamlined so much that we don’t need that many anymore. I think people would beg to differ.

There’s a request for boots on the ground all the time — that there would be better conservation and better ensuring that wildlife are taken care of the way they should be taken care of, because the conservation officers are the ones that are doing it. It’s not the registered foresters; it’s the conservation officers. Yet the mandate seems to be in a different ministry than this government’s ministry.

In fact, when I look through the minister’s mandate comments, there’s nothing in here about conservation or wildlife that would benefit…. I don’t see it anywhere. There’s a discussion about the rural advisory council, but there’s nothing to say that this ministry has a commitment to wildlife or the conservation of wildlife in this province. I’m wondering how that’s working?

[1610]

Hon. S. Thomson: We work very closely with the Ministry of Environment and with the conservation officer service. They form part of many of the committee processes, the provincial hunting advisory team process where we have all of the groups at the table in terms of looking at overall efforts. It’s important to point out that with our natural resource officers, they’re more than just…. It’s much more than just foresters. Our natural resource officers, given the broad suite of responsibilities and obligations they have, play a role here. It’s a collective effort.

We take the responsibility very seriously. The fact that it’s not specifically in the mandate letter or not…. The mandate letters cover some very specific priorities. They don’t cover every part of the core operations of our ministry. We take it seriously. We know the people out in the field do a great job in looking after their obligations. We work very closely with the conservation officer service, and we work closely with the Ministry of Environment.

K. Conroy: I was going to carry on with that, but because I am on a time limit, I’m going to carry on to another subject, but I might write a letter.

I want to talk about funding. In 2014-15, hunting licences in this province brought in over $14 million to the province, and $2.5 million of that was allocated to the Habitat Conservation Trust Foundation, and $11.8 million went to general revenue. In this last year, 2015-2016, the Habitat Conservation Trust Foundation — I’m just going to say HCTF — will receive about $5.9 million in surcharges, and it’s estimated that over the next three years, they’ll receive about $6.38 million.

I think that shows growth and strength of hunting and fishing in the province, but it also shows what they’ve done as far as investment goes. They’ve invested money too. That’s not all government money that’s coming to them. But I want to acknowledge the HCTF and the work they do, their commitment to the preservation of habitat and wildlife in this province. It’s commendable.

So 70 percent of their funds is from surcharges on licences, with the rest coming from other sources, like investments. I did read through the numerous projects they’ve done in the last year, the ones that were funded, and was very impressed with their stats — 119 restoration and enhancement projects in this last year alone, projects ranging about $5,000 to $573,000. Approximately $6 million in grants was provided.

[1615]

So 48 of the grants, totalling approximately $3.2 million, were awarded to ministry staff and another nine to Ministry of Environment staff. They were all valuable projects. I looked at them, and they all seemed like excellent projects, but I questioned why ministry staff are needing to go to a society to carry out what I see as core projects. I see them as core projects, core services, that I think that the ministry should be providing.

I understand that the ministry can access additional services to enhance projects by using core services, but
[ Page 11148 ]
at the same time, I know there are a lot of organizations out there who would dearly love to access this money.

I just wonder why the ministry wouldn’t have the money to invest in core services and why its staff have to go to a non-profit society such as the Habitat Conservation Trust.

Hon. S. Thomson: I appreciate the member opposite’s comments about the very valuable work that the HCTF, Habitat Conservation Trust Fund, does.

This really is a partnership approach. The stakeholders want those dollars to go into the trust fund. They want it, in a sense, at arm’s length in terms of the decision-making support or decision-making on approval projects in the fund.

Our staff provide the technical support for adjudication of all of the projects. They look within our resources in land-based investment, and within the resource stewardship branch, to see where we can partner on those high-priority projects. The projects that are funded are ones that are developed and supported as priority investments by both the trust fund and our ministry addressing those priority projects.

It’s a system that is well supported, works and allows those partnerships of resources within our ministry to be partnered with the direct surcharge funds to fund priority projects that are developed and supported by the Habitat Conservation Trust Fund.

[1620]

If we were utilizing that process to fund things that they didn’t support, they wouldn’t approve the project. So it is a good partnership, and that’s why you see that many of the projects will support initiatives of both ourselves and the Ministry of Environment.

K. Conroy: Well, to that end, then, last year over $11 million of revenue generated by fishing and hunting licences went into general revenue. This year it’s probably going to be well over that. I think it will be considerably more.

Why is the ministry or the government not investing the entire amount of licences into a body like the HCTF or another one, if there was one? This one’s existing, and it’s working, as the minister said. They’re investing in projects that are working for both the stakeholders at the table as well as the government, so why wouldn’t dollars be invested? They come right from hunting and fishing in this province. Why wouldn’t they be invested back into hunting and fishing through this venue instead of going into what people like to term the black hole of the budget?

Hon. S. Thomson: We canvassed this at length in the first part of the estimates. Government collects revenue from a variety of sources, and it goes into…. Then the fiscal plan is developed, and funds are provided to the ministries for their operations, also recognizing that we need those revenues to support health care and education and social services and all the other demands on the fiscal plan.

[1625]

We take our resources that are provided back into our resource stewardship branch and into the land-based investment program. Again, this year we’ve been able to restore an additional $12 million back into the land-based investment strategy, which is going to provide us with additional resources to focus on the variety of initiatives that occur under that land base investment program, including resource stewardship, ecosystem, wildlife components of the LBIS.

I recognize that we have a model currently in the Freshwater Fisheries Society, where fishing licence revenues are more directly targeted back to an entity or to a society that manages enhancement of freshwater fishing activities in the province. We have had the discussions with the stakeholder organizations about looking at that model and that approach conceptually with those groups about how we could move more of the revenue from the wildlife licensing side of things into that kind of approach and have signalled to those groups that we want to engage in that discussion.

We have started…. We’ve had preliminary discussions with the groups. I think it’s fair to say that they all conceptually support that approach. It’s one of those ones where the devil’s in the details about how you would do it, who would control it, and who would manage it, all given the nature of the industry.

We have had those discussions. I’ve talked about that at both the wildlife federation annual meeting and the guide-outfitters annual meeting and the new Wildlife Stewardship Council of B.C. board.

[D. Ashton in the chair.]

We’ve discussed that conceptually, and we’ll continue those discussions about how we find a way that would work, that would allow some of those resources to be more targeted in a similar way we do with the Habitat Conservation Trust Fund. The groups have said that they don’t necessarily want to compromise that current model with the Habitat Conservation Trust Fund because they see that as working with that dedicated surcharge, but they’re willing to explore other means, and we’re willing to have those discussions with them.

K. Conroy: No one wants to compromise anything that’s happening that’s working, because it is working. But I just want to put on the record that we all know that B.C. is one of North America’s most biodiverse jurisdictions, and it’s at an all-time low for funding when it comes to funding natural resource management and enforcement in B.C.

Many jurisdictions across North America with much smaller populations and much smaller as far as bio-
[ Page 11149 ]
diversity goes operate in budgets of hundreds of millions, whereas in B.C., it’s closer to 25 million. I think we need to be looking at something that is much more dedicated to conservation management and wildlife management than what B.C. is doing right now.

I only probably have time for one more.

Another organization that I just want to refer to is the Wild Sheep Society. They have been doing an excellent job with the work they were doing of trying to protect the wild sheep that come into contact with domestic sheep. It’s interesting. I know that there are massive die-offs in parts of the province.

What I found interesting in talking to the Wild Sheep Society is that they do all the fundraising. They do the work to try to erect fences to keep the wild sheep away from the domestic sheep.

There are not that many situations in the province where the domestic sheep are impacting the wild sheep. I know that a few years ago, the ministry implemented a program for farmers and ranchers to assist them in building elk fences when the elk were eating the feed for cattle ranches. I’m wondering why a similar situation wouldn’t be done to protect the wild sheep. It’s my understanding that there are not that many farms out there where the domestic sheep are an issue.

I know that some of the farms that the society has worked really hard at protecting…. It hasn’t worked for them. It’s a lot of money that has been raised by a non-profit organization. It’s a lot of work. They do the work themselves.

[1630]

I just don’t understand why, if it could happen for ranchers and cattle with elk, the ministry can’t bring in a similar program to protect the wild sheep in this province, wildlife that we’re losing in numbers. I just wondered why the ministry hasn’t considered that.

Hon. S. Thomson: It’s an important issue that the member opposite has raised. I think she will know that there is a working group between ourselves, the Ministry of Agriculture and the Wild Sheep Society on a longer-term strategy and process to address the issues.

It is being looked at from the process of how you make sure that both a wild-sheep population and domestic sheep can coexist, because we don’t want to do things that prevent opportunities on the domestic side of the industry for farmers.

There have been concerns in the past that if fencing is expensive, there may be better processes around best management practices, a management regime in cooperation between the agriculture industry and the Wild Sheep Society on looking at putting those buffers in and those zones of protection.

We do support some fencing. We put up a special permit every year in cooperation with the Wild Sheep Society. I think the last one went for $150,000, and that’s money that’s provided to the Habitat Conservation Trust Fund to help support projects and the work of the task force that is looking at this. Their ongoing area of activity…. The working group — between our ministry, the Ministry of Agriculture and the Wild Sheep Society — is working through a long-term solution to this issue.

[1635]

K. Conroy: Once again, it’s not the minister providing the money, but it’s the Habitat Conservation Trust Fund that’s providing the money to do the fencing. I think I heard that correctly.

Hon. S. Thomson: It’s important to recognize that it’s the ministry, through the allocation, that has provided the opportunity for that funding. We facilitated that opportunity to raise that money that goes…. We put it into the Habitat Conservation Trust Fund to manage, because they do a good job of managing.

K. Conroy: Okay. When I look through the minister’s mandate commitments and look through the goals and objectives, I don’t see, within all of this information, that the ministry has objectives when dealing with the wildlife file. How does the minister determine the objectives when it comes to dealing with this file?

Hon. S. Thomson: Throughout our ministry, there’s a matrix that sets all of the work on wildlife management direction objectives that comes from the legislation. It comes from the suite of legislation that we manage. It comes through consultation with all of the groups that help develop the species-specific plans that our branch works with.

Fundamentally, again, the overall objective is managing for conservation, managing for First Nations’ interests, managing for opportunities for residents and for the commercial side of the industry. That all drives plans when we manage for conservation.

When we get below certain population levels where there’s a conservation risk, then we have the recovery planning. For example, there’s lots of focus right now on moose, with the analysis that’s going on around the impacts to moose populations, what steps need to be taken to recover moose populations in the province.

[1640]

All of those guide the plans — legislation, budget, service plan direction, regulations, species-specific management plans, recovery strategies. All of those guide that important work in the ministry.

K. Conroy: Well, it seems like the ministry puts a lot of energy into recovery planning. I think if they put more energy into habitat conservation, we wouldn’t be up against the recovery planning as much.

I think the caribou is a perfect example. For the amount of time, energy and money that have gone into trying to
[ Page 11150 ]
save the Selkirk herd…. We know that at the last count, there were 12 left. They’re going downhill, and the recovery plan’s not working. I think if we had more of an opportunity to look at how we can engage in habitat conservation upfront, instead of dealing with things as crisis management…. It’s not working so well for some of the species out there. The moose are another example.

I put that out not as a question but just as a statement. I think that the ministry needs to be spending more time on habitat management as opposed to recovery planning. Let’s do it up front and not have to deal with it after the fact.

I want to thank the staff for supporting the minister and for answering the questions. I have to pass it on, but I’m probably going to send a letter with some of the ones I didn’t get to ask.

Hon. S. Thomson: I want to thank the member opposite, too, for the questions. Certainly, if there are any follow-up questions, we’ll take those and provide a response.

H. Bains: We still have a lot of questions. I just want to leave it with the minister before time runs out. I think we are here tomorrow in the morning time, but there are a number of questions in different areas. Because of the time limits, we couldn’t put all those questions to the minister. We will try to put as many questions as possible in the time we’ve got tomorrow. For those that are left off, I will send a letter, and hopefully the minister, like previous years, will reply in writing.

Now I would like the member for Surrey-Whalley, who is our spokesperson on the softwood lumber agreement, to ask a few questions. Hopefully, the minister could confirm that those questions will be welcomed, as always.

Hon. S. Thomson: We’ve had that practice in the past, and we’ll undertake to do that again.

B. Ralston: In the minister’s mandate commission, which is appendix C of the service plan, it says that these priorities are — I’ll read it; this is the first bullet: “Lead the softwood lumber agreement discussions with the federal government and ensure that the federal government position is consistent with that of the province.”

Given the importance of exports to the United States to the British Columbia economy, perhaps I’ll recite some basic statistics. I’ll ask the minister to confirm them, which I’m sure he’ll want to, and confirm the importance of the softwood lumber exports to the United States as a really important economic factor here in British Columbia and the fact that there are at least 24,000 direct jobs. These are not LNG jobs that are coming in the future. These are people that are working right now.

British Columbia exports half of all Canadian exports of softwood. Collectively, Canada has had about 30 percent of Canadian exports…. The total has been 30 percent of the American market, of which British Columbia has had fully half of that. The percentage of 30 percent supplied to the American market by all of Canada has declined somewhat in recent years.

So 24,000 direct jobs, and one estimate of the value of the trade is something in the neighbourhood of about $4.5 billion annually — the value of British Columbia exports to the United States of softwood lumber in its various forms.

I think we’re both agreed. I’m sure the minister is agreed that it’s important. If there are any errors in that or if I’ve understated the importance of the softwood lumber exports to the United States and its importance to the British Columbia economy, I’m sure the minister will correct me, and I’d invite him to do that now.

[1645]

Hon. S. Thomson: In terms of the specific numbers that the member opposite raised, he’s pretty well correct. I think the only numbers are…. In terms of the export value to the U.S., the current numbers are just a little bit lower than that — about $4 billion.

Again, I would not have any disagreement with the member opposite at all about the importance of this market and the importance of this agreement to British Columbia. As he points out, 50 percent of the softwood lumber production in Canada comes from British Columbia, so it is of critical importance for us.

B. Ralston: I appreciate the minister’s correction. I was just quoting from Madison’s lumber report, October 2015, where the export trade to the U.S. is 46.8 percent of an export value of $8.61 billion, so we’re both rounding off. I think I’m closer than he is, but fair enough. It’s very significant, I think we all agree on that.

I just want to confirm, before I proceed further, that we’re dealing with Vote 27. Is that where this particular expenditure resides? I remember from my time as Finance critic that it was very important to know which vote we were dealing with.

The Chair: Yes, that’s correct, Vote 27.

B. Ralston: Given the importance of this, and its significance…. I know that the Premier has stated some time ago that this was an important issue for the relations of the British Columbia government with the Canadian government, and particularly with the newly elected federal government.

The minister will be aware that in the new federal Minister of International Trades’ mandate letter, which was very extensive…. It was a little bit longer than the ones we see directed to British Columbia ministers. A mandate letter is really a jargon term, but it’s direction from the Prime Minister or the Premier to an individual minister, setting out the priorities for that minister to
[ Page 11151 ]
work on in the coming fiscal year. It’s a public document, and it’s available, and people can discuss it.

I’m sure the minister was somewhat surprised to note that in the mandate letter to Ms. Freeland, the new Minister of International Trade, notwithstanding the crucial importance of this issue to British Columbia, the softwood lumber negotiations were not mentioned at all.

There is mention of increasing Canada’s trade with fast-growing markets, including China and India; developing strategies to implement the Canada-European Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, CETA, and to consult on Canada’s potential participation in the Trans-Pacific Partnership, TPP; working with relevant ministers, implementing and expanding Canada’s free trade agreements globally — this would include implementation of agreements with Israel, Chile and the Ukraine; developing a new Canadian trade and export strategy; working with other agencies. So, a very extensive, very specific, quite detailed set of instructions.

[1650]

Given the priority that the Premier said she placed on this in her relations with the new Prime Minister, what was the reaction of the Premier to this? It seems to me a significant omission and, perhaps, indicates a policy blind spot there in Ottawa, at least at the outset of the new mandate of a newly elected majority government.

Hon. S. Thomson: Firstly, those are federal mandate letters. I can’t comment on the Premier’s reaction, but what I can say — and what the member opposite should know — is, firstly, that the softwood lumber agreement was the subject of the Premier’s first call to the Prime Minister. And it was the subject of a first call between the Prime Minister and the President of the United States. They recognize the importance of it. They’re actively engaged.

I have met Minister Freeland. I’ve met with her. She’s been here to meet with the industry. She is fully engaged on this file. We have no concerns that the federal government is not taking this seriously. Both the minister and staff within her ministry are fully engaged, as are we and as are other provinces across the country. We have no concerns that this is not receiving the appropriate attention and attention at the highest levels.

B. Ralston: What did the minister, then, convey to the Minister of International Trade, the federal minister, given this omission and given what position that the minister has just taken right now? Did you express your regret, disapproval, encouragement? Did you raise this issue at all?

Hon. S. Thomson: Again, we have met directly with the minister, and industry has also met directly with the minister. We immediately engaged on the issue.

[1655]

We did not discuss the letter or the respective mandates, just as she did not discuss my mandate letter with me. We both acknowledge and we both agree on the critical importance of this. We’ve had a very, very good engagement.

As I said, we have no concerns that…. At all levels, everybody is working very hard across the country with the federal government, federal officials and federal ministers on the importance of the issue. All attention has been focused on a process forward to have discussions and negotiations around a new agreement. We recognize the challenges on that, given timing and those sorts of things. But we have that opportunity, and everybody is fully engaged.

B. Ralston: Well, if I might, Minister…. The Premier, I think, said that this was her number one priority in dealing with the federal government. Now, the Premier has a lot of number one priorities, but on that occasion, this was the number one priority.

The minister, according to his mandate letter, is leading — leading — the softwood lumber agreement with discussions with the federal government. It seems to me that when the federal government clearly demonstrates, in a key document, instructions to the minister that they do not include that, it’s incumbent upon the person leading the discussion…. That’s what your mandate letter says: leading. It’s incumbent upon you to raise that with the minister.

You’re saying that you did not raise that with the minister. With respect, Minister, I don’t think that’s strong advocacy on behalf of British Columbia that’s consistent with your mandate letter. In any event, I will move on. I may choose to comment later.

Before the Premier went to Ottawa, she gave an interview with the Globe and Mail, the national newspaper, on February 1 and set out what she was going to talk about. I believe there was a meeting on Friday, February 5. In the article on February 1, this was a preview and setting out of goals and her objectives on this trip.

She talked about British Columbia’s position as a good economy. She talked about the province’s thriving technology industry, the fast-growing garment sector, as well as the topic of liquefied natural gas. She said she would continue to push with plans for natural gas on the province’s northwest coast. She talked about the environmental approval process.

It’s mentioned that the Minister of Natural Gas Development was in Ottawa, and there was some further discussion about him meeting with his federal counterpart, Jim Carr, and the federal Environment Minister, Catherine McKenna. There was a discussion that the agenda would include a B.C. jobs round table and discussions around investments in jobs training for the LNG sector. British Columbia has earmarked, according to the story, $3 billion over the next ten years to develop the skills needed to capitalize on LNG-related jobs.
[ Page 11152 ]

Now, I appreciate that the Premier…. No politician is responsible for what a journalist chooses to write, but it’s significant in this interview by the Premier with the national English language newspaper — if one excludes the National Post — that there’s simply no mention of her number one priority. There’s no mention — again, I don’t hold the minister responsible for this — of himself as minister for the softwood file at all.

Is it not fair to say that going into these meetings in Ottawa, there was very little, if any, emphasis upon the softwood lumber agreement and its significance to the British Columbia economy?

[1700]

Hon. S. Thomson: Again, if the member opposite is trying to create…. I get the sense he’s trying to create the impression that this is not being taken seriously, that there’s not a level of engagement, that it hasn’t been raised at the highest priority. We’re not negotiating in the media. This, as you know, is a sensitive file. The member well knows that.

As I said, we have no concerns. We are actively engaged with the federal minister. I’ve met with her. I met with Minister Carr and with Natural Resources Canada on it. The Premier raised in the first call with the Prime Minister. All are engaged. There are engagement discussions. We have no concerns that…. There isn’t anybody who doesn’t understand the importance of this file to British Columbia and to Canada. That engagement continues.

On a daily basis, there are active discussions between ourselves, the industry — through the B.C. Lumber Trade Council, through the Canadian coalition — and other provinces with the federal government, ongoing. There are absolutely no concerns that it isn’t being taken seriously at all levels.

B. Ralston: I’m not disagreeing with the minister and trying to create an impression. I’m simply reciting what has been reported in the media, which often is reflective of what the government is thinking. Certainly, when the Premier gives an interview before an important economic conference like this and in the report there’s no mention of it, it seems to me that it might be lower on the agenda than otherwise professed. Obviously, the minister and I disagree on that.

Now, the minister mentions that he was in Ottawa. I understand the Premier met with the Prime Minister on Friday, February 5. Can the minister tell me who he met with? He says he met with Jim Carr and with the International Trade Minister. What officials from his ministry were there and at that meeting?

I could ask through FOI, but I’d probably be getting it sometime next year. So I’m asking the minister now, and I hope he’ll oblige me by giving those answers.

[1705]

Hon. S. Thomson: Again, the member opposite said we can disagree on this. I just reiterate that there are no concerns from the province, from our ministry, from the industry that it isn’t being taken seriously and being considered at the highest levels.

Just to correct the member, I did not go to Ottawa. I was not part of the delegation to Ottawa. Both ministers came here to meet with me. Minister Freeland came here to meet on the issue, because she also took the opportunity to meet directly with industry. Minister Carr was here, as well, and took that same opportunity.

We did have, in the process, our lead negotiator, at the discussions in Ottawa, reporting to me as the lead ministry on the negotiations. We had key members of the Lumber Trade Council as part of those meetings as well.

Again, there is very, very active high-level engagement on the file, talks underway with provinces, all the interests across the country working through our key industry representatives on the Lumber Trade Council, working with our negotiator — regular engagement. Again, I have no concerns that it’s not being addressed with priority and seriously at every level.

B. Ralston: I think it’s regrettable that the minister wasn’t there. I’d trade the minister for the Premier’s videographer any day of the week.

I think it is significant — given that the minister, in his mandate letter, is leading these negotiations on behalf of the province — that the minister wasn’t invited. Obviously that’s not a decision that the minister makes, but I think it’s a regrettable decision by the government. I think it reflects upon some of the Premier’s words about how seriously this is being taken by the government, if the lead minister is not there.

The minister was referring to the lead negotiator, Ms. Hayden. I notice that she’s not among the officials advising the minister today.

Can the minister tell me what her contractual arrangement with the ministry is, what her title is and what her terms of reference are? If those can’t be provided here now — I would think they would be, given the priority of this issue — I’d be pleased to stand down momentarily for your officials to find that.

[1710]

Hon. S. Thomson: The member opposite correctly referred to Ms. Hayden, Dana Hayden, as the chief negotiator for softwood lumber for British Columbia. She is retained through our contract, our retainer with Akin Gump, who provide outside legal counsel through the Ministry of Justice.

The terms of reference and the contractual arrangement, as part of that arrangement, are privileged as part of the overall privileged conditions around the legal advice that’s being provided through outside counsel, as it
[ Page 11153 ]
was in past negotiations and as it continues to be in all of our engagement with the softwood lumber file.

B. Ralston: I’m looking at vote 27. I’m looking at executive and support services for last year — or prospectively. I’m wondering, given that she, I think, took up her appointment…. Perhaps the minister can confirm when she was appointed and what budget support for her services is coming out of. This is estimates, and the Chair will want me to be very specific.

[1715]

Hon. S. Thomson: Ms. Hayden was retained in that role in September 2014 in preparation. The member opposite asked: where in vote 27 is the support for that? It comes under “Executive and Support Services,” “Corporate services.”

B. Ralston: The minister mentioned a law firm. I wasn’t quite clear what he said. I think “Gump” was the second word — somewhat like the movie, perhaps. I don’t know. Akin Gump — I believe that might be the firm. Can the minister tell me when that firm was contracted? And when was that contract for legal services last publicly tendered?

[1720]

Hon. S. Thomson: The member opposite referenced the firm. I’ll give the full name of the firm. Akin Gump Strauss Hauer and Feld is the firm. They have been retained on this file since 1999. The process for outside counsel is managed through the Attorney General–Ministry of Justice, so the questions around the process there would be appropriately canvassed with the Ministry of Justice.

B. Ralston: I understand that any advice that this firm might provide to the minister or to the ministry would be subject to solicitor-client privilege, but does the firm, in fact, provide regular advice to the minister, or does that go through the intermediary of Ms. Hayden?

Hon. S. Thomson: Yes, advice goes to me, goes to our ministry. Advice also goes to the chief negotiator. Obviously, we all work together on this very, very important file.

I meet regularly with staff on this. I meet regularly with the chief negotiator on this. I’m also in regular discussions, given the importance of this file to the provincial government, with my colleagues in the Ministry of Finance — with the Minister of Finance — and International Trade.

So again, a high-priority file for the government. We all work collectively together in terms of the advice that is provided as these talks move forward.

B. Ralston: One reads about Washington law firms. They offer a combination, sometimes, of legal and political advice. Is the minister convinced that this firm, which has been on retainer with the government since 1999, is the best firm to advise British Columbia, given that it doesn’t appear to have been reviewed in over 17 years?

Given the dollar values we’re talking about here, $4.5 billion in British Columbia exports a year, any advantage that one could get by someone sharper or better connected might be worth the change. Is the minister satisfied that this firm is the best firm to be advising British Columbia during these critical negotiations for the future of the British Columbia economy?

[1725]

Hon. S. Thomson: First of all, just to confirm. I didn’t say, and I hope I didn’t leave that impression, that it hasn’t been reviewed. What I’ve said is that process is managed through the Ministry of Justice and appropriately canvassed there.

I have a high degree of confidence in the firm, in the advice they provide. Particularly important, they bring the experience in the file, experience with all the litigation under the agreement and the previous agreement. They provide legal advice, not political advice, and when you look at the success that we had in Lumber 4, with NAFTA, the success we had in the grade 4 arbitration, we have confidence in the legal advice that is being provided.

The key legal counsel for the firm is an award-winning counsel in the U.S.A. and is very highly regarded, so we believe that we’ve got the best team in place to continue our discussions and to work towards that objective of achieving a new agreement.

B. Ralston: Is Ms. Hayden hired directly by the law firm, or is she hired by the ministry?

Hon. S. Thomson: The law firm.

B. Ralston: I asked for her terms of reference and her contract. Is the minister saying that he’s not prepared to reveal that because it’s subject to solicitor-client privilege?

[1730]

[J. Martin in the chair.]

The Chair: Minister.

Hon. S. Thomson: Thank you, Chair, and welcome to the chair.

What I can undertake…. I don’t want to violate at all the solicitor-client privilege in the process, given the sensitive nature of this. What I can do is undertake to have a discussion with the law firm. If I can provide the terms of reference without violating that privilege, I will provide it to the member opposite. I’ll undertake to have
[ Page 11154 ]
that discussion and communicate back to the member opposite.

The Chair: Member.

B. Ralston: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Welcome to the chair. I send a shout-out to all of those people who are watching these gripping proceedings this afternoon.

What I wanted to ask…. The minister said that what he contracted for, or the ministry contracted for, with the law firm was legal advice. Clearly, this dispute is as much, if not more, about politics than it is about the law. In some cases, decisions appear to be made in flat defiance of the law. Of course, that would be subject to some disagreement by other parties, but certainly I think it’s acknowledged that there’s a significant political dimension to the whole dispute, to negotiations about the dispute, to the advice that one receives.

Can the minister advise, then, where does he…? Or where does the ministry receive its political advice from in terms of how to proceed? As the leader of the softwood lumber negotiations on behalf of British Columbia, I’m sure that he’s concerned to get the best political advice as well as the best legal advice.

One could think of, perhaps, hiring…. I’m not sure whether Ms. Hayden provides that kind of advice, whether it’s a mixture of political and legal advice, or whether the province has retained a lobbying firm in Washington. Some of the political candidates, I hear, in the current presidential debate say that it’s impossible to do anything in Washington without hiring a lobbyist.

Can the minister advise how that is managed and how the best advice and the best focus is achieved?

[1735]

Hon. S. Thomson: Just in terms of the strategy all around those processes, it’s important for the member opposite to recognize that this is a Canada-U.S. negotiation, so that’s the agreement. We work closely with the federal government in developing the strategy. I consult with my colleagues, particularly ministers who have had extensive experience on this file previously in the process.

We work with industry in terms of their intelligence, in terms of knowledge of the U.S. industry and approaches. We work with the ambassador. The ambassador to the U.S. is engaged in the discussions, but the engagement process is led by the federal government, because ultimately, it is a Canada-U.S. negotiation. Our focus is ensuring that B.C.’s interests are understood by the lead negotiators at the federal level and officials at the political level federally.

Ms. Hayden provides us technical support around the principles and the negotiation strategy but not the political strategy. That is led in our discussions, as I said, with colleagues, with the federal government, with the ministers at the federal level who have indicated again…. We’ll reiterate we have no concerns — that they are taking it seriously and that it is a high, high priority on their agenda.

B. Ralston: Thank you, Minister. If I could engage in a couple of quick follow-up questions. The minister has mentioned colleagues. I was unclear what he meant. Did he mean cabinet colleagues, or did he mean colleagues at the deputy minister level or colleagues in other provincial governments? I wasn’t clear.

I’d be interested in knowing, if he meant cabinet colleagues, who those might be — without, obviously, mentioning the substance of the discussion. I assume that would be covered by some kind of cabinet privilege, so I wouldn’t expect the minister to divulge the nature of the discussions with those colleagues. But hearing who the minister relies on for advice among his colleagues — aside from the Premier, of course — would be interesting.

[1740]

Hon. S. Thomson: Just as the member opposite indicated, essentially all of the above. We consult, at the officials level, with deputies, with colleagues across the country, with federal officials.

More specifically, because there are members currently in government who have had extensive experience with this file previously, I look to them for advice and support in the process — so Minister de Jong, the Minister of Finance; Minister Coleman; Minister Wat, who has the responsibility on the International Trade file; Minister Wilkinson, who had extensive experience previously in IGR and economic development.

That’s just some specific advice that I take in helping, as we work through on this, but we consult broadly on this as we develop the position. And most importantly, a very, very extensive process of engagement with industry. This is about their industry, so through the B.C. Lumber Trade Council and others, we are engaged actively with industry.

The one thing that we’ve said in this process is how important it is, that we do need a focus on getting a new agreement, but we’ve also said that it’s not an agreement at any cost. It has to work for British Columbia. It has to work for the industry. We’re focused on the new agreement, but we’re also working to ensure that if that agreement is not achieved, we’re prepared to vigorously defend the British Columbia industry in the event of trade action that may ultimately take place as a result of not having a new agreement.

B. Ralston: Obviously, the minister would, through his time in the cabinet position, through various trade missions in which senior company officials would have accompanied him to Asia, for example, would have come to know the leaders of the industry in British Columbia very well.
[ Page 11155 ]

Can the minister describe the…? Is there a formal mechanism rather than informal phone calls or emails that this industry information and input is channelled through? Obviously, there are some major players that would be keenly interested in the outcome of these negotiations. It would affect the sustainability and the financial viability of their companies well into the future.

If I might, then, what is the formal mechanism for engaging with the companies? Is Ms. Hayden involved in that, or is the deputy involved in that? Perhaps he could just briefly describe that process.

[1745]

Hon. S. Thomson: The process, or the structure, that we work through is called the B.C. Lumber Trade Council. That’s the point of engagement with the industry.

As we’re doing that, we also have taken discussions more broadly as we’re working through key principles and touchpoints with the industry. We need to recognize that, as things start to move on this, it sometimes can be fairly fast-moving, so you have to have those processes to be able to go back and touch base with the industry.

The answer is…. Who’s engaged with those? Yes, I am. Yes, the deputy is. Yes, the chief negotiator is. We meet with all of those groups at the appropriate times as we go through the process. We also consult with the Coast Forest Products Association, the Interior Lumber Manufacturers Association, the independent wood producers, the First Nations Forestry Council.

They’ve all been part of the engagement as principles are developed in terms of B.C.’s interests in the process. We then are working with the other provinces and the federal government in terms of the principles and positions that will go forward into talks with the USTR and the U.S. industry.

B. Ralston: The minister talked earlier about a meeting with federal minister Carr and, I believe, the federal Minister of International Trade, Freeland. Was that a meeting of the B.C. Lumber Trade Council at which the minister was present and those federal ministers were present?

Is that the nature of the discussion that took place there? And if so, can the minister say when that discussion took place, and was that his only face-to-face engagement with those two federal cabinet ministers?

[1750]

Hon. S. Thomson: In terms of the meetings, I met with Minister Freeland directly. That was at our request when she came to British Columbia. We held the meeting here because she was here. She was coming for other purposes around some consultation, as you know, around the Trans-Pacific Partnership. But rather than have to go to Ottawa, we used that opportunity and met with her directly. I met with her. She also met directly with the B.C. Lumber Trade Council and the industry representatives. I was part of that discussion.

I also met with Minister Carr here and with senior officials in his office. That was a direct meeting with Minister Carr, and softwood lumber was the key item of discussion at that meeting. I’ve also had meetings with the ambassador on the file. I don’t have my calendar in front of me, so I don’t have the dates. I can probably provide that to the member opposite.

Again, we are actively engaged at all levels on this and actively engaged in meeting with industry, in regular discussions with them — the Lumber Trade Council, all the other sectors. It is one of the key topics of discussion in all meetings with the industry and, more directly, with the Lumber Trade Council.

B. Ralston: I’m going ask and — just so that we’re clear for the record — the minister is going to provide excerpts from his diary setting out when he met with these federal officials in the recent past. I’m assuming, in the last two months, but he’s welcome to add to that. I take it, from what the minister said, unless he says otherwise, that there was one meeting each with Minister Freeland and with Minister Carr. If I’m wrong on that, then I’m sure the minister will correct me.

I want to now ask a more general question about the process generally. And since the minister gets advice from other colleagues, I’m sure that the Minister of Advanced Education will confirm this. In a negotiation, where there’s certainly a desire to conclude an agreement, there’s also the prospect that this process may result in trade action under various international statues — whether complaints to the WTO, world trade authority, or through NAFTA.

What is the allocation of resources, or what is the consideration being given — without getting into the specifics, of course — of preparing for the prospect? Dismal, unwanted, unwelcomed — I get all that. But maybe, realistically, this might take place. What processes are underway to prepare for trade litigation?

[1755]

Hon. S. Thomson: Again, as I indicated earlier — very, very active engagement on the process with the provinces and the federal government to get talks underway, focused on getting a new agreement.

As the member pointed out, while nobody would like to see it, while we all agree that we would like it and would want to work towards a new agreement…. I also said earlier that we will have to, in that process…. It has to be an agreement that works for British Columbia, for the British Columbia industry and for Canada. It’s not an agreement at any cost. While this is all underway, we know we also have to work to prepare ourselves for the circumstances or the potential that we may not achieve that agreement. We need to be ready for action that may
[ Page 11156 ]
be taken against the Canadian industry and the B.C. industry. That work is underway. We’re doing both.

We work with our ministry and expertise within our ministry in the timber pricing branch, in the competitiveness and innovation branch. Across government, we work with the industry through the B.C. Lumber Trade Council and companies and all of their information and preparation for that potential that we may not achieve agreement.

Work continues in tandem. Resources are part of some people’s work. My deputy minister, for example, will be spending time on this file in supporting work of his staff in that, but we know we need to be prepared. We’ve been successful in defending ourselves in the past. We need to put ourselves in the best position to do that again if we don’t achieve an agreement and that that becomes the tactic or the approach that the U.S. is going to take against Canada and our British Columbia industry.

B. Ralston: The minister will know, of course, that the last expired agreement contained a provision that there was a litigation standstill until October of this year, October 2016. It’s now approximately half over.

Recent media reports…. The minister may choose not to comment on this, subject to advice he gets. On March 2, in the Globe and Mail…. “Sources say U.S. officials are telling Canadian negotiators they can’t renew the deal during a U.S. election year, fearing it could cost the Democrats seats in Congress.”

[1800]

What’s the minister’s sense, if he’s prepared to comment — he may not be, and I understand that — of what the next steps are? I understand there have been some meetings, but there are no meetings scheduled currently. What’s his expectation of the Canadian negotiating team as they report to him as minister and as the lead on behalf of British Columbia in these very important negotiations?

Hon. S. Thomson: The member opposite will know this from…. I’m sure he knows this from the past iterations of this. You will see lots of speculation, lots of posturing in the press from positions being taken and speculation by people in it. I take that all as just that.

Our focus is engagement with the other provinces, engagement with the industry and engagement with the federal government. We know the federal government is engaged with the U.S. Our focus is to make all our effort to achieve an agreement.

We know — and the member opposite will know, I think — that we have a time frame in which there is potential to achieve this. As we get further into the election process, that window is probably going to narrow on us.

We are fully focused on getting all of our efforts on getting the talks going. As the member opposite indicated, some of those are taking place. In the meantime, as well, we also — as I indicated — prepare for the eventuality that we may not achieve agreement. I think that’s only the prudent thing to do, to make sure we do both at the same time.

B. Ralston: I thank the minister for that answer. Perhaps the conviviality of the state dinner between the Prime Minister of Canada and the President of the United States next week will maybe unclog some of the negotiating barriers. We shall see.

In the brief time that remains to me, I do want to turn to another topic. I’ve been approached by people from the British Columbia Printing and Imaging Association. This is a trade question. I simply want to put it on the record. This is their question. It’s in a printed material, of course, that they’ve got.

“Are the British Columbia government and the federal government aware of the U.S. Commerce Department’s announcement on January 11, 2016, regarding anti-dumping duties on imports of uncoated paper sheets from Australia, Brazil, China, Indonesia and Portugal, determining that these products were sold at less than fair value? The action followed the nearly year-long investigation into the pricing of imported uncoated sheets for copy paper, envelopes, book papers, utilities and other uses.”

They go on to say:

“What can the British Columbia government do to assist? As Vancouver presents a non-tariff port of entry, these products are routinely sold into British Columbia well below fair-market value. With the recent announcement by the U.S. Commerce Department, imports may increase at even higher levels into Canada, resulting in unsustainable market conditions.”

[1805]

These questions are posed in their written material. It would seem, based on U.S. trade action against a number of other producers that Canada has not followed…. It may open up the British Columbia market and the Canadian market for dumping of these products into Canada and causing competitive–anti-competitive conditions for B.C. producers and members of this association.

I’m not sure if the minister has the officials here who are able to answer that. Certainly, I appreciate the minister giving it a try, and if not, at least an undertaking to respond with a fuller written response that would engage this particular association, because I’m sure, as the minister is aware, that the pulp sector and the paper sector are an important part of the B.C. economy too.

Hon. S. Thomson: The member opposite said I’d give it a try. I don’t have the staff here that would have the specifics on that.

We can certainly undertake to get some initial information for the member opposite, but I think it would also be a very appropriate question to canvass during the estimates for the Minister of International Trade since it is a trade policy issue. I know it has linkages to our sector, so I’ll mention that. If I can provide some initial information that would be helpful, we’ll undertake to do that.

B. Ralston: Perhaps if I hadn’t raised it here, the Minister of International Trade would have told me that
[ Page 11157 ]
I should have raised it here. That’s usually the way it goes. It’s always the person you didn’t ask that is the person that was supposed to answer. That’s why I am asking it here.

There’s a relatively brief time. I wanted to ask a little bit broader question about the softwood lumber negotiations and the role that aboriginal title and recent court decisions play in the negotiations, in terms of setting the British Columbia and the Canadian position in contradistinction to the American position. Certainly, that’s a different factor in the resource management here in British Columbia. I’m not terribly literate in what goes on in Louisiana or Alabama in terms of their forest policy, but I don’t imagine it occupies the same place that it does here in British Columbia.

To what degree are those considerations of post-Tsilhqot’in aboriginal title a factor in negotiations with the United States?

[1810]

Hon. S. Thomson: I think the member opposite knows that obviously, dealing and working with First Nations, post-Tsilhqot’in particularly, has a very significant influence on forest policy in British Columbia.

The member opposite will know that the process, the way the U.S…. When they’re looking from their perspective, they look at everything we do in forest policy. How we manage that and handle that will be something that the U.S. industry obviously looks at in their assessments of positions that are taken in the discussions, or ultimately they will look at it in terms of preparation of action that they may want to take against the industry.

The member will know that in 2006, there was an agreement. There was essentially a safe harbour in the agreement that gave us the flexibility for dealing with many of the First Nations work in our forest policy. Obviously, we want to, in our policies, be able to retain as much flexibility as possible to work as we continue to build First Nations participation in the industry.

That all will be part of the discussions. That’s why I indicated earlier that we have had, as part of our engagement, discussions with the First Nations Forestry Council, as B.C. develops its principles and the positions that we’re taking with the federal government and our colleagues across the country, as Canada develops its position that it will be taking into the discussions.

B. Ralston: A report by the Canada West Foundation on the softwood lumber dispute talks about the amount of Canadian and British Columbia companies and the percentage of their operations that are now in the United States. For example: “The majority of Interfor’s production is now based in the U.S. — 68 percent; 37 percent of West Fraser’s production is based in the U.S.; and by 2016, Canfor expects 22 percent of its sawmill capacity will be south of the border.”

To what degree does the minister think that those decisions are influenced by these negotiations or prospective difficulties with these negotiations, or are there other factors that the minister thinks would be causing them to make those key investment decisions to invest, not here in British Columbia, but in the southern United States?

[1815]

Hon. S. Thomson: A very quick answer. In my view, they’re not strongly linked. Companies, given a declining fibre supply in British Columbia, have looked for opportunities to grow their companies — looking at opportunities there in terms of assets that may have been available. That started some time ago, well before the expiry of the current agreement, so I don’t believe they’re strongly linked.

Investment decisions are made by the industry. Our focus is to work and to continue to work towards providing as competitive a framework here in British Columbia for our industry, and we will continue to do that.

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

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:16 p.m.

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

Copyright © 2016: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada