Hansard — Monday, February 25, 2008 a.m.

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY


CONTENTS

	Routine Proceedings
		Page


Introductions by Members		9907

Statements		9907
	Correction to comments made in the House
	Hon. R. Thorpe

Petitions		9907
	Hon. M. Coell

Point of Privilege (Reservation of Right)		9907
	L. Krog

Private Members' Statements		9907
	Support to families
	D. Cubberley
	M. Polak
	The fight against homelessness
	L. Mayencourt
	D. Chudnovsky
	Families in crisis
	C. Trevena
	R. Cantelon
	Vehicle safety
	J. Rustad
	M. Karagianis

Motions on Notice		9917
	Elimination of child poverty (Motion 26)
	J. Brar
	M. Polak
	J. Kwan
	J. Yap
	C. Trevena
	D. Hayer
	G. Coons

L. Mayencourt: It's a great privilege today to introduce to the chamber a very good friend of mine and someone who has done a lot of work in my community as an outreach worker to minister to the homeless. He actually has been helping me up at Baldy Hughes for the last three months, where we have our therapeutic community. His name is Bob Marwick, and he's a great guy. I wish the House would make him feel welcome.

Hon. R. Thorpe: Last Thursday I had the privilege of responding to the budget speech. In my speech I stated: "Our government is going to put $440 million in the hands of British Columbians by June — $100 for every man, woman and individual over 18 years of age."

I misspoke — the climate dividend is clearly laid out on page 105 — and just for the record, I'd like to correct it. "Individuals who have attained the age of 18, meet the residency requirement and are not incarcerated for a period of 90 days that includes January 1, 2008, who have filed either a 2006 or 2007 personal income tax return for British Columbia will receive the payment automatically. In addition to their $100 payments, parents will receive $100 for each child that is under the age of 18 at the end of 2007."

Hon. M. Coell: As you know, I represent the riding of Saanich North and the Islands, which has the southern Gulf Islands in it. I have two petitions I'd like to table for the House. One is from residents of Mayne Island. It's a petition to freeze ferry fares for coastal communities. The other is from Pender Island, requesting that the pending fare increases not go ahead. I would table those for the House's consideration.

D. Cubberley: It's a pleasure to have an opportunity to rise today and speak to the topic of supports for families.

I want to talk for a moment about some changes that have been happening as a context to this, which are to the working day. As we know, more and more people are working and have been over the decades. All of us are now working longer and harder, often for wages that have not improved in the past decade, while costs have risen dramatically.

All of this working is placing intense pressure on families, on those families with two parents working and on single-parent families. The time away from home and parenting in order to hold a job continues to rise. The work/life separation, which comes from living in suburbia and working somewhere else, is now combining with a serious work/life imbalance. There is lots and lots of driving structured into the situation. It often means that families must run two cars, one for each parent.

Pity the parents living with this kind of stress — driving constantly, juggling demands, struggling to find the time to shuttle their kids from one situation to another. Add the preoccupying uncertainty about the quality of care the children are getting in the hours — ten to 12 of them a day for most of us — that the parent isn't able to be with them.

Picture the young family with parents who must return to work shortly after maternity or paternity leave. Children too young yet to communicate must have a safe, supportive place to go where their needs are met, their capacities can develop, their young imaginations can be stimulated and they can play safely in a group that, in embryo, is a community of learners.

Consider the stress on parents when that place isn't there. How can they work to their fullest potential when it doesn't inspire confidence that a child is getting the best start or when the care is there but not in a location convenient to home or work and when it doesn't line up with the hours of work?

Today this stress persists from the time a child is born right up to the time around middle school, when a child is mature enough to be able to, with guidance, manage their own time after school.

Consider what we know to be true about children who flourish and about those who don't when the time comes to enter school. Those who do best are those who are most developmentally ready — those who've been involved in settings where group play and group activities are daily fare, under the guidance of adults trained as early childhood educators, in settings with an array of prompts that are suitable for the growth of young minds and the apparatus that supports the

development of their minds and bodies. Those are the ones who do best. At least one in four B.C. kids aren't developmentally ready, are by definition at higher risk of failure upon arrival.

The most direct and effective response to the challenge facing working families is the provision of a service at all B.C. schools: out-of-school care. Parents today struggle to find the places. Eight in ten parents are working, but there is no organized out-of-school care available at all of our public schools.

There's a significant disconnect occurring between what I will call three overlapping days that affect every family in British Columbia. They're the working day, the school day and the care day. We could call that care day the learning day. They're all currently misaligned, and to the detriment of families.

Take the working day. It's conceived around the needs of employers and the economic opportunities in a modern economy. That day needs parents reporting to work on time, taking lunch at a prescribed time and leaving at times that don't line up with the other two family days that occur simultaneously.

There's the school day. It comes along only at age five, which is when it should. After the working day starts, it begins in the morning. It ends before the working day ends, and it's geographically decoupled from where the working day takes place. That disconnect, which is extreme in the kindergarten year, applies in every year.

Then there's what I'll call the care day, the day conceived around the ongoing needs of children and youth for care and supervision from adults — the supply of care settings that respect their individual needs and develop their individual and social capacities and keep them safe and secure and stimulated.

It's evident that the workday and school day weren't designed to run together as well as they might. Try getting to school from work in midafternoon, getting a child to another safe harbour, getting back to work and then meeting all of your work responsibilities. It really can't happen, and that's a source of stress for working families.

It's also clear, to parents at least, that the care day doesn't align with either the work- or school day as presently structured, except for those lucky parents who find a school that offers child care and out-of-school care on site. Those parents are able to say a goodbye in the morning in the secure knowledge that their child will either be in school or in a care setting, learning through play and engaging in activities that don't expose them to age-inappropriate behaviours, leave them available for delinquency, subject them to risk due to unnecessary transport in unsafe vehicles or park them in front of a TV set or a PlayStation — activities that offer a sense of personal fulfilment and are fun to do with others.

It may be the case that the teaching day's length is set where it should be for optimal learning. Nine to three may be as much lesson-based teaching as it's useful to provide, but the care day isn't designed or funded to supplement the teaching day. Before- and after-school care delivered at B.C.'s community schools by trained early childhood educators is the future B.C. families want and need. The question is: when will government awake to the necessity and the opportunity?

Quality affordable early childhood development, not more structured learning situations offered part-day and foisted on children too young to be able to respond, is the principal service parents need in order to be independent and work in the economy. Without it, they're under extreme stress and constant worry, and many kids simply don't get the time and attention they need to flourish at school.

Without it being located conveniently, more or less constant ferrying of our children to and from situations must occur — trips that have to be inserted into the workday, trips that necessitate running two cars and that multiply carbon emissions, trips that drive parents to consider private school enrolment because those schools offer wraparound care. Worst of all, the lack of any options turns many young children into latchkey kids.

M. Polak: I think that while the member opposite raises the kinds of concerns that we all share around the development of young people in British Columbia, it's important to start out with what has been some good news for British Columbia. I take this from the Auditor General's report on literacy — that when it comes right down to it, although we still face challenges, in 2003 the international adult literacy and skills survey found that British Columbia ranks among the top jurisdictions in Canada in literacy levels.

That's something we can be very, very proud of, because we know that literacy is one of the foundations for learning in this province. I'm very proud that as a province — and we've heard this in the throne speech — we're giving additional support to exciting programs, programs from which we've seen the evidence of success in children.

I'm speaking right now of the StrongStart programs. Right now we have, I believe, 84 StrongStart programs in and around the province, all around in every region of the province, making very excellent use of school spaces that would otherwise be sitting idle and bringing in parents who might not ordinarily feel comfortable with the school system.

I'm proud to say I visited these programs. I've sat with the students. I've sat with the parents. I've watched as these children engage in learning activities that they might not even realize are school activities. But they're building tactile ability, they're building knowledge, they're building understanding about the world around them, and maybe most importantly, they're connecting into the kind of services that they're going to need as they grow. That's hugely important for their parents.

One of the things we find very challenging in the K-to-12 system in British Columbia and elsewhere is that very often you have a compounding of different needs in a family. For example, a low-income family may also have a history of lack of post-secondary education amongst the parents. Perhaps there's a single mother who

hasn't had the educational opportunities that others of us take for granted. She's probably feeling as though she's one of those people who doesn't connect well with the system.

One of the strengths of the StrongStart program is that it allows these parents a very safe entry into a school environment with their children. These adults who are there running the programs are very good at helping these parents feel confident teaching their children. I'm proud that we've committed to expanding the StrongStart program so that we will have 400 of them across the province. It's one of the most important investments we can make.

But it's not where we stop. When I was part of a school district in Surrey, one of the most valuable programs we had was the full-day kindergarten program. At that time it was primarily oriented toward aboriginal students and English-as-a-second-language students. Very often we heard from other teachers who had kindergarten classes but didn't have full-day kindergarten classes or who had students that weren't a part of that. They would say: "You know, I have this student who is just on the edge. They're doing okay, but gosh, if they could qualify for full-day kindergarten, their whole educational future would be different."

I'm very proud that we are committed as a government to taking a look at a program like that that works. Now we're going to look at the feasibility of expanding full-day kindergarten so that we have those opportunities available not just for those most in need — the aboriginal students and those with English as a second language — but also for those who have a slight developmental issue or who need that strengthening of the service and who also need the pastoral care that a school environment provides.

I am so proud that as a government we've continued to look at the research, at the evidence, and we've responded by adding supports to programs that we know are going to work for students. We know they're our future. We know that as we invest in them, we are investing in the future of ourselves. We know that at the end of the day, for all we can do for adult literacy and the productivity of those adults who need help, it really starts at the beginning, at their entry point into school, providing those supportive relationships and structures. Certainly, StrongStart and full-day kindergarten are unprecedented in this province in terms of supports for those students who most need it.

We're going to see the benefits of those long term. It's something we're committed to, and it's certainly something for us to be proud of as a whole province. Really, it's the children that we bring into the system now, the foundations we give them now, that are going to provide the benefits to us in the future. All those things we take for granted — the strong economy, people being able to work and, most importantly, people being able to make choices for themselves instead of government making choices for them — are what we're giving them when we give them knowledge and skills. We're giving them the power of choice.

Hon. M. Coell: I'd like to introduce to the House 18 members of the Canadian Scottish Regiment, Princess Mary's Royal Canadian Army Cadets 2422. I was a Canadian Scottish cadet, and my father commanded the Canadian Scottish in the '60s. So would the House please make them welcome.

D. Cubberley: I have to say that I found it quite odd, although with a sense of déjà vu, to hear the member referring to the Auditor General's report as some kind of support for government's direction, given how decidedly critical it was of government's lack of efforts and lack of progress on the literacy front. That's quite clear, and I'm happy to share the summary of the report with the member if she'd like to cast her eyes over it.

There's another part of what the member said which I think is troubling, and that is not the glowing praise for the StrongStart program but the failure to contextualize, particularly with regard to what we're talking about today, which is the lack of support for families that are working.

The StrongStart program affects a tiny minority of people. It's definitely a good program, but it's a part-time program where a parent or adult accompanying the child is required in order to participate. Clearly, this is not going to work for the eight of ten family members — parents — who are working in the B.C. economy.

We're talking about programs that would line up the working day with the teaching day and the learning or care day and making those things work better for families. We need to think carefully about that in order to be able to get that aligned for working poor families.

A lot of people in this chamber probably reared their children at a time when one income could support a home and a family. That's simply not the case any longer in B.C. and in most places in the country. It has never applied to most lone-provider families, single-parent families. Two people have to work in order to be able to make ends meet. That means that people must have places for children to learn through play outside of school, outside of the school hours.

The extension of kindergarten to a full day would again be a commendable idea and a supportable idea, but it simply does not address what happens to the child before school begins and after school ends. Many here were able to raise their kids in times where one adult was at home during the day in most households, which meant that neighbourhoods were quite alive during the day because there were responsible adults at home. That's not the case now with eight out of ten parents working.

For most, the biggest challenge was dealing with the empty but innocuous offerings of a 12-channel universe, not the traps and pitfalls of cyberspace or the

violence of computer games or anti-parent and antisocial attitudes. The neighbourhood was a play space — the school close to home, traffic around the school less intense, safety less an issue.

Leaving kids alone, leaving kids to wander home alone, to choose their own activities or to get into trouble in an age-inappropriate peer group is simply not the direction. Kids need care outside of school hours. We need to align the working day with the teaching day and the learning day in order to optimize outcomes.

L. Mayencourt: It's great to be able to be back here in the House today. I've had a wonderful weekend up in Prince George. I was up at Baldy Hughes, which is the therapeutic community that we've started up there to help people fighting addictions. I already mentioned that my good friend Bob Marwick is here. Bob has been helping me there for the past three months, and he's done a great job of helping us guide and shape the community that we're trying to do there.

One of the issues we're trying to deal with there is homelessness. There are few topics that touch my heart as much as homelessness does. Homelessness is something that is very, very hard to describe, very hard to understand and very hard for people to actually empathize with, if you will. It's something that I've talked to a lot of people about over the last several years in my community and in other communities around the province.

I've had the opportunity to spend a little time in the downtown east side as someone that worked in that community, as a volunteer and also as someone that was just trying to help out wherever I could. I want to talk about some of the experiences that I've had there.

I've met a lot of people down in that neighbourhood in the downtown east side. I've seen a lot of the homelessness situation spread into my neighbourhood. I've seen it in Kelowna. I've seen it in Kamloops. I've seen it in Prince George. I've seen it in just about every part of British Columbia. So it has become a real strong focus for me, but it has also become a very strong focus for our government.

I'm extremely proud of some of the work that we have been doing. The most important work we've been doing on the homelessness front, in my view, has been our homeless outreach teams.

The homeless outreach teams basically started with a few volunteers, like Bob, who went out on the streets and talked to people that were sleeping out rough, sleeping on the sidewalks, sleeping in parks in the middle of the night. He and lots of other volunteers, along with some staff from the city of Vancouver, with support from B.C. Housing, went out into the community and talked to those people and said: "Look, if we could get you into a house, if we could get you into an apartment, if we could get you to the doctor, if we could get you some access to mental health or addiction services, would you like us to help you with that?"

Surprisingly, only about half of them wanted to, but we took that half, that group of people, and we worked with them. We made special arrangements with the welfare office so that when those individuals came in, they were fast-tracked and were streamed into getting access to all of those things.

That program was very tiny at one point. I can remember us getting to the point where we had helped 50 people find homes. Now that program has spread, not just from my riding or the lower mainland but all around the province. Over 2,000 people have been woken up in the middle of the night and been asked: "Can we help you?"

We have taken those folks off the streets of British Columbia's towns and cities, and we've helped them find a place to live. We've helped them find work. We've helped them find access to welfare. We have done everything with a great deal of love and respect for those individuals.

I've got to tell you that I was once at a support group meeting. There was a fellow talking about his situation, and he said that he did not understand how he became homeless. First, it was just hanging out sleeping on a friend's couch, and all of a sudden he woke up one morning sleeping in a cardboard box. The shame that that young man felt — he was 20 years old — led him to a life of addiction.

There are lots of problems that we have to face. We are trying to save people's lives with a strong housing policy that has been developed by our Housing Minister but fully supported by the Premier and the members of the executive council. I salute their efforts and the efforts of members on both sides of the House to deal with this very pressing need in our communities.

Over the last several years we have literally added thousands and thousands of new housing suites available to people with low income around this province. They've been in Kelowna, they've been in Kamloops, and they've been in Vancouver. Why, in my neighbourhood alone over 2,500 new units of social housing have been developed.

In addition to that, we recognize that there were people in our neighbourhood, people that we know, who were counting on the availability of single-room-occupancy hotels. They're not the best housing. I've slept in them. I know they're not great, but they're so much better than a cardboard box on a wet night in the middle of Crab Park. They are part of the housing stock that is worth preserving.

Our government decided last year to start buying up those SROs to provide security, to make sure that the SRO stock remained in the hands of the public and to give people an entry point for homes. That's been a huge success. As a matter of fact, last year we bought ten hotels, for a total of somewhere around a thousand rooms. This year we bought seven new ones in the downtown east side, totalling about 595 units in Vancouver and 201 in areas outside of Vancouver.

I know that there's a lot of passion when it comes to homelessness and poverty. We're going to have some talk about that pretty much all of today, and I think it's important that we talk about it. I think it's important

that we look for ways on both sides of this House to work together to end homelessness in British Columbia. That is our duty, that is our mission, and it should be accomplished. So I salute all members that work towards that end.

D. Chudnovsky: It's with a good deal of responsibility that I rise to talk about the issue of homelessness and thank the member opposite for bringing forward this topic to the House this morning. The member talked about the pride that he has in the government and the steps that it has taken, he claims, to ameliorate the situation of homelessness in the province.

I think that he is certainly in a minority in the province when it comes to pride, looking at the issue of homelessness. I think that most of the people of British Columbia don't feel pride at all. They feel shame and embarrassment when they look at the situation of homelessness in this province, and they're right to feel shame and embarrassment when it comes to homelessness in British Columbia.

It is a crisis, a crisis that needs to be dealt with. Now, one of the reasons that the crisis exists is that the minister responsible for homelessness is not as aware of the situation as he should be. For instance, he has been asked on numerous occasions in the last few months a very simple question that relates to his responsibilities as the minister responsible for homelessness.

He's been asked how many homeless people there are in British Columbia, a pretty simple question and one that the minister responsible for public policy when it comes to this crisis — this shame and this embarrassment — should know the answer to. The minister has refused on numerous occasions to even answer the question. How can we expect government to come up with public policy that deals with the situation?

The minister mused a few weeks ago about a number in the range of 4,000 to 5,000, which those who work on the front lines with respect to the issue of homelessness know and understand to be a preposterous figure, which should shame and embarrass those on the other side. The minister doesn't even know the depth and the breadth of the problem that he should be dealing with.

With respect to government policy, the member opposite made some points, and I think it's worthwhile looking at the elements of the policy that government has prioritized over the last number of months. I would argue that, for the most part, government policy is to hide the homelessness problem and not deal with it. For instance, a major plank in government policy over the last number of months has been to expand homeless emergency shelters.

Of course we need to expand emergency shelters, because we have an emergency. When you have an emergency, you need emergency measures. But we all know that emergency shelters are not homes.

I was in Cranbrook just last week visiting with dozens and dozens of homeless people, and one of the most articulate of those said: "Yes, it's a good thing that there's an emergency shelter now in Cranbrook that just opened, and dedicated and hard-working and compassionate people are working in it." But the guy said: "Of course we need those homeless shelters — there's an emergency — but it's not a home."

He's right. It isn't a home. This fellow, articulate and thoughtful, said that for it to be a home you need a room, kitchen facilities, a washroom and some privacy. You need to be able to run your own life. That is not a homeless shelter.

The member talked about outreach workers, and he's right, in the sense that there are compassionate, caring, hard-working, energetic and thoughtful outreach workers around the province doing their very, very best to deal with the crisis of homelessness that we face. But at the end of the day, you need somewhere for people to live.

There are somewhere between, conservatively, 10,000 and 15,000 homeless people in this province today. We'll know much better in March, because counts are going to be done of homeless people in the former GVRD, the Fraser Valley and all around the province. That number, which I have said over the last number of months is a conservative number…. We'll see who's vindicated. Is it the minister, who doesn't even know the depth and breadth of the problem?

Deputy Speaker: Member, I think you have to be very careful that you don't make reference to an individual or a group of individuals. So while you can talk in general about the problem, what you need to be is very careful in how you do that.

There are somewhere between 10,000 and 15,000 homeless people in British Columbia today. My survey, which I did as a result of the fact that government hadn't an understanding of the depth and breadth of the problem, showed a minimum of 10,580 homeless people in British Columbia. It turns out that 10,500 is about the population of Williams Lake. I would argue, and I know that the member opposite would agree with me, because we agree on this….

D. Chudnovsky: Oh, I don't get to make the argument? Tomorrow when I speak on the budget, I'm sure I'll make the argument, and I invite the member to listen.

L. Mayencourt: Thanks to the hon. member for his response on this issue. It really just shows or illustrates that this is a bipartisan or non-political kind of issue. This is an issue that strikes all of us. We see it in Williams Lake, we see it in New Westminster, and we see it all around the province.

One of the more important things, which he mentioned as well, is that this month, March, we are going to be doing a homeless count all around the province

so that we do have a full understanding of the scale of the problem, so that we can increase our options for people who are homeless.

Let me tell you, Madam Speaker, there are a number of people that are at risk of homelessness. We started a rent supplement program. It allows people, whether they're seniors or a single mom or what have you, to apply for assistance so that they can have housing security, so they're not spending so much of their money on rent that they have no food to feed their children.

We've done that with seniors through the SAFER grant. We continue to do that through a range of other programs like the emergency shelter program. I thank the hon. member for raising the point that we are the first government to actually have a 24-hour shelter system in British Columbia. Shelters are not a home. I know, because I've slept in shelters. I know they're not the best, but they are a lot better than the street. There's a little bit of safety in there that you would not experience on the street.

This is an issue that all parties need to join hands on. We need to get in there and really work together. I'm committed to doing that on a very important issue, because this speaks to every British Columbian. If there is one person homeless, that is too many.

We have to work on a plan, an aggressive plan, to end homelessness. I'm supporting that. I know that members opposite support that. Together we will solve this problem, but we need to have support from the federal government. We need to have support from civic governments. We need to have communities that are willing to accept shelters and accept housing for marginalized people.

That is going to blaze a new path, a better strategy, one that builds upon the good work that the Minister for Housing has done thus far and what the Premier's Task Force on Homelessness, Mental Illness and Addictions has said.

Last week the Vancouver police department talked about mental health issues and how so many of those people are in need of assistance with their housing. One of the things we need to look at is Riverview. Should we be rebuilding that? Should we develop a care model that works in that setting? I say yes — not the system that we dismantled in the '70s but the system we need for 2007.

C. Trevena: It's Monday morning, and families across the province are getting back to work. I'd like to expand a little bit on what my colleague from Saanich South said and try to explore a bit how families who are trying to get back to work are dealing with some of the extra stresses that they face — and, I believe, some unnecessary stresses.

I think the House will agree that we want to make sure that families live with as little stress as possible. It's bad enough to try and get the family up and out the door in the morning, particularly on a Monday morning, but for hundreds of families there are serious, serious worries about child care.

People are worried because they see obstacles they cannot overcome. They're worried because they really don't know where to go for help, and they're worried because there don't seem to be any answers provided, or any solutions.

There are some very serious problems that we have to face. Firstly, there is the problem of child care waiting lists. Parents, on the whole, are pretty clued in. I think more and more parents are learning that if they want to find child care, they should sign up on a waiting list as soon as they're pregnant so that they can get child care ready for when they go back to work.

Most parents try to get through the first 12 months of mat leave, but some do have to go back to work earlier. I think that's an undeniable fact. It's not because they don't love their child. It's because the cost of living is high, and they need to pay the rent or their mortgage. They need to make sure there's food on the table, their transit tickets are paid for or that there's fuel in the truck.

The first problem for many families is to actually get on the waiting list. Most parents will go around to see the different child care facilities in their communities, to see what is available and what's the best fit for their child. It's assuming, of course, that they do have a choice.

Many small rural communities have no group child care because there's not been any money for them for several years. Other communities simply have no child care, period — which means, for many families, just checking out which friends, families or neighbours might be able to look after your child.

But going back to those families who do have a choice, they go to a few places, find the one they like the most, possibly because it's got natural light, because it uses play-based development rather than television or because their staff are committed to their work. They ask for their child to be enrolled, and they find there's a wait-list. It's generally a wait-list of several hundred names, generally several months long and in some cases — in some places where I've visited — several years long, which of course adds more stress to the families.

Some parents are persistent, and they tend to call and call the provider, hoping that the wait-list has diminished, hoping that some family has moved or that by some miracle an extra space has appeared. For many families it appears to be a miracle, because spaces depend not just on the capital funding but, obviously, on staff funding, and staff are leaving the field at a very rapid rate. Others are so subdued by the size of the wait-list that they don't bother to try calling back. They just give up.

The stresses on the families increase the nearer the parents come to the end of parental leave, when they know they have to get back to work — because they need the money, because they're committed to their work or because they're on their own and can't survive without a wage. So they, too, start to ask neighbours, ask friends and ask family for help.

Grandparents, who enjoy having grandkids coming to visit, become caregivers again. The easy thing to say is that's okay for people whose families are around,

But I don't think that is okay. It's not okay that we expect, as a matter of course, a family member to step in and become a child care provider. It's a bit like saying: "This classroom is too full, so you're going to have to home-school your son or daughter."

There is a huge need for infant toddler spaces, for those first years of life where support is essential. Again, it's not the lack of physical space that's the problem. It's the fact that there's no money to attract and then to keep workers in the field they so love. But I digress.

Back to the problems. A second problem is wait-lists. I know that was also the first problem, but it is the second problem because wait-lists are a huge problem for the parents. Parents often have more than one child. It's not unusual for a family to need two sets of child care. While very few child care providers are offering child care from zero or one through to the age of six, it's not automatic that youngsters who've managed to get into an infant toddler program will automatically graduate into the next stage. So parents have to start the trek all over again.

Most of them have already learnt the lesson of the past and got little Joey on the list early, but it doesn't mean success in getting him in the second time around, which leaves many parents in a position with children being looked after by different child care providers. This means a logistical nightmare of pickup and drop-off and balancing and keeping your fingers crossed that both child care providers are up and running and that no staff member is off sick, which would leave one of the centres closed because the staff-child ratio is broken. This obviously leaves parents with stress.

The problems continue, as my colleague from Saanich South explained, when children get to school. By the time children get into school, most people would think that parents could breathe a sigh of relief. All those child care issues are sorted out — no longer any problems, no more wait-list and no more juggling. Sadly, that's not the case.

A woman worker has to duck out at 2:30 to pick her child up from school and drop him off at the after-school care. Another woman works her shifts around that 2:30 pickup time and a school finish time at 2:30. Kids come into the office with their parents because there is no child care, or you let your seven-year-old go home alone for the hours until mom or dad gets home — latchkey kids again.

One woman I spoke to recently in Campbell River wanted to get back to work but just couldn't make it happen because she had no access to get from work to pick up her child to get that child into after-school child care. She was completely stuck. In the end, because of the problems of trying to juggle her work with caring for the child-care-age child and caring for the after-school-age child, she finally just gave up trying. It left her and her would-be employer grossly disappointed.

R. Cantelon: Certainly, early education is an important priority of this government, and it's a broader area than child care and K-to-12. That is why, of course, we have expanded early education to rename them as boards of education and to task school districts with education from grade 3 up.

In responding to the specific comments, which I gather basically relate to waiting lists in child care facilities, we're proud of the record. This government has provided many more spaces. In the last round of funding 1,443 new day care spaces were prepared or funded in the province, which is capital.

One of the main problems, of course, at the core…. I was looking for cooperative, non-partisan solutions in the member's comments, and I strained to hear them. I don't know if I did hear them. One of the concerns in providing and operating day care spaces is a lack of personnel. It's not just with respect to day care spaces. It's with respect to personnel throughout the workforce in all areas of the province.

It's difficult to find new day care workers, and it's difficult to train them. Of course, there is a turnover. Very typically, day care operators will have children of their own and take themselves out of the market.

One of the things that we hope and that I know will assist is tuition forgiveness up to $2,500 — $1,250 a year over two years — for people who are teachers who have taken the courses and wish to pursue a career. This will assist them to eliminate some of their student loans and enable them to more affordably embark on a career in day care assistance.

Another area that's certainly going to be important is the fact that we've increased subsidies for people with low income, for low-income earners. The basic level used to start at an income of $21,000. Now families earning a combined income up to $38,000 can receive virtually full support in funding for day care.

These things certainly will help. At the core of the problem, though, still remain facilities and operating funding. That's why, and consistent and concurrent with that, in the need to provide better support for early learning….

I'm sure the member opposite would agree that early childhood development is absolutely critical to much broader issues in our society than are limited strictly to the concept of day care. We want to provide early learning support for families — support for the families and support for the children in an early learning environment.

That's why one of the programs that has been so popular — not in my particular riding but certainly where it's needed, in the member for Nanaimo's riding, and I know he acknowledged how successful it was — is the StrongStart facilities. Here parents come in and can spend the day with their child or the primary caregiver, learn and understand about new ways to teach that child to develop good reading habits and learn how to teach that child with them. I think this is going to be extremely important.

That is why this government has expanded this concept. Over the next few years we're going to look at the feasibility of using underused facilities to support full-time — not day care but full-time — instructional

services for parents, and for children particularly, first at the age of four. Then we'll even consider the possibility of early learning for the children at the age of three.

Now, this isn't directly towards the issue that's raised by the member opposite but in a broader way approaches the same problem so that people with young children can now look at the possibility of having an enriched educational environment on a full-time basis for ages as early as three.

This isn't going to be a given. This is going to require study, work and discussion with the school districts, but it will offer the possibility and open the possibility of enriching early childhood education, at the same time supporting indirectly the need for day care. Obviously, if the children are in school full-time, they're going to be enriched as well as looked after for that period.

Of course, immediately starting will be the fact that children at the age of five will be expanding kindergarten to a full day's instruction. All of these things are in support of the concept that we know are important for all children.

Deputy Speaker: Members on both sides of the House, sometimes it's difficult to hear over the loud murmur of the members speaking.

C. Trevena: I was very interested to hear what the member for Nanaimo-Parksville had to say about child care, quoting how many spaces the government has allegedly created for child care. But he did say a very interesting thing. He did say that this was capital that was going into child care spaces, which isn't really what is needed — which is current funding to keep those child care workers working.

While the member says there is going to be tuition forgiveness, that might help some people as they go through the very early stages of their career and choose to go into early childhood education. It isn't going to be the temptation to keep them there. Many child care workers want to stay in child care and carry on working in child care and therefore would be able to create the spaces, because they would be able to stay in child care if they were paid enough.

Sadly, child care workers are among the lowest-paid workers in British Columbia. These are the people with whom we trust the future of our children. These are the people on whom we rely for the early childhood development of our children.

I know the members opposite are looking at early childhood development in a very broad way and looking at an educational-based approach too. But I must say the member quoted the StrongStart programs, and strong starts are important. They offer a lot of very positive aspects. They offer accessibility for families where one of the parents isn't working, where they can go with the child.

They offer these facilities on a drop-in basis, which is also not child care, but they offer them free for the communities, which is very nice. It would be nice to see that expanded to child care, not just to a StrongStart program, so we could have a publicly funded child care system, not just something there for the parents who aren't working.

The member also talked about skill shortages and cited that as perhaps why we don't have enough child care workers. But I would like to quote from the B.C. Chamber of Commerce 2007-2008 Policy and Positions Manual, where it quite clearly states that we have a child care crisis. It states that B.C. has chosen not to prioritize child care. "The cost of this decision is having enormous negative impact on the ability of B.C. businesses to attract women, young families and skilled workers in general to the workforce."

It's not only that we have a skills shortage; the fact that we don't have child care is adding to our skills shortage. If we were able to get more child care workers paid a living wage, they could look after our children and help our children develop, and we would be dealing with not just the issue of child care but a much broader issue.

I'd also like to respond to the member when he talked about the wonderful subsidy system that this government has allegedly put in place. Again I'd like to quote from the same document, the B.C. Chamber of Commerce 2007-2008 Policy and Positions Manual. "We have a current child care subsidy program that is cumbersome."

J. Rustad: I rise today to talk about a topic that I think is very crucial and very important, and that is vehicle safety. When you think about vehicle safety, you might think about things like road conditions or other external factors. But the bottom line is that the tires that are on a vehicle, paying attention on the road while you're driving and things like electronic stability control can play a huge factor in terms of vehicle safety and reducing accidents on the road.

Last year — or the last statistics available — there were a little under 20,000 injuries due to vehicles. Just over 400 of those were fatal. Those are very significant numbers when you consider just what kind of toll that has on families, on individuals and on their lives in terms of their futures and going forward.

Even though those are some pretty sobering numbers, let's also think about health and the expense of vehicle accidents in health. It's estimated that across the province, 15 percent of our health budget is directly related to vehicle accidents.

If you think about the number in terms of $13.2 billion and rising to $15 billion or $16 billion on health care spending, that's a pretty staggering number. On insurance and the amount that those are costs in our overall system, not to mention the expense on the legal system as well as the expense directly to families and to employers…. It's one of the factors that often people don't think about a lot when they think of accidents.

In my riding, in Prince George–Omineca in the north, it's estimated that close to 20 percent of the budget is

spent on dealing with the aftermath of vehicle accidents. That's a number that exceeds $100 million on vehicle accidents. If there were some way we could even save just 10 or 20 or 30 percent of that, think about how many dollars in Northern Health would be able to go back into other types of services.

You think about accidents, but how can we prevent accidents? You can tell people to be more aware or more alert as they're driving. You can tell people to keep their car in good condition and their wheels balanced, but most people are just concerned about getting from point A to point B. They don't spend a lot of time thinking about the potential consequences of what happens if there's a problem getting from point A to point B.

Some of those challenges that drivers are facing, particularly in my area, have a lot to do with the environment, with winter road conditions. We could have ice and slippery conditions — black ice on the road — for six or seven months a year up in our area. Those are huge factors. But people in the north generally get used to driving and tend to drive a little bit slower. Still, the Northern Health statistics and the accident statistics suggest that driving in the north can be very, very dangerous.

What can be done to reduce people's risks to themselves in terms of driving? Certainly, driver awareness can be a huge factor. In a recent study that I looked at, perhaps up to 80 percent of crashes and 65 percent of near crashes come because drivers aren't paying attention on the road. It's a simple factor, but it's one, unfortunately, that people often don't think about. Particularly when you look at youth, at teens and their driving records, study groups have shown that teens do not seem to connect distractions in the car with crashes or with near crashes.

There are other things that we should be thinking about in terms of driving. One of the constituents in my riding, an individual named Glen Nicholson, has been on a crusade trying to raise the level of awareness of what could be a life-saving benefit in vehicles called electronic stability control.

Electronic stability control works with ABS and allows you…. As you're driving down the road, it automatically makes corrections while you're driving. It automatically applies brakes to one wheel or another when required to stabilize the vehicle. So if you're driving in a certain direction and the vehicle starts to go into a slide or if it slips, it automatically adjusts to the various wheels so that the vehicle will drive safely.

It has been proven in Europe, through studies, that 25 to 45 percent of accidents can be avoided by simply having electronic stability control on vehicles. Just talking about personal experience, I don't have electronic stability control on my vehicle. But now that I've seen these statistics, I can tell you that I will never buy a vehicle that doesn't have electronic stability control. There's no question that it provides a great benefit.

Similarly, some of my colleagues in the House have experienced challenges that can come from slippery road conditions. Electronic stability control would have provided stability associated with that and would have helped in accidents.

Recently in my riding there was a tragic accident where three children and an adult were killed because they slid across the road and hit an oncoming truck. What electronic stability control is designed to do is to try to help vehicles through those types of situations.

But other things we need to be thinking about are winter tires, studded winter tires. The jury is out as to how much of a benefit they are. I can tell you from my own experience that I have studded tires on my vehicle, and it makes a huge difference in terms of traction.

Using cell phones, particularly for young drivers, is an enormous distraction. It's something that we need to raise the level of awareness of, to keep people's thinking on the road so that, as drivers go through, we can all be safer.

Vehicle safety is really about driver awareness and drivers paying attention to what they're doing on the road. There are other factors that we could be considering, such as electronic stability control, but I'll get to those after the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin has an opportunity to say her words.

J. Horgan: It's a pleasure to rise in my place and introduce Laurie Szadkowski's grade 5 class from École Poirier in my community of Sooke. The kids are here. I met with them during the break to talk about the importance of democracy. Having them come to visit us today and to watch it in action is a real thrill for me, and I know it's a thrill for them. They even had a visit from the Sergeant-at-Arms earlier today, so that's a special trip for them. Would you please make them welcome.

M. Karagianis: I'm happy to stand here today and talk about vehicle safety and respond to the comments of the previous speaker. In fact, I would say that the topic of electronic stability control he's introduced here is one that I would fully support. I, too, have spoken to his constituent Mr. Nicholson, who is very passionate about promoting this as a consumer awareness topic.

Certainly in the U.S., statistics have shown that electronic stability control can reduce accidents by up to 35 percent. But this system is only available in about half the cars that are available in North America right now. I think that there does need to be a huge consumer awareness effort put into this. I would say, in fact, that if the government is serious and if the member is serious about this, ICBC is the perfect place

for this kind of consumer awareness to take place and to reach all of the consumers in British Columbia.

I would hope that in the member's concluding statements he talks about bringing this forward as an initiative where ICBC could champion the issue of electronic stability control and perhaps even find a way to offer an incentive. There are incentives through ICBC right now for anti-theft devices and anti-theft systems in cars, and this could be incorporated as well as something that you get as an advantage when you're buying your insurance.

The member talked about a number of vehicle safety issues — having the appropriate tires on your car, not using cell phones and things — but I'd like to actually raise one more topic around vehicle safety that I think is very germane, and I hope that the member will also include this. That is the issue of 15-passenger vans.

We had some discussion in this House over 15-passenger vans, and I think it should be very much a part of this discussion on vehicle safety. In fact, we have seen alarming statistics coming out about 15-passenger vans. An initiative in the U.S. has now banned the use of these vehicles for schools.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration organization has been very forceful in researching and developing policies around the banning of the use of these vehicles for transporting school children. In fact, I would say that right now federal laws in the U.S. have already stepped out way ahead of us by prohibiting these vehicles for sale in any kind of school-related transportation. I think that we are behind on this. In fact, if British Columbia thinks that we should be leaders in these fields, we've got to actually be much more proactive and progressive about this.

One of the comparators here that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has made is around the expense of school buses versus these 15-passenger vans. I know that that's one of the compelling, driving factors here of why schools in this province are now moving to these 15-passenger vans and away from school buses.

I think it's unfortunate that we are not seeing that adequate funding to allow for this kind of vehicle safety for schools is not paramount in our consideration of funding for school children. I would certainly say that the regulatory vacuum that's apparent here in British Columbia could be addressed by this. I would hope that the member who has brought the issue forward here of vehicle safety would join us in calling for a ban of 15-passenger vehicles for the use of schools and make sure that we adequately fund schools for the use of school buses.

In fact, if we want to protect our children, we have got to be more progressive. Let's not wait for the kind of tragedy we've seen in New Brunswick before we make a move. I would say that if we're going to talk about vehicle safety, yes, let's put some initiatives like ESC in place, but let's actually get down to some real policy changes and make sure that 15-passenger vans are no longer used for school children here and that we adequately fund the school districts so that they can use much safer school buses, which have much tougher regulations. Let's make sure our vehicle safety regulations here protect young people in their school.

J. Rustad: I'd like to thank the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin for her comments. She raises some interesting points, especially with regards to the 15-passenger vans.

Clearly, there is a safety risk. I've spoken with my school districts about this. School districts have the autonomy to be able to make those decisions. The member suggested the idea that we should consider perhaps banning these sort of things. I don't know if she's interested in taking autonomy away from school districts, which seems to be what she's suggesting, but I do believe that autonomy to school districts is important.

School districts have the ability within their own budgets and within their own decision-making to decide what kind of vehicle and transportation and busing systems they have. I was a former school trustee, and we talked about some of those issues and some of those things within the school district.

However, I do want to get on to the importance of the vehicle safety issues being raised, particularly the electronic stability control, because of the value that electronic stability control can bring in terms of overall safety to drivers, particularly on our northern roads. It is a very interesting issue. In the United States they're considering that maybe in the next decade or so — perhaps a little bit less — all new vehicles will require having this.

Countries in Europe have already moved to make this mandatory on vehicles because they recognize the benefits. They recognize the benefits, not just in terms of the overall cost but certainly in terms of the human toll that is exacted from vehicle accidents.

What I think would be an interesting thing to do is to start engaging the federal government in this discussion around electronic stability control to see if Canada could become a leader in North America and perhaps accelerate that schedule in terms of making it mandatory on vehicles.

I think the idea of consumer awareness is a good one in terms of raising the level of awareness of electronic stability control. That is why I've raised this issue in the House here today. That's why I'm spending my time in a member's statement — because as drivers, people need to be aware that electronic stability control is even out there and of the difference it makes.

I know one driver, for example, who drives an SUV. Driving down the road this little light kept coming on in the dash every now and again. He couldn't figure out what that little light was. He wasn't even aware that electronic stability control was on his vehicle and was being applied, which actually helped save him from potential near misses — even though he owned the vehicle.

The level of awareness for electronic stability control and those benefits does need to be raised. I think one of the things I will be doing as going forward is I'm going to be talking with ICBC about the possibility of them raising that level of awareness through the programs that its doing.

I also want to say that I look forward to the next little bit for the report from the Solicitor General coming out with regards to cell phones — clearly distractions on the roads. According to statistics, they cause more than 55 percent of accidents simply from not paying attention and distractions.

These issues need to be raised, and I'm glad to have had the opportunity to raise them here today.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, unanimous consent of the House is required to proceed with Motion 26 without disturbing the priorities of motions preceding it on the order paper.

J. Brar: I rise today to move a motion asking for the elimination of child poverty in the province of British Columbia.

It certainly is not a motion I am pleased to introduce in the House, but I feel compelled to introduce to the members of this House to debate and hopefully even for passage at the end of today. There are a lot of compelling reasons for me and, I think, for all members of this House to debate this motion in good faith and find a way to address the issue of growing poverty in British Columbia.

A few days ago I went to visit the Surrey Food Bank, and I saw a huge lineup of people of all ages waiting to receive their hampers. I saw seniors who spent their entire lives building this beautiful province and this beautiful country, the best place to live, waiting to receive their hampers.

I saw workers who work on a minimum wage waiting to receive their hampers because the cost of living for working families has gone up significantly under the B.C. Liberals. The minimum wage of $8 an hour does not make life affordable any more for them and their kids.

I saw families with kids standing and waiting to receive their hampers, and I was frozen for a moment. I was frozen because I felt challenged as a member of this Legislative Assembly to stand up and fight for those voiceless people, especially the kids — the future of this beautiful province — who certainly don't believe for a moment that B.C. is the best place for them to live in.

Child poverty is growing in every community in British Columbia since the B.C. Liberals took over in 2001. The B.C. Liberals have attacked the social safety net in the province by making public policy changes to attack the most vulnerable people and by not having the vision and political will to address the issue of growing poverty.

B.C. has been blessed, in my opinion, with a good economy for the past few years, but the B.C. Liberals have failed to make it a successful economy to ensure everyone benefits from the good economy. The growing child poverty in B.C. is a clear indication that B.C. Liberals failed to distribute evenly the benefits of a good economy to the poor and the most vulnerable people in British Columbia, and that is a shame.

In a province as rich as B.C., we have the worst child poverty rate in Canada, a shameful title B.C. has now held in each of the last four years. In 2004 the B.C. child poverty rate was 23.5 percent. In other words, nearly one in every four children lived under poverty. Every month over 24,000 children in B.C. use the food bank. What these numbers tell us is that for a quarter of our kids, B.C. is definitely not the best place on earth to grow up in.

The estimated number of poor children in B.C. in 2004 was 196,000 children. That was almost the same as the entire population of Burnaby or the entire populations of Nanaimo, Kelowna and Williams Lake combined.

British Columbia also has the worst income gap between the rich and the poor among the provinces. The poor earn only 6 percent of what the rich earn in British Columbia. The working poor of British Columbia are paying their taxes and making meaningful contributions to our economy, yet they are not sharing the prosperity of this province.

The other place I visited in Surrey a few days ago was a place called the Front Room. This is a room where homeless people can drop in, eat, rest and take a shower. The staff there told me that the number of homeless people in Surrey has gone up significantly — over 140 percent in the last few years.

The number of homeless people in the province is growing as well. According to a recent report by health professors at UBC, SFU and the University of Calgary, the number of homeless people in British Columbia may be triple the estimate given by the Housing Minister. In B.C. there may be over 15,000 adults with severe addictions and mental illness who are homeless.

The questions we need to ask ourselves are: why, at a time when B.C. has a record surplus, is the number of children and families living in poverty growing? Why, at a time when B.C. has a record surplus, is the number of homeless people going up? Why, with the record surplus, have B.C. Liberals failed to address the issue

of growing child poverty in the province of British Columbia? Why is everyone in B.C. not benefiting from the economy under the Liberals?

These are the important questions that people of British Columbia are asking and that we should ask ourselves. The simple answer to those questions is that this is the direct result of B.C. Liberals' one-sided approach to public policy. On one hand, B.C. Liberals gave away a $220 million tax break to big banks under this budget. B.C. Liberals gave away a $327 million subsidy to the oil and gas sector, and they also gave a third big tax break for their corporate friends.

On the other hand, they're forcing working families to pay a new gas tax of 7½ cents per litre for climate change. They have created a new working-poor class by introducing the $6-an-hour training wage. They have refused to raise the minimum wage to $10. When Ontario has done it, why not in B.C.?

B.C. Liberals are the only government in the country that eliminated earning exemptions for people on income assistance, a very important incentive to enable people to make a transition from welfare to work. B.C. Liberals have destroyed the social safety net bit by bit, by introducing their mean-spirited policies — for example, introducing a three-week waiting period and two in five years for income assistance.

B.C. was, in fact, blessed with a good economy, but B.C. Liberals failed to make it a successful economy because of their one-sided policies to only benefit their friends. It's clear that under the B.C. Liberals everyone is not benefiting.

Other provinces such as Quebec have taken actions to address the issue of poverty, specifically the issue of child poverty. Why not in B.C.? The time has come when we start building one British Columbia for all British Columbians where all people can have dreams and opportunities, including kids.

Therefore, I move: "Be it resolved that this House call on the B.C. government to develop a comprehensive strategy for eliminating child poverty in the province of British Columbia."

M. Polak: I'm very proud to say that the comprehensive strategy of the B.C. Liberals for eliminating the scourge of child poverty in this province began in 2001, when we stopped taking money out of their pockets.

I am proud that if you earn $15,000 or less in this province, you don't pay any income tax. That was followed at the same time with a reduction of about 28 percent for those making $30,000 or less. That has since been followed with a 10 percent income tax reduction. Now, in this year's budget, we're looking at reducing income tax by another 5 percent over the next three years.

The very first thing we can do to help families up onto their feet, making their own choices and providing for their children, is to stop taking money out of their pockets. I'm proud to say that we have led the way in that regard.

Another way in which we've led the country, in terms of trying to bring people into a situation where they have more choices for their own families, is by providing jobs. We've seen a rate of job production in British Columbia that is unheard of across the country, and those are very real ways in which we can provide for the gradual elimination of child poverty.

It's a horrible thing to see in a province as wealthy as ours, but this illustrates a fundamental difference between our side of the House and the other side of the House. There's no question that every member in this chamber wants to see the complete and utter elimination of child poverty. We want to see that no one is living on an income that isn't sufficient to support their needs. But we make different choices as to how to get there, and I suppose it's a valid difference for people to make a choice about.

Do we take money from them and say: "Give us your money, give us money from the rest of the province, and we'll decide how best you should spend that, because, really, we make better choices for you. You send money to government. We churn it around here for a while, and guess what. It's actually worth more to you when it comes out. We're going to make the choices, because we know better than you"?

Or if you're on our side of the House, you can say: "We believe that, with a little help, you're going to get there. We believe that if we give you the money in your pocket, you can make that choice, and you're going to be able to lift yourself up. We believe that if we help you to get a job, not only are you going to have more choices, not only are you going to be earning two to three times as much as you were — which is what the statistics show — but you're also going to feel empowered and your children are going to feel better about what you do, because you're working, you're providing, and you're part of our community."

I want to talk about some of the other ways in which we've helped people who are on lower incomes. We've seen an elimination or a reduction in premiums for MSP for 290,000 people across the province. Families of four with incomes of less than $29,000 do not pay any medical services premiums. That's one other way that we're allowing these people to make choices for themselves rather than making the choices for them.

The rental assistance that we provide…. It's one thing to say to somebody: "We're going to build a home, and we're going to put you in it. We're going to tell you where you should live. We're going to tell you what kind of home you should live in. And not only that, but you shouldn't have the choice to go around and decide what it should be like, where it should be. Why? Well, sorry. You're low income. You don't have those choices."

No. On this side of the House we believe that even if you have a low income in British Columbia, you should have choices. That's why we've moved to see increases in the rental subsidies. We're providing people with that choice. They take that money. They decide where to go because they have a right to. Government doesn't know better than they do.

Why on earth, again, would we want to take the money out of their pockets just so we can try to make better decisions for them as government? On this side of the House we don't believe that. We believe that we should be giving individuals the choices to make and that that's how they're going to improve.

At the end of the day there is a choice to make. Do people believe that we are going to really lift children out of poverty by continuing to take more and more money out of people's pockets and by trying as government to make the best decisions to redistribute it? Or do they believe that, as we've continued along this path, we're seeing changes?

We're seeing record unemployment. We're seeing record numbers of people leaving welfare for jobs. We're seeing record changes in terms of the optimism and the ability of people to make those choices, even in this year's budget — around climate change, around something that a low-income person might not feel a part of. Guess what. They're going to be, and we're recognizing the need that they're going to have to adjust.

This is about making choices, and it is about the evidence at the end of the day. In British Columbia we have some great news about that. Child poverty, the challenge of low-income families, is certainly something we will all struggle with and continue to work on. I am proud to say, as I complete my remarks, that the number of children living in low-income situations in British Columbia — now, this is according to Statistics Canada — fell from 2004 to 2005 by 15 percent. That's something to be proud of.

We have a long way to go. But on this side of the House we believe in giving those families the choices and helping them with a leg up instead of a handout.

J. Kwan: I rise to speak in support of my good colleague's motion, the motion that calls on this House to develop a comprehensive strategy for eliminating child poverty in British Columbia.

The member for Langley just said: "It's about choices." You bet it's about choices. I was here in this Legislature back in 2002 when this government made a conscious decision to gut programs for some of the most vulnerable people in our province. That included families and children who are living on the margins of our society. Wouldn't you know it? As it happens, in 2002, after this government took office, we have the worst child poverty rate ever in the history of British Columbia. Guess what. That wasn't good enough for this government. We have to top that to have that distinction for four years in a row across the country.

You bet it's about making choices. This government, what did they do in this budget? They turned around and gave corporate tax cuts to some of the record-profit-making companies. Banks got $220 million in corporate tax cuts. Just in case anybody's wondering how much banks are making, let me just put this on the record: CIBC, $3.3 billion in profits; TD Bank, $3.9 billion in profits; RBC, $5.5 billion in profits.

What do we have to do? We better give them another $220 million in corporate tax cuts. Because I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts none of their children are living in poverty. Guess what. The people who are living in poverty, the majority of them, are working. They're not income assistance recipients as this government and the Minister of Employment and Income Assistance would have you believe. They're working double, triple time to try and make ends meet, and they can't do it. Why? Because the government has misplaced priorities, and they don't give a darn about the people who need help.

That's not all. Let me tell you who else got a leg up from this government. The oil and gas industry. Get this. Record-breaking profits: Petro-Canada, $2.8 billion; Suncor, $2.8 billion in profits; Imperial, $3.2 billion in profits. And what does this government do in their budget this year? Well, they better give them $327 million in subsidies. Why? Because they need a leg up — not the person who's living on the margins of life, not children. One in four children who are living below the poverty line.

Those are the priorities of this government. You better believe it that we don't stand on that side with that government's priorities.

I've got to say this. It's not just the NDP who think that we've got to do something about child poverty. It's not just the wacko NDP, as the Liberals would like to think, who should actually get something done on child poverty. Guess what. The government's Progress Board thinks something should be done around child poverty.

Who are the folks that formed the Progress Board? Why, none other than the Premier's handpicked individuals, who the Premier calls community leaders. People from the business community no less — 18 business executives and academic leaders.

Here's what they have to say about the child poverty record in this province: "The most troubling social indicator is the proportion of British Columbians living below the low-income threshold." That's from their report. They say the social condition category is "one of the most compelling considerations" for judging a society.

I say: how's it going, when you have the distinction for four years in a row to have the worst child poverty rate in the country?" I say: not so well. I say that the government is not placing their priorities in the right place in addressing some of the most pressing problems that we face in this province.

Just last week, the Minister of Employment and Income Assistance actually got up in this House and mocked the people who raised the issue of child poverty. He called them advocacy groups who are discredited, who are just raising these issues.

Well, I want to ask the minister this question: has he talked to the Premier about that? Because it's the Premier's Progress Board that has raised the issue as well. Are they wrong? Are the Premier's 18 executive members on this board wrong on the social conditions

that are being outlined, as recently as in their report of December of 2007? I dare anybody from that side of the bench to get up and criticize the Progress Board.

How dare the minister criticize advocacy groups. Statistics Canada, by the way — not an advocacy group — came up with those numbers that said we have the worst distinction on child poverty for four years in a row, since 2002.

So what? I would say this. If the advocacy groups should dare to stand up and raise these questions and stick the government's nose in it and say it's not good enough…. It's not good enough for British Columbians to sit idly by with not even a plan to address child poverty. Good on the advocacy groups for stepping up, because someone's got to care. Clearly, in this House I don't see anybody from the government bench who will actually get up to advocate for the most marginal people in our communities. So far I haven't seen any of that, and I've been in this House since 1996.

Let me just tell you that not only is it bad. There are 174,000 children who are living on the margins of our community, who are living below the poverty line. You know, that's more than the combined population of Victoria, Nanaimo and Comox.

Aboriginal children. The government says that they care about aboriginal communities, that they have a new way of doing business. Well, get this. The census figures show that aboriginal children living off reserve have a poverty rate that's almost twice as large as non-aboriginal children. The poverty rate for B.C. children living in families headed by lone parents was 48.1 percent in 2005. For two-parent families, it's 15.3 percent. It's not because they're not working. It's because this government's not doing anything to assist them.

Let's be clear. Minimum wages have not been increased for — what? — five or six years now, and this government refuses to increase the minimum wage. Not only that. They actually rolled it back when they were in government.

They actually introduced a "$6 sucks" campaign, which the community brought forward. Why? Because they rolled back minimum wages for the first time, when people enter into the workforce.

That's the track record of this government, so you better believe it is about priorities. I am ashamed of what this government has not done and of what they have done, in fact, to contribute to poverty rates across the province.

Time to reflect. Think about it. Do you think that the oil and gas companies and banks really need their money from the corporate tax cut? Or are we talking about one in four children who have to go to the food bank to beg for food? Are they in more pressing need of support from this government?

I rise to support this motion, and I challenge all government members on that side of the House to stand up and do the right thing and support this motion as well.

J. Yap: It's my privilege to rise to speak on this motion. First, I want to start out by acknowledging the Oscar-worthy performance of the last speaker on this motion, which is one which highlights fundamentally…

J. Yap: … the philosophical difference between the opposition members and members of the government caucus.

We believe that work is better than welfare, and our government has, since 2001, taken steps, taken policies….

May I remind the House that the former speaker was given an opportunity to speak. I would ask the same for the current member speaking.

J. Yap: Our strategy has been to create the conditions that would lead to a strong economy, and that's what we've done. That's what our government has done since 2001, correcting the mistakes made by the opposition when they were in power during the 1990s.

Let's have a quick look at the NDP record in the 1990s. Welfare recipients made up 6.6 percent of B.C.'s population in 1990 and by 1995 had grown to 10 percent; 374,000 British Columbians were collecting welfare, an increase of 73 percent since the NDP started in 1991.

The previous speaker talks about the fact that we have in British Columbia a situation where, yes, there is a proportion of people in our province who have a low income. Our approach is to take steps to ensure that we lift up everyone, all British Columbians.

The previous speaker talks as if there were no conditions of low income during the 1990s. I'd like to just remind and read into the record a quote from one of the advocacy groups, generally considered a left-leaning advocacy group, the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. This was in their publication in 2000: "The 1990s were a difficult decade for British Columbians, particularly for the poorest in the province…. There was an increase in poverty in B.C., by any measure."

This is the CCPA saying this. "The depth of poverty was also higher and more visible on the street — in the rise of homelessness, panhandling and food banks. Life for the poor is more difficult and precarious than it has been in several decades." This is from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives report in B.C. Commentary, "Falling Through the Cracks: Poverty in British Columbia."

As my colleague from Langley said so eloquently, all of us enter public life to make a difference, to help people. I believe that our colleagues on the opposition side, like us on the government side, feel the same way. We want to help people.

But there is a fundamental divide here, where the opposition has a philosophical aversion to ensuring that business can do what it does best, which is to create

jobs for British Columbians. That's exactly what our government has delivered in the last seven years: 411,000 new jobs since December 2001.

Jobs looking for people instead of people looking for jobs. We have virtually full employment, and this is across the scale. All British Columbians are benefiting. As I said, all of us want to make a difference, and our government is making a difference.

Our government introduced the first increase in shelter rates since the 1990s. It wasn't the NDP when they were in power. Of course, the NDP are trying to make this their issue. And yet, as even the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives in the year 2000…. Looking back on the 1990s, that dismal decade was dismal for low-income people as well.

You know, they keep using the word "shame." Well, they should be ashamed. They had ten years to make a difference for low-income people, and the CCPA, their friends, issued a damning indictment of them.

I wish I had more time to go through and list all of the good news, but I am sure that my colleagues on the government side will do so to share with members of this House and the people of British Columbia what steps we have taken as a government to help lower-income people lift themselves up, to make a difference in their lives.

C. Trevena: I'm proud to stand up in support of my colleague's motion that the House move to develop a comprehensive strategy for eliminating child poverty in the province of British Columbia. What we are looking for is a vision. We're not looking to go over the history books. We're not looking to go over what happened in the 1990s. We're looking at what has happened in this government's record. This government has been in power since 2001. I think it should start taking responsibility for being in power and for what the effects have been.

The member for Richmond-Steveston just mentioned that the economy is doing wonderful things. There's full employment. What is the problem that we cannot see that? The government says everything is wonderful.

We have one in four children living in poverty. That's one in four families living in poverty. Is that not an indictment of any government's record that one in four children, one in four families are living in poverty? Yet, we've heard earlier, banks get massive subsidies and tax breaks in the budget, and other industries get subsidies — $220 million to the banks.

This motion asks for a strategy to eliminate child poverty. Other provinces have recognized that they have problems. Other provinces have taken on the idea of trying to work to eliminate a problem of poverty. Working to eradicate poverty. Isn't that a noble cause? Isn't that a noble venture that we should all be dedicating ourselves to instead of just saying: "Well, we're making sure that people can pull themselves up, use their bootstraps, bring it up"?

I've cited this in the past. I came to Canada in the '90s after having left Britain where we had a very right-wing government. There was the famous line where the Prime Minister of the day said: "There is no such thing as society." Sadly, I think that this government also believes that there is no such thing as society.

The member for Langley was talking about the fact that this government doesn't take money out of people's pockets — it does help themselves — that it's a matter of individual choice. I think that the member doesn't realize quite what the role of a government is. The role of a government is to ensure that society can work, that society can function. That means that every member of society can participate in the benefits and the fruits of that society, not simply those who are the friends of a government. This is what this motion calls for. It calls for the possibility of every member of society to participate in society.

I sat in at the hearings of the Finance Committee as it travelled around when they were in my constituency. The chair of the school board sat in front of the Finance Committee and said that the biggest problem they face as a school board is poverty. Here we are talking about having the most literate province in the country, but if the school board says that the most dire issue is poverty, shouldn't this government be listening?

The fact that schools have to make sure that children get breakfast programs because they know they aren't getting fed at home, that they've got to make sure they have lunch programs, that this is the safest place children are in the day because there is security, literal and physical warmth, the possibility of food…. Isn't there something very wrong with what this government has been doing in the last six years if this is the case, if children are left in a situation of such dire need?

It is a different philosophical issue. I think the member for Richmond-Steveston got it quite right. It is a different philosophical issue. The government feels that you can cut taxes and everything will be okay. This side of the House believes that you need to invest in communities, in individuals, and you need to invest to ensure that we eradicate issues of poverty.

I find it very troubling that there's a line in the budget where it says that money from certain taxes aren't going to be going to programs. Well, I think again these are some of the problems that the members opposite have. If you don't invest in programs, you can't really be investing in your society.

We need to be investing in our society. We need to be investing in every single individual in our society — not just government friends, not just banks, not just in the corporate side — making sure that every single member of our society has an equal chance.

In the 19th century Dickens wrote very telling, graphic descriptions of poverty. It took Dickens to change the view of many, many people in Britain. We saw Oliver Twist as the…. It was the dire pictures that were drawn there that changed many things in Britain.

I find it tragic that here we are in the 21st century in British Columbia in a wonderful, very rich, very powerful province, and we are in this situation. Where is our Dickens? Who is painting that picture? Who is going to

make this government feel so guilty that it is leaving so many people — so many children, so many families — out in the cold because it is not committed to having any program to eliminate poverty? It is not committed to support this motion.

I stand fully behind this motion. We have to have a strategy. We have to work together to make sure that we are working on income supplements, on education, on wage levels and on every single aspect to ensure that no family is left behind, that no child is left behind and that everyone has the equality of opportunity that they deserve in B.C.

D. Hayer: This is an interesting motion, considering what our government has accomplished toward alleviating child poverty over the past seven years, even more interesting when you look at the record of the opposition when it was in government decades ago. A decade ago, when the number of welfare recipients grew by 73 percent, when more than 10 percent of the population of B.C. was on social assistance or welfare, one in ten people were on welfare under the NDP. Welfare costs in 1995 were almost $2 billion, and welfare fraud was out of control when that opposition was in power.

Even the NDP sister organization, the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, described the 1990s as "a difficult decade for British Columbians, particularly for the poorest in the province…. The depth of poverty was also higher and more visible." The Centre for Policy Alternatives continued: "Life for the poor is more difficult and precarious" — in the 1990s — "than it has been for several decades."

In the 1990s, from 1990 to 1999, the increase in the welfare was 18.4 percent — that was the people with lower incomes. That was one of the highest increases of low-income people. It's almost triple what the national average was.

I also don't need to remind you that during the 1990s the NDP government was in power — from 1991 to 2001, when the left-leaning policy alternative described those in poverty as people falling through the cracks that this opposition could not fill. When they were in government, they did not do anything for the poor. As a matter of fact, the poor numbers increased.

When we came into power in 2001, when this government took over the power, one of the first things we did was to cut the income tax rate. Today two individuals can earn up to $33,000 to support their families and pay zero provincial income tax. That means no provincial income tax.

When they were under the NDP, they were taxed. They had to take the money that was there for food or for their kids and instead give that to the provincial government and the NDP for taxes. That was wrong. They should not have been doing that. On the other hand, we have said that we're going to leave that money in people's pockets so that they can help their kids. They can look after the interests of the kids, not just look after the interests of the government, and we are really helping the people in a poverty situation.

They contributed to childhood poverty, to the depths of poverty that so many people and families never thought they could ever overcome when this government took over. They understood that people actually need to be encouraged to go ahead.

We need encouragement. People need encouragement to get them out of poverty. They need some help. They need the help to come in the form of tax relief that allows them to spend hard-earned money on themselves and their children instead of giving it to the government through taxation.

This government believes that working encourages people, gives them a sense of worth and well-being. It makes them feel good about themselves, and a huge reduction in the number of people on welfare reflected that. Not only have we encouraged them, but we have created an economy where people who want to work can find jobs — jobs that are well-paying; jobs that will help them rise above poverty; jobs that will feed, clothe and entertain the children.

Today, through the B.C. employment program, every starting wage for a person placed in a job was $13 an hour. To help with the transition from welfare to work, former clients are also eligible to receive medical service and premium coverage at no charge, have 70 percent of prescription costs paid through Pharmacare and can continue to collect the B.C. tax credit.

As well, former social assistance clients with children who re-entered the workforce are still eligible to receive the B.C. child credit. Under this program, we're really helping them. We're looking after their interests there. We're providing them jobs. We're making sure they're not on welfare. We have the least number of people on welfare. We have the least number of kids on welfare. But under the last government they didn't do that. So it's a different philosophy.

G. Coons: I rise to strongly support this motion and encourage all members in this House to support children in our province. British Columbia is the best place on earth to see poverty. There is lots of quibbling about poverty's exact edge — stuff about low-income cutoffs, incomes relative to inflation — but our language doesn't have enough degrees to truly define poverty's spectrum of hardship and sorrow of the most marginalized in our province.

This Liberal government has had the highest child poverty rate in Canada for the fourth year in a row, despite the booming provincial economy, despite billions of dollars of surpluses and despite disbursing over half a billion dollars to the big banks and to the oil industry. Leading the nation at number one for four straight years in child poverty is nothing to be proud of.

The member for Langley talks about "those people." Well, I imagine those people are not hanging around the Starbucks in her riding. Those people are being

marginalized and are the most vulnerable in our province, and we see them. Maybe the member for Langley doesn't. In the latest reports on the proportion of children living in poverty in British Columbia, it was 20.9 percent — well above the national average of 16.8 percent.

There is no question that we have enough resources and willing hands in this province to give everyone a place to call home. The only thing lacking is this government's political will to eradicate child poverty, to reach out to the abandoned among us in beautiful British Columbia.

I do want to mention something about other provinces that are leading the nation. Unlike us, who are leading the nation in child poverty, other provinces like Quebec and Newfoundland and Labrador are reaching out for those living in poverty. In those provinces, they received unanimous support in their legislatures back in, I believe, 2006 to develop a poverty reduction strategy. That's what we need in our province, and that's what this motion brings forward.

These provinces have directed their ministers of human resources, labour and employment to have responsibility and to lead their government's effort to reduce poverty. In order to prevent, reduce and alleviate poverty, these other progressive provinces decided on a comprehensive, integrated and multifaceted approach. It addresses the connections between poverty and gender with education, housing, employment, health, social and financial supports and tax measures — as well as the link between women's poverty and their increased vulnerability to violence.

Why can't we do this in British Columbia — reduce and alleviate our child poverty? That's a very good question, hon. Speaker. Other provinces, as I mentioned, implemented strategies that improve access and coordination of services. For those living on low incomes, this coordination of services establishes stronger social safety networks. It improves earned incomes, increases the emphasis on early childhood development and takes action to achieve a better educated population.

I'm sure members on the other side are asked this question all the time, as we are: why can't we do something about it in British Columbia? Why can't we implement a strategy as such?

These other provinces have an action plan. They have an action plan that identifies a number of areas in which both the federal government and our government could work together. These areas fall into the realm of income tax–related issues, dealing with aboriginal people, people with disabilities, affordable housing, child benefit programs, student loan programs and literacy programs — all of the intricacies that would help the most vulnerable and the most marginalized in this province.

We aren't doing anything about that. Why can't we do this in B.C. for those families and children struggling against all odds?

Derek Gent, who is with the board of directors for SPARC-BC, which is the Social Planning and Research Council, recently said: "People on B.C. income assistance are essentially living in legislated poverty. Every year purchasing power is lost because income assistance rates are too low and don't keep up with inflation."

The Minister of Employment and Income Assistance often reiterates in this House that jobs are the best way to lift people out of poverty and back on the road to self-sufficiency. Other provinces have taken the situation seriously, and they've developed better initiatives, better strategies and action plans.

Why can't we do this in our province? Because this Liberal government continues to marginalize people, continues to give tax breaks to the banks and big oil companies. That's shameful.

Instead of acting in the best interests of the public, this government chooses, year after year, to let the sores of poverty fester, to fritter away our budget on convention centres and fat cheques to their friends and donors. This government can choose to be a leader in child poverty reduction, with a comprehensive strategy to ensure that no one gets left behind. Or it can continue to lead the nation in its attack on the most vulnerable in our society.

I encourage all members to support the motion before us and be a leader in eliminating child poverty.

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