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)

Wednesday, May 11, 2016

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 39, Number 7

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

WEDNESDAY, MAY 11, 2016

The House met at 1:35 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Blessing and Presentation of the
Talking Stick

Madame Speaker: Hon. Members, I call the House to order and welcome the very special guests who are with us in the chamber today. I would like to introduce Chief Ronald Sam of the Songhees Nation; Chief Jeff Jones, Port Renfrew nation; and Chief Gordon Planes, T’Sou-ke Nation.

I now recognize elder Elmer George and elder Mary Anne Thomas to offer a prayer blessing for this Talking Stick. Please rise.

[Prayer and blessing given by E. George and M. Thomas in the SENĆOŦEN language.]

Madame Speaker: Hon. Members, it is now my honour to suspend the regular proceedings of this assembly to extend a special welcome to our guests today and to receive the Talking Stick on behalf of all members.

Chief Ron Sam from the Songhees Nation.

R. Sam: Hello, everybody. I’m very honoured to be standing here with you all today on behalf of our nation, Songhees Nation.

[1340]

At this time I’d like to invite the fellow chiefs to come up and stand with me. And if I could just have Elmer and Mary Anne off to my side here, off to the left.

I just thank everybody in this House. I thank the Speaker for working with everybody to make this day happen and to present this Talking Stick, this gift, that was given to Lieutenant-Governor Steven Point from my late uncle, our late chief, Robert Sam, in 2010.

As I said in my comments outside earlier, for it to be sent on a journey by my uncle and to where it’s going to rest for the rest of its life…. You know, because this speaking stick does have life, and it carries a lot of respect with it, as was also mentioned by Minister Rustad.

I’d like our two elders…. Because it’s our elders and their guidance as to where we are as a people today — also our ancestors. I’d like to call Mary Anne and Elmer forward to present this gift to the Speaker. We present it to everybody in this House but also to everybody that may come through these doors in the future.

You know, we just wish everybody all the best in all of the work that they do on behalf of their communities and their people. Like us, we work on behalf of our community, and if we remember that every day, it’s only going to make good things happen on behalf of all in this great province that we live in.

If I could have our two elders present this gift to the Speaker on behalf of all nations on this end of the Island.

Madame Speaker left the chair.

M. Thomas: First of all, before we present this to our special lady here, you know this is a real long breath — this Talking Stick. It’s about working together and being patient with each other. That’s what our late Chief Bob Sam did with these people — the legacy that he left behind.

We’re so honoured today to present this to our Speaker. This is going to come a long way, and it’s going to help your ŚW̱ЌÁLEC̸EN and heart and mind — to everyday life that you face.

We’re just honoured to present this.

E. George: On behalf of the Songhees First Nation, our late Chief Bob Sam, Chief Ron Sam, all of the other chiefs, the elders of the Songhees and Esquimalt First Nations, we present this Talking Stick. [Applause.]

Madame Speaker resumed her seat.

Madame Speaker: It is indeed a privilege to receive this stick on behalf of the Legislative Assembly in the province of British Columbia. Its placement in our midst is a symbol of the contributions of First Nations in our province and will be a reminder that all First Nations are near and dear to our hearts.

Hon. Members, I thank you for your kind attention during this presentation. We will take a moment to allow our special guests to depart the chamber.

Thank you so very much. [Applause.]

Routine Business

Madame Speaker: We will now resume regular House proceedings. I welcome the introduction of other guests.

[1345]

Introductions by Members

J. Horgan: I just want to add to your remarks and to Chief Sam’s and to say how much I enjoyed participating with the Minister of Aboriginal Relations today in a ceremony of the receipt of the Talking Stick.

I also wanted to introduce two chiefs from the territory that I represent in this Legislature: the traditional territory of the Pacheedaht people and Chief Jeff Jones, and the traditional territory of T’Sou-ke First Nation and Chief Gordon Planes.

I would also just add, after their eloquent words, that I am grateful they’re not staying for question period to see how long they would last.
[ Page 12978 ]

Hon. J. Rustad: For all of us in the chamber, it’s rare that we would witness and be part of a changing of the traditions that are in this Legislature. But by the introduction of this speaking stick, gracefully given, of course, by the Songhees and the Esquimalt people, we have now taken what was a European tradition and brought First Nations, brought the people of this land, into this chamber to make it part of our proceedings. I just wanted to extend my thanks to the Songhees and Esquimalt for this great gift.

L. Reimer: It’s my great pleasure and my great honour to introduce today to the House my wonderful colleagues and friends from our tri-city Korean community. We have Mr. Ron Byeung Gil Suh, president of the National Unification Advisory Council of the Republic of Korea, western Canada chapter, with us. We have Sung Kee Lee, chief vice-president of the National Unification Advisory Council of the Republic of Korea, western Canada chapter. We have Grace Jong Eun Lee, vice-president of the National Unification Advisory Council of the Republic of Korea, western Canada chapter.

Grace is a wonderful performing artist. If any of you ever get an opportunity to see her play the piano, it’s absolutely beautiful.

We also have with us Duyeol Kim, executive director of the National Unification Advisory Council of the Republic of Korea, western Canada chapter. We have Mr. Raymond Jee, who’s a director with our C3 Korean-Canadian Society. We have Ms. Aekyung Woo, director of the Vancouver Korean-Canadian Scholarship Foundation.

We also have Esther Chung Ferguson, director of the Vancouver Korean-Canadian Scholarship Foundation, and Mr. John Jihan Kim, director of Sharons Credit Union board of directors, as well as Ms. Sue Hongsook Kim. She is the mother of Steve Kim, who I’ll be introducing in just a moment, and Ms. Kyung Ok Kim as well.

Of course, we have with us a member of our provincial multicultural advisory committee, a board member of Place des Arts and also a member and director of the Canada Korea Business Association, Mr. Steve Kim.

Would the House please make them all very welcome.

H. Bains: It is my great pleasure to introduce to this House representatives of the Council of Forest Industries. The board members are led by the president and CEO, Susan Yurkovich — I’m sure many members of this House are familiar with that name; Jess Ketchum, president; and Ted Seraphim, chair, representing the industry mostly from the Interior, industry that built this province.

These are the people that are captains of the industry. They lead this industry to have so many — tens of thousands — good, family-supporting jobs all over British Columbia.

When we met with them this morning, along with my leader and other members of our caucus, the optimism that was portrayed by those representatives, I think, made me feel that our future is brighter in the forest industry. I want to thank them for continuing to make our industry one that would lead our economy in the future and lead us into the future. Please help me to welcome them to this House and give them a warm welcome.

Hon. S. Thomson: I also would like to welcome all the representatives from the Council of Forest Industries that have joined us here today.

[1350]

I had the opportunity to meet with their board this morning. They’ve met with members of this side of the Legislature, with both sides of the Legislature, today to bring the message about the importance of the forest sector to British Columbia.

These companies, these representatives, represent the greatest majority of the Interior forest industry in British Columbia — communities throughout the Interior. These companies are the bedrock of many of the communities. They create jobs and economic activity throughout the region and make a very, very important contribution to the province.

With the group, just to show the breadth of the representation: Susan Yurkovich, who is the president and CEO of COFI and who gets to manage and corral this group of companies, doing a great job in representing the industry and managing the council; Ted Seraphim, who’s the chair of COFI and the CEO of West Fraser; Ron Gorman, who’s the CEO of Gorman Bros. from the Okanagan — I won’t show my bias, but a great company out of the Okanagan; Rob Novak, the CEO of Dunkley Lumber; Ken Shields, the CEO of Conifex; Greg Stewart, CEO of the Lakeland–Sinclar Group; Steve Zitka, the CEO of Babine Forest Products; Fred Dzida, who is the CEO of Weyerhaeuser Canada; Alan Fitzpatrick, who’s the president of Nechako Green Energy and the general manager of Nechako Lumber; Kevin Belanger, vice-president of products for Domtar; Mac Palmiere, who’s the regional operations manager for Louisiana-Pacific; Nick Arkle, who is the chair of the COFI management committee and also vice-president of Gorman Bros.; and Andrew Horahan, who is the vice-president of B.C. operations for Interfor.

I’d ask the House to join me in welcoming them here today and making them welcome in this House.

Hon. T. Lake: This morning I had the pleasure to have breakfast and meet with some visitors from the Interior Health Authority. It seems to be Interior day today. First of all, I want to introduce Mr. Erwin Malzer. He’s the chair of the IHA. Erwin is a certified corporate director, a certified management consultant, but more than that, he is someone who is dedicated to transformation of the health system.
[ Page 12979 ]

Our board members, especially our chairs, put in yeoman’s service, lots of hours that they dedicate to this. Erwin is here today, along with the president and CEO of IHA, Chris Mazurkewich, who joins us, coming back from Alberta, to once again work with IHA and lead their senior executive team; and someone that’s no stranger to this building, the vice-president of communications and public engagement, Mr. Jamie Braman.

Would the House make all three of these IHA officials very welcome.

J. Darcy: I’d like to join with the minister in welcoming the senior leadership at Interior Health Authority. Some of my colleagues from the Interior and I had an excellent opportunity to meet with the CEO, the board chair and the VP of communications to discuss their strategic plan for Interior Health and also to share concerns that we hear from constituents in communities throughout the Interior. So I’d like to join with the minister and all members in the House in making them feel very welcome in the Legislature today.

Hon. S. Cadieux: I am pleased to introduce four people today who were here this morning to talk to us about Covenant House Vancouver at breakfast. I also had the pleasure of meeting with them over lunch.

The executive director, Krista Thompson, who is also a YWCA Woman of Distinction, is here. She works tirelessly, and has for many years, on behalf of youth who are facing extreme challenges in life and offers them a place that is safe, open and nurturing so that they can grow and succeed.

Accompanying her is Laura Mills, also from Covenant House. With them is board member and a not-so-long-ago member of this House, Geoff Plant, who also joined us for lunch — and that, of course, meant for an entertaining time. As well, with them is a friend of mine from New Westminster, Hector Bremner. If the House would please make them all very welcome.

[1355]

J. Horgan: I want to join with the Minister of Children and Family Development. Rare is the time that you can raise a point of order during introductions, hon. Speaker, but as a former Attorney General, I’m certain that Geoff Plant would know that a cravat is in order while sitting on the floor of the Legislature. I don’t know if the speaking stick is now going to give us some liberty in this regard. Perhaps we can consult my learned colleague across the way.

Despite the absence of a necktie, I certainly would also join with the minister and welcome Geoff Plant back to the Legislature.

Hon. M. Polak: Our Langley Central Rotary Club, in my riding, does tremendous work promoting youth leadership, and today is no exception. We’re joined in the chamber by Adolf Dalke and Terry Smith from the Langley Central Rotary Club.

They brought with them students Isabella Gamba and Kendra Yoshizawa, who joined me for lunch. I have high hopes for both of them. They’re extremely bright young ladies, and I know that our future is in good hands with the ambitions that they have.

Also joining us in the Legislature today is my executive assistant, Alex Shiff. Would the House please make them all very welcome.

G. Holman: It’s my honour to introduce a remarkable grade 12 student from Stelly’s Secondary School in my constituency, Ottalie Garvin. Ottalie has cerebral palsy, but she refuses to let that stop her. She recently completed a 30-kilometre climb in the Mount Albert Edward area of Strathcona Park with 20 of her peers in up to 13 feet of snow.

Ottalie’s in the gallery today with her parents, Ken and Carrie Garvin, and with Abby Gibbs and Daniella Ledet, two of Ottalie’s fellow grade 12 students who accompanied her on this climb. Abby and Daniella have completed all five of the climbing trips offered by Stelly’s over the last two years. Finally, with Ottalie is Paul Ledet, a teacher at Stelly’s and the organizer for the climbing group. He’s led these trips 64 times over the last 23 years.

We can all learn from Ottalie and her peers about perseverance, positive thinking and teamwork. Would the House please make Ottalie and her guests feel very welcome.

Hon. A. Virk: It’s my pleasure to introduce a group of enthusiastic, energetic young individuals that comprise an 11-person team, the B.C. Liberal interns for the summer. With us, we have, seated behind us here somewhere — I’m sure the opposition can see them — Ben Walls, Jonathan Okey, Byron Lee, Dylan Decalso, Julia Panuk, Taylor Vral, Linda Hwong, Laura Chen, Alexandra Barberus, Niall Pathill and, last but not least, somebody that I’ve known for about 23 years and, I think, one hour….

I know the exact — because it’s my daughter, and it’s her birthday today. Anisha has inherited, luckily, her mother’s good looks and her mother’s good disposition and, I think, something from me.

Would the House please welcome all 11 of them and wish my daughter happy birthday as well.

Hon. S. Anton: , It is a historic day today with the Talking Stick and a good day to introduce a historic law firm. In May 1866, which is 150 years ago, Ernest Bodwell and Theodore Davie started a law partnership in Victoria. The firm later merged with another Victoria firm, Crease, Davie and Co., to become the firm of Crease and Co., which marks its 150th anniversary this month as the old-
[ Page 12980 ]
est law firm in British Columbia. I gather there’s been a certain amount of arm-wrestling around that, but they seem to have prevailed, so Crease and Co. does seem to now officially own that title.

The Crease firm has produced two Attorneys General as well as two Supreme Court of Canada judges and a host of other judges in other levels of court. Sir Lyman Duff, one of those judges, was further elevated to the House of Lords and is the only British Columbian who ever sat on the judicial committee of the Privy Council.

Crease Harman LLP, as it’s currently known, and its predecessor law firms have, in their long history, represented the province of British Columbia in the Alaskan boundary dispute and represented the Dunsmuir enterprises on Vancouver Island, including their coal enterprises, shipping and real estate. They founded the Victoria Board of Trade, the British Columbia SPCA and have many other notable achievements.

[1400]

Many of the lawyers have distinguished military service, as well, including Thomas Norris, who served as senior Canadian legal adviser to Field Marshal Montgomery during the Second World War.

This firm has been part of the life of British Columbia since our beginnings. I am proud to recognize their 150th anniversary today and to introduce the following members of the firm who are in the gallery — Colin Simkus, Greer Jacks, Dafydd Pritchet, Timothy Summers, Moses Watson and managing partner Bruce Hallsor. Would the House please join me in celebrating this historical anniversary and welcoming the members of Crease Harman to the House.

This will be a little briefer, but I would like to join in recognizing my predecessor, Attorney General Geoff Plant, back to the House. As well, a young lawyer, Cinzeanna Goucho, who has recently joined the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner is joined by her friend, my new administrative assistant, Kailey Hatford.

Hon. N. Yamamoto: I have a special guest in the House. She’s just finished her first year at UBC, studying literature. She’s going to be spending the summer, working with the B.C. Liberal interns. I’d like the House to welcome my favourite stepdaughter, Julia.

J. Yap: This is, I believe, my first opportunity in the time that I’ve been here to introduce my predecessor. He’s already been recognized by a couple of ministers and the opposition leader, but I would like to add my welcome to my friend, my mentor and the former MLA for my riding, Richmond-Steveston, Geoff Plant.

If the members would check Geoff’s Twitter, it describes him as a recovering politician. That probably explains the opposition leader’s comments about his dress, why he was dressed the way that he was. Would the House please join me once again in welcoming Geoff Plant.

M. Dalton: Visiting us in the gallery is Shannon Pauls. Shannon is a constituent of mine from Maple Ridge, and we attend the same church. Would the members please make her feel welcome.

G. Kyllo: I’m joined in the House today by three very special guests from Sicamous. My mother-in-law, Gwen Stead, is joining us. Gwen is joining us from Sicamous. I want to thank Gwen for raising such an amazing daughter — my wife, Georgina.

Also joining her are my parents, so we have Marianne Thomsen and my stepfather, Knut Thomsen, again, joining us from Sicamous.

Would the House please make them all feel very welcome.

D. Ashton: This morning, along with the member for Surrey-Whalley, I had the pleasure of meeting with a group of young Western Washington University students, who are visiting from Bellingham.

They’re here to learn about our Canadian parliamentary system in their fourth year of political science. The course is entitled the politics of Canada. It’s wonderful that these students have taken a keen interest, learning about their friends to the north and how we govern ourselves in British Columbia.

They’re also accompanied by their professor Dr. Theodore Kamena. I would ask that all members of the House make these fine young students welcome.

L. Reimer: I would like to make a special welcome to Bryan Lee, who is here with our B.C. Liberal young interns, and to thank him, as well, for all the help he’s provided me on my riding association. Would the House please make him welcome.

G. Hogg: Recognizing that the current record for introductions in this House is four, it is my privilege to introduce my former roommate, an aficionado of sport, music, trivia and everything else of relevance. Please welcome yet again, for the new world record, Geoff Plant.

Madame Speaker: I have the pleasure of introducing three guests today, Marcia VanderVoort, executive vice-president; Debbie Bohlin, program assistant, education programs; and Evelene Lakis, director of strategic planning, on behalf of the State Legislative Leaders Foundation. They are advancing a board meeting that will happen here in December, and we’re very pleased to welcome them on behalf of this assembly.

Thank you so much for joining us.

[1405]

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

BILL M229 — ELECTION
AMENDMENT ACT, 2016

A. Weaver presented a bill intituled Election Amendment Act, 2016.

A. Weaver: I move that a bill intituled Election Amendment Act, 2016, of which notice has been given in my name, be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

A. Weaver: It gives me great pleasure to introduce the Election Amendment Act, 2016, which, if enacted, would lower the voter age in British Columbia to 16. B.C.’s voting age was not always 18. The voting age dropped from 21 to 19 in 1952 and then again to 18 in 1992. In 1970, Canada’s Elections Act was amended to drop the voting age federally from 21 to 18.

There’s ample evidence to suggest that the earlier in life a voter casts their first ballot, the more likely they are to develop voting as a habit throughout their life. It’s also a common misconception that 16-year-olds are not as informed and engaged in political issues as older voters. The available research, however, suggests otherwise. These young B.C. citizens are also old enough to drive, drop out of school, get married, pay taxes and sign up for the military. They are taxed without representation.

Each and every year B.C. students are required to take social studies 11 or civic studies 11 or B.C. First Nations studies 12 to fulfil their social studies graduation requirement. Politics and government is a key unit in the social studies curriculum, taken when students are, typically, 16. It’s an ideal time to engage students on the history and importance of voting.

Today’s decision-makers don’t have to live with the long-term consequences of the decisions they make. Those who do are either not allowed to or are not participating in our democratic institutions. We can do something about the former by reducing the voter age to 16. After all, the youth of today are the leaders of tomorrow. They should have a say in the direction we are heading, as they will inherit what we will leave behind.

Austria, Argentina, Brazil, Germany and parts of the U.K., to name but a few jurisdictions, have extended voting rights to 16-year-olds. Scotland experimented by lowering the voting age in their independence referendum. They viewed it as being so successful that they subsequently permanently dropped the voting age to 16 in all future Scottish Parliament and local government elections. It’s time that British Columbia did the same.

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

Bill M229, Election Amendment Act, 2016, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

BILL M230 — GOVERNMENT
ADVERTISING ACT, 2016

G. Holman presented a bill intituled Government Advertising Act, 2016.

G. Holman: I move that a bill intituled Government Advertising Act, 2016, of which notice has been given in my name on the order paper, be introduced and now read for a first time.

Motion approved.

G. Holman: As we enter into the final year before the May 2017 election, we are once again being deluged by government advertising, the main purpose of which appears to be the promotion of the governing party. If previous experience is any indication, this taxpayer-funded advertising will be ramped up as the election approaches. In combination with this government’s recent elimination of pre-election spending limits on political parties and the refusal of the Premier to ban corporate and union political donations, partisan-tainted government advertising exacerbates the undue influence of big money on our political process.

The purpose of the Government Advertising Act is to prevent any provincial government from using public dollars to promote its own political interests. Under this bill, all government advertising must be reviewed and approved by the Auditor General against clearly defined criteria forbidding advertising that promotes the partisan interests of the governing party or creates a negative impression of government critics. The bill requires government advertising to present information factually and objectively. This bill also requires that all government advertising will cease four months before the fixed election date.

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 M230, Government Advertising 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)

FRENCH IMMERSION

M. Dalton: Across British Columbia, there has been a growing demand for French immersion in the K-to-12
[ Page 12982 ]
system and for good reason. We live in a proudly bilingual country. Putting our children in French immersion offers them the opportunity to study in both of our official languages.

[1410]

French immersion is a program for non-francophone students to become bilingual in French throughout their K-to-12 education. Bilingualism is achieved by providing basic curriculum instruction entirely in French during the first years of education. Once a firm base in French has been established, instruction in English is added to the curriculum and gradually increases over time. Students who graduate in French immersion earn two diplomas: the English and French Dogwood diplomas, the French being le Diplôme de fin d’études secondaires.

French immersion participation has grown steadily over the last decade across British Columbia. In the 2015-16 school year, there were over 52,500 students, across 46 school districts, enrolled in French immersion programs in the province — almost 10 percent of B.C.’s students.

The communities I represent, Maple Ridge and Mission, have a number of schools which offer French immersion. In school district 42, these include Eric Langton, Golden Ears, Laity View, Maple Ridge Secondary as well as Pitt Meadows Elementary and Secondary, where I taught for a good number of years. In Mission, French immersion programs are offered at Christine Morrison, Mission Central Elementary, Heritage Park Middle and Mission Secondary.

I’m proud of the success that French immersion programs have had in my communities and throughout the province.

J’aimerais dire félicitations aux professeurs d’immersion et aux étudiants pour leurs grands efforts de ce programme. Fantastique.

Merci, Madame La Présidente.

DIVERSE ECONOMY AND BUSINESS
AWARDS IN GREATER VICTORIA

R. Fleming: The capital region is home to a very diverse economy, powered by small and medium-sized businesses. People are drawn to our region’s incredible natural beauty and our highly engaged community. Advanced technology has established itself as our leading economic generator in this region, while tourism serves millions of visitors a year. Victoria is also home to innovative retailers, a strong shipbuilding sector and a growing agriculture industry.

The Greater Victoria Chamber of Commerce brings together 1,500 business members from across sectors to support a robust business community, and each year the chamber hosts the Greater Victoria Business Awards, recognizing local business excellence. I was proud to see that four of the businesses are based in Victoria–Swan Lake, my constituency, and were recognized at this year’s awards.

One of those companies is Emterra Environmental, which received the award for Business Leadership. For over 40 years, Emterra has been diverting waste from our landfill. By adopting new and sustainable technologies, Emterra has established itself as a leader in our region and across Canada.

The Mayfair Optometric Clinic was named Business of the Year for companies with 11 to 25 employees. It’s located just ten minutes from my community office. I can attest that this clinic serves many of my constituents, offering a holistic care approach that addresses each patient’s unique vision needs.

Kingsters Bin Sanitizing Services took the New Business award. This mobile eco-friendly business sanitizes commercial and residential garbage and compost storage bins and, with a long hot summer ahead, provides a solution to a very odoriferous issue.

Finally, the runner-up for the Innovation award was Starfish Medical. This is a great world-class company that develops medical devices. I have visited this business with a number of my colleagues. It’s an R-and-D leader. Touring their headquarters last year, I saw how Starfish partners with innovative companies to create breakthrough products like the high cycle prosthetic heart valve tester and an ultrasound.

I would ask members of the House to join me in offering congratulations to all the finalists and winners in this year’s business awards for their contribution to my community.

PASSPORT TO EMPLOYMENT
TRAINING PROGRAM FOR YOUTH

L. Larson: Destination Osoyoos and Okanagan College have partnered to deliver Passport to Employment, an innovative program that aims to grow the food, wine and tourism industry by providing free hands-on training to high school students in Oliver and Osoyoos.

The program offered training and certification in areas that the wine, food and tourism industry had recognized as skills gaps. Topics included essential employment skills, professionalism in the workplace as well as front desk, housekeeping and cashier training. Students also earned valuable industry-recognized certificates, including FoodSafe, WorldHost, Serving It Right and WorkSafe B.C. occupational first aid.

The program, which ran until the middle of April on evenings and weekends, moved between Okanagan College’s Oliver and Osoyoos centres. Graduates of the program are eligible to apply for a $1,000 scholarship to further their education.

[1415]

Brianne Hearle, director of marketing with Destination Osoyoos, stated: “We recognized that if we could offer a hands-on training program to our local youth, we would all win. Our youth would be retained in our community.
[ Page 12983 ]
They would become gainfully employed during and after their high school years, and our hospitality sector business would have a better selection of certified employment-ready workers, resulting in a more stable human resource situation.”

Destination Osoyoos worked closely with Okanagan College to design a program that produced graduates that can convey to visitors the exceptional experiences offered in Oliver and Osoyoos.

Thank you to Destination Osoyoos and Okanagan College for their partnership to deliver this Passport to Employment initiative.

BHIMRAO AMBEDKAR

R. Chouhan: Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar was born on April 14, 1891, in a small town in central India in a community of so-called Untouchables.

In his village school, he was not allowed to sit inside the classroom with other children. He was a very bright student and graduated from the school with the highest possible marks. He received a scholarship, which allowed him to go to college. After receiving another scholarship, he went to the U.S.A. for higher studies. There he got his first master’s degree in economics from Columbia University in New York. Later he got another MA and his first PhD. He then enrolled in the London School of Economics and received his second PhD. In a few years, he’d earned three MAs and four PhDs.

After returning from abroad, he started an active movement against untouchability. In 1927, he led a march to establish the rights of Untouchables, also known as Dalits, to drink water from the same water tank like anybody else. That marked the beginning of the anti-caste movement, challenging the rigid class system in India.

In 1942, he was appointed a member of the Viceroy’s Executive Council, which allowed him to bring legislative changes to protect the rights of Dalits. After India’s independence in 1947, Dr. Ambedkar, also known as Babasaheb, became the first law minister and chaired the committee to draft India’s constitution.

All his life he fought for the rights of Dalits, women and workers around the globe. On April 13, at the UN headquarters, his 125th birth anniversary was celebrated by more than 500 diplomats, academics and other international dignitaries. He continues to remain an inspiration for millions of people in the world seeking equality and social justice.

ELECTRICAL SAFETY

G. Kyllo: May is traditionally a month that is focused on safety across British Columbia and North America. The generation, transmission and distribution of electricity are inherently dangerous. B.C. Hydro is focused on minimizing this risk to British Columbians through awareness and education programs. That is why today is Electrical Safety Day in our province. This is a day when schools around B.C. come together to learn about staying safe around electricity.

The campaign this year focuses on downed power lines. Now, a common misperception is that a downed power line is not energized. Incidents with electricity happen because many people don’t realize just how dangerous power lines are. Electricity is an invisible danger, so being prepared and understanding the hazards are key to electrical safety.

We are asking students today to think about three important keys to staying safe. When working or playing outside, take a moment to look up and down to note power lines that could be a hazard. If you see a power line that is damaged or on the ground, stay back ten metres or the length of a school bus. Call 911. If it’s down, it’s a danger. Dial 911. Students are urged to remember this simple tagline: Down, Danger, Dial.

Although rare, electrical incidents and accidents involving youth are often fatal, making it even more important to raise awareness. I’m sure you’ll all join me in applauding B.C. Hydro for this very important safety initiative.

RULES OF PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE

V. Huntington: Three hundred and twenty-three years ago the House of Commons of the United Kingdom banned hissing and applause from its proceedings. There were to be no disturbances when members were speaking — no booing, exclamations or other interactions, with the exception of “Hear him, hear him.”

[1420]

Since the 17th century, there have been so few instances of applause in the U.K. House of Commons that there are actually blogs documenting every single one of them. Westminster isn’t always a model of decorum, but when MPs do clap in the U.K., the very act itself is newsworthy.

When parliamentary democracy came to Ottawa, those centuries of tradition somehow got lost over the Atlantic. Not only did MPs get desks; they decided that thumping and banging on those desks was a splendid idea. That begs the question of whether the desk-banging would have happened at all had those early legislators been women.

In 1977, when Hansard started broadcasting from the House of Commons, MPs stopped banging when they realized how peculiar it looked on TV. The problem is they started clapping.

In 1998, the U.K. modernization committee maintained their 300-year ban, saying that there was a danger the practice that may lead to speeches being judged not by the content but by the length of the ovation.

Just last year, Quebec MNAs unanimously banned applause from question period. The difference in civility
[ Page 12984 ]
and tone prompted Speaker Chagnon to comment that maybe we could see this model exported.

We spend 20 minutes a week on applause in QP. This session, we will have clapped away the equivalent of seven entire question periods. Perhaps B.C. should consider importing the National Assembly’s experiment.

Oral Questions

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO
YOUTH DEATH CASES

J. Horgan: It is with a sad heart that I rise today to ask a series of questions with respect to the activities of the Ministry of Children and Family Development and particularly a report recently released by the Representative for Children and Youth. We raised these issues on Monday. With the Premier in attendance, I’d like to pose questions to her with respect to the contents of that report.

In it, the representative said: “This is a difficult situation with very little positive to report, other than to record the representative’s most serious concern for the youth who was the subject of this investigation and the more than 100 others who are in a similar situation.”

Yesterday we also received a coroner’s report on the death of Alex Gervais. As if to put an exclamation point on the representative’s concerns, we learned that after Alex’s group home was closed, he was put unattended in a hotel room and ultimately took his own life.

My question to the Premier: At what point is enough, enough? And when will we do something to address, at a minimum, the 100 children that were identified as still at risk in the care of the government of British Columbia?

Hon. C. Clark: Well, let me join the opposition leader in expressing my profound concern for these young people who find themselves in very, very difficult circumstances, who are clearly some of the most vulnerable people in our society and who end up depending on government because they don’t have other supports. It is a terrible situation for young people to find themselves in, and government has a duty and an obligation to make sure that we look after those children.

The reports that the representative has done, the report that Mr. Plecas did and a number of other expert comments that we’ve heard over the last year or so have been extremely helpful in making sure that the ministry is appropriately focused, to make sure we are staying ahead of where we need to be in meeting the needs of young people who come into government care and recognizing that those needs have changed. The profile of those kids has changed over the years. We always need to do things differently.

Not least of all is the fact that in our most recent budget, we made a large increase in the total budget for the Ministry of Children and Families, recognizing that they needed more money — Mr. Plecas certainly told us this as well — in order to be able to do the job that we all depend on them and, most importantly, those vulnerable children depend on them to do.

Madame Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition on a supplemental.

J. Horgan: I’ll refresh the Premier’s memory, if she hasn’t had an opportunity to review the report. This was a report on the past year, on what progress has been made over the past year.

[1425]

The representative reports that, regrettably, little progress has been made. We now know that Alex Gervais, according to the coroner’s report, had a substance abuse problem. According to the coroner’s report, he had difficulty managing emotions and he was profoundly concerned about his future. Despite that, the system, which the Premier just said is going to get better, said that Alex Gervais was at zero risk of suicide. Yet after that assessment, after leaving him unattended in a hotel room, he leapt to his death.

My question again to the Premier is: at what point have we had enough of not getting it right with the current minister, and at what point are we going to try to get it right to protect the most vulnerable children in our community?

Hon. C. Clark: Let me remind all members of this House that assessments of children and their state of mind, their health, are made by experts in the field, by the people who work for the ministry or who are contracted by the ministry — people who are highly professional and skilled and bring real expertise to what they do. I just want to take a moment. They sometimes take a beating in this Legislature through the war of words that happens here. I want to take a second to thank them all for the work that they do on all of our behalf to make sure that vulnerable children have the services that they need.

The Representative for Children and Youth has called on the ministry to do a full review of all the children who are ministry-involved in the Downtown Eastside. Our rapid response team is making real progress on that. Twenty-eight children who have been identified now have a place to sleep, access to health care that they need and, most importantly, a dedicated team that understands the unique challenges that they face.

Over a five-month span, we’ve canvassed and inventoried and sat down with dozens of social services organizations on the Downtown Eastside to examine how we link our hands to improve safety for those youth. We’ve also reached out to thousands of service providers, more than 344 of them in the Downtown Eastside alone — doctors, police, youth outreach workers — to make sure that they meet their duty to report when they see that there is a child that they believe is in need of protection.
[ Page 12985 ]

In addition to that, the additional funds that have been granted to the Ministry of Children and Families, which are going a long way…. That work is underway now, including 100 new front-line workers, social workers, who are adding to our capacity to do the hard work that it takes to make sure that vulnerable children in our province are protected.

Madame Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition on a final supplemental.

J. Horgan: It wasn’t front-line workers that cut programs. It wasn’t front-line workers that reduced funding to this ministry. It wasn’t front-line workers that eliminated the youth representative upon coming to power. It was the B.C. Liberal Party that did that. The responsibility for the fiasco that we have today is not front-line workers. It’s the government of the day. That’s the challenge in this Legislature. That’s why we stand up every day and defend those workers and defend those children, because the government doesn’t seem to be capable of doing it.

Now, I appreciate this was some time ago, but when the Premier had a different job and she had to fill time between commercials at CKNW, what she used to say at that time, with respect to the then Minister of Children and Family Development, is the following. She said, with respect to the representative: “Cooperate with the Representative for Children and Youth. That’s how we’re going to get to the bottom of what’s happened. It’s better to have the truth than to not know you’ve made a mistake because you’re afraid to admit it.” Wise words from the broadcast booth.

Further to that, the minister said, with respect to that minister’s actions: “Fundamentally, we cannot undermine our confidence in the minister’s ability and willingness to look after some of the most vulnerable people in our society.”

Again, good words from the broadcast booth. We’ve heard some good words again today from the Premier, but what we have here is a complete disconnect between what’s been said in here and what’s being delivered out there.

Again, to the Premier: will she listen and follow the lead of the children’s representative and make sure that the hundreds of children that are at risk today have better supports by making sure that front-line workers have the tools they need to provide the services that are so desperately needed in our community?

[1430]

Hon. C. Clark: In the time that I was in the broadcast room at CKNW, I can remember all of the things that I talked about, all the times that I talked about how important it was to grow the economy and get to yes so we could look after people. When I was doing that, this member was on the other side of the House doing the same thing he is today, which is trying to figure out how to stop people from being able to find the work that they need, by stopping work from being created in British Columbia.

If we want to look after the people of this province, as we should, and if we want to look after people who are vulnerable, as we have an obligation to do, we need to make sure that we continue to grow the economy, create jobs and create opportunity for people in this province, including single parents who want to find their way off social assistance and into work — the single parents, for example, who have taken advantage of the single-parent employment initiative. Over 2,500 parents, most of them women, have found their way through the doors to try and find their way into work.

The work that we’re creating in British Columbia has made it possible for us to put $217 million to support vulnerable children and families and implement the recommendation of the Plecas report and $286 million to address caseload pressures and temporary income assistance disability–related supplementary benefits. And 644 youth have been placed in adoption over the past two years, exceeding our targets. Those children now have forever homes — more in one year than British Columbia has ever placed out in adoption. We have more to do, and we will keep it up.

HOUSING AND RESOURCES FOR
YOUTH IN CARE IN DOWNTOWN EASTSIDE

D. Donaldson: The Minister of Children’s own numbers show there are over 124 children and youth involved with her ministry residing in or frequenting Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside. How can the minister possibly think that waiting a year after the Paige report to provide five beds for 124 youth is an adequate response to the needs of these young people?

Hon. S. Cadieux: Well, once again, the member shows his complete lack of understanding of what is available, what supports are in place in the Downtown Eastside and what work has gone on since we received the report from the representative on the tragic circumstance of Paige. That certainly was a report about one individual’s circumstance, but it spoke to the struggles faced by many young people — too many young people — who are attracted to the magnet that is the Downtown Eastside, through no fault of their own but through their circumstances.

A great deal has changed since that time. We’ve done a lot of work. We implemented the rapid response team — with all of the partners and all of the service providers on the Downtown Eastside — to look at where the services are, where the gaps are and to really hear from those people on the front lines about what they felt would make a difference in their ability to better serve these youth.

One of the things we heard from that group was that
[ Page 12986 ]
they needed more resources. So I was pleased yesterday to be able to announce that an additional $400,000 is being invested to support youth outreach workers within community agencies that serve the Downtown Eastside youth.

Another $800,000 will go to supporting ten new staff for the Ministry of Children and Families in that area, to focus specifically on an adolescent unit that will be open until 12:30 in the morning so that youth can access services when it works for them. And as the member notes, as well, we announced that we will be moving forward to create a “no questions asked” housing alternative for youth at the highest risk.

Madame Speaker: The member for Stikine on a supplemental.

D. Donaldson: One year later, five beds for 124 youth. If the minister doesn’t like to hear the facts from me, maybe she’d like to hear them from the Representative for Children and Youth: “We have a large number of extremely vulnerable young people. They have been spit out of group homes, they have been spit out of the foster care system, and they’re basically in the hands of predators.”

The minister knows that there are over 100 children involved with her ministry on the Downtown Eastside. She admits that at least 20 of them are in crisis at any one time. So why would she think that opening five beds next year is an adequate response?

[1435]

Hon. S. Cadieux: Indeed, we did a very deep file review and situation review for the 124 children and youth that are either in care or receiving services on and around the Downtown Eastside. It’s a very large area, not the small area that many of us think of when we think of the Downtown Eastside. Who receive services or are in care — that may mean they’re in foster care, in very safe and very appropriate circumstances.

But there are — and we have been very frank and open about this — at any given time, between 20 and 40 youth at the highest risk who come in or out of the Downtown Eastside who are intravenous drug users, who are sexually exploited, who are involved with gangs and who are very troubled. It takes a great deal of time and effort and repeated, repeated work to build trust with those youth, to be able to get them the services they need.

I do want to make sure that the member understands that there is a bed for any youth who needs it today. We have housing. We have 27 beds at four youth-specific shelters. We have self-contained suites for youth, including ten at Directions, 30 at Broadway-Fraser. We have 37 units at the Remand Centre, 24 affordable housing units at the aboriginal children’s village, 30 units dedicated at St. Helen’s Hotel, 12 spaces at Imouto House, 12 units at the Pacific Coast Apartments and, of course, all of the resources we have in foster care.

What we announced yesterday was a new, no-questions-asked, sort of barrier-free housing option which we will move to implement with our partners because it is clear that that is missing.

C. James: This minister says the government has been frank and open. Well, let’s remember that this was the government that wouldn’t even admit that there were children in care living in the Downtown Eastside. Then the minister yesterday said: “It’s not news.”

The government’s own press release says 124 children in care are frequenting the area. And as the children’s representative notes: “It’s pretty disgusting in our province that there are kids left there.”

I just heard the Premier say we are ahead of where we need to be. Five beds for 124 children in need? Five beds that will come a year from now? Is that the best the minister can do?

Hon. S. Cadieux: I think it is highly irresponsible that members opposite would selectively read pieces of information and misrepresent what that actually says.

What it says is there are 124 youth for whom we did extensive research — and it’s all public; it’s available on the Internet, if the member would like to read it — that shows that many of those are kids in our care in the ministry, which means they are in safe foster or group home placements. Some of them are receiving services, which means they only come to us to receive some piece of support, and they aren’t, in fact, in care.

There are others, a group that is extremely high risk, who may come in and out of the Downtown Eastside that our team of social workers on the ground is aware of. Our team of extremely talented and long-serving — 20-year plus — social workers have dedicated their lives to reaching out and serving these youth.

The new resource that we’re looking to put in place is because we are reacting to the realities that this group of youth is changing. Their needs are changing. They do not all…. They are not all ready to give up substances or enter treatment programs, but they do need a place to sleep, and we’ll make sure they have it.

Madame Speaker: Victoria–Beacon Hill on a supplemental.

C. James: Again quoting the representative: “For these young people, every day is a day in peril.”

[1440]

When the Premier was a CKNW radio host, this is what she had to say about the B.C. Liberal failure to protect children in care: “The minister is apparently refusing to make the changes Turpel-Lafond demands. Apparently she prefers the cheaper option. It’s one thing to make a mistake, even a serious one. It’s entirely another to refuse to address it or even acknowledge, especially when lives are at risk.”
[ Page 12987 ]

Well, lives are at risk. Why won’t the Premier live up to her very own words?

Hon. S. Cadieux: There is a group of youth who live very challenging lives, through no fault of their own. Many of them are addicted to drugs. Many of them are sexually exploited. Many of them need specialized help for mental health issues. They need housing, they need supports, they need people to wrap around them, and our people are there to do that.

There are numerous resources available, but not every resource suits every youth’s needs. That’s why, in addition to all of the other things I mentioned, we are working now to open, with our partners, a new housing option — a no-questions-asked housing option for youth. It is targeted to have approximately five beds, because that is what is deemed to be an appropriate number for that type of housing.

It doesn’t mean we can’t build more, but that needs to get up and running. We need to see whether or not kids respond and will be served well by that, and then we can look to do more.

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES
AND SUICIDE PREVENTION

S. Hammell: A week ago today, Eddie Young committed suicide, less than an hour after being discharged from Burnaby General Hospital, where he was admitted a few days earlier because his mom feared that he would take his life. The Health Minister, when asked about this tragedy, replied: “Sometimes there just aren’t answers. People make decisions for themselves.” But there are answers, answers that can prevent the coroner from investigating another case of a person taking their own life despite being admitted to hospital a few days earlier.

For example, a number of jurisdictions worldwide have adopted zero-suicide initiatives that are dramatically reducing suicide rates. To the Health Minister: why is this government claiming there are no answers when there are solutions to prevent more suicides like the one that took Kim Young’s son?

Hon. T. Lake: Of course, this is a terrible tragedy for this person’s family. It’s very trying, as well, for the dedicated health professionals who tried to assist this person. The proper protocols need to be followed, and I’m assured by Fraser Health that, in fact, they were.

Adults make decisions based on information that’s provided to them. Clinicians, experts, assess individuals as to whether or not they should be discharged. The individual was offered a choice of different services. At the end of the day, it is difficult to force someone to do something they don’t want to do.

We continue to provide more and more opportunities for people to access services to avoid this type of situation. And while the member may not like to hear frank and honest answers, sometimes, despite best efforts, these types of things happen. Our job is to do everything we can to avoid it, and we will continue to do that.

Madame Speaker: Surrey–Green Timbers on a supplemental.

S. Hammell: You actually need to believe you can make a difference before you can make a difference. Eddie Young’s death illustrates that our mental health system isn’t working.

[1445]

It wasn’t the first time Eddie exhibited suicide tendencies. He’d been taken to the hospital in the past and threatened to kill himself less than two months ago. Under a zero-suicide approach, which is adopted worldwide, Eddie would have been assessed with the best-available screening tools. Clinicians would have also stayed in contact with the family upon release and involved his family in the discharge planning.

To the Minister of Health: why is your government saying there are no answers when solutions do indeed exist?

Hon. T. Lake: I won’t try to second-guess the expertise of psychiatrists who examine people that have these types of challenges, that seek help, or families that bring members of their family to seek help. But we have a constitution, and we cannot infringe on constitutional rights of people, despite what the member may think. We offer services, and we try and reach out, but if a person does not want their family to be involved, that is their constitutional right as a consenting adult.

It is a tragedy. But to pretend that we will always, always avoid these types of situations is disingenuous, despite all of our best efforts and the efforts of the people at the hospital. If the member thinks that the people at the hospital didn’t have the best interests of this patient in mind, she’s wrong. They did. They work extremely hard, and it is very challenging work. We try every day to increase the amount of resources available to offer those choices for people and will continue to do that.

ROADSIDE PROHIBITION PROGRAM
REVIEW PROCESS

M. Farnworth: The immediate roadside suspension program was supposed to keep roads safe, yet this government has bungled its implementation since day one and continues to do so. Four years ago, the government was forced to amend legislation so drivers could have access to a fair review process. Now we learn that in thousands of cases submitted for appeal, the superintendent of motor vehicles is failing to make decisions within the mandated time.
[ Page 12988 ]

To the Attorney General: why is this government incapable of setting up a review system that works properly?

Hon. M. Morris: There are only, probably, a couple of us in this House that can relate to the long walk up a driveway to notify somebody that one of their loved ones has been killed as a result of an impaired driver on the highways that we have here in B.C. It’s a job that all of us did with a great deal of trepidation, but it was something that we had to do.

In all my service — 32 years as a policeman; I’ve been out now for a number of years — I have never seen a program as successful as our IRP program is in British Columbia at reducing the number of deaths that we have on the highway resulting from alcohol-related drivers. Since this program was initiated, there have been 260 lives saved. That’s a 52 percent reduction in the number of alcohol-related deaths that we have on our highways in B.C.

Madame Speaker: Member for Port Coquitlam on a supplemental.

M. Farnworth: Nobody in this House is arguing about the need or the success of the program. Everybody supported it. We are asking questions of the minister — and the reason why that minister is now dealing with the file — because of the mess created by the Attorney General when this review process was set up.

Let me quote from the decision that was rendered by a judge in the case: “For all these reasons, I find that the superintendent’s conclusion that section 215.57 permits an extension for an indefinite or indeterminate time is an unreasonable interpretation and one that cannot be sustained.”

[1450]

The minister said he’s concerned about getting drunks off the road. Well, guess what. Because of this backlog created by this government’s incompetence, thousands of cases have been delayed, and the result is that people who should be off the road are still on the road, and people who are innocent are going through hoops to try and get an interim licence.

The question, Minister, that you need to answer is: why does this government have a 1,000-case backlog and is incapable of putting in a review process that works?

Hon. M. Morris: The system does work quite well. The majority of the review decisions are made within the 21-day period of time. There are, like the member opposite has said, about 1,000 cases outstanding right now that are being reviewed. In the scheme of things, with the thousands of drivers that we’ve been able to successfully take off the road and reduce the number of accidents, reduce the number of injuries by 52 percent, the program is working very well.

SURGICAL SERVICES AT
B.C. CHILDREN’S HOSPITAL

J. Darcy: Kids in B.C. are waiting in pain for surgery at B.C. Children’s Hospital, and they could now wait months longer. Two of eight operating rooms are closed, and at least 50 surgeries have been postponed. This has never happened before in the history of this hospital, and it is the result of this Liberal government’s decade of neglect.

The Minister of Health has known for at least a year….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

J. Darcy: The Minister of Health has known for at least a year about these looming nursing shortages at B.C. Children’s Hospital and has failed to act. Now we have kids waiting in pain for needed surgeries. Why are children suffering because of this minister’s failure and neglect?

Hon. T. Lake: Certainly, I can empathize with any family that has to experience a delay in their child’s surgery. We know that the most-needed surgeries are being done and that B.C. Children’s Hospital and the phenomenal people who work there are working with families to ensure that the most-needed cases are done, and in fact, that is happening.

But we recognize that there is a worldwide shortage of specialty-trained nurses, which is why we’re very happy with the signing, the ratification by 85 percent of nurses in the Nurses Bargaining Association today, ratifying a five-year agreement with the province of British Columbia that will increase the number of specialty-trained nurses so that we can look and make sure that we are meeting the needs of future British Columbians. And those 42,000 nurses will benefit from an expanding and growing economy here in British Columbia, leading Canada. Our nurses will participate and enjoy the benefits of that.

[End of question period.]

Reports from Committees

D. McRae: I have the honour to present the report of the Special Committee to Review the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

I move the report be taken as read and received.

Motion approved.

D. McRae: Madame Speaker, I ask leave of this House to move a motion to adopt the report.
[ Page 12989 ]

Leave granted.

D. McRae: In moving adoption of the report, I’d like to make a few brief comments. The report summarizes the results of the committee’s public consultations on access-to-information rights and privacy protection. The committee heard how our digital age provides new opportunities and challenges.

The committee’s 39 recommendations will enhance proactive disclosure, impose a duty to document and improve the freedom-of-information process. The committee agreed that new technologies support more proactive disclosure of government information, but we need to maintain and a strong and up-to-date legal framework for access and privacy.

[1455]

Other recommendations — mandate notification and reporting of privacy breaches — require public bodies to have a privacy management program and create a new privacy protection offence. I should note that on May 9 the government announced various new measures to improve transparency and disclosure, including a proactive release of several new categories of records commonly requested through FOI requests.

I’d like to express the committee’s sincere appreciation to all of the British Columbians who took the time to participate in the committee’s public consultations.

I would also like to recognize the hard work, the exceedingly high level of professionalism and, of course, the patience of the Clerk’s office with their efforts to create this report. I’d particularly like to recognize Mary Newell, who is the Clerk’s office administrative coordinator; Helen Morrison, who is the committee research analyst; and Susan Sourial, who is the Clerk Assistant and in charge of committees and interparliamentary relations.

Lastly, I would like to thank my fellow committee members, including the Deputy Chair, the member for Nanaimo–North Cowichan, for their collaboration and their hard work.

With that, I move adoption of the report.

D. Routley: I would like to speak positively and in favour of this report. Before I make comments, I’d like to echo the member from Comox’s comments about the excellence and professionalism that was displayed and delivered to this committee by the Clerk’s office — most notably, as already noted, Mary Newell, Susan Sourial and Helen Morrison.

British Columbians deserve to know the excellence and professionalism that resides in our public service, and those public servants deserve to have that known. We, all committee members, would like to extend our thanks to them.

This report is delivered in the context of several very contentious political issues that have arisen through gaps in freedom of information, performance of government, and privacy breaches in the recent past. So we must remember that while the steps that were taken on May 9 by government were positive and went some distance to correct some problems, they didn’t go nearly far enough.

I think the members of this committee, on both sides, have applied a real desire to reach best practice in the recommendations that this report has brought to this House, and I think that this spirit of cooperation and dedication to that best practice should be respected by the House.

I recommend adoption of the report. This is a very important issue to all British Columbians, to our democracy and to our right to privacy. If adopted and implemented, the committee members are confident that would return B.C. to a leadership position in terms of open government. It would begin to repair the faith of citizens of B.C. when it comes to openness and transparency of government. I support and recommend the report to the House.

Madame Speaker: The question is adoption of the report.

Motion approved.

Tabling Documents

Hon. T. Lake: I have the pleasure to table the report of the provincial health officer entitled Where the Rubber Meets the Road: Reducing the Impact of Motor Vehicle Crashes on Health and Well-Being in B.C.

Petitions

M. Mungall: I rise to present a petition on behalf of my constituents. They’re asking this government to withhold issuing any commercial groundwater licences for aquifer 511, in Blewett, B.C., until a third-party environmental assessment has been done, adequate water supply is confirmed and a water sustainability plan for the community that includes public consultation and ongoing water monitoring is in place.

Madame Speaker: The Premier seek leaves to make introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Hon. C. Clark: On this ceremonial day and, obviously, with your permission, I’d like leave to introduce two young women who are job-shadowing me for today. They’re on the floor of this House. Emily Hardy is age 14 and aspires to be the Premier herself one day, and Ava Hatton, who is age 11, aspires to help Emily become the Premier of British Columbia one day.
[ Page 12990 ]

I’d also like to introduce Doug Parton and Derek Dinsi, from Ironworkers, Local 97, who are with us in the chamber as well today, in the gallery. I very much look forward on Saturday to joining them again for the skills competition, when I will be assisting them in awarding the top skills prize at their annual event on Saturday, this weekend.

[1500]

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: In both sections, Committee of Supply. In section A, for the information of members, the estimates of the Ministry of Justice, and in this chamber, the estimates the Office of the Premier.

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: OFFICE OF THE PREMIER

The House in Committee of Supply (Section B); R. Chouhan in the chair.

The committee met at 3:04 p.m.

On Vote 10: Office of the Premier, $8,998,000.

The Chair: I’ll ask the Premier to make opening comments.

Hon. C. Clark: I know we don’t have lots of time today because of some of the ceremonial…. We spent a bit of time on some other very important matters today in the Legislature, and we will end a little bit earlier, I think. So I won’t spend a lot of time in opening comments. Just let me start with this. I want to quote a story from Bloomberg, May 9.

[1505]

It starts with:

“British Columbia’s economy is on a tear. Last month Canada’s westernmost province added 13,000 jobs, and its unemployment rate plunged to 5.8 percent from 6.5 a month earlier. Statistics Canada reported this on Friday. For the first time on record” — for the first time on record — “dating back to 1976, the province has the lowest jobless rate in the country.

“While the rest of the country struggles with slumping commodity prices and a failed manufacturing recovery, British Columbia is benefiting from a housing boom that’s fuelling consumer confidence and spending, coupled with the revival of the lumber industry.

“Economists surveyed by Bloomberg see the province’s real GDP rising, on average, by 2.5 percent in 2015, ’16 and ’17. The last time British Columbia recorded the fastest growth in Canada was 2005. This province has never led the country growth-wise in back-to-back years since at least 1961.

“British Columbia is beating the rest of Canada in just about every sector employment-wise, but particularly in services such as wholesaling, retailing and, of course, housing. Retail sales employment is up 9 percent over the past year, compared with 1.5 percent in the rest of the country. Wholesalers are increasing employment at almost six times the national pace. Even manufacturers prefer British Columbia, where factories are actually growing. Nationally, manufacturing employment has fallen over the past year.

“British Columbia has, by far, the highest consumer confidence levels in the country. A gauge of confidence tracked by Nanos Research group for Bloomberg News scored them at 66 versus a national average of 57.7. This is spilling over into spending. Retailer proceeds in the province — at $6.13 billion in February — exceeded Alberta’s for the first time since 2009.”

In British Columbia, we are indeed on a tear, an economic growth boom that makes the rest of the country look very, very slow indeed. We are the bright spot in Canada when it comes to provinces’ employment and jobs.

That outcome that’s been reported by Bloomberg this last week is the product of a determined effort on the part of our government to get to yes on economic development, the product of our sustained effort to find ways to make sure we create the opportunities for jobs to come to British Columbia.

That’s the $20 billion that we’ve got booked for infrastructure spending — without going into deficit, by the way — that will put all kinds of working people in jobs — in good-paying, family-supporting jobs all across the province. That’s our determined effort to make sure that we move ahead with an LNG industry, despite what is probably the worst commodities market in history, or at least in recent history for Canada.

That is why we keep focused on making sure that we want to move to projects like Site C, which will create a generation of clean, low-cost power for British Columbia. The creation of this opportunity in our province and this growth allows us to do the other things that are so important, like diversifying our economy, investing in technology, a $100 million venture capital fund to grow our tech sector all across the province, not just the Lower Mainland but also the south Island, Kelowna and other parts of the province where we’re really seeing that beginning to thrive.

It’s thriving because government is making investments. It’s also thriving — just like the tech sector is — because government is making very purposeful, focused investments in education. Our announcement that children from kindergarten to grade 6, girls and boys equally, will all become coders is just one part of making sure that we produce the tech sector talent that British Columbia will need to grow.

Our announcement with the skills-for-jobs blueprint makes sure that we are focusing on those high-demand trades, makes sure that we are moving people off social assistance, if they want to, and into the job sector. This has been a particular success with women. Single mothers — 91 percent of the people that have found their way through the single-parent employment initiative are women, women who are heading up single-family homes.

That range of initiatives from education to building infrastructure; the determination to get to yes; the focus on making sure that we are working in markets around the world and growing, doubling, our trade presence in
[ Page 12991 ]
Asia in particular — all those things have come together to make sure that British Columbia is number one in this country.

[1510]

I believe that working people should have the chance to work. If you believe in working people — as we do on this side of the House — you have to believe you’re going to do everything you can to try and make sure that the jobs are there for them to go to. They’re not working people if they are not working.

On this side of the House, we have been determined to get to yes. It hasn’t been easy. Often it’s been very difficult. Those who would say no are everywhere. But my belief is that those who would say no are not in the majority. They may be loud, they may be vocal, and they may always find their way to the front of a microphone. But the silent majority in this province believes in getting to yes.

The silent majority in British Columbia believes in the infrastructure projects that are going to transform British Columbia and create a better future for our kids. The silent majority would tell you they don’t want us to continue to build up debt, run deficit after deficit, pay for things we can’t afford and have our children pay the bill.

Most people in British Columbia would say that’s not the way to go. The way to go is to make sure that we are not just looking after our budget today but that we’re putting a little bit of money aside to pay down and ultimately pay off our debt in the long term so our children don’t have to do it for us.

The only way we will succeed at doing that is if we are determined and purposeful and optimistic about the future and decide that we can do something better in British Columbia. We can create new opportunities, and the only way to do that, sometimes, is to turn your backs on those people who will be determined to say no, no matter what the answer is.

It’s to make sure that you move forward into the future, full of optimism, full of purpose and full of a determination to try and overcome all the barriers that are there so that we can get to yes, create economic growth and create jobs for working people all across British Columbia.

In doing that, we don’t just create better lives for those people who have jobs. We make it possible for us to create a fairer, more equal society, more resources to share amongst us, more money for investments and the things that really do give people opportunity — great education, great health care, investing in making sure that the programs are there that people depend on when they’re vulnerable to help them get through perhaps what are tough times. That’s the ambition that we should all have for our province.

As I always say, as I said to the young women who are job-shadowing me today, the only way to get there is to make sure you remember where the wealth is created. That’s by getting to yes in the private sector, in the public sector, creating opportunities for people to go to work every day, to go home with the dignity of a paycheque and the knowledge that they can build a future for their children, a future in a society that fundamentally is able to afford to ensure that we’re always making this a more just and more fair society.

J. Horgan: I thank the Premier for her enthusiasm as we embark upon yet another opportunity to discuss the state of B.C., the budget estimates for Vote 10 and the Premier’s office. I do commend the Premier’s enthusiasm, and I welcome her two guests with us today to join in this debate, which is going to be an interesting afternoon for Emily and Ava, I’m sure. Certainly, it will be for the Premier and for me and for all those who are assembled here today.

Again, I want to say that I, too, am enthusiastic about the opportunities in British Columbia. I believe, as a born-and-raised British Columbian, we are the most blessed people on the planet, with our abundance of natural resources, our innovative populations and our multicultural diversity. I believe it separates us from other provinces in Canada — in fact, other jurisdictions here in North America. But there are troubling seas, and the horizon is sometimes bleak.

I note, just on the jobs front, we’ve been discussing a jobs plan that the Premier introduced some years ago, where she focused exclusively on liquefied natural gas, mining and forestry and more or less ignored manufacturing, more or less ignored high tech, ignored film. Those areas that were ignored, interestingly, are doing very, very well. Those that had intense effort from the government seem to have done less well.

For example, in mining, mining and quarrying jobs have fallen by 3,200, or 25 percent, since 2013. We’ve had more mine closures than we’ve had mine openings, although I recall the Premier saying not that long ago that apparently nine new mines had opened up since she became Premier.

[1515]

I’d be interested to see if she could inventory those for us today, but I rather doubt it. In fact, we’ve seen mine closures and care and maintenance for many facilities here in British Columbia.

On the oil and gas side, we have 2,000 fewer people in direct and indirect supporting activities working in that sector, a 21 percent decline since the peak in 2012.

With respect to forestry jobs, my colleagues and I met with the Council of Forest Industries today; 30,000 fewer people are working in forestry than were working in 2001.

Similar challenges, of course, on the manufacturing side when it comes to pulp products and so on. It’s not all roses, as the Premier would like us to believe.

It’s a regional challenge as well. The Thompson-Okanagan area has lost 500 jobs in the past year. The Premier may well be familiar with this, as she represents Kelowna. Kelowna, in fact, has lost 1,000 jobs in the past
[ Page 12992 ]
12 months and now has an unemployment rate of 8.1 percent — right in her own backyard.

In the northeast, which has been impacted by the decline in the price of natural gas and in oil and gas activity, broadly speaking, the region has seen a loss of 1,100 jobs and an unemployment rate right now of 9.4 percent. In the Kootenays, 500 jobs lost and an unemployment rate of 7.6 percent.

There have been many bright spots in the B.C. economy, and those have been articulated by the Premier. I well imagine I’m going to hear that again several times over the next three hours. But I would prefer instead if the Premier could focus, as we do have limited time, on those areas that are seeing difficult times, those areas of the economy that are not growing at the same rate that others are.

Certainly we’ve seen great success in the Lower Mainland. The Bloomberg article that the Premier referenced spoke to the housing market. It’s interesting who’s reading what and who’s writing what when it comes to housing. When I talk to people about the housing market in Vancouver, there’s significant concern, not wild-eyed enthusiasm. In fact, affordability — housing affordability specifically, but affordability generally — is the issue that I hear people talking about over and over again.

Now, we travel in different circles, the Premier and I. I think that’s fair, and it’s likely to continue to be that way. But when I talk to people about the economy, they see tougher times for them. Flat wage growth over the past decade. Increases in government costs, whether it be medical services premiums that have been going up year after year after year. Hydro rates, going up year after year after year. Insurance Corporation of B.C. rates, again, going up. Ferry fares, for those of us who live on Vancouver Island, going up. Even camping fees are going up.

It’s not all roses in British Columbia. It’s not all doom and gloom. Again, I think there are a couple of issues that Emily and Ava might find the Premier and I agree on over the next couple of hours. But I think on this notion that everything is grand, we will have to divide. The people that I’m talking to and the people that are sending me information through my emails and that I meet when I travel around British Columbia are very, very concerned about the downturn in commodity prices and the lack of resilience when it comes to our rural economy.

Are we doing well on the Lower Mainland? Absolutely. Southern Vancouver Island? Couldn’t be better. But the housing bubble is a significant, significant concern. A year ago, in this place, I asked the Premier during these estimates debates what she planned to do to help British Columbians manage the rising cost of housing, and at that time, she said: “Stay tuned.”

Well, here we are a year later. As of yesterday, we’re going to address a symptom of the runaway costs of housing in the Lower Mainland — that being shadow flipping. We’re going to address a symptom of what I would argue is an overemphasis on speculative investment in what’s supposed to be and traditionally has been a fundamental investment for young families and individuals — that being buying a home and using that asset over their working life, not just for short-term benefits.

With that, again, I expect we’re going to be back and forth — one side saying, “Isn’t life grand?” and me saying: “Well, there are some shortcomings.”

I would like to start with that shortcoming in the housing market and ask the Premier if she could advise those of us in attendance here and those that are watching at home what her vision is to address the affordability crisis in housing in the Lower Mainland.

Hon. C. Clark: Let me start where the member started, which is in terms of the economy. I want to correct a few things for the record.

One, his assertion that the jobs plan was focused just on LNG. It wasn’t. There are eight sectors that were the focus of the jobs plan, some of them where we’ve exceeded our goals and some where we haven’t met our goals and we’re continuing to do that work. So, he’s right. The work is not over.

[1520]

There is more to do, and there always is more to do. When you’re number one, you want to stay number one, and that takes hard work and determined effort.

One thing we may agree on is that all of this economic growth and all of this wealth in British Columbia could disappear very quickly if governments decided that we weren’t going to pay close attention and we decided that we weren’t going to focus on trying to get to yes. This is the worst commodities market that British Columbia has seen in a very, very long time. We need to continue to be focused on getting to yes.

Our economy is number one in the country, despite the fact that many people for a long time said we’re drawers of water and hewers of wood. We’re a resource-based economy, and here we are in this terrible commodities market, and we’re still thriving, positioned to outpace the country not just this year but also next year. That takes a lot of work. In fact, I would argue it’s going to take even more determined effort over the next few years than it has over the last few, because the world is a very, very uncertain place.

If government decides at some point that it wants to take its foot off the gas and start saying no, because not everybody agrees with everything all the time, we could find ourselves in the same place that a lot of other provinces have found themselves. Go ask some of those people who are unemployed in the Kootenays and in Kelowna. Lots of them have come from places like Alberta, where they’re really suffering in the economy, and other parts of the country.

People are coming to try to find work and landing. Many experts would tell you that part of the unemploy-
[ Page 12993 ]
ment rate increase in those communities has been the result of those people taking the time that they will need, necessarily, to try and find work.

But this country is in a very fragile place economically, and it’s going to take a lot of work and a lot of determined effort and a lot of focused principle to make sure that we get to yes on projects.

I’ll give another example for the member — because he talked just about LNG — in technology, for example, which was one of the areas that we focused on in the jobs plan. It contributes $23 billion in annual revenue. Last year’s tech exports exceeded $1 billion for the first time ever.

There are now almost 87,000 jobs, and not all of them are in the Lower Mainland. Many of those jobs…. The second-biggest tech cluster in the province is in the south Island, diversifying this economy in a way that we haven’t seen in a long time, in an economy that very necessarily has been very much focused on the government and public service sector.

The economy in Kelowna, again, is one that has been focused on retirement communities and one that’s been focused on tourism. The tech sector is enlivening that community and bringing wealth and young people in a way that hasn’t happened, in terms of a new industry, in a very long time.

Mining, in a very, very tough commodity market, is soldiering on. We’re continuing to work to support them in doing that and getting through these tough times. But God knows that if they made it through the 1990s, they will make it through these days too. In British Columbia, we made a commitment in the jobs plan that there would be eight new mines in operation and nine mining expansions by 2015.

Some of these mines have suspended operation or construction in the midst of the worst of this. But Copper Mountain, New Afton, Mount Milligan, Bonanza Ledge, Red Chris…. Bonanza Ledge has gone into care and maintenance. Three mines that are under construction: Brucejack, Silvertip and Kitsault, which got started and has put its construction on hold in the midst of this market. Highland Valley Copper; Huckleberry; Quinsam Coal; Elkview coal; Endako, which, again, is on hiatus; Gibraltar; Fording River; Line Creek, which I know the NDP oppose — some of those have gone into care and maintenance.

But the point is that from a government’s…. We cannot control the commodities market, but we can make sure that we are doing everything within our government to make sure the permits are issued and the work is done to enable these mines to get under construction, to make those expansions or to be able to do the mineral exploration that’s required to be able to find the wealth that’s under the ground. Mineral exploration spending in 2015 was up by $29 million from 2001. It has gone up to $272 million.

It is a tough time. There is no question about that. And the member is right. The economy is very fragile across the country and, I would argue, fragile in British Columbia as well, which is why we need to be so attentive and so focused on making sure that we find ways to get to yes and make sure we are doing everything we can as a government to support the growth of the resource sector, the tech sector, the education sector — all of those areas of the economy that are so important to British Columbia.

[1525]

Government doesn’t control the prices that we get overseas, but we can do everything we can to get out of the way of these developments happening. We have been focused on that since the introduction of the jobs plan, and that’s why we are number one in Canada today.

J. Horgan: I didn’t realize that the B.C. Liberals had created the Internet, but I guess that’s good news for the tech sector. They’re on the case, and were it not for their good work, none of this would have happened.

Again, the Cariboo, 400 jobs lost in the past 12 months — unemployment up there. The north coast, 2,200 jobs lost in the past 12 months — now with a 7.8 percent unemployment rate. Vancouver Island and the coastal region — doing very, very well.

But let’s see if we can get to: “Yes, I will answer a question from the Leader of the Opposition today.” The question I asked the Premier was: what is her vision and view to help the people in the Lower Mainland who are struggling to get into the housing market. Let’s see if we can get to yes on a direct answer.

Hon. C. Clark: In answer to that question, as I’ve certainly said many times in this House and outside it, we recognize, I recognize, that home ownership for people who are trying to get into the market, in particular, can be very challenging, especially in Vancouver and, in particular, on the west side of Vancouver.

The Minister of Finance and the Minister for Housing are both meeting with Mayor Robertson on collaborative steps that they can take to increase the market for rental supply and housing supply. That includes making sure that we are reducing red tape and investment costs, because this is a supply-and-demand problem.

The thing that governments can have a big impact on is supply. We’re working with cities to try and find ways that we can increase the supply of housing. Their latest estimates are that while there have been about 200,000 people that have moved to the Lower Mainland, there are about 2,000 units on the market. We have to improve that supply-and-demand balance. We are analyzing some of the requests that have come in, both from the city of Vancouver and from critics and academics around the province, to make sure that any changes that we bring in will be done right and won’t have an adverse impact.
[ Page 12994 ]

I think it’s very easy for opposition members, as they have done, to get up and suggest solutions that would ultimately decrease the value of housing that people already own. If you talk to anybody who owns a home, almost all of them have a mortgage on it. Reducing the value of their home and the equity that they’ve built up is something that most British Columbians — I would argue, all homeowners — would tell us is the wrong thing to do.

We need to be very careful about the changes that we make and the remedies that we bring in. You saw some of those yesterday, some of those final decisions on that. We’re going to continue to work on that and continue to work with cities on supply.

I know the member says he’s not all doom and gloom. I’m having trouble finding anything that he’s said recently that wasn’t doom and gloom. He talked about some of the unemployment numbers. I just want to spend a second on that, because he also did.

Here we are with the lowest unemployment rate in Canada, one of the lowest unemployment rates we’ve ever had. We are lower than the national average of 7.1 percent on Vancouver Island. It’s 6.6 percent, down from an historic high of 11.7 percent in the dying days of the last NDP government. Prince George is 4.7 percent, from an historic high of 17.6 percent in March 1999, in the death throes of the NDP government.

The youth unemployment rate is 10.5 percent. We are number one in the country on that number, although I would argue that it’s still too high. But that is nearly half the historic rate of 20.1 percent after about eight years of NDP — highest income taxes in Canada, lowest job growth in Canada, eight deficit budgets in a row, six consecutive credit downgrades in a row, last in private sector investment, last in job growth for five years straight.

[1530]

There are spots in the province regionally where we do need to be attentive and make sure that we are supporting people as the economy fluctuates, regionally and sectorally — that we help them find their way into work. But the overall numbers for the province are very, very good.

We have more to do, absolutely, and all of this could disappear at a moment’s notice if British Columbia had a government that decided they didn’t care about getting to yes and that they liked to say no a lot more. We are determined to make sure that we keep our focus on working people and that we keep our focus on making sure working people have a chance to go to work.

J. Horgan: Again, if I could bring the Premier back to the housing issue. I’ve talked to executives in the tech sector who want to expand. They want to recruit and bring new engineers and other new jobs to the Lower Mainland. They want to keep UBC grads. They want to keep BCIT grads right here.

But when you have, just below the border, a fairly dynamic information technology and high-tech sector that can give a discount on housing that is almost off the charts, it makes it more difficult for those new tech companies to continue growing and for the start-ups to get beyond that critical stage where they need to bring in more people.

So if I could just bring the Premier back to the housing issue. What tangible steps is her government going to take to address the affordability crisis in the Lower Mainland?

Hon. C. Clark: I appreciate we’re carrying on two conversations at the same time. First, let me speak a little bit more to the mining issue, and then I’ll get to the housing one. I know the member doesn’t like to talk about mining, but I will.

Mount Milligan today announced that it was increasing production. So 456 employees on site, and 23 percent of them are from Prince George, 14 percent are from Fort St. James, 16 percent are from Mackenzie, 8 percent are from Fraser Lake, 5 percent are from Vanderhoof, and there are 32 apprentices on site. So there are lots of regional…. I know the member has expressed his concern about regional economies. He’s moved down to the Lower Mainland since then, but I want to make sure that he understands we are paying very close attention to what’s going on in those regional economies.

The decade of mines closing — two closing for every one that opened — when British Columbia was named the most hostile jurisdiction for mining anywhere in the world, is long over. Again, despite a very difficult commodities market, these very resilient entrepreneurs and employers and their workers are soldiering on. As I said, if they could make it through that guy’s government in the 1990s, they’re going to be able to make it through this market until we see some upside.

In terms of the property issue, on the property transfer tax, a new full exemption for new homes up to $750,000 will save homebuyers up to $13,000. The cost of that exemption will be offset by increasing the property transfer tax from 2 to 3 percent on homes valued over $2 million.

And $3.55 million in B.C. Housing, which is the biggest budget we have ever had, for building and renovating more than 2,000 new units of affordable housing. That’s the largest single investment, as I said, in affordable housing in B.C. history and one we can afford to make without going into deficit because we are so focused on making sure that we grow the economy and we get to yes on creating jobs for working people in the province.

Starting in summer 2016, individuals who purchase a property will also need to disclose their citizenship or permanent residency. That’s going to help us understand the nature of the problem much better, just as we discovered when the city of Vancouver, which had been very concerned about vacancy issues, commissioned a study which was a very useful piece of information. Thanks to the city for doing that, along with working
[ Page 12995 ]
with B.C. Hydro on it. It came back with information that suggested the problem was different than people had thought. This data will, again, help us understand the problem better, and it will also help us make sure that we come up with the right solution to it.

Then, of course, there are other items, like the home-renovation tax credit. It’s been expanded to include people with disabilities. It provides up to $1,000 annually to help with home renovations and improve accessibility for seniors and people with disabilities.

We continue to work with cities — like the city of Vancouver, also the city of Surrey — and other jurisdictions to try and make sure that we are coordinated in our approach to balancing supply and demand better in the Lower Mainland.

You know, one of the downsides of a fast-growing economy, one of the downsides of being the most attractive place to live — because you can get a job — in the country is that it does affect the housing market, no question about that.

[1535]

Many, many thousands of people have come from Alberta, many of them in search of work, and many of them are finding and buying homes.

We are certainly seeing growth in the housing sector across the market. We need to understand why that’s happening and recognize that these people coming, the 50,000 new British Columbians we’ve welcomed in the last year, is a great thing for the province. But one of the impacts of that is certainly on the housing market, and we absolutely do need to address that, particularly for new buyers who are entering the market, who haven’t had a chance yet to build up that equity.

J. Horgan: Eighty percent of home sales are resales, so the property transfer tax changes that the Premier referenced affect a very small portion of the overall market. I’m wondering why the choice was made to just focus on new homes rather than the entire housing market.

Hon. C. Clark: Because we want to increase supply. We want more new houses to be on the market so there is more supply of homes. In the city of Vancouver, the number of single-family homes hasn’t changed very much in something like 30 years or 25 years. We need more housing on the market so we can change the balance of supply and demand. That is an essential part of the solution.

Now, there are other things that government can and should do. But without more supply in the market, in a place like Vancouver, in particular — the most beautiful place to live, with an economy that is booming…. People want to move here, from across the country, in particular, but from all over the world as well. As demand grows, supply needs to grow as well. We all know that that is ultimately the most important part of addressing the problem.

Because the member did talk about the tech sector and whether or not they are struggling, I would say, for the tech sector…. They have, certainly, talked to me, as well, about the cost of housing and how hard it is to settle employees. It’s not just the tech sector but people in all kinds of businesses and workers from all across the country. As I said, we do need to address that, but we should also be very proud of the fact that so many people want to locate in Vancouver.

It’s not just housing. We also have to address the talent supply. Making sure that we are…. For example, the announcement that every kid in schools in British Columbia is going to become a coder. It will be gender-equal, so the tech sector…. Girls and boys — by grade 6, those kids will know the basics of coding, which will be a huge step up for us in being able to create the workforce that British Columbia needs to continue to grow in the tech sector.

Investments that we’re making in post-secondary institutions in tech, which have been very substantial — you’ll see that in our tech-focused skills-for-jobs strategy. All of these pieces are a part of whether or not companies are able to locate here: housing costs, access to local skilled labour, the ability to be able to attract immigrants, tax rates.

I would note that after the highest marginal personal income tax rates in North America finally went down in 2001, we suddenly saw a new growth in the tech industry. All of these and many more factors go into whether or not the tech sector grows. And if the member asked me if I think we have done everything we can, I’d say, “Of course, there’s more to do,” but have we done a lot? The numbers speak for themselves.

You see the tech sector, how it’s growing. You see the success and the response that we had to the $100 million venture capital fund that we introduced for the technology sector. We do have more to do. We want this sector to grow. And many parents in British Columbia would tell you that they’d love it if their kid went into technology for a career. We want to make sure those opportunities are there for them, and we are working on that as part of our jobs plan, as we do every day.

J. Horgan: Did the Premier provide any new resources for the K-to-12 system to pay for all of these new coders?

Hon. C. Clark: Yes, $6 million for training. We announced that, in conjunction with the BCTF. We’re delighted to be able to be working, by the way, so cooperatively with the teachers union — after years and years of governments of all stripes and teachers unions almost constantly fighting — reaching the longest period of labour peace in B.C. public schools in our history since the union was founded.

[1540]

It means that we do have the opportunity to talk about the things that are really important to kids more often,
[ Page 12996 ]
rather than fighting about the issues that are important, mostly, to the adults in the room — the government on one side, and the Teachers Federation on the other.

We all care about kids — the union members, union leaders, government members and parents. That means we need to talk about the things that are important to them. We have a chance to do that. We’ve been working very cooperatively with the Teachers Federation on making sure that that $6 million is available to train teachers in how to support kids in this learning in the classroom. There will be more to do, but this a great beginning, I think, for a real change — a real change in schools, a change in our relationship and a change, in the long term, for our economy.

J. Horgan: I don’t believe the $6 million is in this year’s budget. I think that might just have been in the press release. Press releases pay for very little in classrooms, but I’m sure they’re very good for speaking points for the Premier.

I’d like to go back to the housing question for a moment. I was sidetracked by the enthusiasm for coding, and I thought I’d just see if the Premier had a ready-made answer. Sure enough, you push a button and out spits some rhetoric. It’s really quite magical.

I’d like to go back to housing and density in the Lower Mainland. One of the ways you can assist local governments with allowing them to find opportunities to create supply in the housing market is to allow them to increase density, and the best way to do that is to build transit. I’m wondering if the Premier is still going to insist upon a referendum before she brings any more money to the table to assist the people in the Lower Mainland that are jammed in gridlock and are finding difficult opportunities to create more density along transit corridors.

Hon. C. Clark: Look, here’s the thing on…. I know the NDP doesn’t care about how high taxes get. I know that they support…. There isn’t a new tax that they don’t love. But I can tell you, for British Columbians, for taxpayers in this province, there are a lot of taxes that they do not love. Having been the highest income tax jurisdiction in North America in the 1990s…. Having engineered, almost single-handedly, the worst downturn our province has ever experienced, in the midst of the biggest economic expansion in North American history, is quite a feat.

We can lay that at the feet of the thinkers and the policy-makers, like the member opposite, who, on the one hand, thought you could just continue to raise taxes without a care in the world and, on the other hand, thought you could just say no to every project that came along and thought we would survive. Those are the things that the member stood for then, and those are the things that he stands for now.

During the election campaign, we told taxpayers in the Lower Mainland that before TransLink could go for a new source of funding to them, they would get a say. We stand by that policy. We are working with TransLink on ways that they could raise money, potentially — that we could support them in that — without going to taxpayers for new taxes.

This House should be in no doubt that, on that side of the House, while they yearn and hunger for more tax dollars to churn through the machinery of government at the expense of hard-working citizens, on this side of the House, we work to protect taxpayers and make sure we leave as much money in their pockets as we can. In British Columbia, we lead the country in doing that.

J. Horgan: Does the Premier agree that increased transit would provide more opportunities for increasing density, which would bring more supply into the housing market and which would bring forward more affordable solutions for families? Does she not see that, or is it just all about the rhetoric?

Hon. C. Clark: Well, I gave the member an answer to his question about the referendum. I’m happy to answer another question.

In terms of transit, it’s vitally important for the Lower Mainland — for congestion, for quality of life. As the government that has led the country on fighting climate change, we want to continue to do that.

When we brought in the carbon tax in British Columbia and that member fought it, we stood firm and stuck with it. We are the only province in Canada that has an almost economy-wide tax, at $30 a tonne, and we will be for the foreseeable future. We are looking forward to other provinces in the country catching up, as Ontario says that they will, as Alberta says that they will and as Quebec has already begun down that path. As the leaders in fighting climate change in Canada, as I said, we want to continue to do that.

[1545]

The public and private sectors will provide a total of $3.4 billion for transportation investments over the next three years. So $2.7 billion of that investment will be in transportation infrastructure, and $700 million of that investment will be leveraged through federal cost-sharing and partnerships with private partners, local governments and other agencies.

We are working with the federal government and with cities now to try and make sure that the transit that people need is there. Also, I have thought for a long time that density around transit is a really important part of making sure that transit works, and it’s a great way to improve supply. If he’s asking me if I…. Well, he did ask me: do I not think that? I do. I think it is a very good way to address housing affordability and also get full value for the public investment that we make in public transit.

J. Horgan: The federal government has changed their funding formula for infrastructure programs. I under-
[ Page 12997 ]
stand the Premier will be talking to the federal government about that shortly.

The Mayors Council has an inventory of projects that they believe are high priorities. I’m wondering if the Premier could have advanced her thinking on these matters. Maybe she could try to get to yes on some of the Mayors Council’s projects and, perhaps, amend her thinking of three years ago to try and be contemporary with today’s challenges.

In keeping with that, is there any plan to address the concerns that mayors have been bringing to you for three years?

Hon. C. Clark: Even the Leader of the Opposition, who fought tooth and nail to try and make sure that local taxpayers had no say in whether or not their taxes would be raised by TransLink, has to admit that the referendum proposal had the very positive effect of getting the mayors together around a plan. It was the first time we’ve seen all the mayors come together around a specific plan. That in itself was a great win out of the process.

We are working with the mayors. The minister responsible met with them as recently as the last couple of days to make sure that we are working cooperatively and to understand what it is they need us to do, what we need them to do, what we all want the federal government to do jointly because transit for the Lower Mainland is really vital.

J. Horgan: Again, maybe I can just continue to ask questions. Hopefully, the Premier will get up and, rather than accuse me of whatever sins she seems to want to lay at my feet for things gone by and things in the future, maybe focus on the challenges that British Columbians are facing today. It’s always about affordability.

I’ve talked about the increased costs that have been brought about by government policy with respect to B.C. Hydro and hydro rates, about government policy with respect to medical services premiums. But what I’d like the Premier to get to, and maybe she can do it without such an accusatory tone….

There are serious challenges in the Lower Mainland. She says that her minister, who’s with us here today, is working closely with the Mayors Council and other representatives in the Lower Mainland. The federal government has moved. They’ve shifted. They’re talking a new game on infrastructure.

I’d like, if it’s at all possible, for the Premier to just stand up and tell us, perhaps, how she would like to maybe alter or amend the position that she’s held for the past number of years and try to get to yes for the people in the Lower Mainland.

Hon. C. Clark: We are starting to negotiate those bilateral agreements, but I won’t do it publicly here in the House.

J. Horgan: Well, perhaps the Premier would give the public some assurance or some confidence that she is going to listen to what the people are saying and try to address those challenges. The advantage of the transit issue is that you not only address the climate question and the congestion question; you provide an opportunity for local governments to make density decisions that will address the housing shortage. This is a supply-and-demand thing. The Premier was talking about that a moment ago.

Wouldn’t it be a good thing today…? Rather than say, as she said the last time I raised the housing question a year ago, “stay tuned,” perhaps she could maybe articulate a vision for the people in the Lower Mainland that didn’t just involve saying yes to this and yes that but how we are going to actually achieve something and accomplish things in the Lower Mainland.

Hon. C. Clark: Well, the member is right. I’ve told him that I do think the transit opportunity is also an opportunity to improve density and, therefore, supply. We’re working with mayors on that now. Of course, we do very much, enthusiastically, support the transit expansion and welcome the federal government’s investment in that and the interest and cooperative work that we’ve done with local governments.

[1550]

It makes a real difference for people to be able to access transit. It really changes communities. I think it’s part of wanting to get to yes. It’s not easy, but if we keep at it, we can find agreement over sometimes very, very difficult issues. That’s what the minister is actively engaged in right now.

That’s the work that we’re doing with the federal government and with the cities. As that work continues, I know that publicly, there will be more information as those agreements are completed.

J. Horgan: Rental housing stock is an enormous challenge right across the board as well. Again, the community is not just made up of those who are trying to access home purchases. They’re trying to access affordable rental stock as well. I’m wondering if the Premier has any thoughts on those questions.

It’s not just confined to the Lower Mainland. There are challenges in rural communities — Comox, Penticton, Kamloops and so on. Does the Premier have any thoughts on the rental housing stock? Is her government planning any initiatives to assist people who are trying to get into that market?

Hon. C. Clark: I do. Rent assistance for seniors is currently more than 18,600 seniors. We support them in finding their way into rental housing. Rent assistance for families benefits 10,800 families. The provincial contribution in housing has gone from $139 million to $432.5 million.
[ Page 12998 ]

The member will probably know that the rental assistance program helps families with the cost of private rental market housing. That’s been an extremely helpful program for those families, because it’s meant that it’s not just government building the housing, which is a very expensive way to do it, but nonetheless, something that we are going to do a lot of in the next three years, as we have a record budget for social housing.

But it also allows families to be able to stay in their homes, even if their circumstances mean that they can’t afford to pay the rent fully themselves. That’s what the rental assistance program is all about. But we do need to continue to work with cities on making sure that not just the supply of housing is there but that it’s the right mix of that supply.

J. Horgan: Any incentives for new rental supply? Again, with the scarcity of land and the benefits of creating homes, condominiums and so on, are there any incentives planned specifically for the development community so that they can build specific stock for rental accommodation?

Hon. C. Clark: I know the city of Vancouver has done some work around that, some of which has been successful. I’m not sure that all of it has been as successful as they had hoped, but nonetheless, there are very important lessons in that for all of us.

On May 5, we announced there would be $50 million for 2,000 new affordable rental units, and as I said, $355 million over five years — the biggest budget we’ve ever had for those kinds of housing.

We’ve got to continue to do more and, of course, work with the federal government, which has a new commitment to affordable housing. We’re working with them on that now.

J. Horgan: With respect to homelessness, a challenge that’s bedeviled governments for generations in British Columbia and right across the country, we’re seeing increasing numbers of homeless people in rural communities — Cranbrook, Prince George. The list goes on. But one of the things that the government has refused to do over the past number of years is to do a provincewide count and participate in getting….

We talked about data when it came to offshore investment. We talk about collecting data to make good decisions. I think everyone would agree, regardless of where they sit in this House, that if you’ve got good information, you’re going to make better decisions.

When it comes to homelessness, the government has kind of left it up to communities, left it up to social agencies, to do those calculations. Does the government have any plans to intervene more aggressively in the homelessness debate by assisting in having direct access to information so that we can make good decisions?

Hon. C. Clark: I just want to correct the member. It is not true that the government is leaving this up to communities to figure out. That is just simply not accurate.

Since the launch of Housing Matters in 2006, provincially subsidized housing units, rent supplements and shelter spaces available for homeless and those at risk of homelessness have more than doubled, to over 13,200. We have preserved or developed more than 6,400 housing units for the homeless and people at risk of homelessness. That includes the acquisition of 26 single-room occupancy hotels, with more than 1,500 units, which, of course, preserves an important source of housing for those who need it most.

[1555]

Around $213 million was provided last year for more than 13,200 emergency shelter spaces. We have partnerships with eight B.C. communities, providing close to $500 million to build more than 2,100 new supportive housing units for people who are homeless or at risk of homelessness, and close to 1,400 new units will be built in Vancouver. We are working with communities every single day, with a very substantial commitment to support people who are homeless or at risk of homelessness.

Since 2001, our governments, over the years, have invested almost $4½ billion to provide affordable housing for low-income individuals, seniors and their families. This is the most significant investment in housing and supporting those who are homeless that government has ever made in British Columbia.

Again, if I can reluctantly bring this member back to talking about the economy for a moment, it will be to say that the reason we can afford this — without plunging our children further into debt by running constant deficits and seeing our borrowing costs rise at the whim of creditors around the world — is because we have worked so hard to grow the economy, to get to yes on all of those projects that every day this member stands up and says should never happen.

J. Horgan: I’m disappointed that the Premier thinks I don’t have more to do every day than just follow her around saying no to her yeses. I’m far more busy than that. But if that’s what she wants to believe, I guess there’s not much I can do to dissuade her from that point of view. She’s going to say it anyway.

Let’s talk about the economy. Let’s talk about wage growth. Again, there are some disturbing trends. In some areas, stubbornly slow wage growth. For example, in the past 12 months, B.C.’s wage growth has been the third-slowest in the country, we’re in eighth place among ten provinces, and wages have actually fallen by 0.05 percent. Between 2011 and 2016, B.C.’s wage growth has been second to last, and it just goes from there.

Again, we’ve had an announcement of an increase in the minimum wage that will take place in September that will put us in the bottom third of minimum wages across the country. We’re in the bottom third in wage growth.
[ Page 12999 ]

Does the Premier have any explanations as to why this is happening in British Columbia?

Hon. C. Clark: Well, we’re going to get to third in the country, of provinces, when it comes to minimum wage. When you’re leading the country in job growth, when you’re leading the country in economic wealth, we should be making sure that people on minimum wage are participating in that. That was the announcement on minimum wage, and I’m really glad we were able to do that.

I’m glad that our economy can sustain this growth in minimum wage as well. People in small business are telling us that their confidence is very high, that business is good. They are very much a reflection of economic growth — as much as anybody else, probably more than most other businesses because many of them are on much tighter, much smaller margins. Because our economy is growing, we can sustain these increases in minimum wage, and I’m very glad that we can. People who work on minimum wage work hard, and they work just as hard as anybody else does.

In terms of wage growth, one of the explanations for that is that we have kept our public service increases down to a level that British Columbia can afford. I mean, you look across the country at the settlements that other provinces have reached with public servants. Some of them are regretting those decisions now, because they can no longer afford or sustain that growth and those wages.

A huge number of public servants in British Columbia. Those wages have not grown as quickly as the wages in some areas of the private sector. There’s no question about it. We did our best to really be innovative, and I shouldn’t say just government. When I say “we,” I mean everybody around the table, including the union leaders who came forward and helped us craft an agreement that included a bonus, if the economy grows, for public sector workers so that they have the same stake, or some stake, in the economy the way that people who work in the private sector do. It’s an innovation that I want to thank our public sector unions for agreeing to.

[1600]

Today I’m very proud to announce that nurses have settled as well. That means that 99 percent of the public sector of British Columbia, including teachers, are now settled, with some of the longest agreements, in the case of the teachers, in British Columbia’s history. It means labour peace in schools for a long time. That’s good for the economy, it’s good for kids who go to school, it’s good for patients, and it’s good for those government workers who want to be able to go to work every day and focus on the things that matter to them, and that’s serving people.

[R. Lee in the chair.]

J. Horgan: I think that those people in the economy that have seen their wages stagnate over a decade would disagree with the Premier about that being good for the economy. Again, what I hear when I talk to people is that the rhetoric that we hear from the government is inconsistent with the reality of people in communities — working people who are struggling to get by.

I want to take the Premier back to just before the last election when I recall that she and the then minister responsible for B.C. Hydro proudly said that they had wrestled B.C. Hydro to the ground and there would be no requirement for rate increases. All was going to be sunshine and roses. There was, of course, all the LNG debt-free stuff as well. We’ll get to that as the afternoon progresses.

I’m just curious — if the Premier could help me understand — how we went from “we’re going to see no increases in hydro rates” to 28 percent increases in hydro rates, and why it is that the government continues to request Hydro to give a dividend when they’re not making enough money to do that.

Again, I’ve made a fatal error. I’ve asked two questions to the Premier, and I’m going to get six answers. Let’s see if I could bring her right back to the hydro rate increases. Can she focus on why it is that the government said they weren’t going to raise rates and now they’re up 28 percent?

Hon. C. Clark: Well, a few minutes ago the member accused me of not giving any answers, and now he says I give six. It sounds like I’m improving, in his eyes, at this work.

In 2013, we established a ten-year B.C. Hydro rates plan that clearly outlines rate increases. When you adjust that for inflation, electricity costs the same as it did in 1976. Now, the member will know that major components of our electricity system were built 40 or 50 years ago, and investment certainly needs to be made to repair and replace them.

This year’s 4 percent increase represents a $4-a-month increase for the average residential customer. I should note, too, that the residential rates in British Columbia are the third-lowest in North America. That’s something that we’re very proud of.

B.C. Hydro is also investing $2.4 billion a year over the next ten years for maintenance and upgrades. Those projects, by the way — which the member, I suppose, also opposes — will create about 110,000 jobs for working people. We can talk about affordability. It is a lot harder to get along and be able to afford — this province or anyplace in the country — when you don’t have a job.

If you don’t have a good-paying job, it’s hard too. My task, my job is to make sure that we create, we assist the economy in growing as many high-wage jobs as we possibly can. So when I talk about getting to yes versus getting to no, what I am talking about is making sure that we grow those jobs in the economy where people will be paid a wage that they can support their families with.
[ Page 13000 ]

Some of those B.C. Hydro jobs, the 110,000 jobs that will be created out of these investments that we are making that that member has opposed, are going to make life a lot more affordable for a lot of people, because it will mean they don’t just have a job, but they have a good, long-term, stable, family-supporting job.

J. Horgan: Wages are stagnant. We’ve acknowledged that. The Premier says that’s good news. And rates are increasing for ordinary people. That’s a disconnect. I don’t think the Premier can just say we’re doing this and that and everything is grand, when wages are stagnant, have been for the past decade.

The increased costs that the Premier is dismissing may well be insignificant to her at the salary that she receives, plus top-up, but for regular people that are struggling, additional costs — like hydro rates, like medical services premiums — are a burden. It might be pocket change to some of us in this House, but it’s a real burden for the people of British Columbia.

Again, before the last election there was not a commitment to a ten-year plan that involved 28 percent increases. There was a commitment to no increases. What happened between election day and the day after that prompted the Premier to go back on that commitment?

[1605]

Hon. C. Clark: Well, look, what I’ve always said is that we’ve been trying to make sure that hydro rate increases are as low as they possibly can be. In the course of trying to make sure that we renew the architecture, the infrastructure of B.C. Hydro, and create the 110,000 jobs, that means that hydro rates will go up this year by about $4 a month for your average residential customer.

If the member is talking about people who cannot afford the $4-a-month increase — and he’s right; there are some of them — we should also talk about B.C. Hydro’s low-income programs. Upgrades to existing low-income programs have more than doubled the number of eligible customers. The percentage of eligible customers has gone from 11 to 24 percent to try and support people who really struggle with affordability in British Columbia.

At the same time that we renew that infrastructure and create those jobs…. I don’t know what the member’s proposal is to try and create those jobs if we don’t renew the infrastructure. Perhaps if he has a way of doing that, he could offer some of his own answers, for a change.

J. Horgan: A $375-a-year increase in hydro rates since 2011, since the Premier came to take this office. That’s not insignificant. That’s pocket change for her. That’s a significant amount of money in increases for regular families.

Now, again, I’d like to also go back to the dividend that’s been requested from B.C. Hydro annually at a time when their profitability is in question. They have seen significant cost overruns in project after project after project, and now we see again B.C. Hydro borrowing money, putting it into deferral accounts and transferring it back to the province. Does the Premier think that’s sustainable over the long term for what was once our proudest Crown corporation?

Hon. C. Clark: Well, they had ten years of hurt in the 1990s — that’s for sure — and nobody was very proud about the jewel of the Crown corporations in British Columbia in that decade. But we have been working hard to make sure that we grow Hydro’s stature and reputation in British Columbia and around the world. The minister responsible, I think, has found that very, very difficult balance.

You know, the member stands up, and he says he wants rates to be cut, but he thinks that we should be investing in improving infrastructure. He wants to create jobs, but he doesn’t want to invest in the infrastructure. Every time he gets up, he has a different answer, a conflicting answer, to the one that he had before.

I would ask the member again if he has come up with a way that he thinks that B.C. Hydro can renew this vital infrastructure that was built 40 or 50 years ago. If he has a way to finance that and create those jobs that’s better than the one the minister responsible has created, he should let us know.

I suspect his answer is he wouldn’t make the investment. He wouldn’t focus on renewing infrastructure. He wouldn’t ensure that that asset is there for our children and grandchildren. In fact, what he would do is defer that looming liability so that they would have to pay it themselves, because he would find a better use for that tax money or that rate money.

What he’d also do is say he didn’t want those 110,000 jobs for British Columbians. It would be no, no, no, no, which is what we hear every single day from that member, who brazenly pretends to support working people and then, in the next breath, opposes any of the work that could be created to actually get them into jobs.

J. Horgan: The Premier said deferring debt for future generations. It’s interesting that she should say that, because in 2001, the deferral account, the rate rider, at B.C. Hydro was in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, and under the B.C. Liberal watch, it’s now heading towards $6 billion of deferring debt, not for this generation and not for the people incurring the cost but for future generations, for Emily and Ava.

They’re the ones that are going to be paying this, not the Premier, not the people in this House, not the ratepayers of today, because the government is making investments that don’t make any sense.

Can the Premier say to this House and to the people watching at home…? She’s deferred $5 billion to $6 billion worth of debt to other generations. Why is it okay for her to say that and not for somebody else?
[ Page 13001 ]

Hon. C. Clark: There was a decade in this province where almost no money whatsoever, not a penny, went into renewing the infrastructure at B.C. Hydro. It was just left and left and left and left. Now we are in a situation where we have to make that investment, and we should.

An investment in infrastructure that will be there for our children for many, many decades to come. An investment not unlike the investment that W.A.C. Bennett made in British Columbia back in the day when he created B.C. Hydro. And a generation of people who financed that and found a way and had the courage to say yes to making it happen so that clean energy at low cost would be available to our children and the industries that they would work in one day when they found their way into the workforce.

[1610]

That vision of his is one that was abandoned for a decade, and now we are finding a way to catch up. A $4 average increase every month for the residential customer is part of the way we’ll pay for that. But we will also make sure that we create 110,000 jobs out of that — a lot more people going to work every day with hardhats, making a living, paying taxes and adding to our economic wealth and our economic growth.

That’s what we need to do in British Columbia. We need to invest in infrastructure to make sure our children get the best deal possible — that we leave something more for them — and that’s what this investment in B.C. Hydro represents.

J. Horgan: If the Premier had read her history closely, she’d know that the two-river policy was a result of the Columbia River treaty. In the 1990s, when the Columbia River treaty was renegotiated, the B.C. NDP created the Columbia Basin Trust and invested in Keenleyside, invested in Brilliant and invested in Waneta, creating jobs in those regions — good, family-supporting jobs building infrastructure.

This nonsense that the Liberals spit out day after day that nothing happened in the 1990s is hogwash. She knows it. She knows better, and she should stop it now because it’s unbecoming of someone in her position.

Now, the challenges for B.C. Hydro….

Interjection.

J. Horgan: Yes, really.

The challenge for B.C. Hydro is that we’ve seen declining demands over time. Every time a mine is shuttered, every time a mill is closed, industrial demand goes down.

Our demand now is the same as it was ten years ago. So the building process that the Premier wants to focus on doesn’t make sense in a supply-and-demand marketplace, which she was just talking about in the housing market not 15 minutes ago.

The question on deferred debt, which is what started this all off, is…. We went from a modest deferral account system to a massive deferral account system, and it’s increasing.

My question to the Premier is: how do we expect future generations to manage this when we’re making expenditures that are not consistent with the economic need of our time?

Hon. C. Clark: Well, one of the things the member does not grasp is the fact that we do not build dams for the needs of today.

Site C — which he opposes and has vigorously fought, along with his caucus, and all of the jobs that would go along with it — won’t be built for another ten years. We are not building Site C for the needs of today. We are building Site C and investing in this infrastructure for the needs of the future, for another generation of British Columbians who will depend on it for clean energy and for low-cost electricity to make sure that we can power up the industries in which they will work. That is what we mean when we talk about looking after future generations. The member would say: “Don’t do any of it.”

Not a penny into transmission, all through the 1990s. Not a penny. That’s their record on this. We know where they stand on investment. We know where they stand on B.C. Hydro investment because they’ve opposed the 110,000 jobs that would be created out of this investment. They have not suggested any other way to try and come up with it.

He says 110,000 jobs that B.C. Hydro would create as a result of the investments that they are making, all of which that member has opposed…. He wants to argue about it, because he doesn’t support it. He stands up and says he supports working people. Then he doesn’t support having them go to work.

He claims he wore a hardhat one day, and therefore, men and women in hardhats are people he understands. He couldn’t be farther from understanding the needs and hopes of working people in British Columbia, and we know that, because every day, he stands up and says no. He says no to the ironworkers. He says no to the steelworkers. He says no to the pipefitters. He says no to the glaziers. He says no to the carpenters. He says no to all the men and women in British Columbia who want to go out and work in the trades every single day.

On this side of the House, we’re very different. We say yes.

J. Horgan: Can the Premier explain how it is that future generations are going to manage the deferred debt of B.C. Hydro that’s been piling up since 2001?

Hon. C. Clark: This question was also asked of the minister responsible for B.C. Hydro.

The practice of B.C. Hydro paying a dividend to the Crown began in 1992. We know that that practice is unsustainable. So given the need for substantial investment
[ Page 13002 ]
in the system, government, through a ten-year rates plan, has implemented a plan, beginning next fiscal, to reduce B.C. Hydro’s dividend to zero, which will allow B.C. Hydro to retain more cash to fund investments in electrical infrastructure.

[1615]

Hydro doesn’t tie the amount it borrows every year to specific items, such as a dividend or a particular capital project. Instead, B.C. Hydro simply borrows the net amount required to support its activities in a given year. This would include capital expenditures or the dividend.

The dividend does not increase the province’s debt. It’s simply a transfer of borrowing and does not impact the total debt of the province. B.C. Hydro’s dividend decreases the amount of money the province is required to borrow to invest in capital projects, such as hospitals and schools, and increases the amount of money that B.C. Hydro is required to borrow to invest in its systems.

I’d note, also, that the statements from Moody’s in their annual report last week aren’t a change from any of the previous reports. British Columbia still has its triple-A, stable credit rating, and we’re the only province in the country that has that. They state that B.C. Hydro’s debt serviceability is strong. The debt has increased because it’s investing $2.4 billion per year in aging assets and new infrastructure to support our growing population and economy.

It is going to mean that thousands more people are able to go to work. I know that the member opposes that. On this side of the House, we support those people going to work.

J. Horgan: The Premier just used the number of 110,000 jobs. I’m wondering if she could table that document that would confirm that number.

Hon. C. Clark: Yeah, B.C. Hydro produced that number. I’m happy to table that number. I don’t have it with me now, but I will.

J. Horgan: This kind of leads me to freedom of information. I rather suspect that I’m going to have to be using FOI to get access to that number, and it could well be months and months before I see it. It leads me to talking about the triple-delete scandal that was the epicentre of turmoil in the fall. That led to charges against a Liberal staffer. It’s difficult to keep track of the number of people facing charges, whether at the provincial office of the B.C. Liberals or former employees here. But I’m wondering: what efforts did the Premier’s office undertake during the Privacy Commissioner’s review to improve FOI practices in her office?

Hon. C. Clark: If the member is talking about the Denham-Loukidelis reports, which I think he is, I’ll speak to that now. The OIPC’s report contained five findings and 11 recommendations to improve the processes in records management policy. We thank them for that. We subsequently sought advice from the former commissioner, David Loukidelis, and he released his report outlining 27 information management recommendations. We’ve accepted all of those recommendations, and we have already started to implement them.

Government is going to be expanding the mandatory training requirements to ensure that all employees know how to retain records in a responsible way. Almost all ministers, parliamentary secretaries and ministers’ office staff have already received that updated training.

Mr. Loukidelis also recommended that a public servant should oversee the collection of records from political staff. As soon as procedures can be implemented, career public servants will be provided with enhanced training for overseeing that, as he suggested they should be. Training and continued oversight will continue to be necessary to ensure that we’re meeting the high standards that we are setting for ourselves. As noted in Mr. Loukidelis’s report, political staff are appointed under the Public Service Act and are subject to government policies on records management. They are also subject to a specific code of conduct for political staff.

The practice of triple-deleting has been prohibited for ministers and political staff, and they will continue to retain all sent emails. Government policy requires that all employees, including staff in ministers’ offices, keep and dispose of records in accordance with records schedules and management policies.

Just let me finish by saying that an email in-box is not an appropriate place to store records, nor is it in any way an indicator of the records government has kept. But we continue to make sure that we make the changes that Mr. Loukidelis has asked for. Work on all of them is underway. Some of it is substantially complete.

I think we’ve made significant progress in making sure that British Columbia catches up and then, we hope, gets ahead of the way information is stored and shared and transmitted around the world.

J. Horgan: Were there any increases in staff in the Premier’s office to manage freedom of information?

[1620]

I know that there’s a departed staffer who famously used Post-it Notes to track FOI requests in the Premier’s office. I assume that tracking system has improved. Has it led to an increase in staff?

Hon. C. Clark: The bulk of the work for freedom of information, if all records are kept, which they are, in the Premier’s office — all of the ones that flow through the Premier’s office are kept — is in the identification and search of those documents. Responsibility for that has been transferred out of the Premier’s office into the civil service so that people will know and can have confidence
[ Page 13003 ]
that it’s being done in a completely non-partisan way. That work is being overseen by the Ministry of Finance. There has been no additional staff complement added, because that work has actually been moved out of the Premier’s office and into the civil service.

J. Horgan: I thank the Premier for that.

There’s a regulation change: regulation 211/2014, B.C. reg 67/2014, Public Service Act, Standards of Conduct for Political Staff Regulation. It says, “Outside remuneration and volunteer work. Political staff may hold jobs outside government, carry on a business, receive remuneration from public funds for activities outside their position, or engage in volunteer activities provided it does not interfere with the performance… bring the government into disrepute, represent a conflict of interest…” and a number of other caveats as well.

I’m wondering if the Premier can advise if any of her staff hold outside positions.

Hon. C. Clark: I’m not aware of any staff members violating the code the member has talked about.

J. Horgan: That wasn’t the question. The question was: do any of her staff hold outside positions?

Hon. C. Clark: Not that I’m aware of, if I’m understanding the question correctly.

J. Horgan: The question was…. After reading the regulation change that said that political staff may hold jobs outside…. Maybe I’ll be more specific. Does anyone in the Premier’s staff receive stipends from the B.C. Liberal Party?

Hon. C. Clark: I take it he’s talking about me.

I’m not aware of that happening in my office with any staff members.

J. Horgan: If I can be clear, then, the Premier does not believe that any of the staff working in her office receive stipends from the B.C. Liberal Party. Is she aware of any of the staff in her office holding any other positions, running a business or a consultancy?

Hon. C. Clark: No.

J. Horgan: Going back to the Denham report, which the Premier, interestingly, calls the Loukidelis report. I know that the Premier is aware of this, but for those at home, we have a freedom-of-information and privacy commissioner, Elizabeth Denham. She, regrettably, will be leaving to go to the United Kingdom to be the head information officer there. We had a former Information and Privacy Commissioner, David Loukidelis, who then left that position to become Deputy Attorney General and then was reappointed to the position of overseeing the report that was tabled by Ms. Denham last fall.

Within that document and other documents Ms. Denham has tabled over the years was her belief that the government had a duty to document decisions. I’m wondering if the Premier could advise what the status of the duty to document is within her government.

Hon. C. Clark: That’s one of the toughest recommendations, a very important one to execute properly, and the Minister of Finance is actively working on that now.

J. Horgan: Could the Premier give us any indication of when we’ll be able to see any legislative change, any regulation change, that would codify the duty to document? I don’t disagree with the Premier. This is an important piece of business.

When the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act was established in the 1990s, the duty to document did not envision the volume of information that would be travelling through electronic mail and text messages and so on. Perhaps the Premier could give us some indication on timing?

Hon. C. Clark: I can’t, but the Minister of Finance may be able to do so.

[1625]

J. Horgan: Going back to the triple-delete scandal, where the Premier read a memorandum from her briefing package that talked about the process that was underway and now the edict that there will be no triple deleting. I remember at the time asking questions in this House, and in discussions outside of this House in the media, about the Premier professing no understanding or knowledge of this notion of triple-deleting.

I’m wondering, now that she’s been able to educate herself on that, if she could advise this House whether she, unlike her Finance Minister, uses electronic communication, or does she rely exclusively on text messages, which are not covered by the act.

Hon. C. Clark: I do. Any official work that I do does not get deleted. That was my commitment at the time. It’s been my commitment since. I don’t think I have ever deleted anything from my government account, although in the past, there might have been some emails, but never triple-deleted, always accessible. Certainly since the change, I haven’t deleted any.

J. Horgan: Last week the Auditor General released a report on the Mount Polley disaster, characterized it as a decade of neglect with respect to compliance and enforcement. At the time, the Minister of Energy and Mines said that he was going to accept all the recommendations
[ Page 13004 ]
but one, that one being the division between enforcement and compliance and promotion within the Ministry of Energy and Mines.

I’m wondering if the Premier could explain to this committee why it is that that separation, which is a fairly critical question, seems to be so challenging for the minister and her government.

Hon. C. Clark: Only because nobody else in Canada does it, it appears. We can only identify one jurisdiction — Queensland, in Australia — who we believe does it.

The ministry is not rejecting the recommendation. The ministry is looking into it to understand why it is that no one else does it except for one jurisdiction, which may perhaps help us understand whether or not it should be done here.

J. Horgan: Can the Premier at least see, from a public perspective, that when you have a disaster the magnitude of Mount Polley, it would be beneficial to the public understanding of these challenges to have some confidence that the promotion of mining, which is something that’s critically important to the sector, can continue and that there would also be a separation, as many legal firms and other firms do — to have a wall that separates one practice from another?

It doesn’t strike me as particularly complex. In fact, it would give the public confidence that the regulator, those that are ensuring that our regulations are being enforced and complied with, is separate from the very people that are promoting the industry.

Again, having worked in that ministry, I have the utmost respect for the people that are there. I know they work every day to ensure that those lines are not blurred. But it’s perception becoming reality that I’m concerned about. When we look at the magnitude of the failure at Mount Polley, it strikes me that the recommendation from the Auditor General is an appropriate one and, I believe, one that would have been able to be accepted quite readily.

It’s not that difficult to move people down the hall, move them down a floor, separate their reporting relationships. I know this happens in government all the time, with reorganizations and new banners on the letterheads. People are moved around, and you separate one activity from another. It’s pretty straightforward, almost ordinary. Why wouldn’t we do it?

Hon. C. Clark: Well, as some of the experts in this field — and I am certainly not one of them, nor is the member, I don’t think — would argue, one of the reasons that they would say not to do it is that the people who are permitting mines need to have intimate knowledge of the mines in order to make sure that we really fully understand the risks that need to be mitigated in order for them to go ahead.

The expert panel that was commissioned and came back with its report months ago is one whose recommendations we have also accepted.

What they recommended was that the government “create an integrated and independent compliance and enforcement unit for mining activities with a mandate to ensure the protection of the environment. Given that the Ministry of Energy and Mines is at high risk of regulatory capture” — in that MEM’s mandate includes a responsibility to both promote and regulate mining, which I think is what the member is talking about — “our expectation is that this new unit would not reside within the ministry.”

[1630]

Our response to that has been to recognize that “many provincial governments across Canada have agencies and ministries with the role of promoting and regulating an industry.” We are establishing “a mining compliance and enforcement board that will address the need for greater integration between the ministries as well as with the environmental assessment office.”

We’ve already begun work on that. Whether or not the Auditor…. The expert panel did not recommend this change; the Auditor General did.

The ministry is now doing its work to understand the best course to make sure that the mining regulations are complied with and that enforcement is adequate in the province. We need to make sure that we do everything that we can to protect the reputation of mining in British Columbia.

Mining matters so much to so many people, to so many communities. It’s why we’ve worked so hard to make sure that we are permitting more mines, making sure that more of them get closer to construction and some of them closer to opening and producing jobs and creating opportunities for people. That’s why we have worked, in the face of much opposition, so hard to do that.

We know that these jobs really matter. But those jobs are all at risk if the reputation of mining in British Columbia is sullied. That’s why we are working hard to respond to all of the recommendations that have come both from the Auditor General and the expert panel.

There’s one that we still need to understand better, given that we’ve had conflicting advice about that and some very passionate interventions from experts in the field that this recommendation from the Auditor General should not be done. That work is underway. I know, in question period and through other various avenues, that the member will be kept up to date as it goes ahead.

J. Horgan: In my read of both the reports, the expert panel’s and the Auditor’s report, the notion — and the Premier quoted it — of the high risk of regulatory capture is just the sort of thing that would sully the reputation of the sector here in British Columbia.
[ Page 13005 ]

It seems to me that whether it be a division within the ministry or a separation, the Ministry of Natural Resource Operations would be an appropriate place for permitting that would have…. You could transfer those that have a robust understanding of the details of particular applications, and you could have a separate component that would be reviewing their compliance with regulations. I see them as complementary, not contradictory.

I guess I’m looking…. I sort of half-heard an answer from the Premier. I’ll give her an opportunity to get up and give it again. What I think the public wants to hear is that there is a division between those that are promoting an activity and those that are regulating the activity. It happens to be mining we’re talking about, but I think that would be reflected in almost all endeavours.

I think the public would want to make sure that the people…. As we’ve talked about real estate, for example. Earlier in these estimates, there was some concern that the solution to nefarious and unscrupulous activity in that sector was to tell the foxes to review the henhouse. We have yet to receive the report from the Real Estate Council, and I look forward to that. The public has reason for pause when the people that are undertaking and promoting an activity are also responsible for enforcing and policing it.

Again, if the Premier could stand and advise the House that she agrees with the notion put forward by the expert panel and the recommendation put forward by the Auditor General that we should find some way to separate promotion and enforcement, then I think we could move on.

Hon. C. Clark: Well, we have two conflicting pieces of advice. I’m also advised by an avid viewer of these proceedings that, in fact, even Queensland does not separate. We have these two functions. We haven’t been able to find anywhere in the world that does it. We are looking at it, though, and happy to have the member’s input and his views on that, as part of that process.

J. Horgan: It’ll be two years this August since the failure at Mount Polley. Multiple reports — and again, most recently last week, what I believe to be a very reasonable recommendation. If we become the first jurisdiction in the world to do something, I would have thought the Premier would take that opportunity to crow. Why wouldn’t we become the first to separate promotion from compliance?

Hon. C. Clark: Because maybe it doesn’t make sense, and we need to do our homework to figure out if it does. We have two conflicting recommendations. There are 16 other recommendations which we’re acting on. On this one, we really need to do our due diligence. If no one else around the world does it and there are no examples of it ever having been done successfully, there may be some very good reasons why we wouldn’t want to.

[1635]

J. Horgan: On November 26, the Premier visited Masset, her first visit to Haida Gwaii as Premier and, I’m advised, did not inform the Haida Nation of her arrival, did not advise the mayor of Masset. She visited a school, Chief Matthews Elementary School, not a provincial responsibility, and made a financial commitment to that school when we have schools that are the responsibility of the province of British Columbia that are going without funding.

I’m wondering if the Premier could explain what took her to Old Massett on that given day and why we would be promoting expenditures of public moneys for an educational institution that’s not the responsibility of the provincial government.

Hon. C. Clark: In British Columbia, all citizens are British Columbians, whether or not they attend a school that’s funded by the provincial government, whether or not their school system and health care system is the constitutional responsibility of another level of government.

Our government is keenly interested in making sure that First Nations communities get a better shake than they have over a century in British Columbia’s history. That means making sure that we include consideration of First Nations benefits and job opportunities when we’re looking at major resource projects, which we’re doing. It means focusing on improving education for aboriginal people, whether that’s through skills training or secondary school work. It means building relationships in those communities, relationships that will be durable and will help us address the urgent need for reconciliation between First Nations and non–First Nations.

As I’ve often said, over the member’s opposition to the economic development in the province, I intend to make sure that we move forward with these projects and take advantage of what could be an historic opportunity, a generational opportunity to ensure that First Nations are able to create the kind of wealth that they’d like to create in order to be able to support their communities better. Education is part of that.

Interjection.

The Chair: Order.

Premier.

Hon. C. Clark: So is economic growth. So is working to a certainty around treaties and other economic agreements. We’ve signed 400 agreements with First Nations to help us achieve certainty for them and for the private sector and for government on the land base and help us really make sure that we define our relationship and have a way, a better way, to engage in dialogue.

First Nations have been here for millennia. They arguably have a greater investment in our province than anybody else. It’s time to include them. That means making
[ Page 13006 ]
sure that First Nations communities have the tools that they need, the kinds of tools that lots of other communities take for granted, to make sure that their kids have the best chance.

J. Horgan: We did a freedom-of-information request to the Ministry of Education for any and all documents — occasions when the ministry has provided funding for a feasibility study related to an on-reserve school. The FOI came back as a “no records” response. Later, on the 25th of January, an FOI analyst advised us that Education has never provided funding directly for on-reserve schools.

I’m wondering if the Premier can explain. Was this a policy decision that was made in the jet, on the way? Was there any material created to support the announcement? Based on our request for information, none existed.

Hon. C. Clark: I’m sorry. I can’t speak to the member’s question around freedom of information. But as I said, we are deeply committed to making sure we support First Nations kids in British Columbia, and we’re continuing to do that.

J. Horgan: Can the Premier tell us how many other schools, First Nations schools, the government has supported while she has been Premier?

Hon. C. Clark: Well, it depends how you define a First Nations school. There are a lot of schools around the province that have a lot of First Nations kids in them. I know the member would differentiate and say: “Well, they’re not our responsibility. We don’t have to pay for these services.” I think British Columbia has to think about doing things in different ways as we redefine our relationship with First Nations.

[1640]

This is part of that, as are many of the other initiatives that we’ve undertaken in supporting young people across the province. For a long time, the federal government wasn’t very present at the table in our discussions with First Nations, and we’ve moved to fill a lot of those gaps. We continue to do that, and as I said, we will need to think about new ways of doing things.

J. Horgan: So the Premier’s not aware of any other on-reserve schools that have received any funding from the province of British Columbia?

Hon. C. Clark: I’m not aware. As I said, we do need to make sure we’re doing things differently. We have taken a very different approach with First Nations. It’s been successful, for the most part, across the province in making sure that First Nations are a part of growth.

You can see in the broad agreement that we’ve had, for example, on the Petronas project — from wellhead to liquefaction plant, broad agreement that the project should go ahead. The Lax Kw’alaams have voted, a huge majority, in favour of it happening. We’re really pleased about that — working with the Lax Kw’alaams to make sure that they get their fair shake out of this deal, as we want to create for all British Columbians.

We are finding new ways of doing things. Sometimes that may disturb the fans of the status quo, but the status quo for First Nations people in British Columbia hasn’t been good enough, and we intend to change that.

J. Horgan: Does this reflect a policy change, and will other on-reserve schools have access to $150,000 in provincial funding for their needs?

Hon. C. Clark: Well, as I said, as we seek reconciliations with First Nations, we’re open to innovative ways of doing things, and we’re going to continue to do that.

J. Horgan: I’m advised that the Haida Nation was not aware of the Premier’s arrival and departure. The cost of the trip was an $8,170 chartered plane for the Premier and her crew. Again, the visit was to Chief Ken Rea and some other community leaders.

Were there any protocols that were followed? The Haida Nation is fiercely proud of the progress they’ve made, nation to nation, with Canada and with British Columbia. I’m just curious, if the Premier wants to embark on a new relationship, why they were excluded from this visit.

Hon. C. Clark: I’m not aware that anything the member has said is accurate. It may be, or it may not be. But I will say that I do spend as much time as I can visiting First Nations communities. That’s part of building a relationship — in a government-to-government relationship, meeting with First Nations leaders and communities.

We did certainly meet with the community when I was there. It was terrific. I visited the school, as well, and met the teachers and the support workers and the students and the parents that were there. That’s all part of building a new relationship.

The idea that leaders in this province can stay here in Victoria — where the member lives, I know — and not venture out isn’t building relationships. I need to go to communities and meet with people, whether that’s First Nations or non–First Nations, and I’m going to continue to do that.

J. Horgan: According to the B.C. First Nations School Association, there are 128 First Nations schools in B.C., and according to the 2013 Parliamentary Budget Office report, B.C. has 12 on-reserve schools that are considered to be in “poor or worse condition” than the only school in British Columbia that has received a $150,000 grant from the Premier via a visit in a private jet.

Again, I appreciate the Premier’s comments, but I’m trying to understand what prompted the visit to this
[ Page 13007 ]
community, at this time, for this school, when there is no question about the need right across the province.

Hon. C. Clark: I should also just point out for the member that the money, the $150,000, was to: consider options for a new gym, an auditorium addition, draft preliminary schedules, assess budget requirements, identify potential funding sources. It’s money to help them plan.

At the time, we had a federal government that wasn’t particularly interested, or didn’t seem to be very engaged, in supporting the work that we were trying to do, that First Nations were trying to do in their communities around some of the social supports that they provide.

This was money that we thought would help them be able to make their case to the federal government and help them be able to get their request to the federal government over the line so that they could continue to do the expansion that they very much need in that community, and certainly hope for.

[1645]

J. Horgan: How did you learn of this particular school, when the budget office says there are a dozen schools in, as they say, poor or worse condition? Why was it this visit? What other work was done? Was it just a quick in and out? How long were you in the community?

Hon. C. Clark: Requests come to government all the time, as I’m sure the member knows. I was in the community for part of the day, meeting with the community, meeting with activists in the community to talk about their environmental concerns, meeting with elders in the community and talking about their hopes and dreams for the future, meeting with the elected council, as well, and then meeting with the community more broadly. It was at the school — and going to the classrooms with the kids.

It was a great chance to get to know a little bit about a community that I hadn’t visited, that has a tremendous need for an expanded school and that was working really hard to get the money that they hoped for from the federal government across the line. We were very happy to assist them in doing that.

J. Horgan: As I understand it, the Premier visited on November 26, 2015. Is that correct?

Hon. C. Clark: It could be.

J. Horgan: You made reference to a recalcitrant federal government. Well, we had changed the federal government on that day. In fact, we had elected a government that, if I’ve been reading and watching Mr. Trudeau correctly, has been making significant commitments to First Nations communities right across the country.

So I’m curious why, after the election of a prime minister who said he was going to get some work done on reserves, you would have found $150,000 to give to this particular initiative when there were at least a dozen other schools in British Columbia that were in more need, and there are 240 schools within the system you are responsible for that have been closed since 2001.

Hon. C. Clark: Well, the member may not know this, because it’s been a long time since he sat in government, but the federal government does not move quickly, and policies do not change quickly. This had been under consideration by the federal government for a long time. They wanted to get it across the line. We thought we could assist them in doing that with some planning money, and that’s what we did.

As I said, we want to make sure that we are supporting First Nations communities in a variety of innovative ways. We’re doing that across the province. The Ministry of Children and Families has been really at the forefront of this. The All Chiefs meeting that we do once a year now — it’s a historic change — is where all of cabinet, all deputies and all chiefs from across the province meet together and talk about what we can do together. All of these are elements of reconciliation. We can’t be afraid to try and meet those reconciliation goals sometimes in ways that depart from the status quo.

J. Horgan: When you met with chiefs in September, did they identify this school as a priority, and is that why you ended up in Haida Gwaii on November 26?

Hon. C. Clark: I met with a lot of chiefs that day, and a lot of chiefs met with a lot of different ministers. I can’t give the member a full accounting of what all of them and all of their elected representatives talked to ministers and deputies about, but the meetings that I had were very productive.

I have to say, it’s something that I think was long overdue in British Columbia, and I’m very proud that we created this venue for First Nations leaders to connect with government very specifically about issues in their communities.

I don’t know if the Old Masset community spoke to other ministers who were there or other deputies who were there. That wasn’t one of the meetings that I had during that two-and-a-half-day event in Vancouver.

J. Horgan: I’ll hazard a guess that no one did talk to the Minister of Education or any deputies, because when we asked for information on this…. I haven’t been out of government long enough to not know that if a minister is asked to do something, he’ll advise the deputy and materials will be created. Yet when we asked for information about this policy change, “no responsive records” is what we got back.

The Premier said, interestingly enough, that it takes a while to turn a government around. But apparently it
[ Page 13008 ]
doesn’t take any time at all to find 150 grand for an area that you’re not even responsible for after you’ve flown up with your entourage in a private jet.

[1650]

Perhaps the Premier can try and zero in on that. We have an abundance of staff here. They have electronic devices. Maybe we can call back to HQ and see if we can get a legitimate answer as to why you spent $150,000 of taxpayers’ money on something you’re not responsible for, when 240 schools have closed in British Columbia on your watch.

Hon. C. Clark: Well, the Old Massett school serves a lot of non–First Nations kids as well. As I said, we wanted to make sure that we supported the community in pursuing this expansion — money from the federal government with the planning money. That’s exactly what we did. I think it was the right thing to do. It’s an important part of reconciliation.

J. Horgan: Again, I’m delighted that the Premier says that there are kids that are going to benefit from this. That’s not the issue. The question is: why these kids and not the kids at the dozen other schools that are in poor or worse condition than the school at Old Massett? And why in the world, if you’re going to embark upon a policy change, is there not a scrap of paper to advise the public?

We talked about the duty to document earlier on in these estimates. We talked about the Premier’s desire for openness and transparency. She also talked about respect for First Nations. Now, I was here today. I participated in a ceremony when we introduced the Talking Stick into this Legislature so that there would be respect and decorum. We had First Nations leaders from around the lower Island, two from my own community.

I have a little bit of understanding about how First Nations feel about protocols and how First Nations feel about how we proceed in an open and transparent way. It’s inconceivable to me that the Premier of British Columbia could make her first visit to the Haida Nation and not advise the Haida Council that she was coming.

She came with a cheque for $150,000 that has no policy foundation whatsoever. We can’t get an answer today as to why it happened other than it was a good idea at the time. Well, whose good idea? Did this idea come to you directly from the chief or from an intermediary?

Hon. C. Clark: Well, we are spending $1.7 billion of capital across the province for 1,500 new student spaces. There’ll be more to come on that. We want to make sure that we are supporting schools in British Columbia that are in districts that are growing and improving older schools that need to be upgraded. That’s a very significant amount of money. In this school, where lots of First Nations and non–First Nations children attend, we thought we could help them with some planning money that would get them across the line with the federal government.

Again, we are always looking for new approaches to make sure we build reconciliation with First Nations in British Columbia. That’s been a central focus of our government. That’s why we’ve signed over 200 agreements with First Nations since I’ve become Premier. That’s why we bring together chiefs from across the province. It’s why we have a policy to make sure that we are including First Nations in economic growth.

J. Horgan: Again, I’m delighted to hear the Premier…. You know, we’ve got 240 schools closed, 42 more on the chopping block just this year. I’ve been in the Okanagan. I’ve been talking to people. The mayor of Osoyoos — absolutely beside herself that she and her community will be without a school, a school that is the responsibility of the province of British Columbia, the responsibility of the Premier of British Columbia. And we can’t get a straight answer on why it is that the Premier went, for the first time as leader….

I have been to Haida Gwaii. It is a spectacular place. I remember almost every minute of my time there and why I went there and how I got there. Yet the Premier of British Columbia went with a cheque in hand for a school that is not her responsibility, and I have not yet heard from her why it was that this policy shift happened. Was there any foundational work done by the Ministry of Education? Apparently not, based on freedom of information. Perhaps it was just a whim by the Premier. If that’s what it was, then that’s okay by me. Just fess up to it.

Why would you go for the first time to the Haida Nation, not advise the Haida Council you’re coming, come with a cheque in hand, drop it off and head out of town, never having done that in any other corner of the province — or by any other Premier in the history of B.C.? Why would that happen? If you were so proud of it, why is there not more work being done for the other schools in B.C.? We can’t find a scrap of paper on that either.

Hon. C. Clark: We are continuing to work with First Nations communities across the province on early childhood education, on secondary education — how we can improve that. We’re also working with First Nations communities on how we can improve the transition from First Nations schools to non–First Nations schools, which is a very significant issue we hear about in the northwest and other parts of the province. We do very much continue that work, the work that FNESC has done over the years in helping us make sure we understand what’s going on for First Nations students in school.

[1655]

By the way, the FSA has been a vital part of helping us understand that. That’s why we continue to support the FSA over the opposition objections — one of the reasons that we do that. As I said, we continue to invest in
[ Page 13009 ]
education all across the province in front-line services for students and, of course, $1.4 billion in new and improved schools — we’ve built 48 new schools, replaced 70 aging schools, added space at 186 schools, seismically upgraded 149 schools — at a time when enrolment is dropping across the province.

We’ve continued to try and find innovative ways to work with First Nations, and we’re going to continue to do that. Whether or not the member likes it, I think it’s important that when we work with First Nations, they understand that we aren’t always wedded to the same old way of doing things. The same old way of doing things hasn’t served many First Nations people across this country very well for a very long time. We want to change that, and that’s the work that we’re doing on economic growth. It’s the work that we’re doing on education. It’s the work that we’re doing on First Nations health care, where we’ve made significant strides. We have a lot more to do.

J. Horgan: Did FNESC, which is the First Nations Education Steering Committee…? Were they advised on this contribution? Are there other schools that can apply? Is there an application process? Or was it just a one-off? That’s the issue.

I appreciate that the Premier has an abundance of information that she can read off to me. None of it is relevant to the question that I’m asking, however. That’s about a $150,000 grant that only existed the day the Premier arrived and has not been talked about since she left.

If there is a grant program, can the Premier advise us how other institutions can apply for it?

Hon. C. Clark: We certainly respond to educational institutions and First Nations communities across the province to requests that we get from them. Some of them are very traditional requests; some of them are less traditional requests. We are always trying to find innovative ways to be able to meet our obligations.

This money was for planning purposes. I understand the planning is underway and ongoing. We certainly hope that they’ll see that expansion for those First Nations kids and the non–First Nations kids who attend it.

J. Horgan: The Skidegate Band school is in difficult straits as well. Did the Premier ever contemplate seeing the Skidegate Band when she was on Haida Gwaii?

Hon. C. Clark: I don’t know if they’ve made that request. If they have made that request, the Ministry of Education will certainly let the member know. The ministry, I’m sure, will consider it.

J. Horgan: Did the request from Chief Rea come directly to the Premier’s office or through an intermediary?

Hon. C. Clark: Chief Ken Rea made the request directly to me in a meeting that we had. I meet with First Nations leaders from across the province on a regular basis. I always try to do that. I cannot meet with all the chiefs that would like to meet with me during the annual all chiefs meeting that we do.

Frequently, when I do meet with First Nations leaders, there is a whole range of issues that they present. We work hard to try and, where we can, agree on the ones that we can accommodate and the ones that are most important in those communities.

J. Horgan: We can confirm, then, that Ken Rea asked you for the money, and you gave it to him. Is that the process for funding for schools on reserves in British Columbia?

Hon. C. Clark: No. The Ministry of Education reviewed the proposal and did their work on it. There was certainly more process to it than that.

I will say that I think that the work we’ve done in that community and continue to do on Haida Gwaii is a very important part of making sure that our relationship with First Nations is as durable as it can be, but also to make sure that kids in First Nations communities get the fair shake that they deserve.

J. Horgan: I’ll read from the freedom-of-information request to the Minister of Education: “Any and all records, documents, occasions when the ministry has provided funding for a feasibility study relating to an on-reserve school; i.e., similar to the announcement made on the 26th of November related to Chief Matthews Elementary.” Their response was “no records.”

I’m having a little bit of difficulty, and I suspect that those at home — and certainly those in the South Okanagan who are facing school closures — are having difficulty understanding how it is that their appeals for their member of the Legislature to show up and be answerable for decisions that are happening goes on to deaf ears. Yet a random visit by a chief from Old Massett not only elicited a visit from the Premier but a cheque in hand, when there was no process, there was no oversight, there was no review. I find that hard to get my head around.

[1700]

I’m wondering, again, if the Premier can say to the House today that there is in place — as a result of this innovation that she’s brought to First Nations relations in British Columbia — a process where other First Nations communities can approach the government for 150 grand.

Hon. C. Clark: Well, if the member thinks $150,000 is going to solve the issue that the folks in Osoyoos are facing, he’s badly mistaken.
[ Page 13010 ]

I will also say that this was money for planning, as I said, and that planning is underway. We hope that the kids will end up pushing it across the line with the federal government and they’ll end up with a school expansion that really works for the community and the kids who go to school there.

J. Horgan: Well, 150 grand will get them halfway there in Osoyoos, because the savings are allegedly going to be $300,000 in a year, and that’s just to the district. But imagine the consequences for families and for kids who are going to be on buses for large portions of their day. They’re also, by the way…. A note to file here. The kids are going to have to pay for those buses as well.

Is there a program for on-reserve schools to be funded through the Ministry of Education?

Hon. C. Clark: I can’t speak to the freedom-of-information request that the member has in front of him, but I can confirm, based on what I’ve just heard from the ministry, that they have been in discussions with them since November 2014.

J. Horgan: Now that we’re getting information, perhaps the ministry could advise us if there are any other schools they have been in contact with.

Hon. C. Clark: I cannot confirm that, but I can check with the ministry and get that information for the member.

J. Horgan: The Osoyoos Secondary School is on Crown land. It’s a provincial asset. It has been educating kids in the community for a long, long time, and it is the only secondary school in the community. Yet the Premier is not prepared to take the extraordinary step of intervening or advising the school board there how they can find other ways to keep that school open. Yet again….

I’m just looking at the perception. I appreciate that the Premier may well be genuine in her desire to break the logjam of status quo, but it seems passing strange that in the middle of an election campaign, in Old Massett, the Premier shows up with $150,000 for the school there for planning money when we have no jurisdiction whatsoever. Could the Premier agree with me that, at least on the surface, that looks pretty lame?

Hon. C. Clark: I’ll tell you what I think is lame. I’m sure it’s the note that the member has in front of him that says: “Whatever happens, don’t talk about the economy.”

The line of questioning that the member has been focused on has, I think, been thoroughly exhausted. I have answered the questions the same way, I should note, a number of times. I’m happy to continue with this line of questioning over $150,000. If, however, he would like to talk about jobs and the economy and putting working people to work at some point, I’d also welcome that discussion, although I’m sure the member is going to continue to do his best to avoid talking about any of those things that would mean putting working people to work in British Columbia.

J. Horgan: Well, I guess 150 grand is just three years of top-up for the Premier. That’s just pocket change for her, but it’s a significant amount of public expenditure in an area where we don’t have jurisdiction.

We have a lot of problems in British Columbia. How many bus passes could we purchase for 150 grand? We’ve got people with disabilities who are having to pay for a bus pass that they didn’t have to pay for last year, and there’s $150,000 for planning. How does that make sense to anybody? And if education is not part of the economy, then maybe I’m on another planet here. It seems to me that if we’re not educating the next generation of innovators and entrepreneurs and pipefitters and plumbers and poets, then we’re doing a disservice to the people of this province and future generations.

I’d still like to have an answer from the Premier. Why it is that she doesn’t understand or see the conflict here between the public system that’s being starved, $54 million in clawbacks for administrative low-hanging fruit, when there’s 150 grand hanging around in the Premier’s pocket change to give to a school that’s not provincial jurisdiction?

If you’re able to give 150 grand to Old Massett, why in the world wouldn’t you then announce you have a program…? If you really are genuine about addressing First Nations education issues on reserve, why wouldn’t you announce a program for all First Nations schools on reserve, the dozen schools that are in worse shape than the school in Old Massett?

[1705]

That strikes me as innovative. That strikes me as leadership. What this strikes me as is something that smells really, really bad, and the Premier wants to change the subject.

Why in the world would you fly to Haida Gwaii for the first time as Premier and not meet with the Haida Council — breaching protocols that the Premier should be well aware of — because someone asks you for money for a school that you have no responsibility for? That doesn’t make sense to me, and I would argue it probably doesn’t make any sense to the people in this House right now.

Hon. C. Clark: I would argue it may not be true of all of the people in this House, but I think for the people watching, most of them would like to know about whether or not they’re likely to get a promotion because the economy is growing, whether or not their kids are likely to be able to get a job because the economy is growing, whether or not they’re going to be trained for positions that actually exist. I think that’s what top of mind for
[ Page 13011 ]
British Columbians. But the member studiously avoids talking about any of those issues. I am, of course, happy to indulge him in that.

I didn’t add this before, but in January 2015, the ministry spoke to the Haida Gwaii school district about their capital plans. One of the things that the school district raised with them was the possibility of being able to provide some support for this school. So those discussions that I said happened, happened over a period of, I think it’s fair to say, about a year and included the school district.

J. Horgan: Could the Premier provide a decision document that confirms that the government of British Columbia agreed to provide this money, or was it a discretionary expenditure? Can the Premier provide a decision document that demonstrates the decision tree that led to the conclusion that the Ministry of Education or whatever pot of money this $150,000 came out of was approved in an appropriate way, or was it just out of discretionary funds?

Hon. C. Clark: I understand that the Ministry of Education has documents which I could potentially provide to the member.

I should also just add that this work with them was also important for the school district. Even though the school district doesn’t have responsibility for the First Nations kids — technically, if they’re on reserve — like me, they believe that as citizens of the province, we all have responsibility for each other. It’s not good enough to just point your finger and say: “We’re going to leave it up to the other guys. Tough luck.”

What we’ve said is we wanted to support this school expansion through planning money, which we did, recognizing that this school doesn’t just serve First Nations kids who are on reserve. It serves First Nations kids who are not on reserve, and it serves many, many non-First Nations kids, as well.

I should say, they do a really great job. It’s amazing. Kids are learning the Haida language and the Haida culture. It’s a tremendous example of building understanding between two communities that, in some cases, haven’t always understood each other. I think this school is making a tremendous change. And it’s an example of the kind of integration in communities that we’d like to see and the education of non-First Nations kids in First Nations culture which I think is so important, in the long term, if we want to make sure that we really do reconcile.

J. Horgan: Let’s focus on the area of jurisdictional responsibility that the Premier has, and that’s the public education system here in British Columbia.

There is a debate raging about the percentage increases in funds for private schools while there has been a cap and, in some cases, a clawback of funding for public schools. I’m wondering if the Premier can articulate for the committee why it is that there’s a significant increase in funding for private institutions and flat increases for public education.

Hon. C. Clark: There haven’t been decreases in funding for public school students. Average per-pupil funding has risen by more than 42 percent since 2001, from $6,262 to $8,908. That’s a very significant increase.

Funding follows the student, as the member knows. For most children who are at independent schools, that’s 50 percent on operating per child. At public schools, obviously, it’s 100 percent. But the money follows the students.

J. Horgan: Can the Premier articulate and quantify the amount of downloading that’s been going onto the public system in terms of unfunded contractual obligations, hydro costs, MSP premiums, WCB premiums. Have they been keeping pace? Has government funding been keeping pace with those increases?

Hon. C. Clark: Enrolment in British Columbia has been declining, but nonetheless, the support on a per-student basis has gone up very significantly in order to try and make sure that we keep pace.

[1710]

J. Horgan: Well, enrolment is up this year, so we bucked the trend. The Premier was talking earlier about how excited she is about people moving to British Columbia. Yeah, they’re bringing their kids, and they need educational institutions to thrive and prosper.

I’m wondering if the Premier could explain to the parents of kids in Surrey when they’re going to be able to get their kids out of portables and into schools.

Hon. C. Clark: The member should stay tuned.

J. Horgan: I heard “stay tuned” a year ago on housing, and what we got was the Real Estate Council reviewing themselves. What we got was, after we tabled legislation in this House, some steps on shadow flipping, and we still haven’t got anything to address speculation. So I suppose we’ll stay tuned on Surrey. But if we are going to have an announcement on Surrey, I’m hopeful that the people in the south Interior should stay tuned for some relief there.

One of the challenges of school closures is an increase in the cost of busing students from one jurisdiction to another. Because of underfunding, school districts in both rural and urban areas have been forced to increase fees for things like busing services. Peace River, Chilliwack, Abbotsford have been forced to put bus fees in place — in some cases $700 a year.

Does the Premier believe that forcing parents to pay $700 a year to bus their children out of the community that they had a school in, into a community that has one, is an appropriate way to manage our education budget?
[ Page 13012 ]

Hon. C. Clark: I want to quote members opposite, who said: “The declining enrolment issue across the province is an obvious one, and I accept that judgment from the Education Minister in certain parts of the province.” That’s what that member said in ‘08.

The member beside him said: “Well, there’s no question you’ll see some school closures in B.C. because of declining enrolment. I mean, I sat around a school board table for 11 years, so I know the situation well. We also looked at school closures in Victoria, and when you see dropping enrolment, that is one of the considerations that has to be on the table.” That same member said: “There are a number of people saying that school closures seem to be the most reasonable option with what you are faced with. A lot of people are saying, ‘We’d rather you keep the programs in fewer schools.’”

These are very difficult decisions that school districts need to make. Nonetheless, they are empowered to make them, and we trust that, as locally elected people, they will make the best decisions for the communities that have elected them.

J. Horgan: Budget 2016 included a 1 percent increase for public school funding, which is below inflation and certainly below a 4 percent increase in hydro and a 4 percent increase in MSP premiums for those districts. Is the Premier saying to this House that a 1 percent increase when we’ve had increasing enrolment, which is below inflation and below the costs — putting aside contractual obligations — that the province imposes with respect to heating costs and medical services premiums…? How can you say that that’s keeping pace with growth in the communities?

Hon. C. Clark: Well, the operating grant for public schools will be an additional $6.7 million. Enrolment is up in 42 school districts, and additional funds were required to fund those extra students. We’re delighted about that. A booming economy has meant that more people are coming and, as the member said, bringing their kids with them. That’s the result of working so hard to create jobs in the province — jobs that attract people. People bring their kids, and enrolment grows. That is great news for B.C. No question about it.

Eighteen districts, though, are continuing to experience enrolment decline. This has been a real problem for a long time in the province, particularly as rural communities have continued to shrink.

We need to make sure that we build rural communities up. Part of the focus for us in supporting resource development and getting to yes has been making sure that rural communities have the economic opportunities that they need so that — rather than communities continuing to decline in population or just simply aging rather than getting younger — they grow and get younger. We can begin to address what’s a real worldwide problem, where rural communities are shrinking and urban communities are growing. We’d sure like to do everything we can to try and reverse that trend here in B.C.

J. Horgan: The government has refused to cover the $26 million cost of the next-gen connectivity upgrade in public schools. The Premier mentioned earlier on that it was going to be $6 million for coding but not $26 million to connect those kids that are learning how to code to the interweb. This is an additional cost imposed, sanctioned, by the ministry, and it’s not being funded by the government.

[1715]

How is it that the low-hanging fruit that the Premier referred to a year and a half ago when she put forward an edict that $54 million in administrative savings could be found…? You’ve added another $26 million. This is destabilizing communities. It’s destabilizing school boards and leading to closures of schools that, in the long term, are going to have a negative impact on communities, a negative impact on the economy and certainly a negative impact on kids.

Hon. C. Clark: The member is incorrect in his assertion that it is funding that is leading to the closure of schools. What is leading to the closure of schools is fewer students in the province. There has been enrolment decline in 18 districts. In some of them, it’s been going on for a very, very long time. That is the primary reason that schools end up being closed by school districts.

I’m happy to report that we are budgeting for an additional 1,400 kids in September 2016. British Columbia is booming. People are coming, and more kids will be in school, which is terrific news. We’ve worked hard to help British Columbia get here, but it’s been hard-working British Columbians that have made sure we did.

J. Horgan: It strikes me that we’re hollowing out rural British Columbia when we start liquidating our schools, our public facilities in communities. How is Osoyoos going to attract new workers, new investors, new enterprises when there’s no high school for kids? How does that make sense to anybody? A city of 7,500 people without a secondary school just doesn’t make any sense.

The Premier has been shortchanging districts, looking for low-hanging fruit. There was this blanket request for $54 million last year. I’ve been speaking to school board officials right across the province. They’re struggling. They’re struggling finding the money. On top of that, they’re having to manage the inability for B.C. schools and districts to budget effectively.

Nobody wins when the government is bullheaded on this stuff. Wouldn’t we want to get to yes to keep schools open in British Columbia rather than close them?

Hon. C. Clark: In terms of public school enrolment growth, what we’ve seen is this. In 2015, we saw the first
[ Page 13013 ]
enrolment increase in B.C. public schools in almost 20 years. I’m delighted to report that — approximately 6,700 more students than the districts had estimated. An additional $6.7 million was invested to ensure that those students were funded at the published rates.

Districts have an estimated increase of 1,000 school-age students for September 2016 — 1,400 in total, including adults, for the full year. We’ve committed to fully funding that enrolment growth. But this follows many years of declining enrolment, and for many districts, it has meant very, very difficult decisions, as I said.

We hope that we can do a fair amount to reduce that and to diminish that problem by making sure that we stop the withering of rural communities. Those who say no to everything would see those communities shut down altogether. I take a very different view. I think we should try and say yes to economic development, yes to growth and yes to rural communities that depend on that growth.

J. Horgan: Has the Premier reviewed administrative costs in school districts?

Hon. C. Clark: It was reviewed as part of the budget process.

J. Horgan: Well, B.C. school districts have the lowest per-pupil district costs in Canada — 30 percent less than other jurisdictions. B.C. school districts spend less than their American counterparts, and administrative expenditures are in line with other public sector entities. Despite that, despite all of the work that school districts have done to try and conform to the download that keeps coming from the B.C. Liberals, they’re being asked to find more money. Surely, the Premier can acknowledge that that’s debilitating.

We have a $100 million prosperity fund filled with increases in medical services premiums, not from revenues from LNG. Surely to goodness, on a rainy day in British Columbia, we could take that discretionary money that the Premier has squirrelled away for re-election purposes and put it back into the school system.

Wouldn’t that be good news for Osoyoos? Wouldn’t that be good news for the capital challenges in Surrey? Wouldn’t that be good news for kids in British Columbia? You had 150 grand for a school that you’re not even responsible for, and you’ve got $100 million doing nothing when it could be going into school districts.

[1720]

Hon. C. Clark: So $150,000 for a school that accommodates a lot of citizens and lot of children in British Columbia who are citizens of our province, some of whom are First Nations and some of whom are non–First Nations.

In terms of administrative savings, elements of government all across the province have found administrative savings, and the request of government to school districts was to try and start finding some of those administrative savings as well. We want to make sure that as many dollars as possible go into the front line of classrooms.

J. Horgan: District after district has said that the administrative savings that the Premier is calling for will result in cuts to classrooms. We have $100 million that has been put into a fund just so you can say you kept a commitment, even though the money is not coming from where you said it would come.

Why wouldn’t you take that revenue in your budget today and help districts like Vancouver, help districts like the southern Interior, help the districts in the north? Wouldn’t that make a whole lot more sense than sitting on 100 million bucks when kids are having their schools ripped out from underneath them and districts are carved to the bone and, in fact, going beyond the bone, going into classrooms, affecting the programs and outcomes for kids now and into the future?

Hon. C. Clark: We have been working as hard as we can to support the school board of Vancouver in offering what advice we can to them. Admiral Seymour Elementary School is 73 percent empty. Sir William Macdonald Community School is 72 percent empty. Garibaldi Annex is 61 percent empty. You can go down the list of schools that are really underutilized.

Those are issues in Vancouver that Vancouver, almost uniquely, has to deal with. I know that they are struggling with some of those decisions now. I know that they are very difficult decisions for them to make. But those are their decisions. We’ve offered what advice and support we can in that, but ultimately, they will be the ones that make those choices.

J. Horgan: The latest ministry report on class size and composition shows that learning conditions in B.C. are continuing to deteriorate. Class composition has grown steadily from 2006 to present. The number of classes in B.C. with four or more children with special needs in them has gone from 9,500 in 2006-07 to 16,500 this year. That’s the highest it’s ever been.

The Premier likes to get to historic highs. Well, we now have historic highs for kids over the number prescribed by legislation in classrooms around British Columbia. The Premier said she was going to address that. How is going from 9,000 to 16,000 addressing the problem?

Hon. C. Clark: Decisions on class composition are made at the district level by principals in consultation with teachers. That certainly requires professional judgment on the part of the experts in trying to make sure that we have the best possible learning environment for students that are in there.
[ Page 13014 ]

The factors that are considered when principals make these decisions include teacher workload and experience, student preferences and aptitude, social and behavioural dynamics, the availability of educational assistants and other supports, and students with identified special needs. Class size and composition, I should note, have been regulated in B.C. since 2002.

We’ve been working with the BCTF, and in our agreement, which brought in the longest period of labour peace that we’ve had since the teachers union came into existence in British Columbia’s history, we also added $125 million over five years to the learning improvement fund. That brings up to half a billion the money that’s there to address class-composition challenges.

We make sure that we work with the BCTF in a renewed relationship — not always perfect but definitely, certainly, renewed and better — to make sure that those resources are appropriately applied in school districts across the province.

J. Horgan: During the labour disruption, the Premier said that class composition was her number one priority. I’ve just said that the statistics put the lie to that. Special needs — numbers of four or more kids have gone from 9,500 to 16,000. At the same time, the number of special educational assistants in classrooms has declined by 432.

There are 500 more classrooms in British Columbia because of the growing enrolment, and there are 432 fewer education assistants. How is it that the so-called low-hanging fruit that the Premier refers to in her clawback of administrative savings hasn’t adversely affected the 432 fewer special education assistants and the increasing number of special needs kids in classrooms right across B.C.?

[1725]

Hon. C. Clark: I don’t know where the member gets his numbers. There are 9,780 education assistants working in schools today. That’s an increase of almost 50 percent since 2000. In working with the BCTF as well…. I think the union also has a preference to ensure that more teachers are deployed in classrooms who are members of the BCTF as well. They’re not educational assistants; they’re teachers. That isn’t reflected in the statistics that the member’s talked about.

Again, the half a billion dollars that we’ve committed in the agreement with the Teachers Federation is going a long way to helping alleviate some of these pressures that classrooms and teachers feel in their classrooms.

J. Horgan: I’d like to move to the health system, if I could, and the Premier’s leadership in that area.

Back in February, the Premier was asked about changes to the Medical Services Plan. She said: “It’s antiquated, it’s old, and the way people pay for it generally doesn’t make a whole ton of sense.”

That made a whole ton of sense to me, so I had an expectation that when the budget was tabled in February, we would see significant changes to the Medical Services Plan. Instead, what we got was a deferred change to January of 2017 — just in time, surprise, surprise, for the next election.

I want to ask the Premier if she can explain why it is that even though she’s had time to change the status quo…. I mean, we did that with our federally funded school by finding provincial funds for that. Why is it that we didn’t try to change the status quo when it comes to medical services premiums, a premium plan that she called “antiquated”? Why not take some action on that immediately rather than deferring it to next year?

Hon. C. Clark: We’re not talking about $150,000 here. We’re talking about $1.42 billion — or we’re talking about much more than that in our budget for Medical Services Plan. It’s not an NDP budget. You can’t do it on the back of a napkin. We are doing our due diligence and making sure that any changes that we make are going to be the best ones possible.

I should also add, in reference to the earlier question, $400 million in the learning improvement fund has so far hired 312 teachers, 849 part-time teachers and 400 support staff, thanks to the work from the BCTF and our negotiators at the table for establishing this agreement and making sure that it’s working for kids in classrooms. It was a lot of hard work getting there. There were those who said we should just run up the white flag and give it up. We didn’t. We stuck with it. We got the longest period of labour peace in British Columbia’s history since the BCTF was created.

J. Horgan: Since the Premier took office, she’s increased medical services premiums by 24 percent. She likes to talk about the lowest tax jurisdiction in this neighbourhood, yet regular people have had a flat tax increase of 24 percent, costing about $345 more per year for families since she became Premier.

I appreciate that you don’t want to do this on the back of a napkin, but “what else do you do?” is the kind of question I have. What does the Premier do all day? If we’re not trying to address the problems of our time, we’re jetting off to an island in the North Pacific, giving away money that we don’t have to for reasons that are inexplicable.

Why wouldn’t we have someone addressing affordability challenges? Why wouldn’t we have our government working every day, diligently, to make life better for British Columbians? Instead, we have: “Well, we can’t get there without saying yes.”

Well, why don’t we say yes to getting rid of medical services premiums? Why don’t we say yes to getting rid of a flat tax, the only province in Canada that has one? That’s something we can all say yes to. Why don’t we do it right
[ Page 13015 ]
now? Let’s commit to getting rid of this thing as quickly as possible, not just booting the ball down the field, as the Premier is tending to do.

Hon. C. Clark: He says “jetting off to an island in the North Pacific” as though Haida Gwaii is not an integral part of British Columbia, as though it’s some foreign land that a Premier or a representative of government has no business going to visit. I’d remind the member that Haida Gwaii is a vital part of British Columbia and the people there matter.

I think it’s entirely appropriate for members of government and the opposition to visit communities around the province as part of understanding the province. We can’t all stay in Victoria, where the member lives, and decide we want to govern from here. It means travelling, and it means travelling to places in British Columbia that I wouldn’t characterize that way. I think that people of Haida Gwaii would be a little bit offended at the way the member has characterized the community that they live in.

[1730]

In terms of what the Premier does all day…. Well, I could go on about that for a long time, but it might involve drawing the member into a discussion of the economy, which I know he desperately wants to avoid, so I won’t go into that long list of things that I do all day. All of them are focused on trying to make life better for British Columbians, create more opportunity for kids and adults, create more jobs, grow the economy.

We’re No. 1 in Canada. Those statistics are heartening. We have the lowest unemployment rate in the country, and we are looking at the best growth we’ve seen, comparatively, in Canada since 1961. Those are pretty good numbers, and it’s the result of a lot of hard work. If the member would like me to go into some detail about exactly how my days unfold, I’d be happy to, but it may consume the rest of this discussion and, as I said, draw him into a talk about the economy, which I know he wants to avoid at all costs.

J. Horgan: Let me assure you that the people of Haida Gwaii deserve access to programs and provincial services. I’m just curious as to why the Premier, on a particular day, chartered a jet to fly to Haida Gwaii and did not advise the Haida Council that she was coming, breaching a protocol that’s pretty significant. I’m certain that the intergovernmental relations people and the minister responsible for aboriginal relations would be able to draw that out for the Premier, if she had the time.

But I’d like to go back to the medical services premium question, which is what I posed to her. Why is it that British Columbia is the only jurisdiction in Canada that still has this antiquated, according to the Premier, tax?

Hon. C. Clark: I think I’ve answered that question. It’s not a small change for the province to contemplate, so we’re working on it now. As more information becomes available, we’ll make sure that the member is as well.

In addition to the changes that we’ve already made to remove children from the calculation of premiums, remove the inequity in the rate structure that sets the rate for a couple at twice that for a single person, extend the premium assistance to reduce or eliminate premiums for more lower-income individuals and families, I still believe that there is more we can do. We’re working on the numbers to see if we can do it.

The member says: “Well, why don’t you just snap your fingers and get it done?” Well, first of all, you’ve to make sure that you have the money to get it done. That’s the reason we’re so focused on growing the economy. Then you’ve got to do your homework. As I said, it’s not an NDP budget. You can’t do it on the back of a napkin.

J. Horgan: I’m just wondering if the motivation here is that it’s an easy way to raise revenue. I mean, it’s gone up 24 percent since the Premier has been here. If we go back to 2007-08, then Minister Falcon, the heir apparent there, started this 4 percent increase every January. It’s a money machine for the government, an antiquated money machine.

I would suggest that if the money exists in the economy to be collected, to be put into general revenue, there surely would be another way to collect it that’s more fair and more equitable than what we have right now.

Leaving that aside, I want to just for a moment touch on another promise that the government made, about a GP for Me, and then I’ll talk broadly, of course, about health service delivery in constituencies and communities right across British Columbia.

In my travels in rural British Columbia, where people are desperate to access medical services…. I know that here in the lower Island and in the Lower Mainland, as general practitioners retire, new doctors are coming on stream, and they’re not interested in taking on the same workloads as those who came a generation before them. They’re more inclined to look at lifestyle issues and focus specifically on the delivery of services.

I know the Minister of Health is well versed in this, and it’s not a problem that can be solved instantly. But the promise was made instantly, and it was reinforced before the election campaign. Now it’s been abandoned. So can the Premier advise this committee what the actual status of the GP for Me program is that was part of the election campaign of 2013?

Hon. C. Clark: All right. The divisions of family practice have recruited at least 170 doctors in B.C. to take on new patients since 2013. Just to put this in context, in 2002, only 38 percent of residents chose family medicine. Now 49 percent choose family medicine. So that means we’re increasing the number of residents who are going into the field. Part of that has been $100 million for in-
[ Page 13016 ]
centives to recruit and retain physicians, particularly in rural British Columbia where this is always, and it has been for a long time, a really acute problem.

According to CIHI, B.C. has 5,808 general practitioners. That’s an increase of 31 percent since 2001, and that compared to a population growth of 14 percent over the same period.

[1735]

Now, the current agreement that we have with the Doctors of B.C. provided $67 million in annual funding to support the General Practice Services Committee for programs like a GP for Me and other primary care programs. We provided $40 million in funding to divisions of family practice across B.C. for the same program in the last three years. In 2014-15, there were 2,451 doctors practising in rural areas in B.C., which is an increase of about 8 percent over 2010-2011.

It has been challenging, and it is for all jurisdictions across the western world. Everyone is struggling with how we make sure we keep up with the growth and the need for health care as the population ages and the people who are providing health care, the number amongst that population, continues to decrease. We have done a good job here if British Columbia, but we have much more to do.

I’m not going to pretend that it’s an easy problem to solve, but I will say that we have made some changes. Unlike the NDP, we did more than not build a single hospital in the 1990s. In fact, we’ve built billions of dollars worth of hospitals across the province. We didn’t close 3,000 hospital beds; we’ve opened them. We didn’t eliminate nearly 1,600 full-time nursing positions, which the NDP did, and we have created new medical school spaces. I note, just for the record, that the NDP failed to create a single new medical school space.

Addressing just that problem alone over this last many years has been really challenging, to make sure that we open up more spaces, and then that we open up more spaces outside the Lower Mainland — Prince George and Kelowna — to make sure that we can support rural medicine further.

We need doctors. We need more doctors in British Columbia, not fewer, and we need more doctors who are specializing in rural communities, not fewer. We need more doctors who are specializing in family medicine.

We’ve made progress on all of those fronts. Some we’ve made a lot of progress, and some we have a lot more progress to make. But again, it’s a problem that most jurisdictions are struggling with across the western world. We’re going to continue to do all that we can to make sure that we meet the needs of British Columbians.

J. Horgan: The Premier made the promise, an election promise, and didn’t fulfil it. As recently as last fall, she said: “We still intend to get there, but we’re not there yet.” Is this another one of those “stay tuned”? Or are we going to have a date certain on this? Or are we just going to say: “Yeah, more to come later on”?

Hon. C. Clark: I should also add that in 2002 I talked about 38 percent versus 49 percent of residents studying family medicine. The number is actually 128 residents who chose family medicine. Now 288 residents are choosing family medicine. That does make a very real difference.

When the government set the goal, it was an aspirational goal — no question about it. It certainly had a significant impact on getting all service providers and everyone in the health care system focused on addressing the issue. That has made a difference for tens of thousands of patients.

As a result of the work that they’ve done — the local divisions of family practice, under a GP for Me — more than 150,000 patients have a family doctor or belong to a primary care clinic. Those are people who wouldn’t have otherwise had that access, that kind of primary care on a consistent basis. In three prototype communities — Prince George, White Rock–South Surrey and Cowichan — residents face currently little or no wait to find a family doctor.

That work is continuing, and things are improving. Progress is being made, and we’re going to keep our focus on that, as these challenges, which are continuing to grow, are ones that present new challenges every day. We’re going to continue to do that work as people around the western world struggle with the issue of making sure physicians, family physicians, are available for citizens who want them.

J. Horgan: I’d like to move to seniors care, if I could, and some interesting statistics for the Premier to ponder. There has been a residential care bed increase of 3½ percent in B.C. since 2012. The problem is that the population over 75 has increased by 10 percent during that time. Complaints about care and services in residential care have increased by 6 percent during that time.

But the more troubling statistic comes from the seniors advocate report that we talked about in this Legislature: “I’m concerned about the overprescribing of antidepressants and antipsychotic drugs for those who are not diagnosed with psychosis.”

I’m wondering if the Premier could explain to the committee why it is that publicly funded care facilities are overprescribing, by a magnitude of about 30 percent, antipsychotics for people not diagnosed with psychosis.

Hon. C. Clark: Well, the statistics that we have in British Columbia are much, much better than they ever have been in the province because of the work that our Health Minister did in appointing Isobel Mackenzie as Canada’s very first seniors advocate. It meant that she’s able
[ Page 13017 ]
to keep track of statistics, and it meant that she’s able to make sure we are informed of areas where there are gaps in the system.

And there are gaps in the system. We need to be aware of those gaps as soon as they’re identified so that we can try and make sure we address them, including some of the issues that the member has raised.

I know the Health Minister is working on it, and I know he talked about those in his estimates a little bit earlier and certainly in question period. I’d be happy to provide those responses for the member if he didn’t have the chance to hear them himself.

The Chair: The committee is going to have a five-minute break, in recess.

The committee recessed from 5:40 p.m. to 5:44 p.m.

[R. Lee in the chair.]

J. Horgan: Further to the seniors advocate report, again, referencing hours of care.

[1745]

The report confirms that 82 percent of the publicly funded institutions in British Columbia are not meeting the number of hours of care prescribed by regulation. I’m wondering….

Again, that’s a staggering number brought forward by a representative of the government, the advocate — not completely independent, as we have with our Auditor General or the children’s representative or the Ombudsperson, but certainly someone of the highest integrity and characterized as independent despite the reporting relationships and so on.

When the Premier hears that 82 percent of the care homes in British Columbia are not meeting hours-of-care standards that the province has set, what kind of response can we expect from her over the next number of months?

Hon. C. Clark: Well, the Minister of Health has asked Parliamentary Secretary Darryl Plecas to work alongside the seniors advocate and the ministry to look into those options to address some of those issues. It’s a very important recommendation and call from the seniors advocate. Certainly, the parliamentary secretary and the Minister of Health are committed to answering it.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

J. Horgan: Well, again, whether it be the antipsychotics or hours of care, I think that, when we look at a 10 percent increase in the population of British Columbians over 75, there’s a significant concern that the facilities that we expect to be there for our parents and our grandparents are not meeting the standards that are being set by this government. I would expect that remediative action would be a high priority for the government, and I’m wondering why the Premier can’t give us a more substantive answer.

Hon. C. Clark: It is indeed a high priority for government. Mr. Plecas is a very able and intelligent individual, and I know that working with our very able seniors advocate, they will produce some good solutions for government and for the Health Minister to work on.

It’s important, though, to remember that the direct care hours for individuals is dependent on a comprehensive assessment process. It involves the client, the family and the staff at the facility. The 3.36 hours is not a requirement. It is a guideline. It’s a starting point for planning decisions.

However, we do want to make sure that the care hours that seniors are getting in facilities that are regulated by the government are adequate for them, because every senior citizen who requires that kind of care deserves to have as much care as they need and to be able to live in dignity for that period of their lives.

That’s why the parliamentary secretary and the seniors advocate are looking at it. I’m very hopeful they’ll come back with some results from that discussion very soon.

J. Horgan: When the member referenced the member for Abbotsford South by name, I thought she was talking about the irrepressible Bob Plecas, so I panicked. I thought: “Is he doing that too?” I have full confidence in the member for Abbotsford South, and I’m grateful for the staff clarification on that, as I panicked at the thought of Bob Plecas doing more.

Interjection.

J. Horgan: Yeah, I’m sure he will.

The issue, though, is that we’re not meeting the standards, and the standards aren’t adequate to start with. As we see an aging demographic…. We’ve been talking about this in this Legislature. I’m 11 years a member now, and we’ve been talking about this since I arrived.

Again, not anticipating immediate solutions to these challenges, but there’s an expectation, I believe, in the public that we elect a government — the members on that side and the members on this side — to oversee the delivery of services for people in British Columbia as a response to the taxes that they provide to us to deliver those services. When we’re missing the mark, as we are in this case, demonstrable by an independent individual, I think it gives the public pause.

I’m grateful that Mr. — the other — Plecas, from Abbotsford South, is on the case, and I look forward to speaking with him off line and perhaps getting some more detailed answers from him on what the government’s plans are. But the public is genuinely concerned. I’ve been listening to media reports and interviews with
[ Page 13018 ]
the seniors advocate, and I know it’s increasing the number of calls to my constituency office, so I want to make sure that we canvass that here today.

I also want to talk a little bit about…. You know, we talked about administrative savings. Times are tough. The Premier acknowledges that in her focus on keeping on track. But we’ve seen a significant increase in the amount of government advertising on television over the past number of months. I don’t know if it’s because we’re in the polling season and we want to affect those numbers, but it seems to me this always starts around election time.

[1750]

I’m wondering if the Premier would want to maybe touch on why it is that we’ve seen an increase in advertising. Can we expect to see even more over the next 12 months? Or are we going to look at saving some administrative costs within government here that we could perhaps redirect to the education budget, we could redirect to finding more and innovative ways to provide primary care in rural communities?

It seems to me — again, as nice as it is to see the ads on television — that money could obviously be going into programs for people. I think the public would be grateful for that rather than the ads they’re seeing now.

Hon. C. Clark: In terms of the advertising that government is doing, we want to make sure that people are taking advantage of the programs that government offers. Importantly, the changes to the B.C. training and education savings grant for children born in 2006 or later…. We want to make sure that parents are aware of that and are making that investment so that they can continue to support their kids into the future. It’s a very, very important part of what we want to do, which is to build that opportunity for kids so that when they go on to post-secondary education, they have all of the advantages that they’ll need to have in order to access it.

The property purchase tax exemption saves buyers $10,000 on a new home purchase. We make sure we’re talking to people about that.

Also the Medical Services Plan — focused on premium assistance for seniors. I think that almost any MLA in this chamber, regardless of what party we represent, will have a story about a senior you’ve encountered who meets the threshold to receive MSP premium assistance but doesn’t access it. I certainly hear that a lot in the community of Kelowna where there are a lot of seniors.

We want to make sure that people understand the services that are available to them so that they can access those benefits, especially when there are changes. These are services that are bought and paid for by the people of British Columbia. We want to make sure that they know about them so that they can take full advantage of them for themselves and for their children.

J. Horgan: I believe we had a bill tabled today — a private member’s bill. I don’t want to stomp on that, but the Premier’s acknowledged that she doesn’t want to talk about electoral finance reform. We had a vote on that in this House, and the government voted no. They didn’t want to say yes to electoral finance reform.

We do have an opportunity to emulate other jurisdictions in Canada that do have a review of government advertising. My colleague advises me that the Auditor General in Ontario reviews all ads before they go to air to ensure that there’s not partisan content ravelled in the messaging.

Would the Premier agree that that’s an interesting innovation that we could well be able to do in the days available in this session and protect ourselves from perhaps spending more public money than required on information ads?

Certainly, we’re going into fire season. I think that if ever there is a place where government advertising is useful, it’s reminding people of the challenges of hot summers and the importance of being able to contact the appropriate people at the appropriate time — very good use of public dollars. But sometimes…. I think that we’re now into May, and we’re advertising about the budget that was tabled in February. I think that most people have moved on, but apparently not the ad buy.

Would we get a commitment from the Premier to review all government advertising to ensure that the content isn’t partisan?

Hon. C. Clark: GCPE, the ministry of government responsible for this, has updated government core policy to ensure that every advertising initiative meets these criteria: it must be fact-based; it must point to or provide information on government priorities, programs, services and policies; and it must engage the public, providing an opportunity to interact or to comment.

I should say that the budget was introduced in February, but these campaigns make a very real difference in terms of uptake, and we can quantify that. The average monthly registration was 974 for the B.C. training and education savings grant — that was prior to the launch of the campaign — and it’s now up to 2,343. That’s 138 percent increase for a total of 12,294 applicants. We want to continue to grow that — and not just when the budget is announced.

We want to make sure that all British Columbians have an opportunity to take advantage of the programs that they have paid for from their own government. One of the most important things that we can do is to make sure that British Columbians know about those programs so that they can take advantage of them.

J. Horgan: I wouldn’t mind moving to IT projects — government IT projects, BCeSIS and the education sector, the Minister of Health’s IT program that has
[ Page 13019 ]
started and stopped and started again, MCFD and Social Development with their ICM program.

[1755]

These are massive amounts of money. I know the Premier is concerned about excessive expenditures, wasting public dollars.

I’m wondering, if there is, in her discussions with the tech community and those that provide these services, some stuff off the shelf, some stuff ready to go, why it is that it seems the government keeps finding ways to waste millions and millions of dollars on IT programs that never seem to get off the ground?

Hon. C. Clark: Well, it’s not true to say that the projects don’t ever get off the ground. There are over 580,000 students on the new BCeSIS service. The vendor had a performance issue, which they addressed, due to the large number of students that were moving to the service. But it’s now running at required performance levels. We have a fixed-price contract on that, so it’s the vendor’s obligation to meet those service levels, and where service levels are not met, there are penalties at no additional cost to government for the system updates and improvements.

It’s certainly not true, the way the member has characterized this. Some of the IT investments that the government has made have worked very, very well over the years.

J. Horgan: I think my characterization was fair, but that’s just me. I think of myself as a fair guy.

I think of the investigation now underway at the B.C. Utilities Commission into the IT expenditures at B.C. Hydro. Allegations have been accepted by the Utilities Commission that B.C. Hydro misled the commission on its IT plans and the costs there — millions and millions of dollars and counting into the digital dumpster — when other regular people are spending time trying to make ends meet in an affordability crisis in British Columbia, trying to take their stagnant wages and take them farther and farther.

Anyway, my stance is that we’ve had more failures than successes on the IT front. If the Premier disagrees with that, that’s her right.

I wouldn’t mind talking about the wildfire season which is upon us. Of course, the Filmon report from some years ago made some significant direct recommendations to the province on how we could address the fire issue, particularly in urban areas.

I’m wondering if the Premier, as we look on with horror at northern Alberta — and northern British Columbia, for that matter…. Fires raged in the early parts of May, the first time in my memory that that’s happened, although I may be corrected on that. Usually, over the past number of decades, we’ve expected significant fire activity closer to the middle of July into the middle of August, so this is quite extraordinary.

I’ve heard the Premier’s public comments on her concern in this regard, and I don’t doubt that. But there were recommendations made by Mr. Filmon that haven’t been followed up on. Can the Premier advise at what point we will be able to say that we have engaged all of the recommendations from the Filmon report?

Hon. C. Clark: We’ll try and get a direct answer to the member’s question in a moment. In the budget, though, we have $75 million for a forest enhancement fund, which is intended to make sure we are doing everything that we can to, among other things, mitigate the damage that forest fires do.

We are also — I worked with the Premiers on this recently — working to engage the federal government more fully in helping us fight these forest fires across the country. There’s no secret about why it’s happening. Yes, we know that the majority of them are human-caused — a cigarette out the window or, in some cases, deliberate, purposeful arson. Sometimes it’s leaving a campfire or a pile of waste burning, many times without the knowledge of the individual who’s left the site.

The reason these fires become such a problem is, ultimately, that the country is drying up. Climate change is an issue we have to address urgently — governments across the country and around the world. Now, that’s a very long-term view of it, but there is no question that climate change is having a real impact on forest fires around the country. It means that when sparks start or a cigarette gets thrown out the window, the potential scope for it to cause a catastrophic fire is much, much larger.

We do need to fight climate change. Our government is proud. We are leading the country in fighting climate change, and we intend to stay at the forefront on that.

[1800]

We also intend to engage the federal government more fully, because they are also interested in making sure that we fight climate change as a country. We believe that we can engage them on this issue, not just because climate change impacts the number and extent of forest fires we have in the country; it also produces, in great quantity, the greenhouse gases that we’re trying to reduce as a country.

We’ve set aside money in the budget — as I said, $75 million — for the forest enhancement fund. We’re going to continue to work with the federal government or begin real hard work with the federal government on next steps around forest fires.

I can’t say strongly enough how urgent I believe this issue is for our province and for our country. We see fires burning out of control at unexpected levels, earlier in the year, most years now, all over North America, and it’s not a problem that’s going to go away.

We need, as a country, to be better prepared to deal with these issues. We have, frankly, a long way to go. We’ve learned a lot in British Columbia. We’ve done a
[ Page 13020 ]
lot in British Columbia. That $75 million is going to help, but we have more to do, and we cannot, in British Columbia, do it alone.

We need the country together, united, to make sure that we do everything we can to diminish the impact of these fires as they get going, as the climate continues to warm and as the likelihood that they’ll get started and be big continues to grow.

J. Horgan: I appreciate the Premier’s enthusiasm on this, but the Filmon report, back in 2003, identified 685,000 hectares as being at high risk and needing immediate cleanup in terms of forest waste in and around the interface areas in communities.

Yet, ten years on, 11 years on, less than 10 percent of that hazardous forest fuel has been treated or removed. Again, it’s one thing to say that the world is changing — and I agree with the Premier — but there’s also the practical matter of addressing what were at the time…. I recall very vividly the Filmon report was embraced after the tragedies, the horrific fires in the Premier’s current constituency of Kelowna. The government was going to take immediate action, and that immediate action seems to have stalled.

In light of what we’re seeing in Fort McMurray and in light of what we’re seeing in the Fort St. John area, wouldn’t it behoove the government to make a significant investment in forest health now, as we go into this fire season? We’re into early May now. We have a $100 million prosperity fund that we’re not going to put into public education. We’re maybe going to put it into government advertising.

Why wouldn’t we put it into interface cleanup to ensure that our forest health can be as vibrant as possible and try to avoid the catastrophic outcomes we’re seeing in northern Alberta?

Hon. C. Clark: The prosperity fund is going to go, in large part, to pay off the debt so that our kids don’t end up bearing the burdens of previous governments that didn’t have the courage to make very tough decisions. I know that wasn’t the core of the member’s question.

I misspoke — not $75 million to the forest enhancement fund. It’s $85 million to the forest enhancement fund to address the issues precisely that the member has raised. That’s in addition to the $10 million that we put into the strategic wildfire prevention initiative. We are continuing to do the work that was set out for us in the Filmon report and continuing, as much as we can, to try and do more.

There is much, much more to do, and British Columbians should be very, very concerned that the climate is warming, that forest fires start and spread much more quickly than they used to. This is not a problem that’s going go away. As a country, we need to be better prepared.

J. Horgan: Clearly, the Premier and I agree that this is a major public policy issue. Yet, the evidence and the remediative action that was suggested by Mr. Filmon in 2003-04 has only been 10 percent fulfilled. So it strikes me that if the issue is as dire as the Premier outlines — and I absolutely agree with her — wouldn’t that behoove the government to act responsibly to that and aggressively address the forest health issues that were identified back in 2003-2004?

According to the estimates debate last year, just shy of 80,000 hectares of the 685,000 hectares in question have been addressed, so lots of work to do. This creates jobs in rural British Columbia and provides opportunities. I’ve met with COFI this morning. They’re concerned about interface fires. They’re concerned about how they can get this waste perhaps to an economic condition that would be useful, whether through using this waste for pellets or other bioenergy activities, not just here but in Europe and across the world.

[1805]

There’s economic opportunity here, as well. We put at risk people’s livelihoods, people’s homes and people’s communities.

I would hope that…. Although I’m encouraged that the budget has gone up $10 million since we started this discussion, I would think that there could perhaps be more work done. I encourage the Premier. She’d have, I’m certain, unanimous support of this House if we made an aggressive attempt to address the recommendations that were made so many, many years ago.

Hon. C. Clark: I should correct the member. It hasn’t gone up by $10 million. It’s gone up by $85 million in the strategic wildfire prevention initiative. That’s an initiative to make sure that we are doing everything that we can to…. Sorry, I should say it’s $78 million for the strategic wildfire prevention initiative that’s been spent and $85 million in the forest enhancement fund which we created, which is part of this year’s budget.

We need to work very aggressively to control fires across the province — including that $85 million; including the $3 million for UBCM for local emergency planning; including the $14 million for the job opportunities program to reduce wildfire risk for 40 communities; grants of up to $10,000 each for 50 communities, offering help to receive the FireSmart designation; and much more that we’re doing all across the province.

I can tell you I’m jumping with joy to hear that the Leader of the Opposition is finally expressing some interest in supporting job creation in rural communities. Congratulations, Member.

J. Horgan: I’ll take the accolades from the Premier graciously. Thank you so much for that.

I’d like to move on to the Plecas report — not the member for Abbotsford South, but the other Plecas — and
[ Page 13021 ]
some of the concerns I had with the recommendations. I met with Mr. Plecas. He had the courtesy to brief me on the work that he had done.

What troubled me was, first and foremost, the issue surrounding First Nations. I remember at the time the minister’s advice back to us in this House was that Grand Chief Ed John was participating in a parallel process, but I still felt that Mr. Plecas had been remiss in leaving that out. The fundamental issue that concerned me was his call to weaken the role of the children and youth representative’s office.

I’m wondering if the Premier could advise us what her personal views are on that recommendation within the Plecas report — that being that we take away power and authority from the children and youth representative who has served B.C. That office has served B.C. so very, very well since its reinstitution after the B.C. Liberals did away with it.

Hon. C. Clark: There’s no consideration being given to that recommendation from Mr. Plecas. But I will say that we have responded to his call where he identified and then quantified how we might meet some of the concerns in the ministry. Our response to that has included $217 million to support vulnerable children and families, to implement all the recommendations in the report; $286 million to address caseload pressures in temporary income assistance, disability and related supplementary benefits. That’s including $36 million to Community Living B.C.

I should note that 644 youth have been placed for adoption in the past two years, exceeding our targets. Those are forever families for those youths, changing their lives forever.

We’ve decreased the number of children in care. Two hundred front-line staff have been added since November 2014. More than 27,000 clients are seen by the child and youth mental health services group, and more than 111 licensed child care spaces have been funded.

We continue to work on the recommendations that Mr. Plecas made, very important recommendations that he made. I think that, as the bureaucrat who first staffed and created the ministry at the behest of the government of the day, he was well qualified to really bring the context that was needed to really understand what we needed to do differently in the ministry. His insight and advice were extremely useful in helping us plan how we’re going to proceed.

This year’s funding lift is $72.2 million. We are still thoughtfully considering all of Mr. Plecas’s recommendations for future years. We’ve spent more, we’ve added more to the ministry than he recommended, and I think it was the right thing to do. We thank Mr. Plecas very much for his report. It was extremely helpful in helping us understand the issues that the ministry faces.

[1810]

I should also say that he did note that the current minister has brought much-needed stability to a ministry that had experienced instability for a few years before she got there. I want to, on behalf of at least the government members of this House, say thank you to her for the work that she’s done.

In that ministry, stability really matters. That stability is the launching point for us to be able to make the changes that Mr. Plecas has asked us to make, to make smart investments, the smart investments that we’ve made in this last budget, and make sure that that the money is well deployed.

J. Horgan: Well, Mr. Plecas, in his efforts, enraged First Nations communities. I think that is an area that’s created more division than unity. I know Mr. Plecas quite well, and I share the Premier’s high regard for his capacity, but this was a significant oversight.

We’ve already talked about the status quo with respect to First Nations. I understand that the Premier has a First Nations adviser in her office. Did Mr. Plecas, at any time, talk to the Premier’s office about how he should engage with First Nations on an issue that really affects a disproportionate number of First Nations children?

Hon. C. Clark: I can’t comment on that in detail. I don’t have that information here. We’d have to go back and check with the minister and the ministry to get a very specific answer to that question.

I will say we’re really pleased with the work that Ed John is doing for the government in making sure that we are connecting better, in particular with First Nations communities, and making sure that we are clear on the statistics, that everyone understands the statistics and not just the statistics — the lives that are being affected, I should say; it’s wrong to call it statistics — the lives that are being affected, the families, their experience of their contact with government.

Grand Chief John has brought a lot of very valuable advice and insight to the ministry. He continues to do that. I want to thank him for that work — that, in addition to the family gathering that will be coming up, our new innovations that our government has made to ensure that First Nations communities and needs, with respect to the Ministry of Children and Family, are better recognized and addressed within the ministry.

J. Horgan: Again, sometimes I marvel that it often sounds to those that are not paying attention all the time to this that the government just arrived yesterday and these are problems that they inherited a few weeks ago rather than problems that they’ve been overseeing for a decade and a half.

When it comes to the disproportionate number of First Nations children in care, it seems to me that it’s a significant oversight of the Plecas process that First Nations weren’t brought in more fully. I’m not dismissing for a moment the good work of Grand Chief Ed John and other activities that are going on.
[ Page 13022 ]

Mr. Plecas was initially brought in to do a review of the J.P. case. I recall it very vividly. It was going to be targeted, it was going to be narrow and focused, and it morphed into a overall criticism of the ministry 20 years on: “How was it when I created it?” — Mr. Plecas was the first deputy minister — “Where are we going now?” In that process, Mr. Plecas did a tremendous amount of research, collected notes, did interviews, and none of that information has been made available to the Children and Youth Representative.

It strikes me, again…. I think back to the Premier’s comments on radio that we were reminded of again in question period today — very thoughtful comments about working with the Children and Youth Representative, not trying to rebuff the youth representative. She and her office have made a request for information that was collected during the Plecas process, and the government refuses to release that information to her.

If the Premier is genuine in her desire to address these issues and genuine in her desire that she had in the radio booth, can she translate into the Premier’s office and say to the minister and the ministry and to Mr. Plecas — who is, in fact, not independent but appointed as a director for the purposes of the review: wouldn’t it be appropriate for that information to be transferred over to the youth representative so that a more cordial and cooperative and constructive relationship could be established rather than the adversarial relationship that certainly exists now?

This is a golden opportunity to take the information Mr. Plecas has gathered and transfer it over to the Children and Youth Representative so that the process can generate the types of outcomes that I think all British Columbians want.

The J.P. case seems to have been forgotten in all of this. The work that was done is good work. Let’s make sure that it doesn’t get lost in the government and, in fact, is used in a constructive way by the children’s representative.

[1815]

Hon. C. Clark: Of course, work from independent representatives that report to this Legislature is vitally important, including the work of the Representative for Children and Youth. It’s an outside look at what we’re doing. We also need, sometimes, to get an inside look at what we’re doing.

Mr. Plecas is very independent-minded and certainly has served governments of all stripes, including NDP governments, and really brings a perspective and context to this. He was able to give us very, very valuable insight about how to move forward, recognizing that looking after vulnerable children is a priority that we all share.

You know, I was pleased, in the report, with his comments about how the ministry is moving down the right path, how they do have stability and that we have to maintain that stability in the ministry. It’s absolutely crucial. We’re hiring more social workers than he recommended, putting more money into the ministry than he recommended and addressing the recommendations that he made.

I think they were very valuable recommendations, from somebody who’s got a lot of context and a lot of history. I thank him for the work that he did. I think people will look back at the work that he did and recognize that Mr. Plecas made a very big contribution to ensuring that vulnerable children in British Columbia are better protected.

J. Horgan: I’m not wholly in disagreement with the Premier, but I remember one of Mr. Plecas’s key recommendations was dismantling and doing away with the representative’s office and creating contrarians, which was an interesting innovation — and that’s fine.

The Premier said she disagrees with that recommendation with respect to diminishing and doing away with the youth representative’s office. That being the case, why wouldn’t we want to build on the work that Mr. Plecas did by providing that information to the representative’s office so that we can build not just institutional memory of the challenges that are internal to government but make sure that we have an institutional memory of the watchdog, of the independent officer, so that we all benefit from this, not just today but well into the future?

Certainly, the commitment on this side of the House is to maintain and in fact, perhaps, reinvigorate the child and youth representative’s office. If the government is of a similar mind, why wouldn’t we take that valuable information, collected and collated by Mr. Plecas, and transfer it over to not an adversarial office but a cooperative office, an oversight office that is there to protect children in British Columbia and make sure that our ministry and the officials in there are getting the services they deserve and need to provide for the most vulnerable in our society?

It strikes me as a win-win. I can’t understand why the government won’t cooperate with the representative’s office in this instance. Transfer that information over. Let’s work in a cooperative way to ensure that we get the whole benefit from Mr. Plecas’s intervention, not just a partial one.

Hon. C. Clark: Well, as I said, we’re not interested. I haven’t expressed any interest in moving on the recommendation that Mr. Plecas made with respect to the RCY, but his recommendations were very valuable. It’s good to have an inside view, from inside government to see how those things are working or not working, and an outside view.

Another example, not exactly the same. Elizabeth Denham issued her report on freedom of information and made some recommendations. Then David Loukidelis came in, at the behest of government, not independent of government, and talked to us about how we could implement them and what it would look like
[ Page 13023 ]
and how to make that work. Not exactly analogous, but another example of how both outside work and inside work are extremely valuable.

We value the recommendations that come from both sides on this. I think the system, in this case, at least in terms of the outcome that we got and the recommendations we were able to access and act on, certainly had a positive impact.

J. Horgan: I’m glad that the Premier brought up the Denham-Loukidelis dichotomy again. That seemed to make no sense to me at all. We have an independent officer of this Legislature that brought forward recommendations that were pretty clear, pretty easy to understand, and government retained a former Information and Privacy Commissioner to interpret them.

That seemed to me to be a waste of public dollars. We have lots of smart people in government, lots of people working on freedom-of-information in ministries right across the government. Why wouldn’t we have taken, on face value, the recommendations from the independent officer, Ms. Denham? Why did we need to hire the old independent officer?

In this case, with Mr. Plecas, who was the founding father, if you will, of the existing, the current Ministry of Children and Family Development, why wouldn’t we take the work that he’s done and transfer that to the independent office? It seems to me that if the work is valuable to the ministry, it would also be valuable to the children’s representative.

[1820]

The analogous nature of these two — I’m not entirely clear on where the Premier is going with that. If it’s okay to have people cooperating and collaborating with recommendations from the independent coming in, why wouldn’t we take the government review and pass that back to the independent officer?

Hon. C. Clark: As I said, the two examples aren’t perfectly analogous. Really, what I’m trying to demonstrate is that sometimes inside…. We get the outside recommendations, and then we need work on the inside of government as well.

In the case of the Denham, Loukidelis reports, what happened was that she gave us recommendations based on one complaint, one issue that she was looking at, and then Mr. Loukidelis gave us a systemwide look at what needed to be fixed. Both were extremely helpful. We’re acting on the recommendations of all of them. My understanding is that Ms. Denham is quite comfortable with the recommendations that Mr. Loukidelis made and the progress that he has helped us make in understanding how we can bring the recommendations to life.

Now, with respect to the RCY and Mr. Plecas — again, an outside organization whose job it is to hold government accountable and make recommendations. Often the way to bring those recommendations to life, though, can be well addressed within government, particularly from somebody with a long context and a long history with government who can help us really find a way to make sure those things come to life — for example, the recommendation he made about funding and with the recommendation that he made about the number of social workers and the gaps that need to be filled.

With that, Mr. Chair, I rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Interjections.

Hon. C. Clark: By agreement with the opposition, I move that the committee rise and report completion of the resolution and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The Chair: We have another motion to pass. Shall Vote 10 pass?

Vote 10: Office of the Premier, $8,998,000 — approved.

The committee rose at 6:25 p.m.

The House resumed; Madame Speaker in the chair.

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

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

Hon. T. Lake moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 6:26 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF JUSTICE

(continued)

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

The committee met at 3:04 p.m.
[ Page 13024 ]

On Vote 32: ministry operations, $387,157,000 (continued).

[1505]

Hon. S. Anton: Yesterday I was asked a question about Crown counsel and the areas of specialization within the B.C. prosecution service. I gave a partial list yesterday but said I would come back.

To clarify, the criminal justice branch has trial and appellate prosecutors who are dedicated to the following types of prosecution files: organized crime, including gang-related and gun violence; major or mega-cases; indictable appeals; commercial crime and proceeds; ICBC fraud; occupational health and safety, including workplace fatalities; charges against police; environmental prosecutions; animal cruelty; domestic violence; constitutional challenges; and French trials.

In total, there are 473 legal counsel FTEs in the criminal justice branch, which does not include the two new legal counsel FTEs that have been recently allocated to the branch for the Surrey Crown counsel office in support of the RCMP’s provincial tactical enforcement priority program, who will be net new FTEs. The 473 FTEs include the branch’s legal counsel managers. They are spread across the province. The branch is divided into five trial regions, a Crown law division and an office of the Assistant Deputy Attorney General. There are 40 trial offices in total.

It’s difficult to provide a definitive breakdown of how many FTEs are utilized in dedicated areas. This is because Crown counsel may work in more than one dedicated area at a time, or they may move back and forth between a dedicated area and general assignments. Finally, that there is a dedicated unit or group of prosecutors working on a particular type of file does not mean that the same kind of case may not arise elsewhere in the province and require a response from prosecutors who are otherwise assigned.

What I can tell you, though, at the moment is that 82.2 legal counsel FTEs are assigned to the branch’s Crown law division, which manages the organized crime unit, indictable appeals, commercial crime and proceeds, ICBC fraud, major cases, occupational health and safety, and charges against police. The organized crime unit in particular has 11.6 legal counsel FTEs assigned to it. Much of the work done in this unit is gang- and gun-related. The unit works closely with CFSEU.

I can also tell you that 31.8 legal counsel FTEs with the branch are currently assigned to major cases. Again, some of these cases will be gang- and gun-related. The rest of the branch’s FTEs cover the rest of the branch’s workload as spread across the province. This can include gang- and gun-related matters which are prosecuted outside of the Crown law division, as well as other of the dedicated areas that I mentioned earlier.

For example, some of the branch’s trial offices have dedicated domestic violence prosecutors attached to them. Others yet may have someone who does a lot of work in the area of animal cruelty or someone who is predominantly focused on environmental files.

The breakdown may not be as definitive as the member may have liked, but it is a reflection of the diversity of work that is managed on a daily basis by the criminal justice branch. As a general rule, of course, file types will vary from office to office. At the end of the day, the branch’s statutory mandate is to engage in charge assessment and prosecution for all files that fall within my jurisdiction as Attorney General, and it has structured itself to meet this need.

D. Donaldson: I have questions in three areas for the minister under these budget estimates that relate to the Ministry of Justice in connection with topics under the Ministry of Children and Family Development that have been referred, by the Minister of Children and Family Development, to this minister during these budget estimates.

The first is on the MCFD’s aboriginal initiative, which was an initiative around aboriginal children on welfare with various First Nations around the province. The ones I am most familiar with are the ones in Stikine and especially with the Wet’suwet’en Hereditary Chiefs and the ANABIP program.

[1510]

In 2014, in the fall, the aboriginal initiatives program was suspended by this government and the ministry, and divided off were the governance topics, governance issues around jurisdiction over child welfare. That had been an integral part of what the Wet’suwet’en were trying to accomplish with their own children, and that part of the process was no longer funded with the Wet’suwet’en. The service aspect was, through MCFD, but the actual governance discussions, which is really the nut that needs to be cracked around child welfare, was no longer funded.

At the time, the Children’s minister said that that would be something that would be in the venue and taken up by the Ministry of Justice. It has been almost two years now since that happened.

I would like to know from the minister, under these budget estimates, what progress is being made with the Wet’suwet’en and other First Nations around jurisdiction, governance over child welfare issues, especially in light of the Tsilhqot’in decision around consent, because I’m informed by the Wet’suwet’en that any initiatives that they have tried to make around governance, when it comes to child welfare, have been rebuffed.

Hon. S. Anton: We do have counsel looking at this, together with the Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation. They are…. Well, it’s a joint project. They do the work with the First Nation, and our lawyers provide advice to them. We would like to have Canada at the table on this matter. It is an active file. There are no
[ Page 13025 ]
final decisions being made at the moment, but it is a file upon which both MARR and Justice are actively working.

D. Donaldson: I’ll move on to another topic area, and that is a recommendation that came out of the Paige report from the Representative for Children and Youth. This recommendation is now about a year old. The report came out last May.

[1515]

Recommendation No. 3 was specifically directed to the Attorney General’s office: “That the Attorney General of British Columbia provide the public with a clear explanation as to why agencies and service providers are persistently permitted to fail to report harm and abuse, as was the case in Paige’s experience, contrary to the Child, Family and Community Service Act.”

This was a horrific story of a young aboriginal woman, as we all know, who died of a drug overdose 11 months after aging out of care of the ministry. Her life up to that point was a series of interactions with various government ministries as well as child welfare agencies.

There were a number of occasions when the Representative for Children and Youth felt that there was derelict duty in the legal duty to report under section 13 of the Child, Family and Community Service Act. When a member of the public suspects there is reason to believe that a child needs protection, it needs to be reported. That’s the law.

I would like to get an update, under this budget estimates, from the minister on this recommendation from the representative’s office, now 12 months later. It’s nothing new. The representative has pointed out this legal duty to report before.

Specifically, on two points in the recommendation: “The Attorney General to report annually on the number of investigations and prosecutions for this offence as well as other actions taken to ensure compliance with the legislation.” Where are we at with that recommendation? And: “The Attorney General to detail the number of cases brought forward by the director of child welfare for attention and investigation.” Could the minister please inform the progress and when we can expect details on those two points?

[1520]

Hon. S. Anton: I am aware of the recommendation that was made by the Representative for Children and Youth. She asked questions around the duty to report and requested that we do certain things around the duty to report. One of them was the suggestion that we investigate or somehow be involved with the investigation. I want to be clear that investigations are actually the role of the police and are generally complaint-driven.

We do not keep track of the number of prosecutions, although I think it would be safe to say that they would be very infrequent if there are prosecutions under the failure of a duty to report.

One of the things that we did do as a result of the recommendation was communicate with the professional colleges — the doctors and the nurses — and requested them to remind their members of their obligations under the duty-to-report requirements.

D. Donaldson: Well, the Minister of Children and Family Development has said that they have accepted in full all the recommendations in the Paige report. The minister indicates that they’re not going to report annually on the number of investigations and prosecutions for the offence of legal duty to report. I suppose, then, we can conclude that when the Minister of Children and Family Development says she accepts all the recommendations, she doesn’t mean she’ll act on them or that this ministry will act on them.

I just want to make sure that’s clear. We have to be clear in the words we use when we say “accept.” Most people would think that means you implement. In this case, implementation is not part of acceptance. I think that’s typical of what we see in the reaction to the Paige report from this government.

I’m going to move on now to another area that relates to Children and Family Development that is directly connected to this ministry. That’s the case of J.P. J.P. are the initials given to a child because we’re unable to discuss the name of the child. That’s because there is a horrific court case that is underway. It’s an appeal of an actual decision by Supreme Court Justice Paul Walker, who made a July 14 decision. He found in that decision many troubling findings.

One of them was that he found that the Ministry of Children and Family Development disobeyed a court order and returned a child to a father. Subsequently, the child was abused. That was just one of the findings in this report.

As I said, Justice Walker found in favour of the mother in this case and against the ministry in the July 14 decision. Not long afterwards, within a couple of weeks, I believe, the ministry and the government announced that they were going to appeal this decision and drag the mother and family through another lengthy court process. This has been ongoing for six to eight years.

What I’d like to know under these budget estimates from the minister is: what are the aggregate legal fees accumulated for the J.P. case in 2015-2016?

[1525]

Hon. S. Anton: I can confirm, of course, as the member knows, that this matter is under appeal. The dad has received an extension of time to appeal and has joined me now as an appellant. Government is appealing, and the social worker who was named is also a party to the appeal. The appeal itself is currently scheduled for November 14 of this year.
[ Page 13026 ]

The question of legal fees is not something that we can provide until after the matter has concluded, but at that point, we are able to answer that question.

A. Dix: I, too, was referred to the minister by one of her colleagues, the minister responsible for the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia.

I’m going to ask the minister some questions on order-in-council No. 032-16, which was approved and ordered on January 28, 2016, and then subsequently rescinded by the government.

I wanted to ask the minister, first of all, whether she can confirm that this was brought forward by the court services branch of her ministry to the cabinet. It was obviously brought forward and signed by her — the request for the order-in-council. The subsequent order-in-council was also signed by her.

I wanted to ask the minister to confirm, first of all, whether this order-in-council was reviewed by Treasury Board prior to going forward to the cabinet, which seems like a reasonable thing to do, given its cost implications. If not, why not? What did the minister tell her cabinet colleagues about the cost of this order-in-council?

[1530]

Hon. S. Anton: In January, there was a group of amendments to the Supreme Court rules passed. Of that group of rules, two of them dealt with the civil tariff. It became apparent once it was published that there were unexpected consequences to ICBC and possibly others out there in the world.

They wanted to have an opportunity to do further consultation. Because of their timelines relating to when they have to submit to the B.C. Utilities Commission, it was most expedient to rescind the two parts of the rules that dealt with the tariff so that there can be further consultation to determine what the appropriate and best tariff might be.

A. Dix: Of course, the minister will know that the Supreme Court Rules Revision Committee has resigned as a result of, really, what can only be described as incompetence here. The minister brought an order-in-council to cabinet that, not according to me or to some group criticizing the government but to a group reporting directly to the minister responsible for the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia…. Half a billion dollars. What was the minister’s response when this was brought to her attention through her spokesperson? She said: “Oh, well. This is news to me.”

My question is just very straightforward to begin with here. This order-in-council was brought forward by this minister. It’s had negative consequences for the court process in B.C., the relationship between the courts and the government. How is it possible that a decision made on her recommendation, the minister’s recommendation, and approved by cabinet goes through the process — signed off by her, signed off by the Premier — that has policy implications, according to one of her colleague’s agencies, of half a billion dollars over four years, $250 million in the first year…?

Let’s put it in context. All of the people who work for ICBC — that’s $375 million. That’s how big a blunder this is. That’s how incompetent this is.

How is it possible that a measure that, on the face of it, had cost implications…? I mean, you just have to read the OIC to know it had cost implications. How is it possible that the minister could bring forward such an initiative without any referral to Treasury Board?

[D. Ashton in the chair.]

Hon. S. Anton: When the OIC was passed in January, it was passed with a July starting point, and the stated reason from the committee was so that there was time for consultation.

When ICBC, for one, did its own analysis of it at that point, they ran it through their own actuarials, and it transpired that it was going to be costly to them, so we pulled back that piece of the rule changes. There will be that consultation then, and as I said, the tariff will be developed with all parties having an ability to make a proper, full consultation so that the optimum tariff can be developed.

[1535]

A. Dix: What the minister is saying is that orders-in-council get passed without any discussion of financial implications. I mean, it’s incredible. It’s half a billion dollars, according to ICBC.

I want to ask the minister, I guess for starters, whether she agrees with that estimate of the cost.

Hon. S. Anton: The numbers that ICBC has given…. The starting number was 200-and-some-odd-million dollars in the first year and then an ongoing of about $80 million. But the point is not so much what the numbers are. I’m not here to give ICBC numbers. That’s really up to ICBC to do that. The point is that there obviously is a consequence to ICBC and — through ICBC of course — to all of us who are policyholders in British Columbia.

According to their analysis, it was going to cost everyone more money, including a 1 to 3 percent increase in our rates. That’s speaking for all British Columbians. At that point, it became apparent that they needed to have the opportunity to make that full presentation to a committee who was reviewing the tariff, so it was pulled back in order to allow that process to happen.

A. Dix: It wasn’t 200-some-odd-million dollars. It was $250 million. This notion that you pass things in the cabinet…. The reason you pass things with an in-force date
[ Page 13027 ]
later on is to have people prepare for the coming-into-force date. You don’t do it for a consultation period. If you’re going to consult on a change, you don’t approve it in the cabinet, establish it in law and forget the policy implications and forget the financial implications.

Specifically, ICBC has said $250 million with at least $90 million a year after that. That’s specifically what they said. So is the minister confirming for me today that when she presented this to cabinet and cabinet approved it and published it and then was forced…?

Unfortunately, the group in question that had recommended it, on which there are two members of the public service as ex officio members of that committee, including people who worked for this ministry…. They brought this forward. And what the minister is saying is that it’s only after the fact that she learned of a half a billion dollars in consequences.

It’s only after the fact that she — I’m quoting here — “went back to the rules revision committee.” It says here…. I’m quoting her spokesperson, so I don’t want to put words or anything in her mouth. She went back to the committee and said: “This needs to be addressed.” And when she did, the main operators in the justice system didn’t know anything about it. This is how things are handled.

First of all, is the minister confirming that this is the way she operates? Half a billion dollars in costs approved by the executive council without any analysis by Treasury Board staff, which appears to be what she has confirmed — that this is how the Ministry of Justice functions in its standard context, with $250 million in the first year, half a billion dollars.

Secondly, is she confirming that she went back to the rules revision committee and told them to deal with the problem? A problem that is entirely, 100 percent not the responsibility of the rules revision committee but entirely, 100 percent the responsibility of her and her ministry.

[1540]

Hon. S. Anton: I am certainly not making light of the numbers. The first year’s number was somewhere in the order, I’m told by ICBC, of about $260 million, with an ongoing, perhaps, $80 million or $90 million. But as I say, these are not my numbers, and it’s really for ICBC to have the opportunity to make its case to a rules revision committee.

As I said before, once the tariff was published, ICBC, and possibly other litigants, have determined that the tariff was not suitable to them. It was going to cost them — i.e., all of us — a great deal of money. So in order to protect ratepayers in British Columbia and because of the timing on it, as I said, we rescinded those two pieces of the rules and will proceed.

I can confirm that we are talking to the chief justice and working out as to what an appropriate method is, going forward, in order to have the appropriate forum so that parties who are affected by the tariff can make representations to that committee and so that we can develop an appropriate tariff for British Columbians.

A. Dix: Well, ICBC reports to the executive council through the minister responsible for ICBC, the Minister of Transportation. So there’s not one set of numbers and then one that the minister can acknowledge. This comes from the government. I really can’t remember a precedent of this level of incompetence, which has real consequences for both the system involved and for the ratepayer.

I mean, when the minister says she’s protecting the ratepayer now, she’s essentially protecting the ratepayer from herself, from something she brought forward to cabinet, has her signature on it — the cabinet presentation — her signature on the OIC. “I’m protecting the ratepayer from me,” is the defence here.

It’s now $260 million and $90 million a year after that — that’s the cost of this. And the minister says: “Well, I don’t know. I don’t know anything. They’re not my numbers. They’re ICBC’s numbers. Talk to my colleague.” Her colleague — because I asked him — of course said: “Talk to her.” This is in the nature of things, I suppose.

I guess I want to ask the minister, given that this incompetence has led to the resignation…. I was on the Supreme Court website today. The rules revision committee is defunct. And why is it defunct?

I’m quoting here:

“Historically, the rules revision committee assisted the Attorney General in making recommendations to cabinet for rule changes. All judicial members of the committee and three lawyer members of the committee resigned following cabinet’s repeal on March 31, 2016, of rule changes that were scheduled to come into force on July 1, 2016. The remaining lawyer members of the committee informed the Attorney General that without judicial representation, the committee was essentially defunct.”

Now, I’m sure the minister will agree with me that this is an important committee that has been forced to resign because of incompetence by the Ministry of Attorney General. Does the minister take responsibility for this? Is she acknowledging that it was her process that failed — that she failed in bringing this information without all of the relevant information to cabinet? Is she acknowledging that, and is she going apologize, take this opportunity to apologize for this incompetence, today, to the Supreme Court Rules Revision Committee?

[1545]

Hon. S. Anton: The rules revisions committee has been in place for some time now. They’ve done very good work for us, and their work is generally accepted, as it was in this case. However, as I said, there was an unexpected consequence which turned out to be very costly to ICBC ratepayers, which is indeed all of us.

We are working with the chief justice on forming a new process for this. Part of that process, as I say, will allow
[ Page 13028 ]
entities like ICBC and others to have a robust consultation and determine such things as the new tariff — also other goals that all of us have, I think, in terms of accessibility of justice, early resolution of trials and so on.

A. Dix: On the face of it, this OIC was going to increase costs for ICBC. The overwhelming majority of potential ICBC trials are settled before the trial begins, as the minister will know. This granted disbursements as a direct result of that. So it was, obviously, going to have costs.

Presumably, what the minister is saying is that it “was news” to her. I’m quoting her spokesperson — not unfairly, I think — that it was news to her. She thought, of course, that it wasn’t an at-fault issue — that there “were just circumstances that were unexpected, and the minister finds it unfortunate.”

Well, there was nothing unexpected whatsoever. A plain ruling of the OIC understood that it had cost implications. The minister, because of this action, because of having the thing approved…. Not telling people for a while and then rescinding it has had implications for the system.

She said that ICBC and others will lead a consultation now. Is she saying that the consultations on rules will now be led by ICBC or they’ll be led by her? She refers to the long-standing work of the rules revisions committee. Of course, it is defunct. By definition, it can’t lead that work. So by who and how will this consultation take place?

Hon. S. Anton: The member said “led by ICBC” at one point. I’m not sure if he misspoke. It will not be led by ICBC.

I am working with the chief justice to determine a new process. We’ll work with our other stakeholders in the legal world — the Law Society and the bar association, for example — to determine what a new process will be for rules revisions and for expansive consultation around the civil tariff.

A. Dix: Does the minister have any comment on the fact that everybody resigned? Except for, I presume, those working directly for her who are ex officio members of the committee, everybody resigned from the committee. Does she take any responsibility for what happened?

Hon. S. Anton: I indeed take responsibility for things that happen in my ministry. In this case…. By the way, just for accuracy, there were four members who did not resign.

[1550]

It is clear that the committee, as it was previously constituted, is not working in the same way anymore. That is why I am working with the chief justice and with other partners in the legal system to determine a new process and move forward.

I think it actually is an interesting opportunity for having another look at the civil tariff and for having an opportunity to look at other goals that we have in accessibility of justice — early resolution, for example; helping unrepresented litigants; and issues such as that, which will help all British Columbians in the justice system.

A. Dix: Has the minister or her staff consulted with ICBC now, and what role will they have in this process?

Hon. S. Anton: They do not have a role in determining what the new process is, but part of the new process will be to have an expansive consultation so that organizations such as ICBC, and others, may have the ability to make full representations to the new process so that a new committee, for example, may determine, as I said, what the optimum civil tariff is.

A. Dix: Well, in the previous process, their role was that of veto. When they did speak up, eventually, the proposal was rescinded without any consultation. So that was their previous role in the process.

Is the minister confirming that the next time that she takes a half-billion-dollar proposal to cabinet, half a billion dollars in cost implications for the public, that she intends to refer that matter through Treasury Board before it goes to cabinet? Will that be the new modus operandi of the Ministry of Attorney General?

Hon. S. Anton: I disagree with the characterization of veto. It is not at all a veto. It was my decision to rescind those two pieces of the tariffs to allow more expansive consultation to be undertaken.

A. Dix: Well, the decision to rescind was presumably made between ICBC, Treasury Board, the Attorney General and the cabinet. I guess that’s true — just like the minister brought forward this initiative without considering its cost implications and, therefore, pulled a bait-and-switch on some of the most senior and distinguished jurists in the province. I guess we haven’t heard an apology for that yet.

I just wanted to be clear about the process to come. The minister says it won’t be led by ICBC, that ICBC will be treated…. ICBC is, of course, a Crown agency and a Crown corporation, responsible directly to the cabinet, just like all the others.

The last process, as I understand it, was led by the committee and then was dealt with by the court services branch of the Attorney General. The decision was made by the Attorney General to go ahead, without any consideration of cost implications. She took it to cabinet. They approved it. ICBC raised its hand, and she was forced to go back to cabinet and un-approve it. That was the previous process.

Is the next process going to be led by another rules revision committee? Is it going to be led by the Ministry of Justice? Is it going be led by…? Who knows? Maybe
[ Page 13029 ]
the Solicitor General will be transferred responsibility for this one. I don’t think so. Who will lead this process? Will the Attorney General personally take command of the process?

Hon. S. Anton: If the member is asking if I’m going to chair the committee that hears the representations of persons around the tariff, no. I will not be doing that.

However, I will be doing what I have discussed several times already, which is consulting. It is act of consultation right now, as a matter of fact, with the chief justice, with the Law Society. We will then consult with the Law Society, bar association and perhaps others to determine the optimum process going forward.

There are many interesting issues, which a new committee or a new entity — however it’s configured — can take on. I will be working closely with that entity to, as I said, work on such things as the tariff but also other challenges and interesting opportunities that we have before us right now in Justice.

[1555]

The access-to-justice file is one which is being led through the Supreme Court of Canada. It’s being led by the chief justice of British Columbia. It’s being led by many of the people in the Ministry of Justice. There are many, many interesting things going on.

I think this is a real opportunity to use this new process and apply the new process to the access to justice things that are underway and, indeed, to the relooking at the civil tariff.

A. Dix: The minister said the people involved in framing the consultation — who apparently are not ICBC; they just wield the veto…. The people involved in this new consultation, that she’s talking to, are the chief justice and the Law Society.

Presumably, that means the Ministry of Attorney General, the chief justice and the Law Society, so this process will be led by lawyers, by people in charge of the legal system. That’s who will be leading the process — and ICBC and other agencies, even though they’re the Crown, and ultimately, they’re represented, as well, at the cabinet table. I guess that’s their special status. They’re a bit of a distinct society in this matter.

Presumably, what the minister is saying is those are the people who will be involved in framing the process. Then she will set up a new consultation process, outside of the Supreme Court Rules Revision Committee, that’s entirely led by that group of people — essentially, people as designated through her consultation. These are the groups she mentioned: the chief justice and the Law Society.

Hon. S. Anton: I can’t add much more to what I have said. The discussion of the new process is an active discussion right now. It’s starting with myself, assisted by my able deputy, with the chief justice. It will move on from there, between us and our partners in law and, indeed, perhaps members of the public.

We have not determined what the new process will look like, but there will be one. It will be, as I said earlier, an interesting opportunity to take forward a number of initiatives that are underway in Justice and access to justice both across the country and here in British Columbia.

B. Routley: Well, interestingly, this is about a flawed process. It’s about the Shawnigan Lake contaminated soil dump situation.

I just want to give a little bit of background information. This decision-making process that your ministry is involved in is costing the public literally millions of dollars, and there doesn’t seem to be any oversight. There’s no oversight whatsoever. What the process is, apparently, what we’ve learned from canvassing this with the Ministry of Environment, is that the statutory decision–maker — who is some kind of expert, but he’s a staff member — gets to make the decision. Part of the process….

Get this: this is a public process where the public gets to come and have their say about a contaminated soil dump just uphill from their pristine lake. If you can imagine this: a pristine lake, one of several large lakes on Vancouver Island that are pristine lakes. Suddenly somebody decides to have a for-profit business just uphill from this pristine lake. The government — the Ministry of Environment specifically, ironically — sends in the statutory decision–maker to listen to the public, which is part of the process.

The Minister of Environment and, I’m sure, the Attorney General would agree that there was a large group of the public that has protested outside of this building and that has shone in the public process. I think the Minister of Environment agreed that probably 95 percent of the public was opposed to this issue. That’s what the CVRD said — 95 percent of the public opposed to this issue.

[1600]

The process, as I understand it, from the Ministry of Environment, is that once the statutory decision–maker makes a decision, the bill is vetted through the Attorney General, and the lawyers seem to be sent from your ministry. They just pick up the phone and say: “Okay, we’ve got a problem. The Ministry of Environment’s got a problem. The Environmental Appeal Board’s got a problem. Send us a lawyer.” So the lawyers get sent.

As I understand it, your job is to handle these assignments of the lawyers. Then the bill, at some point, will get sent back — or there’s some process, whether it’s sharing…. I don’t know. Maybe you can tell us about that. But at some point, the good people of British Columbia are going to find out how much money this government is spending on fighting the good people of Shawnigan Lake and the Cowichan Valley.
[ Page 13030 ]

Again, what we’ve got going on is a process where the statutory decision–maker goes in and decides that it’s okay to have a contaminated soil dump. Now, there’s been not one but several court interventions in this issue. The Environmental Appeal Board makes a decision, and then it’s appealed. I know that your ministry would be involved in all of the bills that, for the community alone, are reaching $2 million, between….

The Shawnigan Residents Association are fundraising to take the matter to court to defend the good people of Cowichan Valley and of Shawnigan from having a contaminated soil dump right uphill from their lake and their drinking water. If you can imagine this scenario, if you lived in this community, you would understand what’s going on.

It seems to be a non-partisan issue. It doesn’t matter whether you’re a Liberal representative or a Green representative, NDP representative — even the Conservative representative. All the representatives have this in common. They think this is a stupid process and a dumb decision — to end up in a situation where the good people of Shawnigan and Cowichan Valley are spending millions of dollars to defend themselves from the actions of government — which are portrayed how?

Who exactly created this? It wasn’t the minister. It wasn’t the Minister of Environment. It was a statutory decision–maker. I’m told, and I’ve read, that the decision of the statutory decision–maker…. When it was tested up against the light of day in the courts, guess what we found out. We found out during that appeal board process that we have competing experts.

It’s supposed to be all very scientific. One scientist for the company says that there’s a 250-foot granite layer that’s going to protect the community and that there’s no aquifer under the site, that it’s at least four kilometres away. Well, that’s all fine and well. This is all a very scientific process, by the way, the Minister of Environment informs the community — all very scientific.

But guess what. The community hires their own experts, geologists and hydrologists, that say not only is there not an impermeable 2,250-foot layer of granite; it’s probably fractured limestone. And not only is the aquifer not four kilometres away; it’s right under the site.

Now, if you were the representative for the Cowichan Valley and you heard all of these facts, you would be alarmed as well. Maybe I tend to get a little bit passionate once in a while. I’m doing my best to try to bring that back under control. This is an important matter, and I don’t want to, in any way, misrepresent the good people of the Cowichan Valley by getting too upset.

You can see that a person hearing these facts would ask themselves: how on earth do we have a process that results in this? How on earth do we have such a process?

[1605]

They go and listen to the community. The community is 95 percent against the process. We’ve got competing experts. Then you find out in court, when everybody is giving their evidence, that the statutory decision–maker had approved the permit, even though the Ministry of Environment’s own hydrologist and their own experts…. Guess what. Their own experts had said: “Whatever you do, there needs to be more testing.” Like, “if you’re going to approve this, you’re going to need to do more testing.”

Well, guess what. They approve a permit and write into the permit: “Oh, well here’s your permit, but by the way, we should do a couple more boreholes, a couple more tests.” But that was part of the permit, not part of the process.

I am concerned. This is the good money of taxpaying people throughout British Columbia. Through the taxpayers, I’m sure this minister is not just a cash machine that hands out money holus-bolus.

There does not seem to seem to be any interest in a process. That’s my fear. My fear is I’m going to wake up again tomorrow and there will be no process to protect the good people of British Columbia from ending up in a situation where a statutory decision–maker makes a decision. The process is so flawed, they don’t even listen to the community and the public.

At the end of the day, the science isn’t even science. It’s opinion. It seems to be competing scientific opinion, which I’m very, very troubled by. Surely, there have got to be some facts somewhere. Shouldn’t we be working on getting to the bottom of what the facts are before we go and end up spending $2 million fighting the government of British Columbia? Obviously, the government has to be spending money fighting back.

Now I’ll get to my questions. I know it’s a bit of an introduction. But the questions that I’ve got are, starting with No. 1: does the Attorney General have any interest at all in any kind of oversight process from her ministry to avoid spending the kind of money that this has cost the good people of British Columbia? Or is it really that we should just accept that this is some kind of an automatic payout machine? Just put the problem in, and out spits the money.

I want to tell you where I’m…. I should give you background here, too. I spent years representing workers. They all thought they had problems that should have lawyers in every case, okay? I spent a whole career — years — having to look at a variety of problems. It was somebody’s job — in this case, it was mine — to say: “No, we’re not going to go to an arbitrator. We’re not going to go to a judge on your case because there’s precedent, there’s decision….”

Somebody was in charge of saving the shop money. In that case, I spent years, all the way from 1990, when I became the president of the local…. Actually, it was before that. In 1985, I became the first vice-president. Right through till 2009…. You know what? I went to work every day. I had to stand up and deal — in lunchrooms, often — with crews and explain to them what I was going to do about the problem of the day that they had.
[ Page 13031 ]

Was I going to go to the court all the way with the fallers, who had felt like their jobs were going contract out? Was I going to go to the arbitrator with somebody that threw their hardhat at the superintendent and was suspended? Did I think that was something that I should go to the wall on? Or was there something that I should do in between?

It was in-between stuff that somebody was tasked with doing. That was to save…. Ultimately, we were paid by…. In this case, the taxpayers were the workers that worked in all of those plants.

I’m asking the minister again, with that explanation: is there any interest, in your government or your ministry, at all in having some kind of process, some kind of double take? I’m pleading, really, with the government. Somebody somewhere has to look at these processes and say: “Are we just going to throw money, shovel money out of the door to fight the good people of Shawnigan Lake and the Cowichan Valley?”

[1610]

This was absolutely predictable. I can tell you with…. Again, if anybody would’ve listened to any of… Across the board, all the different political parties that were represented up there were saying it very loudly — that this is not going fly with the community, that they’ll go to the wall. They’ll keep fighting forever because this is their water and the security of their pristine lake. Of course, they’re going to fight.

Again, a fairly simple question: does the minister have any interest at all in some kind of process, or are you going to keep shoveling money out the window?

I guess I’ll give you the advantage of the next question, which I think I already know the answer to. Can you give us an update on the current legal cost to the province of British Columbia for fighting with the good people of Shawnigan–Cowichan Valley? That’s from ’15-16. That fiscal year is now…. I’m sure you’ve paid the bills, and the good people, the public of British Columbia and certainly the people of Shawnigan want to know how much you’re spending. They’re spending it, millions of dollars, fighting the government of British Columbia. They want to know how much the government is spending fighting them.

Hon. S. Anton: Yes, this is a complex matter because there are two pieces of litigation underway. One is between the Cowichan Valley regional district and the proponent relating to a zoning, and then there’s a second piece of litigation which relates to the issuance of the permit by the statutory decision–maker, which is what the member was referring to. That permit, that decision, is under judicial review, and that case is still before the courts, so it would be not appropriate to discuss it any further.

I can confirm that we are using in-house counsel on that. For in-house counsel, we do try and track the costs so that at the end of the day, we would know what the costs were in a given proceeding. But because the proceeding is still underway, I cannot comment at the moment on what the costs would be.

M. Mark: It’s great to be able to rise in this House as the MLA for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, where we know there are a number of issues where the criminal justice system has, unfortunately, failed very vulnerable people.

I’ll share a story that a constituent of mine shared with me. She was stabbed outside of a bar on the Downtown Eastside, kitty-corner from the Woodward’s building, twice. She had said to me: “You know, I wish I had been hit by a car, because at least I would have gotten some form of compensation or more compensation than I received through the victim assistance program.”

I’m here to share on the record that there are people out there that are being stabbed. She was in a wheelchair as a result of it, and she honestly said that she should have just jumped in front of a car.

My questions are related to women and violence. One of the questions will be around the crime victim assistance program — what the budget was this year, or will there be increases for next year? I notice in the service plan that it is under review under the lean program.

[1615]

I looked at the application. If you’re a victim and if you’re applying under the victim assistance program, I think it’s 16 pages.

Interjection.

M. Mark: So support for victims of crime is not part of your ministry?

Hon. S. Anton: I don’t really mean to interrupt, because the member may have more that she wishes to say. But I did just want to alert her that the crime victim assistance program is under Public Safety.

M. Mark: Okay. Well, I’ll reserve my question, then. But I guess the main question was: if it’s under lean and it’s going to be under review, that 16 pages for victims to go through is really unacceptable, and hopefully there are some revisions. That question may have been asked of the other minister.

My second question is about the number of domestic violence homicides that have occurred in the province. Is the ministry tracking the number of homicides?

If you prefer, I can just run off my questions as a list or just one at a time.

The Chair: Minister, your preference?

Hon. S. Anton: I think one at a time.

The numbers of domestic violence files received by the criminal justice branch are these. They are tracked.
[ Page 13032 ]
They’re called K files. They’re tracked with the letter “k.” That means they are a domestic violence file.

Last year Crown received 69,000 reports to Crown counsel. The K files were 15,416 — in other words, 22.4 percent. Almost 85 percent of those received were approved to go to court.

The member asked about homicides in particular. These K files count assaults all the way up to homicides, and they’re not selected out for how many of them would actually be homicides. I think it’s probably safe to say, though, that the vast majority would be assaults, but I don’t have a separation out of the numbers.

M. Mark: Domestic violence is in the media. We’ve got tons of strategies to say that we are going to put an end to violence against women. My recommendation, with all due respect, to the minister is that we should be tracking numbers of women that are victims of homicide due to domestic violence.

[1620]

I have another few questions here. This one is around missing and murdered indigenous women and girls. It’s a huge file. My question is very straightforward. I’m not going to give a lot of background because it’s so high profile. Essentially, what is the number in the budget that is set aside to participate as an active agent and participant in the national inquiry?

We know that it’s being led by the federal government, but we need to see more than the word “support.” I would like to hear what the figure is that has been set aside to be a participant, as the B.C. government, to address the missing and murdered indigenous women and girls inquiry.

Hon. S. Anton: On the question of spousal homicides, that, again, could be put to Public Safety. That is the kind of thing that the police will track. They keep their statistics from year to year as to how many homicides in the province they believe to be domestic. So I think that you will be able to get that answer at that time.

In terms of the missing and murdered indigenous women and girls inquiry, I have been requested by the Premier to lead that due to the work that we did in Justice on the missing and murdered women commission of inquiry which we had here in British Columbia. I have had quite a number of meetings around that, including the family gathering, which the Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation did in Prince George, and including the national round table in Winnipeg and including meetings here in British Columbia.

There is no separate budget for that. It’s being done within existing budgets and using staff who, in this case, are Public Safety staff and who are very familiar with this file, having worked on it in relationship to our own inquiry and the recommendations arising out of our own inquiry that the office has been working on, for many years, on this particular file.

M. Mark: With all due respect, we can’t carry out a massive file like that without additional resources. There needs to be more FTEs to be able to carry out that massive mandate. So I hope, with all due respect, that money will be set aside to carry out the work.

The advocates, the members of the coalition have asked me time and time again, “Where is the province here at the table?” — not only just sitting and participating at the table but also supplying resources so that people can carry out this inquiry in a meaningful way.

My question now is related to the domestic file units and the domestic file courts. I see that there has been some action in Vancouver, New West, Abbotsford, Surrey, the capital region, Kelowna, and the same goes for both the courts and the units.

What I notice is that there isn’t anything beyond the Interior — whether or not there are any plans or hopes or initiatives or budget set aside to implement these programs or initiatives in Prince George or Terrace or anywhere beyond the Interior and the Island. Because it seems like…. Well, that main northern region is missing, and the participation in these very specialized units that do help victims of crime.

[1625]

Hon. S. Anton: On the question of the resources for the federal inquiry. If families are inquiring about assistance to get to the inquiry — and I think that’s what the member was asking about — those questions really should be put to the federal government. It’s the federal government’s inquiry. We are participating, as a provincial government, in terms of the government and in terms of our outreach to communities and to families who are suffering loss and ongoing pain.

I really would like to just take a moment to thank them, the families, for going to Prince George, for spending time with myself and Minister Rustad and also Minister Morris, for travelling to Winnipeg and sharing their stories again with myself and also with a very large room full of people from across the country. And then, yesterday, unveiling the beautiful quilt here in the Legislature which has panels in remembrance of many of the missing and murdered indigenous women from British Columbia.

These are very painful stories. I am very sympathetic with the interest of families in being able to travel to the inquiry and being able to participate in the inquiry. As I said, the funding for that would be federal, and I would encourage those families and I will also be talking to the federal government about it to see…. I think it’s safe to say the federal government is very well aware of this need. As to how they fulfil it, that does remain to be seen, along with the composition of the inquiry itself.

As the room will know and the member will know, we don’t have details of what the inquiry will look like at the moment. I can’t speak for the federal government, of
[ Page 13033 ]
course, but I think we can anticipate that we will know before too long what the inquiry will look like.

[1630]

In terms of domestic violence courts, I can confirm that we have domestic violence prosecutors in a number of locations in British Columbia, in six locations in British Columbia, and we have domestic violence courts in four different locations. We have Nanaimo and Duncan, and we also have Kelowna and Penticton. The Kelowna and Penticton ones are what we might call docket courts, where the domestic violence cases are grouped together, whereas Nanaimo and Duncan take a slightly different approach by bringing together community service providers and government agencies to promote the prevention and reduction of domestic violence within families and relationships.

It is a priority for this government — on the Public Safety side, on the Justice side, in Children and Families and other ministries who may be involved — to reduce violence. We’ve got a violence-free British Columbia strategy. It’s a cross-government strategy. Certainly one of the major goals of that strategy and also the provincial office of domestic violence is to reduce domestic violence and to help vulnerable women in British Columbia.

B. Routley: I want to turn to another matter now. It’s certainly an interesting issue, from my perspective, to have a constituent come in with this concern. It’s a balance-of-justice issue. The concern is whether or not there is an unfairness.

I’ve got a copy of the three pages, and I’ve even highlighted them for the minister for easy reference. I’ve even numbered them on the bottom.

The issue is about a fellow. He’s 64 years of age. He drove from Victoria to Grand Forks around midnight. He got stopped. His issue is he wants to go and defend himself, and he says he’s going to go and defend himself if this can’t be resolved.

[D. McRae in the chair.]

The court date is May 27, and his point is that it’s highly unfair and unjust that…. It says right on the application, or the hearing date, that the enforcement officer or prosecutor may appear by video conferencing or telephone. That’s what it says on the document that he received. So he’s asking for the same consideration.

He says he’s been urged to…. He contacted somebody in your ministry or one of the offices and was told: “Why don’t you just plead guilty?” He came to my office and said: “Really, I’m being urged to plead guilty. ‘Just pay your 120 bucks.’”

His point is that he drove all the way from Victoria to Grand Forks, got pulled over, believe it or not, for driving ten kilometres under the speed limit. He says he wasn’t holding up traffic. There were only five cars in the period of time…. He had to direct traffic because the police person decided to park their car in the middle of the road while they were pursuing the licence plate, or whatever it is that they do.

Anyway, this is a senior — 64 years of age — who says: “I shouldn’t have to pay all this cost when….” I guess he’s a landlord or something, too, and I’m told that under the landlord tenancy act, everybody has to work on the video. You can use Skype or whatever and communicate that way.

Surely, in a day and age like this, we can get up to date with the times and not punish our constituents, forcing British Columbians to either plead guilty, even for something where they want to go and have their day in court because they feel it’s highly unjust, or they have to spend thousands of dollars. He says that he feels like he’s being fleeced or gouged by the system.

I’m sure the Attorney General would agree with me that the government of British Columbia isn’t in the business of fleecing or gouging our seniors here in British Columbia. We want to help them and assist them. If you were there as MLA in the Cowichan Valley, you’d be concerned about this matter as well. You’d want to help out this senior that was there telling you this story, which really seems almost unbelievable.

[1635]

I’m hopeful. I sent you over that material. I guess I’m really just asking if there is anything you can do to help. I’m hoping that you can, in some way, assist. Maybe it’s too tall a bill to get video conferencing; maybe there has to be a law enacted or something to allow video conferencing.

He will go to this great expense if he has to. I’m sure another Cowichan Valley, an MLA that…. You know, years ago you were there in the Cowichan Valley. You would sympathize with the poor, poor people in the Cowichan Valley — somebody that’s 64, that’s trying to save up his nickels to go back to court to defend himself against this matter.

Surely, we can find a compromise. That’s what I’m asking the minister to do today — to look into this matter. See if we can do anything or if it’s….

Apparently, the court…. He did appeal it. You’ll note that in page 3, the final page, he appealed it. The justice said the hearing has to be in the place closest to where the offence happened, which is in Grand Forks. Really, that’s his argument.

He’s happy to go to court — whatever process works. But if the police officer and the justice can do it by video conferencing or by phone, surely, we would want to look for the balance of justice and appeal to the brighter angels, who would insist on fairness.

Anyway, thank you. That’s really the last of my questions. Again, with all the bad news we’ve had in the Cowichan Valley, this is one little request that maybe you can do something about for us.

[1640]

Hon. S. Anton: As to the specific case, what I will ask my staff to do is to have a look into it. What I can say is that we are very interested in things that make justice more accessible. There is quite an initiative to allow for video conferencing. We actually have 251 court services branch video conference end points — systems installed in courtrooms, corrections centres and penitentiaries around British Columbia.

In the case of a traffic ticket, generally, the disputant does need to attend at the court nearest where the alleged offence occurred. That is why he is hearing what he’s hearing. However, what I will say to the member is that I will have a look at it and see if there’s anything else that we might be able do to assist. I will have to get back to him with that.

L. Krog: It’s a pleasure to rise this afternoon, finally. I do want to follow up on a couple of questions from the member for Stikine.

When he asked the Attorney General about the duty to report potential child abuse under the act, the Attorney General was, as I understand it, unable to provide a number for that. I’m curious to know. Surely the ministry keeps track of how many criminal prosecutions there are for drunk driving, for murder, for whatever.

Is there some particular reason why an offence which would be prosecuted through the ministry…? Why wouldn’t there be statistics on that? Surely, it would be an important indicator of whether there’s a rise or a diminishment of the level of crime in any particular community or of the type of crime as well.

[1645]

Hon. S. Anton: The prosecution service does track certain offences. They track the domestic violence offences, as we discussed a moment ago. They track impaired driving cases. They track homicides. So there are certain categories which are tracked and counted and reported out on each year.

As I said earlier, the prosecutions under section 14 of the act are very infrequent. They simply are not a category that is tracked by the prosecution service.

L. Krog: Of course, the Attorney General’s response invites the question: why are we picking out certain types of crime to track and not doing others?

I presume, notwithstanding the Liberal’s rather horrible experience, historically, with computer programs and bringing in systems that haven’t proved terribly successful from time to time…. I doubt very much there’s some unnamed public servant in a back room somewhere with a pencil and a piece of paper and a calculator keeping these statistics. I’m going to assume there must be some kind of program and a computer system that allows this to be done.

I’m curious to know why we’re not tracking all kinds of crime, which would surely be of interest to the Attorney General; to the prosecutors, particularly; to the police, as well, to see what the success rate is in prosecutions; and to the general public.

Hon. S. Anton: The prosecution service’s primary job, of course, is prosecutions. They are — like all government branches, I think it’s safe to say — fairly constrained in what they can do beyond their core mandate.

They do a fairly robust reporting out annually in their annual report. The last annual report was 2014-2015. The current one is in development right now. There are certain categories of offences in there which are discussed. Not every single thing is categorized and counted. The ones that I mentioned a moment ago — domestic violence, impaired driving, peace officer–involved offences, child- and youth-victim-related offences — are counted, but not every single offence is counted and categorized.

The Chair: At this time, I’m looking to the members of this committee, and I will recommend a recess for no longer than ten minutes.

The committee recessed from 4:49 p.m. to 5:06 p.m.

[D. McRae in the chair.]

The Chair: I would like to welcome back the committee from recess. I believe the minister has an answer to an earlier question.

Hon. S. Anton: This is in response to the question from the member from Mount Pleasant regarding domestic violence homicides. There are some statistics that are available. During the recess, I have been advised that the CJB is able to run statistics on the number of reports to Crown counsel they receive for homicides involving a K file designation.

For the purposes of this statistic, a homicide is defined to include a murder, conspiracy to commit murder, manslaughter and attempted murder. So for the year 2015 and 2016, remembering that these are reports received — not necessarily incidents during that year, but reports received by Crown during that year — there were 27 homicide reports.

L. Krog: I appreciate I’m probably not going to get an answer to this, but I want to raise the issue if possible. With respect to the indemnities that are granted by government pursuant to the Financial Administration Act, section 72(8), where legal fees are paid for public servants or those who work for government and indemnities issued….

We know from the previous Basi-Virk fiasco that that was a $6 million hit to taxpayers. I’m curious to know if there has been any policy involving the minister’s ministry with respect to insuring that indemnification ar-
[ Page 13035 ]
rangements include significant or better security for repayment in the event that there is either a guilty plea or a finding of guilt.

[1710]

Hon. S. Anton: The question is whether or not you get an indemnity relating to an accusation of a criminal offence. As the member will know and has heard me say on many occasions, these indemnities themselves are not political decisions. They are made at senior staff levels — usually, deputy minister. On a criminal charge, with an indemnity, under the regulation, the deputy making the indemnity agreement may require a security for the indemnity amount.

L. Krog: Well, the reason I raise this is it’s now become apparent through reports that indemnities are being entered into involving not people who are charged — as I understand it, and the minister will correct me if I’m wrong — but people who are simply being investigated or questioned.

Now, this, rather remarkably, is in contrast to the provision of legal aid to ordinary citizens, the poorest of the poor, who only get approved for legal aid through the Legal Services Society if, in fact, they’ve been formally charged. With great respect, the third-storey guy doesn’t phone up Legal Services and say: “I’m afraid I might be investigated for this crime that I did last night, and by the way, this is all confidential. Do you think you could pass me on to a lawyer and give me a referral, so I can get a little advice about it?”

That’s not the way the system works for ordinary British Columbians. But for public servants, including political staffers, my understanding, based on what I’ve read in the indemnity report, is that this is approved for persons who are simply, essentially, being questioned.

Now, if I’m wrong, I’d ask the Attorney General to correct me — and correct me on the record. If the policy is that that’s the case, then I want to know where that policy comes from. Is it a decision of cabinet? Is it a decision of the Attorney General? Or is this something that is completely left up to a senior deputy? Frankly, in contrast to the way ordinary citizens are treated, that seems to be pretty unreasonable.

[1715]

Hon. S. Anton: There are a couple of things to remember.

One is that indemnities are in relation to employment. A person is doing their job, something comes along which involves the legal system in some way, and in the appropriate circumstances, an indemnity can be granted. I think that the member has…. There are different kinds of indemnities, depending on who you are — whether you are a union employee or an excluded employee, or whether you would fall into the category of special indemnities. There has been a regulation….

Indemnities generally have been in place for quite some time now, certainly since the ’90s. But in 2012, there was a new regulation created, the Excluded Employees Indemnity Regulation. That was supported by the Stephen Toope report.

L. Krog: As much as I’m grateful to the Attorney General for her answer, it doesn’t address, with great respect, what is such an obvious inequity.

I hesitate to use the term “a law for the rich and a law for the poor.” But the fact is that if you’re excluded staff, if you’re a Liberal appointee working in a minister’s office, and you’re being just investigated or questioned, the record is pretty clear that you get to go and seek whoever you wish for counsel, then go to the ministry and ask for an indemnity agreement. It appears that several have, indeed, been granted. Whereas if you’re a poor person who actually has to be charged with a crime before you’re eligible to apply for legal aid, then you trot off to legal aid and hope you’re covered.

Clearly, there is such an obvious inequity here. I’m just curious to know. I mean, is my interpretation of the arrangement of the process, in fact, unfair? In other words, all you have to do is be investigated or be questioned, and you can go and apply. Is that what the policy provides?

Hon. S. Anton: As I said a moment ago, this does need to be in the course of employment. So it’s for people who are working for government and who do require the use of counsel. It is fairly tightly controlled; it’s not a blank cheque at all. In fact, the hourly rate can be controlled, and the amount of hours available may be controlled. There is a careful eye kept on how much may be spent under the indemnity.

L. Krog: That’s pretty cold comfort on this side of the House, I must say.

[1720]

“The province of British Columbia consolidated revenue fund guarantees and indemnities authorized and issued for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2015, include No. 904, indemnities issued to various employees” — or ex-employees, for heaven’s sake — “for an indemnity and legal representation agreement with respect to legal advice in relation to the interviewing process” — the interviewing process — “as it relates to events surrounding the government’s multicultural strategic outreach program.”

We see the same thing again in 906. “Indemnities issued to various employees or ex-employees for an indemnity in a legal representation agreement with respect to legal advice in relation to the interviewing process as it relates to the events surrounding the government’s multicultural strategic outreach program.” In other words, the quick-win scandal.
[ Page 13036 ]

I could go on. There appear to be six, running between, not in order, nos. 904 and 916 — which the Attorney General may wish to review at her leisure some time — that all appear to relate to the multicultural strategic outreach program.

Now, with great respect, it’s very clear. It’s the interviewing process. Let’s get this straight. If the police want to simply ask you some questions and interview you, you can get a lawyer. The Attorney General says it’s very carefully monitored, etc. Gosh, it seems to me that when you’ve got six separate indemnities and it’s strictly for interviewing, for heaven’s sake, I don’t know — how shall I say? — how severe or significant the monitoring process is when they appear to be granted with great ease by the ministry.

The Attorney General has indicated: “Well, there are some controls in amounts of hours and agreements on rates, etc.” Perhaps the Attorney General, having advised us of that, could tell us, exactly: what does that mean? Is there a cap on the hourly rate? If so, what is the cap? If there’s a cap on hours, what is the cap on hours, and who makes that decision? Literally, who makes that decision?

Hon. S. Anton: There are two pieces to the indemnity coverage. One is whether or not you should get an indemnity at all. Then the second is: what is the nature and amount of the indemnity?

Generally, the approval of the indemnity — will you get it or not at all? — is in the hands of my deputy. Then it goes to…. We have counsel. We have counsel, actually, who might be called coverage counsel, who look at and process the details of the indemnity.

We actually retain the lawyers. They’re retained through legal services. The amount and the hours and the nature of the retainer will be recommended by the coverage counsel and ultimately approved by the Assistant Deputy Attorney General.

L. Krog: Just to be clear, and no disrespect to the particular staff involved, in addressing the process itself….

[1725]

The decision is made by a person whose job is dependent upon the government, who is assisted in this process by others whose jobs are dependent on the government of the day.

I’m going to presume that there is some reporting process back to the Attorney General at some point. Or is the Attorney General kept completely apart from this process? Is there a separate budget or a budget line item for this process? Does the Attorney General think, in light of what I’ve suggested around this process, that perhaps there might be a fairer, more transparent and, I might say, acceptable process from the public’s perspective?

Right now what the public sees is that you get a lawyer if you’re working in government and there’s a potential charge being considered, arguably arising out of your employment. Well, what does that mean? That’s a pretty broad circumstance, for starters. Yet you’re obviously going to be in a position, it would appear, on no less than at least six occasions or six individuals plus…. It talks about indemnities issued to various employees or ex-employees.

The amount is to be determined without regard to any particular regulation, from what I gather. It’s an open-ended arrangement. It’s farmed out to counsel outside of the ministry — entirely appropriate. I have no problem with that concept. But, again, this whole process just doesn’t look or smell right, I suspect, to the average member of the public who’s acquainted with it.

I’d be interested in hearing responses to the various issues I’ve just raised from the Attorney General.

Hon. S. Anton: As I have said on many occasions, this is not a political process. There is no reporting back to the Attorney General. The dollar amounts are in the hands…. After they have been approved, as I described earlier, they are reported out annually by the risk management branch.

As to whether or not there’s a budget, they may have a budget. I think that question would be better put to Finance. One can imagine that it would be fairly variable from year to year.

[G. Kyllo in the chair.]

This is a system that’s been in place since the 1990s. It was looked at by Prof. Stephen Toope. It was looked at by the Auditor General. We did pass regulations in 2012. The system is one, as I say, that has been looked at a couple of times. Changes that have been recommended have been made.

[1730]

Certainly, from time to time, it’s worth looking at the system, but each time it’s been looked at, it has stood up to scrutiny, with perhaps some minor tweaks being made and some changes being made. But the system itself is fundamentally sound.

L. Krog: The indemnities entered into and approved by the Deputy Attorney General and staff who report to the Deputy Attorney General…. Does the policy or regulation include specific direction around the issue of security over property, assets, whatever the case may be, of individuals who are seeking an indemnity arrangement?

In other words, in the Basi-Virk situation, where there were assets, there was a choice and a decision made, with great respect, by two deputies back then to let Mr. Basi keep, as I recall, several hundred thousand dollars of tangible assets that could have been forfeited to the Crown.

Is there any specific policy direction, plan, scheme — whatever — that encourages securing assets of persons who are literally, as in this case, as I say, getting their first indemnification agreement just for being interviewed?
[ Page 13037 ]
Presumably, if they’re charged afterwards and the precedent is set, they’re going to get an indemnification for their actual defence. Is that — by the way, another question — the policy too?

Hon. S. Anton: The Auditor General report that I referred to made special mention of the public service tasked with approving and administering the special indemnities. It said that they were diligent and fair in exercising their responsibilities. Their practices were principled and responsive to each situation, and they were kept separate and distinct from the proceedings for which the indemnity was provided.

The types of indemnities, of course, are civil or criminal. In a criminal case…. I think that’s what the member is referring to, relating to security. If there’s a criminal charge and you’re found guilty, you will be required to repay the indemnity, and security can be required up front on a criminal matter.

In a civil case, these are generally not repayable. It’s an indemnity relating to employment, and it’s an indemnity for something that happened in the course of the person’s employment.

L. Krog: I’m going to take it, from the lack of response to my question, that in fact there is no specific policy that says the government is going to secure assets of a person who may face potential criminal charges. It’s a discretionary matter. It’s left up to a process, which the Attorney General tells me the Auditor General says is fine. But in practice, there is no direction, and there is no specific policy. There’s no set of nice guidelines. In other words, it is essentially a discretionary matter.

[1735]

Now, that may be well and good. We heard a case earlier today about a police officer who chose to charge a 64-year-old tourist with driving ten kilometres under the speed limit and chose to exercise his discretion by charging. So be it.

Discretion can be a lovely thing, but when you’re dealing with something as politically sensitive as paying the legal fees of folks, surely it would be more appropriate to have some very specific guidelines so that we don’t end up with a situation like Mr. Basi and Mr. Virk again, where people who are either found guilty or determined to be guilty have, in the meantime, because assets weren’t secured — as opposed to what happened to Mr. Basi and Mr. Virk, where assets weren’t secured — and those assets have either been transferred or dealt with or otherwise disposed of in a way that prevents the Crown from ever recovering under the indemnification agreement. That would be real insult to injury. You get your defence paid for, and ultimately, you get to escape paying your legal fees.

But I’m conscious of the fact that we have very limited time. There are a whole number of areas that I’m going to have to try and canvass with the Attorney General in 45 minutes.

One very specific, local to my constituency, is this. The Nanaimo Men’s Resource Centre society I know has attempted to meet with the Attorney General. They advise me that the current Attorney General is the first in 15 years not to meet with representatives of that society, and I’m wondering if the Attorney General can explain why. Would she be prepared to meet with them? And is the ministry prepared to provide them any funding?

They’re an organization rather unique in the province that provides assistance to men involving violence, domestic violence, marriage breakdown, and obviously, small as the percentage may be, it is fairly apparent that males can be and are indeed victims of domestic violence. I’m just wondering if the Attorney General will meet with them. And is she prepared, also, to ensure that funding continues?

I know there have been various programs through government — not necessarily through her ministry — that have provided funding to that organization. But I’m making this inquiry on behalf of a constituent organization in my community.

Hon. S. Anton: I am aware that the family maintenance enforcement program director, Mr. Beresford, has met with this organization, perhaps not too long ago. As to meeting with them myself, or whether that meeting is better with the Public Safety Minister, let me take that under advisement and get back to the member as to who might meet with them.

L. Krog: I want to deal with the Legal Services Society. The MOU, I understand, is being renegotiated this year. We know that the LSS board is made up of government appointees and other appointees. Five are appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council on the recommendation of the Attorney General, four by the Law Society, after consultation with the executive of the B.C. branch of the Canadian Bar Association. In these circumstances, will other parties be asked to provide input with respect to the renegotiation of the MOU?

[1740]

Hon. S. Anton: This is an agreement which is generally negotiated at the staff level between staff in Justice and staff of the Legal Services Society. Did I say every three years? It comes up for renegotiation. That renegotiation needs to start by June of this year. When there’s a finished product, it would go to the legal services board. It would come up to me for our joint approvals. I think that is a fair description of the process.

L. Krog: In terms of that process, I gather, candidly, there is no significant increase for the Legal Services Society this year. I’m sure I’m going to hear back from the
[ Page 13038 ]
Attorney General that they’ve had $6 million over three years dealing with various pilot projects, some of which appear to be quite successful — but, I take it, no significant increase in their actual budget.

The Attorney General, I trust, will be able to confirm today that in terms of…. As I’ve said every year to every Attorney General for the last ten, we are still not back at the same — I call it — raw dollar amount as was given to Legal Services Society back in 2001 when this government took power. In other words, we’re still behind that dollar amount regardless of the fact that we’ve seen population increase and inflation.

Hon. S. Anton: The funds spent by government on legal services are over $100 million a year. The member will, of course, be familiar with the justice access centres, family justice centres and the family maintenance enforcement program. Those programs come in at about $30 million a year, plus the $74.6 million which is transferred to Legal Services Society.

At the same time, we’re encouraged by the federal government’s announcement of another $88 million over five years. That should, we think, translate to $9 million this year and then $12 million ongoing, and we do, of course, hope for our, at least, 13 percent share of that.

L. Krog: With great respect to the Attorney General, if you give ten bucks to my cousin, it doesn’t mean it makes me feel better. And with great respect, the amount announced by the federal government, even if it’s shared on a per-capita basis across the country, is going to amount to precious little for British Columbia. Our population is — what? — 4½ million, 4.8 million people in a country…. I think we’re now over 36 or 37 million. I could be wrong. It’s not going to make a great deal of difference.

But back to some basics. They say silence can be a strong indicator of priorities. So the domestic violence action plan does not include restoring or expanding family law legal aid to address, amongst other things, divorce proceedings with property and asset division or women fleeing violence.

I guess the real question is: how does the Attorney General provide — and I assume she does support the domestic violence action plan — assistance and advice to, most often, women who most obviously need it, when in fact there doesn’t appear to be any money on the other side of the equation?

[1745]

Hon. S. Anton: I would remind the member in terms…. He used an analogy, but I would just say that there’s more than one way to solve a problem. Transferring our entire resources to legal services would be one way. But separating them partly to legal services, to the tune of nearly $75 million — and then having a separate amount that goes to the justice access centres, the 21 family justice centres — is a very effective way, on family matters, for people to receive help.

There is family legal aid, of course, through the Legal Services Society. And there are three of the five pilots that relate to family law — the expanded family duty counsel, the Family LawLINE, by which a person who is eligible can get up to six hours of advice from the same lawyer — so not a variety of lawyers, but you can go back to the same lawyer — and also the family mediation service.

L. Krog: I think the Attorney General is well aware of the reality of the Legal Services Society. They are instructed to deliver services according to priorities, and those cases will be funded on, amongst other things, literally available funding. So if there’s no money, you don’t get funding, even though you may well be eligible, arguably.

In these circumstances, where so many serious cases are still ending up in court and the number of hours are limited even for those who’ve been approved for legal aid, the question is obvious. We have done this year after year. We have implemented every kind of program. In the words of Mark Benton, “I don’t have any more rabbits to pull out of my hat,” or words to that effect.

Is this what the public is going to expect from the B.C. Liberals over the next few years? I’ve looked at the service plan. We know what’s anticipated in terms of increases. Is this as good as it gets?

Should the public just accept the fact that they’re never going to see the kind of legal aid system that existed in this province once before, that people are never going to get the representation they need in our court system? Is this as good as it gets? Or does the Attorney General have some plan or scheme or hope that might give some comfort or solace to those British Columbians who face serious issues and require the assistance of competent counsel?

Hon. S. Anton: We are, as the member knows, interested in innovation and justice.

[1750]

For example, not related to family — not at the moment in any event — is the civil resolution tribunal, whereby everybody who has a strata matter or a small claims matter will be able to enter into the system, educate themselves as to their own issue and then move forward, if they need to, on their civil matter or on their strata matter.

Once it’s up and running, may be moved to other platforms and may be available in other ways for other services. At the same time, Legal Services has a program, MyLawBC, where they are helping people with issues such as how to make a will and family matters. With those innovation pieces going on, not all of legal aid and legal services that we can offer people is a lawyer and a client. There are different ways of helping people.
[ Page 13039 ]

We, as I said, are very interested in innovation. We have five pilot projects right now with the Legal Services Society. They are being assessed right now. They’ve been funded to the tune of $2 million a year. With the assessment of them, we will decide are they…. I think it’s safe to say they’re not all equally great. Some of them are getting very high reviews and others, perhaps, less so. But that’s all part of the analysis, so I don’t want to prejudge how they will all play out.

But let me give the example of the Parents Legal Centre for child protection cases. This is in Robson Square. There is a lawyer there who will help families early on when their child may be being brought into protection, or there’s something that indicates to the family that maybe the child will be taken into protection.

That lawyer is there for the parents. That lawyer will help the parents. That lawyer will help the family. They will look for other arrangements, other than protection, within the broader family or, indeed, just helping those parents manage or cope or engage in better practices so that those children don’t have to be taken into protection.

This is a highly valued project. It’s still in its infancy, really. It’s been running a year or so now or a year and a half, perhaps. It’s a very, very good project. It’s that kind of innovation that we’re looking for. It’s the innovation that helps people, which is, in fact, very cost-effective and is different than the traditional manner of looking at legal services — which is, as I said, one lawyer, one courtroom, one case.

L. Krog: I’m not entirely sure what comfort getting a will, will to be to someone fleeing domestic violence, in terms of innovation. But let me pose this question.

The domestic violence plan didn’t consider an in-house counsel model, which was proposed by West Coast LEAF. In other words, you have access to someone who has experience and knowledge.

With great respect to the Attorney General, not every case is going to get mediated away or dealt with by some other process or handled in the justice access centre. When you have someone who is intimidated by their spouse for whatever reason, ultimately, they may well need and, most often, do need representation, need an advocate, a lawyer who can assist them and protect them, essentially.

I’m just wondering: why didn’t the plan consider using that in-house counsel model? Why wasn’t it funded? It seemed to be an entirely logical and sensible proposition. It comes up from the grass roots of community organizations, particularly LEAF and others who supported the concept. Why isn’t being used?

It’s an innovation. It makes sense, and it ensures a level of expertise. The Attorney General, in previous answers today, has acknowledged that they’re a Crown, working within the ministry, who develop levels of expertise in the cases that are referred to them. Why shouldn’t the same logic apply in situations where people are fleeing domestic violence?

[1755]

Hon. S. Anton: There is no question that there are cases which do require court. I was talking about the out-of-court solutions, but there are, indeed, cases that require court. In fact, Legal Services does provide lawyers on criminal cases. It provides lawyers to the tune of about $15 million in total on family matters.

Let me go back to the MyLawBC — the guided pathways. When the user goes on to the system, they can go into four areas of law — family; family violence; wills and personal planning; and foreclosure.

On the family violence, if you are suffering from domestic violence, it provides very helpful information to you to let you know what your options and opportunities are to assist yourself, including helping, by the way…. If you’re reading the computer and the person who is being violent to you comes into the room, you can jump out of it right away into a safe website. There’s a lot of built-in safety in the site. It’s extremely informative. It’s an excellent piece of work done by the Legal Services Society.

L. Krog: It’s apparent, and we know that less than half of the applications for family law legal aid cases are accepted — less than half. Part of the reason is because, in terms of financial eligibility, the number simply means that a goodly number of folks who in no way and in nobody’s universe would be able to afford a lawyer go without counsel, regardless of how serious their situation is, essentially.

Earlier, I suggested to the Attorney General that I would like her to just admit, given the parsimonious increases that have been granted by this government in 15 years to the Legal Services Society, following on the most dramatic cut to its budget in its history….

Is this the end of the road? Is this as good as it’s going to get? Or is there anticipation that if the happy voters of British Columbia go to the polls next year, suddenly there’s going to be a whole bunch of money available to provide the Legal Services Society and related organizations that the Attorney General mentioned with any significant funding so that the poor and vulnerable and the abused in this province will actually be able to go into a courtroom in British Columbia, if necessary, and have the legal advice prior, if it’s needed, and maybe resolve it or, alternatively, have an advocate to defend them in that court process?

[1800]

Hon. S. Anton: A couple of things relating to what the member said. We are anticipating additional funds via the federal government. It still remains to be seen, but it is a commitment that the federal government has made, so we are expecting to see that money. That’s first.
[ Page 13040 ]

Secondly, our goal is to keep vulnerable people and people in difficult circumstances out of court. If we can find mediated solutions, if we can find good dispute resolution, if we can help them in the family justice centres to resolve their family matters, all of those things are extremely beneficial. They’re cost-effective, and they’re quicker, and they help people. That’s our goal.

Thirdly, we do have the pilots, the innovation projects at Legal Services. The evaluations are being done on those at the moment. When those evaluations are done, we will then, obviously, be able to consider the value of each of those projects and whether they should or could be expanded around British Columbia. That’s a decision that we will be able to make at that time.

L. Krog: Well, I’m sure the Attorney General, given the lateness of the hour, will forgive my sense of resignation and lack of trust in all the innovations. Let’s just go deal with another topic.

The Attorney General has mentioned the civil resolution tribunal several times. Let’s just have a very quick history here. Legislation is passed in 2012, and it was supposed to be up and running by 2013-14. Then it was amended in 2015. As of last spring, we’ve spent — what is it? — $2.1 million in capital, I’m advised, in designing and developing the technology solutions. We’re spending what? Is it $1½ million in salaries so far, for the chair and related parties? And the office of the chief information officer identifies $5.2 million in one-time capital for the technology infrastructure.

The real question is…. As of last spring, the capital of nearly $1.4 million had been spent on systems architecture, business modelling and technology solutions necessary to implement the civil resolution tribunal transformation initiative. Am I right in thinking that these numbers are mutually exclusive of the $2.1 million as well? Or are we all in the same boat?

[1805]

Hon. S. Anton: The member asked this in the House the other day. I undertook to bring members today. There are two sets of numbers that we’re talking about here. One is what you might call the tribunal itself, which is the personnel involved in the tribunal. I think I may have answered this question wrongly yesterday, too, so let me give the facts from the tribunal itself — who is here helping me today.

Interjection.

Hon. S. Anton: Just the facts, yes, and I apologize for any discrepancies.

At the start of this fiscal year, the civil resolution tribunal had two employees and one full-time chair — that was the chair, a registrar and executive director, and a tribunal administrator — plus there are 18 part-time tribunal members, who are paid on a per-diem basis.

We are expecting to hire up to 11 additional staff, plus two full-time vice-chairs. That would be two directors, one case manager, one senior resolution support clerk, six resolution support clerks, one member support clerk, vice-chair of strata and vice-chair of small claims. The estimated expenditures in this year are $1.9 million, with a potential revenue of half a million.

In terms of the contractor…. Now, these are the people who are building the tribunal, building the software in the dispute resolution office. We have a contract with PwC, which provides access to 15 software developers and seven CRT knowledge engineers.

This is all done through our dispute resolution office, which also oversees contracts with the Community Legal Assistance Society for human right services and with Mediate B.C., for the development and maintenance of mediation rosters, as well as an MOU with the UVic Law Centre for human rights services. But the first part of that relates directly to the civil resolution tribunal.

In terms of capital spent to date, there has been $4.7 million spent to date.

L. Krog: I know the Attorney General will correct me if I’m wrong, but we actually haven’t done anything yet. We don’t have a functioning system. There are no cases being heard. There are no disputes being resolved. Nothing is happening. It was supposed to be up and running in 2013-14. We’re now two years past that date, which was the secondary date.

The Attorney General tells me now that we’ve spent over $4 million in capital. Is that of the $5.2 million? Or is that in addition to the $2.1 million that has been spent in designing this system?

[1810]

I mean, at this point, it’s hard to have much faith that the government will ever be able to institute a reform in the justice system when you’ve spent all this money. You’re two years past your start date, you haven’t heard a case yet, and you’ve spent what appears to be nearly the whole capital budget.

Can, perhaps, the Attorney General tell me today: what’s the total number spent on salaries and capital, and how much more is anticipated to be spent before this tribunal actually hears a dispute?

Hon. S. Anton: In terms of the cost for the tribunal, in the ’14-15 year and prior it was absorbed within Justice’s general budget. It has been separated out in ’15-16 and ’16-17. The total expenses in ’15-16 were $633,425, and the total anticipated expenses this year are $1,930,700.

In terms of when — the member has referred a couple of times to when it starts — we will be commencing in-
[ Page 13041 ]
take on strata cases in July. That intake will consist of, first of all, persons going through the guided pathways to educate themselves about their own issue and, in addition, to do the on-line process to make their application for resolution.

As to when there will be facilitation and adjudication on their cases, we expect that to commence in the fall of this year.

L. Krog: I’m going to preface what will be a final and very short question with my thanks to the Attorney General and the staff who have been so patient, particularly taking questions from my colleagues today. It’s my sincere regret that we don’t have more time to continue this, because there’s a great deal of turf I’d love to cover, but that’s not going to happen.

[1815]

One thing I will make a pitch for, at the end. It strikes me that if the Attorney General is as interested in innovation as she indicates she is, and the ministry is interested in innovation and saving money, etc., then why, for heaven’s sake, is the restorative justice program, which is so successful and so cost effective, not receiving more support from this government in communities across this province?

I have attended enough lectures and enough meetings and met with enough of the people who deliver the services on the ground to know that it is one of the most successful ways of keeping, particularly, young offenders from falling into a lifetime of crime or even worse crime, saves costs to the justice system in every respect, whether it’s on the policing side, on social services involvement — all of these processes.

Is the Attorney General prepared to finish the day on a positive note and tell me that out of the hundreds of millions of dollars available in her budget, she can’t find a little more money for a program that has a proven track record, that is cost-effective and will, ultimately, save the British Columbia government a great deal of money?

Hon. S. Anton: Just to reiterate, the costs I gave a moment ago about the civil resolution tribunal were not capital. Those were the personnel and offices and related.

In terms of the question around restorative justice, this is an issue of great interest to both myself and the Public Safety Minister. It is something that we are having a look at in government. I agree with the member that it does show positive results. It perhaps may have a broader application in British Columbia, and it’s something that we are having a look at.

With that, Chair, I think that we may be at the end, and I have a number of votes that we might resolve.

Vote 32: ministry operations, $387,157,000 — approved.

Vote 33: judiciary, $71,786,000 — approved.

Vote 34: Crown Proceeding Act, $24,500,000 — approved.

Vote 35: independent investigations office, $7,552,000 — approved.

Vote 36: British Columbia Utilities Commission, $1,000 — approved.

ESTIMATES:
OTHER APPROPRIATIONS

Vote 52: Environmental Appeal Board and Forest Appeals Commission, $2,083,000 — approved.

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

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:19 p.m.

Access to on-line versions of the official report of debates (Hansard),
webcasts of proceedings and podcasts of Question Period is available on the Internet.
Chamber debates are broadcast on television.

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