2016 Legislative Session: Fifth Session, 40th Parliament
HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Monday, May 16, 2016

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 40, Number 2

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

MONDAY, MAY 16, 2016

The House met at 1:35 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Hon. S. Anton: I have the great pleasure this afternoon of welcoming to the House — I don’t think he needs any introduction — one of my predecessors, Brian Smith, QC.

I first saw the hon. former Attorney General when I was a Crown prosecutor. He came to address our meeting in about 1986 or ’87. He was the Attorney General from 1983 to 1988. He practises now, currently, at Pearlman Lindholm here in Victoria. He’s a federal treaty negotiator, and he has the pleasure, I think…. We have the honour of having him serve on the Victoria and Esquimalt police board.

Public spirited, long-standing community member, somebody who I am free to phone and seek advice from at any time, very friendly man, very nice man, former Attorney General, very esteemed colleague — the hon. Brian Smith.

J. Horgan: I thought it was going to fall to me to introduce all the former Attorneys General that come through this place. I’m pleased to see that Brian has the good sense to wear a tie today, unlike Geoff Plant.

Enough of that. I have a number of introductions today. I want to start by introducing Hunter Lastiwka, who is in the gallery with his father, Kevin, and his grandmother Charlotte Hunter.

I met Charlotte on a ride back from Vancouver on the late-night flight to Victoria. We got to talking about Hunter. He had just returned from Ottawa, where he had gone as a young high school student to learn more about the democratic process from the federal perspective. I thought to myself: “Self,” I said, “wouldn’t it be a good idea to bring Hunter here, in his hometown, to the Legislative Assembly in the province of British Columbia so he could see how well we comport ourselves, how important it is that we respect each other as we ask questions to and fro in question period?” I know he, as well as all those in the gallery, is very much looking forward to that. Would the House make Kevin, Hunter and Charlotte very, very welcome.

Also in the gallery today are two constituents of mine — between them, many, many years in the community. Ed Cooper, now a spry 86, is the youngest of the two. Darrel Walker is 91. Both of them are joining us here in the Legislature to see a bit of a ruckus in question period. I guess the youth would prefer to see the respectful dialogue, and the elders in the group want to see a bit of a ruckus. We’ll see if we can try and balance that out for both of them.

Ed and Darrel worked at Yarrows shipyard here in Victoria for many, many years, Ed as a boilermaker and Darrel as a welder. Both of them are fine citizens. Ed served in the Second World War in the merchant marines. Just recently, his work in Korea has been acknowledged by Veterans Affairs after many, many hard years of letters back and forth to Ottawa. Both of them are fine human beings, serving our community for many, many decades. Would the House please make Ed and Darrel very, very welcome.

J. Wickens: Today is a very exciting day for me. I have two of the most important men in my life in the House: my husband, Brian Wickens, and my dad, Gary Parkinson.

My dad, Gary, flew all the way from Ontario, not just to see his grandchildren but to witness the festivities in our question period. Now, I have to warn the members opposite that my husband asked to sit in a position in our House where he could keep a watchful eye on our government during question period.

I love both my dad and husband immensely. They have made me incredibly proud. They are small business owners. My husband, as you all know, is a milkman. He owns Wickens Enterprises. My dad built his small business from the ground up, Sportacular Events. Both of these men have supported our families through their small business, and I truly know how hard they worked. I can’t say enough. All I can say is that I wouldn’t be standing here today if it wasn’t for those two men.

Will the House please make them feel very welcome.

Tributes

JOHN MATHIES

L. Throness: I’d like to inform the House of the passing of a significant individual. John Mathies arrived in Chilliwack at 12 years of age, just in time to have the family home flooded by the Fraser River in 1948. Regardless of this setback, John and his family would spend the rest of their lives in the area.

[1340]

He had a passion for growing things, especially trees, flowers and shrubs, so he founded Cannor Nurseries in 1953. His five-acre nursery soon became 400, a great business that’s still going strong.

His second great passion was family. He married Ellen in 1955, and together they began a different kind of nursery with four children, ten grandkids and one great-granddaughter, much-loved Amelia. He loved to spend quality time with all of them.

John was a civic-minded man too, a leader in Scouts and a coach of baseball and hockey. He was a longtime
[ Page 13124 ]
director and past president of the B.C. Landscape and Nursery Association, as well as a number of other industry organizations.

Near the end, John said to Ellen: “I’ve done everything that I ever wanted to do.” Now, that’s quite a statement, one that we can all hope to say one day.

The special condolences of this House go to Ellen and also to children Deborah, Gordon, Sandy and Lisa. They can be very proud of their dad and mom. Will the House join me in applauding the life of a good man, well lived, John Mathies.

Introductions by Members

A. Dix: Today, right from the Legislature, my constituent Eileen Zheng, a remarkable young woman, launched her cross-country bike tour to promote organ donation. It was a remarkable event. I want to thank the Minister of Health, all of my colleagues from our side and the member for Shuswap who took part in this really remarkable event.

She is a remarkable young woman. She was accompanied here by her mom. She gave her kidney to her mom a year ago February after a long wait that they had. Now she’s seeking to take that experience to the world and promote organ donation in British Columbia.

It was a remarkable event. I want to thank my colleagues for taking part and thank Eileen for coming to the Legislature and showing such great leadership on this issue.

G. Kyllo: We’re joined in the House today by a good friend of mine, former councillor of Enderby and the current mayor, Mayor Greg McCune. Greg also owns a very successful business in Enderby called Sutherland’s fine bakery. Would the House please make him feel very welcome.

S. Robinson: I’d like to welcome to the House today Keats Morton. Keats lives in Burnaby, and he works for Mountain Equipment Co-op. I happened to meet him on Facebook, that great place on the Internet where people are brought together.

We bonded over a love of geocaching. I have only had the opportunity to find a couple of dozen geocaches, some of them around this building, but Keats here has found over 6,000 of them. He’s logged them. He travels and finds them all over the world. It’s fascinating to hear how he does this. I just would like the House to make Keats feel very welcome.

Hon. T. Stone: On behalf of the member for Peace River North and the Minister of Education, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to welcome someone all the way from the Peace country here today.

Joining us is Cindy Dettling, who is a school bus driver for the Peace River North school district in Fort St. John. Cindy has really developed a reputation over the years for being a passionate advocate for getting through to motorists to stop speeding past school buses that have their flashing lights on. She came down today to participate in an announcement that we made to that effect.

I want to, on behalf of all members, thank Cindy and all of the other school bus drivers out there across the province who are responsible for the most precious cargo of all — that’s our children — to and from school. I would ask that the House please welcome Cindy here to the Legislature today.

V. Huntington: Earlier today I had the pleasure of having two groups of students tour the precinct. The first was a group of 30 grade 5 students from South Park elementary, accompanied by their teacher, Miss Maurice, and seven adults. The second group was also from South Park elementary — 29 grade 5 students accompanied by their teacher, Mrs. Kerry Lloyd, and seven other adults. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. S. Anton: I have the pleasure of also having two school groups here this afternoon. These are two high-achieving and extremely successful high schools from Vancouver-Fraserview, the first being David Thompson School. They will probably be here in question period, so I hope that they have the opportunity to see some of the toing and froing that question period brings. They are, from David Thompson, 38 grade 10 students, two adults. Of course, they are a school in South Vancouver.

[1345]

The second school is Killarney high school. They will be here today as well.

I would like to say that both of these schools are very large schools. They pride themselves in their success in academics, in sports, in music and in skills training. Killarney, in particular, has a very robust music program.

I do need to make a correction to a comment I made a few weeks ago. I was incorrect in the group that had gone to Europe, and I would like to correctly identify them. A group of 60 students from Killarney high did a European tour, but it was the Killarney band, not the Killarney orchestra.

K. Conroy: I’m pleased to introduce a classroom today, too, from my constituency, especially because it’s from Stanley Humphries Secondary School, the school I graduated from too. This is a grade 11 French immersion class with 19 students. Their teacher is here, Ms. Fiona Martin. Fiona has brought a class just about every year since I’ve been here. It’s quite a coup to bring kids all the way from Castlegar down here.
[ Page 13125 ]

I actually met with this class a couple of months ago in their classroom and talked to them about what the Legislature is like. Then they said they’d really like to come to question period, so I said: “Okay.” I told them somewhat what it’s like. Maybe we’ll be able to meet their expectations today.

This is a classroom of really engaged, politically astute, really intelligent young people. I’m really pleased to welcome them to the House today.

M. Elmore: I’m very pleased to introduce a constituent, Randy Hamm. His family — wife and daughter — and two home-learners are here today on a legislative tour. I ask everybody to please make them very welcome.

I have one more. I’d also like to introduce two friends, two very impressive young women. Sepideh Heydari is a PhD student. She’s originally from Iran. She’s a PhD student pursuing a degree in neuroscience, looking at the question of behaviour and how individuals respond to reward and punishment. Very interesting.

As well, we have Mehravet Sayadekani, who is also a PhD student, pursuing her PhD in the field of chemistry, looking at groundbreaking research around gels and the transport of drugs not soluble in water and the different uses and benefits to humans in the treatment of different diseases and challenges. I ask the Legislature to please make these two very talented and rising women leaders in our community…. Please give them a warm welcome.

L. Popham: Today I also have a school visiting. I’ve got a grade 11 class with their teacher, Mr. Paul Cunnington, from Discovery School. I’d like to welcome them to the chamber.

Today I also had lunch with Dave Eto, Dave Taylor and Holger Schwichtenberg from the B.C. Dairy Association. I, unfortunately, had a glass of cranberry juice. The Leader of the Opposition had a glass of milk, and he pointed out that I probably should have done the same. Welcome to the chamber.

J. Shin: Joining us in the gallery today are 28 members from the Iranian-Canadian community, led by Mr. Amir Bajakian. Many of them are colleagues from academia, with three PhD students, as well as ten physicians from across greater Vancouver, the Fraser Valley and Vancouver Island.

I do have to give a special shout-out to my former anatomy and physiology student Parsa Kiani. That was four years ago now, and I think it’s a happy serendipity that I would bump into him again here of all places.

It’s wonderful to be able to welcome different communities, as we have been this session. I would ask all the members to please join in having this distinguished group of British Columbians feel very welcome to the House.

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

BILL M234 — BANNING THE SALE
OF IVORY AND RHINOCEROS
HORNS ACT, 2016

M. Farnworth presented a bill intituled Banning the Sale of Ivory and Rhinoceros Horns Act, 2016.

M. Farnworth: I move that a bill intituled Banning the Sale of Ivory and Rhinoceros Horns Act, 2016, of which notice has been given in my name on the order paper, be introduced and now read a first time.

Motion approved.

[1350]

M. Farnworth: The legislation I am tabling today sees British Columbia exercise its jurisdiction as a subnational government to help close the domestic market for these animal parts. This bill closes a loophole that permits trade in ivory and rhino horns derived from animals, predating Canada’s ratification of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora.

With this legislation, B.C. would join a growing global effort to curb wildlife trafficking. California and New York are two U.S. jurisdictions who have recently passed statutes that take additional steps against ivory and rhino horn sales.

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

Bill M234, Banning the Sale of Ivory and Rhinoceros Horns 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)

CHILLIWACK RESIDENTS’ RESPONSE
TO FIRE IN FORT MCMURRAY

J. Martin: From Chilliwack to Fort Mac, with love. I’m very pleased to rise in the House today and recognize some outstanding constituents in Chilliwack who went above and beyond a couple of weeks ago in response to the devastating fires in Fort McMurray.

Truck driver Gord Van Laerhoven came up with the idea to truck supplies up to the area where some of the 88,000 victims had been evacuated from Fort McMurray wildfires. Gord asked to borrow a company truck from his boss at Bulldog Transport, who supported the idea right away. He was hoping they could collect enough to
[ Page 13126 ]
fill one tractor-trailer with donations and anticipated paying for the fuel himself.

Chilliwack, as usual, responded in droves to fill that truck. Within 48 hours, a Facebook group had grown to nearly 10,000 members, all asking how they could help and cheering on those individuals and businesses who contributed — everything from dog food, diapers, diabetic needles, beds-in-a-bag, pillows, pallets of water, baby formula, wipes, non-perishable toys and much, much more.

Other drivers — Dave Collie, Dustin VanDokkumburg and Kelby Devers — heard the call and offered their support. With the help of a donated forklift, Chilliwack residents filled not one but four semi trucks with emergency supplies in just two days through the power of positive social media and word of mouth. In what was a 12-hour drive each way, these Chilliwack men drove all night to deliver the much-needed supplies to residents affected by the wildfires.

Chilliwack is well known for having a big generous heart. This story brought many to tears and caused some to remark that their faith in humanity had been restored.

I want to commend these fine residents of Chilliwack and the many volunteers and generous Chilliwack residents for their efforts. As I’ve said many, many times in this House, once again, Chilliwack punches above its weight class.

IRANIAN-CANADIAN COMMUNITY
IN TRI-CITIES AREA

J. Wickens: The story of British Columbia really is a story of our people.

When I think about the community my children will grow up in, I think about the importance of diversity, the importance of knowing our history and teaching them how to honour everyone they meet, whether it be our First Nations whose territory we stand on or brand-new refugees coming from all over the world. When we talk about diversity, it goes without saying that we also refer to all of the diverse talents of the people who choose to come here later on in their lives and make British Columbia their home.

It is a great honour for me to welcome some very talented people in our Iranian community to the Legislative Assembly. The Tri-Cities has the second-largest Iranian population in British Columbia. I have had the absolute privilege to work with many Iranian families, shop in some of their wonderful small businesses and make new friends as well as learn about the amazing work that our Tri-City Iranian Cultural Society does.

The Iranian culture and the people are truly beautiful, and they make the place that I call home even more wonderful. The Iranian people in my community not only have a rich culture and glorious past but also a very bright future. The Iranian people value science, innovation and progress. Today we have the privilege of hosting some of the brightest members of this community, from students to researchers to physicians that are ready to make a difference in their fellow British Columbians’ lives.

As elected officials, we have the duty to work for the members in our community to ensure that everyone has the opportunity to reach their full potential and that everyone can put their expertise and talents to great use. I know that we have some exceptionally talented people in our Iranian community, and I will work hard every day to make sure their talents and beauty are recognized.

[1355]

125th ANNIVERSARY OF COQUITLAM

L. Reimer: Before this legislative session concludes and we all return to our respective constituencies, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize a milestone birthday for a community that is close to my heart. This year marks the 125th birthday of Coquitlam, a city with humble origins that has grown into a beautiful part of the Lower Mainland.

Coquitlam traces its roots back to the Coast Salish people who inhabited the banks of the Fraser River for centuries. The name Coquitlam comes from the Coast Salish word kwikwetlem, which means “red fish up the river,” a nod to the importance of salmon in our culture and our way of life.

Early European settlers began to arrive in the 1860s, and steady growth eventually led to the incorporation of the district of Coquitlam on July 25, 1891. What started as a humble agricultural and lumber town has grown into a vibrant community full of young and hard-working families striving to build a better life for themselves and their loved ones.

Coquitlam is my home, and I had the privilege of serving for two terms on its city council. During my time in the community, I have come to know the people of Coquitlam as some of the friendliest, upstanding and dedicated citizens in the province.

In celebration of its milestone birthday, Coquitlam has already been and will be hosting a variety of exciting events and celebrations over the coming months, including, on June 1, the torch-lighting ceremony. I encourage all members of this House to pay a visit to one of Metro Vancouver’s best-kept tourism secrets.

Today I want to wish our Coquitlam and our citizens all the best as they celebrate their birthday. We look forward to many years of great community in our future.

MINERALS NORTH CONFERENCE IN
SMITHERS AND TELKWA

D. Donaldson: There will be some people rocking it out in Smithers, and it’s not just because Grammy-nominated hometown musician Alex Cuba is playing
[ Page 13127 ]
Thursday night. Rocking is it with the annual Minerals North Conference hosted by Smithers and Telkwa this Wednesday to Friday.

Mineral exploration spending was $272 million in B.C. in 2015, and about half that was spent in the northwest, supporting local jobs and companies. Estimates are that it takes 100 advanced exploration projects to eventually lead to one profitable mine in B.C. Getting to that final outcome requires not only starting with grassroots exploration and the right commodity prices but, in the end, a lot of public and investor confidence.

The theme of Minerals North 2016 is “Excellence through innovation.” The agenda looks great, and northwest regional geologist and organizing committee member Jeff Kyba tells me that the session on aboriginal title is getting a lot of attention. That is very timely, as the annual global mining survey conducted by the Fraser Institute showed that B.C. finished eighth from last out of 109 jurisdictions on uncertainty concerning disputed land claims. There’s much work to be done regarding investor confidence when it comes to the government approach on aboriginal title.

Another agenda panel on sustainability, responsibility and environment is also very timely in light of the recent Auditor General’s report concluding that neither the Ministry of Mines nor the Ministry of Environment are conducting adequate monitoring and site inspections and do not have the resources to do so. Public support of mining depends on confidence in government to ensure environmental risk and damage are understood and controlled.

As Jeff Kyba said: “It was about making the conference real, talking about things that are on people’s minds.” Thanks to Jeff and all members of the organizing committee. I look forward to attending, and especially, hearing if Jeff and northeast regional geologist Paul Jago can top their musical rendition of “Heart of Gold,” which they performed a couple of years ago. Rock on, indeed.

MDA DEVELOPMENT OF SPACE TECHNOLOGY

R. Sultan: Since I made my living from these industries, it’s a bit hard for me to admit that tech is overtaking forestry, mining and natural gas combined. No company demonstrates this better than MacDonald, Dettwiler, based in Richmond. Almost 50 years ago, a UBC engineering professor and a UBC mathematician developed unique radar technology, which they mounted into a satellite. MDA became a world leader in Earth observations — over 20 satellites feeding data to ground stations in over 25 countries for processing.

[1400]

MDA today builds and operates space-based platforms, globally advanced defence, security and surveillance platforms with a well-deserved reputation for quality and reliability.

When Canada wanted in on the space shuttle, CSA and NASA asked this company to build a manipulator system. Canadarm was created, leading to sales of $1.2 billion and an order for an additional four. It launched 30 satellites from the shuttle bay. It also supported the capture and repair, in space, of the Hubble space telescope.

MDA then built Dextre, an advanced Canada Hand which helps maintain the International Space Station. In 2012, MDA acquired Space Systems Loral, providing an even stronger American presence with communication satellites serving our broadband appetites.

MDA ventured further into space to the red planet, with robotic arms and cameras on the surface of Mars and navigation for rovers seeking water up there. Could this be our lifeboat if mankind really mucks up planet Earth? MDA will help NASA find out.

ESQUIMALT AND NANAIMO RAILWAY

D. Routley: The Esquimalt and Nanaimo Railway was built to service the coal industry on Vancouver Island in the late 19th century. The railway was an essential part of the agreement that brought the colony of B.C. into Canada as a new province. Robert Dunsmuir, coal baron, was granted mineral and timber rights to most of the east half of Vancouver Island in return for building the railway.

The rail line was operated for many decades later by Canadian Pacific. The large continental railway tried for years to divest of the unique, challenging and remote E&N. Eventually, a society representing local governments and First Nations along the line was formed to take ownership in exchange for approximately $100 million of tax benefits to Canadian Pacific.

The E&N enjoys overwhelming support from most Vancouver Islanders. It serves a population of 700,000 people, 70 percent of whom live within a 15-minute drive of the line. Despite many promises and assurances, the line has remained in disrepair, undermining some of the public support it has enjoyed.

Strong action by government is needed to help restore the line. Essential to a sustainable transportation future for Vancouver Island, the E&N wants to provide the 21st-century service that it promised.

Some voices have called for the removal of the rail and conversion to trails. Firstly, the E&N Rail Trail in Langford and Nanaimo shows conclusively that rail and trail can coexist. Secondly, the cost of decommissioning the rail — removing crossings and signals as well as removing or making safe the many bridges and the environmental legacy costs — would likely be much higher than actually repairing the line.

Ridership for a more frequent, modern passenger service is obvious. We can’t continue to expand traffic volumes on our roads without sacrificing the quality of life we cherish on Vancouver Island. It is a false and unfortu-
[ Page 13128 ]
nate argument to pit rail supporters against cyclists and trail users. Both groups have a common commitment to sustainability.

We need our railway to fulfil our climate change targets, to maintain quality of life and for economic development.

Oral Questions

HOUSING AFFORDABILITY IN LOWER
MAINLAND AND FOREIGN INVESTMENT

J. Horgan: Last week we had the Minister of Finance dismissing a report on the housing market in the Lower Mainland by a professor at SFU because he didn’t think he was enough of an expert. That very day, on the front page of a major daily in Vancouver, we learned that a 23-year-old student had purchased a $31.6 million home in Vancouver. Today it’s the deputy chief economist at Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce who has said that international speculation in the housing market is at critical proportions.

Even though we’ve had serious problems to this point in time, the deputy chief economist is concerned that Beijing is changing its currency rules with what’s called qualified domestic international investment part 2, a program that will lead to even further speculation in the Lower Mainland of British Columbia housing market.

My question is to the Minister of Finance. At what point will we see some action from the government to address an issue that almost everyone in the known universe is talking about?

[1405]

Hon. M. de Jong: Thank you to the Leader of the Opposition for the question. He knows — and I think members of the chamber also know — that the government has taken some very specific steps. Those steps include what I believe is a fundamentally important step, which is to actually begin to re-create and re-establish data that will allow us to make decisions on an evidence-based system.

I heard someone gasp in a dismissive way. Surely, on something as important as decisions around how or the degree to which the state should intervene in the marketplace, it is worthwhile and legitimate to do so on the basis of informed knowledge and data. That’s what we have begun to do, and we are pleased about that.

I should also say that we have, in the budget this year, made some additional changes that are designed to assist British Columbians. These are measures that are restricted and available only to British Columbians as it relates to forgiving the property transfer tax and assisting them and their families to enter the housing market.

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

J. Horgan: We can all agree that more information is always better, but the government has been in power for 15 years now — that’s a decade and a half — and I would think they could have got on this before last week. That’s certainly the view of the majority of the people in the Lower Mainland who are seeing their neighbourhoods hollowed out by foreign speculative investments.

The chief economist agrees as well: “More information is good, but no action is foolish.” No action is foolish. We proposed in this House months ago, using the income tax system, using the property tax system, to determine what the numbers are and take some action.

My question, again to the minister, is: are we going to wait until after the election for action? This tends to be the modus operandi of the B.C. Liberals. Why don’t we take some action right now so that we can help people that are being pushed out of the real estate market? We have foreign investors coming in and hollowing out our cities.

Hon. M. de Jong: To the member, since he has offered this in a somewhat accusatorial way, I will feel entitled to remind him and his colleagues that the absence of some basic data that would be of assistance in making decisions on these matters is attributable to a decision that was made in 1998 when he and his colleagues were in power. It might have been helpful if we’d had some of that data.

The Leader of the Opposition speaks of…. I think the term he used was “hollowed-out” neighbourhoods. Well, that’s fine, except that when the city of Vancouver commissioned a study — which I have heard no one criticize as being inaccurate — it actually revealed that the vacancy rate in Vancouver over the last 12 years has marginally gone down, not up.

It may be convenient for the Leader of the Opposition…. But let me give him one bit of information. The exemption on the property transfer tax, which can save British Columbians thousands upon thousands of dollars, has already benefited 1,725 families — an average of 156 per week, 22 families per day — that buy new housing in British Columbia and don’t pay any property transfer tax.

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

J. Horgan: A year ago I asked the Premier what plans the government had to address the real estate crisis in the Lower Mainland, and she said: “Stay tuned.” Then she left and said: “Well, if people don’t like the prices, they could always move to Kitimat, they could move to Prince Rupert, or they could move to the north”. It’s definitely an option for those who have that flexibility, but for the millions of people that live in the Lower Mainland, that would like to live and work in their community, they’re being pushed out.
[ Page 13129 ]

It’s time — past time — for this government to act. The CIBC is one of two leading international institutions that has been facilitating speculative investments in this real estate market. When they say it’s going to get worse because of changes in Beijing, I would expect something more from the government than reciting statistics from the budget just tabled. I would expect some forward-looking thinking about how we’re going to address this problem that’s been festering for the past two years in the city of Vancouver.

[1410]

Again, to the Minister of Finance: certainly to goodness, if he doesn’t want to listen to the members on this side of the House, if he doesn’t want to listen to the Real Estate Board, and if he doesn’t want to listen to the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce — which is warning that it’s going to get worse and that not taking action would be “foolish” — when will he take action?

Hon. M. de Jong: I don’t want the Leader of the Opposition to sell himself short. I am always anxious to hear what members of the opposition have to say. I sometimes have difficulty understanding what they say or trying to discern a level of consistency.

Last week, the Leader of the Opposition — it’s a quote, and the member may wish to tell me that it isn’t an accurate quote — was quoted in the media as saying: “It’s not about foreign investors, offshore investors. It’s about people using Vancouver as a safety deposit box.” Then the very next day, his colleague comes into the House and says: “We mostly have a demand problem, not a supply problem. It’s foreign demand, foreign investment.”

I don’t which story the official opposition has decided to cling to. I do know this. The opposition seems consistent to this extent: their answer to this issue is to dry up demand.

By the way, based on their record in the past, they are very good at doing that, through a combination of increased taxes and other measures that would put “closed for business” up at every border entry to British Columbia. The opposition’s answer is to say to people: “Don’t come here. Don’t invest. Don’t make a future in British Columbia.”

The government — these members on this side of the House — believes the answer to this issue is to increase supply, is to ensure that people who want to build in the province have a way to do so, that there is an increased supply of housing options for the British Columbians and others who want to make a life in B.C., in the leading economy in Canada.

REGULATION OF REAL ESTATE INDUSTRY

D. Eby: We know the government doesn’t take this issue seriously. The Minister Responsible for Housing…. Here’s a quote for the Minister of Finance. Housing in Metro Vancouver is “actually pretty affordable” — the least affordable city in the world, according to an international study.

That’s how out of touch they are. When a local businessman encountered a realtor engaging in house flipping in Vancouver, and he threatened to report her for tax evasion…. He’s alleging that she threatened his life.

People in Vancouver have a lot of questions about students and homemakers buying million-dollar homes. They’ve got questions about income levels having no connection to property being purchased. They have questions about connections to money laundering, income tax evasion.

This is right in the Minister of Finance’s wheelhouse, so to him: what additional resources is he putting in place to audit real estate transactions in Metro Vancouver for tax fraud and for money laundering?

Hon. M. de Jong: The member knows, or should know, that within the taxation branch, there is a very well qualified group of auditors when it comes to the property transfer tax, which is the tax rendered in every instance where there is a registration of title. The branch is very aggressive at ensuring that those who claim exemptions for that tax are entitled to do so and that the information provided on those returns is accurate.

That same amplified diligence will be applied with respect to the new measures that we have introduced to ensure that more British Columbians can enter the housing market and fulfil that dream of owning a home.

Look, I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. I know there’s an element of this that makes the opposition very, very uncomfortable. It’s the idea that more and more people want to come to British Columbia, want to live here. That is powering the strongest economy in the country. It is creating pressure, admittedly, in some areas of the province, around things like housing.

[1415]

We can address that. We can meet that if governments at all levels will work together and understand that the solution to this is ensuring that there are even more housing options available to the thousands of people that want to come to British Columbia.

Madame Speaker: Recognizing Vancouver–Point Grey on a supplemental.

D. Eby: It’s no surprise the Finance Minister has no specifics on additional resources because there are no additional resources. In fact, there are clearly inadequate resources to investigate and prosecute tax fraud and money laundering in British Columbia real estate. That’s the only way to explain the difference between what’s happening here and what’s happening in Alberta, where the regulator actually chased somebody engaged in real estate fraud across the border into British Columbia.
[ Page 13130 ]
He’s facing two years in jail under that regulator’s actions.

Meanwhile, in our province, the owner of the largest real estate firm in Vancouver does a seminar on how to create fake bonuses and rip off clients. Still no prosecution. More than half of B.C.’s realtors are failing anti-money-laundering audits. The failings of B.C.’s Real Estate Council — still under investigation. No resolution. Even when this businessman called the cops, when he said that a real estate agent threatened his life, nobody showed up for 24 hours.

To the Minister of Finance, for his part in this: what additional resources will he put on the table to deal with this problem?

Hon. M. de Jong: Last week, I think it was the hon. member who quoted from a report where the author advocated that we should pursue policies and we should try to emulate what is happening in that great economic juggernaut of a province, Prince Edward Island. That’s what the author of that report aspired to for B.C.

Interjections.

Hon. M. de Jong: The member is saying: “Yeah, I was a bit surprised, too, that members would be advocating we emulate Prince Edward Island in response to what’s happening.”

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. de Jong: Today, if I heard correctly, the member wants us to emulate market circumstances in Alberta. I’m not suggesting that’s a recipe for success right now.

What I do believe, and what I believe the majority of British Columbians want, is to ensure that there are options available for them, at reasonable levels, to enter the housing market; that when people make investments, they are paying their fair share; that they are meeting their taxation obligations — whether they are British Columbians or Canadians or people from elsewhere in the world who choose to come here, they are meeting their taxation obligations.

We will continue to share information with the Canada Revenue Agency. We will take additional steps to ensure that, collectively, governments in Canada are collecting from investors, no matter who they are or where they come from, the taxes that they owe to Canada and to British Columbia.

ELKO DAM REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT

K. Conroy: The Minister of Energy is very familiar with the Elko redevelopment project and even more familiar with level of support it enjoys in the Kootenays. It is supported by the regional district. It is supported by the Ktunaxa First Nation. It is supported by local residents, who are extremely proud of the work being done by the Columbia Power Corporation. Given the overwhelming local support for this project, why has the minister decided to shelve it?

Hon. B. Bennett: The Elko project is a small hydroelectric project built many, many decades ago. It produces a small amount of electricity, but an important amount of electricity. It involves a small dam that will eventually have to be replaced. It’s actually located in my riding.

I do want to assure the member opposite of one thing: that if it made sense to the ratepayers of British Columbia for that project to go ahead immediately, the Energy Minister would be supportive of that.

[1420]

However, as the member knows, because we’ve had direct discussions about this in Hydro’s case, they are doing everything that they can to reduce costs and to take pressure off rates. I think the opposition supports that. In this case, that project can be deferred until such time as we do need to do it, which will probably be five years plus.

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

K. Conroy: What’s so tragic about this minister’s decision is that it will have a huge impact on local employment in the Kootenays. There are hundreds of skilled workers in our region, both the minister’s and mine, who became fully trained tradespersons working on projects for the Columbia Power Corporation and who have been able to stay in the region, stay home with their families and contribute to our communities.

Does the minister really believe that it is more important to send people to work and live in camps instead of staying in their own communities working on projects that B.C. Hydro knows are of critical importance?

Hon. B. Bennett: B.C. Hydro has not been instructed by this government to get into make-work projects. They also haven’t been instructed to invest in any power facilities in Pakistan or anywhere outside of the province.

The decision that was made around the Elko project…. The member knows this, and I appreciate the fact that she has the opportunity to ask in the House in support of her constituents. I also appreciate the fact that what the member, I think, is mainly concerned about are the jobs that are located in her riding with Columbia Power Corporation.

I do want to assure the member that we are working very closely with the Columbia Power Corporation and with the Columbia Basin Trust in terms of maintaining as many of those jobs with the Columbia Power
[ Page 13131 ]
Corporation as possible. It looks very promising that we can maintain most of those jobs with Columbia Power Corporation that are located in the member’s hometown.

I will commit to continuing to work directly with the member on this issue and any other issues involving Columbia Power Corporation, and she can continue to ask me questions in question period.

A. Dix: The Minister of Energy and the Liberal cabinet have repeatedly ordered B.C. Hydro to purchase energy for projects it didn’t need. It’s the reason that we’re in this job-killing position to begin with. I mean, it was this minister….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members, this House will come to order.

Interjection.

Madame Speaker: Minister.

Please continue.

A. Dix: Hydro rates have gone up 28 percent. We’ve lost 1,500 jobs in the mining industry, and the government has realized that even the mining industry can’t afford to pay these rate increases. These are the facts.

It is also a fact that a few weeks ago, the minister was saying that Elko was on top of the list of projects to move forward. This kind of shines a light on B.C. Liberal incompetence. B.C. Hydro had been working with Columbia Power Corporation, which had delivered three dam renovation projects on time and on budget.

Could the minister tell us when he finally realized that B.C. Hydro had too much power and decided to kill this project in the Kootenays?

Hon. B. Bennett: Well, in general, what I can say back is that as long as I am Minister of Energy in B.C., I will make recommendations to B.C. Hydro that are in the best interests of all the ratepayers of the province and not just the ratepayers in the Kootenay region. I’m surprised that he would suggest I should do otherwise.

The member has suggested that B.C. Hydro is essentially not doing anything out there. In fact, they’re investing $2.4 billion every single year in capital projects. That is going to lead — is leading, in fact — to 110,000 jobs. It’s going to add $13 billion to B.C.’s GDP. It’s going to make sure that B.C.’s electricity prices remain low-cost.

[1425]

We have the third-lowest residential electricity rates in North America. When you look around North America and you see what is happening in other jurisdictions, both in the United States of America and also in Canada, such as the province of Ontario, you will see that there is no chance we’re going to lose our position as third.

We have large hydro that we have depended on in this province for generations. It works. The opposition knows that it works, and we’re going to retain our position with the second- or third-lowest residential rates, I think, for decades to come.

A. Dix: It is a fact that this project…. The government is saying no to this project. B.C. Hydro is saying no to this project as a direct result of B.C. Liberal energy policies directed to B.C. Hydro in the cabinet room — policies that have led to 28 percent rate increases, policies that mean that the Minister of Finance treats revenue we’re getting in 2023 as revenue in 2016 to maintain the pretence of his fiscal policies, policies that have lost $1.2 billion on IPPs in the last three years and cost B.C. business in higher energy costs.

And demand forecasts, predictions that they directed from the cabinet room, have us 2,300 gigawatt hours behind. That’s a big miss, even for this Minister of Energy.

Can the minister explain or, at least, take some ownership of the fact that this decision to kill jobs in the Kootenays is a direct result of decisions made exactly, right in the cabinet room by him and his colleagues?

Hon. B. Bennett: What I can tell the member is that I don’t actually think that cabinet is even aware of the decision that was made by B.C. Hydro with respect to the Elko project. The decision was made in collaboration with me because it was the right decision for the ratepayers of B.C. Hydro.

What the opposition and what my critic is suggesting right now is that government should simply step in and just order the professionals at B.C. Hydro: “Don’t build that. Build this. Build this one over here because maybe….”

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members, this House will come to order.

Hon. B. Bennett: That is the way they operate. That is the way they think. The 1990s are demonstrative of that. They showed the world how bad they were as managers, and they would do it again if we were ever unfortunate enough for them to be elected.

The reason that B.C. Hydro, with my support, decided to defer the small Elko project is simply because we don’t need to do it right now. If the hon. member who is my critic thinks that he knows better than B.C. Hydro, then I guess that’s his right to think that. But I’m going to rely on the engineers and the accountants and the other professionals at B.C. Hydro to give me the best possible advice they can, and in most cases, I’m going to follow it.
[ Page 13132 ]

INCOME ASSISTANCE POLICY ON
MATERNITY LEAVE BENEFITS

M. Mungall: A year ago we shared Jessica Alford’s story with the Legislature. Members may recall that she is a mom who saw her maternity leave benefits clawed back by this government because her husband has a disability. We asked the government to end this mean and discriminatory policy that increases child poverty, and the government said no.

They even went on to spend money arguing that Jessica’s case should not be heard by B.C.’s Human Rights Tribunal. The tribunal disagreed. It’s in the news today, and they will be hearing the case.

My question to the Minister of Social Development: instead of spending money defending its mean-spirited and discriminatory child poverty–creating policies, why doesn’t she do the right thing today and just end this maternity leave clawback?

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: While I won’t speak to the specific case for privacy reasons, I will speak to the overall arching question regarding the policy we have in place.

[1430]

It is, in fact, the policy reforms that we have put in place that allow people to go to work and earn money and not have that income affect their income assistance cheques. We’ve gone to annualized earnings exemptions — the only province in the entire country who does that — to allow people to keep more money in their pockets, to allow them to end up receiving employment insurance.

What we do need to remember is that it is our comprehensive social safety net that is in place for income assistance to provide temporary support for those people who need it the most and for those people with disabilities who need long-term support. But remember that it is the income of last resort and that other resources and other means of income should be exhausted before coming to the province.

Madame Speaker: The member for Nelson-Creston on a supplemental.

M. Mungall: What the minister has just made abundantly clear is that under the B.C. Liberals, this ministry should actually be renamed the Ministry of Clawbacks. Bus passes, maternity leave, parental leave, sick leave — I could go on. But the point of the matter is this. Why is this government choosing to spend a cent defending such mean policies when they could instead do the right thing and make sure that moms needing to take maternity leave get to keep that maternity leave benefit?

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: I could go on and on about the comprehensive social safety net we have in place — $4.4 billion since 2001 to provide subsidized housing for individuals who need the support. We provide subsidized child care, dental and optical, free MSP payments, free PharmaCare to cover prescription costs. I could go on and on.

It is this government who is committed to policy reforms to help create opportunities for individuals. That’s why we came up with the single-parent employment initiative, and that’s why we now have over 2,700 individuals who have taken advantage of the opportunity to gain education that government pays for while we provide them with child care, while we provide them with transportation, while we provide them with medical services support as well. It is this government who is committed to breaking down barriers and helping people reach their potential.

GUN VIOLENCE IN SURREY

H. Bains: Despite this government’s pronouncements, the gun violence in Surrey is not ceasing. In fact, it is escalating. On top of 60 shootings last year, in the last 48 hours alone there have been two more, bringing the total to 39 to date this year, and we have not even hit the half-year mark yet.

My question to the minister is this. How can the minister claim that he’s taking action to keep Surrey safe when the epidemic of gun violence continues to escalate?

Hon. M. Morris: The gun violence in Surrey, the gun violence in Vancouver, the gun violence in any community that we have in British Columbia is not taken lightly. The police officers are working diligently around the clock to apprehend the individuals that are involved in this.

The safety of our communities is paramount, and we have pulled all of the stops out in ensuring that all the investigators are working to capacity to put these individuals behind bars — hopefully, for a lengthy period of time.

Surrey detachment just had an open house. The CFSEU units will soon be holding an open house as well. The end gang violence program has been prolific in many of the schools throughout the Lower Mainland here. We will continue to work hard to ensure that all the communities in B.C. are safe.

[End of question period.]

Tabling Documents

Hon. S. Bond: I have the honour to present the WorkSafe B.C. 2015 annual report and 2016-18 service plan.

Hon. S. Anton: I have the honour to present the Crown Proceeding Act report for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2015.

[1435]

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: In both chambers, Committee of Supply. In Committee A, it’s Public Safety and Solicitor General, and in this chamber, Ministry of Social Development.

Committee of Supply

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

The committee met at 2:39 p.m.

Point of Order

A. Weaver: I rise on a point of order. This is the first time I have been able to rise on this point of order for two reasons. First, on Thursday of last week, I spent much of the day in communications with a variety of offices to determine what transpired with respect to the closing of debate on estimates for the Office of the Premier. I also only received the relevant Hansard clip on Friday.

[1440]

As I had mentioned to the Speaker’s office, on Thursday last week, my office had coordinated through the Opposition House Leader’s office that I would be speaking to Premier’s estimates. It was agreed I would rise early Thursday morning.

Between 6:20 and 6:25 on Wednesday last week, at 292 minutes, 14 seconds, of the on-line Hansard video on May 11, the Premier rose in estimates and stated the following: “With that, Mr. Chair, I rise to report progress and ask leave to sit again.” The Chair then said this: “Hon. Members, you heard the motion. All in favour say aye.” The motion carried.

At this point, the committee had risen, and it was very clear that the Chair left his seat. There appeared to be some commotion in the chamber after the passing of this motion. Conversations went back and forth between the Premier and the Leader of the Official Opposition. The Chair remained standing during these conversations. Some notes got passed around. The Clerk also stood to speak with the Premier. The Chair returned to his seat but said nothing while the Clerk was standing and speaking to the Premier.

Eventually the Chair issued a single word. “Premier,” he said. At this point the Premier is audibly heard on Hansard saying: “It’s not mine.” She’s referring to a motion written on a piece of paper that had been passed to her. The Premier then says the following: “By agreement with the opposition, I move that the committee rise and report completion of the resolution and ask leave to sit again.” After this motion passes, the Premier states this: “Are you sure that was legally done?”

In my view, there is a very clear procedural error here. The Chair at no time called the committee back to order while sitting in the chair. Since the earlier motion to rise and report progress had indeed passed, the second motion regarding completion would, in my view, be out of order, as the committee had not been called to order again. It had simply risen.

As such, it is my view that the estimates of the Office of the Premier have not yet concluded. Hon. Chair, I would kindly ask that you consider these comments and consider providing a ruling to this House at a later time. Thank you for your consideration of this very important matter.

M. Farnworth: This is not a procedural point of order. In fact, it would be classed as argument. So, hon. Chair, I respectfully ask that you rule that this is, in fact, not a point of order.

The Chair: Hon. Members, I would take the member’s point of order on advisement. Thank you.

Debate Continued

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT AND
SOCIAL INNOVATION

The Chair: We are going back to the estimates. Minister, would you like to make a statement?

On Vote 41: ministry operations, $2,739,239,000.

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: I’d like to start by just acknowledging this afternoon some of the ministry staff that I have with me here today. I have my deputy minister, Sheila Taylor; my assistant deputy minister to the corporate services division, Len Dawes; and behind us, joining us, is the CEO for CLBC, Community Living B.C., Seonag Macrae.

I’d also like to take the opportunity to say a few words and thank, most especially, the 2,000 staff members that we have in the ministry, who are dedicated professionals, who are helping the 180,000 clients that we serve each and every day.

[1445]

I’d also like to give those who are watching at home perhaps and those here in the House a quick overview of the Ministry of Social Development and Social Innovation. We provide a system of integrated supports that help people achieve their social and economic independence. Income assistance is available to people around the province who are temporarily unemployed. There is also disability assistance for those people who are unable to work enough to sustain themselves long enough and need that longer-term financial support.

Currently, there are about 179,000 clients, of whom 100,000 are considered persons with disabilities receiving assistance. Our goal is to help people find the path to in-
[ Page 13134 ]
dependence through our employment services provided through Work B.C. centres, through the increased earning exemptions for people on assistance and through innovative programs like the single-parent employment initiative, which removes barriers to employment for single people who are receiving income assistance. I’m hoping that we will have several questions in the coming hours about that program, because it is very successful to date.

Once people have returned to the workplace, we work across government with those individuals to help them to retain their independence and to build a better future for themselves and their families. There are numerous supports that we provide that are available, whether it be subsidized child care, subsidized housing or a number of tax benefits that individuals receive — families and seniors as well.

We also work with the disability and business communities in our efforts to help move forward with our Accessibility 2024 vision to become the most progressive place for people with disabilities in Canada by 2024. Today, as you know, we’ll be starting with Community Living B.C., which falls under my ministry as a Crown corporation. It serves more than 18,000 individuals with developmental disabilities around the province.

Finally, the ministry also helps drive social innovation and entrepreneurship in British Columbia with our partners around the province.

The budget for 2016-2017 is $2.74 billion, which is a $146 million increase over last fiscal year. It includes $250 million to help with the caseload growth over the next three years, plus $170 million to increase disability assistance rates and bring fairness into our system for transportation supports for those people on disability assistance.

It truly has been a big year for the ministry. We’ve seen several policy changes in the ministry, changes that originated from much of the feedback that we received in the white paper consultation. I’m proud of those changes that we’ve been able to make and look forward to significant changes that we’ll continue to make as we work forward to find ways to make life easier and better for those individuals who rely on the province for support.

Some of those changes include the PWD rate increase, the single-parent employment initiative that I just spoke of, the changes to the EPBC programs, as well as the application process for persons with disabilities.

With that, I will leave it up to my wonderful critic from the opposition to start with his questions for estimates. I look forward to it.

N. Simons: Thank you to the minister and to the staff that’s here. I appreciate that. I hope that this afternoon we’ll shed some light onto areas that otherwise would be difficult for some to understand.

My first question: regarding those 18,000 people served through CLBC, can the minister just provide a little bit of an overview of who they are, what kinds of services they receive and possibly put some figures to what types of residential care they’re receiving? Just to have a bit of a breakdown.

[1450]

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: In response to the member opposite’s question, I think the 18,000 adults are those adults within the province that have developmental disabilities, working with the developmental community. Specifically, Community Living B.C. works to try and build more inclusive communities for people with all different abilities around the province.

We know that there has been an increase to the funding for CLBC — I mentioned that in my opening remarks — helping them serve more and more individuals. As I mentioned, 18,000 individuals are now under our support. That can be a variety of supports that the individuals may receive.

Some of them may receive staffed residential resources or live in what’s known as a group home. There are also shared living arrangements, supports for independent living and, of course, planning family support and community inclusion supports for those individuals as well.

The breakdown for those, to the member opposite, to help assist him with the numbers. There are 2,567 individuals who are receiving the residential resources or are living in group homes, 3,544 are in shared living accommodations, 1,151 are receiving supports for independent living, and 10,241 of them are receiving supports for family support planning and community inclusion as well.

N. Simons: Can the minister describe what that last category of the 10,241…? Does that include people who are currently waiting for services?

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: The number of 10,241 does not include those who are on a waiting list. These are individuals who are currently receiving supports. Those supports would include things such as the respite funding. It could be assistance with employment supports or day programs — those kinds of facilitated accommodations.

N. Simons: When that number is given, 10,241, obviously people who are in residential care and people who are in individualized funding are also receiving those kinds of services. Are we seeing duplicate numbers here, or does the total who are receiving supports, 10,241, not include anyone listed in the other categories?

[1455]

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: There is some overlap with some of the supports that people are receiving. Most often it would be those individuals who are in the home-share or independent living scenario, where they are also receiving some community inclusion supports on top of what they receive through their living arrangements.
[ Page 13135 ]

N. Simons: Does that mean that the minister has to revise the 18,000 people served because there’s the overlap? Or is that just 18,000 services being paid for? It’s a little confusing.

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: The 18,000 individuals are those that qualify for Community Living B.C. support services. Some of them are just receiving support services within their community, based on their level of ability. That’s what the assessment requires them to receive. And those other individuals may require more assistance, therefore requiring the financial supports.

N. Simons: Okay. Well, it’s just a little bit confusing in terms of how many actual clients CLBC is serving. It seems to me that that 18,000, if it includes people receiving services such as planning…. That’s not necessarily a service, a direct service. Is that number included — people who are identified as “will be requiring services,” like perhaps the transitioning youth or people whose residential option needs to become one that’s supported by the province?

Maybe I should ask: the 10,241…. Maybe I should give the minister another opportunity to answer that question. How many people are currently receiving services funded by Community Living B.C.?

[1500]

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: I understand what the member opposite is trying to get a number for, but we don’t actually have the breakdown of that number. It’s because out of the 18,000 individuals, some of them are receiving the community inclusion and the family support or are in planning processes. That’s all something that there is no cost to the client for.

We don’t break down a per-client cost of what it amounts to for that individual to receive those services. It is brought in through the facilitators, through CLBC. Some of them go in as a group to receive those services, and some of them go in and out of receiving the services as they need or as they want them. The 18,000 number is actually the amount of clients that CLBC serves and provides supports to.

N. Simons: Well, that’s kind of funny. You’d think there’d be someone keeping track. It’s a fairly significant number. Anyway, we’ll leave it at that. If I need another line of questioning on that, I’ll go back to it.

Right now let me sort of turn to the residential side of things. In 2011-12, there was a residential options review project that saw the massive closure of group homes across the province. It resulted in mass upset for most right-minded folks, who knew that moving people from their homes against their wishes was inappropriate.

In fact, the government itself came up with recommendations on how to stop that from happening by referring to group homes as the people’s actual homes and not just as a contracted resource. That was a good step. The ministry was obviously interested in trying to encourage the home-share system, the home-share option, as a residential option, and there was some focus on trying to increase the number of individualized funding.

What is the current principle or philosophy of CLBC with respect to encouraging or discouraging different types of residential options, and what are the trend numbers showing?

[1505]

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: The general philosophy for CLBC is to ensure that we are offering some choice for individuals, depending on what their needs are in the community.

I think we need to recognize that the individuals that CLBC delivers services to today are not the same individuals that we would have seen 20 or 30 years ago. Those individuals have higher expectations to be included into community, to have employment opportunities, to live independently. CLBC is constantly exploring the options to work with partners like B.C. Housing and B.C. Non-Profit to ensure that there are options for our clients to have the opportunity.

I would say that, more and more, we are seeing individuals who want to live independently. Of course, there’s always the assessment to take into account, varying for each individual depending on what their natural supports are surrounding them, what other supports they have surrounding them to help them reach their full potential.

N. Simons: Does the minister have any figures as to the number of individuals served by CLBC living in direct-contract home shares versus agency-funded home shares?

[1510]

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: Over the past eight years, home-sharing has grown to 2,200 individuals being provided the service in 2007 to over 3,500 being provided the service in 2015. Of those, about 900 individuals are being served in home-sharing by providers who contract directly with CLBC, while approximately 2,600 of those are in home-sharing arrangements that are coordinated by qualified service providers around the province.

N. Simons: Thank you very much. Is the number of direct home-share providers going up or down? And consequently, is the number of agency-supported home shares going up or down?

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: Overall, the number of home shares has increased over the years. The direct-funded home shares through CLBC…. There’s about the same amount of home shares. It hasn’t really seen an increase.
[ Page 13136 ]
However, the new home shares are almost all agency-provided or coordinated.

N. Simons: That’s the sense out there. A lot of families come to me with suggestions from CLBC to have their child or adult child being placed in facilities that they may not feel are appropriate.

I think I have to just go to a few cases before we get deep into the residential…. I kind of went out of order on my own without even being called out of order. I’d like to ask about some historical cases that still are sort of seeking out answers.

To begin with, I’d like to talk about…. And I respect that the minister’s likely response is that she won’t be able to talk about specific cases. You won’t need to, because this concerns a number of people.

Cathy Grant is a writer, advocate and active member of the community who was a participant in the deinstitutionalization process that took place many years ago. The program was called Services for the Handicapped, which was a group of individuals who initially came under the responsibility of the Ministry of Health. The group of individuals had their medical equipment needs met through a special allocation of funds that were administered by Health and were transferred to the old Community Living B.C. through MCFD.

[1515]

When CLBC, as we now know it, obviously, came into being in 2005, CLBC began administering those funds and is currently responsible for administering the funds for Cathy. Cathy is still receiving funds and is being supported, but as far as the 80 people go, there was a historic promise.

There was an understanding with these specific 80 people that were supposed to be dealt with in a separate way in order to ensure that the changes that they were agreeing to would be transitioned fairly. I think the problem is that a certain allocation of funding was made. That allocation, that separate pot that was aside from the regular general funding, seems to have been misplaced or has been swallowed up by the overall funding.

Can the minister explain what happened to the funding? I know it was before her time as the minister. I’m hoping that there is some historical knowledge of this that can inform her response. What happened to the special stand-alone funding for these 80 individuals who were transitioned out of institutions?

A. Weaver: I seek leave to make an announcement.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

A. Weaver: It gives me great pleasure to introduce to the Legislature a class from St. Michaels University School, a grade 11 socials class. They’re accompanied by their teacher, Mr. Angus Henderson. There are 19 students here today. Would the House please make them feel very welcome.

[1520]

Debate Continued

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: We’re aware of the 80 individuals who were supported in the transition out of the facilities. Those individuals had quite high support needs. In principle, we don’t reduce funding to those individuals, those 80 individuals. The supports stayed in place for them.

What would happen as they’re aging and their needs change, is that we would adjust specifically to the needs in their aging years if they have higher health needs, specifically. I can assure the member opposite that the health, safety and well-being of individuals is, of course, our priority.

N. Simons: Well, as the minister knows, sometimes requests for equipment and such have to go through a long process and sometimes are denied. I’m just wondering. Is the minister telling me that these 80 individuals, those who are still accessing services, are going to be treated the same way as any other person coming through the system? Or, in fact, in their case, the 80 of them — are they going to be treated in the way that they expected to be when they went through that deinstitutionalization process?

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: Again, the packages that those individuals transitioned with…. Nothing would be reduced for them. But going forward, as their needs changed, they would be assessed and receive services the same way as any other individual who is receiving services through CLBC.

N. Simons: I don’t think that’s really the answer I was hoping for or that Cathy was hoping for, that was expected. I hope that at this point — because we have a lot of cases to cover or a lot of issues to cover — that the minister will agree that we can discuss this further. I do think that there needs to be a level and a degree of reassurance that, in fact, what was told to Cathy those years ago is, in fact, the same thing that she would be told today. It doesn’t sound to me like that’s quite the same.

However, I will pursue it. I know that Cathy is intently watching what is said in here, and I’ll be following up with her on this issue.

Another issue that seems to be one to do with policy. Now, we have many families who look after their siblings or kids, adult or otherwise. In this case, we’re talking about adults who travel. Sometimes the CLBC client will travel with a sibling out of the country for a certain period of time.

[1525]

Unfortunately, I think the minister probably knows what I’m talking about. Upon return, one of my constituents was informed that they would no longer be getting a contract from CLBC because she was spending time outside the country in excess of the amount allowable for a CLBC client. It’s her brother that she’s caring for — who’s doing extremely well — as she makes a home part-time out of the country and part-time in the country.

Is the minister considering any changes to the regulations that would allow a person who is a CLBC client and not expected to be looking for work to support themselves, whose situation is different from maybe others receiving assistance…? Is it possible that the minister would consider looking at the regulations that make it impossible for any relative of a person, a CLBC client, to spend time outside of the country, as other British Columbians and Canadians would be allowed to do without threatening the loss of their contract to care for their loved one?

[1530]

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: My apologies for the delayed response. There was a lot of conversation around it.

The policy is certainly for CLBC services to be provided in British Columbia to CLBC clients. There is that 30-day window — or we’ll say “leeway” — for the ability to allow individuals to travel outside of British Columbia, to spend time out of the country, to have a vacation or to be with their family members while they still are receiving those services. After the 30 days, there would be a pause on the services.

However, upon return to British Columbia, I would like to ensure that the member knows that the policy would be that the services are reinstated upon return. There is no lag or delay in receiving those supports once they return to British Columbia.

In regards to if it’s something that we are looking at to change in the future, it is something we are always looking at — changing policies and reforming things to modernize it. Perhaps in the future, there will be that opportunity.

N. Simons: So a constituent has a brother, she goes down to Mexico, and she takes him with her. This is going to happen more and more as aging parents take their adult kids down when they go away. Every single one of them has to be back every 30 days in order to maintain their services. I find that to be very troubling, especially since the minister thinks that is not a problem.

This is a huge issue. If this sister wants to leave her brother in British Columbia for the five months or so that she’s out of the country, this is going to have a larger economic impact on the ministry’s budget. I think that the minister, perhaps, should maybe, I would suggest, take an accelerated look at that policy.

If someone’s on MSP, they can be out of the province for seven months, but if a person who’s been on PWD since 18 and is 51 now and wants to go to Mexico with his sister, he can’t do that for more than 30 days. That’s just a big problem. That’s a real unfortunate thing.

Maybe there’s a Charter challenge in there somewhere. But because of the time that we have, I’m going to have to move on to another case. I’m going to go into the home-share stuff later, because there’s a lot to do there.

My question is about the possibility of the minister considering a British Columbians with disabilities act. Is that something that’s on her agenda to be working on? Are there, at least, any initial discussions on that, and how far along are we?

[1535]

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: As the member knows, we do have a commitment with Accessibility 2024, government’s ten-year action plan to become the most accessible jurisdiction in all of Canada. With the federal government’s commitment to have a Canadian disabilities act put in place, we’ve been working very closely with our counterparts at the federal level and watching very closely and actually working with them to help them with their consultation that they will take up this spring.

They have committed to the engagement of provinces, territories, municipalities and their stakeholders that they will consult with in the spring coming forward. Then by spring of 2017, they will have their own Canadian disabilities act to put forward, at which time, we on our side in the province will also be watching very closely with them to have something that has similar jurisdiction for the province of British Columbia.

N. Simons: Okay. Well, thank you. If I understood that correctly, Canada is developing an act, and we’ll be subject to it. But we might be making our own, too, or we’ll just be part of the participation in creating that act, and then it’ll be one for the entire country?

[1540]

I’ll let the minister answer that after. I’ve got to get another question in. We’re running out of time.

The service plan for Community Living B.C. changed a little bit in the last couple of years. It went from measuring service excellence to service effectiveness. Can the minister explain why they took the word “excellence” out of their service plan and simply changed it to service “effectiveness”?

[1545]

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: Just to go back to the previous question that the member opposite asked about the disability legislation. I just want to clarify for him that the whole point is that the federal government has come forward with a consultation process. We don’t believe there’s any point to having duplication. We’re trying to avoid the duplication. No point in having consultations going on in unison.
[ Page 13138 ]

What we are going to do is be an active participant in the consultation from the federal side of things. We will learn from the consultation that they do across the country. We will then use that information to harmonize our own made-for-B.C. legislation that we move forward with.

In regards to his other question on the service plan going from service “excellence” to “effectiveness,” we believe that the change in wording just better describes what we are trying to accomplish within the ministry. It is more focused on the outcomes that we provide to our clients. I think that pretty much sums it up for the member’s question.

N. Simons: I think excellence also describes the outcomes pretty well, if in fact the outcomes were excellent. They’re not always, but I’m sure in many cases they are, and I don’t want to denigrate all the efforts that are made by the people involved.

My next question has to do with the use of antipsychotic medication with folks with developmental disabilities and a suggestion from a well-considered opinion of Andrew Mitchell that, as we did with seniors living in long-term care, we need to determine whether or not the use of antipsychotics or other pharmaceuticals is being administered appropriately in Community Living B.C. facilities.

I’m wondering…. Since Vancouver Island Health is not going to review the use of such medications in their area, it goes to CLBC to potentially conduct that study. The study is required for the collection of data on seniors. Well, we did it on seniors. What are the possibilities of ensuring that the use of medication in CLBC-funded resources is appropriate? What oversight is there, and what can the minister recommend?

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: The oversight of medical care is actually a health care decision. It’s provided or prescribed by a physician that would be covering the specific client that would be under the care of a physician. It’s not within our mandate to make health care decisions.

N. Simons: Nor was it in the mandate of the seniors representative to make health care decisions, but it was her responsibility for oversight. That’s what I’m asking about — the oversight of the treatment of Community Living B.C. clients in residential care that are funded by Community Living B.C. I think it is a CLBC responsibility to ensure that they’re getting the best care possible.

If there’s no oversight, how does the minister know they are actually being appropriately administered medications?

[1550]

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: Again, licensing of group homes is through the Ministry of Health, and the oversight is then provided through a physician. Those who don’t live in a group home are monitored by their physician.

N. Simons: I guess we’re not going anywhere there. Okay. Well, let’s go to the home-share issue, as we have very little time.

Home-share providers are expected to have a first-aid certificate, WCB coverage, criminal checks, a valid driver’s licence and a clear driver’s abstract. They need to maintain transportation abilities, make sure that there is insurance liability, that the property is maintained, ensure support for individuals and that they’re safe. They need to be in good financial standing, and a physician’s certification of good health needs to be on their file. They need to attend regular meetings. They need to provide a private room, ensure emergency plans are up to date, take part in health and safety checks, develop goals with the individual, provide liaison with many of the decision-makers in the client’s life and ensure someone is available 24-7.

The workload of the home-share providers includes administrative duties, including submitting quality-of-life reports and critical incident reports, keeping records of finances for the supported individual, keeping records of all professional appointments, taxes for the individual, medical records, respite, etc. They are expected to attend all professional appointments, like doctors and dentists, and to access treatment for mental and emotional health. The list goes on.

The work of home-share providers is, in my view, undervalued and should be held up as an example of important work in our communities. Knowing that and knowing that home-share providers have not had an increase in their level of support in probably over half a decade, five years, what is the…?

Does the minister recognize that the compensation for home-share providers leads to home breakdowns, leads to people choosing not to take up that option, both from the client perspective and from the service provider perspective? Does the minister recognize the difficulties that home-share providers face, and does she recognize that they are not adequately compensated?

[1555-1600]

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: I agree with the member opposite on how valued the home-share providers are. They provide a very important service. They are dedicated to the clients that they serve, and we are very fortunate to have quite a number of them who provide the service.

That being said, in 2003, CLBC commissioned a quality assurance review of home-sharing to guide in further development of the service delivery model. The decision from the commission to review was a result of growth of the model and CLBC’s decision to move away from dir-
[ Page 13139 ]
ectly contracting home-sharing services to having it coordinated by qualified service providers in the community.

The report was released in 2013. It revealed that CLBC had a very coherent framework for managing home-sharing with standards and service delivery practices that far exceeded other jurisdictions. The review also included recommendations to further strengthen the home-sharing.

That being said, I would note that we’re very fortunate to have the number of people who are providing the home-sharing service. It’s a tough job; there’s lots involved. It takes a huge commitment. The support that they provide to the clients in the community is very, very valuable.

The rates that are provided to home-share providers are graded, depending on the individual needs of specific clients. We’re always looking at ways that we can adjust the rates. As we go forward, from the government side, it means we need to ensure that we are growing the economy and creating jobs so that we generate the revenues needed to provide the programs and services that we offer through my ministry — more specifically, as we speak now, to CLBC. It is something that we will continue to look at.

As far as the recommendations from the review…. The review, as I said, mentioned that the home-share provider should use more of the service provider’s support to ensure that they are getting the additional supports to help them deliver the service that they do in the community. By going to the service provider–supported model, they would be able to access services, training, administration functions and issue management functions as well, to help support them in the work that they do.

N. Simons: In other words, despite the fact that there’s high turnover or there are not enough home-share providers coming forward; the fact that you have to advertise on line to find somebody to care for a client; the fact that people go for months without receiving services due to the challenges of the home-share providers and the lack of real recognition — despite all that — the minister thinks that everything is fine in home share. Well, it’s not all fine in home share.

The CEO Network did some comprehensive survey of service providers, agencies and direct-funded folks. They came up with a number of recommendations that appear to me to be entirely valid and appropriate. I don’t think they would contradict the taxpayer accountability principles, which are really what’s at the base of most of the minister’s decisions when it comes to caring for people with disabilities.

[1605]

I think the recommendation is “that CLBC revisit their emphasis on shared living as the preferred residential model, with the goal of developing a more comprehensive array of options. These might be variations on shared living that would allow more individuals to safely and comfortably enjoy ‘good lives in welcoming communities’.” That’s their first recommendation.

Obviously, home share is appropriate for a lot of people, and it’s a good option, but it does have its own challenges. The recommendation, the rationale for this from the CEO Network, which is an authoritative body of individual professionals, is: “If supported by CLBC leadership, local facilitators and analysts could take the opportunity to work collaboratively with service providers to come up with creative alternatives that might better meet an individual’s needs.”

The second recommendation is that “CLBC review and increase funding levels for shared living to support this model as a viable and long-term residential option for individuals across the life span and varying needs.” The problem is, in home share, oftentimes issues around burnout and lack of recognition and lack of support and lack of training contribute to home breakdowns.

I know what it’s like, as a social worker — the difficulty in ensuring that everyone is feeling appropriately supported. But these are recommendations that repeatedly come up: that the home-share system needs to be funded appropriately to deal with all sorts of circumstances that face an individual.

When you have the Guide to Support Allocation identifying a certain amount of money for an individual to be the amount of money that that individual is allocated…. If that person’s life situation changes, there’s very little recourse to make up for what would become a funding discrepancy.

The Guide to Support Allocation also needs to ensure that it’s a reliable tool. When you see the discrepancy in service provision region to region, you can see that it’s largely dependent on the GSA, and clearly, that’s one place where the ministry can go without worrying about the taxpayer accountability principles. Obviously, we need to have proper services that are properly funded, and I think that when it comes to people with developmental disabilities, it’s not like: “Well, we’ll wait till this economic situation improves before we can provide them a quality of life that, as British Columbians, we should expect.”

The fourth recommendation regarding shared living and home-share options is “that CLBC work with service providers to ensure that adequate resources are in place to support shared living and home-share providers.”

Now, home-share providers, I think, are the unsung heroes. They put up with a lot, and unfortunately, the reputation that they are developing is a place where you are going to be beholden to the whims of CLBC. Even the agency isn’t going to be able to advocate on your behalf. If you have an agency and you’re a home-share provider, CLBC says: “Don’t talk to us; talk to the agency.” So when you have issues fundamental to the care of an individual in terms of what they need, it’s very difficult to advocate for your client without losing patience and losing hope.
[ Page 13140 ]

On Facebook, there are a number of comments. I said: “If you had an opportunity to ask the minister a question, what would it be?” Most of them were about: “How do you expect us to provide appropriate care when we haven’t had any increase in our compensation despite the cost of living going up significantly?”

Anybody in this chamber knows that the cost of hydro, the cost of MSP, the cost of ferries, the cost of ICBC…. All of those things go up, and home-share providers are left sort of, you know, having to deal with their increased costs without any recognition from CLBC that they are doing so.

We have people who talk about…. They were thinking about becoming home-share providers. They’re not going to become home-share providers. One of the biggest challenges is that when anything changes in the life of the client, there seems to be very little adaptability, little flexibility and sort of a rigidity in the system that doesn’t allow for the individual to have their needs met.

I phoned the minister’s office today, not to…. I’m not going to go into the details of the case, but it’s a situation where a young man has been living in a home-share space for many years since his previous home-share provider passed away.

[1610]

His new home-share provider has become ill and has to deal with her life-threatening condition and does not feel to be capable of caring for this man while she’s undergoing all sorts of appointments and treatments and such.

It’s taken almost two weeks for her to get a response — maybe just a week and a half — from Community Living B.C. to explain that the situation has changed, and it’s urgent, and it’s dramatic, and it’s necessary. That just came up yesterday.

I’ve made the minister’s office aware of it, and I’m quite sure she’ll ensure that appropriate steps are taken. But it’s a symbol, or it’s an example of what happens to home-share providers when there’s a sudden…. Family commitments can make life quite difficult.

I’m wondering if the minister recognizes, the amount of compensation aside, that the flexibility of CLBC to respond to emerging situations seems to be hampered by a lack of global funding, a lack of ability to deal with contingencies. Nowhere is that more important than when you are dealing with vulnerable adults.

Will the minister recognize the recommendations of the B.C. CEO Network and take their recommendation seriously? And if so, has the ministry begun to work on these recommendations as they relate to home-sharing?

[1615]

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: As the member knows or should know, I am aware of the report and the recommendations that came from the B.C. CEO Network. I actually just spoke with them last week at their quarterly meeting.

As well, CLBC works very closely with them, collaboratively. They’ve been meeting regularly with them to resolve some of the concerns that they have raised. That is something they will continue to do, because we absolutely value the home-share providers and the services they provide to the clients in the province.

N. Simons: What concerns did they raise that have been addressed?

[1620]

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: The report is a fairly new report. It came out in January. Since then, we are continuing to work and meet with the CEO Network to work together on finding some solutions to the concerns that they’ve raised.

Just a few of the things that I can mention that we are already started with. They had some concerns about the housing forms. They wanted other options for housing support, so we’ve worked with them on that.

We have also adjusted the funding model on a trial basis for a more innovative way to deliver services through a program called Kudos, which connects individuals with developmental disabilities to other community members who have similar interests. Perhaps it’s cooking or art or other things like that. The funding model — we’ve changed it to be able to provide that service to them outside of their regular day program, perhaps.

We are also working with the health services and community living nurses in the community on aging supports to look at exploring and developing supports for individuals as they are aging in their elderly years. I think one of the more interesting ones to highlight is working with six different service providers around the province looking at new options for day programs that have more of a focus on employment and skill-building while at the day program.

N. Simons: I’m going to move on to a few cases that might have been in the minister’s mind recently. The case of Margaret Lavery and her daughter, I think, illustrates not just her own specific situation but illustrates what seems to be at times a fairly closed shop at CLBC.

I’m not saying that’s any…. I know that CLBC has to operate within particular budgetary restrictions, and I know that that’s a decision made at the cabinet table. But sometimes….

[1625]

I understand how decisions get made quickly and with a bit of force because there isn’t a lot of time for massaging and making people feel comfortable in the discussion and helping people get to a particular place. But in the case of Margaret Lavery, when I saw that the only option she was provided for her child, her 19-year-old…. When that was turned down, CLBC’s response was to cut her support hours. I don’t know if that was a coincidence
[ Page 13141 ]
or if it was planned, but usually the needs of a young person don’t change because of a decision of their parent.

How can the minister justify the service reduction for Mrs. Lavery because she chose not to accept the group home placement which she considered dangerous to her daughter?

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: The member opposite raises a question, obviously, of a personal case which I can’t get too specific on. What I can assure the member opposite is that while I truly understand that transitioning youth can be a challenging time and a stressful time for families, as they’re trying to plan for the future of their child that requires extra supports and extra needs, in the case of any child who is transitioning, there would not be a removal or a reduction of services.

In fact, CLBC would actually…. Sometimes they put in additional supports, working very closely with the family to develop a service plan and services that will meet the needs of the individual for the long term. They can put in extensive supports sometimes.

It can be very difficult to find the right supports for an individual based on their various abilities or their unique needs. But the goal always is to work collaboratively with the family to explore every possible avenue that is out there to ensure that the client’s needs are being met, at the end of the day.

N. Simons: Let me quote from Margaret Lavery.

“CLBC has been a barrier to me finding appropriate supports for my daughter. They have made decisions without consulting me. They have sent me on wild goose chases and have placed my daughter’s welfare at risk, most recently by cutting her hours of support back from 24 hours a day to 16 hours a day. CLBC cut Katrina’s support hours with the full knowledge that she cannot be alone. CLBC did this knowing that there is no way to backfill the hours unless I quit my job to do it. They did this knowing how desperate this would make me as a mother. They did this right after I declined the only option they’ve ever offered for Katrina, an option I felt would place her at risk. Do these actions feel punitive? Absolutely, they do.”

Is the minister telling me that the reduction in hours, if it wasn’t directly related…? Would not that have been an appropriate time to say: “Let’s hold off on this until we can think of another option?”

[1630]

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: In addition to my previous answer, the role of CLBC is to always work with the families to ensure that we are finding the best possible outcomes and solutions for individuals.

The particular situation that we are discussing…. There was temporary support, an increase of support, put in place to help the family through a crisis time in the transition of the young adult out of MCFD and into SDSI services. We continue to work with that family on options to see what is best suited for their personal needs.

If the member opposite would like to talk to me privately so I can speak more specifically in regards to the situation that is occurring and what the status is of that particular case file, I’d be happy to do that with him outside of this House.

N. Simons: I bring up the case not to give an example of what looks, from the outside, as poor practice but because it seems to adhere to a pattern that seems to be emerging about how contractors are being treated. I understand the difficulty in dealing with emotionally difficult decisions and with people who are, obviously, passionate and committed and fairly tenacious in advocating for their son or daughter or sibling. I think that comes with the territory.

[1635]

There’s a support service group here on the lower Island that had its contract summarily terminated after 21 years. There was one sentence in the note saying: “Your contract is terminated. Thanks for your services.” That’s 21 years of providing support to adults with developmental disabilities, different resources over the years, from young adulthood to palliative. They did it all.

I understand that the decision that was made was based on what I consider an inappropriate reason to change the circumstances of clients, because of a communications issue, essentially. Vectis Support Services, from my understanding, from what I’ve seen, was a well-thought-of service organization in this community. It was thought of highly by medical professionals and by people involved in the community living sector but apparently not adequately to allow a contract to be maintained.

What I see as the main reason, from my perspective, was that Vectis was insistent upon paying employees and providing the services to a level that CLBC simply was unable or unwilling to provide. It’s what we saw with Mrs. Lavery, the same attitude that we see with Vectis or the same attitude that we see with another case on the upper Island in the Courtenay region, where a parent is being told that she will no longer be able to have the contract to care for her child and it will be taken away and provided to a third party without even the consent of the parent.

Now, I think this highlights an issue that maybe the minister will consider. That is the importance for everyone involved to have an outside arbiter, an outside person to assist with the decision-making process, to serve as a neutral party for those people aggrieved and to provide some insulation to those making the financial decisions.

This is not the role of CLBC. This is not the role of the facilitator or the analyst. There needs to be someone to whom individuals advocating for their families can go, either to get assistance in an impartial way — sometimes to be told that their demands are too high, perhaps, but by an independent person.

I see, when you have breakdowns of longtime service providers or highly qualified home-share providers or
[ Page 13142 ]
dedicated families, it’s a sign that there’s something fundamentally going wrong. Is the minister considering the possibility of developing or pursuing an independent body that will be able to advocate or assist or oversee the delivery of CLBC services?

[1640]

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: To the member opposite’s question, there is no doubt that we absolutely value all the support and services that our service providers provide around the province. There are 1,300 service providers that we work with, there are 2,000 families that are receiving direct funding, and there are 325 microboards as well.

As you can imagine with such a wide array of services as we provide around the province, there are sometimes things that don’t work out. We want to ensure always that there is quality service provided to individuals. But with that large number, sometimes situations arise that are not working for families and are not meeting the wishes or the desires of families.

When that happens, we ensure that families are given multiple choices where there are choices available to them, depending on the communities that they live in, to ensure there are options that we can find to resolve any potential conflicts that are there.

That being said, the member opposite asked if there was potentially somebody, an external individual that I would consider to help with that process. There are already several people in place. At CLBC, they have a complaint resolution process that is in place to ensure that families have a place to go to, to formalize any kinds of complaints they have. We also have the Advocate for Service Quality. There is the RCY, as well, the Representative for Children and Youth, and of course there’s always the Ombudsperson that people can go to if they so wish.

[1645]

N. Simons: Does the minister have any statistics on the number of complaints received, the number of complaints registered and the number of complaints that go to the first to fourth, I think, step?

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: For the last fiscal year, there was a total of 165 complaints received. And 118 of them have been resolved, and 47 of them are currently under review.

N. Simons: I thank the minister for that response.

Moving along to some other questions regarding individualized funding, can the minister possibly identify how many adults requiring 24-hour, seven-day-a-week, one-to-one care are being served currently?

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: There are multiple…. They’re kind of scattered around. Some are in residential care. Some are in home-share situations. Some of them are in group home situations. We don’t actually have those numbers with us, but we can attempt to get those for you and provide them to you at a later date.

[1650]

N. Simons: I wasn’t really concerned about where they were, necessarily, being cared for. Is the number itself hard to identify, the one-to-one care — those requiring 24-hour one-to-one care? Is that number hard to get? Overall — I don’t need it broken down.

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: It is a difficult number to ascertain. We will provide that to you if that is your wish.

N. Simons: Okay.

I just wanted to bring up a case of a family. It’s not to make any sort of criticism, necessarily, but it’s pointing out a reality. The Akbar family’s individualized funding, IF, for care requires 4½ FTEs for 168 hours a week. There are five or six caregivers involved. They get paid less. There is no funding for supervision, and they don’t get paid for staff meetings.

It represents an approximately 20 percent difference in the contracted rate, and some people would say that’s discriminatory. Does the minister recognize that parents and microboards have to compete for staff, primarily with agencies that can pay more?

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: The member opposite asked if I was aware. I am aware of the differences, but I’m also aware that individualized funding actually provides the flexibility to the individual who is receiving the funding package to ensure they can provide services in a way that works for them.

They could spend more money, perhaps, in one area and less in another, to perhaps do the service themselves to save money in another area. That’s the flexibility that individualized funding provides to be able to move the money around to a situation that works best for the family and meets their needs.

N. Simons: I appreciate that. I do hope that reading the CEO Network’s report on individualized funding…. I think some of their recommendations are potentially cost-saving, as they take into account the ebb and flow of services needed to an individual. I think it’s essential that individualized funding be appropriately designed for those individuals.

[1655]

There’s a case I’m aware of on the lower Island here, where a mom and a group of families try to get together in order to…. I’ll just read from the letter. They are eligible for services from CLBC, including 12 hours a week of individualized community inclusion funding. “We are currently a low priority because we are stable, in that
[ Page 13143 ]
CLBC doesn’t believe we’re planning to do anything to harm ourselves or our son — which is true — nor are we homeless or living in total poverty. Instead, we are a middle-class working family on a long, committed journey with our son.”

Now, what they’ve been trying to do, and what they have been doing, is getting together and pooling their individualized funding. In fact, they were actually written up in CLBC’s — what do they call it? — anniversary update. The title of this publication is lost on me right now. However, it’s a CLBC on-line newsletter in which this family and their friends were featured as being successful on individualized funding. But there are currently 12 families with InclusionWorks who are challenging CLBC to provide individualized funding for their adult children.

Would the minister, just at this point, commit to look into this particular situation to see if in fact this is an example of innovation that the ministry and Community Living B.C. would actually embrace if they knew the details of it? Would it be possible, just because of the lack of time, to say that we’ll work on this particular case and ensure that the families that are eligible are accessing the services or the funding necessary for them to be able to pursue this innovative system of funding?

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: As the member noted in his comments from the individual, they’re on a long journey with their son. I, too, am on a long journey with my son, so I understand the desire for families to come up with different ways to provide services and inclusion and social and emotional well-being for their children. It’s very innovative that one group of individuals came together to pool their funding.

What I think is important to note is that individualized funding is based on the individual’s specific needs and that that varies a great deal, based on people’s level of ability. That being said, I would be happy to look into and explore it further and to assist, in any way I can, with the group he speaks of.

[1700]

N. Simons: It’s about innovation and flexibility. I understand how decisions are made, and sometimes it’s difficult to make a decision that doesn’t look like the previous decision. So I’m glad. I appreciate the minister’s commitment to that, and her personal knowledge of what it sometimes takes to be a parent, to ensure that their children are well looked after.

I was going to ask if the ministry would commit to reducing the amount of jargon in their service plans, but I think that would be kind of rude. There are places in here that sound a little wordier than they need to be.

I’m going to be closing off here fairly soon. There’s a quote in the service plan: “Targets for increasing participation in work recognize that progress will require a shift in attitudes and behaviours, including those of CLBC staff, service providers, government partners and families. These shifts occur slowly. Consequently, CLBC expects results to show steady but slow growth.”

Now, I understand…. I think what’s necessary in the sector is people who are actually specifically skilled in linking up individuals to work placements. Right now that job is being taken on by people who haven’t necessarily had that previous experience.

I’m wondering if the minister is committed to making the appropriate investments to ensure that the target of increasing the number of individuals on CLBC’s caseload who are earning money can increase faster than they’re projected.

[1705]

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: The member opposite asked specifically about job coaching and employment services for individuals who are serviced through CLBC. We are certainly looking, or CLBC is looking, at utilizing the services of service providers who have the expertise. We also, through our Work B.C. centres, have ongoing training supports to help ensure that those who are working with our clients have the ability to work in specialized training situations for individuals.

The focus today for people with developmental disabilities, as I mentioned earlier, is quite different than what we saw 20 or 30 years ago. CLBC does have an employment focus now for the clients that we serve. It’s what the clients that we serve today want. It’s what they wish. They want to be part of society. They want to go to work.

We are actually seeing great employment outcomes. In just the last year, we’ve seen a 66 percent increase for the employment outcomes of our clients.

N. Simons: The ministry issued a letter of expectation to CLBC calling for seamless transitions from MCFD to adulthood. Is the minister satisfied with the progress of these transitions? Would the representative share the minister’s view, regardless of what it is?

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: The member opposite asked about, basically, the STADD navigator in the transitioning of youth into adulthood.

[1710]

Acknowledging that transitioning is challenging for both individuals and families, I can assure the member opposite that we are committed, and CLBC is committed, to smooth transitions to adulthood. That’s why we put in place the STADD navigators at the age of 16.

When children reach the age of 16, their 16th birthday, we start that process. The services have been provided already for 16- to 24-year-olds in several communities — Prince George, Haida Gwaii, Surrey, Kamloops, Merritt, Nanaimo and Courtenay — and we have now expanded the services to the Fraser Valley. We are currently just do-
[ Page 13144 ]
ing the hiring for those navigators to ensure that we are able to help families and individuals manage the transition.

N. Simons: As we wrap up, I just want to thank everyone for helping. I’m sure that a colleague of mine may have some other questions relating to social development.

My last question, which is a question that I think needs to be answered, is: does the minister believe that CLBC is adequately funded to provide the quality of life that we expect in our society for people with developmental disabilities?

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: I thank the member opposite — this might be my only opportunity to thank him — for his questioning this afternoon and for allowing us to respond to his questions today.

In reference to his last question, the $45 million lift that CLBC saw in this budget is something that I consider to be good news. We continue to try and ensure that the services that are provided through CLBC to the clients across the province are doing what they’re intended to do.

But the only way we can ensure that we are providing services to those members, those clients around the province, is to grow the economy, to create jobs and ensure that we are bringing in revenues to the government by saying yes to economic development.

N. Simons: I can’t really let this beautiful afternoon end on such a note. However, recognizing that there is a certain message box from which these statements emerge, I would point out that there have been opportunities for government to collect revenue, resource-based revenue, in a way that would better reflect the needs of our community. I certainly hope that the boom-and-bust economy of British Columbia does not result in a boom-and-bust quality of life for individuals with developmental disabilities.

If we are to tie economic development’s success or failure with the success or failure of vulnerable children or adults with developmental disabilities, I think we do a disservice to our office. I hope that the minister will continue to advocate and be a strong voice at the cabinet table for the people who most need her voice to be strong. With that, I thank you very much.

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: Thank you to the member opposite. I can assure him that I am a strong advocate for people with disabilities, especially those with autism spectrum disorder, those with physical disabilities, those with cognitive challenges. I am a strong advocate for those individuals living that in multiple ways.

With that, hon. Chair, I ask that we recess for five minutes to change over staff as we move to the next….

The Chair: The committee will be in recess for ten minutes.

The committee recessed from 5:14 p.m. to 5:24 p.m.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

M. Mungall: I’m pleased to join the estimates debate for the Ministry of Social Development. For those who are watching at home, thank you for staying tuned through the commercial break that featured some lovely woodworking here in the Legislature.

[1725]

I’m going to just dive right in and start with my questions on a topic that is in the news again today. It was originally in the news a year ago, and it’s in the news today because the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal has agreed to hear a mom’s case about her maternity leave benefits and not being able to keep those benefits, them essentially being clawed back off her family’s disability cheque.

My first question is: does the minister understand that every woman who’s expecting or who has just recently had a child is entitled to maternity leave benefits, and if so, why do the minister and the government believe that it is okay to then take those benefits away should they have a disability?

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: I’d like to take just a moment before I answer the member opposite’s question to introduce my assistant deputy minister from the corporate services division and policy division, Molly Harrington. And over my left shoulder, I have my assistant deputy minister for service delivery, Debi Upton.

Please, all those viewers at home, enjoy watching the next several hours as I respond to the questions from the member opposite.

In regards to the question she raised, it is a question that I answered earlier today in question period. I just want to clarify for those watching and for the record that, in fact, what the ministry does is we top up payments to ensure that people are receiving the basic level of income from the ministry and from the province, those supports that are in place for income assistance — reminding her and the members watching at home that income assistance is a temporary form of assistance.

It is there to help support individuals while they are looking for employment and also put in place for people with disabilities who rely on supports for a longer period of time and who perhaps can’t function full-time and find meaningful work.

The issue that she raises. We’ve discussed at length that, in fact, it is the policies that we’ve put in place in the Ministry of Social Development and Social Innovation where we have put reforms in place to allow individuals to earn more and keep more without it affecting their income assistance cheques. In fact, we are the only province in all of Canada to go to the annualized earning exemp-
[ Page 13145 ]
tions to allow individuals on disability assistance to receive up to $9,600 or earn up to $9,600 before it affects their income assistance cheques.

M. Mungall: I don’t think anybody would dispute — if they do, I’d be very sad to hear it — the benefit of having annualized earnings exemptions. I think almost everybody recognizes the value of that. I think it’s good to see that whoever is in government would do that. I do hope to see other provinces take that on, just as I’ve hoped that other provinces take on some of the other positive policy directions undergone in B.C., such as ending the child support clawback, which is something we fought very diligently on, on this side of the House.

That being said, we do have this very real situation where as soon as a family finds out that they’re going to need that extra income even more because a new child is on the way, the government takes away their EI. While they’re allowed to have PWD and earnings exemptions, the only reason that they have access to EI is because they are allowed to have those earnings exemptions so that they can get a job if they are able to.

[1730]

When they go to access that EI because of having a child, somehow the government has decided that that is okay to take it away. This government is using the words “top-up.” I’ve heard that before many, many times.

I mean, it sounds better than what it really is, which is a clawback. What happens is that somebody on PWD tells the government that they’re getting their maternity leave benefits and the government then claws that back off of their cheque.

[R. Lee in the chair.]

It’s really not a top-up. We’re talking about a clawback here. Money that they’ve paid into, their employment insurance benefits that they’ve paid into — they’re just not allowed to keep, under this government, because they’re having a child.

On that note, the minister has provided some languaging, such as “top-up.” She said that income assistance is supposed to be a temporary measure. But I do believe I was hearing her recognize that for some people, PWD disability benefits will be permanent. It is not temporary.

That being the case, has the minister talked to families that are impacted by this maternity and parental leave clawback? And if she has, how are they characterizing this government policy?

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: I guess we can get into a debate on the language that we use. I mean, the fact of the matter is that the provincial government expects all other sources of income to be exhausted before coming to the province. The province will ensure that needs are met of individuals to make sure that they are taking part in our comprehensive social safety net.

That being said, an individual who finds themselves bringing a new life into their communities, into their families, to society — it’s a happy time in their lives. In fact, when they are receiving government supports, having a child brings them more supports. In fact, they would receive $860 more a month for having their first child, which is the equivalent of $10,320 per year for having brought that child into the world.

In fact, when they have their second child, they then receive another benefit, an increase in their shelter rates. They see the national child tax benefit, the B.C. early childhood benefit, the universal child care benefit. All those tax benefits, then, are provided to those individuals who are bringing a young child into the world.

As much as we don’t see the employment insurance maternity benefits…. We see that as earned income. It is an insurance program that workers and employers pay into and that, again, people are required to access those benefits before relying on provincial assistance. This is a common principle across Canada. All other provinces do the exact same thing. Employment insurance is seen as earned income.

Again, like I mentioned, when the family brings a new child into the world, they do benefit from the multiple other comprehensive social safety nets that we have in place to ensure that they are supported, whether that be subsidized housing, subsidized child care benefits, dental and optical for that child.

They don’t pay MSP payments. They would also have PharmaCare for any prescription costs they would need for that child. There are multiple other ways that we provide and ensure that people are taken care of.

M. Mungall: Well, there are two things in listening to the minister’s response to that — actually, three things, pardon me. One is that she didn’t say she has spoken with families who are impacted by this policy. I’m assuming the answer to that question is no. So she wouldn’t have any direct understanding of how that policy is impacting them. If she can correct me on that, I’d appreciate it.

But I did hear her talk about every other province also claws back EI. She made it sound like that’s good enough reason for B.C. to do the same. I would like to remind her that B.C. took leadership on annualized incomes and took leadership on the child support clawback. It would be wonderful for B.C. to take leadership on this issue as well.

She also pointed out that people receiving PWD are not paying MSP. I would just state for the record my view, and the view of many of my colleagues in this House, is that no one should be paying MSP. But that is an issue for another day.

[1735]

Coming back to this particular issue, this particular issue is before the Human Rights Tribunal. The reason it is, is because if you are somebody who does not receive PWD, you get to keep your EI benefits. You get to keep your maternity leave benefits, which you are entitled to by right in this country. But provinces are denying people that right.

My question to the minister is if the ministry has made any efforts to look into this issue further, to have a better understanding of the human rights issue and the labour rights issue that’s at play here, and if they have taken any steps to look into potentially ending this clawback.

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: Obviously, as the Human Rights Tribunal is working through its process, there will be a fulsome discussion that goes on concerning what the issue is. We will be fully engaged in that process, obviously.

[1740]

But I think what fundamentally has to be pointed out is that no one is being denied their access to their EI benefits. In fact, the matter at hand is the top-up that the provincial government provides to our clients who are receiving assistance. We as a ministry cannot deny EI benefits to individuals.

As the member opposite knows, the Human Rights Tribunal is now going forward. That’s pretty much all I can say at this time, considering it is in its process.

M. Mungall: What’s actually before the Human Rights Tribunal is the systemic nature of what occurs to an individual as a result of government policy. While the government doesn’t explicitly deny someone access to EI, they are systemically denying them the right to their benefits by clawing it back off of their PWD.

My question, then, since we’re talking about the tribunal, will be…. The government has made arguments to prevent the tribunal from hearing the case. They made arguments to say that this case shouldn’t be brought forward to the tribunal. I’m just wondering how much the government spent on that.

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: As the request went forward…. It was a perfunctory request outside the timelines. The request actually was dealt with through the Attorney General’s office, with the legal services and resources of that ministry.

That is a number I can get for the member opposite. It’s not something I have on hand. As I said, it comes from the Attorney General.

M. Mungall: I would appreciate that number, and I would appreciate the minister getting that for me.

Maybe this also is the Attorney General. I’ll ask, and the minister can tell me if it is or if it isn’t. Going forward there’s going to be a full hearing. I’m wondering if the ministry intends to argue against, in terms of saying that this clawback is legitimate — if that’s the ministry’s position, if they’ll be making those arguments. If so, how much do they expect to spend on doing so?

[1745]

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: I think the member opposite is a little bit ahead of herself. We just received notice of this in the last day or so. We are very much still in the preliminary stages. We have yet to engage with the Attorney General, who is the lead in bringing matters like this forward. At this time, neither I nor the ministry would have the costing info or are in a position to provide that costing info to the member opposite.

M. Mungall: All right. Well, no doubt I’ll be following this issue quite closely and looking to get that information from government as soon as possible.

When media inquired last year about how many people were impacted by this policy and the cost of this policy, they were told 150 people, approximately, each year are impacted by the maternity and parental leave clawback and that government is taking about $443,000 back from people on PWD in terms of their returning parental EI benefits.

I’m just wondering if that is typical of each fiscal year. Let’s say for the last five or so — if that is a typical amount or if last year it was less or if it was more than usual. This, of course, was information from a year ago. I’m wondering if government has updated information as well. So I’m looking for the number of individuals who are impacted, who are claiming maternity and parental EI benefits each year, as well as the amount that government is taking back in this clawback.

[1750]

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: The numbers that the member opposite quoted are in fact correct and current. The numbers from the last five years are not something we have on hand here, but it is something that we could potentially try and get for her as well.

M. Mungall: I’m just going to pass it over to the member for Delta South. She has a few questions.

V. Huntington: Two fairly quick questions. There is the George Pearson residential care centre in Vancouver, with about 120 residents that are…. Sorry. Is the minister ready for a switch in questions here?

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: CLBC was here earlier this afternoon with questions brought forward by the critic for Community Living B.C. That member has now left, because we assumed that we were complete in that department. Perhaps you’d like to bring those questions forward to me in my office. I’d be happy to respond.
[ Page 13147 ]

V. Huntington: I’ll just get them on the record, then. If the minister and her staff can’t answer them here, I’m pleased to get the answers at another time.

The 120 residents that are at George Pearson…. Like in other residential care facilities, those that are receiving PWD payments have their PWD payments withheld as part of their income and are left with a $95-a-month comfort fee or personal items fee, as is the case in residential care facilities, although I think the number is a bit different.

The questions I’ve been getting relate to the bus pass. These residents have $95 for their own personal expenditures. Does the bus pass come out of that $95? Will they then be left with, you know, $50 at the end of the day for a month’s personal items?

M. Elmore: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

M. Elmore: I’m very pleased to welcome some constituents and friends here to join us today. They’re visiting Victoria; they’re on a field trip. They are a group of very active home learners and their parents.

We have with us Hannah Hamm, the mother of Miranda Hamm. Hannah is very active. She’s a music teacher and runs a very busy home studio and music programs for young children. She has over 100 children through her studio every week. That’s a lot of kids — very busy, very active.

Miranda is 11 years old. She’s in grade 5. She is passionate about art and dancing — all types of art, from drawing, painting, sculpting, pottery…. She loves being involved in home school because it gives her a lot of space in order to be creative — a real budding artist.

[1755]

We have, as well, mother Joanna Pallister with her two girls. We’ve got Sophia and Eleanor. Now, they’re all in Girl Guides. Sophia is 11 years old, in grade 6. She loves history and reading, and she’s a lifetime member of Vancouver Home Learners. We also have Eleanor, who is nine years old and in grade 3. Her favourite thing is cooking. Not just cooking — she’s a chef and has been described as a gourmet chef, really cooking up great meals for her friends and family.

In particular, I want to recognize that Joanna Pallister, the mother of Eleanor and Sophia, is very passionate about taking care of people. She was a previous pastor and minister that really connects with communities, as well, in the Lower Post. She was very struck by the terrific exhibit that we have marking the missing and murdered indigenous women and is a real champion for social justice and the community.

It’s great to have all of them here. They’re real aspiring students. They’re advocates for our home-schooling program. They’re advocating and speaking out for adequate funding, and they’d like to tell us the great work that the Vancouver home-schooling program offers and to maintain the current two teachers they have with that program.

So, Mr. Speaker and friends, please join me in welcoming the very active and engaged young students and their parents, and please make them feel welcome here.

Debate Continued

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: In fact, I can answer the member opposite’s question, even though reflecting that the CLBC CEO is not here. What those individuals will see is a top-up for their comfort allowance, so they will see the $25 rate increase. They will also see the $52 transportation allowance reflected in their cheques.

They will receive $172 going forward to reflect the investment that we’re making for people with disabilities in the province. They will then have the same opportunity as other people in the province, with their transportation allowance, to receive that in cash to do with what they choose or to receive a bus pass.

V. Huntington: So basically, yes, they get the increased rate, but the bus pass will come out of that comfort fee that they have.

Interjection.

V. Huntington: I beg your pardon. Am I…?

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: In fact, the bus pass is not coming out of that. It’s the transportation allowance. It’s not the comfort allowance. What they will see is a $25 increase to their comfort allowance. They will see a $52 transportation allowance, which they then will receive either in cash or a subsidized bus pass provided to them.

V. Huntington: Thank you very much. That’s helpful.

The other question deals with the seniors supplement. I wasn’t aware there was a seniors supplement until quite recently. It’s the B.C. seniors supplement program, which tops up payments from federal old age security and the guaranteed income supplement program from the federal government.

This came to our attention from an accountant in our riding who was helping seniors with some of their taxes, and they found it extremely difficult to find out how the seniors supplement is administered. I think it’s up to $49.30 a month, but there’s no indication of…. Maybe I can read this. For instance, the federal government has charts on how the GIS payments are adjusted based on the levels of income earned by a recipient, but there’s no similar information with regard to how the B.C. seniors supplement works.

The suggestion that has been made to us is that the ministry consider publishing the information on line, as
[ Page 13148 ]
does the federal government, so that people can (a) know that the supplement exists, because a lot of people don’t know it exists, and (b) readily find the information out about how it might apply in terms of the level of their own income.

[1800]

I wonder if the minister and her officials would consider that suggestion and make it much easier for people to access the information on line and truly understand how the supplement may or may not apply to them.

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: That is an interesting question that hadn’t been thought of. I will take that away from the member opposite and get back to her while I look at it.

M. Mungall: We’re going to stay on issues around income assistance, so I don’t believe we need a staff change. I’m going to move to the actual application process. I’ll just talk about….

Okay, I think we’ve got all the right pages in the binders, and I’ll ask my question.

As the minister knows, there are currently 96,000 British Columbians designated as PWD. Now, I might be pulling this number. It might be a little bit old, because I think we’ve been working with roughly around 100,000, so we’re only about 4,000 people off there. But roughly around 100,000 British Columbians are currently designated as PWD, and each year about 8,000 people apply for and receive disability assistance.

I appreciate what government has done around the new legislation, and the minister and I went through that bill. It didn’t take a lot of ink to make a very significant change in the lives of about 1,000 people here in B.C., and I am grateful that the government did that. But it also leaves about 7,000 people each year who are applying under the existing system.

I’m just wondering if the minister is at all looking into any ways to improve the existing application process. Now, I just want to be clear. I’m not making any type of suggestion that government doesn’t do its full due diligence in ensuring that we have a robust application process. But what I am hearing back from many people who do go through this application, as well as medical practitioners who fill out these applications, is that it’s quite cumbersome. It requires multiple appointments with the individual who is looking to apply. It’s an incredibly extensive amount of paperwork.

Many physicians are actually starting to refuse to fill out all the paperwork required because it is just so incredibly time-consuming, while other medical practitioners might be doing this over the weekend, over the lunch hour and so on, again because it is so incredibly time-consuming.

I’m just wondering, with that type of feedback — I’m sure I’m not the only one providing it to the minister — if the ministry is at all looking into the current application process for PWD and looking to make any alterations or any changes to streamline it.

[1805]

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: Of course, we are always looking at ways to streamline the process to make it easier for our clients. That’s why we came forward with Bill 3, which did just that. It simplified the application process for up to 1,000 individuals. Those are changes that we will continue to see. What we can make a difference….

The member opposite, I think, is aware that we have been actively discussing and collaborating with nurse practitioners — I know her husband is a nurse practitioner — and bringing them in to be able to fill out the forms as well. To date, we don’t have or haven’t heard of a doctor who has refused to fill out the five pages of the form. If the member opposite knows of specific cases that she wants to bring forward to me, I’d be happy to look into it. The doctors and the nurse practitioners are paid to fill out the form, so it truly benefits them. They are earning money for filling out the form.

M. Mungall: Again, my sharing was anecdotal, things I hear in my own community. I will do a little bit more digging and bring that to the minister’s attention. Clearly, it concerns her, and it concerns me.

She’s right to mention that my husband is a nurse practitioner. Some of the conversations we have over the dinner table are precisely about the time it takes to fill out the form, the multiple appointments it takes with people, and so on, and the cumbersome…. That being said, I don’t rely solely on him for information.

I also hear it from many people who are receiving PWD. They talk about how difficult and cumbersome the application process is. Of course, many of them go to advocacy centres and various other community support and community resource centres across the province seeking aid in their application process.

I’m just wondering if the minister can tell us how her staff attempt to help those struggling with the application process.

[1810-1815]

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: The member opposite asked about what services the staff in the ministry offices provide to clients when they come in requesting assistance.

First and foremost, they would make an assessment on how they present and what kind of assistance they are requesting. For example, if an individual came in with a language barrier and, perhaps, didn’t have proper English and was having difficulty understanding the form, they would then be able to dial in interpreter services to help the individual understand what is needed on the form and what the steps are to take in order to fill out the form.

They can also connect the individual to community support services and advocates that will help assist them
[ Page 13149 ]
in the process. Those advocates and community services are also…. The ministry staff work very closely with them to brief them, to have ongoing meetings with them, to help them understand, to help them troubleshoot any problems that would arise when somebody is coming to them for the extra support.

The front-line staff is not qualified to actually fill out the form for the individuals who come into the office. There’s a lot of medical information that is required in the form. That is not something that staff provide.

M. Mungall: What I’m hearing is that staff provide, primarily, referrals to third-party agencies rather than have any on-site supports. My understanding, as well, is that application forms are on line. That’s definitely the case for income assistance. For PWD, because there are also the other forms that have to be filled out — medical forms and so on and so forth — that’s not on line, but that is something the client would then take to doctors and so on.

What happens, whether it’s somebody with a disability or somebody who’s applying for income assistance, if they lack any computer literacy? Who, then, helps them to apply for income assistance or disability?

[1820]

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: The question the member opposite asked — just for those who may have missed it and who are tuning in now to the riveting conversation we’re having here today — was in reference to what the staff does to assist individuals who come into the office requesting assistance or looking to apply for income assistance.

First and foremost, I must say that it is absolutely crucial for applicants to include as much information about their situation. I’d like to think that my front-line staff is telepathic and can know every detail of somebody who presents themselves to the front-line service workers, but it really is important for them to provide information about their situation, either by responding to questions or additional notes or the self-service application. They can also make a request for additional supports.

The member opposite asked specifically in regards to, you know, perhaps if somebody was not computer-literate. What kind of assistance would they receive? I can tell the member opposite that the ministry has a duty to accommodate.

If somebody were to request services to receive some additional supports if they couldn’t fill it out on the computer, they could make an appointment and fill out the application form on line with a staff member to fill out the application in that way as well. I hope that answers the member’s question.

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

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:25 p.m.

The House resumed; Madame Speaker in the chair.

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

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

Hon. T. Stone moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 6:26 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
PUBLIC SAFETY AND SOLICITOR GENERAL

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); D. Ashton in the chair.

The committee met at 2:44 p.m.

On Vote 39: ministry operations, $666,552,000 (continued).

[1445]

D. Donaldson: I have a question regarding policing in more northern and rural areas of the province. The issue has been brought to my attention about protocols for RCMP officers to be able to go onto First Nations reserves in order to conduct policing work — that these protocols sometimes aren’t observed and sometimes are and that sometimes it can lead to difficulties in policing and with First Nations.

My question is on the role and involvement of this ministry in those kinds of agreements. In case the minister prefers to say that that is a federal issue, I also want to point out that Chief Joe Alphonse of the Anahim reserve in Alexis Creek has discussed the situation in Williams Lake. The minister knows that situation quite well. I believe he was up there shortly after the incident that caused the closing of schools because of an incident involving guns.

Chief Joe Alphonse has gone on to say that whenever there’s an incident, for a week or two there’s a big out-
[ Page 13150 ]
pouring of concern, and then it all dies down until the next incident. Chief Joe Alphonse said the men involved were from the Anahim and Soda Creek First Nations.

I’m not saying that this is an example of a protocol agreement not being in place or being in place and not adhered to, but I would like to hear the minister’s comments on how these kinds of issues are being dealt with in the north.

[1450]

Hon. M. Morris: I just wanted to confer with my colleagues here just to make sure that nothing had changed since I’ve been a police officer on the street. Basically, the RCMP have jurisdiction over all reserves in British Columbia. There’s nothing preventing an RCMP member from venturing onto a reserve to enforce any aspects of the law that we have.

There are also other agreements in place, tripartite agreements with many First Nations communities throughout the province. Those are specific duties related to First Nations policing within the community itself.

In most communities, the RCMP have very good relationships with First Nations. The Tsilhqot’in, for an example. It’s my understanding that Chief Alphonse has a sign at the beginning of his community, entering his community, saying that he welcomes the RCMP and they support the RCMP.

The Tsilhqot’in has presented some issues for us. We’re in the process right now of establishing a community safety initiative, where we’re addressing some of the issues, not only in the city of Williams Lake but also the surrounding communities themselves. I have met with Chief Alphonse and a number of other community leaders there.

We’re looking at bringing the responsibility for policing…. Much as I’ve said on the media about Surrey and other areas in B.C., community engagement needs to play a significant part in the safety of any community. I applaud Chief Alphonse for getting involved, and many other chiefs there. We’re going to be sitting down with them soon for other meetings to try and establish exactly what that public safety or community safety initiative looks like.

We’ve got a steering committee in place, so we’ll be meeting on that to figure out exactly what steps we need to implement to ensure that all communities in the Williams Lake area are safe — and all First Nations communities right across the province, for that matter.

M. Farnworth: Last week when we left off — and this is always the problem when we interrupt these things — we were talking about the issue of DUIs in the tribunals. At that time, I remember saying that I had a few more questions to ask, and the Chair was like: “No. We’ve got to go.” It’s like, “Okay, fine,” but it means that we’ve got to get the right people to be able to ask the questions.

One of the issues, the issue that I’d wanted us to get to…. We had talked about the length of time. The minister had stated that additional resources were being put in place, that the backlog was to be eliminated with those resources on the ground within a month. The backlog would be eliminated, I think he said, within a year, and that going forward, this would not be an issue.

The minister also, if I recall correctly, had indicated that drivers are…. We talked about the issue of the fact that not everyone is now notified about the suspension. The minister gave an indication as to why that was.

One of the questions, then, that was flowing from that is in terms of public confidence in the tribunal system and the issues that were in the media and raised in the House in the last couple of weeks around the independence of the tribunals and the issue that has brought this to a head, which is the case itself of these 19 pages released under FOI that went to the law firm and to which the ministry said, “Well, there’s nothing to see here,” but at the same time weren’t released.

My question is: is that decision being appealed or has it been appealed? Can the Solicitor General enlighten me on that?

[1455]

Hon. M. Morris: That decision is still before the Attorney General. She has the prerogative to make that.

M. Farnworth: I understand that.

The next question, then, that I have…. My experience, in terms of government with these things, is that they usually make a decision to appeal something or not to appeal something relatively quickly. They give some indication of what they’re doing. In this case, there’s a 30-day period. The end of that 30-day period, coincidentally and conveniently, is after the House has risen. So the opportunity to ask questions, if there is no appeal, is not there.

My question would be this. If the appeal is done, that I understand. If there is no appeal, then that means that the government is not appealing the decision of the court, and therefore those documents, I would assume, would be released under FOI. Is it the ministry’s expectation that those documents would be released if there is no appeal?

Hon. M. Morris: Yeah. If there is no appeal, then those documents would become subject to FOI. You could put in an FOI request for the documents that you require.

M. Farnworth: I appreciate that answer.

Our next topic that I’d like us to get to is around JUSTIN and the issues around that. The Auditor General released a scathing report on that. He had over 100 recommendations. Many of them were too sensitive to be released, but he summarized his recommendations to five overarching themes or areas of concern. I’ll just read them into the record.
[ Page 13151 ]

“1. Controls in network and system components in the JUSTIN environment should be reviewed, reconfigured, documented and better managed to ensure multiple layers of security are in place.

“2. User access to JUSTIN information should be granted and managed based on the principle of ‘need to know.’

“3. Highly sensitive JUSTIN information should be properly classified and secured with extensive monitoring in place.

“4. More effective audit trails and tools should be in place to enable detection and investigation of suspicious or unauthorized activity.

“5. An effective monitoring program should be in place to enable proactive detection of unauthorized access and removal of copied JUSTIN information.”

Three years ago, when this report was done, it was pretty detailed, pretty comprehensive. Three years have been, I think, quite a significant amount of time in terms of being able to deal with the issues raised on what is, of course, a very important issue.

After the report was done, the ministry self-reported progress. They said that work is being done in addressing the recommendations. For each of the broader categories, the ministry self-assessed their status to be “partially implemented” to reflect the fact that there is a mixture of completed, partially completed and outstanding recommendations in the five areas.

[1500]

Can the minister outline whether or not all of those five broad categories have been fully addressed? If not, which ones have been fully or substantially implemented, and what is their status?

Hon. M. Morris: Unfortunately I can’t, because all that falls under the Attorney’s ministry, and our ministry is not involved in that.

M. Farnworth: I’m a bit surprised by the minister’s answer in the sense that his ministry clearly has a significant role in terms of JUSTIN and what JUSTIN can do. At that time, when both were combined, the Auditor General’s report was pretty comprehensive and pretty explicit in what the challenges and the properties were.

I’ll put the question this way: is the reason that the minister is not able to answer because the ministry does not know the status of what’s taken place or that they have not been told by the Ministry of Attorney General how those recommendations have been implemented?

I would think that the ministry would want to know, and I would think that the ministry would expect to know.

Hon. M. Morris: Again, the responsibility and the ownership of the system lies with the courts and Crown. So those questions should be directed at the Attorney.

It’s my understanding that a number of those recommendations have been addressed, but you would have to ask the Attorney for a clarification on that.

M. Farnworth: Let me ask this question then. Has the minister been briefed on any changes and the implementation of the recommendations to JUSTIN?

Hon. M. Morris: Not since I’ve taken over the ministry, no.

M. Farnworth: Will the minister ask for a briefing on what those changes are? I think they are important in terms of some of the aspects of his ministry.

Hon. M. Morris: By all means, I will.

M. Farnworth: The next topic I think we will address is the issue of DNA — cost analysis and cost shifting that is taking place. This is a concern to many local governments. As the minister knows — and quite rightly from his extensive experience as a police officer…. He knows full well the importance of DNA in being able to crack crimes and in solving crimes. There’s no denying the fact that it is probably one of the most significant advances in technology in enabling to solve a crime, especially cold cases.

So the question becomes…. Of the changes that were made to DNA testing, local government is particularly concerned about the impact that it has on their departments and the cost being borne up. Can the minister tell us how the agreement was reached? What steps are being taken to address the concerns that local government has — and in particular, those around smaller detachments?

[1505]

Hon. M. Morris: I just want to point out that DNA is one of the main tools, or a significant tool, that police forces have right across the country.

Oftentimes communities lose sight of the fact that if they get a positive DNA analysis, it shortens an investigation immensely. There are dollars saved at that point as well. It’s hard to extrapolate that information out and figure out how much money communities and governments have saved as result of successful DNA analysis. But it’s in the hundreds of millions of dollars, there’s no doubt in mind, as a result of that.

Getting back to the DNA itself — the agreement. UBCM was involved in the negotiations and the discussions around that right from 2013, prior to the agreement being signed. In fact, it’s my understanding that a representative from UBCM attended Ottawa, along with the other provincial and territorial leaders, for the discussions in the DNA agreement that was forthcoming. All provincial governments and territorial governments negotiated this at the same particular time.

Moving forward, we’re looking at a made-in-B.C. option. We’re looking at all options that we have in British Columbia to ensure that we’re providing the best service possible at the best possible price for DNA analysis, as
[ Page 13152 ]
well as other types of lab work that are instrumental in police work right across the province.

[1510]

M. Farnworth: I hear what the minister is saying about UBCM being consulted. In fact, in February 2014, UBCM president Rhona Martin and Dianne Watts, mayor at the time, wrote a letter to the then federal Public Safety Minister urging him to seek a new agreement rather than reduce DNA analysis services. So everyone’s on the same page there.

But then, the feds and the province reach an agreement until 2024 that would see the federal government pay only 46 percent of DNA costs, and the province would pick up the rest. The minister said that we have a made-in-B.C. arrangement. It is true. We do have a made-in-B.C. arrangement which sees local governments picking up much of those costs over time, unlike the rest of the provinces where the provincial government is picking up those costs.

Can the minister explain why B.C. is out of step with the other provinces, who clearly recognize the impact that this would have on local communities? Instead, we’ve decided in this province to say, “No, no, no, we’re doing the made-in-B.C. approach,” which will, in essence, penalize local communities.

Hon. M. Morris: The province will continue to fund the historical flat-rate amount of $1.3 million that we’ve been paying, plus the proportionate usage of the provincial business line detachment. So for any of the communities under 5,000, the province covers all of the costs for the DNA testing.

To ease the police agencies into the added cost that we had here as a result of the DNA agreement, we paid 100 percent of the costs for the first three-quarters of the agreement — 2014-2015. The remaining costs, of course, were picked up by all of the municipalities. Under the contract agreement, the municipalities are responsible for picking up whatever the contract agreement is, whether it’s 70 percent of the share or 90 percent of the share, depending on the size of their municipality, or 100 percent if it’s an independent force.

[1515]

We also have to keep in mind that the police are the ones who determine whether or not a DNA examination is required, because it’s 100 percent focused on policing activities and policing responsibilities.

M. Farnworth: Yeah, it is the police who determine when DNA will be used, but the reality is that it is used in all kinds of situations. In fact, it’s extremely effective, so it’s used. And as technology changes, it’s used more and more.

The minister states there’ll be a continuation of the flat rate, but the reality is that what the government is doing is downloading these costs onto local government, onto local taxpayers. UBCM has done some analysis on this. It’s been increased by an additional $2.9 million. That number is going to increase in the coming years.

Just to give some detailed breakdown of where those increased costs are going to be, Victoria will pay an additional $143,000, Richmond will pay $114,000, Surrey will pay an additional $410,000, and Vancouver will pay an additional $672,000. All of these are costs that are picked up by local government and impact their ability to provide local services except by raising the costs to the local taxpayer.

The approach of the government has been to champion a “one taxpayer” approach to affordability. In essence, what is happening is that the government is out championing: “There’s only one taxpayer. There’s only one taxpayer that can pay the freight.” The reality is that that’s a very nice thing to say, but the government’s own action, as the province has the greatest ability to ensure that a burden is spread equally, is in fact downloading costs onto local government which will be borne by local taxpayers.

In fact, every other province has taken a different approach and recognized that in terms of general policing and the ability to provide general policing across the province — whether you’re an independent force or an RCMP detachment — everybody benefits from that ability for DNA testing and the use of the DNA lab.

My question to the minister is…. Again, it comes down to: why are we downloading to local governments when every other province has said: “You know what? This really is something that should be picked up on a provincewide basis.” Why are we out of step? That’ll be my last question on this.

I will preface it with this. Whatever answer the minister gives, unless he says — and I’m not going to hold my breath on this — “You’re absolutely right, and we’re going to change our policy,” I would like the minister to work with UBCM. This issue is an irritant to local communities that could be resolved and removed with a second look by a new Solicitor General, who is well versed around this issue and understands the nature of policing in a way that, I think, previous ministers did not.

[1520]

Hon. M. Morris: The federal government insisted upon the new DNA cost-sharing agreement. Basically, it was a take-it-or-leave-it kind of situation. We’re encouraging the municipalities to contact the federal government if they’re not happy with that agreement.

In the meantime, in every police department in every municipality that is using DNA, the federal government is covering 46 percent of that bill. The province is left with 54 percent of that. What we do is we’ll take our $1.3 million — we’ll take it right off the top — and then the rest is distributed amongst the user forces, the folks that have used the DNA for various analyses throughout the year. That’s the current situation.
[ Page 13153 ]

When I referred to a made-in-B.C. situation, this is different. This is outside of what this current agreement is. We are currently looking at other options that we can look at in order to provide a more comprehensive and cost-effective DNA service to policing right across British Columbia here, which is outside of the current agreement that we have.

M. Farnworth: I thought that was the last question. But like in Columbo episodes, something the minister said…. You know, I just want to ask you one more question.

The minister said that he’s encouraging local government to write to the federal government. Yes, it was the previous federal government that said to “take it or leave it. We’re making changes.”

We do have a new government, and the minister says he has encouraged local government to write to the new federal government. Has the minister written to his counterpart in Ottawa, saying: “You know what? How about rethinking this agreement and going back to what we had in place before?”

Hon. M. Morris: Actually, I personally met with the federal minister on this issue and others affecting policing in B.C. It’s always been topical.

M. Farnworth: Has the province’s position in those meetings with the federal minister been that this is unfair to the provinces and to the local governments and that the agreement needs to be rethought and that the old agreement worked for everyone just fine?

Hon. M. Morris: We expressed displeasure with the federal government over the way this was imposed upon the provinces right across the country the way it was imposed upon B.C. We’re working with the agreement as it is, but we’ve told them that we’re looking at options, as well, and that any time they want to assist us in looking at that, they’re more than welcome.

M. Farnworth: Okay. One final, final question. Has your position in those meetings that…? Obviously, you’ve seen the letters going from local government. Has your position been that we support what local government is saying and that we’d ask the feds to make the changes that they’re seeking?

[1525]

Hon. M. Morris: We’ve advised the federal government that municipal governments in B.C. are unhappy with the current agreement and that we’re working with them to find other solutions.

M. Farnworth: Well, good. I’m glad to hear that. I’m sure the local governments will be pleased to hear that you’ve communicated that they’re unhappy that the cost is being downloaded by the province. Hopefully, we can get an agreement that will keep them happy.

I think it’s time to move on to another topic, because I know we are in the final week and that time is limited. I’d like to talk on the issue of corrections and issues around corrections. So if you need the appropriate staff….

The Chair: Thank you, Member. We’ll just wait for the change here.

Hon. M. Morris: I’d like to introduce who we have — Elenore Clark and Stephanie Macpherson, both provincial directors with Corrections.

M. Farnworth: The province recently announced that it would be spending an additional $23 million for police prosecutors and programs to combat gangs and guns in British Columbia. According to the ministry’s service plan, this year’s budget for Corrections will jump by a little under $11 million.

Could the minister tell us how the additional money in Corrections will be allocated? Additionally, can the minister tell us whether the rise has taken into account the additional pressures that can result from a rise in inmates due to the influx in spending on enforcement?

Hon. M. Morris: Out of that total that you related there, $10.3 million is associated to the Okanagan correctional centre that is coming on line and will be open by the first of January. With that, comes 378 additional cells.

[1530]

[M. Dalton in the chair.]

There’ll be 240 new FTEs working in that unit, in corrections. We’ll have hired 147 so far this year. The balance of that money would be attributable to the economic stability mandate that we have.

M. Farnworth: So that $11 million lift is what the minister is referring to, but none of the $23 million is going anywhere near corrections. The reason I raise that is because this additional funding the province has put in…. The hope, then…. The plan is that this is going to get more people off the streets, which presumably means more people going into corrections facilities.

We are opening, as the minister says, the new facility, and the $11 million is going to cover that. Now, that $11 million was put in place before the $23 million was announced. That $23 million, I gather, was not initially contemplated earlier this year, if I’m correct.

Has the government done an analysis on what the expected increase in the prison population would be from that additional $23 million?
[ Page 13154 ]

Hon. M. Morris: Since 2008-2009, we’ve added 340 new cells. That’s not counting the Okanagan correctional facility that I just referred to here, with another 378 cells. With the numbers that we have out there, the number of cells we have right across the province, we’re not expecting there to be a material effect upon the spaces available. We have homes for everybody.

M. Farnworth: The minister said that they’ve added these…. There have been, I think he said, 340 new, and then there are the 378 coming out in the Okanagan. That’s a lot of new cells coming on — or homes, as the minister said. Obviously, that would mean an increase in the number of staff. The minister said 2008-2009 is when those new units or the new cells would have come on. However, on April 21, the minister stated that the ministry has hired 440 new staff since 2007.

[1535]

Can the minister tell me if that figure of 440…? When we say new staff, is it new staff over and above the existing contingent of staff within the ministry, or is this a net number, given the fact that people retire and are on sick leave and attrition?

Hon. M. Morris: It is their new FTEs, so it’s over and above what the existing establishment was already.

And when I referenced “home” in my previous answer, that’s only home to those who want to persist in participating in gang activity.

M. Farnworth: I didn’t think the minister meant otherwise, and I wasn’t planning on using that as a gotcha moment. But I’ll say this: the minister is learning fast.

I accept the fact that the minister stated that this is over and above the existing contingent or complement of staff that we had in 2007. But clearly, there are still, I think, real issues with the number of…. In fact, actually, if you look at it, it’s…. There’s the new units in place, the new staff on there. But there are still serious concerns around the potential for violence in our corrections facilities.

A key part of that is around the ratio that exists between corrections officers and inmates. Back in 2002, the government announced that the inmate-to-officer ratio would jump from 20 to 1 to as high as 45 to 1.

In the case of Surrey Pretrial, we’ve seen that ratio climb to 72 to 1. The new Okanagan correctional centre, in my understanding, is proceeding with an intention of a ratio of 72 inmates for every corrections officer.

This creates the potential for very serious safety issues to arise. Assaults appear to now be far more commonplace than they have been in the past. In 2014, there were 71 inmate assaults on corrections staff. Last year, we hear there were about 99.

What is the government doing to correct the inmate-staff ratio and ensure the safety of corrections officers who work on the front line?

[1540]

Hon. M. Morris: Just an interesting statistic. Since 2012 the number of staff days that have been lost because of violence have decreased by 55 percent.

Officers that are working in these areas…. There are staff that rotate in and out regularly from the units. At any given time, that number varies. Program and staff supervisors frequent the areas with unscheduled visits.

The control room staff can monitor every part of the correctional facility at any given time, both through audio means and CCTV. The corrections officers in the units are situated so that they can look into every single unit to ensure that everybody’s doing what they’re supposed to be doing there.

Some of the other things that we’re also doing proactively…. We’re continuing to ensure staff communications about violent inmates, during muster meetings. We continue to take measures to minimize proximity between staff and inmates who are known to be violent towards staff. We ensure that facility design is optimized to prevent incidents and use other tools to mitigate contact, such as meal-delivery services, etc.

We work closely with Crown counsel and police to lay criminal charges when appropriate. We are working with the union at all times to develop a victim-impact statement for incidents that occur within the correctional facilities there — and incidents have on staff and the importance of having the consequences match the seriousness of the offences. We’re working with the unions on all those aspects that we have there.

The staff-to-inmate ratio is not based on prison populations, because that fluctuates on a daily basis, by significant numbers in some cases. The design of the facility, the rotating staff and the way the staff are placed ensure the ultimate safety of both the corrections officers and the inmates themselves.

M. Farnworth: Can the minister tell us the number, in 2014 and 2015, of incidents of inmate-on-inmate violence and the other rate of incidents of inmate violence involving staff for those two years?

[1545]

Hon. M. Morris: The incidents of inmate-on-inmate assaults in 2014 were 535 and in 2015 were 770. Our prisoner count in 2014 was around 2,400, and it went up to 2,600 in 2015.

M. Farnworth: That’s roughly, I’d say, not quite a 50 percent increase. That’s a significant increase. I guess the question I have is…. When you see that kind of increase, that should be sending a message. When you see
[ Page 13155 ]
the kind of increase that there is on corrections officers, that’s sending a message.

I understand what the minister is saying — that since 2012, the number of days lost is down 50 percent. But the reality is that depending on the nature of those assaults, that lost time could, in fact, be quite serious. The individual could be quite seriously hurt, so the lost-time issue is not necessarily reflective of the nature of the assault. It’s not necessarily reflective of the nature of what took place.

As a result, I think the question is still legitimate. What steps is government taking to ensure that that ratio does not get out of hand? The minister has in the past said, for example, that safety is not an issue in any of the correctional facility centres that we have in B.C. The minister has said that the rise in incidents is, in part, because of the new cells that have been added.

Yet, when you look at that figure of incidents of inmate-on-inmate assaults, let’s say, it’s not quite 50 percent between 2014 and 2015, for example. Are there almost 50 percent more cells? Are there almost 50 percent more inmates provincewide? We’ve had a 10 percent increase in the number of inmates — roughly, 2,400 to 2,600.

There’s something there that the minister needs to be aware of. There’s clearly an issue that says that violence is an issue, and it’s a problem that needs to be taken seriously. What additional steps is the ministry taking to tackle this issue? What additional funding is being put in place to ensure that corrections officers are fully supported and that violence goes down, not up, as is the trend that we seem to be seeing?

[1550]

Hon. M. Morris: It is a concern. Staff are always monitoring the reasons.

One of the most significant things that we’ve done — it’s taken awhile to get there — is build the OCC, the Okanagan correctional centre. It’s going to alleviate populations, spread the populations out a little bit more and provide another tool for corrections officers to ensure that rivals are separated, to ensure that those that have a pretext of violence and whatnot are kept in facilities that have lower counts and are better to handle those types of prisoners.

The complexities associated with it are determined in the risk assessment. There’s continual work with staff and the union in order to come up with mitigating strategies. There’s also a comprehensive case management plan in place for those prisoners that have the tendency towards violence. Prisoners who have previously assaulted peace officers or showed little disregard for authority are flagged as well. There are a lot of steps being taken to try and mitigate that.

M. Farnworth: I appreciate what the minister is saying about the fact that you’ve got the Okanagan facility coming on board. But the reality — what the minister has been telling us — is that there the ratio going to be about 1 to 72, which is a far cry increase from where we were, let’s say, back in 2002, when it was 1 to 20. I’d be interested in knowing the minister’s thoughts on how a 1-to-72 ratio — one corrections officer and 72 inmates — is better than 1 to 20?

Hon. M. Morris: Again, I don’t know where the member is getting the figure of 1 to 72. The staffing ratios are not predicated upon the numbers of prisoners. Like I said earlier, that number fluctuates on some days, you know, well into the hundreds.

[1555]

It’s the design of the facility. It’s the risk assessment that’s done on every prisoner that has come in to ensure that they’re placed in the most optimum place that they can to lower the advent of further violence and whatnot.

There are a number of factors that are taken into consideration, and it’s being modified as we go along as well. Gang affiliation is something that we have more intelligence on today than we did five years ago.

M. Farnworth: The minister is saying that 1 to 72 isn’t going to be the case in the Okanagan. I get that there is some fluctuation that takes place, but there must be an understanding…. In fact, more than an understanding, I would suggest that there must be a firm idea of what that ratio is going to be.

If it’s not 1 to 72 over the course of the year, what is the government expecting the ratio of corrections officers to inmates going to be?

Hon. M. Morris: I’m told that most incidents occur when there’s more than one staff present. We’re not looking at the staff to prisoner ratio.

We’re looking at…. At any given time within the system, all prisoners are under surveillance through the corrections officer in the living unit, through the CCTV system that we have, through audio. There are a number of factors there with rotating staff. There are constant high levels of supervision throughout the entire correctional centre that monitor the activities of all the inmates at any given time.

M. Farnworth: I appreciate those remarks from the minister, but it wasn’t exactly the question I asked. I know it’s been a while, but I remember once sitting around a cabinet table and discussing these kinds of issues. I know that staff will be able to tell you. What is the ratio?

It has been accepted…. Back in 2002, it was 1 to 20. In previous estimates debate, there has been confirmation of the fact that that ratio has increased significantly — that, on average, it’s 1 to 45.

I understand what the minister is saying — that it does vary. But the new facility coming on in the Okanagan…. The numbers have been out in the media. The numbers
[ Page 13156 ]
have been out in the public discussion, which is that it is 1 to 72. There’s been no comment from the ministry — under yourself or the previous minister, when we had this discussion last year — to suggest anything that that number is not correct.

The ministry must have an idea of what is going to be, over the course of the year, the average corrections officer to inmate ratio — whether it’s 1 to 20 or 1 to 45 or 1 to 72. If the minister would have a firmer number, I would appreciate that.

Hon. M. Morris: As I’ve said, we’re not going by the ratios. Maybe back in 2002 that was something that was looked at here. But with the design of the facility and the way the facilities are operated — with the closed circuit television, with the risk assessments that are done on all the prisoners — the staff to prisoner ratio is no longer applicable.

[1600]

There are all kinds of measures in place to ensure the safety of the corrections staff and the prisoners themselves, just through the design of the area, the technology that’s involved, the rotating staff, the supervisors — all have a role to play in ensuring the safety of the corrections officers and inmates at any given time.

M. Farnworth: Rotating staff is not new. Technology is not new. CCTV is not new. It may be better in terms of a sharper image, but it’s not new.

Historically, in estimates, not even 2002 but in previous years — 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015 — the issue has come up. Clearly, it’s important in the sense that you’re able to compare what is happening today with what has happened in the past. We know that when we went from, for example, double-bunking…. You put some serious stresses and the potential for serious stresses in our corrections facilities. Many of these issues have been outlined in the Auditor General’s report.

I will try one more time. If it’s not 1 in 72 at Okanagan and I’m wrong, the minister can tell me that. If that is the case, then…. There must be a number. The idea that the ministry does not know what the average is going to be over the course of a year I find inconceivable.

I understand if the ministry doesn’t want to say what it is. But the fact is I’m asking the question: what is the average ratio going to be over the course of a year?

Hon. M. Morris: If we look at the OCC, there are 378 cells and 240 corrections staff in there. I don’t know what the ratio would be at the end of the day. Like I said, those numbers fluctuate. So you could have 378 inmates in there. You could have slightly more than that in there. To arrive at an average, we’ll have to watch the OCC operate for a period of time before we can make a determination of what the average count might be in that.

When we look at all the other facilities and all the other cells that we’ve added across the province here, there are significant fluctuations on a daily basis.

M. Farnworth: Knowing that time is limited, I will move on a little bit. I will just make this point. There has been a standard series of numbers that has been part of estimates debate now for quite some time. I think it’s important in terms of the discussion and the conversation around the safety of corrections officers in our facilities in this province that we have an understanding of what those numbers are. I’m disappointed that we’re not going to be able to find that out today.

I will move on to another area that the minister has referenced in terms of why — and these are my words — the minister feels that that is not important in terms of the issue around safety of corrections officers in corrections facilities. That is going to…. The minister has stated in the past that it’s the design of the facility and the fact that facilities are better designed these days and that there are different ways of managing either high-risk or particularly violent individuals.

I’d like to go to the Throness report. The third recommendation of the Throness report states: “It is recommended that the capacity levels of inmate units and the opening and closing of those units be adjusted accordingly to mitigate safety issues.” That speaks directly to what the minister was just talking about in his answer and response to my questions about the ratio, which was: “That’s not really what you need to think about because we design our facilities better.”

My understanding is that there are currently four closed living units in Surrey Pretrial and two in Vancouver Island Regional. These are the most recent figures from the minister. B.C.’s nine facilities are operating at about 134 percent of capacity.

[1605]

If the ratio doesn’t matter because what’s important is that we have these better designed facilities, can the minister explain why the four units in Surrey Pretrial and the two in Vancouver Island Regional are closed?

Hon. M. Morris: The four units closed in Surrey are being redesigned and modified to address complex cases, and we’re hoping to have those reopened again within the year. We’re only aware of one in the Vancouver Island centre, and that’s undergoing modifications and redesign as well. Hopefully that will be done within the next year.

With respect to the capacity, 134 percent of capacity, that indicates that 34 percent of the cells…. All cells are double-bunked or have the capacity, but 34 percent of the second bunks in the cells are being utilized. When they’re filled is done on a risk-assessment basis so that inmates that are placed together in those units are compatible, and there’s no risk of violence.
[ Page 13157 ]

M. Farnworth: Last year’s Auditor General report was critical of the regular practice of packing our correctional facilities far above capacity, especially when facilities were not designed to accommodate any more inmates. According to B.C. Corrections’ own literature, prison overcrowding can adversely affect the staff and inmates. This includes greater challenges separating incompatible inmates; reduced opportunities for rehabilitative, training, educational and recreational programming; increased tension and risk of conflict between inmates and staff; and higher rates of illness and suicide amongst inmates.

What action has been taken on last year’s Auditor General report in terms of addressing its recommendations?

[1610]

Hon. M. Morris: We’ve completed one, and we’ve made progress on all the rest.

M. Farnworth: I’ll just ask for right now: what’s the one that’s been completed?

Hon. M. Morris: Recommendation No. 3, with respect to forecasting methods.

M. Farnworth: In terms of forecasting measures, is this dealing with the Auditor General’s finding in their report?

“The division could not demonstrate that it is analyzing trends over time or the differences between facilities — i.e., the number of incidents occurring and why — to identify how differences in operation, design or occupancy contribute to safety and security of incidents. Specifically, the division has not evaluated how the current occupancy rate of 140 percent, or its target of 119 percent, affects safety.”

Is that the one the minister is referring to as having been completed?

Hon. M. Morris: Recommendation No. 3: “Develop and implement an approach to forecasting facility space and program needs that account for the complexity of the inmate population, such as changes in population groups or shifts in population trends.”

We validated and monitored our long-term forecasting methods with outside agencies such as B.C. Stats and Simon Fraser University. We focused on the Simon Fraser University work on simulation modelling to forecast the number and complexities of inmate population, and we’ve enhanced our short-term forecasting methodology.

M. Farnworth: What the minister is saying then is that we are now analyzing trends over time and the differences between the different facilities — I see he is nodding on that — and that we are now able to identify how the differences in operation, design or occupancy contribute to safety and security incidents. Is that what the minister is saying?

Hon. M. Morris: Yes. That’s what I’m saying. As a result, in fiscal year 2014-15 we ended up within 2 percent of our forecasted count.

M. Farnworth: A key part of this, in terms of the working environment of our correctional facilities, is a sense that they are safe, that the measures are being taken into account when identified in terms of the Auditor General’s report, that the ministry is paying attention in terms of the design of the facilities.

Does the ministry track retention or turnover of numbers amongst corrections facilities staff, and if so, could the minister provide them?

[1615]

Hon. M. Morris: In 2015, there were 123 correctional staff. That included retirements and transfers to other government branches. In 2016, through to the end of March in 2016, there were 37 correctional staff that left the division. We’ve not seen any unusual increases in staff departure from the division at all. That’s out of a total of over 1,607 correctional facilities staff.

M. Farnworth: Would you be able to provide us with the net staffing level changes in each of the province’s correctional facilities over the last five years? That doesn’t have to necessarily be for today. If the minister can provide that, I’d be interested in that.

Hon. M. Morris: Yes.

M. Farnworth: Thank you. We’ve had a discussion around the nature of our corrections facilities in terms of the safety issues, in terms of some of the trends on those safety issues that I think it’s critical that the government has to continue working on. I’m concerned about the issue around the ratio of corrections officers to inmates. I think that is important in terms of the discussion both internally and externally.

I would encourage the minister to…. Let’s put it this way. We’ve had 1 to 20, 1 to 45, and we’ve had 1 to 72. That’s certainly the case…. That’s the number that’s been there for the Okanagan facility. If it’s not, I’d like to know what it is. Surrey Pretrial has been as high as 1 to 72 as well, and there have been real issues around overcrowding there.

The minister has announced and said that the $23 million…. Yes, it’s over three years, but the goal is to get people off the streets. That means more people in our facilities. Many of those have gang affiliations. Those provide additional stresses on the system. So when the minister says that design is a key part of that, I want to make sure that that is clearly being followed on. I’m interested in any updates the minister can give me in terms of what’s happening with those particular units in Surrey, the ones that are being redesigned, as to when they’re coming on.
[ Page 13158 ]

A key part of this whole thing, in terms of the use of the facilities and the nature of the facilities, around safety is some of the people who are in there. In 2012, the then Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General said that the ministry does not track gang affiliations for incoming inmates.

Given the focus…. Yes, I know. I saw the minister’s…. But that was, in fact, what the minister said.

Given that the focus of the ministry and the additional resources has been around gang violence and the need in this province to get gang members off the streets, behind bars where they belong, what steps has the ministry taken…? Or have they become more proactive in tracking gang affiliations amongst people coming into facilities and once they’re in facilities? What steps have taken place since 2012?

[1620]

Hon. M. Morris: Inmate affiliation is tracked. It’s part of the corrections database system and has been for a number of years. In addition to that, there is the Real Time Intelligence Centre, which is the RCMP headquarters in Surrey where they work with all the police departments in the Lower Mainland.

Corrections has a full-time position within RTIC. All inmates that are being admitted during the day are monitored by this individual who checks all the other intelligence that’s currently going on within the police universes to confirm affiliations, keeping in mind that the affiliations change. You might belong to one gang, and then your allegiance might change the next week or the next month, and you end up belonging to another gang. That’s where the importance of the Real Time Intelligence Centre comes in with Corrections.

M. Farnworth: Can the minister tell us whether the budget for that has remained static, or is it increasing? I mean, it would strike me, given the fact that we have this initiative and what’s been taking place in Surrey going on, that you would have additional resources to make sure that you’ve got the latest intelligence and you’ve got the staff in place to be able to do what needs to be done in terms of assessments.

Hon. M. Morris: We’ve added two new positions within Corrections to monitor the intelligence-gathering aspect of it and make sure that that information is available to all of the officers involved in the risk assessments for new inmates coming in. The information that they have is up to date and connected right into the RTIC centre as well as to the database so that everybody has benefit of the information.

M. Farnworth: So two positions have been added. The reason I asked that is because on April 17 of this year, an inmate at the North Fraser Pretrial was beaten to death in a gang-related assault. That raises two questions. Obviously, how could this happen in terms of an assessment and in terms of: is it working the way that it should? The other is, also, if we have all these CCTV cameras so that you’re watching everything, how do these events take place? I mean, that’s pretty serious — to beat somebody to death.

[1625]

Again, it comes back to the questions around the levels of staffing and the ability to actually be able to monitor everything that’s taking place. I’d like some comment from the minister on that.

Additionally, the two new hires — are they there to deal with existing capacity? Or are they there to deal with the fact that we know that Okanagan is coming on stream and, in fact, they’re going to have to deal with that facility? Or will there be additional staff coming on to deal with the Okanagan facility?

Hon. M. Morris: For any serious incident that takes place in any correctional facility across the province where there’s significant injury or death, there is a review done of that. It examines all the facts of the incident, the relevant history, possible causes and, where appropriate, makes recommendations so that we can reduce the likelihood of something happening in the future.

The review process has not been complete for that particular one, as I understand it. We exercise due diligence in all the classification processes for all inmates coming into any of the correctional facilities that we have to try and mitigate any of those types of incidents from occurring.

With respect to your second question, one of the new positions has taken into account the Okanagan correctional facility and the added workload that’s added to that particular facility.

M. Farnworth: I’d like to switch the focus now a little bit from just corrections officers to, I think, one of the key challenges that our corrections facilities face — and that is, too often they’re becoming, in essence, a de facto mental health facility. The number of people in them because of mental health issues has risen significantly.

I’d like to quote from the Throness report, which was released two years ago and called for action to better resource, coordinate the provision of mental health care to people in corrections facilities.

In that report, it said:

“Across the board, I heard that staff and stakeholders alike are encountering increased numbers of those suffering from mental health disorders — people they are not qualified to deal with. The best number we have is an old one. In 2008, it was estimated that 56 percent of the corrections population suffer from a diagnosed mental health disorder on its own or concurrent with an addiction.

“This translates to a significant amount of people in our institutions. From further discussions with staff and stakeholders, I would estimate that within this population, 56 percent is an underestimate and that there’s a larger number on any given day with more severe conditions.”
[ Page 13159 ]

[D. McRae in the chair.]

This is based on a 2008 number. This report is two years old. Are these numbers still accurate or consistent? Have they gone up, or have they gone down? What has the minister been doing to address this recommendation?

[1630]

Hon. M. Morris: What we have done is we’ve developed protocols of strength in the cross-ministry services to address individuals’ mental health at key transition points, so when they come in and out of corrections. We’ve got integrated teams — the downtown community court, the Vancouver intensive supervision unit, the drug treatment court of Vancouver and the Victoria Integrated Community. So there’s a lot of integration with different ministry people that we have out there.

We’ve got dedicated resources working with various ministries — the Ministry of Health authorities, Social Development and Social Innovation, and police agencies — to make sure that there’s somebody there for these individuals when they’re either released or are coming into the centre.

Every person admitted to a provincial correctional centre is subject to a mental health screening within 24 hours of admission. Each centre has a mental health liaison officer who is a correctional officer with specialized training in managing inmates with mental health disorders. And the….

Interjections.

The Chair: Members, I’m just making sure we have quiet so we can hear the question and the answer.

Hon. M. Morris: There are a number of initiatives that are taking place to address the inmates with mental health. In 2015, there was an SFU study that indicated that 60 percent of inmates have a diagnosis of mental health issues.

M. Farnworth: At the very least, the number is either static or has increased slightly since the Throness report and the number in 2008. Obviously, this is a critical issue that needs attention. Corrections officers have to deal with obviously complex situations in terms of the inmates. You have people in there with gang issues. You have people with addictions and mental health issues. There’s quite a range.

In terms of the assessment and the ability to determine who should be going where, that’s a fairly complex process. We’ve talked about the issue around the tracking of gangs and the people who are doing that and the fact that there are an additional two coming onto that. But a key part, in terms of mental health, is that screening that takes place at that contact point when the individual enters the facility. Who does that screening? Who is the individual that does that screening when that first contact point takes place?

[1635]

Hon. M. Morris: They’re screened by mental health workers. Anybody who needs further assessment is referred to a psychologist or to a physician.

M. Farnworth: Can the minister tell us how many people do the screening at Surrey Pretrial and North Fraser Pretrial please?

Hon. M. Morris: We’ll have to get back to you with those numbers, but we’ll do that in the next day or so.

M. Farnworth: Well, my expectation is that these estimates will probably be going into tomorrow morning. If we could have them before then, that would be really great. If we’re on that, how about the number of full-time nurses, RPNs and LPNs at both North Fraser Pretrial and Surrey Pretrial Centre? That would be most welcome.

In terms of the number of fatalities that have occurred at both these institutions in the last two years, or breaking it down on a year-by-year basis, can the minister provide us with that figure today? If not, tomorrow would be great.

Hon. M. Morris: In total for all correctional facilities in 2015, there were three. It could be natural causes. It could be a drug overdose. It could be suicide. We’re not sure of the actual causes with the information that we have here right now.

M. Farnworth: Is the minister able to tell me today, or does he need to get back to me on the information…? In terms of the individuals who do the screening, is that seven days a week? Is it Monday to Friday? Is it the same screening process at both North Fraser and Surrey Pretrial Centre? If you’re able to answer that now….

Hon. M. Morris: Yeah. They work seven days a week, and the assessments are done within 24 hours.

M. Farnworth: What happens if somebody comes in and you’re not able to do an assessment within the 24 hours? Are they kept segregated for that time? Or are they put in with the general population?

[1640]

I guess the point I’m getting at is if the issue around violence, as the minister stated, is basically putting people in the right place in the right facility…. In terms of gang members, that means screening, and obviously, with individuals with mental health issues, it’s important to understand what those are. Until you get that assessment done, you don’t know, and that creates a risk. So
[ Page 13160 ]
the question is: what happens with that individual until they are assessed?

Hon. M. Morris: It depends on the information that accompanies the inmate to that particular facility. They could be put in segregation until they’re properly assessed. They could be put into a living unit during the assessment process itself. A lot of it depends on what kind of information comes with the inmate when they attend the correctional facility.

M. Farnworth: I think the critical case on that is the information that comes with the individual, because the decisions that are made at that point are crucial in terms of what happens over the next few days. That’s why I’m asking the questions around the screening that takes place, how often the screening takes place, when that screening takes place and if the systems are the same in both the North Fraser and the Surrey pretrial centres.

A key part of that is also ensuring that the protocols are followed and that transitional resources are there in place. So the question is: has the funding for these particular areas remained static? Has it increased? Are there budgetary increases? It strikes me that if we’ve got these new units coming on and we’ve got the new facilities coming on, you’ve got to have an increase in resources to be able to do that. If the minister could answer that.

Hon. M. Morris: In Surrey, we’ve added three new nurse positions to deal with the increase in population there. The OCC, the Okanagan correctional centre, also has allocation for health care services there. Every one of the correctional centres has medical, health care facilities in them.

M. Farnworth: Who provides the health care services? Is it done through the ministry, or is it contracted out? Who’s got the current contract?

Hon. M. Morris: Currently it’s contracted to a private service provider, where it will be in a transition. The Okanagan correctional facility will be under the province, and all of the other correctional facilities will be transitioned into the provincial health care.

M. Farnworth: Health services will be provided under the province at the Okanagan. There’s a transition for the other. That includes, I guess, all the pretrial facilities and all the provincial correction facilities. That would be correct?

The Chair: At this time, the committee will take a ten-minute recess until 4:55 p.m.

The committee recessed from 4:45 p.m. to 4:55 p.m.

[D. McRae in the chair.]

B. Ralston: I want to ask a few questions about the Community Safety Act. I understand that’s in the jurisdiction of the minister and falls within the jurisdiction of this appropriations vote.

I have a copy. I’m just going to table it. I have a couple of copies here of the Community Safety Act, printed from B.C. Laws, which I retrieved this morning, which says that it’s not in force. If I could just table that as a document…. I have a couple of copies over there, just so that it’s clear.

There is a bit of a background to this bill, which I have some personal interest in. Back in 2009, I tabled a bill entitled the Safer Communities and Neighbourhoods Act as a private member’s bill. It was modelled on similar legislation in other Canadian provinces — in Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Alberta, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and the Yukon.

What the legislation proposed to do was…. Rather than use police resources directly and invoke the criminal standard to deal with what are sometimes, in neighbourhoods, called problem houses, where there might be an ongoing operation selling drugs or other criminal or quasi-criminal activities taking place, this gives certain legislative tools that would empower officials to seek a court order from the B.C. Supreme Court to compel certain compliance, and in the extreme case of a very bad landlord, shut the residence down — with some recognition of how displaced tenants might be dealt with.

That went forward in 2009. But prior to the 2013 election, the government introduced the legislation that I’ve just tabled the title of — the Community Safety Act. The minister then acknowledged that it was based on the bill that I had tabled in 2009, and all the reasons that I have just articulated were adopted by the minister as a reason to set this particular piece of legislation in motion. However, the bill has never been proclaimed, and in fact, there are instances where such legislation would have been very helpful.

In Surrey, in my community — and in fact, in my riding — there is an action taken, very unusually, by the city to enforce its own zoning bylaws, where the landlord is accused, essentially, of operating a lodging house without a licence. Of course, that is, I suppose, a legal description of what is going on in the sense of ongoing criminal activity. Hundreds of police calls are well documented. These are documented in lengthy affidavits filed in the B.C. Supreme Court.

The process has been intensely frustrating to neighbours who follow this closely. In fact, one neighbour, whose property directly overlooks one of the offending properties, made numerous approaches to me about the enforcement of that. The matter is still before the courts now, I think in the Court of Appeal. That’s the legal process — very protracted and very difficult to get results in that forum. This legislation would abbreviate that process and make it relatively straightforward to get an order within a short period of time.
[ Page 13161 ]

Just to add some political interest, in addition to Surrey, there was also a story about a property in Chilliwack, on Rotary Street, which…. There was the usual litany of neighbourhood complaints about crime and violence escalating.

“Neighbours have endured brawls, yelling, suspected drug dealings and sketchy characters coming in and out at all hours. Over a ten-hour period on April 11” — that’s April 11 of last year — “video surveillance recorded 166 visitors. Police are called to the house regularly. Syringes sometimes litter the sidewalk and lawns.

“About two weeks ago, the police swarmed the house, guns drawn, chasing someone, said Elizabeth Hoffmann, who lives across the street with her husband, Cory, and their ten-month-old baby.”

[1700]

The same question was posed to the ministry: why wasn’t the legislation implemented? From what I understand, it would be relatively simple to share some of the resources of the civil forfeiture office and implement the legislation. The only response from the ministry, in the story, was: “The Justice Ministry said there is no set timeline for implementation.”

Can the minister advise why this legislation has not been implemented?

The Chair: For clarity, to the member for Surrey-Whalley, you did ask to table a document. I think if you wish to table a document, we can do so when we report back to the Legislature. If your purpose was to make sure that the minister has access to that document, we have done so now.

B. Ralston: Thank you, Mr. Chair. That’s simply physical evidence that, in fact, this legislation has not been proclaimed should, in the very unlikely event, my word be challenged by members opposite.

The Chair: Thank you very much. We have shared that with the minister.

Hon. M. Morris: We’re not planning on bringing this legislation forward at any time in the foreseeable future here. We’re encouraging municipalities to use the existing mechanisms that they have and the existing mechanisms that the police in their communities have.

B. Ralston: Well, that’s disappointing, and I’m sure that when the minister’s decision is publicized, as I fully intend to do, in Surrey, that will be greeted with dismay. This is a legislative solution that the government itself committed to in 2013 — the government itself. It’s not just an opposition bill; it’s a government bill that is on the books.

No reason is advanced. I’ve given one example of…. What the minister says should happen is that municipalities should spend, from their budgets, money to go to court in a protracted, lengthy, inefficient, frustrating legal process.

In the case of the two houses that I’m talking about… In one, it’s alleged that a murder even took place. There’s no doubt that these locations are criminogenic locations within the community, that the landlord is a bad landlord — a very rare species, admittedly, but a bad landlord. The municipality has, very unusually, taken those steps to do it, and the evidence is there.

[1705]

They’re still in court. It’s literally years later. It’s cold comfort to the neighbourhood, cold comfort to residents in the area, and it’s cold comfort to municipalities that, I know, would prefer a much more efficient and direct process.

Other than just announcing the decision, can the minister explain the reasoning or give reasons why the government has refused to implement a piece of legislation that they thought important enough to pass and put on the books back in 2013?

Hon. M. Morris: One of the reasons that it hasn’t been implemented so far is the fiscal realities of this kind of program and enforcing this particular program. There’s a lot of dollars involved in it. But at the same time, we’ve had to risk, adding more money to policing budgets and to policing right across this province, where we feel we’re going to get the biggest bang for the buck, so to speak. We’ve been putting our money into gangs and guns and those strategies to try and reduce those incidents across the province.

B. Ralston: Well, the minister mentions police budgets. In the case of Surrey, there are at least 100 police visits. Those don’t come free. Those come out of municipal police budgets.

In the case of the place on Rotary Street in Chilliwack — where the minister may have a more sympathetic view, given that it’s held by a B.C. Liberal — 161 visits in, I think, over the course of a 12-hour period, documented by surveillance, and then an endless number of police calls. These locations have a huge impact on police budgets. So to suggest that somehow it’s not going to save money to do it…. By focusing resources on this, police budgets will be assisted.

The minister often cites his own police experience. I’m sure that for the police members who attend there regularly, there’s nothing more frustrating than repeated, endless calls to a problem location that everyone recognizes is a problem location where there is no legal or administrative solution in sight. Given that this is not something that I dreamed up and the government has adopted it — it’s adopted in other provinces across the country — can the minister advise what work…?

In talking about the fiscal realities of this, has there been any contact with any other jurisdictions — at least, the prairie jurisdictions of Alberta, Manitoba, Saskatchewan — to get an estimate of costs? From the reports that I recall from doing the research, this was es-
[ Page 13162 ]
sentially a legal mechanism that would be rarely used but would be something that would lever solutions. When the landlord is confronted with the legal reality of the property being shut down — and boarded up, in very extreme cases — and all rent revenue disappearing, compliance was somehow, not surprisingly, easier to get. You had the threat of closure, which was used as a lever in negotiation. So it’s hard to believe that….

[1710]

Given that the police are already there, already making calls, already going to the location, already completing reports — endless reports of call after call after call — the difference in time to put together those reports into a separate document to make an application before the court would be an additional increment, yes, but not starting from scratch.

I don’t accept the minister’s reasoning, and I don’t understand why there’s such resistance from him, the ministry and the government to the idea that neighbourhoods in our province should be safer.

Hon. M. Morris: There was consultation done with other jurisdictions across the country as to how those particular units work. They do require substantive investigative abilities and resources in order to do that.

In measuring the outcome that we would get as a police force across the Lower Mainland and throughout B.C. here, our dollars were put into CFSEU — close to $70 million into that on an annual basis — to investigate gangs and guns in the province and try and mitigate the impact that that kind of activity has had across the province on street-level drug trafficking.

B. Ralston: Well, in many cases, the overlap between problem properties such as the ones I’m talking about would be almost 100 percent, because they would be being used as crack shacks or sale depots for drugs or guns. It’s not a completely different world. It’s part of the same type of investigation.

The minister mentions consultation. Presumably, given that the government passed the legislation after doing its consultation, they were not deterred by the resources that were proposed for the implementation of this legislation.

Will the minister commit today — usually I’d like to say 30 days from today’s date; 30 calendar days, not working days — to release the documents that demonstrate the costs that were disclosed during the consultation prior to this legislation being passed? Or do I have to go to FOI to get it?

Hon. M. Morris: What we’ll do is check with the other jurisdictions that were involved in our discussions, and we will provide you an answer in writing as to whether there would be an agreement with releasing the information that they provided us as well.

[1715]

B. Ralston: Well, given that it’s public budgetary information, I can’t imagine that there would be any problem in releasing it. If this is simply a delay tactic, I think it’s regrettable.

Is there not a compilation of the information received? I can’t imagine why it would be confidential, given that it would be simply raw estimates of costs without appropriating between whether it’s confidential or undercover surveillance or anything like that that might be necessary. So I find the reasoning there murky at least.

If I might say, then, given that the government clearly did consultations, consulted with other provinces, had a sense of the scope fiscally that the legislation would cost, why did the government then pass the legislation? It’s very unusual, in my experience —and it’s limited; I haven’t been here that long — to pass legislation with great fanfare, to acknowledge the wisdom of it and make some very strong statements about the value of the legislation, then turn around and not implement it and now completely balk at implementing it at all.

Can the minister explain why that is the case? Was it just simply…? I mean, one can speculate, I suppose, about what takes place in the minds of the cabinet members before an election, but perhaps the minister can explain that.

Hon. M. Morris: Just going to the first part, for any information that we have in our possession that was originated by another agency, we need to check with them first before we can release that.

Then going to the second part of your question, it’s a risk management issue for us. Where do we get the biggest bang for the dollars that we invest in policing? Do we get it through CFSEU and some of the other strategies that we’ve implemented across the province, or do we get it through this particular bill here? The risk management assessment that we did indicated that we’d get the biggest bang for our buck out of the CFSEU and other strategies that we have.

B. Ralston: The minister refers to “risk management” and some weighing of alternatives. Is that reduced to a document? Is the minister prepared to release that document? If so, can he tell me when that document was compiled, what the date is on it? Because it’ll be easier for me when I have to make my freedom-of-information request, if he fails to disclose it.

Hon. M. Morris: As with all discussions on budgets over the years, it’s a decision that individual agencies make as to how they’re going to spend the dollars that are available to them. Oftentimes, the indicators are that we’ll spend it on one program or another. We’ve chosen to spend it on other programs at this particular time.

B. Ralston: Well, clearly, the minister has not grappled with the tougher question, which is: why was the
[ Page 13163 ]
legislation passed in the first place? I could understand if, in a risk management tool…. I’m not sure what’s being referred to here, other than just a discussion. It doesn’t seem like it has been documented.

Perhaps the minister could confirm: first of all, is there a document that weighs the relative efficacy or achievement of the goals that are set out for the ministry, comparing this program or this legislation against any other? Is there such a document, and is it available for release to myself as a member of the official opposition?

Hon. M. Morris: Like I said, we’ve chosen to invest the dollars that we have into the active programs that we have right across the province. We’re going to continue to invest in them until some other program indicates that it might, perhaps, be more feasible for us to do so. In the interim, we’ve got our gangs and guns strategy that we feel is effective. We’re putting our resources into that, and I’m looking forward to some positive outcomes from that.

B. Ralston: Once again, the minister didn’t answer the question. Is there a document that records this weighing of alternatives? Typically, I know it might be confined to advice to the minister on occasion, but at some very basic level, there would be some assessment obviously after the legislation was passed and not proclaimed. Clearly, the government had it in the budget, was prepared to do it and passed the legislation with great fanfare. Subsequently, there’s been a decision that now makes the minister balk.

[1720]

Is there a document that sets out the risk-balancing, as the minister calls it? One doesn’t want to be cynical about this, but the suggestion seems to be that there was some considered weighing of alternatives here. Is there a document that sets that out that can be released?

Hon. M. Morris: This was a decision that was made three years ago. The decision for ’15-16, for our budget year, is based on the strategy of gangs and guns, and we’re going to put our effort into gangs and guns. The decision that was made in 2013 was made in 2013. I’m still concentrating on the gangs and guns strategy for 2015-2016.

B. Ralston: Let me read to the minister a quotation from the then Minister of Justice and Attorney General, now the Minister of Jobs, his seatmate from Prince George, about this legislation.

“This legislation is about giving people a simple, timely, safe way to report properties of concern and help make their streets safer. Our approach is based on one that’s dealt with hundreds of problem properties in communities across Canada, without tying up court resources and without creating safety concerns for those who file complaints. Obviously, we still want people to report criminal activity to the police. But sometimes, for a variety of reasons, even if police do make arrests, problems just continue at a particular address.

“This proposed legislation will fill a gap, enhancing public safety by forcing landlords to deal with chronic, illegal and dangerous behaviour on their properties.”

That’s one of the minister’s predecessors, someone he’s very familiar with, who set that out. That was part of the rationale for this legislation. What is wrong with what she’s saying?

Hon. M. Morris: Again, I haven’t considered that particular legislation for the 2015-2016 budget. I think that we’re on the right track with the gangs and gun strategy, and I’m going to carry on with the direction that we’re headed at this particular time.

[1725]

B. Ralston: Clearly, unless the minister says otherwise, what the minister is doing is reputing his Prince George seatmate and the rationale that she gave publicly for this legislation. Unfortunately, I think that’s regrettable for the safety of many neighbourhoods in British Columbia. That’s all I have to say on this topic.

M. Farnworth: I have a couple of follow-up questions from what my colleague just said.

I’ve sat around the cabinet table, and I know how difficult it is to get legislation through. You don’t just, as a minister, come to cabinet and say: “Oh, I’ve got a bill, and let’s get it in the House next week.” It is a very intensive process where each ministry has all these legislative ideas. They get winnowed down through cabinet and caucus committee meetings in terms of the appropriateness of the legislation.

It works its way up to another final committee — a committee of cabinet, in many cases — that decides, particularly on a limited legislative calendar, what the priorities are that the government intends to follow. When a bill comes to the House from the executive council, it comes with some measure of having been considered as being crucial and critical to the government’s overall agenda.

On a bill like this, which is in response to public safety, which has been an issue in this province now for the last seven years, at least, and in particular, from communities such as Surrey, for example…. The government goes through the effort, time and resources to put in place a piece of legislation, draft it, put out a press release, have a photo op and then tell people: “Guess what. We’re taking action, and we’re doing something.” Then for it not to be proclaimed is really, to put it bluntly, cynical.

My colleague talked about what the former Minister of Justice, who had the combined Attorney General–Solicitor General portfolio, said.

The B.C. Association of Chiefs of Police has said: “This proposed legislation, if passed” — which it was — “would complement criminal investigations that focus on individuals who cause fear and direct harm to families going
[ Page 13164 ]
about their daily lives. Problem properties often occupy a disproportionate amount of police resources. Having new tools that compel property owners to be part of the solution will benefit public safety and police alike.”

That’s a police officer. That is the president of the association of chiefs of police saying that.

Local governments, which, apparently, were also consulted…. The mayor of Quesnel, president of the Union of B.C. Municipalities…. Again, it’s not just Surrey that this bill was intended to help, but right across the province.

To quote the mayor of Quesnel, Mary Sjostrom:

“Local governments have a limited range of tools to effectively deal with problem properties, so we asked the province to look at the existing legislation.

“The Community Safety Act would provide local governments with an additional tool to respond directly to residents’ concerns — one that would be backed with additional powers to promote responsible property ownership and safe communities.”

[G. Kyllo in the chair.]

Yes, gangs and guns are an issue, but problem properties like this are tied to that. My question to the minister is really simple. Was this just a photo op? Was this just to say: “We’re doing something”? Or was the mayor of Quesnel wrong? Is the Association of B.C. Chiefs of Police wrong? Was the Premier wrong when the government said: “Today’s introduction fulfils a families-first agenda commitment to propose such a law”?

Hon. M. Morris: Everything we do is based upon affordability and getting the best bang for your buck, as I’d mentioned earlier to the member from Surrey. This is the case in this respect. Our money is better spent in the gangs and guns strategy that we have today. That’s what I’m focusing my efforts on here today.

[1730]

There are mechanisms in place to deal with some of the issues that are around these types of buildings, which municipalities have access to and police have access to, but the money is better spent and invested into a gangs and guns strategy in order to mitigate the street-level activity that we have.

M. Farnworth: The problem with that is that you haven’t even given it a chance to succeed. Like, it wasn’t even a pilot project. It wasn’t even a pilot project, where you could say, “Okay. We’re going to try this for Surrey, for example. We’ll give it a year, and we’ll see if it works and whether or not we’ll take it provincewide.”

The government didn’t even do that. You held a press conference. You put out a press release. You said: “We are doing…. It’s a families-first-agenda commitment.”

You bring out the association of the chiefs of police. You get the president of the UBCM out. You give people, who are rightly concerned about what’s going on in their communities, a false sense of hope and optimism and a sense of: “You know what? Government is taking this seriously, and they’re being proactive.”

It was something that was supported by both sides of the House, and so the government says: “No, no. You know what? We’ve decided….” You don’t even proclaim it. It’s not even going to get to the cabinet table, to Treasury Board for some funding for the program.

I mean, really? That’s what this was all about? It was just to sort of say, “We’re doing something,” when, clearly, there was no intention of doing something. All those people were brought in and made those quotes just so the Premier could go and say: “Oh, yeah. We’re doing something. We passed this legislation.”

Does the minister not understand how the public sees that? Does the minister not understand that’s what people think is wrong? That’s why they’re skeptical when government makes announcements.

If the government had the confidence in its legislation, in the first place, they should have, at least, proclaimed it and, at least, funded it to find out exactly if it is either as effective as people thought it was or as ineffective as the minister seems to suggest that he thinks it would be?

[1735]

Hon. M. Morris: Again, that is not part of the funding for this year’s budget. We’re going to concentrate on our gangs and guns strategy. But at the same time I say that, municipalities have tools available to them in their own toolbox. It’s something that they might want to take another look at and use a little bit more rigorously than they might have used in the past.

M. Farnworth: I’m not going to belabour this, because we’ve got lots of other topics to cover. But I think what concerns me is that local government does have tools, but they’re not, in too many situations, the right tools.

This was seen as a way to give them tools that they don’t currently have and to allow them to deal with some specific problems around properties, around things that are fractious. We’ve all seen them. The police know what they’re like. Other jurisdictions have dealt with it. It looked like it was going to happen here, and I think it’s unfortunate that it’s not. That’s all I’ll say on that.

I’d now like to turn to some other issues that apply in Surrey but, I think, also apply provincewide. I’d like to talk now…. This is not a legislative initiative but rather a funding program in terms of budget, and that is the Wrap program in Surrey.

The Solicitor General has talked in the past, has commented about issues in terms of when gang members are arrested, there’s a vacuum that’s created. As a result, you take one group off the street and then there’s always…. Either they’re trying to recruit to fill that vacuum, or there are other people who are impressionable and young and are looking, going: “Oh, there’s an opportunity for
[ Page 13165 ]
me to engage in this lifestyle.” One of the reasons for the Wrap program has been to be able to deal with that problem and to fill that challenge.

Now, the government announced the one-time funding. Can the ministry tell us why it is not ongoing funding? If the program is as good as people say it is, if the program works in the way that, I think, the ministry has indicated it does and the funding was provided for, why is it not going forward on an ongoing basis as opposed to just one-time funding?

[1740]

Hon. M. Morris: So $2 million was provided for the youth gang prevention grants throughout B.C. in March 2016. Specifically, $100,000 was provided to the Surrey Wrap program, and it builds on the $270,000 that was committed by the province in April 2015 to enhance support for that particular program.

It’s been a successful program. The Surrey Wrap program will meet the criteria under the civil forfeiture program that we have here. Because youth gang prevention is a high priority for us, I think there’s a strong likelihood that they’ll receive civil forfeiture grants in the future.

M. Farnworth: The initial funding announced by the province was, in part, intended to deal with the wait-list that was in place. Can the minister tell us: has that wait-list been eliminated? If there is a wait-list, how big is it?

Hon. M. Morris: Yeah, the $100,000 was to go towards reducing that wait-list. I don’t have the up-to-date figures for you, but I will get them for you as to how many numbers that’s been reduced by.

M. Farnworth: I’d appreciate that. What I’m interested in is that at the time there was considerable concern about the size of the wait-list. The government announced that they were going to deal with that. They wanted to shrink it significantly. I think we’d like to see: has it been effective? What the wait-list is will allow us to do that.

I guess the follow-up question from that, of course, is that this is primarily focused in Surrey right now, but Surrey is not the only community dealing with gang violence, certainly not in the Lower Mainland and certainly not in other parts of British Columbia.

Is the government considering or are there plans to implement similar programs in other communities, whether it’s Prince George, Kelowna, Richmond, Abbotsford, the Tri-Cities or Vancouver, for example? Does the ministry have plans to put in place programs in other communities in B.C.?

[1745]

Hon. M. Morris: The Surrey Wrap program is a successful program. It’s showing significant results. We’ve provided $100,000 to other communities as well. We’ve got Abbotsford, Vancouver, Richmond, Burnaby, Maple Ridge, Tri-Cities area, Kelowna, greater Victoria and the Prince George–Vanderhoof area that have received funding for a similar type of Wrap program there.

M. Farnworth: When the minister says $100,000, is that $100,000 in total, or is it $100,000 per community?

Hon. M. Morris: It’s $100,000 per community.

M. Farnworth: Is the government doing assessments on the success of the program in those communities? Are there plans to make the Wrap program in those communities an ongoing program, or is this just one-time funding?

Hon. M. Morris: That was one-time funding, and there is a requirement for them to report back to us as to the successes that they’re achieving with that type program and how it has been utilized. But they have the opportunity to apply once again through the civil forfeiture office for funding for the next year, if the program is deemed to be successful and if it’s a priority for that particular community.

M. Farnworth: One of the things that does concern me — and I’m pleased that they have the ability to reapply if it’s successful — is: how does this fit in terms of the government’s, in terms of the ministry’s overall gang reduction strategy?

Obviously, at the top, you’ve got the top layer — those who are pulling the strings and the very organized criminal gangs that we’re familiar with, whether they’re Hells Angels or whatever. Then below that, you’ve got the mid-level and the street level, and it’s this recruitment process.

What I want to know is: how does this fit into your overall strategy? It strikes me that the key issues in terms of the strategy…. It’s got to be ongoing. It’s got to be sustained. It has to be resourced, and it cannot be for just the short term. In essence, if you’re going to really try and get a handle on this, you can’t ever let your foot off the throat.

I want to know how this fits in. It’s great that we’re saying: “Yes, you’ve got this funding” and “Yes, you can renew it.” But to me, what’s important is that we’re saying to communities: “Look. There’s funding here. We know this program works — in Surrey, for example. We are confident that it will work in your community, and we want to make this a sustained effort.”

Explain to me how the current approach that you’re doing does just that.

[1750]

Hon. M. Morris: There’s no base funding for that particular Wrap program at this particular time. It is a successful program. It has been funded for the last four years,
[ Page 13166 ]
is my understanding, and we’ll continue to give it a high priority in the funding through the civil forfeiture office grants that we administer every year.

It’s in addition, though, to…. CFSEU has positions available, too, and they’re working full-time on ending gang life for youth. So it’s complementary to that. We’ve also provided $950,000 for smaller grants to 50 smaller communities throughout British Columbia to look at youth involved in gangs throughout the province here.

It’s a successful program. It’s something that we’re going monitor very closely and determine…. Upon the success that we see over the coming years, down the road, it could end up being something that we’ll base fund, going into the future. But it is complementary to what CFSEU does right now and a lot of the other work that we do throughout the province.

M. Farnworth: These programs are primarily aimed at school-age youth who are deemed at high risk, and that’s great. That’s important. But what happens after high school? What happens after grade 11 or 12? Are there gaps in the system that need to be addressed? What is the government’s strategy for dealing with those young people? Clearly, at that point….

For want of a better term, if you’re not careful, it’s kind of like aging out of care. “Oh, sorry. We’ve got no resources, and you’re now over 19, and it’s unfortunate.” In this case, you’ve done this work. Hopefully, it’s successful, but there are others who, in essence, age out, and you’re like: “Now what?”

What is the government doing in terms of that age demographic in terms of being proactive in attempting to sort of crack the attraction or get to the individual that they are making the wrong choice?

[1755]

Hon. M. Morris: What we’re doing right now through CFSEU — it’s part of the $5 million commitment that the Premier made here at the last UBCM conference — is that we have a gang exiting and outreach service we provide that’s been funded to the tune of about $500,000 so far. It’s outside of school.

When I’ve spoken with the CFSEU member that administers this program…. They’re the ones that are knocking on the doors of some of these homes, sitting down with these individuals that are still sitting on the fence on getting involved in organized crime or in the gang activity and trying to convince them that there’s a better way of life. There are a number of things that they do there.

Recently I was at some event, and I had a young lady who had received the benefits of this program, who came up and just was absolutely grateful that somebody took her aside and showed her that there was a better way of life. There are a number of success stories out there. We hope to build on that as time goes on.

M. Farnworth: I’ll ask a similar question again. The funding for this — is this sustained ongoing funding, or is it one-time funding? If the minister could answer that question.

I’d also ask: are we looking at what other jurisdictions are doing? There are other communities — other parts of North America, for example, Europe; but North America in particular — that have had real issues with gangs and the attraction that gangs have.

As I say, a key concern is clearly when people leave school, when they leave home, those parental or familial influences are not there in the way that they should be or the resources that the school system is able to apply. Is the minister familiar with the Homeboy Industries program that they use in Los Angeles, for example?

If the minister could answer those questions, I’d appreciate that.

[M. Hunt in the chair.]

Hon. M. Morris: That was a one-time…. That $500,000 was for a pilot project. We’re going to evaluate and see how successful that particular project was. But the End Gang Life side of things with CFSEU is part of their base funding, so that’s going to carry on.

[1800]

We are continually looking at other jurisdictions around North America and, quite frankly, around the world, at what they do with respect to gang activity, and trying to find the best programs that we have out here. We just had an anti-gang conference not too long ago here where we had people up from Mexico, Los Angeles, New York — all over North America — providing a lot of good ideas into what we might look at.

M. Farnworth: I appreciate the answer the minister has given. Once again, I want to stress what I think is important is that… I know the minister has said there is base funding in CFSEU. I think that is crucial. But I also think…. One of the things that often worries me, or concerns me, is that pilot projects are often announced, are often successful, and then that’s it. They don’t get the opportunity to either continue the great work they’re doing in their particular community where the pilot project was established, or they’re not expanded provincewide.

Given the level of public concern that we’ve got about gang violence in this province and the havoc that is wreaked in many communities, and continues to wreak in many communities, I think it’s important that those programs receive sustained long-term funding.

I think that sends a very strong message both that the government is committed but also that local communities, whether it is Surrey or whether it is Richmond or whether it’s the Tri-Cities or wherever it is — you know what? — yes, they can count on this. So they can build that into the efforts that they take in our school systems
[ Page 13167 ]
and in our communities in trying to deal with issues of gang violence.

While we’re on the topic of what is happening in Surrey…. There have been, as you know, a significant number of shootings continue since the announcement was made. One of the key issues that we discussed in last year’s estimates was the addition of additional RCMP officers, which was viewed as critical in terms of being able to get on top of some of the challenges that Surrey is facing. I’m wondering if the minister can give us the status on the number of new RCMP officers in Surrey.

Hon. M. Morris: There are 98 on site of that 100 that they asked for. The other two will be there very shortly. They’ve been identified. Surrey has also put a request in for 16 more, and that’s sitting with the federal minister. Once it’s signed off, then it’ll go into that one-year period where those resources will be added as well.

M. Farnworth: That 98 — is that a net 98, or does that take into account the natural rate of attrition of members retiring or on sick leave that occur in any typical year?

Hon. M. Morris: Those are 98 new positions there on site. It has nothing to do with the normal attrition that they have with mat and pat and all the other transfers that might take place in the detachment otherwise. These are 98 new positions, or 100 new positions, that are part of Surrey, and 98 of them are on site.

M. Farnworth: So what the minister is saying is that there are 98 new officers. Obviously, then, on top of that, there would have been additional officers hired who would have replaced those who had retired in the past year. Is that what the minister is saying?

Hon. M. Morris: That’s correct. Any other transfers or retirements or paternity, maternity issues would be dealt with separately. The new bodies would be coming and going same as they always have.

[1805]

M. Farnworth: I just want to make sure I’m clear…. Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that there were no new officers planned for Surrey. In the course of the year, some retire, some go on mat leave. Those positions would be filled in a normal way, and those positions….

I see the minister’s head nodding, so I just want to be absolutely clear on this. So that happens, and then on top of that, we now have 98 new positions filled. I see the minister nodding, and I take it…. I’ll let him respond.

Hon. M. Morris: That’s correct, yes.

M. Farnworth: That’s good that that has happened, and I’m happy to hear that. The next question I have is: how is this increase keeping up with the population growth in Surrey? I know that one of the issues has still been that Surrey is such a fast-growing community that it’s critical that the number of boots on the ground in Surrey keeps pace with the increasing population. Is that happening, even with this addition of the new officers, or is there still a challenge?

Hon. M. Morris: Surrey has got a five-year plan. That’s where the 16 came from for this most recent request, the 100 before that, so they are aware of this. They are monitoring the population increases and will be putting the requests in for additional resources as the population goes up.

H. Bains: I’ve got some more questions on crime in Surrey. As the minister knows, it’s an issue that is talked about and felt by all citizens of Surrey on a daily basis. One of the issues is — and I think it is a real issue — the lack of a comprehensive plan to deal with crime in Surrey. That is on everyone’s lips. So far, what they have seen, what we have noticed, is reactionary by this government and by law enforcement. They’re looking forward to having some comprehensive plan which would have a real component of prevention.

Other than the Wrap program — there are other smaller programs which are very successful — you have nothing to support the parents or the teachers in the event that their child in grade 5 or grade 6 is showing some signs that they may be moving in the wrong direction. Parents are frustrated. They don’t know what to do with that child other than just doing what parents do: talk to them and sit down with them. They go to teachers. Teachers have no resources to put their extra resources to deal with that child to keep them on the right track and monitor them. There’s hardly any prevention starting with that age group.

Then you look at the Wrap program. The Wrap program is always running behind. Again, they’re reacting to the demand. Because of the success of the Wrap program, demand is high. I can tell the minister that two weeks ago the waiting list was 35 to 40. These are the youth that need help today. You can’t say: “Come back tomorrow or a week later, when we have space.”

[1810]

They are at that stage. Somebody needs to grab their hand and say: “Look, this is where you should be. Where you’re going is a problem.” That’s how this program works, but you can’t just say: “Go away. Come back when we have space.”

Again, you need consistent funding so that we can deal with and bring all those youth in, who are actually coming out and saying: “Look, I need help.” Parents are coming to the Wrap program and saying: “I need help.” You can’t put them on wait…. There is a serious problem with prevention.
[ Page 13168 ]

Then you look at the enforcement side. I would ask the minister to walk with me in any neighbourhood — you name it — of Surrey. We’ll knock on four, ten, 20 doors, and see what you hear from them. It will be consistent right across. Maybe there are some pockets. South Surrey may be an exception. Maybe some other areas of Surrey are exceptions, where they will not tell you: “In my neighbourhood — this little neighbourhood park or the school ground here or this cul-de-sac here — we have drug dealing day and night. We have to walk our children to school when the drug deal is going on.” They call police. No answer. They don’t answer those calls, because it’s not a priority call. They are busy dealing with more serious calls.

What does that do? It attracts other players into the area. That’s when the shooting starts. When they have no fear of getting caught, then you are inviting more trouble, and that’s exactly what’s happening out there. Police don’t have resources in order to deal with this, and the front-line officer will tell you. They are outstretched with the workload. They have twice the workload compared to Vancouver’s police officers on every side — 35 to 40 compared to Vancouver. How can they do their job when they don’t have resources?

Then you look at the deterrent side. A member from government, a sitting member for Abbotsford South…. His report is titled The Value of Resources in Solving Homicides. He dealt with, in that report, both homicides — gang-related or non-gang-related. He concluded that our success rate in B.C. to solve homicides, especially the gang-related homicides, is the lowest in the country — and for a number of years.

He came up with the reasons. When the investigation teams ask for resources, for undercover, for surveillance, for wiretap or additional help for the investigative teams, they are denied. The reason given for denial is lack of resources. That is reality.

Here is the issue. This whole plan to deal with gang violence and gun violence is non-existent in Surrey, and that’s why we continue to see this escalation. Until we see a commitment from this government, it will continue on, I’m afraid to say.

If you really want to deal with this, you better deal with it today before it becomes another New York, Chicago, L.A. Then you will be in deep trouble because Surrey is growing faster than any other community. It’s going to be the biggest city in B.C., and as such, it will attract all the problems that big cities attract, especially gun violence and drug violence and gang violence.

My question to the minister is this. There are smaller things that you can do immediately. For example, will you be able to commit here today that you will regulate the recovery homes? We have over 200 recovery homes in Surrey that are unregulated. There only are 50, or some, that are registered with Fraser Health. Others are just operating, making money off of these very vulnerable people — and no recovery treatment, no treatment for these folks. That’s one issue that we have been asking: will you be able to regulate those recovery homes, number one?

Number two. I’m just throwing some questions, because of the time here. I’m asking…. Vancouver was promised and Surrey was promised a community court or drug court. When Wally Oppal was Attorney General, he promised that Surrey would get one too. We’re still waiting. When will you commit to implement those types of programs so that we can deal with those prolific offenders who are just going through the system?

[1815]

We don’t have a mental health plan in Surrey compared to what Vancouver has. Vancouver was given money by this government, but Surrey didn’t get the same support.

I’m asking the minister if he could answer those questions. That’s one way of solving the problem, and that will show the commitment from the government that they actually do care and are committing to that kind of plan.

Hon. M. Morris: A lot of questions and a lot of discussion and so little time. Some of the questions that the member opposite asked dealt with health issues that I can’t respond to, on behalf of the Minister of Health. A couple of your questions dealt with that — the recovery and mental health issues. The other one was Community Living. That’s under Health as well. The community courts are the department of Justice.

All I can say is that with respect to the other programs that we have, we are proactive. We’re not reactive. We’re proactive with the Surrey SMART table. We’ve got a number of community initiatives taking place in Surrey right now. We’ve got integrated homicide teams and serious crime units and surveillance units and a number of integrated teams that work throughout the Lower Mainland to investigate the homicides and the other issues that are taking place.

There is a high level of expertise available at any given moment to assist investigators throughout Surrey and anywhere in the Lower Mainland. CFSEU has a number of teams. We’ve just added $23 million to that group so they can add a couple more full-time teams and enhance their intelligence capabilities within the unit so that we can address some of these issues that are here.

The resources that are on the road — again, it’s Surrey. We’re working hand in hand with Surrey, but the responsibility for putting the resources on the road in the Lower Mainland rests with the communities themselves. Under the policing contract, they’re the ones that determine how many resources they want, and they subscribe to the federal government to add those necessary resources to the roster. We keep tabs on that. We work with them.

Again, Surrey is adding resources every year, as are the other municipal contracts that we have as well.
[ Page 13169 ]

The Chair: I recognize the member for Port Coquitlam, noting the hour.

M. Farnworth: Thank you, hon. Chair. I appreciate your indulgence.

I have a question for the minister. I don’t need an answer today, but I’ll give him the question. He can get back to me tomorrow or after.

This is from a constituent. He’s in the security business. He writes me:

“Good morning. I write to bring to your attention a significant problem that I experiencing. I’m looking for support to resolve this ongoing situation. As a licensed security business in B.C., you are aware that all of our personnel must hold a valid B.C. security worker’s licence to be able to work in private security in B.C. My continuing problem is security programs’ lack of resources to process security workers licence applications in a timely manner.

“As of last week, I had contacted security programs, and they advised me they are swamped and it will take three to four weeks to process an e-mailed application and four to five weeks for a mailed application. As an example, I have a potential new employee who faxed his application on March 22 and was advised that they have his package but will not process it until the end of April.

“The twofold impact is: (1) the employee wants and needs to work today but cannot and has to wait three to five weeks before they can work and (2) the loss of revenue to my company. These two circumstances aren’t acceptable. People want to work in a timely manner and can’t.

“There’s lots of talk about government wanting to create new jobs. We need government to do its part.”

The company has eight pending applications for future employees. He could put these employees to work immediately, but the critical part is getting these licence and security things processed.

My question to the minister is: will he look into this matter? If there’s an issue in terms of the processing —the timeliness of the processing — address it and fix it so that companies such as this are able to hire the employees they have who are wanting to work and can be put to work straightaway.

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

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:20 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