2015 Legislative Session: Fourth Session, 40th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Wednesday, May 27, 2015

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 27, Number

ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)

ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)

CONTENTS

Page

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Ted M c Whinney

S. Chandra Herbert

Introductions by Members

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

Bill M224 — Agricultural Land Commission (Protection of Agricultural Lands) Amendment Act, 2015

L. Popham

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

Schizophrenia and psychosis awareness

Moira Stilwell

West Point Grey Residents Association

D. Eby

Skills training programs in North Okanagan–Shuswap schools

G. Kyllo

Fiji Day celebrations in Surrey

S. Hammell

Summer events in Dawson Creek

M. Bernier

Women in sport

S. Robinson

Oral Questions

Youth death case and government support for youth in care and aging out of care

J. Horgan

Hon. C. Clark

D. Donaldson

Hon. S. Cadieux

J. Rice

C. James

Open-pen fish farms and protection of salmon from disease outbreaks

A. Weaver

Hon. N. Letnick

Coroner's inquests into mill explosions and call for public inquiry

S. Simpson

Hon. S. Bond

Ministerial Statements

Site C power project

Hon. B. Bennett

A. Dix

Petitions

A. Weaver

Tabling Documents

Islands Trust, annual report, 2013-2014

Property Assessment Appeal Board, annual report, 2014

British Columbia Assessment Authority, annual service plan report, 2014

Motions Without Notice

Appointment of Special Committee to Review the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act

Appointment of Special Committee to Appoint a Merit Commissioner

Hon. M. de Jong

Orders of the Day

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Office of the Premier

J. Horgan

Hon. C. Clark

[ Page 8797 ]

WEDNESDAY, MAY 27, 2015

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

[1335]

Introductions by Members

J. Horgan: It’s not always with absolute confidence that we can stand and say there’s someone in the precinct that will actually be watching what we’re doing, but I have absolute certainty that this will be happening today when I bid farewell to John Thorp, who has been working at Hansard Services since 2001.

Tomorrow is his last day. He’ll be retiring, and I rather doubt he’ll be watching the proceedings very often after that point. But over the past 14 years John has been rising through the ranks of Hansard. He started as an operations technologist to become the supervisor of the whole darn thing.

His precision and accuracy, I believe…. I’m a bit biased, because I want to make sure that what comes out of my mouth is accurately reflected when it makes it to people’s homes. John and the people at Hansard Services do a spectacular job. I know all members of the House will agree with that.

Over the next little while John is going to continue his quest to find the best microbrewed ales in British Columbia and perhaps further afield.

Would the House please, for perhaps the last time…. Certainly, as I say, I rather doubt that John will be tuning in, in the fall to watch proceedings. But will everyone please put their hands together for John Thorp. Thanks for everything. See you later.

J. Yap: Madame Speaker, I have two sets of introductions. First of all, on your behalf, to introduce your guests for lunch today. From Richmond, from the International Association of Fire Fighters, local 1286, here today in the gallery, please welcome Cory Parker and Jeremy Duncan.

My second set of introductions. I have two good friends and constituents who are here in the gallery: Peter Boddy and Hagan Dietz-Rosales. Would the House please give them a warm welcome.

M. Karagianis: I see a lot of friends in the gallery today, but I’ve got two particular guests here that I’m really happy to see.

My first guest here is my constituency assistant who is currently on maternity leave. Jayne Ducker is here. Now, her little boy Logan, who is four months old, is currently just near my office with my legislative assistant, who happens to be the father. I was really tempted to go pinch the baby awake so that I would have an excuse to say he woke up and I had to pick him up. But I thought I’d have to bring him in here, and he might be a bit noisy.

Jayne is here, and she is joined today by her father, John Ducker, who, of course, has a long and esteemed career as a police officer here in Victoria. They are wonderful guests, and I would like us to give them a really warm welcome to be here today.

Hon. C. Oakes: It truly is my honour today to introduce a remarkable individual who is visiting us here today. Ursula Cowland — or Saint Ursula, as both sides of the House would like to acknowledge — has such a significant impact in communities across British Columbia through community gaming grants. She has worked with the B.C. Public Service for 35 years. I know that constituencies across the province recognize her contributions and say thank you, thank you, thank you. She is joined today by her husband, Dave.

Would the House please join me in welcoming them here today.

H. Bains: In the vicinity — I’m not sure whether they’ve made it to the gallery yet — there are 36 grade 11 students from North Surrey Learning Centre, along with Mr. Lindsay May and, I think, three other parents. If they’re not up there, please join with me and extend a warm welcome to them.

Hon. P. Fassbender: I also would like to welcome a special guest to the House here today. He is well known on both sides of the House as well as those in the press gallery. Scott Sutherland spent 28 years as a journalist. I understand he was thrilled when they brought in spell-check. For 14 of those years he worked in the halls of this assembly. I know that the staff in the gallery used to have to ask him to not lean over the ledge too much because he might have fallen over.

[1340]

I know that he worked on behalf of Canadian Press and Broadcast News. He served as president of the press gallery for eight years. Seven years ago he joined the province’s communications team, where he dedicated his considerable talents, experience and service to the Ministers of Education and Advanced Education.

As many of you may know, Scott is going to be retiring in a few weeks. I understand that he plans to spend more time with his three, soon to be four, grandchildren, his wife Marcia and his other love, which I understand is his boat: Scotia Blue . Would the House please join me in wishing Scott well in his future career and his time with his wife, his boat and his grandchildren.

C. James: I have a constituent visiting me today who

[ Page 8798 ]

has also joined our team here in the buildings as a new communications officer. She brings a wealth of experience, including her most recent work at the Greater Victoria Chamber of Commerce doing outreach and communications. Would the House please give a very warm welcome to Marielle Tounsi.

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: I’d like to welcome to the House today Abby Cronk, who is someone who played an integral role in the single-parent employment initiative that we announced in March. I’d like to thank Abby for her participation and support in that announcement.

She can certainly attest to the benefits of the new single-parent employment initiative as a tool to help single parents on income and disability assistance to ensure that they are securing meaningful employment to build a stronger foundation for themselves and their families.

Joining her today is also Maryann Anderson, Grant Kerr, Kelsey Singbeil and Daisy Brooke. Would the House please make them feel welcome.

N. Simons: I’d like the House to help me welcome Fred Storey and his wife Linda to the Legislature. Fred is a former senior public servant with the Ministry of Children and Families. Since his retirement he’s devoted himself to many pursuits, chief among them researching and writing the history of the rights and liberties of Anglo-Saxon England, which in turn formed the basis of the Magna Carta.

The Legend of Stor is timely, as the Magna Carta is going to be 800 years old this June 15. The Legend of Stor is published by Friesen Press. Would the House please welcome Fred and his wife back to the Legislature.

S. Sullivan: It is my pleasure to introduce a bright young woman from my riding named Olga Orda. She’s here to promote changes in legislation in memory of her much-loved pet, Leo.

First of all, Minister Amrik Virk led us, many MLAs, on a tour to see technology companies recently. Her company is Infinium Systems. Please welcome Olga Orda.

A. Weaver: I have a number of guests here today in the House who are going to witness the presentation of a petition of almost 109,000 signatures. They are Alexandra Morton, who many of you will know from the documentary Salmon Confidential . Later today, in the mail, I invite you to check for a copy of where you can now read about it. I’ll be delivering a copy of that to every MLA.

There’s Stan Porboszcz from Watershed Watch; Karen Wristen, ED, Living Oceans Society; Sabra Woodworth from Salmon Are Sacred; Eddie Gardner from the Skwah First Nation; Jeffery Young from the David Suzuki Foundation; Torrance Coste from Wilderness Committee; Dr. Jeff Matthews, president of Sea Shepherd Canada; Bonny Glambeck from Clayoquot Action; Joseph Martin, councillor from the Tla-o-qui-aht; and Dawn Morrison from the Indigenous Food System Network. Would the House please make all of them welcome here today.

Hon. A. Virk: Somewhere in the precinct today are 40 grade 10 students from the Surrey Learning Centre, some of them from all over Surrey, including my own riding. Their teachers, Deb Swain, Val Sanny, James Johnson and Mark Miratech, have brought them here to learn about parliament. Would the House please make them feel welcome.

[1345]

He’s a board member of the Harbour City Football Club, a soccer organization in Nanaimo. He was PAC president of Gabriola Elementary and involved in the Woodlands Elementary PAC.

He’s currently organizing the voices of independent liquor store owners like himself, who are very concerned over the issue of wholesale pricing and the impact it’s having on responsible employers, like Michael Brown, who provide important cogs to our local economies. We’re all hoping that the minister and the government will hear the voices that he’s organizing.

P. Pimm: I’d like to introduce a class of grade 11 students from North Peace Secondary in Fort St. John who joined me earlier today in the precinct. They travelled with their teacher Nathan Biller and are visiting some colleges and universities on their trip as well. Please help me welcome them to the precinct.

C. Trevena: I’d like to join the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head to welcome Alexandra Morton to the gallery, a constituent of mine, a very highly respected activist and biologist who has been fighting for many years to protect wild salmon. She’s obviously here to continue that fight. I hope the House will make her as welcome as the people on Malcolm Island and in North Island do.

G. Kyllo: What does the phrase “sugar and spice and everything nice” bring to mind? Well, little girls, of course, which leads me to two introductions I’d like to make today. First, I’d like to introduce to the House Miss Nova May Georgina Benty, my third granddaughter, born a little over a week ago on Sunday, May 17, to my daughter Brittany and her husband, Allan Benty, of

[ Page 8799 ]

Sicamous. My lovely wife, Georgina, and I couldn’t be more proud, as are Allan’s parents, Leonard and Brenda Benty, of Sicamous. Would the House please give a very warm welcome — my newest granddaughter.

My second introduction is yet another special little girl, my grandniece McKinley Marie Lamouroux, born on Monday, May 25, to my nephew Travis Lamouroux and his wife beautiful wife, Ashley, of Red Deer, Alberta. Would the House please extend a warm warning to my grandniece McKinley Lamouroux.

S. Fraser: I’d like to join my colleague from Oak Bay–Gordon Head in welcoming two constituents. Bonny Glambeck is a friend of mine and has helped to educate me on everything environmental and dealing with sustainability. Joe Martin, a councillor for the Tla-o-qui-aht First Nation, has been the most stellar ambassador for the west coast, helping to educate so many people about Nuu-chah-nulth wisdom and traditional ecological knowledge. I want this House to please join me in helping both of them to feel very, very welcome here.

L. Throness: I’d like to welcome Chris Gadsden, from my riding, today. Chris is very active in the Chilliwack Vedder River Cleanup coalition. It regularly mobilizes hundreds of volunteers to remove tonnes of trash from the Chilliwack River Valley. The coalition has hosted, up until now, about 43 cleanup events in the last decade. Could the House please welcome Chris Gadsden and thank him for his outstanding community service.

Tributes

TED M c WHINNEY

S. Chandra Herbert: I rise to inform the House of the passing of Edward — well known as Ted — McWhinney, a longtime — well, two-term — MP, constitutional expert, a constituent of mine and a true gentleman. I first met Ted when I was, well, let’s say younger than I am today, back in 1993 when he was first seeking office. Later, when I became an MLA, he provided me much good advice on what to do as an elected official. He’ll be well missed in our community, the West End, which he called home.

I hope the Speaker and this House will join me in acknowledging his service to our country, and pass on our best wishes to his family.

Introductions by Members

L. Reimer: In the precinct today we have a group of grade 11 students, 42 of them, with their teacher, Mr. Troy Cunningham, as well as five parents. Would the House please make them very welcome.

[1350]

M. Dalton: In the gallery we have a couple of very distinguished guests from India joining us, Anand Kumar and his brother Pranav.

They have a mathematics school in the slums of the state of Bihar that prepares impoverished teenagers for India’s best universities. They charge virtually nothing and accept no government finances, because they want to show that even the poorest of the poor can be successful. The results have been incredible, providing hope and a future for hundreds of students.

One of their programs is called Super 30. Thirty students are chosen and all of their living expenses covered. The Discovery Channel, the Globe and Mail , the New York Times and Time magazine have all reported on them.

Anand has three bodyguards in India with machine guns because there have been two attempts on his life. He has been seen by some as charging too little for the education that he offers.

With them is Dr. Biju Matthew from Pitt Meadows, who is the president of the South Asian Cultural Society, and president-elect of the B.C. Psychiatric Association. Also, writer Robert Prince from Maple Ridge. Robert and Biju are writing a biography on Anand Kumar and his school, to be published by Penguin Books. All of the proceeds will go to the school to support more students.

Would the members please make these guests feel welcome.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I hope the House will join me in welcoming Jeremy Ojay and Emily Irwin. They are from the senior executive team of a company called D2L, which provides many of our higher education institutions in this province with learning technology, and they maintain their office in Richmond, B.C.

Madame Speaker: Minister of Energy.

Hon. B. Bennett: My understanding was that I would deliver this statement after QP.

Madame Speaker: It’s absolutely your call. Thank you.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL M224 — AGRICULTURAL LAND

COMMISSION (PROTECTION OF

AGRICULTURAL LANDS) AMENDMENT

ACT, 2015

L. Popham presented a bill intituled Agricultural Land Commission (Protection of Agricultural Lands) Amendment Act, 2015.

L. Popham: I move that the Protecting Agriculture Lands Act, 2015, of which notice has been given in my name on the order paper be introduced and read for a first time now.

[ Page 8800 ]

Motion approved.

L. Popham: The purpose of the Protecting Agriculture Lands Act is to require owners of ALR lands to seek the permission of the Agricultural Land Commission if they wish to operate an afforestation carbon offset program. This bill also grants the Agricultural Land Commission the authority to decide if applications for carbon offset programs are in the best interest of agriculture.

This bill amends the Agricultural Land Commission Act and the Land Title Act.

This bill is being introduced to address one of the latest challenges facing the ALR — the practice of buying up prime farmland, covering it with trees and turning it into carbon sinks.

Food lands are for food production, and forest lands are for forests. According to the Forest Practices Board, we have somewhere between one and two million hectares on B.C.’s timber harvesting land base that needs to be reforested. Planting trees on farmland for carbon offset programs is a loophole in the ALR that needs to be closed by legislation.

The ALC’s mandate is to oversee and protect the ALR while encouraging food production. Currently thousands of hectares of food lands are being planted with trees, contradicting the ALC’s mandate. This is an urgent issue that requires immediate legislative action. At a time when there are serious droughts in California and Washington, it has never been more important to protect our farmland and to bring it into production.

Over 10,500 hectares of ALR land are being used for carbon offset schemes by one offshore corporation, and they don’t plan on stopping. Farmers are watching land being bought and taken out of production all around them. Farmers in the Cariboo, specifically, have lost B.C. agricultural opportunities to a corporation in the UK.

The Protecting Agriculture Lands Act would empower the Agricultural Land Commission to better monitor, regulate and protect B.C.’s farmland.

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

[1355]

Bill M224, Agricultural Land Commission (Protection of Agricultural Lands) Amendment Act, 2015, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

SCHIZOPHRENIA AND PSYCHOSIS

AWARENESS

Moira Stilwell: Last Sunday organizations from across Canada came together to mark Schizophrenia and Psychosis Awareness Day and encourage all Canadians to help eliminate the stigma surrounding these disorders.

One percent of our nation’s population lives with schizophrenia, and many will experience a psychotic episode in their lifetime. Schizophrenia affects a person’s ability to think clearly, manage emotions and interact with each other, confusing the senses so that it’s difficult to tell what is real and what is not. It often presents itself in teenagers and young adults, causing hallucinations, delusions and paranoia.

With proper treatment and support, individuals with schizophrenia can live happy, fulfilling lives. By increasing awareness and encouraging better education on early diagnosis and management, we can make a big difference in the quality of life for schizophrenia sufferers and their friends and family.

Our government has made early diagnosis a priority through the early psychosis intervention program, which provides resources for psychosis sufferers looking for services and support. The program also offers the psychosis toolkit, an interactive tool that helps users understand their condition, manage symptoms and connect with other people suffering from similar conditions.

Schizophrenia does not discriminate. It affects more than 15,000 British Columbians, regardless of ethnicity or economic status. It can be a very scary experience for sufferers and their loved ones. But there is hope. By talking openly and compassionately about these conditions, we can raise awareness, encourage early diagnosis and promote the message that psychosis is a treatable condition and that recovery is possible.

WEST POINT GREY

RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION

D. Eby: We have a large package of public land in my constituency, half-owned by the provincial government, half-owned by the federal government. The Jericho lands have been host to a military base, a community centre, a school and countless dogs, walkers and Frisbee players for many years.

Earlier this year when my Vancouver–Point Grey community office learned that both the federal and provincial portions of the property were up for sale and development, we needed to act quickly to let the community know what was happening. To do so, we only had to knock on the door of our friends at the West Point Grey Residents Association.

Chaired by Phyllis Tyers and run by a 12-person, volunteer-based board of directors, the West Point Grey Residents Association was formed in 2012 after an amalgamation with the North West Point Grey Homeowners Association, which had been in existence for 57 years.

When we called to see if they could help us organize an event, it turned out that the residents association was already busy organizing a meeting to discuss

[ Page 8801 ]

these critical developments and to ask for community consultation and input on any proposed developments. Seemingly overnight this dynamic community group brought together over 400 neighbours in the gymnasium of the West Point Grey Academy to talk about the future of the Jericho lands.

Thanks to their initiative, what started as an event with just one speaker ended up as a panel of diverse speakers, including me, their MLA; as well as the Canada Lands Co., developing the federal half of the lands; and a provincial government representative. And for the first time, there was a presentation from First Nations leaders from the Musqueam, Tsleil-Waututh and Squamish people.

Whether it’s promoting the Point Grey Fiesta, sharing neighbourhood news or coordinating all-candidates meetings for municipal, provincial and federal elections, the work of Chair Phyllis Tyers and the entirely volunteer West Point Grey Residents Association ensures that neighbours are informed, that they have all the information needed to make decisions and that their interests are protected and promoted.

Thank you to Phyllis and all of the members of the West Point Grey Residents Association for your work on behalf of our community.

SKILLS TRAINING PROGRAMS IN

NORTH OKANAGAN–SHUSWAP SCHOOLS

G. Kyllo: The career programs in the North Okanagan–Shuswap school district have earned a reputation for excellence across B.C. and, in fact, nationally. The district was asked to take

part in the development of the B.C. skills toolkit for the Ministry of Education. They have been asked to share their expertise at provincial conferences and have presented on the national stage.

They are regularly asked for feedback from the province’s Industry Training Authority on youth programs, and was one of only one of three districts to pilot the ITA’s mentorship project. School district 83 clearly grasps the reality that young people must receive the proper training for many of the jobs that will be in demand for skilled workers in the coming years, and it’s doing just that for students of the Shuswap.

[1400]

Although there are several reasons for the district’s success in career programs, one gentleman stands out at the head of the class. His name is Mark Marino, the longtime career supervisor for school district 83. Mark is reluctant to acknowledge his impact and would be the last person to toot his own horn about his and the school district’s many accomplishments. That’s why I’m doing this here today.

Because of Mark’s guidance, schools in the Shuswap are being approached by employers looking to forge partnerships and to look for students to work for them. Just this month an employer contacted Salmon Arm Secondary School because he had a contract to build over 300 docks. The employer was aware of the school’s welding students and wanted them to apply because he was aware of the school’s outstanding program.

Our time limit prevents me from sharing more examples of the school district’s success in career programs under Mark Marino, but suffice it to say he is exactly the type of person that our province needs for grooming our next generation of workers. I ask this House to join me in recognizing the remarkable achievements of Shuswap’s Mark Marino.

FIJI DAY CELEBRATIONS IN SURREY

S. Hammell: Bula bula. Our local Fijian community will be achieving a great milestone this summer at their seventh annual Fiji Day celebrations. It has been officially announced that the Prime Minister of Fiji, the hon. Mr. Bainimarama, has accepted our invitation to officiate in the Fiji Day celebrations this year in Surrey. The celebrations will take place from August 7th through to the 9th and will be held at the Newton Athletic Park in Surrey.

This is the first time a prime minister of Fiji has visited Canada since the Republic of Fiji gained independence in 1970. The most recent elections were held September 20, 2014.

The celebrations will be taking place very close to my constituency, and I can already sense the excitement. The three-day celebration is full of live music and entertainment from Fijian artists and will even showcase great local talents, including Bollywood and Polynesian performers. The celebrations will also feature an annual soccer tournament, and they will include a Miss Fiji Canada pageant.

I have seen tremendous growth in the local Fijian community, and each year this celebration grows exponentially. Like all festivals in Surrey, the Fiji Day celebrations are welcoming of everyone from all different backgrounds, cultures, religions and nationalities.

I’m very honoured to be part of this celebration, and I want to extend an invitation to everyone in this House today. Surrey is a culturally diverse and welcoming community, and I encourage all of you to enjoy and experience this great celebration.

SUMMER EVENTS IN DAWSON CREEK

M. Bernier: July 12 is going to be a busy day in the city of Dawson Creek. It’s been over 20 years since the sound of live outdoor local music has echoed through the streets of the city. We have incredible local talent, and thanks to local organizer Jeremy Linklater, that talent is going to converge on downtown. He is working with local artists, young and old, to hold Dawson Creek’s Music Festival and to make a fun, free family event.

This music will probably be a little loud for some, but that will help it to be heard over the other event that’s

[ Page 8802 ]

taking place at the same time, where the city of Dawson Creek’s downtown will be closed off for the 21st annual Summer Cruise show and shine. This event has turned into a premiere event, with hundreds and hundreds of gorgeous classic cars from all over, coming to the city to show off their rareness and their beauty. I’m still trying to figure out if my 30-year-old Pontiac Fiero qualifies, but I know I will be inviting up the Minister of Finance to show off his aged-out Mazda Miata.

Thanks to Blaine Massey and the dozens of volunteers, this will once again be a successful event with yet another reason to plan a trip to Dawson Creek for that weekend. It will be a weekend to get out, to walk around and to look at some beautiful cars, all to the backdrop of being entertained by local music. And for those who are asking me: no, I can’t grow my hair, and my band will not be making a reunion tour for this event.

I’d like to thank, again, all of the local volunteers and the organizers. Without them, events like this in our communities could not take place.

[1405]

WOMEN IN SPORT

S. Robinson: I’m proud to stand in this House to talk about 2015 as the Year of Women in Sport. What better way to acknowledge this than to remind everyone that the Women’s World Cup starts in just about ten days in Vancouver. It’s an opportunity for everyone to gather together with family and friends and watch amazing athletes compete at the highest level.

Women from all over the world, countries like Australia, Germany, Cote d’Ivoire, Ecuador, Korea and Thailand, are sending their top athletes to play on behalf of their nations. We’ll see women working together to achieve their goals. We will see cooperation, collaboration and competition. We will see teamwork. We will see hard work. We will see respect — respect for each other and respect for the game.

Local governments from across Canada have stepped out to acknowledge 2015 as the Year of Women in Sport. Here in B.C., Burnaby, Vancouver, the district of North Vancouver, the city of North Vancouver, Richmond, Maple Ridge and Surrey have all proclaimed 2015 as the Year of Women in Sport.

B.C. businesses and non-profits have also acknowledged the year 2015 as the Year of Women in Sport. Businesses like CBI Health Centre in Surrey, Burnaby More Sports, the Vancouver Squash League, the Surrey Women’s Centre, Cythera Transition House, North Shore Aquatic Society, North Vancouver Minor Hockey, Tri-City Transitions Society, Sport B.C., Audacious Living in Surrey, Micro Footie in Vancouver, Key Innovations in Surrey, Hockey Players for Kids in Vancouver and Maximum Impact Training and Development in Surrey have all acknowledged 2015 as the Year of Women in Sport.

These businesses and organizations recognize the power of sport and the importance of supporting and encouraging women to be the best athletes they can be. All this came about because one woman, Linda Diano, with the Power in Sport, made it so. Congratulations to Linda and to all those who recognize the value of women in sport. They all know and we all know that everyone wishes that they could play just like a girl.

Oral Questions

YOUTH DEATH CASE AND

GOVERNMENT SUPPORT FOR YOUTH

IN CARE AND AGING OUT OF CARE

J. Horgan: “This is the story of a real girl, a real person — a person who deserved much better from the society in which she briefly lived…. Paige’s life was a case study in chaos.” Very powerful words from the children’s representative in her report released to this Legislature last week.

About Paige, she said the following: In grade 7 her report card said that she was “a bright student whose life outside school makes it impossible for her to achieve her academic…potential.” By the time she was 16, she had moved no less than 40 times. She was repeatedly sexually abused and cared for by adults in homes that were not capable of giving her the care that every child in British Columbia deserves. “A total of 17 different social workers across B.C. had responsibility for her file before she aged out…, fearful and utterly unprepared for what lay ahead.”

Paige died shortly after she was forced out of the foster home that she had, the only home that she had really known in her 19 years. She didn’t want to go, the foster parents didn’t want her to leave, but government policy required that that be the case.

My question is to the Premier: what steps has she taken since receiving the report from the children’s representative about the tragic, tragic life of Paige to make sure that no other stories like this are duplicated in the days and weeks and years ahead?

Hon. C. Clark: I take the member’s question, the sincerity in his voice…. I certainly share the deep concern he has expressed about Paige’s life and her loss of life. The system should have done better by Paige. The system, where it needs to, needs to do better by all the children that we serve.

I was horrified to learn of the details of Paige’s all-too-short life on this earth. She deserved better. Social services staff and social workers worked hard, were well intentioned and did the best that they could. But the system didn’t work. So the ministry is now working on a rapid response team, in particular, to address issues faced by young women and young people in the Downtown Eastside and make sure that kids get out of those situa-

[ Page 8803 ]

tions as quickly as possible and that those children have a regular continuity of care throughout the system.

[1410]

That’s what we have always been working for, and Paige’s tragic, tragic death reminds us that we haven’t gotten there yet. We have more, much more, to do.

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

J. Horgan: This is, as a parent…. I know the Premier, as a parent, and all British Columbians are just heart-wrenched at stories like this. And I know that it’s very difficult to raise these issues in a political forum. It’s tough. It’s tough for the opposition. It’s tough for the government. It’s tough for the people of British Columbia. But it’s just not good enough to continue to come up with: “We’re going to try harder.”

When the Premier was on this side of the House 20 years ago, she said: “If there is one commitment government should live up to, it’s the one about the safety of children.” That was the Premier over here.

My question today to the Premier is: what tangible steps are you taking to make sure that children that are absolutely unprepared for the harsh world…? Whether it be the Downtown Eastside or Fort St. James or Merritt or Kitimat or any other community in British Columbia, what steps will she take to ensure that kids that are not prepared at 19 are still going to get real supports at 20, 21, 22, 23?

Hon. C. Clark: We are working on…. And before news of Paige’s death became public, we were already working on the solutions to the issues that the member has raised. We’ll certainly have more to say about that in the coming weeks and months. We want to make sure that that is done right.

He is right about this. That is one of the greatest responsibilities of government: to look after the people who are vulnerable in our society. There are few people more vulnerable than children living in poverty, dealing with addiction in their homes and their families in the Downtown Eastside.

We should have done, the government should have done…. And I should note that in Paige’s short life, just to give some context to it, there were six Premiers in the period over which the system failed her. We need to do better. We are working on making sure that we integrate better police, social workers, health authorities.

We are also working on supporting better access to mental health and addictions services, especially focused in the Downtown Eastside with the new and revitalized and relocated St. Paul’s. We think that that will make a difference. The rapid response team will make a difference. But that can’t be the end of it.

The member is right. We have a lot more work to continue to do. These jobs that social workers have are very, very tough indeed. The challenges are tough. They are very complex. But that doesn’t mean that we should turn away for a second from doing everything that we can to address them and protect those kids.

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

J. Horgan: I appreciate the Premier’s comments and her words. But Paige moved 50 times in the last three years of her life, not over the course of 19 years but 50 times over three years. And again, when the Premier was on this side of the House she said: “The allocation of resources is always, at the end of the day, a political decision. It is always a political decision.”

Through you, hon. Speaker, to the Premier: it needs political will. It needs more than ensuring that we have the appropriate programs in place. It means that we have resources to ensure that when children, vulnerable children, turn 19 that we don’t just say, “Off you go,” which is exactly what happened to Paige. Absolutely unprepared for the world that she was dumped into. Absolutely unprepared to meet the challenges that many of us see in our communities each and every day.

So if it’s just about political will and it’s just about the allocation of resources, which is what the Premier said over here when we were discussing these issues two decades ago, will she take that political step today and make a commitment in Paige’s memory that children unprepared at 19 for the harsh realities of the cold streets of British Columbia, every corner of British Columbia, will not be forced out of the homes that may well have been the only homes they’ve had, that they can truly call that, in their tragic, tragic lives?

Hon. C. Clark: Madame Speaker, the political will on this side of the House is certainly there with the Minister of Children and Families, the Health Minister, Minister of Social Development — all of us working together to make sure that we do everything that we can to protect vulnerable children.

Paige’s story is especially tragic because it isn’t just a story about what happened at the end of her life or toward the end of her life. It’s a story that began when she was three years old, and I believe I was sitting on that side of the House when this story began — sitting in opposition and questioning the government exactly as the Leader of the Opposition is today.

It’s the story that we saw in the report of a system that failed Paige for over 16 years, and that’s not good enough. We need to do better than that.

[1415]

In answer to the member’s question about children and young people when they age out of the old system, we are working on that. But in answer to the member’s question overall, we need to address the full range of services that

[ Page 8804 ]

were not there or were not appropriately implemented to support Paige over the 19 years of her life.

That’s the reason that we’re beginning with this rapid response team in the Downtown Eastside. That’s the reason we’re moving St. Paul’s and creating more addictions spaces. That’s the reason we’re going to create more addictions spaces all over in other hospitals across the province. That is the reason we’re going to work very hard to try and integrate the service providers, particularly around the Downtown Eastside, to ensure that situations like Paige’s aren’t ones that happen again in a province as wealthy and as blessed as British Columbia is.

D. Donaldson: “The child protection system failed utterly to prepare Paige for adulthood. The transition process was not a process. It was a passing of responsibility and an indifference to her circumstances.” The government “left her abandoned and…with none of the crucial supports she desperately needed.” Those are the words of the children’s representative.

We know there are other children in B.C. just like Paige who need our help now — not in six months, when a rapid response team might be in place. Like Paige, these children aren’t ready to face the world alone without a stable family and without our support. Will the Premier today commit to stop pushing youth out of care at age 19?

Hon. S. Cadieux: As we’ve canvassed before, the transitions for youth who have been in care to adulthood are especially difficult. The transition to adulthood is challenging for any child, but for a child without the support of a family and consistent, solid adult figures in their life, it is that much more challenging. We have acknowledged that.

We’ve been working for the last…. Well, since I’ve become minister, we’ve been working on looking at the system of supports that we have, comparing what other jurisdictions do, what might work better. And in fact, we have been consulting with youth, talking to youth about what it is they think would improve the system.

We’ve gained a lot of knowledge in that time. We have implemented some new programs. We’re going to continue to make changes and continue to improve how we support youth. It is a difficult transition time. We can do better, and that work is underway.

Madame Speaker: The member for Stikine on a supplemental.

D. Donaldson: In the past the Premier stated: “The blame for a lack of resources must always lie at the political level. It takes political courage to fight for resources. It takes guts to stand up in cabinet and say, ‘I want more resources for my ministry.’ And it takes the will to persuade your colleagues to get them.”

Based on what she said, we have to conclude the Premier and her cabinet were not persuaded to provide the necessary resources to prevent the death of a young First Nations girl like Paige. Will the Premier now do the right thing and step in and ensure that not one more child dies in B.C. because they were forced out on their own at 19?

Hon. S. Cadieux: This isn’t about money. This is about a system of supports, a significant number of different types of supports — from housing to income to education to substance abuse counselling to health to post-secondary. It’s about a system that exists and is ready and wanting to support youth but isn’t necessarily connecting with youth in the way that it needs to.

[1420]

That is the work we are doing — to help to make those connections stick earlier, to help wrap around youth from an earlier age to ensure that they are involved in and engaged in and want to receive the services in a way that makes sense for them. They are young adults. They have a say in how they receive services. But we want to make sure that we’re listening to how they need to have those services provided so that we can do a better job of making sure they’re connected to them.

J. Rice: The minister has just said it. The Premier has just said it. The system should have done better. The system failed Paige. The system that this government is responsible for failed in their duty to care for and protect Paige. The system is staffed with people, and people on that side of the House can do better.

Will the Premier ensure that no other youth in this government’s care experiences the kind of trauma and neglect that Paige experienced?

Hon. S. Cadieux: The situation that the member raises, again, is one we’ve canvassed considerably, and rightly so. It is a tragic depiction of a system that failed. We know that. We have acknowledged that. It is a system that for 20 years repeatedly failed to meet the needs of this young girl and her family.

We need to learn from that, and we need to make changes. That is what we are doing, but there’s nothing more I can say.

Madame Speaker: The Member for North Coast on a supplemental.

J. Rice: Nothing more she can say. The independent Representative for Children and Youth noted: “If a parent in B.C. had treated their child the way the system treated Paige, we may be having a debate over criminal responsibility.”

Serious failures demand serious reforms. Will the Premier do the right thing and stop forcing children out of care at age 19?

Hon. S. Cadieux: Again, the system that we have in

[ Page 8805 ]

British Columbia provides for supports for youth leaving care up till their 24th birthday. We already have supports in place that match, equal or exceed the other jurisdictions in Canada. That doesn’t mean we’re not looking at what more we can do. But the system has to work better to ensure that children are accessing, youth are accessing the supports that exist. That is what we’re working to do.

C. James: The system isn’t working. When the minister was asked directly about new resources when the new ages were taken on for children aging out of care, the minister said there were no new resources. There were not new supports. They were going to manage with the existing resources.

Well, that’s exactly the problem. The supports are not in place for children like Paige. The Ministry of Children and Families doesn’t even appear to have a handle on how many other children are in the same circumstance as Paige. But what we do know is that there are too many children suffering in British Columbia.

I’d like to ask the Premier directly: will she act today? Specifically, will she direct the Ministry of Children and Families to examine every case of every child who turns 19 this year and ensure that those children have the supports that they need?

Hon. S. Cadieux: Once again, we are reviewing things we have reviewed here many times before. The reality is that we are dealing with British Columbia’s most vulnerable citizens and their families. That work is difficult work. Our social workers do yeoman’s service to continually reach out, work with these families, provide supports to families to attempt to build their skills around parenting, to try to keep families together.

[1425]

When we have to, we bring children into care for their own protection. When that happens, we do our absolute best to ensure that those children are prepared for the future that lies ahead. We have programs in place to assist them with housing, with education, with counselling, with other supports. We believe we can do better in making sure that youth access those supports, and those are the conversations that we’re having with youth.

Madame Speaker: Victoria–Beacon Hill on a supplemental.

C. James: I would agree with the minister that this is difficult. That’s all the more reason to pay attention to this issue, because it is difficult and these are vulnerable children. The government is responsible for these children.

I can’t tell you how many reports have come forward in the ten years I have been in this Legislature where the minister and the government have stood up and said, “we’re going to act,” and nothing changes for these children. Nothing changes.

These children cannot afford to wait. There are youth who will be aging out this month and next month and the month after that. They don’t have time to wait for help from this government.

Again to the Premier: will she do the right thing and ensure that every one of those children aging out gets the supports that they need now?

Hon. S. Cadieux: We are working with the youth that are in our system. We are talking to them actively. We are working with them on their transition plans.

Much has changed over the past 20 years, over the past 15 even, with a new Child, Family and Community Service Act with much broader powers and much deeper regulation in terms of how and when we intervene with families, and why, and a much more stringent oversight process to ensure that this ministry, which is dealing with British Columbia’s most vulnerable every day, has appropriate and thorough oversight.

There will always be things we can do better. We will continue to work on improving those things.

OPEN-PEN FISH FARMS AND PROTECTION

OF SALMON FROM DISEASE OUTBREAKS

A. Weaver: The Cohen commission recommended that fish farms not be located on sockeye salmon migration routes, yet this week millions of sockeye fry will be migrating past fish farms in the Discovery Passage and Broughton Archipelago.

Scientific research has suggested a link between fish farms, lice outbreaks and the spread of diseases like piscine reovirus, salmonid alphavirus and the infectious salmon anemia virus. The spread, obviously, of such diseases would have grave environmental, cultural and economic consequences for the province of British Columbia, let alone Canada.

Finally, a first in North America, the ’Namgis Nation on northern Vancouver Island is farming Atlantic salmon at a land-based facility without posing any disease or sea lice threat to wild salmon.

To the Minister of Agriculture: what is the government doing to stop the expansion of open-pen fish farms in the ocean and to promote the creation of more operations like the one the ’Namgis Nation operates?

Hon. N. Letnick: Thank you to the member opposite for the question. Our government is committed to the socially and ecologically responsible management of B.C. fisheries, including an environmentally and economically sustainable aquaculture industry for the benefit of all British Columbians.

We place the health of all wild fisheries, including salmon, as paramount. That’s why the government works with our federal counterparts and aquaculture operators to monitor for diseases and is prepared to implement a

[ Page 8806 ]

prompt, coordinated, science-based response if necessary.

I just want to remind the members opposite that the Supreme Court of Canada has already ruled that the jurisdiction of licensing is that of the federal government and tenures is that of the provincial government.

The approval for licensing on the federal government side is quite high. They look for applications that can be rejected for anything to do with biotoxins, water quality, impacts to the environment, impacts to spawning areas, cumulative impact to fisheries and impact to navigable waters.

It’s also very high on the province’s role. We accept Land Act applications for new salmon aquaculture sites from companies that demonstrate world-class standards for resource sustainability.

[1430]

A. Weaver: Thank you to the minister for referring to the Supreme Court ruling, which in fact actually ensures that the province continues to retain jurisdiction over issuing land tenures that designate the area a fish farm will occupy.

Although

section 8 of the land use operational policy for aquaculture cites the provincial government’s sustainability principles as informing leasing decisions, current operating practices indicate these values are not being adequately applied.

Earlier this month the federal court ruled against an aquaculture licence condition that allowed diseased fish to be transferred into open-pen fish farms, and DFO — that’s federal, of course — has been given four months to fix this policy. Nevertheless, there remains provincial jurisdiction.

Given that we currently lack the regulations needed to verify the presence and control the spread of pathogens in farmed salmon, will the Minister of Agriculture today commit to stop granting new licences of occupation for this industry on sockeye salmon migration routes?

Hon. N. Letnick: Again, I have to repeat that the government is committed to the socially and ecologically responsible management of B.C. fisheries. That’s why we employ two of the outstanding experts in fish biology right here in British Columbia. That’s why we have the great lab in Abbotsford — to make sure we continue testing for fish diseases.

The federal government is conducting a surveillance program on ISA, as the member has said, and the status of three viruses on the west coast — ISA, IHN and PRV. So far all results were negative, no virus.

When we look at IHN, they tested a total of 1,300 B.C. wild salmon and trout for IHN in 2012-2013. Again, all were negative, no virus.

Sea lice are native to B.C. waters, like many other wild animals which have a population cycle trend. What they find is the more that come during one season, the more potential for sea lice in the following season.

Once again, we take very seriously our role in the provision of licensing and also in tenuring. We will continue to hold those values very high to make sure that our wild salmon are protected in British Columbia.

CORONER'S INQUESTS INTO

MILL EXPLOSIONS AND

CALL FOR PUBLIC INQUIRY

S. Simpson: The Lakeland inquest has now concluded. The families, we know, wanted an independent inquiry to determine responsibility and look critically at the role of WorkSafe B.C. in this tragedy that led to two deaths and over 20 injuries. The Premier and the minister rejected that request and endorsed sending the matter to the coroner’s inquest.

The families then asked for legal counsel to ensure their questions were asked. That was denied by government as well.

The inquest jury has now concluded and presented non-binding recommendations, primarily on operational matters. But we know they were forbidden from addressing or answering the family’s questions because of the coroner’s process. The families and workers are frustrated by a process that was destined not to provide the answers to their questions.

What does the Premier say to those families and workers who believe this process has failed them?

Hon. S. Bond: I know that we’ve discussed this topic a number of times, not only in this House but during the estimates process. All of us certainly…. Our hearts are very saddened by what happened at both Babine and Lakeland.

We have made ongoing commitments to work to improve safety in mills across British Columbia. That started with a significant report by Gord Macatee, who provided 43 recommendations. We’re very pleased that he retains the position of oversight — looking at the report, looking at the recommendations.

The moment that we received the recommendations from the inquest, the Premier made it very clear that our job was to take every single recommendation seriously. We already have a template where we are looking at each recommendation. Our ministry will be looking at the overall government response in each ministry where there is a recommendation.

[1435]

We know this — that there is nothing that we can do that will replace the lives that have been lost and the pain that those families have suffered. What we can do is be vigilant about the recommendations that have been provided both by Mr. Macatee and by the inquest jury.

Madame Speaker: Vancouver-Hastings on a supplemental.

[ Page 8807 ]

S. Simpson: While we know that the recommendations of the jury will provide for operational improvements, we also know that the families, the victims and the workers need closure. They are not getting closure from this process.

The Babine inquest will be held in July in Burns Lake. The families there are bracing for the same disappointment. This community there feels abandoned, to the point where Maureen Luggi, the widow of one of the victims, has started fundraising so that they can hire legal counsel. Ultimately, the families at Babine believe — like the families at Lakeland now know — that they will not get the resolution they’re seeking without an independent inquiry.

The Premier has an opportunity today to acknowledge the inadequacy of this process to answer these questions. If she’s not prepared to put an independent inquiry in place, will the Premier at least pay for legal counsel for the families in Burns Lake so that they can have a voice?

Hon. S. Bond: As difficult as it is…. The member opposite has been very sincere in his conversations with the families. I’ve certainly met with them as well very recently, with victims whose lives have been changed forever. But I can tell the member opposite that I think there are very few things that will ever bring closure to families, to communities, to all of us.

We have said clearly that not only will we continue to be vigilant with changes at WorkSafe — and I can tell you that Mr. Macatee regularly reviews and updates publicly the progress that’s been made at WorkSafe — but we also intend to take every single recommendation seriously, to move forward. As I said to the member opposite earlier, we have already started a cross-government approach to the recommendations that have been provided.

We can simply say today that we will continue to work to improve worker safety in British Columbia. We recognize that it has been unbelievably difficult and traumatic for those families, and we are committed to improving workplace safety in British Columbia.

[End of question period.]

Ministerial Statements

SITE C POWER PROJECT

Hon. B. Bennett: Today I rise to provide an update on the most important public infrastructure project in a generation. This summer construction will begin on the Site C clean energy project. It will take eight years to build and, once complete, will provide low-cost, reliable and clean power for over 100 years.

A few weeks ago B.C. Hydro selected the preferred proponent to build the worker accommodation for Site C. The camp will house approximately 1,600 workers. It will be self-sufficient, with high-quality facilities to attract and retain highly skilled workers from British Columbia and the rest of Canada.

B.C. Hydro also recently awarded a contract for site clearing that will create 40 local jobs to a Chetwynd company that employs many members of the Saulteau First Nations. These two contract announcements represent just a small fraction of the opportunities that are being generated by the Site C project.

In the months and years ahead B.C. Hydro will award contracts for the site preparation for the main civil works — the turbines and generators, the generation station and spillways, and the substation and transmission lines. There will also be contracts for local transportation improvements and housing investments. Together, these contracts will provide thousands of jobs for British Columbians.

Today B.C. Hydro announced an agreement with the B.C. Building Trades that will ensure that all British Columbians will build this historic project together.

[1440]

The people of B.C. deserve to know where we, as members of this House, stand on this important project. That’s why today I will be tabling a motion in support of the construction of the Site C project. A majority of British Columbians are saying yes to this project. I hope that all members will join me today in saying yes to this motion and to the construction of this unique and historic project that will secure a century of affordable, reliable and clean power.

A. Dix: We’re seeing in action Liberal energy policy which, as the old quotation says, repeats itself first as tragedy, then as farce. W.A.C. Bennett and Bill Bennett and Dave Barrett and Bill Vander Zalm and Mike Harcourt and Glen Clark and, yes, Gordon Campbell agreed on one thing. The way you build these projects to benefit British Columbia, on time and on budget, is that project labour agreement.

Why do you have project labour agreements on these projects? They ensure local hires. They ensure First Nations hires. They’re best for productivity. They’re the best for safety. They’re the best for qualifications. They’re the best for apprenticeships. They’re the best for on time and on budget.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members. Members.

A. Dix: That’s why you have project labour agreements on these projects. This government has recklessly abandoned that principle. Of course, the building trades unions are doing the best to represent their workers under those circumstances. But these projects should be built as those projects were built — with project labour agreements.

[ Page 8808 ]

We have seen what would happen under this government. I am surprised that the author of the 50-30 formula on capital projects at B.C. Hydro, the Minister of Energy, who described Liberal decision-making this way…. He says: “Typically what we do is come out with a number, and they’ll say it could be 50 percent higher or 30 percent lower.” It’s the minister’s 50-30 formula. That’s how he describes their planning in this matter.

With respect….

Interjections.

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

A. Dix: This is the way the minister plans projects. If you apply his principle, his planning approach to Site C, it could be somewhere between $6 billion and $14 billion. That’s the Minister of Energy’s formula.

When they decided to exempt the northwest transmission line from BCUC approval, people in B.C. paid the price for their incompetence. When they decided to exempt their so-called clean energy plan from BCUC approval, people of B.C. paid for their incompetence to the tune of $1.4 billion. When it comes to smart meters, the people of B.C. have paid for their incompetence to the tune of $900 million.

In the last few days we have seen people put the minister’s numbers to the test, and they’ve come up with a failing grade. If they believe in their numbers, they should follow the law and refer the project to the BCUC for approval. They don’t want to hear from anybody else. The people of B.C. know….

Interjections.

A. Dix: There they go again. This is their approach to energy policy — to make the most massive mistakes in history and then try and shout down people who are opposed to what they do.

The fact of the matter is our position is as clear as it could be. We believe in project labour agreements, and we believe the Site C project should be referred to the BCUC so that their analysis is tested, as it should be under the law.

[1445]

A. Weaver: Hon. Speaker, is this a motion that we are to debate on the floor as of now?

I’d like to quickly respond to the motion before I introduce the petition.

Interjections.

A. Weaver: No room? To the statements.

Interjections.

A. Weaver: No?

Madame Speaker: Please present your petition.

Petitions

A. Weaver: Okay. I will present a petition.

I would like to present a petition on probably the most irresponsible fiscal decision the government has ever made in the B.C. Legislature. This is a petition by 108,848 people who are asking the government to please not issue licences of occupation to salmon farms trying to expand in British Columbia. The rationale for that I outlined in question period.

This petition very clearly identifies the wishes of British Columbians. This petition, I hope, is listened to by the government of British Columbia.

Madame Speaker: Is that a second petition, Member?

A. Weaver: It is.

Madame Speaker: Please proceed.

A. Weaver: I have a second petition.

Now, this is a petition of over 100 business organizations across the province who are essentially supporting the 109,000 individuals who signed this. These business organizations are small businesses, umbrella organizations, environmental organizations, fly fishing organizations, river societies, sailing societies — numerous societies across British Columbia.

They are asking the following: “We, the undersigned, are convinced by the published scientific evidence that open-net salmon farms are a threat to B.C. wild Pacific salmon….”

Hon. C. Oakes: I seek leave to table three reports.

Madame Speaker: Please proceed.

Tabling Documents

Hon. C. Oakes: I have the honour to present the 2013-2014 annual report on the Islands Trust, the Property Assessment Appeal Board’s report and the B.C. Assessment Authority’s annual service plan.

[ Page 8809 ]

Motions Without Notice

APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE TO

REVIEW THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION

AND PROTECTION OF PRIVACY ACT

Hon. M. de Jong: By leave, I move two motions, which I think have been circulated, relating to the special committee to be appointed to review the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. As I say, I believe the motions setting out the terms of reference have been circulated to the official opposition and the independent members of the Legislature.

[That a Special Committee be appointed to review the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (RSBC 1996 c. 165) pursuant to

section 80 of that Act, and that the Special Committee so appointed shall have the powers of a Select Standing Committee and is also empowered:

(

a) to appoint of their number one or more subcommittees and to refer to such subcommittees any of the matters referred to the Committee;

(

b) to sit during a period in which the House is adjourned, during the recess after prorogation until the next following Session and during any sitting of the House;

(

c) to adjourn from place to place as may be convenient;

(

d) to conduct public consultations by any means the Committee considers appropriate, including but not limited to public meetings and electronic means; and

(

e) to retain personnel as required to assist the Committee;

and shall submit a report, including any recommendations respecting the results of the review, to the Legislative Assembly within one year of this resolution being adopted by the House; and shall deposit the original of its reports with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly during a period of adjournment and upon resumption of the sittings of the House, the Chair shall present all reports to the Legislative Assembly.

That the said Special Committee is to be composed of Don McRae (Convenor), Eric Foster, Sam Sullivan, Jackie Tegart, John Yap, Kathy Corrigan, David Eby, and Doug Routley .]

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE TO

APPOINT A MERIT COMMISSIONER

Hon. M. de Jong: Secondly, with leave, I move the appointment of a special committee to select and unanimously recommend to the assembly the appointment of an individual to hold office as the Merit Commissioner. Again, I believe the motion has been circulated to members of the House or their representatives.

[That a Special Committee be appointed to select and unanimously recommend to the Legislative Assembly the appointment of an individual to hold office as the Merit Commissioner for the Province of British Columbia, pursuant to

section 5.01 of the Public Service Act (RSBC 1996, c. 385);

The said Special Committee shall have the powers of a Select Standing Committee and in addition is empowered:

(

a) to appoint of their number one or more subcommittees and to refer to such subcommittees any of the matters referred to the Committee;

(

b) to sit during a period in which the House is adjourned, during the recess after prorogation until the next following Session and during any sitting of the House;

(

c) to adjourn from place to place as may be convenient; and

(

d) to retain personnel as required to assist the Committee;

and shall report to the House as soon as possible, or following any adjournment, or at the next following Session, as the case may be; to deposit the original of its reports with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly during a period of adjournment and upon resumption of the sittings of the House, the Chair shall present all reports to the Legislative Assembly.

That the said Special Committee is to be composed of Marvin Hunt (Convenor), Doug Bing, Laurie Throness, Harry Bains, and Claire Trevena .]

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

[1450-1455]

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: In this chamber, Committee of Supply — for the information of members, estimates of the Office of the Premier.

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: OFFICE OF THE PREMIER

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

The committee met at 2:57 p.m.

On Vote 10: Office of the Premier, $9,028,000.

J. Horgan: I thank the Premier and her staff assembled here today for the next number of hours as we explore not just, of course, the budget allocation in the blue books but also to look broadly, I believe, at government policy — as the head of the executive council.

Most particularly, the issue I want to begin with, having with us today the head of the public service, the Deputy Minister to the Premier, on hand…. It’s useful, I believe, to British Columbians to have discussions like this. Quite often — as you know, hon. Chair, and members on both sides will know — the public’s exposure to discussions and debates around the objectives, goals and aspirations of government tends to come in the six o’clock news in packages of adversarial discussions around the issues that are topical for the day in question period.

It’s good to be in the main chamber. It’s been a few years, I think, since we’ve had Premier’s estimates in the main chamber. I recall last year being on the third floor, wishing that there was air conditioning in 1895 when

[ Page 8810 ]

they built this building. And now here we are in this resplendent hall to have a discussion about the Premier’s estimates, about the Premier’s objectives, what the government’s policy thrust will be in the coming year.

I believe to do that there needs to be a bit of a retrospective. I think we need to look back on the past year and the year forward to ensure that we have a clear understanding of what the Premier’s objectives are.

I know that people who observe politics, people who observe government, oftentimes hear their political leaders making promises about this, making promises about that. What I hope to do today is to explore some of the promises that the Premier has made on behalf of her government and have a bit of a report card on just how well that’s going.

[1500]

The first one that springs to mind was the result of a public policy decision, a government decision that would have been, certainly, part and parcel of the job description of the head of the public service in 2012, when seven public officials and an eighth, a contractor, were fired by government. There was a leak to the media about actions of individuals. There was discussion of an RCMP investigation.

Now, one can well imagine…. I think regular folks at home can understand that if they’re at work one day and the next day they’re told they’ve been summarily fired and, more importantly than that, that they are now under RCMP investigation, that’s going to cause, certainly, some distress in those families. Regrettably and tragically, with respect to this particular file, one individual, Rod MacIsaac, took his life.

Along with Rod were Dave Scott, Ramsay Hamdi, Bob Hart, Malcolm Maclure, Ron Mattson, Rebecca Warburton and Bill Warburton. With respect to Mr. MacIsaac, not only was he terminated from his position, he was paid $482.53 for outstanding work remaining in his contract.

The insult, of course, of that led to his sister, Linda Kayfish, and her spouse, Doug, coming to Victoria and to this chamber and holding a conference that raised public awareness of the issue and led to the Premier appointing an investigator, one local lawyer who was referred to in the House today, Marcia McNeil.

Ms. McNeil conducted her review with limited terms of reference. I wrote to the Premier at that time and urged her to give Ms. McNeil powers of subpoena, powers to compel testimony. Regrettably, that was ignored.

The promise from the Premier, hon. Chair, if I could read it to you, was: “It’s important that this review be thorough. It’s important that we get to the bottom of it. That is what, by the end of October” — it turned out to be the end of December — “we hope to be able to do.” That was the promise.

What was the reality? Well, at the end of 2014, Ms. McNeil tabled her report and said the following:

“Two of the most difficult questions I considered during my review were who effectively made the dismissal decisions, and what factors were considered. These questions remain unanswered. Although the deputy minister signed the letters of dismissal” — and that’s referring, of course, to the Deputy Minister of Health, which was the former position held by the current head of the public service —”for each of the employees, no one has taken responsibility for making the effective recommendation to dismiss the employees.” Instead, they most likely had effective recommendations all pointed to someone else.

I’m going to be spending some time on this, so I hope that the Premier is well prepared and her staff are ready to answer these questions.

The Premier said that she was going to get to the bottom of this. Ms. Kayfish came here with two simple questions: “Who fired my brother and why?” We spent a sum of money to retain counsel, to retain a reviewer. That reviewer was unable to get anyone to take accountability.

A promise that says “get to the bottom of it,” in my world, and I think in the world of most British Columbians, suggests accountability. Why is it that the Premier allowed this report to be tabled without any accountability?

Hon. C. Clark: Well, I’d like to take the opportunity again to thank Ms. McNeil for her report. In her report she certainly found that there was a lack of due process. I agree with that. I recognize that. As a result, we are acting on her report to make sure that the due process that wasn’t observed in the government, in this case, is addressed. That should not have happened, and it should certainly never happen again, and that is our goal.

J. Horgan: I think that although that was a very brief response from the Premier, falling back on the talking points from last December — “We appointed someone, they came back and told us something, and we’re going to accept it” — what the report said was: “No one would take responsibility. I was unable to compel people to talk. There was no paper trail of any consequence.”

In fact, one

section of the report was completely redacted. That’s now referred to as appendix D. In appendix D we now learn — all of this, of course, kept from the public at the time — that on September 5, counsel, that being the Attorney General, sent e-mails to the Public Service Agency confirming that no advice had been sought regarding whether there was just cause for dismissal.

Now, I’ve worked in government at senior levels of government. I understand that you don’t make decisions without a paper trail. You certainly don’t fire people without seeking legal advice.

[1505]

You’ve got a building full of lawyers that are just waiting to have questions asked of them — and a very simple one in this instance, when you have besmirched the repu-

[ Page 8811 ]

tation of seven individuals, you have alleged an RCMP investigation is underway. Certainly, you would have received or sought legal advice.

As the Premier has at her disposal the head of the public service, can I ask her why it was that when we’re tarnishing the reputations and affecting the lives of seven individuals — regrettably, Rod MacIsaac, in a moment of despair, took his own life — why wouldn’t the government of British Columbia seek legal advice on whether or not these were wrongful dismissals?

We know that they were not. Most of the individuals in question — Mr. Hart, Mr. Maclure — have been returned to their positions. Mr. Mattson has been given an apology. He decided: “I don’t want anything to do with you people. I’m going to retire.” Two cases remain before the courts, and two individuals have had apologies but have not been reinstated to their positions.

I think the issue here is: why would the people of British Columbia have any comfort at all that senior officials in government…? These are powerful people — deputy ministers, Premiers, cabinet ministers. Why in the world would they take action without seeking even limited legal advice on whether or not they were on the right track?

Hon. C. Clark: Well, of course, I want to again…. Ms. McNeil’s report was a very thoughtful and incisive report. It was very helpful, and of course, it was very balanced. We intend…. We have been implementing or acting based on the recommendations she offered in that report.

The member points out that processes were not properly followed. He’s quite right about that. Ms. McNeil said that in her report. I accept her comments about that, and we’re acting to make sure that we address the issues that she raised with respect to process.

J. Horgan: Again, I hope that the Premier will listen carefully to the questions that I’m asking of her. I appreciate that she has talking points. She has a binder full of quotations that she’s able to stand up and read back.

This is the beauty of this process. And for those watching in the gallery and those watching at home, this is an opportunity to demonstrate that you have a genuine understanding of the files that are before the people of British Columbia, that you have a genuine understanding of how to respond to issues that are absolutely grotesque.

In this instance we had government officials, particularly in the public affairs bureau or the government communications branches, issuing a press release after leaking information to one news source — putting in a press release that an RCMP investigation was underway. We now know, based on the non-redacted appendix D to Ms. McNeil’s report, that counsel, the Attorney General, recommended against making any reference whatsoever to the RCMP because in fact there was no RCMP investigation underway.

Why would it be that now, months after receiving this report, there has been no acknowledgment that a clutch of people in the Premier’s office made a decision to fire seven individuals, to besmirch them, to wreck their lives, when they had advice that said, “Do not talk about the RCMP,” but they did it anyway?

Hon. C. Clark: Well, the truth is that Ms. McNeil found that there were serious breaches of policy — that the public service did not respond appropriately to the allegations of misconduct and that we need to be able to make sure that we do it better was the recommendation that she made.

The decision-making process didn’t follow the model that public service has for investigations into allegations of serious misconduct and didn’t follow best practices for those investigations — things that the member has pointed out. I agree with that. That’s why we’ve taken her report and intend to make sure that we will learn from it, that we will change the way that the public service works. We thank her very much for that report.

J. Horgan: Can the Premier confirm that public affairs officials, one of whom was working in her office at the time, issued a press statement saying that there was an RCMP investigation underway, even though the Attorney General’s ministry advised against it?

Hon. C. Clark: I can confirm that the press release the member refers to was issued, although I don’t believe it was issued from my office.

[1510]

J. Horgan: Again, the Premier is the head of the executive council. Ministers report to her. Deputy ministers report to the person sitting on her immediate right, who also happens to be the head of the public service.

We had a public shaming of seven public officials. It is inconceivable to me, based on my personal experience. inconceivable, I believe, to most British Columbians that such an activity could take place without senior officials putting their hands it.

With respect to the specific question I asked, does the Premier understand that her public servants allowed a press release to be issued contrary to the wishes of the Attorney General’s ministry because it referred to an RCMP investigation that was not underway?

Hon. C. Clark: Well, if advice was provided, I certainly can’t share that with the House today, but I will say this. Certainly, the member is correct that the press release did go out. Again, I want to reiterate the fact that on the government side of the House, I personally have apologized, as has the Minister of Health. We very much regret what happened and are taking every step we can to make sure that we address it.

[ Page 8812 ]

That’s why we asked Ms. McNeil to look into the issues at hand and come back with a report. She pointed out some very serious issues with respect to due process. We’re grateful for the work that she did because it allows us to be able to take steps forward and try and address the problems that she pointed out so that it does not happen again.

J. Horgan: I’m going to get back on this line of questioning, but I will seize upon a comment the Premier made. She said that she apologized. Did she contact Linda Kayfish and speak to her directly? Did she contact the individuals in question — Dave Scott, Ramsay Hamdi, Bob Hart, Malcolm McClure, Ron Mattson and Rebecca Warburton? Or did she stand up and say, “Hey, I’m sorry,” and then sit back down again?

Hon. C. Clark: I think the member knows the context of my apology. It was issued on behalf of the government in this chamber. I know the Minister of Health contacted some of the individuals affected directly as well.

J. Horgan: Again, I’d like to go back to the Premier on the context. Perhaps she can refresh my memory. What was the context of that apology? Did it include the individuals that I just named?

Hon. C. Clark: If the member can’t recall, I’m not going to add to it.

J. Horgan: Well, fine with me. If the Premier can’t remember who she was apologizing to when she made the apology, that’s her business.

Let’s go to the RCMP investigation. We’ve been canvassing this issue for some time. It’s a critically serious point, in my view, of how government asserts its power as employer.

In many instances there are people in British Columbia who don’t like governments. They’re fearful of large entities that are unaccountable. This whole sordid affair reinforces that lack of accountability.

When a government — senior individuals in a government — can destroy lives on a whim and then not be accountable for it, it’s little wonder that the public has a lack of confidence in our public institutions.

I’d like to go back to the RCMP investigation. The Premier, although this is not apparent to those watching at home, is surrounded by officials that were working in her office at the time who were absolutely critically aware, based on freedom-of-information requests that we have tabled, that meetings have taken place with senior officials on this subject.

Could the Premier tell the people of British Columbia today why it is that she allowed a press release to be issued, with the full support of the people that are surrounding her right now, that besmirched and smeared public servants who were just doing their job trying to make people’s lives better?

Pure, raw health research — not spin, not press releases, not self-promotion, but actually trying to help people by making sure that appropriate drugs were tested, that appropriate drugs were approved and that public health was satisfied.

That’s a simple question. Why did you smear them? Why did you not recant when you made this apology that you now don’t want to talk about?

Hon. C. Clark: I have spoken about the apology quite a few times on behalf of the government. I will say this is a very serious issue. The member is right about that.

What Ms. McNeil reported for us told us exactly how serious it was and offered us a path to make sure that we could try and address the process issues that she identified. We intend to do that.

But as the member talks about lives that have been destroyed and how important it is for government to stand up for people, he should think about the lives that were destroyed while he was advising a government that had record unemployment, lowest private sector investment in the country, that sent our province into a debt spiral that took us years and years to get out of.

[1515]

Those people who had to leave our province because they couldn’t find work, whose lives and livelihoods were destroyed by New Democrat decisions — those people had their lives destroyed.

So the member should get up and perhaps think about what he says, because those policies, perhaps some of them the direct result of his advice and his actions, affected thousands and thousands of British Columbians. Hopefully, most of them have found a way to come back. But when you talk about destroying lives, there was a decade in British Columbia when so many thousands of people found their lives irreparably damaged by work that he did.

J. Horgan: I appreciate the Premier is wanting to blame everyone else for something that happened in a land far, far away. What we are doing today, I’m sure you’ll be reminding us as the afternoon progresses, is dealing with the decisions of the government of British Columbia today — the decisions and the policy thrust of the government of British Columbia today, not some magical time in the past that the Premier has conjured up as a defence. It’s quite startling that it only took 15 minutes before she got to hyperbolic stage 3.

I’d like to come back, if I could, to the question at hand. Advice was given by the Attorney General’s ministry — as I’ve said, a building full of lawyers, capable people all. That advice was do not — do not — make reference to an RCMP investigation that is not going on. And it happened anyway.

[ Page 8813 ]

My question back to the Premier on the question that’s before us in the Legislature today — not 20, 30, 40, 60 years ago: why is it that the government did what the Attorney General told them not to do?

Hon. C. Clark: Well, I’ve already responded to that question.

With respect to the land, land far away, I notice that the member wants to run far, far away from the land far, far away. Not that far in the past for many British Columbians to forget.

He’s right. It is interesting that it took me 15 minutes to get on to talking about the economy. I’m not surprised that the member hasn’t talked about the economy yet. He hasn’t shown much appetite for it in the entire time since he’s taken over on that side of the House as leader.

I am quite happy to talk about the economy and to talk about those issues relating to jobs, putting people to work, family-supporting jobs. I look forward to the member finding the time at some point, because he doesn’t do it in question period, to start addressing the issues that are so critical to British Columbians in terms of jobs, the economy, their futures and their children’s futures.

J. Horgan: Mr. Graham Whitmarsh was the Deputy Minister of Health at the time of the wrongful terminations of seven individuals. Mr. Whitmarsh met with John Dyble, the head of the public service, to discuss these issues. Mr. Dyble had, in fact, been the Deputy Minister of Health at the time the allegations originally surfaced about the individuals in question and the privacy information that was the root of the challenge.

Mr. Whitmarsh says that advice was sought and the advice was: “Do not proceed.” Mr. Whitmarsh said that the Premier’s office was intimately involved and that the deputy of corporate initiatives at the time, Ms. Mentzelopoulos, overrode those decisions coming from the Attorney General’s ministry and issued the release anyway. Someone is not telling the truth. Perhaps the Premier could enlighten us on just who that is.

Hon. C. Clark: I just want to be clear about what Ms. McNeil said in her report as we continue on this topic: “Mr. Dyble received a general briefing regarding the investigation, and it was well in advance of the decision to fire the Ministry of Health employees. And he” — Mr. Dyble — “had no role in the decision.”

J. Horgan: I think the Premier may not have the appropriate documents in front of her. The quote that she just read is from the Deputy Attorney General, Mr. Fyfe, not from Ms. McNeil. It references Ms. McNeil, but it’s not from Ms. McNeil, so perhaps we can get the people over there to scurry through those documents and get the right piece of paper for the Premier.

But, again, someone is not telling the truth. Someone is not telling the truth, and I want to know if the Premier has an opinion on just who that might be.

[1520]

Hon. C. Clark: The member is quite right in correcting me.

J. Horgan: Mr. Whitmarsh says the following: “I can see you are in a difficult….” This is in a letter to Ms. McNeil in the process of her investigation. Pardon me, it’s to Lynda Tarras, who was at that time the head of the public service — the Public Service Agency, as opposed to the head of the public service — and who Ms. McNeil reported to.

“I can see you are in a difficult position, having been directed to undertake the review. Your immediate supervisor, John Dyble, is also seriously conflicted in this matter. You and I, both individually and together, briefed John on many occasions during the course of the investigation.

“While his involvement was much less than your own” — making reference to Ms. Tarras — “he was involved in some of the key decisions and the timing of some of the key events. In addition, he was the Deputy Minister of Health at the time many of the actions that were the subject of the investigation happened. The original investigation never looked in depth above the executive director level.”

In other words, they were scapegoating at the time. That’s the subtext here. That’s Mr. Whitmarsh.

Mr. Fyfe, on behalf of Mr. Dyble, says the following: “I have been advised” — he’s a lawyer, mind, so he has been advised; he’s not asserting; he’s saying he was advised — “that while Mr. Dyble received a general briefing regarding the investigation, it was well in advance of the decision to fire the Ministry of Health employees, and he had no role in that decision.”

Mr. Fyfe is, in writing to Ms. McNeil, saying that he does not know as fact but that he has been advised of one thing. Mr. Whitmarsh asserts something quite different. I’m not bringing Mr. Fyfe into this. This comes down to the deputy to the Premier and the former Deputy Minister of Health. Someone is not telling the truth. Perhaps the Premier can advise us on just who that is.

Hon. C. Clark: Well, why not bring Mr. Fyfe into it? The member is quite happy to drag professional public servants’ names through the mud whenever it’s politically convenient for him to do so.

The individuals he has spoken of today are people who have met the highest standard of public service in our government for many years. Many of them have served under NDP governments, as well as B.C. Liberal governments. They are non-partisan people working very hard on behalf of the public of British Columbia. They deserve better, I think, than the character assassination the member loves to engage in for political gain.

J. Horgan: Rod MacIsaac is no longer with us. Dave Scott and Ramsay Hamdi were punched out of the of-

[ Page 8814 ]

fice. Their pictures, as recently as this week, were at the Ministry of Health head office here on Blanshard Street as undesirables, not allowed into the building — as recently as this week. Bob Hart, Malcolm Maclure, Ron Mattson, Rebecca Warburton, Bill Warburton. That’s character assassination. Firing people, putting out a press release saying they’re under investigation by the Mounties — that’s character assassination.

What I’m asking for is accountability. Power has to be accountable. That’s why we have a Legislature. That’s why we’re having this discussion. When I raise these issues in question period, when my colleagues raise these issues in question period, we get back hyperbolic level No. 7. This is an opportunity for the Premier to set the record straight.

She promised to get to the bottom of it. That’s what she said. She said in this Legislature, “I’m going to get to the bottom of this. I have appointed someone who’s going to report” to someone who was intimately involved in the issue. She was going to make a determination on accountability, and it didn’t happen.

Why no accountability from power in British Columbia? That’s what citizens absolutely need to know. There is an imbalance here between the eight individuals that I’m talking about and the senior officials that are pointing at everyone else.

Hon. C. Clark: Well, I mean, I don’t want to speak specifically to this case, as parts of it are before the court. But I will say that deputy ministers are generally responsible — and the member knows this; I hope he’s read the act — for personnel decisions in their ministry, including decisions of discipline or termination.

As I’ve said a number of times, Ms. McNeil’s report did clearly identify that there were serious shortcomings in the process, and she has offered advice to address that. We are taking that advice so that we can ensure this does not happen again.

J. Horgan: The Deputy Minister, Mr. Whitmarsh, said that the deputy to the Premier was intimately involved in the discussions and deliberations and decisions around the firings. The deputy to the Premier says he was not. Someone is clearly not on the same page.

I know how the cabinet works. I know how deputy ministers work. I know that there is a hierarchy. One of them is no longer here, and one of them still is. Again, someone is telling a different story than the reality would suggest. I just wonder if the Premier could give me her sense of just what went on here.

Hon. C. Clark: I’ve answered that question a number of times, Mr. Chair.

[1525]

J. Horgan: According to appendix D that I referred to, that’s now…. Of course, this was redacted. I think that’s important. “Redacted,” for those who don’t know, means it was whited out.

The report that was going to get to the bottom of this, the report that the Premier said she commissioned because she was so concerned about accountability, the entire section, the entire appendix — two pages of a chronology of who I talked to and what they said — was all whited out.

We now have it. It’s now a public document. It was made available to us in the opposition. According to appendix D, on September 5 and 6, 2012, there were four e-mail exchanges between the Ministry of Justice and the GCPE regarding government’s September 6 press release announcing the firings and the appropriateness of referencing an RCMP investigation. The Premier will recall that the final press release said that the RCMP had been contacted regarding these issues.

Can the Premier explain why her former deputy minister responsible for government communications, Ms. Mentzelopoulos, ignored that advice and issued the release anyway? Can she explain why that happened?

Hon. C. Clark: With respect to the redactions, civil litigation, as the member knows, is ongoing with respect to some of the Ministry of Health firings, so great care has been taken to make sure that there was no waiver of privilege through the McNeil review. That’s something that we’re required to do, and that’s something that we did.

J. Horgan: I appreciate that there is litigation still underway. But this is an issue that happened according to the chronology that was in the report that got to the bottom of it. The deputy minister that reported to the Premier on communications disregarded advice with respect to naming the RCMP in a press release.

Does the Premier have any concerns about staff that reported directly to her ignoring legal advice that led to besmirching the reputations and lives of individuals, and in one instance led to their tragic death? Does that not concern her at all?

Hon. C. Clark: The member is happy to call others on besmirching reputations and then is quite happy to do it himself, as he regularly does for his own political advantage and gain.

Ms. McNeil said in her report that there were serious procedural process issues that needed to be addressed. We have taken the results from that report. We are addressing her concerns, because our hope is exactly the same — that this kind of thing, which was wrong and done badly and harmed people, should never happen again.

J. Horgan: I agree with the Premier. If we want this to not happen again, there has to be some level of accountability. If you can do what was done in this instance, if a

[ Page 8815 ]

senior political appointment can disregard legal advice because they want to get a bigger splash in the morning news, that’s a problem.

It’s a problem for the people of British Columbia, and it should be a problem for every member of this Legislature. Power is a problem. Power needs accountability. That’s why in our adversarial system we have a government and an opposition. My job, the job of my colleagues, is to hold the government accountable, and the government includes every component part.

In this instance, the deputy minister reporting to the Premier who was responsible for communications disregarded advice from the Attorney General. She said in a press release — and sent it around the world…. It’s on the interweb. You can go and find the series of tubes, and it will come right back to the RCMP, even though the recommendation was: “Do not do that.”

Again, if we’re seeking to get to the bottom of this, as the Premier earnestly said in her promise, the first of many promises I hope to explore today…. In her promise she said she was going to get to the bottom of it. That means accountability. There is none. Miss McNeil said: “I cannot find anyone accountable because I can’t compel testimony.”

The deputy responsible for communications, reporting directly to the Premier, disregarded legal advice and besmirched eight individuals. Can the Premier explain how that could possibly happen on her watch?

Hon. C. Clark: Ms. McNeil did point out that there were very serious flaws in the way this was managed. She was correct about that. We are addressing the concerns that she has raised in the way that she suggested we address them so that we can ensure that it doesn’t happen again.

J. Horgan: Does the Premier believe that accountability is critical to citizens having respect for their public institutions?

[1530]

Hon. C. Clark: I think that citizens need to know that their government is standing up for them and fighting for their interests, making sure — this is my view of it; I know that the member differs — that we are turning our minds to making sure we grow the economy.

I know that the member differs with this too, that we are turning our minds to making sure we support an environmentally sound resource industry across the province. We turn our minds to making sure that British Columbians have the training that they need to be first in line for the jobs that are coming in our province. We turn our minds to keeping taxes low, to looking after our finances and taking as little away from British Columbians as we can afford to and still be able to share the wealth of this great province with people who are more vulnerable.

Those are commitments that I take very seriously. Those are things that people expect from their government.

Governments are held accountable for their decisions every four years — in my case, after two years. We presented a plan to the people of British Columbia, an economic plan, one that we already had done almost two years of full work on and begun to really deliver on. British Columbians held us accountable for the work that we’ve done. They re-elected the government and confirmed that they felt we were going in the right direction.

Although there are many different ways to demonstrate accountability, ultimately, every four years the biggest shareholder meeting in the province is the best way to confirm and ensure that government remains accountable. We’re doing that.

J. Horgan: In this instance, on the subject which we are canvassing right now, the Premier said: “I’m going to get to the bottom of this.” There is no accountability. Again, on this issue, with respect to the public officials that were besmirched and smeared and those that made the decisions to allow that to happen, why is it there’s been no accountability?

Hon. C. Clark: Well, the member, of course, isn’t shy about besmirching hard-working public servants. He continues to do that at the same time that he decries the behaviour in others.

As I said, I deeply regret what happened in this case. That’s why we went to ask Ms. McNeil to have a look at it, come back with recommendations, determine what went wrong. She’s done that. We take those very seriously, and we’re working to make sure that we fix that.

There were serious flaws in the process. We certainly acknowledge that. It’s up to government. The accountability of government is to make sure we accept the recommendations, act on them and do everything that we can to make sure that it doesn’t happen again.

J. Horgan: Could the Premier advise the committee who is accountable for those flawed processes?

Hon. C. Clark: Well, ultimately, we need to act on Ms. McNeil’s report, which is what we’ve done. She said there were serious flaws. In acting on that, government is demonstrating that we are being held accountable for it. We asked her to do this report. We knew that it wouldn’t come out…. We knew it was unlikely to reveal that government had done everything perfectly, but we asked for it nonetheless because the issues that she was addressing are crucially important for our public service.

Public servants deserve due process. They work hard. They serve the people of British Columbia well. We want to ensure that their confidence in the process, which they work within every day, remains.

[ Page 8816 ]

J. Horgan: Again, the processes were flawed. Someone had to be responsible for those processes. Decisions were made within that context, and no accountability.

The Premier continues to say that Ms. McNeil identified shortcomings. Absolutely, she unearthed shortcomings, but I don’t see the accountability that the Premier just referred to. Individuals make up systems. Systems fail largely because of individuals and process in tandem. Can the Premier demonstrate and show to me in the McNeil report where there is any accountability at all for the individuals that worked within the processes that she claimed were flawed?

Hon. C. Clark: Well, we took accountability in initiating the report, accepting the recommendations and acting on it.

J. Horgan: Can the Premier tell me how she’s acting on those recommendations?

[1535]

Hon. C. Clark: Well, the head of the civil service has been working very hard with the head of the Public Service Agency, ensuring that every member, every deputy minister across government understands the process for firings and termination, which is something for which they are responsible — they’re named in the act as people being responsible for that — and ensuring that deputy ministers understand how this works, that they live up to those obligations and that the processes are not just followed but tightly followed across the civil service.

J. Horgan: Ms. Tarras did a review when the former chief of staff to the Premier was allegedly involved in inappropriate behaviour with staff. There was a review of his behaviour. He left government, and when we asked for the documents, no documents existed. That strikes me as a fairly flawed process.

We were told at that time that a review had been done. When we asked for the substance of the review, nothing was forthcoming.

The track record after that exposure to the Public Service Agency’s detailed review of flawed process was that we had a second incident, this one that is before the House today, before this committee, whereby individuals that make up the process — the deputy to the Public Service Agency;, the deputy responsible for the public service; and in the case of the Ministry of Health officials that were besmirched and smeared, the Deputy Minister of Health….

The Deputy Minister of Health at the time says that there were intimate discussions with the Premier’s office about the allegations, about how to proceed, and the deputy to the Premier says: “Hey, I don’t know what you’re talking about.” Somewhere between those two poles is likely the truth. Someone is misleading Ms. McNeil and, therefore, making it even more difficult to get to the bottom of it to establish accountability.

Again, I pose the question to the Premier: who’s telling the truth?

Hon. C. Clark: I believe I’ve already answered that question a number of times.

J. Horgan: If the Premier did answer it, I must have missed it, and I will have to wait till tomorrow for the Blues. But perhaps she could just answer it again. Someone’s not telling the truth. Who is it?

Hon. C. Clark: As I said, and as I’ve said a number of times, we initiated the report, took accountability for the issues that happened, the things that happened, the very regrettable actions at the Ministry of Health, and have taken the recommendations in that report very seriously. We’re acting on them across government.

J. Horgan: Again, for regular people who might be tuning into this, I’ve asked a simple question. Two people have different stories. I’m asking the Premier what her opinion is on which one of them is telling the truth. I’ll ask her again. The deputy of Health says that the Premier’s office is intimately involved. The deputy to the Premier says: “I wasn’t.” One of them is not telling the truth. Can the Premier advise this committee who she thinks is telling the truth?

Hon. C. Clark: Well, I’m not going to offer opinions to this House. What I will do instead is offer the facts, which I have done a number of times. I think that if people have tuned in based on the member’s questions, I’m sure many of them have tuned out.

I do hope that sometime in the estimates, as long as we’re talking about opinion, the member and the leader opposite can give us his opinion on the motion that was moved today in the House. Maybe he can tell us in the course of these estimates whether or not he supports the government moving ahead with Site C.

J. Horgan: The Premier just made reference to facts, and the facts, according to Ms. McNeil are: “Two of the most difficult questions I considered during my review were who effectively made the decision to dismiss the individuals and what factors were considered.”

These questions remain unanswered. That’s the fact. They remain unanswered. That’s not me. That’s the person that was appointed by Ms. Tarras, who was involved in the firings in the first place. That was the content of the report. The questions remain unanswered. So it is opinion, in fact, by Ms. McNeil, with respect to accountability.

If the public of British Columbia is going to have confidence in their public institutions, they have to know that there is accountability when processes fail. What

[ Page 8817 ]

happened in this instance was that the Premier said she was going to get to the bottom of it. A report was issued that said: “I can’t get to the bottom of it.” And that’s good enough for the Premier.

[1540]

My question to the Premier is quite simple. Will you reopen this issue so that the public can have some confidence that when power is abused in British Columbia, as it was in this case…?

In the lives of eight individuals, power was abused. Those with it went at those who did not have it. They disregarded legal advice. They made up a story about an RCMP investigation that so traumatized one individual that he took his life, and the Premier is okay with that by reading boxed answers.

Accountability. To the Premier: will you reopen this issue, allow Ms. McNeil or any other prominent person to compel testimony, so we can find out if Mr. Whitmarsh is telling the truth or Mr. Dyble is telling the truth?

Hon. C. Clark: As I’ve said a number of times — actually, quite a number of times — we have accepted Ms. McNeil’s report. We are learning from it. We have improved our processes as a result, and we are working to ensure that we respond better to any other future instances that might occur, although we certainly hope that they will not.

J. Horgan: Again, I’ll just try this one more time. The Premier is a parent. I’m a parent. Many of the people in this room are parents. Children understand accountability. Since I was this big my mom told me to be responsible for your actions, take accountability. The world will be a lot better off if you just fess up.

The issue involved here is eight individuals that were just doing their jobs. They were working to find out if antipsychotic drugs were being appropriately tested, to protect young people and to protect seniors. That is a function of government that I think all British Columbians would want to see more of — protect citizens.

Those individuals were tarnished because government abused power. Does the Premier — last question on this file, so she can load up on the rhetoric — really believe that she got to the bottom of this by being able to stand up and say that no one is accountable?

Hon. C. Clark: I just want to reiterate, based on the member’s comments, which are really just unbelievably inappropriate, that the head of our civil service does not deserve to be called a liar in this House. He does not deserve that after 32 years in the public service and having served under Social Credit, NDP and B.C. Liberal governments. Having worked for ministers at the same time that he did, he deserves better than that in this chamber.

The government has responded with great regret and a direct apology, an acknowledgement that what happened to those individuals was wrong and an effort to make sure that we got all the information that we could to ensure that it didn’t happen again and correct those processes.

We are doing all of that. In the meantime, it is not acceptable for this member for his own personal political gain to stand up and drag the reputations of hard-working public servants through the mud — people who have served our province with a spotless record for over three decades.

That is not acceptable, and the member should stand up and do what the government did for the health employees and apologize.

J. Horgan: Rod MacIsaac, Dave Scott, Ramsay Hamdi, Bob Hart, Malcolm Maclure, Ron Mattson, Rebecca Warburton, Bill Warburton — they’re the ones that deserve the apology in this case. Whenever there’s an abuse of power, whoever does it — New Democrat, Liberal, green spaceman — there needs to be accountability, and you’re skirting it, and that’s offensive to me.

We’re going to move on. We’re going to talk about another promise that the Premier made. She said to me and to the people of British Columbia that there would be a GP for Me program — that by 2015 every British Columbian would have access to a family doctor. How are we doing on that?

We just learned last week in debates with the Minister of Health that the promise that the Premier made, a B.C. Liberal campaign promise, that every single British Columbian would have access to a GP — we’re falling a bit short of that.

Instead of having 176,000 people without a family doctor, as we did in 2010, the five-year record of the GP for Me program has us now at 209,000 British Columbians without a family doctor. The promise from the Premier was that by this year everyone was going to have a family doctor. It turns out that’s not the case. Does the Premier have answers for the 209,000 British Columbians who don’t have access to a family doctor?

[1545]

Hon. C. Clark: Well, I know that the member will be excited to get on to talking about the economy and jobs and training at some point in this discussion. In the meantime, I’m very happy to talk about the issues that he’s already covered, that members have already covered with other ministers in their estimates.

I’m sure he would have received similar information already. The GP for Me program is more than simply connecting a doctor with a patient. It is about ensuring that all of a patient’s health needs are met, about creating better access to primary health care providers, increasing the long-term quality of care to patients.

We are making real progress on that. About 54,600 vulnerable patients are now matched with a primary care

[ Page 8818 ]

provider. That is thanks to the hard work of physicians in this province and the other partners who are working with us on the GP for Me program. There is certainly still a lot of work to do.

It’s a problem that faces provinces across Canada and jurisdictions all over the world, as the population ages. The number of doctors available to treat those patients is tough to keep up with. But we are working at it. Some aspects of the GP for Me program have been enormously successful in making sure that our health outcomes are the second-least-expensive health care in Canada per capita. We remain in the best health outcomes in Canada.

J. Horgan: We’ve been introduced to a term called “aspirational promises” over the past number of years. I’m going to be talking about a number of promises that the Premier has made that were, one would have thought, binding agreements with the people of British Columbia, the shareholders she made reference to earlier on. But over time, as we fall short on meeting those promises, they’re now described as aspirational promises.

I want to know if the Premier was making a real commitment to British Columbians when we had 179,000 British Columbians without a family doctor and now we have 209,000 British Columbians without a family doctor — whether her GP for Me, everyone in B.C. by 2015, promise was a real promise, a promise that we could, as they say, take to the bank. Or was it an aspirational promise and that the voters should have been aware of that when they made their commitment to vote at the last election?

Hon. C. Clark: Well, coming from a man who advised a government that didn’t build a single hospital in the 1990s in the midst of one of the biggest economic expansions in North America, closed 3,000 hospital beds, eliminated nearly 1,600 full-time nursing positions and failed to create a single new medical space…. Under the NDP about 128 doctors were trained. No new spaces were added. Now today 288 doctors graduate annually. We want to continue to grow that.

It’s not just, of course, in Vancouver where it matters. We need to be training doctors outside the Lower Mainland. We know that when doctors are trained in the north, they are much more likely to stay in the north. That is certainly part of the solution of a many-faceted problem to make sure that we’re addressing people’s access to doctors, in particular in rural communities.

J. Horgan: So 176,000 British Columbians without a general practitioner when the Premier made her commitment; 209,000 today. Can the Premier tell us if that’s success in her world?

Hon. C. Clark: I’ve already spoken about the successes of the GP for Me program, including that 54,600 vulnerable patients are newly matched with a primary care provider. That’s thanks to the work of many hard-working physicians and their partners all across the province. We continue to work on that and make sure that we are addressing what is a very, very difficult problem all around the world, making sure that British Columbians, wherever they live, get the care they need.

J. Horgan: Could the Premier advise this committee why she set a goal that she clearly isn’t able to achieve?

The Chair: Premier, before you answer the question, I just want to caution you. The use of the word “lying” is not permitted in the House, so please refrain from using that kind of language.

Hon. C. Clark: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Well, as I said, we have worked very, very hard to make sure we continue to improve our health care system, our best health outcomes in the country, second-least-expensive per capita in the country. We’re certainly doing a lot of things right. We have a lot more to do though. It’s a very complex problem as the population ages and as we need to make sure that there are care providers available for people in the diverse locations all across our province. We’re continuing to work on that.

[1550]

It’s not going to get easier in the coming years. It’s actually going to get harder, particularly as we continue to grow our economy, put people to work, bring more people to British Columbia. The needs are only going to grow. But it’s a challenge that we intend to do our very, very best to meet so that British Columbians can continue to have the best health outcomes in Canada.

J. Horgan: A specific question: 176,000 people without a family doctor in 2013 — the minister at that time, Margaret MacDiarmid, who I believe reported to the now president of the executive council, the Premier of British Columbia — and now 209,000 British Columbians without a family doctor.

Is that success or failure?

Hon. C. Clark: We are certainly working towards success here. I mean, the NDP’s failure to create a single medical space to add doctors in the 1990s has had far-reaching impacts. It has meant that it’s taken governments that’ve taken over from those disastrous years a long time to try and catch up, because it takes years to train doctors.

At the time, I remember the New Democrats quoting people saying we needed less doctors if we wanted to have less costly health care. Well, of course, the exact opposite happened. They should have listened to their critics at the time.

We have responded as a government over the years by making sure we are training more doctors, making sure

[ Page 8819 ]

that we’re supporting more doctors to go into rural communities. We spent over $100 million last year on successful programs to encourage B.C. doctors to move and stay in rural communities. We have some of the most comprehensive funding and incentive programs to make sure that we can retain those doctors in those communities.

As a result, we’ve seen an increase of about 7 percent or 110 more doctors going into rural communities. We need to continue to do that.

As I said, this is a complex problem with a changing population. People around the world, including me, recognize — apparently everybody except the member of the opposition — that this problem is not going to get easier to solve. It’s going to get harder.

J. Horgan: Maybe I’ll go back, and the Premier can advise me on what is a promise and what is an aspirational goal, because I think we’re going to be touching on a lot of this over the next number of hours.

Again, the public doesn’t spend a lot of time thinking about what we do here. They have confidence, when they elect the 85 members of this place, that they have thoughtful individuals who come here to represent the interests of the people in communities in every corner of this spectacular province.

When people make commitments…. I know that in business if you make a commitment, you need to follow through on it. I know when you make commitments to your neighbours, you need to follow through on them. I know when you make commitments to your family, you need to follow through on them.

I’ve heard the term “aspirational goal.” We had the Health Minister, Ms. MacDiarmid, reaffirm this commitment in 2013. We had the current Minister of Health reaffirm that commitment in 2014. And here we are in 2015, 200,000 British Columbians shy of the target.

Can the Premier say specifically whether the commitment that her party made to have a GP for every British Columbian was a real promise — something that people could count on — or was it an aspirational goal?

Hon. C. Clark: As I said, the GP for Me program was a complex, multifaceted…. Well, not complex. It was a multifaceted program with physician-practice-level incentive fees.

As I said, over $100 million, $119 million, attaching unattached patients with complex health needs; managing the care for ill patients; providing patient care over the telephone for all patients; conducting conferences with other health care providers for all patients; community-patient attachment strategies through the divisions of family practice — that was $40 million well spent; integration and alignment and leveraging of existing health authority; ministry joint-clinical committees; partner initiatives programs and policies; and, of course, patient and engagement education.

All of those were elements of the GP for Me project. They are continuing to bear tremendous fruit. You know, some of the results to date include more than 31,000 patients being matched with primary care providers.

Do we have more to do? Yes, we do. Have we accomplished a lot in the GP for Me program? Absolutely.

J. Horgan: After the tragedies in Burns Lake and Prince George, the explosions at the Babine mill and the Lakeland mill in Prince George, the Premier visited the region. She said that she was going to protect the interests of those individuals. She said she had their back. They asked for a public inquiry. They didn’t get one. They asked for justice. They haven’t received it.

[1555]

I’m wondering if the Premier has reached out to the families of the individuals involved to let them know that she wasn’t able to meet the commitment that she made to them at that time.

Hon. C. Clark: I will answer that question in a moment. I’m happy to do that. But first, I do just want to conclude my remarks about health. We do, in British Columbia — and I think that it bears re