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)

Tuesday, March 8, 2016

Morning Sitting

Volume 34, Number 6

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

TUESDAY, MARCH 8, 2016

The House met at 10:04 a.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Madame Speaker: Good morning, hon. Members, and happy International Women’s Day.

[1005]

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

Hon. P. Fassbender: I have a couple of guests in the House today. The first is Surrey city councillor Tom Gill, as well as Mr. Steve Stew.

Councillor Gill was first elected to Surrey city council in 2005 and again in 2008, 2011 and 2014. He’s the chairman of the finance committee and founding director of the Homelessness and Housing Society in our community. He’s also the chief financial officer for Coast Mental Health, the largest non-profit mental health agency in B.C.

Mr. Steve Stew has extensive involvement in the community. He serves as vice-president of business development at Matcon Canada. His involvement includes, but is not limited to, a director at the Surrey Board of Trade and a director of the Child Development Foundation of B.C.

Recently he has the distinction of having climbed to the peak of Mount Kilimanjaro as a fundraising effort for the National Advertising Benevolent Society. He’s much leaner today than he was before he left, and he said Mount Everest is next on his list.

I ask the members to make them both feel very welcome.

M. Karagianis: In celebration of International Women’s Day, we have an extraordinary group of women with us today. They are all women leaders in the labour movement. They’ve been here for the last two days. They are lobbying government on three really important issues for women in British Columbia: child care, minimum wage and sex assault services.

I’d like to introduce just a few of them, and I know some of my colleagues will also be introducing some women. We’d like to welcome Ellen Oxman from the BCFMWU, Anne Davis from HSABC, Sussanne Skidmore from the BCGEU, and a special welcome to Stephanie Smith, the first female president of the BCGEU.

Please make them all very welcome here today.

Statements

CONSTITUENCY ASSISTANTS

S. Sullivan: It is my pleasure to introduce some of the 84 people who have joined us today. They are the government caucus constituency assistants who have come from every corner of the province to share and to learn how to better serve our public.

Our CAs are so important to us that if each of us stood up and made the personal introductions and said how we feel about these remarkable people, we would be here all day. How can I introduce the CAs to this House when we feel their presence so continuously? This is truly their House.

All of us spend time in Victoria and around the province, and we can do what we do here because they do what they do in our constituency offices. It is our constituency assistants who are the first point of contact, who represent us and truly represent British Columbia to our citizens.

When we meet with citizens, they will often be screened and vetted. But our CAs see our communities in its rawness. No one knows who will come through the door of our constituency office at any time of the day. It takes no small amount of courage and diplomacy to do what they do.

They are the ultimate problem-solvers. So many citizens come to our offices as their last resort. They have nowhere else to turn, and more often than not, they find the only sympathetic voice. There are countless people in this province whose lives have been touched by their generous attention. For many, the opinions of our citizens — that they form of us — are because of them.

But not only do they represent us to the citizens, they represent the citizens to us, to the government. Although the laws that we pass here have our names on them, they have the fingerprints of our constituency assistants all over them. They are our early warning detection system. They know before anyone the mood of the public, the issues that need to be dealt with now.

Although our political divisions in this House can be sharp, I know that all of us are united in gratitude for the relationships we all share with our constituency assistants.

[1010]

I know everyone will join with me in thanking the people on whose shoulders we place such confidence. Please welcome our constituency assistants.

Introductions by Members

K. Corrigan: I would like to introduce and welcome a few more of the women labour leaders that are here today. We also have Jennifer Chieh Ho, of PSAC; Kassandra Cordero, of the B.C. Federation of Labour; Joey Hartman,
[ Page 11160 ]
the first woman president of the Vancouver and District Labour Council; and, finally, Irene Lanzinger, the first woman president of the B.C. Federation of Labour. I hope you will all make them very welcome on International Women’s Day.

Statements

COMMUNITIES FOR VETERANS
HORSEBACK RIDE ACROSS CANADA

Hon. C. Oakes: It truly is my privilege today to acknowledge some incredible people. The Communities for Veterans Foundation is a mission together to introduce the contemporary face of veterans. Canada continues to be home to over 540,000 veterans, whose average age is 56. In order for us to understand our veterans and their needs, it’s imperative that we hear their stories and get a clear vision of our veterans when they return home to our community.

On April 13, on the front steps of this Legislature, the journey began for Paul and Terry Nichols and the Communities for Veterans. They rode across Canada on horseback, and through every part of their journey, over 350 veterans rode with them in different communities. They touched thousands and thousands of people’s lives and began the difficult conversation that we all need to have around what a contemporary veteran looks like in our communities, and to listen to their stories.

If I may, I would like to acknowledge the people that were a part of the journey. Paul and Terry and Cathleen are here in the House today, but I think it’s important, and I made the commitment, to raise the folks that worked so tirelessly on this journey. Lindsay Chung left her job as a newspaper editor to join the ride. Jeremias Liem, a Swiss national, left his job and travelled to join them across the country. Kirsten Nichols was a university student who left university to join this journey across Canada.

Zari Benedict, Cathleen’s 12-year-old daughter, would get up at six in the morning to help groom the horses and to work so tirelessly on this journey. Rio Layna Dinu, by the time the ride was completed, left home for nine months to care for the farm. Folks just absolutely put their entire lives on hold. And Zoe, the remarkable horse, Paul’s horse, was such an important part of his journey, a 19-year-old horse that travelled 5,000 of the 8,000 kilometres.

It’s a remarkable journey. It is just the beginning, but on behalf of all of us in this House, thank you very much for raising this very, very important initiative.

Introductions by Members

S. Hammell: I’d like to add to the list of women from labour. To the ones who’ve already been introduced, I’d like to add Jaime Matten, from the B.C. Fed; Lynn Bueckert, B.C. Fed; Elena Kuzmina; Brenda Brown; and Virginia Vaillancourt. Could the House please make all these women welcome on International Women’s Day.

Hon. S. Bond: I simply want to join with my colleagues on the other side in recognizing the significant group of female labour leaders that are with us today. It’s appropriate that they’re in a House where the Speaker is a woman, the Premier is a woman, the Lieutenant-Governor is a woman.

We know that the labour movement has made significant progress in terms of women’s issues, and we continue to work constructively with them. We’re very grateful for the meeting held yesterday as we discuss these issues. Progress has been made, but there is more work to do. I join with my colleagues on the other side of the House in welcoming these women and thanking them for their leadership in our province.

[1015]

J. Darcy: It is my great pleasure to introduce two groups of people who are here today. But first, let me introduce some other union women who are here today, very dear friends Donisa Bernardo, the financial secretary of the Hospital Employees Union; Sheryl Burns, from CUPE; Karen Ranalletta, from CUPE; and Joie Warnock, from Unifor. All of them are women who are playing a tremendous role working for equality for working women in the province of British Columbia.

And — wow, I am so lucky today — we have a group from New Westminster, the New Westminster Youth Ambassadors, who are here today together with the leaders of the organization, the directors of the organization. This is an amazing group of young people. They take part in volunteering in so many community events, from seniors to Diwali celebrations and lunar new year celebrations in my office and volunteer festivals. You name it, and the youth ambassadors are there. They are the leaders of today and tomorrow.

I am very pleased to welcome here today six youth ambassadors: Valeria Barrera, Tim Basheer, Annabel DeLair-Dobrovolny, Jordan Earle, Hemat Oyra and Sydney Stromberg. Also, their chaperones, guests, directors and leaders of the organization: Lynn Radbourne, the organizer and leader of the New West Youth Ambassadors and Citizen of the Year, New Westminster, last year; Bill Radbourne, director and chaperon; Maryann Kasimir, Laura Barerra, Marianna Barrera, Barbara Moncrief and, also, their guide dog in training, Siku.

Please welcome them to their House today.

Hon. N. Letnick: On International Women’s Day, it gives me great pleasure to welcome a woman from my riding, a friend who came all the way to Victoria to celebrate her birthday today. Would the House please make Katja Maurmann feel very welcome on her birthday.
[ Page 11161 ]

D. Routley: Joining us in the precinct today are six firefighters from Nanaimo. I will introduce the first three, and my colleague from Nanaimo will introduce the other three.

I would like the House to help me make welcome Mike Rispin, Chad Porter and Tom Krall.

L. Krog: I hate to slight the member for Vancouver-Kensington, but ever since she recommended that this is one of the romantic hot spots to visit in Victoria, we notice the gallery is filled every day.

Having said that, I’m not positive these three firefighters actually made it into the building, but they’re Matt Burke, Max Bates — a new father — and Kyle Sheepwash, who I’ve known since he was about the age of Max Bates’s pride and joy.

Would the House please make them welcome.

K. Conroy: I, too, would like to welcome some firefighters that are here today. Lee DePellegrin is the president of the firefighters in Trail, Rick Morris is the secretary-treasurer of the firefighters in Trail, and Clay Murrell is the vice-president for the Kootenay region, and he hails out of Cranbrook.

Would you all please join them in making them welcome.

C. Trevena: I also would like to welcome firefighters who are here today. I’m going to be meeting later today with Stewart Dumont and Lee Pendergast, from the Campbell River fire department.

I hope that the House will make them and all the other firefighters who’re here over the next couple of days very welcome.

S. Fraser: I have two firefighters visiting from Port Alberni today. Travis Cross and Andre Guerin are here, and they met with me this morning and helped to educate me about the importance of issues like post-traumatic stress and other stress disorders and cancers that should be on the presumptive list.

Would the House please join me in making both Travis and Andre feel very, very welcome here.

Hon. N. Yamamoto: On behalf of all of us on this side of the House and on the other side of the House, we’d also really like to welcome all the firefighters who are here in Victoria today to meet with us.

Would the House please make them feel welcome.

S. Chandra Herbert: Maybe we should change the name from question period to introduction period.

I’d like to welcome local 18….

Interjection.

S. Chandra Herbert: Since we never get any answers anyways…. [Laughter.] We can introduce the idea of actually answering questions.

Anyway, I’d like to welcome Rob Weeks, Chris Coleman, Dustin Bourdeaudhuy, Matthew Trudeau, Lee Lax and Steve Fraser, from Local 18, firefighters in our community. Thank you for working so hard for us in Vancouver.

[1020]

Tributes

UBC WOMEN’S HOCKEY TEAM
CHAMPIONSHIP WIN

D. Eby: On International Women’s Day, I have some very happy news from my constituency. The UBC women’s hockey team are the Canada West champions. Congratulations to them.

Madame Speaker: A remarkable morning. Welcome, all.

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

BILL M205 — POST-SECONDARY SEXUAL
VIOLENCE POLICIES ACT, 2016

A. Weaver presented a bill intituled Post-Secondary Sexual Violence Policies Act, 2016.

A. Weaver: I move introduction of a bill intituled Post-Secondary Sexual Violence Policies Act, 2016.

Motion approved.

A. Weaver: It is estimated that one in four female university students will be sexually assaulted during the relatively short amount of time they spend on campus. If that number seems startling, then keep in mind that when the University of Ottawa recently did a student survey on the issue, 44 percent of female students experienced some form of sexual violence or unwanted sexual touching.

Within our province, we’ve heard of numerous assaults that have taken place over the last few weeks, with a variety of different responses. It is with this in mind that I introduce the Post-Secondary Sexual Violence Policies Act.

This bill requires colleges and universities to have sexual violence policies that set out the process that will apply when incidents and complaints of sexual violence are reported. It is critical that we establish a legal requirement for our post-secondary institutions to have sexual violence policies that educate, protect and support our students.

This legislation would actively involve students in the development of these policies and ensure that univer-
[ Page 11162 ]
sities are adequately reporting and responding to incidences of sexual assault.

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

Bill M205, Post-Secondary Sexual Violence Policies 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)

EQUALITY FOR WOMEN

M. Karagianis: As we have acknowledged, today is International Women’s Day. It’s a day to celebrate the social, economic, cultural and political achievements of women worldwide.

I am very proud to stand here as one of only 102 women elected to the British Columbia Legislature since 1871. It’s astonishing to realize that in the province’s first 100 years, only 17 women were elected as MLAs, and all the gains have been made since then. Earlier this month we welcomed the two newest members of our assembly, women representing Vancouver–Mount Pleasant and Coquitlam–Burke Mountain. It took 145 years, since B.C. became a province, to elect the first, First Nations woman, the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant.

It has been a long journey since the very first International Women’s Day in 1911. In fact, women in B.C. only received the right to vote and run for office in 1917, six years later. In the struggle for genuine equality for women and girls, we have made great strides, but progress has slowed recently, and the World Economic Forum now says that at the current rate, it will take until 2133 to close the gender gap in elected office across this country. That is another 117 years. I think we can do better than that.

This year’s theme for International Women’s Day is “Pledge for parity.” All of us can pledge to take concrete steps to help women and girls achieve their ambitions. Each of us can lead the way to encourage gender balance, fairness and equity and to root out bias in the workplace. Women and girls will not be truly equal until they are all afforded the same opportunities, are protected from discrimination and are safe in their communities and in their homes.

I’m proud to stand in this place with women from both sides of this House and recognize the challenges that all of us face. I’m inspired by those who came before us. As we mark International Women’s Day, I say thank you to those that led the way. Let’s continue their good work and do better in the future for all women.

J. Tegart: I could almost say ditto. As the MLA for Fraser-Nicola and the government caucus chair, I’m proud to rise today and speak about International Women’s Day. It’s a day to celebrate. As the old advertising slogan from the 1960s said: “We’ve come a long way, baby.”

[1025]

In B.C. politics — and I can talk from personal experience — we surely have come a long way. In my political career I served three terms on town council, was school board trustee for 17 years and served as the chair for 15 of those years. I’m also the former president of the B.C. School Trustees Association. All this was during a time when not a lot of women held these kinds of positions.

Here at the B.C. Legislature, I’m proud to say that women on both sides of this House now occupy 32 of the 85 seats in this once all-male domain. It’s almost 38 percent of B.C. ridings that are represented by women, the highest proportion in Canada. Adorning the wall just outside this House, portraits of the current Premier, the current Speaker, and the current Lieutenant-Governor hang proudly. Of course, all three are women. How times have changed.

Madame Speaker, I have read that when you were first elected as an MLA 25 years ago, there were three restrooms for men in the B.C. Legislature and none for women. Yes, we’ve made great progress, but we still have a long way to go.

I wish for a day when women and girls feel safe and are full equals in every way in every corner of the world, a time when there is no longer a need for a special day to highlight the fight for gender equity. Thank you very much, and congratulations to all the women in this House.

WOMEN IN AGRICULTURE

L. Popham: This morning, all across British Columbia, there are women hard at work doing what they love: farming. There has been a remarkable trend in agriculture in B.C. as more and more young women are establishing themselves in the agriculture sector. To me, farming is one of the most important jobs in our province. I want to salute the women in agriculture and thank them for all the hard work they do, because we all benefit.

Today is also a day to acknowledge the tremendous hard work of the women who prepared the earth for today’s new farmers. There is a generation of senior women farmers who I know are joining with me today to marvel at how normal it has become for young women to farm.

It’s women like Mary Alice Johnson and Heather Pritchard, who continue to farm, mentor and contribute to the vibrancy of agriculture in B.C. Also women like Mary Forstbauer and Cathleen Kneen, who have, sadly, said goodbye to us this year but whose contributions we continue to benefit from.

I recently spoke of Mary Forstbauer in this House, but I want to take a moment to acknowledge the great loss
[ Page 11163 ]
of Cathleen Rosenberg Kneen, who died on February 21. There is not a more fitting day to do this than International Women’s Day.

Cathleen Kneen was one of Canada’s leading activists, beginning her efforts on the campaign for nuclear disarmament in the 1960s. She campaigned tirelessly for women’s rights and was the executive director of the Toronto assaulted women’s help line for many years. Cathleen Kneen moved to B.C. in the 1990s. Many of us already knew her as a leading force behind the influential Ram’s Horn newsletter.

Kneen helped start farmers markets in Mission and Sorrento, and she was the founder of the B.C. Food Systems Network. She also helped found Food Secure Canada and was its chair for many years. In the words of Abra Brynne: “Now we all have to adjust to a world without that warm voice, wonderful laugh and boundless wisdom in service of community and people. She brought out the best in each of us and helped us understand the role we can each play in nourishing our communities.”

Please join me in acknowledging the remarkable life of Cathleen Kneen, and to thank all the women in B.C. who are growing our food and nourishing the land for future generations.

INNOVATIVE CLEAN ENERGY
FUND AND PROJECTS

J. Sturdy: I will take the opportunity to acknowledge three women in my life that do a lot of farming. That’s my wife and two daughters as well. Thank you for bringing that up.

I am rising to speak today about the innovative clean energy fund, or ICE fund. It’s designated to support the province’s energy, environmental and greenhouse gas reduction priorities. Funding of $11.9 million was recently announced for three programs.

While the $1.25 million that has been announced to support Saltworks Technologies of Vancouver in designing and building two demonstration pilots, using their innovative wastewater treatment technologies, and the $6.89 million that the clean energy program has been allocated for clean energy vehicle purchase incentives and the expansion of the public and residential charging systems are both great initiatives, the announcement that really excites me is the $3.75 million that will go to Carbon Engineering to support the design and construction of a synthetic fuels demonstration plant in Squamish.

[1030]

This plant will use carbon dioxide captured from thin air to synthesize into gasoline or diesel fuel. The project will deliver the world’s first air-to-fuel plant and will work to demonstrate that it is technically and economically viable to produce low-carbon fuel using carbon captured directly from the atmosphere.

This is potentially game-changing — low- to no-carbon fuels technology which can have application around the world for energy storage and transportation. Locally, the short-term objective is in producing carbon-neutral synthetic diesel to power the municipal bus fleet in Squamish.

This type of innovation has the potential to help the world begin to bend the greenhouse gas production curve down and reduce anthropogenic interference with the climate system.

I would like to congratulate Adrian Corless and the team at Carbon Engineering and wish them luck in proving out a technology that can ultimately make a difference for all of us.

WOMEN IN AVIATION

V. Huntington: Everyone remembers their first time in a plane, the first time they left this earth to become part of the beyond. For those of us who were overjoyed, flying became a lifelong love. Such a moment struck my constituent Mireille Goyer, who not only learned to fly but who also became a leading advocate for women in aviation.

In 2009, when Mireille realized there were no plans to celebrate the centennial of the first pilot licence awarded to a woman, she decided to do something about it. Mireille organized the Institute for Women of Aviation Worldwide, and she has never looked back.

It is the institute that started the international campaign that marks the Women of Aviation Worldwide Week and that promotes the global advancement of women in the aviation industry.

Fewer than 6 percent of our Canadian pilots, flight engineers and flying instructors are female. While progress is being made, a boy remains three times as likely as a girl to be offered the opportunity to visit air and space facilities and to experience the wonders of flying in a small aircraft.

Women of Aviation Worldwide Week works to change this dynamic not only by educating girls and women about the role female aviators have played in the industry but, perhaps more importantly, by helping them visualize a future as aviators.

This year’s celebrations will take place at nearly 100 events in 36 countries across five continents and will attract over 50,000 visitors. In Canada, there are events in ten provinces and territories — four in B.C. alone.

The Institute for Women of Aviation Worldwide provides a template for these events and offers scholarships and prizes for the girls and women who take that first flight in a small aircraft. My congratulations to the organizers who make the week such a resounding success. I’m proud to say it has roots in Delta South.
[ Page 11164 ]

THOMAS HANEY SECONDARY SCHOOL AND
PERSONALIZED LEARNING MODEL

D. Bing: You could be forgiven for mistaking the wide hallways and large open spaces of Thomas Haney Secondary School for a university campus. This is not your typical high school.

Thomas Haney Secondary School, in Maple Ridge, is a trail-blazer in the personalized learning field. Twenty-four years ago the school helped pioneer a new teaching model, one that offers fewer structured classes and more free time, where students learn at their own pace and have more of a say in what they are learning.

The self-paced model at Thomas Haney was designed to better foster creative problem-solving, time management and lifelong learning. Students don’t attend classes like traditional schools. Students begin by attending five classes a day in grade 8 and then have fewer required classes and more discretionary time to complete their work in grade 9. By grade 12, they have a fairly wide-open schedule.

The open concept towards learning is mirrored in the building’s architectural design. There are wide-open learning areas, community space, and the school is wired for laptop use by all teachers and students.

Anyone who has ever had children will tell you the self-paced model makes sense. Initially, the model was met with skepticism from parents. However, the school’s success over the past 24 years has helped to change minds.

[1035]

Provincial exam scores have been consistently above provincial and district averages. Educators across the country and as far away as Australia routinely visit the school to see how the Thomas Haney model can be successfully applied elsewhere.

Everyone agrees as to the secret of the school’s success over the last 24 years. Former school superintendent Mike Suddaby said it best: “It’s the teachers, the staff and the parents. They believed in the model, and they made it happen.”

Oral Questions

RESIDENTIAL CARE BEDS AND HOME CARE
SERVICES IN FRASER HEALTH AUTHORITY

J. Darcy: Yesterday the Minister of Health stood up to defend his decision to close acute care beds in Fraser Health, the fastest-growing region in British Columbia — 35 beds at Surrey Memorial, 11 more in Burnaby, ten in Chilliwack, ten at Peace Arch. And there are more.

The minister claimed that closing acute care beds was a good thing because they’re creating residential care beds. Except Fraser Health’s own ten-year plan said that 1,518 residential care beds should be added by 2015 — another broken Liberal promise.

How can the minister claim that falling short by nearly 1,000 residential care beds is something for this government to cheer about?

Hon. T. Lake: I said yesterday, and I’ll say it again today, that Fraser Health is making sure that the services they provide to the patients in their health authority are, in fact, the services those patients need. The fact is that about 10 to 11 percent of patients in acute care beds are those seniors that are waiting for residential care placement or to be repatriated back to home with increased supports.

What Fraser Health is doing is providing the supports in community, with 413 new beds in the community just this year alone. That will provide opportunities to relieve the stress on acute care hospitals, making sure the patient flow is seamless and providing the appropriate care for people in residential care.

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

J. Darcy: The Minister of Health conveniently ignores the fact that this government has already broken its promise and is 1,000 beds short of what they promised ten years ago.

Let’s remember who we’re talking about. These are our parents, our grandparents and our loved ones at the most vulnerable point in their lives. The minister’s rhetoric, frankly, is cold comfort for seniors in Fraser Health who are waiting for residential care or home care.

According to the January report of the seniors advocate, the demand for residential care beds in Fraser Health has grown three times faster than the beds that have been put in place, and that means seniors are waiting longer for care. When it comes to home care, seniors are pleading for more hours that they cannot get. Once again, the government is giving with one hand and taking away with the other.

How can the government possibly defend its own actions when seniors are not getting the care and the dignity and support that they deserve?

Hon. T. Lake: You can talk to MLAs that have been in this House for a long period of time, and they will tell you that there was a time when, every day in their constituency offices, people would come in because they could not find a placement for their father or their mother or their elderly aunt or their husband or their wife. That was a daily occurrence in the constituency offices of MLAs in British Columbia.

Since 2001, we have added 7,400 publicly subsidized residential care, assisted-living and group home beds. No longer do we have a lineup of people to get into constituency offices finding a place for their parent or their loved one, because we have filled that gap, and we’ll continue to invest in resources in seniors care in this province.

[1040]

ACUTE CARE BEDS IN
FRASER HEALTH AUTHORITY

S. Hammell: Yesterday the minister chose wilful blindness over accepting the problem — the lack of acute care beds in the Fraser Health region. However, looking at Fraser Health’s report card tells the real story.

At Surrey Memorial Hospital, close to 70 percent of emergency patients wait in the ER more than ten hours to be admitted. Photo ops in a new building but the same old emergency room waits — and now cuts to acute care beds. Give with one hand, and take away with the other.

Will the minister explain why the Liberal government is cutting 35 acute care beds at Surrey Memorial Hospital while 70 percent of patients wait and wait for access to the emergency care they deserve?

Hon. T. Lake: Last week I was at Nanaimo Regional General Hospital, where there is a fantastic new emergency department with state-of-the-art electronic health records.

I recall the member who asked the question at the grand opening of the Surrey Memorial Hospital. She was there as we opened a brand-new facility in Surrey, in her riding. That’s added….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Hon. T. Lake: The member for New Westminster was
[ Page 11166 ]
with us when we turned the sod on the $258 million first phase of the Royal Columbian Hospital redevelopment.

Last week the Minister of Transportation and I toured the clinical services building, the $80 million addition to Royal Inland Hospital. It’s only one of two phases of a $400 million redevelopment of Royal Inland Hospital, in Kamloops.

In town after town in the province of British Columbia, we are investing in first-class health care facilities in British Columbia because that side never did.

Madame Speaker: Surrey–Green Timbers on a supplemental.

S. Hammell: It’s not just Surrey Memorial. Sixty-three percent of patients wait in the ER for more than ten hours to be admitted to Peace Arch Hospital. At Chilliwack Hospital, it’s 70 percent. At Abbotsford Regional Hospital, it’s 68 percent. At Delta, three out of four patients are waiting for more than ten hours to be admitted to the emergency.

All the minister can talk about is bricks and mortar, while patients are left stacked in emergency rooms and lying for days in hallways.

Will the minister tell this House what he’s doing to fix the unacceptable waits for health care in the Fraser Health region and start by putting a stop to cuts to acute care beds?

Hon. T. Lake: There’s a reason that the member who asked the question was so enthusiastic attending the opening of the new Surrey Memorial Hospital. It’s because she didn’t get to go to any openings when she was a member of government. Her government did not build Abbotsford Regional Hospital, despite promising they were going to build Abbotsford Regional Hospital.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Hon. T. Lake: It was her government that closed Shaughnessy Hospital. It was her government that closed over 3,000 acute care beds across the province of British Columbia.

On this side of the House, we are building new facilities in Comox, Courtenay, Kamloops and Penticton. We finished in Vernon, in Haida Gwaii and the new Children’s and Women’s Hospital in Vancouver. Community after community is seeing investment in health care because nothing ever happened when those people across the aisle were government.

[1045]

CONTRACT FOR LAUNDRY SERVICES AT
INTERIOR HEALTH AUTHORITY FACILITIES

M. Mungall: Last week, the Mines Minister told the House that his government couldn’t be bought. Well, maybe. Maybe not. One thing is certain. Leases for 20 years are certainly available. Ecotex Linen got a 20-year deal to do Interior Health’s laundry. This is the same Ecotex that has donated more than $125,000 to the B.C. Liberals since 2005.

To the Minister of Health: why did this government give a huge 20-year deal to a favoured B.C. Liberal friend?

Hon. T. Lake: I would say to the member opposite that, first of all, it’s about providing health care. If we can demonstrate, through the business plan, that $35 million will be saved that can be put to front-line health care, we will do that every single day.

I can tell you that I have spoken personally with the CEO of Interior Health, who is following every one of the members of the HEU affected by this decision, to offer employment opportunities with Interior Health. They will make sure….

However, I would like to point out that while that member insinuates that this government can be bought because of $135,000 — wait for it — over ten years to the B.C. Liberal Party for a company that actually just lost a contract in the Lower Mainland…. Do you know what the HEU, the member’s union, the members that are affected, donated to the NDP in ten years? It’s $1.1 million. While the member for New Westminster was the business manager for the HEU…. Under her watch, she signed off on donations of over $300,000 to the NDP.

M. Mungall: We’re talking about a contract worth tens of millions of dollars here, and it’s handed to the friends of the Liberal government. How do they justify it? Well, they can’t. The minister talked about a business plan, but there is no business plan. Oops.

And there’s no justification for a closed process. That’s exactly what we saw with this — a closed process that will cost the health system even more money. It’s $10 million to do laundry services in-house, and $11.5 million a year is going to Ecotex instead. Why did the government put the interests of their donors over the needs of our health care system?

Hon. T. Lake: The reality is that this was a procurement process that has been fair from the start. Ecotex demonstrated, through their business plan and in competition with other companies, that they could provide value for money. This is a company that will build a new facility in the Interior that will employ 90 to 100 people and save $35 million. It also is the same company that did not win a contract in the Lower Mainland. That went to another company.

However, I just find it so ironic that the member doesn’t understand the accusations she’s making about buying interest, when the union representing the member she’s talking about gave over $1 million to the party sitting over there. I find it shocking that that is lost on her. We will always do what’s right for the citizens of British Columbia and provide excellent health care, not worrying about those members’ friends, necessarily, to influence our decisions.

[1050]

M. Elmore: Without clean supplies, without clean hospitals, there can be no direct, safe patient care. This is not a frill or an extra. Clean supplies are essential to proper health care. The government accepted this when it chose not to outsource the laundry services at 100 Mile House. So why is the minister willing to put the hospital in his own community at risk by sending this work out to a B.C. Liberal donor?

Hon. T. Lake: It’s shocking that even in the face of facts, members opposite can’t change their key messages that have been written for them ahead of time. The reality is the business plan showed…

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Hon. T. Lake: …that it made sense to do the larger hospitals in a contract. The smaller hospitals, it was determined through the business plan, would be best left in-house because of the distances for travel and other considerations in the business plan. Where it makes sense, where we can save money for the health care system, we’ll make that decision every single time.

Madame Speaker: Vancouver-Kensington on a supplemental.

M. Elmore: In 2004, the Liberal government embarked on the largest mass firing of women in Canada’s history by handing pink slips to nearly 9,000 health care workers. A large percentage of those workers were immigrant women. Now to satisfy the needs of one of its large donors, the Liberals have decided….

Interjection.

Madame Speaker: Minister.

Continue.

M. Elmore: Thank you, Madame Speaker.

Now to satisfy the needs of one of its large donors, the Liberals have decided to eliminate another 100 well-paying, family-supporting jobs. The minister has decided to eliminate the jobs of 100 workers, mostly women, so that one of their donors can get another rich contract. In doing so, he’s putting hospitals in the Interior at risk. Why?

Hon. T. Lake: Let me just go over the numbers again — $130,000 over ten years from one organization to a political party. In the same period of time, $1.1 million to the NDP. So I think the member should at least preface her statement by saying: “On behalf of our donors, I would like to ask the following question.”

Interjection.

Madame Speaker: Burnaby–Deer Lake.

Continue.

Hon. T. Lake: I take no comfort that someone will have a change in their life in terms of the job that they are doing. However, that is why I had a personal discussion the CEO of Interior Health, who assures me they will follow each member affected to offer them placements within IHA. I am confident that we can do that — that people can continue to work and live in the communities they are now and that we will save $35 million that will go to front-line health care serving British Columbians.

HOUSING AFFORDABILITY IN LOWER
MAINLAND AND VACANT PROPERTIES

J. Wickens: The city of Vancouver is just releasing its results on a report of vacant homes and the impact on lo-
[ Page 11167 ]
cal residents. The report shows that 12 percent of condos have been vacant for a year or more, equivalent to two to three years of new construction.

[1055]

Can the Minister of Finance explain why Vancouver is doing more to get data on vacant homes in the Lower Mainland than he is?

Hon. M. de Jong: Thanks to the member for the question. She may have received an advance copy. I did not. I have one in front of me now.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. de Jong: I am, Madame Speaker, a ridiculed minority.

The subject matter is a serious one. I have not read the report. I do note that — during question period, as I quickly perused it — apparently, one of the findings is that the non-occupancy rate has been flat since 2002. I’ll study the report. I think it’s important that the data be collected. Clearly, the government has taken steps to enhance the available data around the housing situation in Vancouver, Metro Vancouver.

I will, however, say that at the same time I got this report, CMHC released a report, and the two headlines I’ll refer to are as follows: “February 2016 Housing Starts Surge in British Columbia” and “February 2016 Vancouver Housing Starts Reach Their Highest Level in 25 Years.”

There are no simple solutions to the challenges facing the question of housing affordability, but seeing an increase in supply and enjoying the benefits of all those workers who will be involved in a surging housing market in British Columbia is a pretty good place to start.

Madame Speaker: Coquitlam–Burke Mountain on a supplemental.

J. Wickens: The report actually also suggests that vacancy rates in Vancouver are linked to vacancy rates across the Lower Mainland. This is a problem in Coquitlam; it’s a problem in Port Coquitlam. In other words, it is not just a Vancouver problem. When is the province going to take real steps to get a handle on real estate speculation, vacancy rates and the impact it has on families and people trying to find an affordable place to live in the Lower Mainland?

Hon. M. de Jong: I won’t profess to try to emulate the member’s expertise in analyzing a 31-page report in the about three minutes that I’ve had it before me.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Continue.

Hon. M. de Jong: Insofar as I accept that the member is genuinely concerned about the issue, I would have thought, and continue to hope, that she will embrace, applaud and support some of the steps the government has already taken to make the dream of home ownership a more likely prospect for people.

Reducing the property transfer tax that they will pay on homes right across British Columbia to an extent that the family can save $13,000 — the member had a chance to articulate her support for that and chose not to. I’m sorry about that, but that was a decision that she and, I guess, her colleagues made.

The government takes very seriously and continues to work diligently to make the dream of home ownership a reality for British Columbians in Vancouver and right across this province. Very early indications are that the steps that have been taken are having a positive impact. Housing starts are up. People are working in the construction sector. They’re coming back to British Columbia. That’s why we’re leading the country in economic growth.

[1100]

SEXUAL ASSAULT SERVICES

M. Karagianis: Well, here’s a sobering statistic. One in three women will experience a sexual assault at some point in their lifetime.

The minutes and hours immediately after an assault or a rape are crucial. Immediate counselling, forensic evidence-gathering and proper storage of that evidence are imperative to the recovery of the victim and the likelihood of conviction in the justice system.

Just this weekend there were two sex assaults in Burnaby. Sex assaults in Surrey went up 40 percent last year. We are far from solving this problem, but the government is doing nothing to address it. In fact, there is not even a system-wide sexual assault policy in British Columbia.

I’d like to ask the Justice Minister: why not?

Hon. T. Lake: I’m pleased to answer. This is a very important question.

As a father of three brilliant young women, I know that there’s a lot of concern to make sure that women that are the victims of sexual assaults be taken care of. It is important to note that general health care for sexual assault patients is provided at any hospital emergency, urgent care or primary care facility throughout the province. That includes, obviously, assessment for injury, offering medication for pregnancy prevention, prevention of sexually transmitted diseases, assessment of HIV risk, crisis counselling and referral to community agencies.
[ Page 11168 ]

The member mentioned two really terrible incidents. There are hospitals in the Lower Mainland and there are hospitals throughout the province of British Columbia that do provide forensic rape kits, which are available. It’s important that we have proper expertise when these are managed to ensure there’s a chain of evidence that will be carried through to the court system in order to increase the probability of conviction.

We’ve increased those services, most recently into the Squamish area. We will continue to look for ways that we can extend this service throughout the province.

Madame Speaker: Esquimalt–Royal Roads on a supplemental.

M. Karagianis: Someone who has just been raped should be able to get help at the nearest hospital. I think the minister just talked about that.

UBC, which has a hospital right on the campus, sends women who have been traumatized to Vancouver General Hospital in a 30-minute taxi ride across town. These women, who have just been violated, cannot bathe. They cannot comb their hair. They cannot care for themselves in any way before the rape kit is administered, or they will destroy vital evidence. Yet, according to UBC, they say: “All hospitals in the Lower Mainland refer everyone to VGH to provide this service.”

It is absolutely unacceptable for a woman raped in Langley or Burnaby or anywhere in the Lower Mainland to be forced to drive across the Lower Mainland to find a hospital that can support her after this kind of trauma. No wonder so few of these assaults make it into court.

Now, I’m going to address this question again to the Minister of Justice. She’s a woman and, I believe, would have more empathy for this situation. When will the government make good on their slogan of a violence-free B.C. and ensure every hospital in British Columbia is equipped to support rape survivors?

Hon. T. Lake: It’s amazing what politics will cause people to stoop to. Here’s the reality. We are reaching out wherever we can to increase those services.

I think the member makes a good point about UBC. It’s a large campus. There’s a hospital there, a large number of women on campus at potential risk. So we will work with Vancouver Coastal. I will take that personally to Vancouver Coastal and look at whether we can extend that service to UBC Hospital.

As I mentioned, there are other large hospitals in the Lower Mainland that do carry out the complete range, including the forensic rape kits that are needed for the chain of evidence. I do want to emphasize again that every hospital, every urgent care centre and every PharmaCare centre will provide resources for women that find themselves the victims of a terrible assault like this.

I take the member’s point about UBC Hospital, and I will take that up with Vancouver Coastal.

[1105]

J. Rice: The situation is worse for women in northern British Columbia. If a woman is raped or assaulted along the Highway of Tears, she has to drive many hours to a hospital that has a rape kit. She may be left waiting for many hours unbathed, traumatized and in distress.

To the minister: why isn’t there a provincewide protocol taking into account the particular needs of rural and remote British Columbians?

Hon. T. Lake: Because we recognize it’s a very dispersed geographical region in the north and facilities are obviously dispersed as well…. In fact, in the north, sexual assault exams are performed at all hospital emergency departments with physicians or specially trained nurses that do provide these services.

[End of question period.]

Tabling Documents

Madame Speaker: Hon. Members, I have the honour to present the following reports: the Ombudsperson special report No. 36, Bylaw Enforcement: Best Practices Guide for Local Government; and the Auditor General report, The 2014-15 Public Accounts and the Auditor General’s Findings.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: In Committee A, Committee of Supply — for the information of members, the ongoing estimates of the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations. In this chamber, ongoing second reading debate of Bill 3.

Second Reading of Bills

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

(continued)

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

D. Donaldson: I am rising to take my place in the second reading of Bill 3, the Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Amendment Act.

I note that in the bill…. It is brought in, in the words of the minister, “to reduce red tape” and to make some exceptions for what is defined as “classes of persons” or “persons with disabilities.” That enables some exceptions to filling out a 28-page application form or requiring additional assessments by medical practitioners each
[ Page 11169 ]
year for people to apply for assistance under the disabilities act.

Specifically, the bill, as the minister talked about in first reading and in introducing her second reading comments here, was in application to four particular areas: making the application process more streamlined for some people under Community Living B.C.; for some, eligibility under the Ministry of Children and Family Development; for some people, eligibility under B.C. PharmaCare plan B; and for some recipients of the Canada Pension Plan disability support.

This, as the minister introduced, was something that can help, in the words of the minister, “up to 1,000 people in the province.” I acknowledge that for those up to 1,000 people, this would help. Obviously, not having to fill out a 28-page government form every year and requiring additional assessments by medical practitioners every year, when you’re a person with a disability and your disability hasn’t changed, is perhaps the epitome of avoiding red tape. As usual with many of the bills introduced by this government, when you do a closer analysis, some interesting facts come forward.

[1110]

I think what we have to put this in is in the context of where this 28-page form came from in the first place. In fact, it was introduced by this B.C. Liberal government back in the early 2000s. Really, what we’re doing here and what we’re witnessing here is the government actually patting themselves on the back for reducing their own red tape. As much as I acknowledge that up to 1,000 people may benefit from this act, in the context of the fact that it was the B.C. Liberal government that introduced this 28-page form in the first place, that kind of patting yourself on the back is somewhat interesting.

Again, to put this bill in context, along with the 28-page form that was introduced in the early 2000s — in 2002, I believe — it was the same time that this government launched a radical restructuring of income assistance, which this bill relates to, in January 2002, and announced a budget cut of 30 percent, or $581 million, over three years — the largest budget cut of any ministry.

I would also add — since the minister, in her second reading remarks, talked about the transition of children in the Ministry of Children and Family Development part of this bill — that at the same time as those cuts were happening, $380 million in today’s dollars was cut from the Ministry of Children and Families budget as well.

So we see the context of the bill — some massive restructuring in two ministries that relate to this legislation in front of us today. The impacts of those cuts — $581 million over three years in this ministry, or what was this ministry at that time, and $380 million in real dollars in the Ministry of Children and Family Development — are still being felt today by people with disabilities and also children transitioning out of care. That’s the context.

Again, as much as I laud the ability to reduce the onerous 28-page form for perhaps up to 1,000 people, it’s also got to be seen in the context that this was the government that introduced the form in the first place — and the onerous requirements that people with disabilities have had to live with for 14 years.

For 14 years, this government had the opportunity to introduce this legislation that we’re considering today, and didn’t do it. So 14 years of people with disabilities, in the categories listed under this bill, having to fill out a 28-page form every year when their situation had never changed — it’s on the shoulders of the B.C. Liberal government today.

The minister, in her introductory comments, talked about up to 1,000 people. When we see that kind of vague number, I look forward, in the committee stage, to hearing what up to 1,000 people means. Surely, the government, with all its resources, and the minister, with all the resources at her disposal in her ministry, would be able to break it down a little bit better than that. When you say it’s up to 1,000, is it 500? Is it 600? Is it 999? Those are the kinds of numbers that people would like to know and that I would like to know, especially in relation to the Ministry of Children and Family Development part of this bill.

What I would look forward to at committee stage is a breakdown of how many people per year that, the minister believes, will be benefiting from this bill, Bill 3, under the four categories that she has described in the bill.

[1115]

Those categories, once again. How many people in the up-to-1,000 total would be benefiting from this under Community Living B.C. per year? How many people, up to that 1,000 total, would be benefiting from this under the Ministry of Children and Family Development’s At Home program? How many people, up to that 1,000, would be benefiting from the B.C. PharmaCare plan P palliative care part of the legislation, and how many people under the Canada Pension Plan disability category, up to that 1,000? To have that breakdown, I believe, would be important and part of the numbers that the minister should have at her fingertips.

As spokesperson on the ministry for the official opposition, for Children and Family Development, I especially took a keen focus on the Ministry of Children and Family Development’s At Home program, part of this Bill 3.

Just as a little background, the At Home program is something that assists parents with some of the extraordinary costs of caring for a child with severe disabilities at home through a range of health supports and services. This is, of course, up to when a child — in this case, a child with disabilities — ages out of care, or goes past the age of 19.

In that case — and, as advertised at the At Home program, under medical benefits — young people with disabilities 18 years of age or older may qualify for persons-with-disabilities financial and supplementary health assistance through the Ministry of Social Development.
[ Page 11170 ]

From what I understand, the intent of this bill would be that, for those particular young adults who are transitioning out of care, there wouldn’t be a duplication of that 28-page form. The requirements for filling out that form might be waived in order for those people and the young adults to not have to go through that onerous form that was introduced by the B.C. Liberals back in 2002. I’d like a confirmation of that, under Bill 3, when we get to committee stage. That’s the interpretation I have with it.

Really though, it is a small amount of people. Even if a few of those are benefiting from this, that’s good, but again, it’s up to 1,000. Especially under the Ministry of Children and Family Development’s At Home program, how many of up to that 1,000 are going to be able to benefit from Bill 3 and from this legislation?

That’s a number we need to get, because what the bill doesn’t address is really a root issue when it comes to children transitioning out of care — the comments that were highlighted under the minister’s opening remarks under this second reading. What really the issue is that Bill 3 doesn’t get to is that issue of support for children aging out of care.

I want to point out that a recent poll has indicated that the majority of British Columbians now believe foster children — for instance, the children that we’re talking about under Bill 3, under children with disabilities — should receive government support into their 20s. This bill is talking about reducing the onerous application process for children aging out of care, but what it isn’t getting at is the fact that many of the supports for those children, when they do age out of foster care, aren’t available anymore to them.

As this poll suggests, more than 70 percent of residents polled said they would favour extra support for young people who age out of foster care at 19 — all the way up until they turn 25. Three-quarters of those polled backed extending the age of foster care past 19 so youth would not lose all of their financial and emotional support at such a vulnerable age. This was an Insights West poll that was conducted in January — or the results just came out in January.

Again, Bill 3 deals with a subsection of that, but it doesn’t get at the real issue that you’re reducing red tape but not addressing the important issue — as the minister talked about in her opening remarks, young adults transitioning out of care of the ministry.

[1120]

Also of note in that poll was that this was a huge increase in the number of people in the province who believe — almost 75 percent now — that foster care should be extended past 19 and up to 25. Three years ago it was only 38 percent.

This is important, and we know that foster children need that kind of support. In fact, after that survey came out, a young woman who was in the position of having aged out, moving out of a group home and getting less government support, Meredith Graham, was quoted as saying: “When you are facing turning 19 and you have nothing ahead of you and no way to support yourself and the government is dumping you, it’s very intimidating.”

This is not a new issue to the government. I know in Bill 3, they’re trying to address a specific part of assisting people who are under Ministry of Children and Family support to have an easier process after they transition out of care, or out of that support, at age 19. But it really is tinkering when it comes to the larger issue.

If we’re looking at that larger issue and we’re looking at Bill 3, you have to ask yourself the question of why we’ve seen that jump in public opinion from 38 percent three years ago to 75 percent today around why people are more in favour of children who transition out of foster care receiving the supports they used to receive after they turn 19 all the way up to 25. Well, the reason is that we’ve seen in the past year a number of very disturbing cases.

Again, Bill 3 does not get to the crux of the issue. It gets to some bureaucratic solutions around apparently reducing the onerous 28-page form, but it doesn’t get to the crux of it.

The kind of issues that have arisen, and that we’ve highlighted in this chamber as well, have to do with some horrific circumstances. Carly Fraser was a young woman who, after turning 19, lost her life. She was last seen on the Lions Gate Bridge. She had transitioned out of all of the support that she had before she was 19 under the ministry.

Alex Gervais is another well-known situation, a young 18-year-old man who was about to transition out of care, who was housed in a hotel for many months contrary to policy and fell to his death from a fourth-floor window.

Again, Bill 3…. Although it looks at one aspect of that transitioning, as the minister pointed out in her opening comments, it would do nothing to alleviate those two situations and the situations those people are facing.

Then, perhaps the most troubling case that no doubt has influenced public opinion and the desire for people in this province to see support for those 19 to 24 who have aged out of foster care — supports that other provinces have to a greater degree than we have in B.C. — was the case of Paige. That was highlighted last year as well in a report from the Representative for Children and Youth that came out in May of 2015.

That is a well-known story. It was Paige’s story. We know that she was a young woman who died of a drug overdose 11 months after aging out of care. She had turned 19. Again, would this Bill 3 and what is being proposed under Bill 3 have helped in Paige’s case and in Alex Gervais’s case and in Carly Fraser’s case? Unfortunately, no it wouldn’t.

[1125]

Again, with Paige, this was a young woman who had been in and out of care of the ministry. She had moved 40 times by the time she was 16 between residences with
[ Page 11171 ]
her mother, between foster homes, between temporary placements in shelters. After her mother moved to the Downtown Eastside in September 2009 with Paige, Paige again moved another 50 times, until she died two years later — another 50 times, between homeless shelters, safe houses, youth detox centres, couch-surfing, foster homes and single-room-occupancy hotels.

Again, Bill 3. I recognize and I commend the minister for the somewhere between zero and 1,000 people that it will assist and, somewhere in that total, for the number of young people with disabilities who are receiving Ministry of Children and Family Development support who will then not have to fill out as onerous a form as the Liberals introduced in 2002. But it’s not getting at the crux of the matter when it comes to young women like Paige. What actually would get at the crux of the matter with a young woman like Paige were some of the recommendations that the Representative for Children and Youth made as a result of her investigation into that horrific and tragic death.

This was a young woman who had more than 30 incidents that were recorded with different agencies in the province. It was the Ministry of Education or Ministry of Health. She had been in and out of hospitals throughout the time she was in care. It was the justice system. She had many, many police reports — intoxication in public and those kinds of things. It was with social service agencies or others. Only once was any of this reported to the representative.

How this relates, again, to Bill 3 is that if you really wanted to get at the crux of the matter, you would be introducing some legislative change in that aspect. Bill 3, as I said, goes to a small portion of those children in care who are transitioning, but it doesn’t get at the bigger issue, and this government hasn’t got at that bigger issue.

I find that unfortunate. Again, I acknowledge the minister for the section of the bill that deals with children in the At Home program under the Ministry of Children and Family Development and the difference it can make in the application process — however many that might be. Again, in committee stage we’d like to hear how many in that up to 1,000 that would be, but it doesn’t get at the bigger picture at all.

A little bit of tinkering at the edges is what we see on an onerous form that the B.C. Liberals themselves introduced in 2002. So 14 years later they’ve recognized the injustice of what they created and are now making some exceptions and trying to make amends.

The other aspect of the bill that I want to discuss has to do with the Canada Pension Plan disability aspect. From what I understand, the intent of the bill is to avoid duplication so that those people receiving Canada Pension Plan disability perhaps would not have to fill out another form in order to receive support provincially under persons with disabilities.

Something that, I believe, is part of that 28-page form has been pointed out to me in a letter I received by a person living on the Sunshine Coast who actually has qualified under their Canada Pension Plan disability allowance and also is receiving support as a person with disability in B.C. What they’ve pointed out, though, is that in this form that they have to fill out, which the legislation, Bill 3, is trying to address….

[1130]

This letter writer points out to me that his Canada Pension Plan disability is deducted dollar for dollar from the persons-with-disabilities monthly support that he receives.

I think he has a very good argument, and I’d like to hear the minister’s response on this, either now or in committee stage, as it relates to Bill 3. He has an argument that he paid into the Canada Pension Plan disability program as a working person and feels that, under the form that Bill 3 is trying to address, the support he receives from that CPP disability is deemed unearned income and, therefore, is deducted from his persons-with-disabilities monthly support.

In effect, he’s receiving federal dollars. One could typify this as the province therefore saving money by clawing back provincial dollars from his support, because the federal dollars, the CPP that he paid into as a worker, is deducted dollar for dollar from his monthly persons-with-disabilities support. Some people would cast that in light of: “Well, the province is finding ways to claw back money on the backs of someone with a disability.”

What he is saying is that in the form, as discussed in Bill 3…. This 28-page form, instead of deeming his CPP disability, which is part of the focus of this Bill 3…. Instead of designating it as unearned income, he sees it as earned income, because he paid into that as a worker, and the reason he paid into it is he was employed. And so instead of that being deducted dollar for dollar, he makes a proposal that his CPP disability — that the amount he receives each month — could be applied to the monthly exemption or the annualized earning exemption that allows people with disabilities who receive support from the province to earn up to a certain amount a month without impacting their PWD support. Again, he would like to see some rationale for why he cannot deduct his CPP disability or put it in that category, and therefore it wouldn’t be deducted from his monthly support as a person with a disability.

Again, this relates to Bill 3. If we’re trying to reduce red tape, there’s an excellent example of reducing red tape that this bill doesn’t address but could address, because part of this bill is focused on those receiving a Canada Pension Plan disability allowance. Again, why is that necessary? Well, costs are absolutely higher for everybody in this province. And when you’re on a fixed income, such as people with disabilities are, the costs, as we’ve seen, rise astronomically under this Premier — you know, electricity costs going up 28 percent under this Premier, an average of $325 per household.
[ Page 11172 ]

If you’re looking at Bill 3 and looking at a way to reduce red tape and also address the affordability issues that this government has made worse for people on fixed incomes, like people with disabilities, then in Bill 3, why not address the fact that perhaps a person receiving a Canada Pension Plan disability would not have to have that deducted from their persons-with-disabilities monthly support and could apply that towards earned income?

You know, that would float the boat a lot better for a lot of people, a lot of persons with disabilities in this province, who are facing an astronomical increase in electricity costs under this government and an astronomical increase in ICBC rates — 30 percent under this Premier. That, again, for persons with disabilities who are fortunate enough to be able to have their own transportation…. They’re on a fixed income, and this Bill 3 does nothing to acknowledge that at all.

[1135]

Finally, I would like to leave off with…. Many of the people who have spoken to this bill have referenced the increase in support, and I’ve pointed out how costs have gone up, actually, for people with disabilities. It makes me think, again, of why a government — in this case, especially, of people receiving social assistance — would give with one hand and take back with another.

Others, in their comments to Bill 3, on the government side, have spoken about how proud they are of an increase in funding. Yet why would you claw back? Why would you give money on one hand, a $77-a-month increase, but claw back on a bus pass system? When asked, the minister said it was about $35 million a year if they didn’t claw back on the bus pass system.

Yet here’s a government that’s put $100 million into a prosperity fund for the Premier to use on her pet projects. Why would you do that? That’s a choice. You took $100 million in this budget, put it in a prosperity fund that was supposed to be supported by LNG, taxpayer dollars, and yet you can’t support a bus pass program for people on social assistance.

I’ll leave it there on my comments on Bill 3. Again, it will make a difference for people in a limited number of circumstances — up to 1,000 a year — but it doesn’t address the bigger issues that we see facing, especially, young adults transitioning out of care at age 19 in this province.

G. Holman: I guess I’m pleased to speak to this bill, although, as one of my colleagues indicated earlier, there’s a kind of a sadness here for me around this very small, incremental step to try and improve the lives of people who are among the most vulnerable in British Columbia.

I do want to talk a little bit about the context for the bill. I understand we’re supposed to focus on Bill 3, but I do think context is important. Who are we talking about? Does the bill actually help those people? How did we get here? What’s the history here?

The bill itself defines the people that we’re talking about — persons with disabilities — as persons with severe physical or mental impairment. So we truly are talking about some of the most vulnerable people in our society. I guess the first question to be asked is: does this bill really help? Does it really help those people?

As many of my colleagues have spoken before, there is an incremental benefit here. The onerous on-line application form is being simplified. But as many speakers have noted, this is the same on-line form that was brought forward by this government back in 2002, so it seems like they’re cleaning up their red tape just a little bit. I suppose one must be grateful for small mercies, but this certainly is a small mercy, and it’s red tape actually introduced by this government back in 2002.

Actually, to me it’s inconceivable that these changes could have even been contemplated and made at that time. Now we’re taking a small step to rectify some of those changes that have been made historically — but changes that impacted the lives of the most vulnerable people in British Columbia. It really is hard for me to believe that they were made.

[1140]

A number of speakers, including my colleague just a few moments ago, talked about making choices and the choices this government has made. This is a very clear example of the kind of choices this government has made for 15 years. Just to look a little bit at the history of the changes that we’re contemplating today, back in 2002, the then minister responsible for the file introduced a number of changes. The Liberal government introduced a number of changes that affected not only persons with disabilities, but people on low income who were receiving social assistance from the province.

There were huge budget cuts that initiated a whole series of impacts on some of the most vulnerable people in British Columbia.

In January 2002, a budget cut of 30 percent, or about $580 million over three years — the largest budget cut of any ministry…. Actually, the cuts grew a little bit subsequent to that announcement. The move came as a complete surprise, since no mention was made of welfare reform in the Liberal platform of the day.

When asked about the issue directly, during the 2001 election, then Premier Gordon Campbell replied: “We have no intention of reducing welfare rates.” Well, that’s not what happened.

In terms of persons with disabilities in particular, the then minister of the day subjected these folks to a very wasteful and intimidating review to determine, in fact, whether they actually were persons with a disability. The review cost taxpayers $3 million and found that in fact, the vast majority of people who were claiming PWD benefits were persons with disabilities.

This is the history that’s so important to understand, because these very minor changes are being made now, a
[ Page 11173 ]
year before the election. Without that historical context, many people might believe: “Well, this is a step forward. That makes sense. Government is making it simpler for folks to apply on line.” If you don’t understand the history, you don’t understand, really, what’s happening here, which is a small, incremental change a year before the election, where government is attempting to soften its image.

Just to speak a little bit more about those changes that were made during that period, the information bulletin released later…. This is now later in this government’s tenure, in 2010. The information bulletin was titled “Province Protects Services for Low-Income Clients.” But the reality was that the release outlined a long list of services and programs that would no longer be available to people with disabilities, to seniors and to people who live on low income or collect income assistance.

What’s that phrase used in Orwell’s novel, about doublespeak? That’s an example of doublespeak right there.

For example, this is the on-line application. The complications referred to there…. The appeal process — the options for appealing individual welfare decisions concerning denial, discontinuance or reduction of benefits — was limited. Funding for poverty law legal aid was eliminated not many years ago. This is the context. This is the history in which these very modest, incremental changes are occurring.

It does speak to a government whose priorities aren’t really to protect the weakest and the most vulnerable in society. Their priorities are to protect their stakeholder groups, the groups that support them both financially and otherwise. These decisions are a very clear indication of government’s priorities — and in our view, on this side of the House, very distorted priorities.

[1145]

My office deals with persons with disabilities on a fairly regular basis, and we hear firsthand the financial and other difficulties they face in dealing with this particular provincial government. So it certainly is of importance to my constituents, I believe.

As elected officials, it seems to me that one of our most important jobs is to represent people who don’t have the ability and the wherewithal to defend themselves when they’re dealing with a very large provincial government. That’s part of our job as an MLA. This bill takes a very, very minor step towards helping those folks, but incremental indeed. Seen in the historical context, it really is kind of sad, actually.

I won’t speak long about this, because I know it’s not directly involved with Bill 3. But the bus clawback issue that is so controversial and is so objectionable…. Really, that’s the kind of thing that could help these folks a lot more than just this tinkering around the edges — to provide folks in this kind of situation with the income and the services they need to lead a reasonably normal life, a life in which they can contribute to society. Actually, that would be better for all of us, if we could provide better supports for these people.

That’s a bit about the history, who we’re talking about. How does this bill help?

I do want to refer just briefly and quickly — and noting that we don’t have much time left here — to a fairly recent review by the Auditor General of British Columbia. He looked at the provincial programs around persons with disabilities and came to some fairly striking conclusions and made a number of recommendations which don’t really seem to be taken up by this government and certainly are not addressed, at least in large part, by Bill 3. Bill 3 ignores most of the recommendations and the findings of the Auditor General of British Columbia.

The Auditor General found that the disability assistance program is not easy to access for clients. This bill goes a small way to try and address that for a few hundred people, perhaps up to 1,000 people. There are tens of thousands of people who are receiving benefits and who are in this situation. So the bill only helps a few people.

The Auditor General also found that eligibility decisions are too often not made in a timely manner and that the ministry has not completed a comprehensive evaluation of the disability assistance program. If you don’t evaluate programs like this, if you don’t try to understand how and whether it’s helping or whether measures could help more…. If you don’t do that kind of work, then you can’t really put forward rational, logical improvements that would help people in these circumstances.

The Auditor General also found that the ministry has not defined clear objectives and measurable targets that define what it means to meet the basic needs of clients. That’s an example of what I was saying. If you don’t do that kind of work, how can you expect to truly help folks in this situation?

Finally, the Auditor General found that the level of assistance provided to persons with disabilities is not enough to meet the basic needs of clients. That’s a fundamental conclusion there. We go back to the modest increase in pension that government has provided and then take away the clawback, and you can see that government has not addressed this key and fundamental problem at all.

[1150]

The Auditor General did make some suggestions for improving service levels to persons with disabilities. They suggested that additional information could be collected on the client’s needs and used to address accessibility barriers for vulnerable clients. Government could 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. It could develop and implement additional strategies to ensure that timely, accurate and consistent services are provided through a toll-free telephone service, which I understand is actually quite
[ Page 11174 ]
difficult to access and to actually get a human on the telephone for people in these circumstances.

The Auditor General recommended that a comprehensive evaluation framework for the PWD program be developed that sets objectives, targets and benchmarks; sets standard measures to track whether clients can access appropriate shelter, food and other necessities; establishes a baseline and targets to measure employment success for clients; and, in partnership with other agencies, defines, tracks and monitors a range of health and social indicators to assess the broader range of outcomes.

Those are some of the things that government could be working on in a much more concerted way. Certainly, the very modest increase in the monthly rate over a nine-year period for which it was frozen doesn’t come close to addressing the needs of these people, some of the most vulnerable people in British Columbia.

Again, to go back to priorities for government, what are the priorities historically? That huge cut in services and supports to folks with PWD and on income assistance — that was accompanied by a huge tax cut that disproportionately benefited high-income earners in British Columbia.

That’s been the priority for this government — to reward its supporters and its corporate friends. Corporate income tax rates have been steadily reduced over time. And that was back in 2002. More recently we find the same pattern with this government. Their priorities have been consistent throughout their 15-year term.

In 2015, the single largest budget item that the Liberals felt was the most important thing to do was to give a $230 million tax cut to the top 2 percent of income earners in British Columbia. That’s their priority. And then, of course, in this most recent budget — the so-called $100 million LNG prosperity fund that, in fact, is not funded by LNG revenues, which are zero, but is funded, essentially, by increases in MSP rates….

That’s a clear indication of the priorities of this government. It’s been a bit sad. I’m actually a little bit embarrassed for members on the opposite side justifying Bill 3, making comments like: “We continue to refine our social assistance policies” and “There’s always more we can do when finances allow.”

Well, finances do allow. And this government could have chosen…. Instead of giving $230 million to the top 2 percent of income earners in British Columbia, they could have actually made a substantive increase to disability payments in this province.

Deputy Speaker: Member, let’s keep our comments relevant to the bill.

G. Holman: They chose instead to provide that tax cut for high-income earners — a very clear indication of what the priorities of this government are. There are very explicit choices made here. There’s a slight softening of the government’s image as it approaches the 2017 election, but it’s lipstick on a pig. This government, for 15 years, has indicated where its priorities are, and it’s for its wealthy corporate friends and not for people who really need assistance in this province.

We will be supporting this very modest piece of legislation, because some modest help for folks in this situation is better than nothing. We will be supporting this bill, but with heavy hearts.

G. Holman moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

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

Hon. M. Polak moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Deputy Speaker: The House stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.

The House adjourned at 11:55 a.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); J. Yap in the chair.

The committee met at 11:11 a.m.

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

G. Holman: Two quick questions, because I know time is of the essence here — one with respect to derelict vessels and the other with respect to the Shawnigan Lake issue. The second one first.

It’s my understanding…. I did ask the Minister of Environment whether Shawnigan Lake has a community watershed designation or something like that. That’s one question. Both of these, actually, we can follow up after as well, off line.

The second question is with respect to derelict vessels. As you know, a long-standing problem, but I wanted to
[ Page 11175 ]
put it on the table for my constituents and many constituents in coastal communities — a real concern about lack of progress on the derelict vessel issue. Can the minister just briefly describe the state of play now? We have a new federal government. Just quickly address that.

On both these issues, we can take them up further off line.

Hon. S. Thomson: Certainly, on the first question, we’ll take that off line and provide the response.

Just in terms of the second question, derelict vessels, as the member opposite pointed out, it’s a complex issue, multi-jurisdictional. We’ve talked about this before. We have sent a letter to the new federal Minister of Transport asking to be engaged on the file. We hope that we’ll be able to move forward on that. It is going to take a coordinated cross-jurisdictional response to it, and we’ll continue to work on it.

We recognize the challenge, and we recognize the need to look to longer-term solutions for that. We’ve worked with local governments to find specific solutions. We’ve addressed very specific areas where there is significant environmental risk in cooperation with local governments, MOE and the federal government. But a coordinated, longer-term framework is needed, and we have reached out to the federal minister on that.

H. Bains: Minister, we canvassed the Forest Enhancement Society a bit yesterday. I have a few more questions on that. Looking at the clock, we have some other issues, but I want to go through this.

If the minister could confirm that the $85 million that is set aside for this Forest Enhancement Society…. Is it included in the Natural Resource Operations total expenditure column for the year of 2016-17?

[1115]

Hon. S. Thomson: As we confirmed yesterday, this funding, which is being provided to the Forest Enhancement Society, is from the ’15-16 Q3 report, and we pointed to the reference where that is. It’s not in the ’16-17 budget, in terms of the expenditures of the ministry. It comes from ’15-16 — provided to the society.

As I said, we will look to continue to provide additional contributions to the society as the opportunity arises and to bring partnership dollars and other support to the society as we move forward with the initiative.

H. Bains: Thank you for that answer.

Next I would like to ask the minister…. The minister yesterday told the House that $85 million is for 2015-16 money being rolled over into a society controlled by the board of five, without terms of references. He also said that non-government board members were to be paid a per-diem rate of $300. The minister also told us that the strategic focus of this society will be to target its expenditure towards the fireproofing of the high-hazard forests around the communities. Yet I looked at the board and their background, and the society’s board does not have a representative from municipal governments or the communities.

Would the minister please tell us if the $85 million grant has already been paid to the society, or will it be paid to the society before the end of 2015-16 at year-end or before the beginning of the 2016-17 fiscal year? So is it forward, before the end of fiscal 2015-16, but before the beginning of the 2016-17 fiscal year?

Hon. S. Thomson: To confirm, the funding will be provided to the society before the fiscal year and before March 31 of this year. It will be provided through a transfer agreement, which will outline the objectives and the expectations in the transfer agreement.

In the establishment of the society, it has “purposes of the society.” The objectives of the work that the society will do will be laid out in the purposes of the society.

It’s important to recognize that the two programs will be complementary. The forest enhancement program and its objectives, including the broader objectives of wildlife habitat and others in the program, are on a broader scale.

[1120]

It will work on a complementary basis with the strategic wildfire interface program, which is the support that’s directly provided to municipalities. It will be complementary to those initiatives, but it will be on a broader scale — some in relation to communities, some on a broader basis on the landscape.

The Forest Enhancement Society, as I indicated yesterday, will be undertaking an engagement strategy with all interested parties including communities, including local governments, including First Nations communities in the development of their programming.

The response and the feedback I have had from communities, from all parties that are interested in this, is an appreciation, a recognition of this investment. People are excited, interested to engage, to look forward to the Forest Enhancement Society getting underway. They had their first meeting, and they’re going to continue to engage. They will have the objectives in the transfer agreement, and the funding will be provided to them before March 31 of this year.

H. Bains: Will members of the public and the members of this House be able to obtain bank statements, records of the society through freedom of information? Is it subject to freedom of information? That’s question No. 1. And No. 2, will all of the information — the bank statements, their financial statements, all of that — be available to any member of the public, and is it subject to freedom of information?

Hon. S. Thomson: The society is a registered society and will be subject to the legal obligations of a society — annual reports, audited financial statements of
[ Page 11176 ]
the society. They’ll be required to maintain all of those obligations, just as other societies do, in order to maintain their legal status.

In terms of the specific question around FOI legislation, I’m not sure of that answer specifically. We will undertake to follow up and get a specific answer to that. What I do know is that they will be required to provide annual reports and audited financial statements, and there will be a transfer agreement from the province that will require a reporting to the province.

H. Bains: I just want to make this clear. I don’t think anyone would argue or quarrel with $85 million being set aside for fire prevention programs. The question is: how are you going about it? It’s been 12 years since it was brought to the government’s attention, the need to do the work around the communities to clean up those areas and to protect the communities from future catastrophic fires like we experienced in 2002-2003.

That’s not the question. The question is: how are you going about it? This is completely new. It wasn’t subject to any of the budget discussions last year in this House. Quietly, the government, in the third quarter, decided, from its regular revenue, to move it over and set it aside and create a society or a charity to do the work that the government normally does and has the responsibility for. And this year again there’s $10 million for that purpose also. Now this society is being created.

[1125]

I’ve never seen government granting $85 million. It’s not $850. Societies get and the charities get from the government different kinds of grants, from $1,000 to $100,000. This is $85 million, Minister — not $850, not $8,500, not even $850,000 but $85 million of taxpayers’ money.

I haven’t got the answers clear. It seems to me it is completely removed from the democratic oversight. It’s completely removed from this House’s oversight. All of a sudden, the government has decided to create a society and grant them $85 million out of your regular revenues in the ministry. It’s probably the largest amount of any of the ministry programs that I’ve seen, or close to it. I think it raises serious questions.

I would suggest this to the minister. Having two assistant deputy ministers sitting on this society’s board administrating $85 million of public money without government oversight…. Would the minister tell us if he discussed having public servants sitting on the society’s board with conflict of interest?

It is, after all. They’re working for the government. They’re sitting on the society. I don’t have any qualms about their qualification — great people. But it’s how it is seen in the public eye, $85 million without oversight. Is there a conflict of interest?

Hon. S. Thomson: Again, I would acknowledge, this is a very significant investment, as the member opposite said. It will be transferred over to the society. The society is not a charity. The society is set up to have a specific purpose. The funding will be transferred across with a transfer agreement, which will require accountability and reporting to the ministry, which then becomes the subject of the debate here when we deal with future estimates.

We do a number of these. We’ve put $78 million across to UBCM. There was no complaint about the transfer process each year when we found the opportunities to do those. We have other societies that we work with that are good models: Freshwater Fisheries Society, Habitat Conservation Trust Fund, the beetle action coalitions. All of those are societies where government support has been provided.

[1130]

As I said in the previous part of the debate, we looked at the model here as a way to do it so that we could provide the vehicle that would be able to leverage and get additional resources to build on the capacity of the organization. We expect that that will happen.

Public servants sit on many boards for our ministry. They are subject to their public oath. We would not have appointed them if there was any conflict. They sit on the board of the Habitat Conservation Trust Fund. They sit on the board of the Freshwater Fisheries Society, as I mentioned.

I’m confident that the board that we’ve appointed will provide very sound stewardship of the society. We look forward to their work getting underway. As I said, people are interested, excited. The engagement process is beginning, and we look forward to delivering programs through this society that will reduce risk to communities, enhance forest health, deal with wildlife values on the landscape — important initiatives that many people have been calling for. We’re pleased to have had the fiscal room to be able to provide this initiative and the support and look forward to its work.

H. Bains: Let’s maybe summarize what the concerns are, Minister.

Can the minister confirm that this society will have legislative oversight, will be subject to public accounting, will have oversight by the Auditor General, will be subject to the freedom-of-information requirements of British Columbia’s laws and will have all the makings and oversight as if this money was being handled just like that $10 million is being handled, with all of the oversight included — just like every other expenditure of this government and of this ministry file? That is the concern.

If the minister can say yes to all of those, perhaps that will satisfy many people that may have concerns over this. The minister compared this to $10 million or to $78 million that was issued to the UBCM. Those are elected governments. They are subject to laws, just like this government is. It’s not the same thing. I think that’s the difference here. I understand that you may have other societies,
[ Page 11177 ]
but nothing comes close to $85 million, that I could think of, in this government.

I think those are some of the concerns. If the minister can give us an answer in the affirmative on those issues that I put to the minister, perhaps some of the issues may be…. It may satisfy some of the concerns that people may have.

[1135]

Hon. S. Thomson: As I said, the society is governed by the laws of British Columbia, by the legislation under the Societies Act. That includes public reporting. It includes an audit process. The activities of the society will be fully transparent in the process. There will be a transfer agreement from the province that outlines their obligations through…. The public servants on the board will maintain the oversight of the ministry. They are subject to legislation. The Society Act lays out obligations around reporting, oversight, financial management and audit. The society will be responsible for and legally obligated for all of those.

H. Bains: I think that’s my concern, and that concern hasn’t been addressed. It will be governed under the Societies Act, not under the legislative and the public accounts requirement of this House. That’s the concern. It’s public money, $85 million, handed over to a private society. They will not be….

Hopefully, the minister will correct me. He doesn’t have the answers to them today. I put those questions, all of those areas: if they are subject to each one of those that I mentioned in my previous question. If they’re not, that is a serious, serious concern that anybody in the public would have — it’s their hard-earned money — so that it doesn’t become another slush fund for the B.C. Liberal Party to do whatever they want to do to help their friends. I hope that’s not the case.

I mean, the only way to address that concern is that the minister will come back and give us the answer that yes, it is subject to legislative oversight. Yes, it is part of the public accounting. Yes, it has the oversight by the Auditor General, and it is subject to freedom-of-information access. If he comes back with yes to all of those areas, then and then only will this issue be resolved.

I want to move on to BCTS questions, a few in the little time that I have. Perhaps quickly, if the minister could tell us: what was the total revenue and total expenditure for the year of 2015-16 and ’16-17 for BCTS?

Hon. S. Thomson: As the member opposite knows, the BCTS is supporting the province’s market pricing system. Their expenditures are projected to increase by $9.6 million from ’15-16 to $180 million in ’16-17. This is a direct result of increased projected harvest volume and increasing road construction and cost production.

[1140]

The specific figures the member asked for, in ’15-16…. This is projected revenue, because the year isn’t complete yet. The expectations are that the projected revenue that I’m going to state for ’15-16 will actually be higher than the current number that I have here, because we don’t have the final numbers. But gross revenue for ’15-16 of $279.8 million; for ’16-17, in plan, $276.8 million.

Interjection.

Hon. S. Thomson: In ’16-17, it is the projected gross revenue. Expenditures for ’15-16, again, projected $193 million, and for ’16-17, $215 million.

H. Bains: My other questions here are these. When I was reviewing this year’s quarterly reports from BCTS, the one indicator tells a fairly strange story. I just don’t understand this.

In the first quarter, BCTS only advertised 65 percent of the total volume it had planned. The explanation on the side here lists the operation issues as the cause. Then only two of the 12 business areas achieved their planned sales volume for the quarter.

But in the second quarter, the number jumped to 125 percent of the planned number, and again, two of the 12 business areas achieved their targets. Four underachieved; six overachieved — to compensate, again, for the operational issues. That is the reason given. Third quarter, the number jumps further to 163 percent of the planned numbers, so all to compensate for the dismal first quarter. However, three business areas continue to underperform.

The measure, it seems to me, is intended to measure the reliability of the market, but based on these numbers, this supply is anything but reliable. Could the minister comment on this roller-coaster that I have described?

[1145]

Hon. S. Thomson: B.C. Timber Sales works to establish their volume, their sales targets, over the business cycle and by the end of the third quarter had achieved 86 percent of their targets. By the end of the fourth quarter, we expect they will have substantially achieved the plans. There are targets, as I said, that go over the business cycle. There are always fluctuations, because we have timber laid out previously that’s secure and available to the industry.

We work closely with the industry. We work to have as even a flow as possible with the industry. Generally, the response that we’re hearing from industry is they’re satisfied with the progress that we’ve made in B.C. Timber Sales. It was part of a significant initiative around the effectiveness of the program, and we’ve worked closely with industry to make sure that we can continue to make the volume available as consistently as we can.

There’s a lot, probably a lot more, behind this. I’m prepared to have a further discussion with the member opposite, recognizing the interest of time.
[ Page 11178 ]

H. Bains: Before I put my final question and just noting the hour, I just want to say thank you to the minister. I think the last three or four days — and last year, I would say — have been very professional in the way the minister has conducted himself, and I appreciate that. I think everyone who is watching these debates would appreciate that this is how we can actually have a very constructive discussion on issues that are very important to the public out there. So thank you, Minister.

Also, I want to thank the staff. There were times when it was a bit of trying times because it seemed that we are putting you under scrutiny. It’s not you. I said that in the beginning. You’re only doing what you are given. It’s the lack of leadership — I’ve said that before — of the government that put you in, in very, very tough situations. I know that you want to do a much better job and bring this industry back to what it used to be during its glory days.

I want to thank you. Nothing was a reflection on your ability, your skills and your dedication to the forest industry, which still is probably the key industry, in my view, in our province. I personally have benefited from this industry, and I hope our coming generations will continue to benefit — the benefits that this generation and previous generations have.

My question is again on BCTS. Also, there are a number of questions that I’ve still left out. We haven’t touched on the inventory issue. We’ve got a lot of little questions on BCTS and other areas. We’ll put those questions in writing, and we’ll expect those answers back in writing as well. I appreciate the minister committing to that.

I’m looking at, again, the third quarter of the BCTS and the graphs. It seems to me that there are timber sales which include measures of deliverables against the targets I’m looking at here. The B.C. Timber Sales target for their road construction, for example, was 211 kilometres; the actual result is 85. The target for site preparation was 6,835 hectares; the actual result is 5,224 hectares. The target for number of bridges was 144; the actual result, 55.

The question is: how can we continue to maintain faith in BCTS when it so dramatically missed these targets?

And once again, thank you, all of you.

Hon. S. Thomson: I’m noting the hour, so a very quick response. We’ve been through an extensive process with the effectiveness review of B.C. Timber Sales, involving industry. As I said, industry is satisfied with the significant progress we’ve made in the effectiveness of the organization. In terms of the specifics that the member asked around the third quarter, we’ll take that as one of the questions that we’ll provide a response to in the number of questions that I know the member opposite is going to provide for us.

I would just like to, as well, thank staff for their support. They do a great job. This is a very, very important ministry. I’m proud to lead the ministry.

[1150]

The industry has come through a very difficult time, and we’re in the process of building the competitiveness of this industry. Jobs are increasing. Export value is up. New markets have been developed. We’re working on competitiveness. We’re working on significant initiatives in wildfire and community protection.

I’m proud of the work that this ministry is doing and look forward to continuing to work with staff and with the industry on moving this sector forward and continuing to provide those critical revenues that are so important to British Columbia for health care, education and social services.

Those are my closing comments. I think I can turn it over to you.

Vote 27: ministry operations, $426,148,000 — approved.

Vote 28: fire management, $63,164,000— approved.

ESTIMATES:
OTHER APPROPRIATIONS

Vote 53: Forest Practices Board, $3,814,000 — approved.

Hon. S. Thomson: I move that the committee rise, report completion of the resolution and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:52 a.m.

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

Copyright © 2016: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada