2009 Legislative Session: First Session, 39th Parliament
HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Monday, November 16, 2009

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 8, Number 2

[ Page 2337 ]

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 2009

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

L. Popham: I rise in the House today to introduce a constituent of mine by the name of Susan Beiderwieden and a group of students from the University of Victoria here to watch question period and augment their understanding of politics and health care. Please make them welcome.

R. Cantelon: Eight members of the Federation of Oceanside Residents Associations braved wind and storm to come here today. Marlys Diamond, Pat Jacobson, Carol Nicol Dowe, Iris Paige, Dr. Peter Quily, Duane Quily, Tom Davies, Nestor Gayowsky and Dr. Fred Dowe are all here in support of the Oceanside health centre — in support of my efforts as my number one priority to create one — but also to keep an eye on me to make sure I do my job.

[1335]

Tributes

VANCOUVER ISLAND RAIDERS

R. Cantelon: If I may, on another note — on Saturday the Vancouver Island Raiders for the third time in four years have won the Canadian junior football championships in Nanaimo.

Introductions by Members

M. Farnworth: In the gallery today is a former constituent of mine who is now a resident here in the city of Victoria. His name is Graham Nichol. Would the House please make him most welcome.

J. Thornthwaite: I'd like to welcome a very good friend of mine, Mary Tasi, who is also a school trustee in the district of North Vancouver and who also is married to the esteemed Wade Baker, who is a very esteemed aboriginal artist.

Welcome, Mary.

N. Letnick: Up in the gallery today we have my PhD adviser, the professor, Dr. Craig Mitton. He's with the faculty of medicine at UBC, right in Vancouver. I'd like the House to make him feel welcome.

Hon. B. Stewart: At exactly 7:19 a.m. on November 11, 2009, my daughter Lane and her husband Jan welcomed Ruby Annalena Dobbener into the world. I'd like the House to recognize and welcome them.

I'd also like to introduce two guests joining us here today from the public affairs bureau graphic design department. They both have a broad range of experience in projects such as brochures, booklets, policy documents, event displays, official signing documents, certificates and anything involving government identity and branding.

Cal Jones is the senior graphic designer. He has created work for many of the Walt Disney Company's computer software titles as well as his illustration and award-winning design for the province of British Columbia.

Tara Kerner-Marsh is a graphic designer for the public affairs bureau, and she has spent ten years pursuing her field of study in both Canada and Europe. During her studies in Europe, Tara received the commendation from the Superior Institute of Architecture and Design in Milan, Italy. In her spare time she has exhibited her ink sketches and acrylic paintings both in Canada and Europe.

Please make them welcome here today.

R. Fleming: I would like to introduce a guest with us today in the gallery. Alfred Okot Ochen, who is from Kampala, Uganda, is a student at Royal Roads University. He has just completed his master's in conflict analysis and dispute resolution. Alfred has lived in Canada now for six years. Shortly, in the new year, he looks forward to becoming a Canadian citizen. This is his first time to the Legislature, and I'd ask the House to please make him feel welcome.

Hon. J. Yap: During the lunch hour today 56 grade 4 students from Brentwood Elementary School came here to participate and to learn from the wonderful AquaVan program, which put on a display here. This is an initiative of the Vancouver Aquarium that brings the whole world of our west coast sea life to the entire province, to schools throughout the province of British Columbia. Today we had the opportunity to have the AquaVan display right here in the rotunda of the Legislature, where these grade 4 youngsters could play and learn about critters like starfish and crabs and all manner of sea life.

Joining them were Dr. John Nightingale, who is the president of the Vancouver Aquarium, as well as, representing one of the main sponsors for the AquaVan program, British Columbia Transmission Corporation, Mr. Julius Pataky. I'd like the House to make all these youngsters and Dr. Nightingale and Mr. Pataky welcome.

[1340]

S. Herbert: I just rise today to thank the motion picture industry of B.C., as it is motion picture industry association week, and congratulate them on all the great work they do for bringing B.C. stories to the public and for the many jobs that they provide our province. I look forward to working with them in the future.
[ Page 2338 ]

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

SURREY BUSINESS EXCELLENCE AWARDS

D. Hayer: Each year I speak of the success of business and the recognition that success receives in Surrey. Last week the annual Surrey Board of Trade Business Excellence Awards were held. There are so many businesses within Surrey that just to achieve nomination status is a victory itself.

Therefore, the 2009 Surrey Business Excellence Award winners and nominees are…. For student entrepreneur, Glen Chua and MLiTE Productions and runners-up Jason Bergunder and Julio Nicoletti and Ashish Gurung. For businesses with one to five employees, the winners were Uptown Giftbox Company and runners-up Stride Business Coaching, EH Florist, Tom the Tire Guy, Mehfil Magazine and Printfastic.

For businesses with six to 20 employees, the Honeybee Centre and runners-up the Organic Grocer, Stage 5 Powder Coating and Surrey Eagles. For businesses with more than 21 employees, the winner is Analytic Systems Ware Ltd. and runners-up Nando's Chicken, Fraser Downs, Eaglequest golf course in Coyote Creek; Allegro Imperial Place, Barnes Wheaton in Surrey, Mainland Civic Works and Nanak Foods.

For not-for-profits under $500,000 a year, the association winner is Art Council of Surrey and runners-up Just Beginnings Flowers and Students in Free Enterprise Simon Fraser. For not-for-profits over $500,000 a year the association winner is Surrey Food Bank and runners-up Quest, Tong Louie Family YMCA, Progressive Intercultural Community Services Society, Semiahmoo House Society and Surrey Memorial Hospital Foundation.

For new business of the year, the winner is Breakwater Marine, and the runners-up are Koi Day Spa, It's Your Move, Keylime Design and Marketing, MLiTE Productions, Static Glass Creations and Nu Experience Design.

For the businessperson of the year the winner is Chuck Keeling of Fraser Downs, and the runners-up are Ken MacKenzie, Gary Dhaliwal and Arvinder Bubber.

I would ask the House to please welcome everybody and say thank you to all the winners.

OCEANSIDE RESIDENTS' CALL FOR
HEALTH CARE FACILITY

S. Fraser: The Oceanside area of Vancouver Island includes the communities of Parksville, Qualicum Beach, Dashwood, Bowser, Deep Bay, Coombs, Errington and Whiskey Creek. They have been standing as one in their push for quality public health care — a facility in the area.

The region has some of the oldest demographics in the country and a catchment area of some 50,000 people, yet there is no hospital. Nanaimo, Comox and Port Alberni are all 40 minutes away. The residents were promised in 2001 a public health centre, and they are rightly holding all of us in this House to account.

Here is what the public facility must include. Urgent care — for the treatment of unexpected illness and injury. Primary care — we need a group of family physicians, nurses and support staff providing a wide range of care over extended hours of operation. Ambulatory care — we need skilled practitioners providing for heart health, pulmonary and asthma, diabetes education, women's health and hypertension.

Fourth, we need diagnostic treatment. This is clinics for palliative care, medical day care, cancer programs, modern diagnostic radiology and on-site laboratory facilities. We need in-patient services with care provided by family physicians for short-stay assessments, convalescence and palliative care.

The Federation of Oceanside Residents Associations has identified their health care needs, which will provide the people of the region with the services that they deserve under the public health care system. It will save lives and make a more efficient system that takes a load off the already overstressed hospitals in the surrounding area.

Representatives are in the audience. They have been waiting eight long years. Let us all in this House ensure that Oceanside residents finally get the public health centre that they deserve.

KALI BRAUKMANN

G. Hogg: Kali Braukmann is a uniquely focused 13-year-old South Surrey resident who is committed to making a difference in our province. She has always had an interest in and a passion for our natural environment, for systems balance and for nature. She has taken two scientist-guided ecotours of the Great Bear rain forest, and she has been inspired.

[1345]

Her experiences, her research and her conversations with leaders and thinkers have led her to take action. She makes presentations to school classes throughout the Lower Mainland, and in August she spoke to over 1,000 people in Whistler at a special event profiling important issues facing our world. She has been interviewed and quoted several times by various media outlets. Her presentations highlight her readings and her experiences.

She talks about her first encounter with a grizzly bear and how that became a life-altering experience. She talks about her concern for the very low salmon runs and how they have affected the grizzly bear population.

Kali is a formidable force who eloquently expresses her opposition to grizzly bear hunting, and she has garnered both attention and support. Kali is confident that she will one day see the end of grizzly bear hunting, and she is a wonderful example to all British Columbians.
[ Page 2339 ]

She got involved, she is raising awareness, she is informed, she is creating forums, she is challenging beliefs, and she is making a difference. She is focused on ending grizzly bear hunting, and I commend her for her energy and her effort. She is helping to make B.C. more aware, more interactive and more compassionate.

Thank you, Kali.

RESTORATIVE JUSTICE ORGANIZATION
IN TRI-CITIES AREA

M. Farnworth: November 15 to November 22 is Restorative Justice Week in B.C. With an emphasis on healing, accountability and the involvement of the community, restorative justice provides us with an opportunity to motivate and assist young offenders and help to prevent many first-time criminals from becoming repeat offenders.

From the first offence to more serious crimes, restorative justice also represents a change in how we punish a criminal act. CERA, which stands for Communities Embracing Restorative Action, offers restorative justice services to my community in Port Coquitlam as well as to the communities of Anmore, Belcarra, Coquitlam, New Westminster and Port Moody.

By promoting mediation between victims and offenders, CERA has helped to create a stronger community-based approach to treating criminal offences. A non-profit organization since 1999, CERA values the role and participation of many committed volunteers serving in a myriad of ways as administrators, researchers, teachers and facilitators.

CERA grew out of the strategic planning of the Tri-Cities Family Court and Youth Justice Committee. With a focus on youth diversion programs and other alternatives to the youth criminal justice system, CERA has provided a unique approach in dealing with young offenders in the Tri-Cities area. From its early formation, CERA has served our community successfully for the last ten years. The program is delivered by a small dedicated staff and volunteer facilitators.

I want to acknowledge and thank the staff and volunteers at CERA for all the hard work that they do.

BURNABY BUSINESS EXCELLENCE AWARDS

R. Lee: On November 4 the Burnaby Board of Trade presented their Business Excellence Awards. My city of Burnaby is home to many dynamic and vibrant companies, and this year many of them were nominated for recognition in a variety of categories.

I would like to take a moment to recognize this year's winners. Costco Wholesale Ltd. was the winner of the Burnaby Community Spirit Award. The Environmental Sustainability award went to Hemlock Printers Ltd. Soyaworld Inc. was named business of the year. Glentel Inc. was also inducted into the hall of fame.

I am pleased to note that the business community in my riding of Burnaby North was well represented amongst this year's winners. The business innovation award went to INSINC, a new media company which is the leader in on-line video delivery in Canada.

GigaLuma Technologies Inc. won the Entrepreneurial Spirit award. GigaLuma specializes in designing interactive and engaging e-learning courses and e-information programs.

In the category of Not-For-Profit Organization of the Year, Cameray Child and Family Services took home top honours. It's great to see this community-based organization — which has provided specialized counselling services to children, youth and families in Burnaby and New Westminster since 1972 — receive this recognition.

Cioffi's Meat Market and Deli, known for its quality meats and cheeses and other fine ingredients, was named Small Business of the Year, and Jack Kuyer of the Valley Bakery Ltd. was named Business Person of the Year. His European bakery is celebrating its 51st anniversary this year as well as this award.

I ask that this House join me in recognizing this year's winners of the Burnaby Business Excellence Awards.

[1350]

ANTI-POVERTY ORGANIZATION IN
PRINCE RUPERT

G. Coons: I'd like to take this opportunity to talk about a very valuable and instrumental organization in Prince Rupert: KAPS, the Kaien Anti Poverty Society.

Now, KAPS started a long time ago, but I remember about seven or eight years ago sitting down with a group of people and repurposing the organization to help develop a mission statement.

It has progressed tremendously over the years, with a free store that's open six days per week and a small-scale family support service that operates off the side of a desk — a program that's always looking for a funding source.

The after-school drop-in programs provide recreation and social opportunities for children five to eight years old and an evening program for teens. There are always healthy snacks available, as a majority of kids that come to the programs are always hungry.

The downtown businesses have been extremely generous, and Brian Munson from our local Overwaitea has been their year-round Santa. The KAPS summer camp programs continue to be a huge success, with camping trips and fun for all.

A key project that is currently in the works is a community garden where one can rent a plot of land or be sponsored if one can't afford it. It's hoped that the community garden will evolve into a sustainable entity that grows and sells the produce to maintain itself or ultimately produces and hands out the harvest to those in need.
[ Page 2340 ]

Many thanks go to gardening gurus Andree Fawcett, Ken Shaw, Joe Viscount and Jack Hoekstra for their many hours of dedicated volunteer work. Future plans for the community garden include a basketball court and a surrounding play and picnic area for families and seniors to enjoy.

Come spring 2010, KAPS' hard-working board members Sunflower Porter, Simona Ionita, Isabelle Howard, Erin Yeager, Lianna Faust and manager Colleen Hermanson look forward to their own community economic development project that will ultimately make a difference and have a significant impact in our community.

Oral Questions

IMPACT OF HARMONIZED SALES TAX
ON SCHOOL DISTRICTS

R. Austin: Throughout the election campaign, the B.C. Liberals pledged not to bring in the HST. As soon as it was over, they announced this new tax without consultation or analysis of the impact.

Now a report by the B.C. Association of School Business Officials says the HST will force school districts to pay $24 million more a year. I quote: "B.C.'s K-to-12 sector will face significant cost increases due to the HST." The HST will hit our schools hard at a time when the B.C. Liberals have inflicted cut after cut on our education system, despite their election promise to protect education.

To the Minister of Finance: how does he expect the already cash-strapped school districts to come up with an additional $24 million for the HST?

Hon. C. Hansen: I think that, as the member knows, most of Canada's leading economists point to the introduction of the HST as the single most important thing that the province can do to stimulate jobs and energize the economy.

We have made it very clear that, for those entities that are funded through the provincial government budget process, we will acknowledge that there is some increased cost that they may be incurring as a result of the introduction of HST. We will take that into consideration as part of the budget process leading up to the budget that will be tabled next March 2.

R. Austin: Some increased costs. Let's see. School supplies, maintenance, student transportation — these are just some of the things school districts will pay more for under the HST, just when they are struggling to cope with higher MSP costs, downloaded costs to deal with H1N1, unfunded salary increases, cuts to school sports, cuts to annual facilities grants, fewer supports for kids and thousands of overcrowded classrooms. The cuts and cost pressures keep growing, despite the B.C. Liberals' campaign promise to protect the fundamentals.

Now this extra $24 million from the HST will hurt our education system even more, when it can least afford it. Again to the minister…. Either the minister didn't get my earlier question, or he certainly hasn't answered it. My question is simple. Can he explain how he expects school districts to come up with another $24 million for the HST when they are already facing record cuts and downloaded costs?

[1355]

Hon. C. Hansen: Quite frankly, the member is wrong, because we have the highest level of education budget ever in the history of this province. At a time when there is declining enrolment….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Minister, just take your seat for a second.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. C. Hansen: At a time when we have declining enrolment around the province, we have the highest per-student contribution coming from the province of British Columbia to school districts around the province.

When we look at that member's riding in Skeena, where we have seen enrolment drop significantly…. Why? Because of the decline in the forest sector in British Columbia. What the forest industry has said to us is that the single biggest thing that we can do to help the forest sector to generate jobs and to support families in that member's constituency in Skeena is the introduction of the harmonized sales tax.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a further supplemental.

R. Austin: I don't think the school trustees in this province are wrong. I don't think the PAC presidents in this province are wrong. They're right, and so are we on this side.

Here's just one example of how the HST will hurt our already cash-strapped school system. For the Prince George school district alone, it will cost over $900,000. In a letter to the government the school district said that the impact of the HST combined with massive funding cuts and downloaded costs has led to "confusion, frustration and despair."

My question again to the Minister of Finance. Communities like Prince George are already seeing the consequences of this government's cuts to education. So will he tell them how exactly they're supposed to come up with millions of dollars more for the HST?

Hon. C. Hansen: As I indicated earlier, we have record levels of funding for education at a time when
[ Page 2341 ]
enrolment is declining around the province. As we have said very clearly to school boards, as we have said very clearly to other sectors, every year, as part of the budget process, we look at cost pressures that they're facing, and we will reflect that in the budget that will be tabled on March 2.

We are certainly looking forward to getting more information from the financial officers association. We are doing our own analysis, and we look forward to getting more information in terms of what they've based their numbers on, and that will become part of our budget deliberations.

N. Macdonald: I think most British Columbians would join me in thinking that the assertion that the minister makes here is ridiculous. The fact of the matter is that for him to stand up and suggest that there is going to be any certainty or any added funds coming out of this is ridiculous in light of the fact that we have PAC funds that were cut. We have annual facility grants that were supposed to be dependable. They were cut. We have B.C. sports cut. There has been cut after cut after cut.

We have school districts, boards of education, forced by this government to make cuts that no reasonable person would make. We have reduced janitorial services. We have cuts to special education. We have oversized classes. We have cancelled sports programs and — guaranteed — more degradation to come with the HST: $24 million for the HST alone. Where does the Minister of Finance suggest the boards of educations cut? Because they will cut. Surely they will cut. Where does he suggest they make those cuts?

Hon. C. Hansen: I'm surprised that the member is jumping to conclusions as to what may or may not be in the Ministry of Education's budget for school districts in the budget that will be tabled next March 2. Every year we have a process of looking at cost pressures that school districts are facing, and every year we develop a budget that helps to reflect what those cost pressures are. Every year we increase the budget in the Ministry of Education.

The greatest benefit for the school district in that member's riding is to make sure that there is a strong forest sector and that there's a strong mining sector in that part of British Columbia.

[1400]

That's what will support families. That's what will stabilize communities, and that's what will ensure that the declining student population in that member's riding can be reversed as we start to build those communities back up because of a dynamic industry base in that community, which is exactly what will happen as a result of the shift to the HST.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

N. Macdonald: You can tell how desperate a minister is when they go to forestry as a defence. Twenty-five thousand jobs lost. If there was ever a sign of complete B.C. Liberal incompetence, it's B.C. forest policy.

A close second comes with their education policy — a close second. The minister suggests that there is going to be money, and I think we just have to look in the context of what we've heard so far. To get elected, B.C. Liberals promised a $400 million deficit. We came nowhere close to that — did we? It was not true.

To get elected, B.C. Liberals promised no HST. But that didn't happen — did it? B.C. Liberals promised that they would not force cut after cut to public education, but that's what we see. The question is simple. So $24 million is the cost of the HST. What does the Minister of Finance suggest those boards of education cut?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Just wait, Minister. We've got a couple of other members that are asking questions back and forth.

Hon. C. Hansen: The member is wrong when he talks about cuts in education. We have increased the budget for the Ministry of Education every single year.

We look forward to working with the financial officers in education with regard to the cost pressures that they're facing in the years to come. We all know that there are many of those, and we take all of those into consideration as we develop our budgets. This year will be no exception.

B. Ralston: The Minister of Finance spoke about a tax shift. It is a tax shift all right. It's a $2 billion tax shift onto consumers and small business in this province that many will find devastating in the short run and in the long run.

These costs that are talked about here are hard costs. They're real costs. They're compiled by a knowledgable group of school treasurers and business officials. So $24 million a year in operating costs, $14.7 million additional to the capital budget and a $111 million hit on the overall capital plan that they have before them.

Isn't it really simpler, rather than piling these costs onto school districts and damaging public education, to simply scrap the HST?

Hon. C. Hansen: Quite frankly, when you recognize that most of the leading economists in Canada are saying that the shift to the HST is the single most important thing that we can do as a province to stimulate the economy and create jobs, it is absolutely the right thing for British Columbia to do.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.
[ Page 2342 ]

B. Ralston: The minister has come to a very late and false awakening as to the benefits of the HST. He didn't mention it in his budget in February. He didn't mention it in his election platform at all before the election last May.

My question is to the minister. Given the damage that this will do to the public education system and given the fact that this is a very knowledgable group, will the minister not agree that rather than inflict damage on the public education system, it would be better to simply get rid of the HST now?

Hon. C. Hansen: What we've heard from this opposition day in and day out is exaggeration and hyperbole. I think this is yet another example of that.

[1405]

Let's put this in perspective. We have a Ministry of Education budget of about $5.5 billion. Yes, we acknowledge that there may be some marginal increase in cost. We will take that into consideration as part of the budget process leading up to the budget that is tabled on March 2.

COMPTROLLER GENERAL REPORT
ON TRANSLINK AND B.C. FERRIES

H. Bains: Just over a week ago the comptroller general released a scathing report on B.C. Liberals' handling of TransLink and B.C. Ferries. The report raised serious questions about the lack of accountability at both organizations under the new structure set up by the previous minister. It has been less than two years since the B.C. Liberals made a power grab by replacing the elected representatives on TransLink with an appointed board.

Now, the comptroller general is saying that TransLink needs to be more accountable and that local government, the mayors, be allowed to directly hire and fire and set up the compensation levels of the board members. It's serious stuff.

My question is to the Premier. Will the Premier ensure that all recommendations by the comptroller general are acted upon immediately?

Hon. C. Hansen: I think the report and the analysis that were done by the comptroller general were very constructive and helpful. But let's actually look at where that initiative came from. It was this government and this Minister of Transportation that actually asked that that review of governance be undertaken.

I think that what the comptroller general has pointed out is that in both those organizations, certainly, the governance structure is better than it was before. But there are obviously still some improvements that can be made, and I know that the Minister of Transportation is looking very seriously at the recommendations that the comptroller general has delivered.

H. Bains: The new minister asking to review the work of the previous minister — so much for the confidence of one minister over the other.

This government has allowed both organizations to run wild, and the ratepayers and the taxpayers are paying the price. The comptroller general's report says: "We consider the number of executives in TransLink and its subsidiaries, at 28, excessive."

We also learned through this report that Canada Line may lose $14 million to $21 million per year until 2025. If it weren't for this report, the cost of this secretive P3 contract may never have come to the public attention.

My question again is to the Premier. Will the Premier ensure that all TransLink contracts are made public today, and will the Premier ensure that TransLink and B.C. Ferries are fully accountable and immediately act on all of the recommendations of this report?

Hon. C. Hansen: Certainly, the review that was done by the comptroller general was exactly to accomplish that — to look at areas of governance and accountability. As I mentioned earlier, the recommendations and the report that she has delivered are very constructive, and I know that the Minister of Transportation will be looking at those, going forward.

Let's look at the Canada Line for a minute. The Canada Line — they were hoping that they would actually have ridership in excess of 100,000 passengers a day by 2012. They have already achieved that target.

I've had the pleasure of using the Canada Line. It's a great facility, and the hundreds of thousands of British Columbians that have had the chance to ride it, I think, recognize that it is a great project, great infrastructure. The province of British Columbia is pleased to have been a part of making that happen.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

[1410]

G. Coons: There's no denying it: the minister is wrong. The fact is that to clean up TransLink, to clean up B.C. Ferries, this government must clean up their own legislation.

The report clearly blasts B.C. Ferries for the outrageous at-the-trough salaries, inherent conflict of interest within the authority and the board of directors, a failure to look at the interests of the public and the customers, and a complete lack of accountability and transparency.

In opposition in 1998 the Premier, in a letter to the B.C. Freedom of Information and Privacy Association, wrote: "The fundamental principle must be this: government information belongs to the people not to the government." Will the Premier immediately act on the comptroller's recommendation to make B.C. Ferries subject to the Freedom of Information Act?
[ Page 2343 ]

Hon. C. Hansen: I think, as the member probably knows — because I assume he has now read the report — actually the comptroller general was quite complimentary about the management and administration of B.C. Ferries and, in fact, says: "We found the B.C. Ferry Service operations to be well managed and reasonably effective."

I think, as the member knows, the comptroller general has made several recommendations of things that we should consider in making it an even more effective organization. I know that the Minister of Transportation is looking seriously at all of the recommendations and has complimented the comptroller general on the quality of the report.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

COMMENTS BY DAVID HAHN ON
COMPTROLLER GENERAL REPORT

G. Coons: Obviously the spin over there is worse than a washing machine. The comptroller general said "appropriate…."

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Member, just take your seat for a second. Member, take your seat.

Members.

Continue, Member.

G. Coons: If the minister had read the report…. It mentioned "appropriate financial and management controls," "reasonably well-run," "generally uses sound" process and controls. [Applause.]

I wouldn't be clapping too loud when you have a million-dollar man at the helm. The million-dollar man at the helm of this government's failed privatization model dismissed the comptroller general's report and called it "biased," "nonsense," "craziness" and "dumb." He is an employee appointed by the Premier to run a government-controlled monopoly for British Columbians. Does the Premier agree with his CEO's insulting remarks to the taxpayers of British Columbia?

Hon. C. Hansen: As I indicated earlier, the comptroller general does find that the B.C. Ferries corporation is well run and that they have been effective in their administration, that they have kept costs down, that they have actually engaged in an appropriate capital program to build new ferries that are required for the coast of British Columbia. That's in pretty sharp contrast to the fast ferries that we saw built under an NDP government, which was an absolute, unmitigated waste of half a billion dollars.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

M. Karagianis: I have only one question to the Premier. Mr. Hahn is his appointee. He has said of the comptroller general's report that it is "biased," "nonsense," "craziness" and "dumb."

[1415]

Would the Premier please answer us today: does he agree with his CEO's evaluation of this report?

Hon. C. Hansen: The member is not correct. In fact, Mr. Hahn is appointed by the board of the B.C. Ferries corporation.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

M. Karagianis: My question is very straightforward to the Premier of this province. Does he agree with Mr. Hahn's evaluation of the report?

Hon. C. Hansen: Mr. Hahn is obviously entitled to his opinions, and he expressed them. I think what is important is that the comptroller general in her report was very complimentary of the administration and direction of B.C. Ferries corporation. She has made some suggestions for improvement, and I know that the Minister of Transportation will be taking those recommendations seriously.

M. Farnworth: Mr. Hahn heads up B.C. Ferries, one of the most important corporations in the province of British Columbia. He is paid more than a million dollars a year to do that, and he has made comments around a comptroller general's report that are pretty damning and damaging.

My question is really clear to the Premier. Does he stand by the comments that Mr. Hahn made, and if he doesn't, will he repudiate them?

Hon. C. Hansen: I will stand by the comments of the comptroller general and the comments that are made in the report. I think that it's a very good piece of work, a very constructive analysis of the governance structure at both B.C. Ferry corporation and TransLink, and I think that the recommendations that have been put forward are worthy of careful consideration. That is exactly what the Minister of Transportation will undertake.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

M. Farnworth: Well, if you're standing by the comptroller general's report, Minister, will you at least distance yourself from Mr. Hahn's comments and say that they were inappropriate and wrong and that you don't stand by them and that you don't support them one bit?
[ Page 2344 ]

Hon. C. Hansen: I know that the Minister of Transportation has met with the CEOs and the board chairs of both of the organizations. I know that she is looking forward to continuing a constructive dialogue with regard to the report and the recommendations contained therein.

CRISIS LINE FOR NORTHERN B.C.

B. Simpson: When we asked the Minister of Health to intervene and prevent the closure of six crisis lines on Vancouver Island, the minister pointed to the northern crisis line as a best practice. The northern crisis line is only open 14 hours. It closes between 11 p.m. and 9 a.m.

My question to the minister is this. Is this the new best practice for crisis line assistance in the province of British Columbia — 14 hours of service? Don't have your crisis in the wee hours?

Hon. K. Falcon: Every part of the province will deliver the service as they deem appropriate. I know that would be a surprise to the member opposite, but I think it actually makes some sense.

Apparently the member opposite is still making the argument that there ought to be six different crisis lines on Vancouver Island. They take great umbrage at the idea that you might have a single crisis line managing the entire Island, just as they do in the north and just as we do with the 811 NurseLine, HealthLink line, in British Columbia, which works very effectively for the people of this province.

I know that the members…. Anything you do to examine administrative overhead and duplication of service, they take great offence at. But I think the public recognizes that even with 20 percent health budget increases, we still need to ask our authorities to spend those dollars wisely. That's what they're doing.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

[1420]

B. Simpson: If I understand the minister correctly, if you're in northern British Columbia and you have a crisis between the hours of 11 p.m. and 9 a.m., you're supposed to put it on hold and wait for that administrative timeframe of 9 a.m. in order to be able to get the service you need. That's what the minister is arguing. That's what he's arguing. An administrative decision — because this minister is underfunding crisis lines in this province — is: if you're in northern B.C., put your crisis on hold.

My question to the minister is very explicit. Will the minister intervene in this case and make sure that northern British Columbians have 24-hour crisis line service, not 14 hours — 24 hours?

Hon. K. Falcon: For the benefit of the viewing audience, this arises as a result of a series of questions we had a couple of weeks ago about the Vancouver Island Health Authority moving from six crisis lines to one crisis line to cover the entire Island.

Now the member wants to talk about Northern Health Authority. I'm happy to. If the folks in the north think there could be better service provided, they can certainly talk to the Northern Health Authority. I'm sure the Northern Health Authority would be happy to have that discussion with them.

But it does not take away from the fact that it was that same member opposite in the NDP opposition that, two weeks ago, was standing up saying that it was a terrible thing that the Vancouver Island Health Authority should think about avoiding duplication and administrative overhead throughout the Island by moving to a single line. That's what they did in the north. That's what we do across the province, and that's what they're doing on Vancouver Island.

CRISIS LINES ON VANCOUVER ISLAND

S. Fraser: The minister's justification for closing six crisis lines on Vancouver Island was that the northern B.C. crisis line is covered by one centre. This comparison is not justifiable. Not only is the northern line not available from 11 p.m. until 9 a.m., it also relies on other crisis lines in the province for additional help, especially for suicide cases.

Additionally, the professionals from the northern crisis line themselves say that a single centre is not appropriate, and it's not an appropriate level of service for Vancouver Island because it has three times the population covered by northern crisis lines.

Will the minister go back and review his files, study them and support the six centres that have proven to be tremendously cost-effective on Vancouver Island and proven to save lives?

Hon. K. Falcon: We know that in the province of British Columbia, over the next three years the budget for health care is increasing almost 20 percent. Now, that increase means that there is an additional $2.4 billion being put into health care to cover operating costs.

We also know that in spite of that record level of increase, there are still pressures in the system. So we are asking all the health authorities to try and manage those dollars to make sure they maximize the benefit right across the province.

Now, the NDP oppose any change regardless of how much administrative duplication and copying of services there may be. We have pointed to experiences, including the 811 HealthLink line that provides a uniform service across the province 24 hours a day, seven days a week, in over 130 languages, which works very well. It can also work well on the Island. That's what they're trying to do.

[End of question period.]
[ Page 2345 ]

R. Cantelon: I seek leave to present a petition.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Petitions

R. Cantelon: This is a petition from the Federation of Oceanside Residents. If I may, it includes the Chartwell Residents Association, Qualicum Beach Residents Association, Eaglecrest Residents Association, French Creek Residents Association, North Qualicum Beach Homeowners Association, Maple Bay Ratepayers Association, Oceanside and Oceanside strata plan number in Qualicum Beach, Craig Bay Residents Association, Oceanside Coalition for Strong Communities, Qualicum Beach Chamber of Commerce, Parksville-Qualicum-KAIROS, Qualicum Beach Waterfront Association and the Shorewood.

They've collected 6,000 signatures in support of the work of the task force, and I want to compliment Mayor Ed Mayne, Mayor Teunis Westbroek and Chairman Joe Stanhope and compliment the Vancouver Island Health Authority….

Mr. Speaker: Member, no props, please.

R. Cantelon: Oh. This is the petition. It was labelled clearly so I could identify it, Mr. Speaker. My apologies.

[1425]

The expressions of interest have gone out, and I'm pleased to report that the request for proposals should be out this fall. This petition is to support doing it now.

N. Macdonald: I just have a petition with 30 names. It is opposition to access proposed by the Minister of Transportation regarding access to and from the Trans-Canada Highway from the Donald and Dejorie roads. I present this.

V. Huntington: I seek leave to present a petition.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

V. Huntington: The petition is from residents of Delta South requesting that the government of British Columbia not proceed with an agreement to implement the harmonized sales tax.

R. Chouhan: I would like to present a petition, please.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

R. Chouhan: I present to the House a petition signed by more than a thousand people opposing the HST.

A. Dix: I am pleased to present a petition of more than a thousand British Columbians in support of ambulance paramedics in British Columbia.

K. Corrigan: I'd like to present a petition here from around 1,000 people who are opposed to the HST.

Motions Without Notice

POSITION OF JOY ILLINGTON IN
OFFICE OF MERIT COMMISSIONER

Hon. M. de Jong: By leave, I move the following:

[That Joy Illington be authorized to provide an administrative role in the Office of the Merit Commissioner until such time as the Special Committee to Appoint a Merit Commissioner has completed its work.]

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply — for the information of members, the estimates of the Ministry of the Environment — and in this chamber, second reading of Bill 20, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2).

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 20 — Miscellaneous Statutes
Amendment Act (No. 2), 2009

Hon. M. de Jong: I call second reading of Bill 20 and move that it be read a second time now. As is the custom on a miscellaneous statutes amendment act of this sort, I will keep my comments brief and restricted to a description summary of the various statutes that are impacted by the provisions of Bill 20 and a brief description of what those impacts are intended to be.

Beginning with the Animal Disease Control Act and Livestock identification Act, amendments will change the definition of "livestock dealer" in both of these acts so that Alberta farmers dealing with livestock within British Columbia are subject to the same licensing and record-keeping requirements as B.C. farmers.

Amendments to the Community Care and Assisted Living Act clarify that the requirement for safe exit or removal in the case of a fire applies to child day cares with eight or less children as well as to residential care facilities for adults and children.

Amendments to the Community Living Authority Act strengthen Community Living B.C.'s board of governance, bringing it in line with other provincial Crown corporations. These changes enable the selection of board members from a wider pool of individuals with experience managing complex organizations and who have the necessary skill sets to oversee Community Living B.C.

[1430]
[ Page 2346 ]

Amendments to the Criminal Records Review Act will require people in government-funded or -regulated jobs who work with vulnerable adults to undergo a criminal record review before they are hired and every five years thereafter.

With these amendments, British Columbia will become the first province in Canada to require criminal record reviews of employees who work with vulnerable adults. The changes will ensure that those adults who are elderly, frail or have mental or physical disabilities will be better protected from employees with a criminal history of abuse or financial exploitation.

An amendment to the Election Act ensures that campaign spending limits for candidates will apply to candidates in by-elections as well as general elections. Currently, as a result of an oversight, the limits apply only to candidates in general elections.

Amendments to the Forest Act will permit allowable annual cuts to be determined by the chief forester as needed, support recommendations from the Working Round Table on Forestry to make the stumpage system simpler and more transparent, provide a more streamlined process for wood residue export applications involving smaller quantities of residue and, finally, extend the deadline for the area-based allowable annual cut trial program to ensure there is sufficient time to monitor its effectiveness.

Amendments to the Forestry Revitalization Act will assist in the ongoing process of reallocating areas deleted from tree farm licences to first nations agreements, community forest agreements and woodlot licences.

Amendments to the Homeowner Protection Act will confirm that effective July 31, 2009, no new applications for financial assistance under the reconstruction program are being accepted or processed by the Homeowner Protection Office.

Changes to the Hydro and Power Authority Act will repeal outdated sections regarding public notice for tenders and opening tenders for the repair and construction of B.C. Hydro's power plants. Repealed sections are no longer consistent with requirements set out in TILMA — the Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement — and no longer reflect B.C. Hydro's needs or current utility industry practice.

Amendments to the Land Surveyors Act will mean that a majority rather than all of the voting shares in land surveying companies must be owned by practising land surveyors, making the companies more attractive to investors. Another amendment will mean that a majority rather than all of the directors of land surveying companies must be practising land surveyors.

In addition, up to two lay people will be permitted to sit on the Association of B.C. Land Surveyors management board. The changes will result in greater consistency between B.C. and Alberta legislation governing land surveyors.

Finally, the validation provision respecting the Motor Dealer Act will confirm and validate the collection and setting of fees set by the Motor Vehicle Sales Authority, which are used to cover administrative costs relating to the administration of the act.

Those are my brief comments with respect to the individual provisions and statutes that are covered by Bill 20. I know there will be interest in many if not all of the sections and that they will be canvassed in commentary during second reading and more specifically during the course of the committee debate that will follow.

L. Krog: It's always a pleasure to rise and speak to a miscellaneous statutes amendment act. I often refer to it as the potpourri of government legislation, where you get a little bit of this and a little bit of that all mixed together.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Sometimes, of course, there is the odd occasion where you have to compare it to the story of Helen of Troy and the sacking of Troy. There's sometimes something in there that's a little hidden, which the opposition might think not important because it's contained in a misc bill, as they're referred to.

In this particular case there are two particular aspects of this bill that raise great concern for the opposition. The first is around the changes to the B.C. Hydro and Power Authority Act. I know my friend the member for Juan de Fuca and the Energy critic will have something to say about that, quite specifically.

The opposition is always concerned when B.C. Hydro and the issue of hydro and public power come before this Legislature. Doing away with public notice for tenders and the requirement to have open tenders with open pricing, we think, may not in fact be good policy.

[1435]

This is clearly a bill where we expect the minister to provide appropriate explanation for the reasoning behind this and why it is in the public interest that these changes be made. Ultimately, B.C. Hydro is a Crown corporation — I think, arguably, the jewel of the Crown corporations — the corporation that delivers electricity to British Columbians without which our society could not function.

Obviously, the opposition views any changes to Hydro that cannot be demonstrated to be in the public interest and to ensure the viability of a Crown corporation and the viability of the most important Crown corporation, arguably…. That gives us concern.

The second aspect of this is around the issue relating to changes with community living. We appreciate that it brings it into compliance or — how shall I say? — into accordance with other provincial corporations. But again, that is an issue.
[ Page 2347 ]

One problem that I think is apparent, as well, is that the government has finally recognized something that I thought they would have corrected a long time ago. That is the amendment respecting spending limits in by-elections. Until now, until this proposed change was brought forward, it's frankly been a bit of a free-for-all, and that's not what British Columbians expect. Just because you have the fortune or misfortune to be a candidate in a by-election doesn't mean you should have some special privilege when it comes to the issue of spending.

As much as the changes to the Land Surveyors Act seem appropriate, the opposition has concern that perhaps not all of the appointees to various boards have in fact represented the best of talents. We are concerned about partisanship. And the land surveyors — I don't know that it was seen as a problem.

The fact is that it's nice to have consistency across the board, but it seems to me that the B.C. land surveyors haven't been a source of great complaint or concern in any constituency to my knowledge. Certainly during my time in this Legislature, I haven't noticed a great deal of complaint that would require some change to that.

Indeed, arguably, with respect to these changes around the voting shares that must be owned by practising land surveyors, it seems to open up the possibility that…. Instead of land surveyors being seen as somewhat independent, in fact, it's almost an encouragement to practise in larger, more businesslike and efficient groups. But that may not necessarily serve the public interest.

With respect to the Community Care and Assisted Living Act, those are obviously changes that apply now to all small community care facilities. I'm glad that the government is recognizing that many British Columbians aren't in significant facilities. They are in smaller facilities.

The Homeowner Protection Act I think is one of the more shocking things that this government has done. The amendments proposed here essentially allow the government to carry out the decision announced in August to scrap the loan program for owners of leaky condos. If there is an issue in British Columbia that affects tens of thousands of people very directly and very significantly, this is it.

It is one thing to bring forward a bill that bans the use of cell phones while driving. Good public policy. No one would disagree with that, and it will impact on thousands and thousands of British Columbians. But as more and more buildings are discovered that have leaky-condo syndrome….

This has been going on in this province for — what? — roughly 15 years or more. When the government scraps the loan program, what it does is put at risk the ability of literally thousands of British Columbians to retain their homes — literally thousands. Indeed, I think I can safely say without exaggeration that if the trends continue: tens of thousands of British Columbians. The stories these people tell you — unfortunately, there are several of these complexes in my constituency — are heart-wrenching.

[1440]

Retirees who bought their homes in many cases with the last of their savings had planned to live through retirement on their fixed incomes. The biggest budgeting item they had in the future was probably the increased cost of living and increasing strata fees. But when you're suddenly stuck with a $100,000 or $120,000 or $30,000 or $40,000 or $50,000 bill in order to retain your home, at a time of life when the possibility of returning to the workforce is exactly nil, that is devastating.

The loan program not only enabled people in those dreadful, difficult circumstances to retain their homes; it also created jobs, because if you could at least get the loan, you could hire contractors. Strata councils could hire the contractors, do the work, generate economic activity, retain a workforce, develop expertise. It had a positive side, if you will. But without the possibility of those loans, for many it will simply mean the abandonment.

It will mean that we will see facilities across this province that formally housed thousands of British Columbians potentially being abandoned and people being forced into bankruptcy. I think at the height of the recession in the United States it was one in ten homes that was in foreclosure in one of the major cities, the old industrial cities in Ohio.

I'm not suggesting, nor do I wish to suggest, that it may be that bad in British Columbia. But clearly, particularly in the urban areas where the condos are prevalent, this is what it means. I am, to say the least, disappointed and dismayed that the government has clearly affirmed its intent by proposing this legislation. It is clear that this government will — and it has — abandoned the condo owners of British Columbia, who face ruin in many cases.

It's one thing if you're a young purchaser and you've got some chance to recover. You can file for bankruptcy and move on. It's another thing when you're in your 40s or 50s with children, and it's another thing when you're in your 60s or 70s living on a fixed income. In those cases, the devastation to people's lives is incalculable.

For the cost to government, compared to the benefit to taxpayers in British Columbia and to condo owners, it just seems to me that on balance, it would have been a pretty easy decision for this government to say that they would continue to support the program.

You can't sustain an economy where people are terrified that if they purchase condos and there's a problem, they won't have access to moneys to do what are often major repairs. At the very time when in this House….

This morning we talked about the environment, we talked about sustainability, and we talked about everybody getting on board with reducing their carbon footprints and reducing the production of greenhouse
[ Page 2348 ]
gases. One of the main ways I think we're all in agreement to do that is to ensure that people live in condensed areas, that they don't spread their footprint out over the land — in short, that they live in condominiums. That's the legal vehicle by which they acquire property ownership — through condo owners, strata.

When the government fails to support those very people who may well be victimized by poor building practices, by shoddy construction, by poor building schemes, by a building code that maybe works or doesn't work…. When those people are victimized.... How can you possibly expect society to continue to invest in condominium ownership when they know there's a risk they might lose everything? They'll lose it in large groups and collectively. Strata units, hundred-unit holders — they all go down, because it has to be shared equally.

Regardless of whether your condominium is leaking…. That's the way it's structured, and that's the way it should be. But that has an enormous impact, and I would have thought that this government would have — in consideration of all of that, and in consideration of the fact that literally hundreds of thousands of British Columbians are living in condos now, are living in strata units — stepped back and said: "We cannot do this."

[1445]

For the savings that we achieve in comparison to the benefits of continuing that program, how can the government step back and do this?

Finally, with respect to the Criminal Records Review Act, through the Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General, I'm glad. I'm going to finish my remarks today on a semi-positive note. I'm glad the government is doing this. There is no question that in the modern world we have come to understand that it is not just children who get exploited in circumstances where there is a position of trust or where they're helpless or unable to defend themselves. It applies equally to vulnerable adults.

So the government has done the right thing here, and I think it's my duty as a member of the opposition, every once in a while, not too frequently, to compliment the government when they do the right thing. This is the right thing. Whether, in fact, this particular bill and the minutiae of the bill itself are appropriate will be a subject for committee stage, and the opposition will do its job.

Overall, in that section, in the concept of protecting vulnerable adults in British Columbia, that is a good thing. So I look forward to committee stage of this bill, when the opposition will have an opportunity to fully scrutinize what the government intends to do and why they're doing it, because that's our job. As much as they may try to slide a few things through in this misc bill, the opposition's going to do its job.

J. Horgan: I'm pleased to rise and speak at second-stage debate on Bill 20, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2009. It's one of those interesting bills, and my learned colleague from Nanaimo, the Attorney General critic, did a very good job of doing a summation of what government tries to achieve with miscellaneous amendments.

I just want to take a few moments in my responsibilities as opposition Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources critic to talk about section 6 and section 7 of this act and why it's important that we do spend time, most importantly at committee stage, at third reading of the bill. Also, it's important that we recognize that contained, as the member for Nanaimo so aptly said, in these misc bills are nuggets that the public really needs to be made aware of.

I can remember some years ago — I think it was 2007 — and my colleague the hon. Minister of Energy will remember this well. There was a miscellaneous statutes amendment act called Bill 30 at that time. Contained within that bill were provisions whereby regional districts and municipal entities were having their rights taken away in the interest of advocating and promoting independent power projects. The member at the time for Peace River South supported the opposition in opposing that bill. So there are often important nuggets contained within miscellaneous amendment acts, and this is, I believe, one of those times.

I would like to read, hon. Speaker, if I could, into the record what we are doing in part 3, section 6. It says simply the following: "Sections 14 and 15 of the Hydro and Power Authority Act…1996…are repealed." So that's what it says in the act. For the public at home, there is an explanatory note on the opposite page that tells us what's actually contained in sections 14 and 15 of the hydro act.

Rather than read the condensed version, I have the statutes here before me, and I'm going to just read out what it says. Tenders, section 14:

"The authority" — that being B.C. Hydro — "must invite tenders by public advertisement, or when impracticable, then by public notice, for the construction and repair of all power plants, except in the case of pressing emergency, if a delay would be injurious to the public interest or if from the nature of the work it can be more expeditiously and economically done by the officers and servants of the authority.

So what this section of the Hydro and Power Authority Act does is provide transparency for the public. It provides transparency for those who want to do business with B.C. Hydro. It states that if there's going to be work done on power plants…. And interestingly, as we move into an era of private sector plants and public sector plants, we don't get a definition in this new miscellaneous amendment whether that is referring explicitly to B.C. Hydro facilities or other facilities that the authority may well contract to.

[1450]

I'm hopeful that when the minister gets an opportunity to respond at third reading, he'll shed some light on
[ Page 2349 ]
these issues. But from my reading of this miscellaneous act and the repeal of section 14 of the act, which calls for transparency…. So if I want to bid, my friend from Vancouver-Hastings wants to bid, the minister from Langley wants to bid on a project, it has to be publicly advertised. We all have an equal opportunity.

Interjection.

J. Horgan: The member from Langley says he's not interested, but we have two interested parties — my friend from Vancouver-Hastings and myself. We're notified in a public way that the work is going to be done, and we're invited to tender our services for that work. More importantly, once we've submitted our tenders, we are assured by the authority, by B.C. Hydro, that on a certain date they will open those tenders in public so that there can be no doubt that everyone has all of the information there on the table.

Why in the world, after laying that out for you as I have, would the government of British Columbia want to take away that piece of transparency? It's 2009. We're nuts about transparency, on both sides of the House. All members, I think, would agree that we want to ensure to the people of British Columbia that when we are doing public works, we're doing it in an open and a transparent fashion. Section 14 of the Hydro and Power Authority Act provides for that. I've read it out to you.

Section 15 goes on to say that those prices must be made known. I'll read that to you. It says as follows: "Opening tenders…. The authority must open all tenders received in each case in public at a time and place stated in the advertisement or notice inviting the tenders, and the prices must then be made known." So that's what we're doing today. Someone bids on a power project — as I understand it, a project that's owned and operated by B.C. Hydro — and that tender must be made public. With this bill, we're taking away that transparency.

If somewhere else in this piece of legislation there was a replacement clause that would be providing more certainty and more transparency to the public than we have in the existing act, then I don't think we'd have a quarrel. Perhaps when the minister has an opportunity — he's signalling to the affirmative — to stand in this place and defend this section, I'm certain he'll have answers to those questions.

But at this time of great uncertainty…. I was in the Peace country — the member's neighbourhood — just last week, speaking to some of his constituents about concerns they have with the Site C project on the Peace River. It's a controversial subject. The minister and I have discussed it several times, and I've talked across the province about it, as has he, as have members of government and members of opposition. But in the past number of weeks the uncertainty has been increased, not decreased, in that region and right across B.C.

Some weeks ago the government issued what's called a special direction to the B.C. Utilities Commission on a Friday afternoon, when most good work is done by government. Friday afternoon is when, of course, we learned about the million-dollar man at B.C. Ferries. We learned about the complete fiasco that was governance at B.C. TransLink. These things happen on Friday afternoons. Well, four Fridays ago the government announced that they were issuing a special direction to the Utilities Commission instructing them on how they should view and interpret the work of B.C. Hydro.

On the Monday the Premier and the minister go and attend an independent power producers gabfest in Vancouver, and the Premier didn't want to be without something important to say, so he announced that within two months a special committee of cabinet, with advisory panels not yet known, with terms of reference not yet contemplated, will be turning our regulatory process on its head, upside down. One of the panels is going to be looking at that very issue. We've had a special direction on a Friday to the commission to review Hydro's materials with a certain view — the government's view, not an independent view, but the government's view.

On the Monday we're told that we're going to completely relook at the whole regulatory process, and that afternoon after the Premier made his announcement to his political backers and his financial supporters from the independent power community, we have Bill 20 tabled with these sections repealing transparency and openness with respect to tendering processes at B.C. Hydro.

I have great confidence in the minister that he'll be able to somehow explain to me and to this House and to British Columbians why it is, after this barrage of change with respect to how we operate our public utility here, in terms of how the Utilities Commission reviews the work…

[1455]

Gee, I can remember the Premier, as if it was yesterday, saying in the 1990s that if he were elected…. He was then the opposition leader, as you'll remember, hon. Speaker. He said at the time that he was going to restore the independence of the Utilities Commission. It rings in my ears. It was a mantra for the member from Point Grey. "That's what I'm going to do. Count on it. Take it to the bank. This is what I'm going to do."

Well, four weeks ago we had a special direction. This is after several special directions, of course, but the most recent one was just some weeks ago. Now we have a miscellaneous amendment in Bill 20 that will remove transparency in tendering and purchasing policy at B.C. Hydro.

No press release accompanied this. Quite often when government is doing something that they think is in the public interest, they like to blow their horn. I know my friend from Deer Lake has heard many horns blowing
[ Page 2350 ]
on the Olympic question. If there's ever a piece of good news, you'll get a press release on Monday morning, an update on Monday afternoon and then something just before you go to bed. But on this, not a word, not a peep, nothing.

I suppose if you're removing transparency from a process that has been in place for a number of years…. I mean, the B.C. Hydro and Power Authority Act has been on the statute books for some considerable period of time. No other government saw the necessity of removing transparency from the tendering process. In fact, over the course of the past number of decades we've seen increased transparency in public activity, whether it be internal to government, whether it be directly from reporting entities or from Crown entities.

Yet here we are with Bill 20, as we've had with previous miscellaneous amendments, little nuggets — in this instance removing transparency from the tendering process for power plants in British Columbia.

I'm just concerned. Again, I will seek guidance from the minister at third reading, but I worry a great deal if we're removing transparency when we're talking about spending public money.

We've seen our B.C. Hydro rates go through the roof over the past eight years. The rates have been escalating and escalating and continue to escalate into the next year and the year after that because of B.C. Liberal policies. Now we're not going to be able to understand where those increased costs are coming for the utility and why they're passing those on to ratepayers.

With those brief comments, hon. Speaker…. I know you'd prefer that I go on a little bit longer, but I know that the House has other business they want to move to, so I'll give the floor to my colleague from Vancouver-Hastings.

S. Simpson: Bill 20, the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, deals with a whole array of matters. I would like to direct just a couple of comments to one section. The member from Nanaimo reflected on these earlier: the Homeowner Protection Office and changes to that office.

Very specifically, what Bill 20 does is it puts some of the enabling pieces in place to put an end to a program that was commonly known as the leaky-condo loan program. What that program did, as many know, is it provided an opportunity, a loans program. It was an interest-free loans program for those people living in condominiums who are suffering from leaky condos, who have leaky condos and were in a tight box, to be able to pay for their loans, to be able to get loan money through this program, which was, incidentally, paid for by a $750-per-unit fee on new development.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

What's happened now is that the government has taken what I would consider a tragic and nonsensical decision to eliminate this loans program. What this means is that essentially the leaky-condo program has been killed. In justifying this, the Minister of Housing and Social Development, who has responsibility for the Homeowner Protection Office, has spoken about this being a ten-year program and that it has passed its ten-year period.

The minister is correct about that. But what we also know is that the level of demand for this program was significantly greater than, I think, anybody had projected at the time when the program was first put in place. That demand still continues today. The research and the analysis that have been done about the state of affairs suggests there's still a significant amount of units in the province that potentially could be facing the leaky-condo syndrome, for lack of a better term, and that require this assistance.

What we know is that this program is essential, as the member from Nanaimo talked about. There are all kinds of people who, obviously, have invested in their homes. Many people who are getting older, who have purchased condos for their retirement time have now found themselves in situations where they could have demands for assessments on them of up to $70,000 or $80,000 — money that they don't necessarily have or that isn't necessarily available to them.

[1500]

They have a very difficult time to figure out how they're going to pay for that, and the government now has eliminated a program that supported those people to ensure that they could in fact do the repairs on their homes and move forward.

We need to be clear here. This was not a grant program. It was a loan program. It was a program that ensured that people could access the dollars they required. The government provided those guarantees. They could access those dollars, and they could get the repairs done in a timely way.

What we know from speaking to people in the industry and in the sector is that the worst possible thing you can do is stall on getting those repairs done. You want to get them done as quickly as you can because it reduces the costs. It reduces the amount of damage. It allows you to move forward, hopefully — make successful repairs and do them in the most cost-effective way possible. That means moving forward as quickly as possible. But the government has killed that program, and it really makes no sense as to why they did that.

There's been some discussion about the nature of the program, but let's be clear here. It is a loan program. If the concern is about the interest-free nature of that, and there has been some discussion about that, then maybe there was room to have a discussion about whether some level of interest should have been charged to people who
[ Page 2351 ]
participated in the program. That would have been a reasonable discussion to have. But the government didn't have that discussion. Instead, they killed the program. There could have been some discussion.

I've heard the minister previously speak about a number of uses that this program was being used for, which were outside that original intent. If that's the case and if the government felt the program shouldn't have been used for repairs that were outside of what the original intention and purpose were, then make adjustments to tighten up the program to ensure that it gets used for the purposes it was originally intended. That would have been a reasonable thing to do.

The other thing around this program that we need to identify is that we've had a lot of discussion in the last year or so, with the change in the economy in the last year to 18 months, around stimulus and the need for stimulus. I can't imagine what possibly is a better plan than to have stimulus that puts people to work. There are a couple of thousand people in this province who, during the life of this program, made their living by doing these renovations and restoration work on condos.

It put people to work on loan programs, not grant programs, where people could go out and repair these homes. At the end of the day, the benefit is that people went to work. They had good jobs, especially at a time when we have seen some diminishing…. We had seen the construction sector in some trouble.

Put those people to work. Get them banging nails, doing what they do best. Have those jobs on the table. People get their homes repaired. It's a loan program. The money comes back to government.

It seems to me that it just makes sense as a stimulus program and what we need to do. But the government didn't choose to look at this as a stimulus program, didn't choose to say that we're going to make some adjustments to deal with some of the factors around the program that are difficult. Instead, they just killed the program, and Bill 20 provides some amendments that support the decision that was made.

It was a mistake. It's a mistake the government has made. It's like a number of programs that the government has dealt with certainly since the election, where we've seen dramatic changes in public policy — what seemed to be very reactive and shortsighted decisions by the government. Clearly, this decision to kill the leaky-condo program in its entirety is one of those decisions.

It's unfortunate the government didn't see fit to sit down with some of those organizations that work in this sector, whether it be in the building sector or the condominium homeowners sector, and look at ways to make the adjustments to the program that would allow it to continue for those people who required it for the purpose of leaky condos; to deal with the interest-free aspect of that, if that's a problem for the government; to make some adjustments there but make the money available or guarantee the loans in a way that would have ensured that we would continue to have units improved.

Those people who are living in condominiums — who have a difficult time being able to put this money on the table, being able to get these loans to be able to pay their share of assessments — would have the opportunity to be able to access money and access loans. Unfortunately, that hasn't occurred. So that is a section of the bill that I think is very problematic.

It's not good for stimulus. It's not good for the people who live in these condos, and it certainly won't be good for confidence around condos, even with all the improvements that have been made around warranty programs.

[1505]

We may get to discuss this further when we get to committee stage. But for now, it's just an observation on my part that this is another area where the government has been seriously misguided in terms of doing what is good public policy, doing the kind of things that British Columbians expect and doing the kind of things that would actually help homeowners and the million-odd people who live in condos in British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, Attorney General closes debate.

Hon. M. de Jong: I am again obliged to the members who offered their thoughts to the House around the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act. I also just want to say in passing….

I heard it from the member for Nanaimo and, I think, from the member for Juan de Fuca. I think, in the context of a miscellaneous statutes amendment act or maybe other pieces of legislation as well, they have asked precisely the right kind of question, and that is: what is the public policy that's being served? What is the rationale? What is the justification? Particularly with a bill of this sort, the committee stage debate is designed to provide that opportunity for the discussion.

For example, in the context with the sections dealing with B.C. Hydro and the public tendering, there will be an opportunity for the members to canvass that issue. I expect the minister will also reference some of the agreements that have been signed between the province of British Columbia and other jurisdictions — agreements like TILMA and others, which actually require the kind of transparency and openness in the procurement process that the member has alluded to and I know believes are very important.

There will be an opportunity to review that, and the minister will be happy to canvass that with the members. I was happy to hear some of the commentary around the single amendment to the Election Act to ensure that not just general elections but by-elections have provisions in place that cover the expenditure by candidates — expenses during those by-elections and general elections.
[ Page 2352 ]

The member for Nanaimo offered what I thought was fairly fulsome support on the part of the opposition around the provisions dealing with criminal record reviews for people who are working with seniors in the province. I understand there are issues that have been raised by the member for Vancouver-Hastings and, I think, the member for Nanaimo around the homeowner protection program. They too will be canvassed, I can assure the member, in committee stage.

Members of the House will have an opportunity to review with the minister the likely impacts from the government's point of view. Suffice to say, the government takes a significantly different view and perspective on what the impacts have been to date and what they are likely to be in the future, with particular reference to where interest rates are today compared to where they were when the program started. There will be an opportunity at committee stage for members to engage in that discussion.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I'll again thank members for their contribution, their thoughts and observations, and move second reading.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. de Jong: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 20, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2009, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. M. de Jong: I call second reading of Bill 18, Assistance to Shelter Act.

BILL 18 — ASSISTANCE TO SHELTER ACT

Hon. R. Coleman: I move that Bill 18 be read for a second time now.

This bill contains proposed legislation, the Assistance to Shelter Act. Last time I spoke about this bill in first reading, I spoke of a lady named Tracey in Vancouver who died by burning to death on the streets of Vancouver in a makeshift shelter trying to keep warm during a very severe cold weather event.

Outreach workers and police offered to help her through the night and take her to a shelter, but she refused to go, and she died. Now, we may have this afternoon…. I don't know what form the debate will take. I'm sure some are going to get up and rail and say that somebody is doing something for the Olympics. Someone is going to get up and rail about the human rights issues with regards to this.

[1510]

[L. Reid in the chair.]

I respect both those opinions of the members opposite as they decide to debate this legislation this afternoon. I would like you, though, as you decide to debate this legislation, to consider whether somebody else should die in a cold-weather event in Vancouver or anywhere else in the province because we did nothing, because we didn't give a tool to somebody to at least take someone to the shelter door to see if we could get them in from the cold with a meal and some assistance to try and turn their lives around.

I will also ask you to think, as we debate this legislation, about the people today who were those outreach workers or police officers that actually tried to save that woman's life in Vancouver last December and who live with the fact today that they had no tool to even try. They live with that today. They live with that every day for the rest of their lives, knowing that maybe there was something they might have been able to do if somebody had said something.

I'd also like you to remember the comments of both the opposition and the government side and the public and the railing of the media at the time that something had to be done — that in a society like ours, how could we possibly not have at least a tool to do something or to try. So the commitment was made to see if we could try and do something.

I'd also like you to take into consideration, as you think about this, that this country goes around the world to help citizens less fortunate than us to turn their lives around in countries that are in all kinds of strife, and that sometimes there's strife in your own back yard that you should be dealing with as well.

Now, as we go through this discussion this afternoon, there are some things contextually, I think, that need to be put in place so people can have a legitimate debate about the issue. The first thing would be that in 2001 in British Columbia, there were about 730 shelter beds. None of them were 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year. Today there are over 1,500 shelter bed that are 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year.

In addition to that, there are another 1,200 beds in just the Lower Mainland alone for cold weather strategy, and there are additional beds available when the weather gets more severe. That's way more than double the number of shelter beds that were there in 2001.

On the permanent ones and the others I refer to — frankly, hardly any of them existed in any form whatsoever because there was no strategy. While we were doing that, we also decided, as we built the shelter capacity, to increase the capacity for people to come off the streets and have their lives turned around.

We did that, first of all, by saying: "Let's go talk to them. Let's change our strategy of just saying it's bricks
[ Page 2353 ]
and mortar and cutting ribbons and having a celebration to say, 'Boy, we solved the problem today by opening a building,' by actually going and meeting the folks that need our help on our streets in our province, finding out what their issues are one by one with outreach workers, connecting them to housing with supports and helping them turn their lives around."

I know that in just the last three years 7,000 people that were previously homeless have been housed with supports in B.C. Not all of them are still housed, but 80 percent of them are. Some 80 percent of them are still housed today with supports in the system across B.C.

How did we accomplish that? First of all, it was 41 communities with outreach workers across B.C. so that they had people who could go out and connect into supports to actually be able to help those folks with things like literacy or connecting to medical appointments or some form of treatment or support in any type of facility, and by actually having facilities for them like the 46 buildings and properties that have been bought across B.C. — 23 of them being single-room-occupancy hotels in the city of Vancouver.

Some of them were the worst properties that the Vancouver city police had ever seen, including the Backpackers Inn, which received hundreds of phone calls and calls per month with regards to issues of violence and drugs in that particular facility. It was an absolute cesspool.

We bought it, we renovated it, we cleaned it up, and we put in full-time management and put in supports. Today it's supportive housing for people who are turning their lives around. I know that because I've actually met them and talked to them.

[1515]

As a matter of fact, I know that things are better on the streets of British Columbia. I know that in the Downtown Eastside, nobody…. You can argue and debate this afternoon and take your shots, and I welcome hearing that.

But I know because I go down and walk the streets every two to three weeks — and have been for three years — to see the difference that's being made; to see the changes that are happening; to see the new Lux; to see the Woodward's building, with 200-plus units in it; to see the new buildings we've built and the ones under construction, and all the renovations to the buildings that we've bought to change the lives of people and change the shelter capacity in that city and across the province.

I also know that as we've done this, each time I talk privately to a provider, they always say, "You know, there's got to be a way," and sometimes, in the severe situations, that we could go a big step further to maybe save a life.

I also know that we've learned. We've learned that we have folks down there that can't actually do well in supportive housing. They actually need more than that. So that's why the Minister of Health — the last two Ministers of Health — worked with us to do the Burnaby Centre for Mental Health and Addictions so that folks can go to a longer, sustained treatment facility to deal with their mental illness and addictions. We can actually analyze what they need to be able to go forward in their lives.

We also recognize that we would need the facilities coming out the other end of that, and that's why we're at Riverview today doing renovations to add beds for people for longer-term stay — and in Mission and other communities across B.C. That's why we have things like Baldy Hughes outside of Prince George that's funded so that we can have a therapeutic community grow, which today has over 60 men in it — all doing very well, all building a therapeutic community around addictions and mental health.

As we do all of this, we have to continually find ways to take the next step if it's possible. While we do that, we have to do it for one reason. It's the reason we started the discussion. It's the reason we built Housing Matters B.C. in 2006, our housing strategy, and it's no different today. It's about the people. It's about the individual. It's about a person having the opportunity to turn their life around.

Now, the interesting thing about bringing a piece of legislation like this to a House is you get two points of view — very clear points of view. You have one group that'll say: "This is terrible because you're infringing on someone's human rights. It might not survive a Charter challenge, but by George, there's no way you should do this."

Then you have somebody else who will say: "Well, wait a second. What's the explanation if I oppose this legislation and it wasn't to pass and somebody died on the streets this winter and they looked at me and said, 'Well, you had a chance to do something, and you did nothing; you chose to ignore the fact that there might be an opportunity to save a life'?" That's the conundrum.

The conundrum, frankly, is just that. So you can choose. Do you try, or do you not try? Well, after talking to people in the Downtown Eastside and talking to people in the severe weather thing and after Tracey's death last winter, we said we'd try.

I remember — and I'm not going to pull out the quotes, some of which I have here — members of the opposition actually said: "They should do something about this." I'm sure today they won't want to do this about this. They'll actually oppose the legislation. They'll oppose it because they'll come up with excuses and reasons not to. "What if this were to happen, or what if that were to happen? Where are you going to put the cart?" — which we're already working on, by the way, Members, for the strategy for the winter. But you'll come up with all the excuses.
[ Page 2354 ]

At the end of the day, it will only be the conscience of the individual member to decide what the important thing to do here was. I know what drives me and drives my colleagues as we tried to develop this piece of legislation, and it wasn't easy, by the way. It was probably the toughest piece of legislation I've ever worked on in the almost nine years I've been a cabinet minister.

[1520]

As I came through it each time, as we hit each hurdle or somebody had a concern, I thought to myself: "What if Tracey was my sister? What if Tracey was my daughter and I knew somebody could have stepped up and tried to do something, or I should have?" Would my conscience allow me to do nothing? Or would my conscience say to me: "Try something"? I know there's no perfect solution to this, but I know that you have to at least try to get there, where you get to somewhere.

As we come through the issues with regards to this, people will bring up issues about the shelter providers and concern for their security. We're working with them now. What about the barriers? We're working on that. We've already proved that we can do low-barrier shelters in B.C. and that we've actually found a way to make them work. We'll continue to do it after this winter.

You know, it's an interesting thing when governments spend $56 million annually just on shelters and $400 million on housing annually for people who need it. Then we say to ourselves that even though we're spending it, we shouldn't let them know where it is or try and get them to go in.

One thing I found interesting when I've talked to people on the streets is this. I say: "If it was cold this winter, severely cold, and you had no place to go, would you know where to go?" A lot of people said: "No, I wouldn't." Severe cold weather strategies open up shelters during certain periods of time to help people in significantly tough difficulty situations.

"Do you know what you would get there if you went?" "No, I don't." "Well, maybe if you knew and you had help to get there and could take care of your belongings, would you go if somebody could get you there?" "Yeah, I think I would."

So what's the tool? The tool is being able to say to the person that's a little bit resistant: "Actually, Tracey, I can take you to the shelter, and I'm going to, because I care about you, and I don't want you to freeze out here tonight. When you get there, you can decide. You can make that decision whether you want to stay or not." I think that's important.

I know this is about giving a tool to police and communities. I know what it's about. I know it's about the public actually saying to government and to opposition last winter: "Do something about this. Give us a tool." We will invest more money in shelters in B.C. this year and this winter than at any time in history. While we're doing that, we've actually reduced the number of people that are homeless on the streets of B.C. with the programs we have.

As we do that, we also have to remember the people whose hearts go into this job every single day to try and help people's lives. I talked about the 7,000 people that have been connected to housing with supports through the 41 communities with outreach workers.

But earlier this year government increased the mandate to the Ministry of Housing and Social Development to put together an integration project where they could work with the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Children and Families, where they would have the ability to go in and sit down in communities where there are duplications of services and say: "Look, for this cohort of our public, we need to be better integrated."

We need to try and add more seamless services for mental health and addictions. We need to be there for these folks who are really severely having difficult times so that we have the Burnaby Centre and we have Riverview and we have Mission and we have Baldy Hughes and we have the Campbell Valley Centre. We have all of these facilities actually integrated into a system where they can all work together.

We challenged a group of people led by a bureaucrat. Her name is Allison Bond. We said: "Allison, we want you to put together this integration project first, to start with, in five communities across B.C. because we want to see and measure whether the next step of what we need to do will work."

They were Victoria, Surrey, Vancouver, Kelowna and Prince George. We said to this team of people: "Let's get a hundred people additional to that 7,000, who are severely mentally ill and addicted, off our streets per month for the next 18 months, and let's push hard within government to see that the integration can work to deliver for those folks."

[1525]

Well, I've got to compliment my colleagues and ministries across government on this one, because the integration has been pretty phenomenal — whether it be Solicitor General, Ministry of Health, Children and Families, Housing and Social Development or health authorities across B.C.

We've only been at this for six months, not 18 months. We've said 1,800 in 18 months, and our stats at the end of the October? Another 1,700 severely mentally ill and addicted people have been connected with housing and supports because of the intervention program. That's making a difference.

As you make a difference, you try and give the tools to people so you can take it to the next level. So don't go off, in your mind, on something that you all asked for last year when Tracey died. Think about this. You asked, and you yelled, demanded, criticized government and actually talked to yourselves — both in opposition, media and in the community — that there be another
[ Page 2355 ]
tool so that maybe this winter there won't be another Tracey, because somebody had a tool. For me, that's a good enough reason to take the risk. It's a good enough reason to try.

I look forward to the other comments of the members opposite and on this side of the House, as well, as we debate this bill this afternoon and move it through committee stage to see if we can get it passed through this House before this winter, because it is about the person at risk on our streets that we want to have one more tool to help.

S. Simpson: I'm pleased to have the opportunity to stand and join the debate on Bill 18, the Assistance to Shelter Act.

What the Assistance to Shelter Act essentially does is give the police additional authority to use reasonable force — and we're not clear what that is; we'll talk about that a little bit as I proceed in my comments — to take people off the street and drop them off at shelters. Then they, by this bill, would have the opportunity to choose whether to stay at the shelter or not. The purpose of this is to be done during periods of extreme weather. Again, we'll talk about what constitutes extreme weather. That's essentially what this piece of legislation will do.

What this piece of legislation does not do is create one more unit of housing. It does not provide one more shelter bed anywhere in this province. It doesn't deal with those issues at all.

Now, the minister in his comments today in introducing second reading and speaking to second reading — and the minister certainly had made these comments on previous occasions when talking about this bill and issues that relate to this bill — speaks about Tracey, a tragic case of a woman dying on the street. What we don't hear about when we hear the discussion of Tracey is, of course, that Tracey was resistant to going into a shelter because there was no assurance that her cart or her few possessions would be protected.

Hon. Speaker, if somebody said to you, "Come with me, but leave everything that you own in the world behind," you'd say no too. The minister doesn't talk, when he makes these comments, about the thousand other people who were on the street the night that Tracey tragically died.

The minister in his comments doesn't talk about Darrell Mickasco, who died last February in a fire because he was on the street and had no place to go. He died tragically, and his partner was left with serious injuries that she still suffers from.

[C. Trevena in the chair.]

For all the minister's comments about this, this piece of legislation does absolutely nothing that would be of any support or assistance to Tracey or Darrell or any of the thousands of people in Vancouver and the thousands more people across the province who are in the situation that Tracey and Darrell were in before they died.

[1530]

This piece of legislation, Bill 18, will do nothing to support those people who are in that situation.

What the bill does do is this. The bill gives the police additional enforcement authority, and we know from previous documents that there was another iteration of this bill. The previous iteration was the one that said the police could throw people in jail, but we know the government pulled back from that. The documents came out. We had those documents. We introduced those documents. The government backed away from that.

Clearly, it's my belief that the government backed away from saying, "We will throw people in jail," because the lawyers and the counsel for the government said: "You simply can't do this. You cannot go that far." As a result, we have seen this adjustment through Bill 18, which says: "We will walk people up to the door. We will take people by reasonable force." We don't know what "reasonable force" means. Reasonable force will be decided — as with many things in this bill, as with many things the government does — by regulation as to what reasonable force is in this circumstance and what police can and can't do.

That will be a cabinet decision behind closed doors. It will not be a public discussion. It will be a cabinet decision behind closed doors. It's the same as with extreme weather and what extreme weather will and won't be in different places in the province. That the minister and others at the minister's designation…. But the minister also can deem what extreme weather is, and I'm not sure how the minister chooses to do that. I'm not sure what the minister's expertise for that is, but the minister can choose to do that.

We have a situation where the police are given the ability, the authority, to take somebody. There is nothing in this legislation that says anything about protecting the possessions of somebody. There is nothing in here that obliges in any way the police, who decide to enforce this, to move forward and protect those possessions or move those possessions or, if somebody has a pet, to move that pet, as well, and ensure the protection of that pet.

Of course, if those are the few things that somebody owns, why would anybody expect them to turn their back on their few possessions? How could anybody expect them to do that?

The minister talks about assisting people with serious issues around mental illness and addictions. We know that under the Mental Health Act authorities already have the jurisdiction, the capacity and the ability to deal with people who do not have the ability to make those decisions or who they deem to not have the ability to make those decisions on their own accord. Under the Mental Health Act, that authority already exists.
[ Page 2356 ]

We're talking here about a piece of legislation that would say that the government, that police, can take somebody who is of sound mind, who knows exactly what they're doing, who has made a decision not to go into a shelter for any number of reasons and say to them: "You are coming with us whether you like it or not, and we're going to drop you at the door of that shelter." There's nothing in here that obliges them to take any of that person's possessions with them when they go to do that.

What is the reality of this? The minister speaks about talking to people in the community. Well, I've talked to an awful lot of people in the community with this — people here. The people in the community, people who work in the community do not support the minister. They do not support this legislation. They believe that it's flawed and that it will do nothing to support the people the minister talks about today. That's what people who work in the community say.

What they say is that the tragedy of this legislation, should it pass, is that it will do two things. First of all, those people who are afeard and have a concern that the police are going to forcibly move them will look to go farther underground. They will look to go to places where the police can't find them.

[1535]

The tragedy of that, when you talk to people who actually work in the community and work with the homeless, is that people will get hurt. People will get into trouble, and they may not be found because they will be hiding. They'll be hiding from Bill 18 and the consequences of Bill 18.

The second thing that happens is that…. If you're saying to somebody, "You come with me, whether you like it or not. You leave your possessions behind, and we are taking you to a shelter. We are taking you to a shelter, and you can stay there if you like," what are the possibilities, after you have imposed yourself on somebody like that, that they're going to want anything to do with that shelter?

If they're angry and they do stay, what are now the obligations and the exposures you have put on that shelter and on other people there — when you have people who have arrived who are angry because of the way they were treated and the way they were brought to that shelter and under what circumstances they were brought to that shelter? These are real issues.

Let's be clear here when we talk about shelters. Of 25 shelters in Vancouver that we looked at last year, three were barrier-free. Three of those shelters would have provided people the opportunity to have brought their possessions or their pets. The other shelters offered them nothing. They offered them nothing.

Now, the minister talks about wanting to expand this program, wanting to have more of those barrier-free shelters. Well, the minister would have been better placed…. It would have been a better use of the minister and the ministry's time to have invested the time in looking at how to open more barrier-free shelters, get more community outreach workers on the street who worked with people than to have spent his time developing Bill 18.

Under this legislation, we essentially…. It is my belief that all the potential is there to make things worse. Let's be clear. Everybody in this House, I believe, wants people who are on the street and homeless, when the weather gets difficult, to have an opportunity — and when the weather is not difficult — to have a shelter bed available that is inviting to them, that accommodates their needs, that meets their needs around their possessions, that meets their needs around their relationships, where they feel safe, where they feel that those shelters are supervised in a way where people don't feel at risk.

I believe that if we can create and provide those beds for people and if we invested a few more resources at the community level with community support workers — people who know the streets, people who work with people who are homeless every day — and gave them additional supports to go out and work with people who are homeless, to encourage them into those shelters in ways that are collaborative and cooperative, we would get a lot farther than telling the police to go out and grab people and throw them in the back of the car and take them off to a shelter for their own good.

We will do much better if we invest in the community. This legislation doesn't put ten cents more in the community. It doesn't open one more barrier-free shelter. It doesn't provide one more opportunity for one more outreach worker to be out working with the thousands of people on the street who might need help this winter.

The minister also spoke — and it's the minister, interestingly, who raised this question — about a Charter challenge. I have no idea whether there will be a challenge to this or not. There certainly is no shortage of eminent lawyers out there who believe that this legislation can be challenged and overturned, that it is a breach of civil rights, a breach of people's rights, and it can and will be overturned in the courts, should that be pursued into the courts. I believe there's a good possibility that that will occur.

But — and the minister, again, referenced this himself — a lot of those folks, a lot of people in the community, are pretty cynical about what the B.C. Liberal objective with this legislation is. They are cynical about it. For all the hand-wringing of the minister on this one, this really isn't about whether anybody wins a Charter challenge, as long as that challenge isn't realized till sometime after March.

[1540]

There are people who are cynical, and they're cynical because of the lack of support in the community to create new beds. They're cynical that this, in fact, is about
[ Page 2357 ]
the Olympics, that this is what this legislation is about: to provide tools to be able to move people should that decision be made during the Olympics. I don't know if that's right or wrong, but I know there are an awful lot of people in the community who truly believe that that's what the objective behind this is.

Those people in the community are looking for other supports. They're looking for help, but they don't see any help here. They don't see any resources. The minister talks about the SROs that have been purchased. It's a good thing to purchase the SROs, to upgrade the SROs, to create that stable housing.

But let's be very clear. Those SROs didn't provide one more unit of housing. They took existing housing that was in pretty bad shape. They've improved, and they've stabilized it. That's a good thing, but it's wrong to suggest that they created any new housing, because they didn't do that.

What do we need to do here? First of all, we need to work much more closely with the communities that work every day with these challenges. Whether it's the inner city of Vancouver, in Prince George, in Kamloops…. Whatever community it is, we need to be sitting down and working with people in those communities and working on the solutions that work in those communities, and they will be somewhat different in every community.

We need to make the commitment, and the resources have to be committed now. They have to be committed now to open significantly more barrier-free shelter beds in Vancouver and elsewhere in this province where they're required. We need to have those barrier-free beds — those beds and those shelter beds that are inviting to people, where people feel safe and secure and where they know that their stuff is going to be okay too. We haven't had any of that to date.

We need to hear more about the building of housing generally. The government, for all the minister's rhetoric, does not have a record on housing that anybody would be proud of.

If we really want people to be the front-line workers who are going to work with the homeless and are going to look to encourage the homeless, who are going to provide them with information about the availability of shelters — and I think that is an important question…. If they're going to encourage them and support them in getting to those shelters, if they're going to be able to provide transportation to help get them to those shelters, then let it be community outreach workers who have the confidence of homeless people in the community, who work with them day in and day out.

Be clear. That is not the relationship that the police have with the homeless in many cases. It is not a relationship where there's confidence that there is the level of respect there that needs to be. It's unfortunate, but it's the reality. Homeless people do not believe they are respected, in many instances, by the police. Consequently, you have this conflict that makes this difficult to do.

Community outreach workers, who work every day with the homeless, have built that rapport, can build on that rapport. I would say to you, hon. Speaker, that they, working in a collaborative and cooperative fashion, are much, much more likely to get many, many more of those people into shelters in a way that everybody feels good about at the end of the day, rather than to ask police, who have an awful lot of work to do already, to go out and play that role of social worker.

We already know that police are very uncomfortable with that role. They would much rather have somebody else doing it. They know that they are not the best people to be successful on this.

[1545]

It would require the government to make a commitment that was more than rhetorical to deal with that, and the government hasn't made that commitment to date. They have not made that commitment to date.

The bill does none of these things. It does not work with the community. It has not garnered community support for this legislation from the people who work every day in the community. It does not have their support. It does not have the support from people who have legitimate concerns about civil rights and civil liberties. It does not have the support of people who are looking for more housing. It does not have the support of people who want to open more shelters.

It has none of that support. It doesn't have it because the bill does not offer one single solution to any of those issues — not one single solution. It is a knee-jerk reaction by this minister and this government. The concern really has to be that we, arguably, will do more harm than good with Bill 18, in terms of what it does to get people off the street.

The minister talks about the Traceys. We talked about the Darrell Mickascos or the thousands and thousands of British Columbians who are on the street today, who will be on the street this winter and who there will not be a shelter bed for. There will not be a place to take them.

What we know is that Bill 18, in all likelihood, will pass sometime in the next couple of weeks, but you will leave the police in a place that is an untenable situation for them. You will leave the homeless in a situation where they feel…. Those people feel that they are being targeted — not to be found a place to go, not to be found a shelter. They are being targeted to be picked up off the street by the police, and they will look to protect themselves from that by hiding and going farther underground.

You will have community organizations across this province in communities, working with the homeless across this province, who will have to pick up the pieces that this failed legislation will create — the damage that
[ Page 2358 ]
it will do — and try to put them back together with the limited resources that they have.

You will not have enough shelter beds for those folks who want shelter beds. You will certainly not have enough shelter beds for those people who have their few possessions in the world or their pet or for couples who want the opportunity to stay together. You will not have those shelter facilities for them.

If the government is serious about dealing with this issue — and I'd like to think that the minister is serious about wanting to deal with this issue — then put the investment in the place where it will do the most good.

It will not do the most good by having a piece of legislation that talks about the police using reasonable force to drive people into shelters, whether they are interested in being there or not, exposing those shelter operators to potential challenges. It's probably getting most of those people who aren't interested in being there or who are indifferent to it and making them angry so that they, in fact, walk away, when it might be a good thing for them to stay at those shelters. It does nothing to create better opportunities for those folks at all.

We have a piece of legislation in Bill 18 that doesn't deal with the problem and that raises serious levels of cynicism about what the motivations for this legislation are. We hear that every day, and it just could have been so much better. It could have been done so much better.

There could have actually been an assistance-to-shelter act developed in a way that really would put people in shelters and that they would feel good about. They would come, they would be looking to come, and we would be moving forward. Bill 18 simply does not accomplish that.

[1550]

It would be my hope that as we get through this bill — and we're going to get into the committee stage — we will be looking closely at the bill.

I look forward, as do my colleagues, I know, to having a discussion with the minister over some of these details, particularly the long list of things, as this government is wont to do, that will be done by regulation instead of by legislation — the long list of areas where we have no idea what the government's real intentions are and won't know until after some closed-door cabinet meeting, when they come out and announce that these are the rules, instead of putting the rules in the legislation where everybody can look at them and judge them for what they are and for what they aren't.

We will have that discussion with the minister in committee stage over the coming days. We will get to the details of this, and hopefully, the minister will have something to say. As he talked today, the minister said: "We're working with these folks on this" and "We're working with those folks on that."

Maybe we'll get the minister to tell us how many more barrier-free shelter beds he is prepared to pay for and open up in Vancouver in the next couple of weeks. What commitments, and how firm are those commitments that nobody who gets picked up under this legislation will have their possessions left behind? How will that occur? The minister will be able to explain why he thinks it's better to have police do this than to have community workers do it.

There will be a lot of questions to be answered here. I'm sure the minister will be happy to answer them. Those questions will all be there. We'll ask the minister about what advice he got about the legitimacy of this under the Charter and what advice he has received about that. I look forward to having those discussions with the minister. I know a number of my colleagues on the opposition benches look forward to those discussions too. We will move forward. We will see where this legislation lands.

There are many, many people out in the community who are watching this very closely, who certainly share the concerns that we will raise here on this side of the House. They will also be looking with great interest to see how the minister responds to these questions about whether this legislation is credible in terms of meeting the objectives that the minister says it's there to meet or whether it is, in fact, a piece of feel-good legislation that will achieve very little in terms of actually meeting the needs of people who are on the street, who are homeless and who will need support this winter.

P. Pimm: I'll stand today to speak to Bill 18, the Assistance to Shelter Act. I'll be speaking in favour of this act. I'd like to applaud the minister for bringing forward this piece of legislation. I think it is something that's certainly well needed in our province. It's something that shows we're trying to make an effort to help the homeless in times when extreme weather conditions do exist. I think it's something that they will all benefit from.

One of the things we've got to remember is that this legislation is being brought forward for extreme weather conditions. When we talk about extreme weather conditions, I know what extreme weather conditions are, coming from the north. We have some extreme weather conditions, and this kind of legislation will certainly help in our area for sure. It will help in the Vancouver and Lower Mainland area, where last winter they had what I would consider extreme weather conditions.

We have global warming, but it seems like we have some colder conditions in the winter as well. This legislation will certainly help all of those.

There are many people that don't even know that there are extra beds available during extreme weather conditions. For those, I think they'll find that this is going to be something that will be extremely helpful.

I know there are certainly some issues that are out there, and we're going to be working on those issues.
[ Page 2359 ]
I'm sure the minister is going to be working on those issues as time goes on to make sure that the valuables that these people own are brought with them. I know he's working on that sort of thing now. There are going to be some concerns along the way. I think he's done a very good job on bringing those forward as well.

[1555]

The other thing that we must remember is that there's not going to be any…. You're not going to be forced to stay at the facility. It's going to be an opportunity to be brought to the facility, to be shown where the facility is so that you have that opportunity to be there. If you decide that you don't want to be there at that point in time, I guess that will be the decision. At least, you'll know where the facility is, you'll know that you've had the opportunity, and hopefully, you'll take that opportunity and have a warm facility to sleep in on that given night.

I checked into this a little bit. I spoke with our caregivers in our community. That's the Salvation Army. They applaud this legislation. They think it is going to be good. They think it's something that is going to help our area as well as all the other areas around the province.

Currently they are feeding a lot of the people that are homeless and sheltering them as time is going on. They think that it is just an extra benefit, and they feel very strongly that not all homeless know that there are extra beds available and that those beds are made available under extreme weather conditions. They think that this will be a benefit to them, and I, as well, think they will be.

I don't know how many sad stories we have to hear. Last year, certainly, it was the sad story of Tracey being afraid to go to a warm shelter. That was a very sad story.

I have my own sad stories from my own community. I go back to my council days, when we had a shelter. We didn't have legislation that brought homeless in. We had a very similar situation, where we had somebody trying to get to a shelter in a wheelchair. That wheelchair tipped over in the bad conditions, and he wasn't able to get to the shelter. That person would still be alive if we had had this legislation in place at that point in time. He would have got his ride to the shelter.

Certainly, we don't need to have all these sad stories go on and on forever. I think that what we're trying to do here is give everybody an opportunity to get to that shelter. There are going to be lots of people that are going to say…. You know, they're going to find all the negatives and whatever, but I think the underlying essence of this is that we are definitely trying to make it better for all the homeless, especially during the extreme weather conditions.

I would also think that a lot of the youngsters out there, the younger adults that are just 19 and 20 years old, don't even know that shelters exist for them. They think it's for others. There are going to be a lot of those folks that are going to be happy to see this. A lot of them just truly don't understand that the shelters are there for them.

The province has tried to address the issues since 2001 — the whole housing and support programs. We've spent over $2 billion since 2001 trying to upgrade housing situations and helping those that are in need.

Outreach programs. The outreach program is a fabulous program. It serves 49 communities throughout the province of British Columbia; 6,000 people have been helped through that program, and 80 percent are still living in those circumstances today. They've retained 80 percent that they've helped. I think those are absolutely wonderful figures.

Is it absolutely perfect? No, it's not absolutely perfect, but it's gone a long way from what it was a few years ago, I must say.

There are lots of folks that are saying that this is a good program. The RCMP fully endorse the program. "When weather changes for the worst, many of our community's most vulnerable need a helping hand, and many times we're the only ones out there. I welcome the initiative to get needy people to the help that they deserve." That's coming from the police chief right here in Victoria.

[1600]

I think everybody out there understands that this is going to be a piece of legislation that's going to help our very needy folks, whether it's Victoria or Vancouver or Fort St. John or anywhere else in the province where we have extreme weather conditions. I think it's very important to be able to help all these folks out.

I must just re-applaud the minister for bringing this legislation forward. I think on that note, I'll wrap up and let the rest of the colleagues move forward.

J. Kwan: I rise to speak to Bill 18, the Assistance to Shelter Act. I've heard the minister talk about this, actually, in advance of the act being introduced in the House. That, of course, was during the period when the woman known as Tracey tragically died in the streets of Vancouver and in a situation I think nobody wants to see. I think that's fair enough to say.

At that time we know that what the government toyed with in terms of the idea was that people who were homeless in the streets would be forced off of the streets for their own good.

Of course, we know that there is a measure to deal with people who are on the streets who are struggling with mental health issues, mental health challenges, and that would be through the mechanism of the Mental Health Act. There is provision to ensure that people who are on the streets who might be harmful to themselves or to others can be committed, and there is a process to follow for that.

Subsequent to that discussion, which was out there in the public, the government has now come forward with this bill, Bill 18. It is a version of what was discussed earlier,
[ Page 2360 ]
and the version, of course, talks about having the police using "reasonable force" to take a homeless person off the street. Of course, in this bill the government would deem when a person is at risk — what the temperature is, if you will, and the cold weather conditions which would trigger this action to be allowed and the mechanism of doing all of this.

Now, I rise to speak to this bill because I think that the bill is fraught with problems and challenges. I think that the intention of addressing the homeless crisis, frankly, is misplaced. It's easy for a government to say: "We're going to do the right thing here." Who wouldn't want a homeless person off the street, to be safe? Who wouldn't really want that?

But if you really mean that that's what you want to do, then you need to be more than superficial about it. You need to do this in a real and earnest way, in a comprehensive way, in a well-thought-out manner, and that speaks to the need of a comprehensive housing strategy, which this government has not tabled since they came into office.

I would argue that this government, in fact, went in the opposite direction, because one of the first acts this government did back in 2001 when they came into government was to dismantle a permanent housing program that existed in the province of British Columbia. It was one major initiative that few provinces had since the federal government pulled out in 1993.

The federal government pulled out of a national housing program. British Columbia, since 1993, was one of the few provincial governments that continued to do that. Quebec was one that continued to provide for affordable housing under a provincial program, and B.C. was the other. That all ended in 2001.

The former Minister of Housing, back in 2001, cancelled 1,700 units of affordable housing slated to be developed — 1,700 units of affordable housing. Just think about that for a minute and what that could mean for the province of British Columbia.

And think about this for a minute: a permanent housing program was cancelled that built 1,200 units of affordable housing each and every year. Multiply that by the number of years since 2001 until today. I would say that of the over 10,000 people who are homeless today, the majority of them would actually have a housing unit.

[1605]

But that wasn't the way the government chose, you see. They chose to slash and cut those programs. They chose to do affordable housing in an ad hoc way, and that was their solution. We now see the fallout of some of those problems.

Homelessness has more than doubled under this government's watch. We're not making this up. Those are the facts, and that's the reality we face. Yes, Tracey's situation is tragic, and, yes, we need to do something about it.

The best way that the government can do something about that is to put forward a comprehensive housing strategy to end homelessness and put forward a target to say that you will end the homelessness crisis by this date — that the government will commit this many resources to it and will build this many units of housing and incrementally bring an end to the homelessness crisis. But that's not what we have.

What we have instead is Bill 18, Assistance to Shelter Act — as though this kind of measure would somehow address the homelessness crisis. I can't tell you how dismayed I am to learn of this bill, to see this bill and to see the government embark on that. This, of course, is the government assuming that they know best and all the answers to address the homelessness crisis.

In Vancouver–Mount Pleasant I have had the pleasure and privilege to talk to the folks in our community, including those who are homeless, and I would even say that I've befriended some of the folks who are homeless in my community. There is a group that call themselves the Homeless Nation, not far from my constituency office. They live in the park, and yes, even during that very cold snap they lived in the park. I was astounded to learn that they lived in the park. I complained bitterly about how cold it was.

One day they came to my office. I was pleased that they came to my office so that I could talk with them. They told me about their stories. One man told me that during that period when there was the cold snap going on, an aboriginal man…. For the most part, the Homeless Nation people are from the aboriginal community. I would say that for the most part, the aboriginal community are disproportionately homeless in our community, not just men but women as well.

I had the honour of talking to these folks who came to my office, the aboriginal man, and he told me the story during that cold snap. I asked him, "Did you try to access one of the shelters?" because at that time there was, and still is, an aboriginal shelter that had been put in place. He told me that yes, he did. He tried actually. He went there. He said he stayed there until midnight. Then he had to leave.

I asked him why. He said because he couldn't take it anymore. The shelter reminded him of the residential school that he was at when he was a little boy, where he was abused in every way imaginable. He couldn't take it anymore, and he left. He went out into the cold and slept in the park.

I've got to tell you that it was a bit of a shock, I have to admit, to hear the story. When I heard it, I was taken aback, and it humbled me in this sense. It made me realize that the solutions for homelessness and the homelessness crisis need to also come from the people for which the service is purported to assist, the people who are there. Their life experiences and their traumas mean something, and they need to be part of that solution.

In future discussions with the group, they continued to tell me what they had hoped to dream, to have materialize,
[ Page 2361 ]
in terms of their housing options. It meant not an institutionalized approach.

It meant that they would have the opportunity to choose the people they want to live with; that they would take care of each other like a community would, like they do now where they live in the park with no shelter over their heads; and that they would formulate their own rules — for example, what guest they can bring to their own home to entertain and to be with and to hang out with and at what time, or when they can cook a meal. When, for example, they need to use the facilities, they don't have to get all dressed again to go use a bathroom that often doesn't work.

[1610]

They dream about that as a viable housing option, and they talk to me about how they could materialize that kind of housing that would meet their needs.

Those are the kinds of conversations that I would say are well worth the effort of anyone and for us to work with them to realize. That's how we can end the homelessness crisis, because the cookie-cutter approach doesn't fit everybody. Forcing someone to do something you want them to do just because you think that's the right thing to do is not the answer.

The aboriginal community…. The Homeless Nation, of course, rightfully pointed out that because of the historical injustices there are a lot of issues of trust, and rightfully so. We must honour that. If we're to honour the past in terms of those historical injustices and honour the people who suffered through them, to do something different that would change the trajectory of the future and the course of those injustices that have been foisted on the aboriginal people….

When I look at this bill, I think to myself: "Who are we kidding, if the government thinks that this would actually address the situation?" Has the government not thought about, for example…? Even just assuming for a moment that this might work, what about communities that don't even have a shelter? What are you supposed to do then? Where are the cops supposed to take the individuals in communities where there isn't a shelter, of which there are many throughout British Columbia? How do you address that?

What happens when you show up at a shelter and there are no spaces available? Many shelters are full — full capacity. They have to turn people away. So when you have a cop take an individual to a shelter and the shelter is full, what is the option then? How do you deal with that situation?

The bill, of course, states that you can't make someone stay, but you can make someone go to the shelter, and the cops can use reasonable force. What is reasonable force exactly? Would the cops be able to deploy a Taser? Is that reasonable force? I don't know. The bill doesn't say.

People who are struggling with mental illness, who may be in an agitated state and who might have issues of control with the police, may have a different reaction when you approach them, even though they may mean well, and then a conflict may well erupt. Could a person then be charged, potentially, because of them not cooperating with the police? Is that a scenario that could come to pass?

We're not there, and when I talk to the homeless population and the people in my community, they often tell me that they are actually afraid to interact with the police, because things happen. They tell me that things happen to them, and they're not in a power position to demand or to fight back.

People are very afraid to take on the police, for whatever reason. It may well be because of their history and their past, the current situation — I don't know — but a variety of reasons, and I'm sure in their own minds, they are valid reasons. When they are valid reasons in the minds of the homeless person who is dealing with that situation at that moment, they are valid reasons for us to consider too, that we need to address.

There is an issue of power imbalance in this situation. I am very curious whether or not the Minister of Housing — the former Solicitor General — had the opportunity to talk with the Attorney General about the issue of Charter rights and whether or not there's a legal opinion from government about this bill and whether or not this violates people's Charter rights. I'd be very interested to know from the government side what homework they have done with respect to that.

[1615]

Yes, there are groups who have criticized that. They criticize it because, yes, civil liberties are a cornerstone of who we are as Canadians. At the same time, they also are concerned about this bill driving the homeless people into even more invisible places that will place them at further risk because they don't want to be in this situation where they're confronted by a cop and then forcibly — reasonably — forced to go to a shelter. Those are legitimate and valid reasons in terms of those concerns.

My colleague the member for Vancouver-Hastings has already mentioned it. I've got to tell you, for a homeless person whose belongings are there before your eyes — in most cases in a shopping cart, in a couple of bags that they carry — it is all of their belongings. Sometimes those belongings are irreplaceable. They could be pictures of a loved one. They could be letters, mementos, things that they have collected along the way that mean a lot to them. It may not mean a thing to me or to you or to anyone else, but to them it means their world.

If you are asked to leave, if you're being moved, and you lose those belongings, what would happen? That was the case with Tracey. She did not want to lose her worldly possessions, and she refused a shelter that night. That's a reality. I've got to tell you that if I was, perhaps, in that situation, and maybe that shopping cart contained pictures of my children — my only pictures of my
[ Page 2362 ]
children — I would not want to leave those behind. I can tell you that right now.

Now, I'm very lucky, because I'm not in a homeless situation, and may I never be. But boy, oh boy, some of those belongings, I'm sure, mean something, and they may not mean anything to anyone else.

Even right now there is a crisis going on in the sense that the homeless community are at risk of losing their belongings all the time. The city of Vancouver, even the engineering department, goes about picking up homeless people's stuff and throwing it out into a container, so to speak. For them, these priceless possessions could be lost.

Imagine if you're being forced to do that. I can imagine, when that happens, that there could be an altercation, that people would resist this situation, that they would not want that to happen. This bill does not speak to that.

Shelters. The government says: "But we need to take them to shelters. They need to be safe, safe for their own good." Well, get this, Madam Speaker. The temporary shelters…. For one of them, I spoke to the operator just last week. Their money runs out in March, and there's been no commitment from the government about continuing that funding.

So not only do we not have enough shelters at the moment; even the existing ones are operating on a temporary basis at best. If the government was really genuine about addressing the homelessness crisis even at the emergency level by way of shelters, you'd think that the government would ensure that that funding was in place now to make sure that people would have the resources available to operate these shelters.

I can tell you that there's one shelter in my own riding, the First United Church, and they do an admirable job. Boy, oh boy, they do it even without government funding, and they do it with volunteers. They've got a little bit of funding now by way of an emergency shelter.

Where do people sleep? This is the so-called shelter, and they do the best that they can. Make no mistake about that. People sleep in the pews of the church. That's where they sleep. Imagine this. People are sick. They're in close proximity. They don't have the resources to even change the blankets, to wash the blankets. They're struggling all the time.

I try to fundraise for them. I appeal to people whenever I can to get money for First United Church. Folks, every time I talk to them…. My staff, even, have gone to volunteer and have taken the evening shift sometimes, the graveyard shift, to help to sort of manage this operation run by volunteers without real funding.

A little bit of funding doesn't quite cut it. Never mind bedbugs and all that, and never mind H1N1 that's going on right now. Each and every day the people there are at risk, and the people who are lying next to each other are at risk. That's the reality.

[1620]

Why isn't the government doing something real about that, spending some time in bringing the resources available to fund First United Church and organizations like that, who are doing the damnedest they can to provide some sort of relief for the people who are homeless in our communities today? But no. Instead, the government comes forward with a bill that says: "Oh, but we have the solution. If you're homeless, we're going to do the right thing, and we're going to protect you. We're going to haul you off the street. We're going to give that authority to the cops."

I just find it astounding that if there is sincerity in this effort, maybe a different approach would be adopted.

The Aboriginal Transformative Justice Society just began a meeting — actually, it was just this last Friday — that I was at. The impetus came from people who are homeless in the streets. We all gather in a circle at the friendship centre to hear what some service providers and some who are homeless in the community have to say about their concerns about the homelessness crisis, first and foremost; for them to unload, to put forward the challenges that they face; and then, later on, to talk about potential solutions.

The Aboriginal Transformative Justice Society has decided they will make these meetings now monthly meetings to engage in that dialogue, to engage with the homeless population, to ensure that their voice is at the table and to think about and to work towards real, permanent solutions. I invite the minister to come and join us at those meetings. I invite the minister to work with the Aboriginal Transformative Justice Society for solutions to address the homelessness crisis.

The aboriginal community tells me that what they would like to see is to be treated as equal partners at the table, that they be given the opportunity to initiate, to run, to operate and to build the kind of housing that will meet the population of their community and their needs. That would be a real step forward in addressing the homelessness crisis, and rightfully so, because the aboriginal community are disproportionately represented in the area of being homeless. We also particularly need housing for women, aboriginal women, as well.

In talking with the community members who are service providers, I checked around. Lookout actually has done tremendous work in our community for as long as I've been involved in the housing issues — ever since I was a student, actually, many, many moons ago when I was in university. It feels like many, many moons ago. I was a practicum student, even, at that with legal aid back then.

Lookout has been out there working in our community, addressing the homelessness crisis, and here's what they have to say:

"There are not enough shelter beds available currently. Turn-aways are a critical issue throughout the year. There isn't a shelter set up specifically to meet the needs of people who may be actively under the influence of drugs. Shelters cannot force people to stay.
[ Page 2363 ]

"Shelters are pathways to resources and housing when people are willing to work with the shelter workers. The answer to people being out on the street is housing. We need the government to continue to develop specialized housing resources for folks."

That's what they have to say in terms of actual housing, and I have to say I've written to the minister time and again. I've written to the Premier time and again. I've raised this issue time and time again. I'm starting to sound like a broken record, I feel like.

What about the issue of a wet shelter — right? There are many people who are struggling with addiction issues and challenges. Toronto actually has this example. It might be funny for some members of the House who are chuckling away, but I've got to tell you that it is not funny at all when you have people dying in our streets and you have a situation where people who are struggling with addiction challenges don't have a place to go. They don't have a place to go.

Toronto actually has Seaton House. It is a wet shelter that deals with people with active addiction — and make no mistake about it: people with active addiction, many of whom are homeless. There is a solution to that.

[1625]

So why doesn't the government actually embark on that initiative instead of bringing forward a piece of legislation that says: "Oh well, I'm going to force you to go to a shelter"? Have they actually thought that the shelter on the other end might not be able to meet the needs of the homeless person?

Actually, for the service providers themselves too. When they have a stressful situation — people with mental illness, overcapacity and people in desperate, desperate dire straits…. The stress that is put on the workers themselves — what about that? Do we have additional resources available for the shelter workers themselves to deal with this situation, to manage this crisis?

The community also had something else to say in terms of this bill. Another organization — here's what they have to say:

"The legislation is just window dressing. Draconian measures don't work. There are no provisions to help out a shelter when the police bring someone there who doesn't want to be there. It could create safety issues for staff. They won't be able to keep people there. The Mental Health Act already has provisions to obtain people who are a danger to themselves."

That's from Mark Townsend from the Portland Hotel Society, who also does tremendous work in our community.

I began to talk about the Aboriginal Transformative Justice Society. They, too, are opposed to the legislation because they say it will drive people further underground. They say there are negative experiences that people have had with police authorities that could cause issues for them. I've highlighted and outlined a couple of those issues. They say that more funding needs to be in place for outreach services.

They question — and I, along with them, have questioned the government — why the government hasn't implemented the recommendations of the Frank Paul inquiry. This is almost old and outdated now in some ways — the inquiry that came out with the report, the Davies commission. In it they talk about recommendations.

Part of those recommendations talks about a civilian-run sobering centre, a place where people can go who are again dealing with addiction challenges, who can sober up and perhaps connect with services — but run by civilians. Why hasn't the government acted on the Frank Paul recommendations? They are here. They're ready for the government to act on. All that the government's got to do is to have the political will to do the work and commit to it, put the resources toward it and enact it.

The government also allowed for and closed and didn't fund two non-barrier shelters. They raise that, too, as a concern. The closing of the non-barrier shelters is a factor, they say. While the minister argues that the death of Tracey is the motivation behind acting on this legislation, the government allowed for two shelters to close in August. There haven't been new shelters come into play to replace those lost beds.

Pivot is another organization that's come out to raise concerns about this legislation, who said that they do not support this legislation. In fact, last week, once again, my colleague the member for Vancouver-Hastings, along with the MP for Vancouver East and councillor Ellen Woodsworth, were at a community forum.

There were over a hundred people who attended, and a number of issues were raised — along with Olympic security, amongst other things. Certainly, this shelter and this piece of legislation was raised as a concern by the community. They raised issues about outreach workers — and why not?

Why wouldn't the government, if they really wanted to do something, ensure that there are enough outreach workers who are talking to the homeless population, to assist them, instead of actually putting cops in that situation where there are issues of imbalances of power?

I'm going to sum up by simply saying that this legislation is wrong-headed. If the government wanted to address the homelessness crisis, there is a multitude of ways to do it.

The government will say they have done something by purchasing SROs and so on, but that's only part of the solution. There is a way in which the government could end the homelessness crisis. It needs political will. It needs the government to say that they'll do a comprehensive strategy to end homelessness. It needs the government to create real partners and then bring the aboriginal community in and ensure they have a voice at the table.

[1630]

Let us all finally say an end to homelessness, and let us all say there will be no more Traceys allowed in our community. Not by force, but by goodwill and commitment and because the government believes in ending
[ Page 2364 ]
homelessness, in putting the resources forward and in putting forward a multi-year plan to end the homelessness crisis and the poverty crisis that exist and that contribute greatly to the homelessness situation that we face in British Columbia today.

D. Horne: It's with great pleasure that I stand today to speak on Bill 18, the Assistance to Shelter Act. This is a tool. This act gives the ability to our law enforcement officers to deal with what can many times be a very difficult situation.

Basically, the homeless are on the streets and have some very, very difficult things before them. Many of them are addicted. Many of them have mental illness. Many of them are coping with situations that most of us in British Columbia could only imagine and, quite frankly, many of us can't even imagine.

For these people, when the weather gets difficult, when times are cold and raining and snowing and we get into the worst conditions, as members on the other side have pointed out and many other people point out…. The protection of those possessions that we've come to acquire over time can sometimes cloud our vision as to the importance of life itself.

We look at a case that this act is looking to address, the case of Tracey that's been spoken about many times in the debate on second reading. We note a woman who was on the street, who was trying very hard to protect all that she held dear. There were, in that case, shelter beds available. We're not talking about a situation where there wasn't a place for Tracey to go. There were shelter beds available. The difficulty was that there was concern on her part for her possessions, the ability for her to hold that which she holds dear and make sure she protected that.

One of the things that the member opposite mentioned during her remarks was that pictures of her children were extremely important. I can tell you, having two daughters, that pictures of one's children are extremely important. But I can also tell you that one's life, the ability to continue and go on, is much more important than any picture or any other possession that anyone has.

The difficulty is that we have homeless people whose judgment may be clouded, who may be suffering from addiction, who may be suffering from mental illness, who may have a compounding problem of both mental illness and addiction. They may not be making the right choices.

The one thing with the homeless is that the position they're in is oftentimes because of a series of compounding problems, a series of compounding issues. These are the people that we need to help the most. These are the people we need to make sure that we provide facilities for, provide shelter for, provide food and other things for, because these are the people who truly aren't in a position to necessarily help themselves. These are people in our society who are reaching out, who need our assistance.

While there may be flaws with any way you approach things, having the tool to be able to bring a person to a shelter who's truly jeopardizing their own life by staying out on the street so that perhaps they are able to live another day — life is so important to us all — is of extreme importance and something I think none of us should oppose.

[1635]

We can talk about the right way and the wrong way to do things, but the fact of the matter…. The background for what we're trying to accomplish in this act, Bill 18, is the ability to take those people who perhaps aren't using judgment the best they possibly can and make sure that at least they do go on to live another day. At least they do find shelter from extreme weather conditions overnight. At least they can have a place that's warm, have a place where they will wake up the next morning.

While their life will continue to be very, very difficult — and these people's lives are extremely difficult — at least they have the ability to go on and hopefully, over time and with the support that we as the government and we as a society can give them, eventually turn things around and have a life in which they can once again feel respected, feel proud, feel comfortable to be a part of our society and really be pleased to live again, because many of these people just aren't happy with their lives and aren't terribly satisfied with the position that they find themselves in.

My constituency assistant Bernie Hillier worked very hard in the Tri-Cities on the wet weather mat program. One of the things that program does is make sure that in extreme weather conditions, there are places for people to be off the streets so they can have shelter. You know, shelter is one of the things that's fundamental to survival for all people. While it may not be the best conditions in the world, by providing shelter to people, we do provide them with one of the necessities of life.

With this bill, those that perhaps aren't seeing straight and don't see the need and the necessity to seek out that shelter, basically it gives the police the ability and one more tool to make it so that that person doesn't perish, that that person does continue to live and that that person isn't left on the street overnight. So we don't have another situation like we had with Tracey.

I think that that fundamental value we all hold — that fundamental cause in making sure that we protect life and that we basically make sure all lives are important, that all lives are cherished and that we do make sure we provide the tools necessary to make sure those whose judgments may at that point in time be impaired have the ability to be assisted and have the ability so that they don't perish on the streets — is fundamentally important, I think, to us all.
[ Page 2365 ]

So I wholeheartedly support Bill 18. I think it's a step in the right direction. I don't for a moment think that Bill 18 goes to address all of the problems that the homeless have. I think the problems the homeless have are many and that housing and providing housing, providing shelters without barriers, shelters that allow for pets, shelters that allow for a homeless person to bring their possessions with them are extremely important, and I think that's something that we all work to ensure that we have.

The other thing I think is fundamentally important to this is support for mental health and those that have mental health problems compounded, as I said before, with addictions. Basically, it's fundamentally important that we address that issue. We as a government put a new facility in place in Burnaby recently so that people would have additional support, so they would have the ability to go and stay and have the support mechanism in place that they may need for a longer period of time.

Very close to my riding is Riverview. There's been much discussion over time on Riverview and the time that Riverview was in full operation and basically the decisions that were made so that we moved people out of Riverview. Unfortunately, many of the people that we moved out of Riverview ended up on the street. They ended up as the homeless people that we see today.

[1640]

I'm not saying for a moment that that's all of the people. I don't believe that that's all the people that are homeless today, but I think a number of the people don't have the support structure they need, don't have the tools they need to be able to help themselves. We need to make sure that we provide them tools to be able to be helped and to accomplish the things that they need to.

Riverview — we've been building additional facilities there. We've got some wonderful new lodges that we've built on the Riverview lands, and we continue to make sure that the facilities that are needed by the mentally ill are strengthened, are brought back into place. I also applaud that effort, but this bill isn't about that.

This bill isn't about building homeless shelters. This bill isn't about building housing units. This bill is not about treating the mentally ill and providing facilities for the mentally ill.

This bill is about making sure that people who are homeless and are on the street and aren't necessarily making the right choices aren't left there to perish, aren't left there to die, and that basically we don't have people like Tracey, who simply by protecting some possessions, by protecting some physical assets, end up losing their own lives in the process.

On that, I thank you, and as I say, I support Bill 18.

S. Herbert: I rise today to speak about Bill 18, the so-called Assistance to Shelter Act. I come to this bill thinking it's been a little over a year since I was first elected to this place. My first speech in this House was around housing and homelessness because it is such a huge issue in my constituency of the West End and Vancouver as well, of course — Metro Vancouver when you go out — but really provincewide.

Homelessness was one of the main reasons I decided to run for this place, because I was tired of it. I had served on the Vancouver park board and had seen too many situations where people were sleeping in parks because they had no other place to go. In fact, the summer when I made my decision there was a large encampment in one of our city parks, because people did not have a place to sleep. The shelters were full, and they wanted safety. They didn't want to be forced into the back alleys to hide, forced onto the lawns of people's homes, forced into the doorways of businesses.

They said: "We need a place to sleep where we can be safe, because government is not providing that, is not able to support us or is unwilling to support us to get back on our feet and get back into the community."

I think it's important, when we think about this bill, to think about why people are on the street in the first place. When we have a problem, we should go back to the start, rather than first dealing with symptoms. I think that should be one of our roles as government: to think through where the problem came from, rather than tinkering around the edges.

Well, what happened? Well, in 2001 and years after that when the B.C. Liberal government took power, they forced many people off disability. They kicked people off welfare. They slashed supports for those who are most marginalized, for those who need our assistance.

They cut to the heart, I think, of what we all as a people think that our government should be about, which is ensuring that those who have the least are able to get support. We know that it could be us. It could be our brothers. It could be our sisters. It could be our children. It could be our parents. We know that government needs to be there in assistance with the community to watch out for each other.

Now, I know that some, ideologically, on that side of the House may be opposed to that idea altogether. They think the government's only role is to do police and the firefighter service, and that's it. That's not something I share. I believe government is an extension of where we come from and who we are as a people and that if we as a community decide to organize amongst ourselves to support each other, that's what government is. It's easy to bash government and say government is a bad thing, but government is really of the people, for the people.

[1645]

Now, why else are people forced onto the streets, and why are they on the streets in the first place? Well, the cost of living in British Columbia is incredibly high, and the minimum wage, for example, has not increased for many, many years. In fact, it had a cut by this government.
[ Page 2366 ]

I've talked to people who are living on the streets, who would be the people this bill says it's intended to help, who say that they would love to find a place to live but that they can't afford it, and in fact, they're working a job. In fact, there are families on the streets whose parents are working jobs, but they cannot afford a home. They cannot afford a place to live.

Why else? Well, people are mentally ill, living with drug addiction, as I know the member for Coquitlam–Burke Mountain mentioned. People are mentally ill. Well, you'd think that if this bill was meant to address people like that, the government would also be supporting programs that deal with the mentally ill, that deal with addiction services. But no, they're cutting those programs.

Besides, the Mental Health Act is already there to help in situations where people are dangerous to themselves, where they are such a danger to themselves that they're going to die. The Mental Health Act is there to help those people, and it is used in that way.

An increase of 400 percent in homeless people under this government's watch, and what else did they do? Why was there that increase of homeless people? They slashed and burned the programs that provided housing and supportive assistance for people. When they got into government, they cut programs, they cut housing, and those people ended up, of course, still on the streets.

Now, I know the minister has mentioned some of the projects he's quite proud of. Well, a couple of those projects would have been built in 2001 had the government not slashed those programs. People would have been living in those homes for the last eight years, not on the street.

It'd be interesting for the minister to comment on that specific project that was cancelled. I would be very interested to see him refute his own government's studies, the government's own words, the government's own plans, but he can't.

He'll throw up a bunch of bluster and talk about things that aren't relevant to the issue, to try to cloud the issue, but read the numbers. Read the housing numbers. I know Monte Paulsen from the Tyee has done a very good investigative report on this. Maybe the minister might actually read it and learn something.

It really bothers me when a government decides to use a dead person to justify its actions, as if it's speaking for that person. That bothers me. The minister has said that if this act had been in place, Tracey would be alive today. Well, if that act had been in place back in that winter…. There was no shelter bed for her to go to. Besides, there was no shelter bed that would have accepted her stuff, her personal belongings, the stuff that she protected because she didn't want it to be thrown out.

And I disagree with the member for Coquitlam–Burke Mountain who said: "Well, it's just personal objects. She'd be alive today if she just forgot about those personal objects." Well, you know what? Would any of us accept that? "Oh okay, we'll just forget our homes. We'll forget our family connections. We'll forget our pets, our animals, the things that we've worked to build. We'll forget our family histories, our pictures, our mementos." No, I don't think any one of us would go out and do that willingly, nor would any of us be happy if we were forced to do that.

So I think that line of attack, of saying this bill would have saved her life if it had existed back then, is really…. It demoralizes me, and I think it demoralizes the province. It's complete…. I won't continue on that because it makes me very upset, and it makes me upset because I walk by that corner where Tracey died. There are still burn marks on the concrete.

You know, the minister talks about how there were no tools to do anything to help and how we on this side accuse the government of not having done anything to help. Yes, we accuse them of not doing anything to help, because they didn't.

The shelters that were created after Tracey died, the heat shelters, the shelters that could actually take the stuff that she wanted to protect, that other homeless people need and want to keep as their own — maybe it's their CareCards; maybe it's a resumé; maybe it's a change of clothes so that they can actually try and get a job, and I've seen that….

Those shelters didn't exist at the time. They only existed because the city council of the time — Vision Vancouver, COPE, Gregor Robertson — actually pushed forward and created those shelters and shamed the government into providing funding to get them open.

[1650]

Now have they done it in any other community? No, they haven't. Why? Well, maybe they don't think it matters. Or maybe they didn't get that pressure. Either way, there were five in Vancouver because the city acted — not the province.

Now there are three. There are three because some neighbours were concerned about what it was doing in their neighbourhood. Well, that neighbourhood is the neighbourhood closest to where Tracey, the woman who this bill the minister claims is purported to serve, lived.

So even if she wanted to go to those shelters with her stuff because she could, she now can't, because the minister — and he's called the city of Vancouver "amateur" in these shelters — and this government did nothing to support those shelters, to support helping to deal with the problems that were assisted there.

The minister, in fact, said: "Oh, it's okay that those places be shut down, because people were partying. People were getting drugs, getting high." And yes, some of them were. Some of them do all across this province.

The reason they do that in this place? Some of these people are dealing with real mental illness, undiagnosed mental illness. Some of them were trying to hide from fears from abuse, trying to put it out and block it out of
[ Page 2367 ]
their minds. I know, because I've talked to these people. They are people — not numbers, people.

Sometimes people talk about the homeless as something different, other. Well, they are people, and we need to remember that.

Some of the homeless people I talk to, when they're asked, "Why don't you go inside to a shelter?" say they've tried many times and they've been turned away.

Forty thousand — I think is the figure that I heard — people turned away from shelters because they were full.

Why else don't they go inside? Because of fear of sickness. They don't want to get sick from somebody living next to them who has a real sickness. They don't want to go and try and sleep next to somebody who is dealing with withdrawal from drugs. They don't want to go inside because they've been attacked. They've been abused. In some cases I've heard from women who have been sexually assaulted in shelters, so they will never go back in there again.

This bill does nothing to support those people. In fact, it could push some of these people back into horrifying situations that they've run away from. I know some critics have said that it'll only force some people who don't want to go into shelters for a variety of reasons to hide further and further away from the help that they could get.

When I asked some people around my community what they thought this act was really about, they told me it should be called the "hide the homeless" act or the "pretend to act" act or the "only when we're embarrassed do we actually come up with something to try and put off our critics" act. All of those names could stick.

You know, the other thing that I have a real problem with in this bill and with this whole government's approach to dealing with homeless people is that they seem to believe that it's okay to leave people on the street when it's just kind of raining, when it's just kind of cold, when it's not extreme weather. "It can still be really bad out there, but it's not extreme, so we'll just let them out there for longer. It's all right."

Well, if this bill is about stopping people from dying out on the streets, as the minister claims it is, how far does he take that? Because homeless people have a much lower life expectancy because they're living on the streets.

Tuberculosis. That's one of the diseases many people don't hear about anymore, but it exists amongst homeless people. So many homeless people die much younger because they do not have a place that they can get off the street, get assistance and get back to life.

For me, an assistance to shelter act would ensure people actually had shelter, that they actually had the support to get off drugs, that they actually had the support to deal with mental illness. An assistance to shelter act would ensure that people who are working could actually afford a home, that a family was not forced to live on the street because there was actually affordable housing that they could have, that they could use. That's what a real assistance to shelter act would have.

[1655]

Instead, this act puts the blame on the homeless themselves for being homeless, for not wanting to go into dangerous situations, for not wanting to get bedbugs, for wanting to hold on to some of their only things that attach them to their families.

This bill puts the blame on them, as if it's their responsibility that this government cuts social supports and the things that help people live a meaningful life and help people deal with drug addiction and mental illness, rather than making sure shelters are enticing, making sure shelters are safe and healthy, rather than ensuring there are appropriate numbers of affordable housing so people never even have to get into shelter system. Shelter should be a last stop.

First, we should ensure that we can actually get people into real housing. Shelters are not homes. Instead, the government feels that it's best to force people to go to a place they can very well hate and fear. That's not how we should treat our people. They are people.

I've shared with this House some of my concerns about this bill and about the whole government policy on homeless people. Now, I've talked about it from a social point of view, about where we should come from, from our hearts, but we also need to understand the economics of this.

It's more expensive to keep somebody homeless than it is to get them into housing. Study after study after study, whether it's the Vancouver Board of Trade, whether it's Simon Fraser University, whether it's a whole gamut of people — right wing, left wing, centre, who knows where they are…. These people say, and they back it up with the facts, that it's more expensive to keep people homeless.

You've got the law costs, if there are any interactions with law enforcement, as there often are. You've got costs for social services. You've got incredible health costs. You've got the costs to local businesses, local communities. But then there's the human cost to all of us. Shouldn't we all desire a day where we don't ever have to walk over somebody because they're sleeping on the street? I think so.

Shouldn't we come up as a House, together — an end poverty act, an end homelessness act? I think that would be good. Shouldn't we actually put more than just a couple of stopgap measures, band-aid solutions and attempts to blame the victim? I think so.

I urge the government to reconsider and to bring back to this House real measures to end homelessness, real measures to help people like Tracey, as the government claims it wants to do. Together we can stop homelessness, but putting the blame on the victim is never going to do that.
[ Page 2368 ]

N. Letnick: The intent of the legislation is noble, and its goal is to help save lives in our homeless population — the homeless population, which is overrepresented by people with mental illness and addictions. This government's hard work on setting the right conditions for a strong economy has allowed government the fiscal flexibility to invest heavily in the homeless — affordable housing, mental health and addictions.

I heard from members opposite that contest the investments made by this government over the years. I just want to outline, for the record, some of those investments that they contest. Things like: since 2001 government has committed to creating more than 16,500 new units of housing. This includes a commitment under the provincial homelessness initiative to more than 4,000 new and upgraded supportive housing units and shelter beds as a result of the ongoing work of the Premier's Task Force on Homelessness, Mental Illness and Addictions.

Also, the province's homeless outreach program provides services in 49 communities, connecting visibly homeless people to housing, income assistance, employment counselling and medical services. More than 6,000 people have obtained housing through the government's homeless outreach program, and approximately 80 percent remain housed today.

Government is also keeping emergency shelters open 24 hours a day, seven days a week, providing a place to stay throughout the day, linking people to community services and housing.

Government has more than doubled the number of shelter beds across the province from just 700 in 2001 to 1,500 today and provided funding so that shelters can provide ongoing support services, connecting people with community supports like housing, addictions services and medical care.

[1700]

The province provides more than $30 million annually to subsidize over 6,800 units of social and supportive housing in the Downtown Eastside of Vancouver. The province has also invested $130 million to purchase 45 single-room-occupancy and affordable housing buildings, protecting approximately 2,000 units as affordable housing. B.C. is spending an additional $60 million to upgrade and renovate those units.

The list goes on. Government is investing in 471 long-term supportive housing units on five sites owned by the city of Vancouver in the Downtown Eastside. It's funding ten permanent emergency shelters, supporting 441 beds in the Downtown Eastside and 70 temporary beds operated by the Downtown Eastside Women's Centre.

Nine homeless outreach workers based just in the Downtown Eastside have helped house more than 1,200 people. More than $10 million annually is provided to subsidize over 2,600 emergency shelter housing units for the homeless individuals in the Downtown Eastside.

In the area of mental health and addictions, again members opposite challenged the government's record. I stand with the government on its record. The government opened the 100-bed Burnaby Centre for Mental Health and Addictions to provide a safe facility for persons with concurrent disorders who are not able to operate in community-based mental health facilities.

Government has opened the Crossing, a long-term youth residential treatment facility in Keremeos, providing 42 beds. Government opened more than 396 beds across B.C. as a part of the Riverview redevelopment project, replacing centralized services with smaller, more homelike settings closer to residents and their communities.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

The province has increased by 150 percent the number of community addiction beds since 2003, for almost 2,200 today, and added almost 2,900 new community mental health beds since 2001, for a total complement of more than 7,700 beds.

Again, the list goes on, but I'll end by saying that currently the government is in the process of developing the next ten-year mental health and substance abuse plan for British Columbia. So when the members opposite stand up and take shots at the government's record, I think that list clearly indicates that this government takes seriously the issues of homelessness and addictions.

The government's record is strong, both provincially and in my local area as well. We have partnerships between this minister and this government and the city of Kelowna, for whom I was a city councillor, to build Cardington Apartments. These are, I believe, 30 or 40 units in downtown Kelowna. We also have Boyce apartments, which is being built as we speak. This is being provided by the Canadian Mental Health Association, in partnership with the provincial government, and the city of Kelowna provided the land.

We have NOW Canada, which is going to provide new opportunities for women on Tutt Street in the riding of Kelowna-Mission. We were at the ground turning just a few days ago — the member for Kelowna-Mission and I and the member for Westside-Kelowna. We worked together with the ministry and with the city to make sure that this would go forward — we're really proud of what the government has been doing — and also with the agencies working together in our community to improve the plight of the homeless.

However, while the investments continue to flow, even through these tough economic times, I am concerned that while the goal of assisting homeless people to shelters is noble, the implementation of the legislation is not without its challenges. My first concern is that in an effort to help people, the legislation would allow police to use force to take people who have not
[ Page 2369 ]
broken any laws, against their will, to a place they do not want to go.

Some consequences may include the triggering of a mental health crisis. It may also scare people into deep hiding, making it very difficult for outreach workers to help them, as they currently are.

It may also cause potential harm to people by taking them by force to a place they don't want to go and then allowing them, on their own, to go anywhere they want. That means they might, through a severe weather incident, try to find the place they came from and get lost. They may be subject to some peril on the way back, more than they would if we left them there in the first place.

[1705]

After consulting with leaders back home — including the police, the Canadian Mental Health Association, the Gospel Mission and others — and reflecting on my own experiences working for affordable housing and volunteering with the homeless, I'm concerned that while the goal is noble, the implementation of the legislation as proposed has a potential to do more harm than good. I believe as a matter of conscience that we need to find a peaceful solution, a different solution that respects the dignity of all citizens and achieves our common goals.

D. Routley: In rising to speak to this bill, Bill 18, which seeks to aid people and get people to shelter — at least that's what it's supposed to do — I think we as members need to remind ourselves that all people of this province are full citizens and whole people.

Often when people speak of the homeless, they speak of them almost in a commodified way. "These people have these issues; these people have those issues." These people have one vote exactly equal to the value of the Premier's vote. These people are our people. These people are our neighbours. They are our brothers and our sisters.

Just as a doctor needs to take the pulse and the temperature of a patient in order to adequately prescribe a cure or a course of treatment, we must examine the circumstances of people who find themselves homeless. But when we do that, we tend to again quantify them, commodify them. So many percent are mentally ill; so many percent have addiction problems.

Well, the thought of living on the street without any support, without the warmth of a home and family, without the security of a job or an income, I'm sure would challenge anyone's mental health. Those people who already struggle with addictions or other problems would find themselves without the capacity to deal with them.

I think we must always remember that people plunge below the waves of despair. They suffer loss. They might suffer head injury. Whatever it might be, people find themselves in crisis. But with the right support, people can be elevated from those crises.

When this government came to power, they cancelled 1,700 units of social housing. They cancelled B.C. Housing. B.C. and Quebec were the only two provinces that kept building social housing, kept their social housing programs intact after the federal government stopped funding their portion of that obligation.

Since the B.C. Liberal government has taken power, we've seen a huge increase in homelessness in the urban centres, but also in rural communities. We've seen a huge increase throughout the province, at least doubling.

If you have a bigger mess, you need a bigger pail. We end up having to build shelters to house people, rather than housing. Emergency shelters are not housing. Emergency shelters are not adequate support for those people in crisis.

What we need is a plan to reduce poverty. What we need is a plan to provide adequate affordable housing. Each year the government has taken over $80 million from federal government housing grants and directed that towards assisted living to cover over their broken promise of 5,000 long-term-care beds.

The social cuts, the cuts to assistance that drove people onto the street, are largely responsible for the numbers we see now. The changes to the Manufactured Home Park Tenancy Act and the Residential Tenancy Act wound up driving people out of their homes, allowing rents to skyrocket and helping create the situation where seniors in this province represent the largest-growing group among the homeless by percentage growth.

[1710]

This bill might not only be a challenge to these citizens and their Charter rights, but it's also a convenient whitewashing of what's happened.

We have seen a drastic increase in poverty in this province. The B.C. Liberal government has presided over a more and more divided province. This province has become more and more divided as the gaps between the rich and the poor have grown greater. Shelters aren't the answer. Nor is sweeping the poor off the streets at the time of the Olympics an answer to this problem.

Aboriginal neighbours. The aboriginal community, just as in prisons, is much overrepresented in the homeless population compared to its percentage share of the province's population.

When I was Housing critic, I received a lot of lessons when it came to what it really meant to find yourself living in poverty. I really became aware of not only the number of people who are homeless but the number of British Columbians who can barely meet their housing obligations and the inadequacy of the shelter that people are renting.

When we have such low vacancy rates, only the very most expensive and the very lowest quality of housing is available typically, so there are thousands upon thousands of British Columbians who, but for missing one paycheque, will find themselves homeless as well. This government has ignored them, and this bill does nothing to solve those problems.
[ Page 2370 ]

This government has an obligation to the people of B.C. to be a partner in providing adequate housing — not emergency shelter beds but adequate housing. The number of cooperative housing units built in this province plummeted to near zero. We've had eight lost years when it comes to providing affordable housing, and we're seeing the results on our streets every day.

When I was Housing critic, I was coming into the Legislature one morning, and a homeless man — a man who appeared to be homeless — was sitting on the curb of the legislative lawn. He tipped over and fell down. People were passing by. It looked like he had just passed out. I checked on him, and he wasn't breathing. He was gasping, he was foaming at the mouth, and he couldn't speak. It turned out he was suffering a heart attack.

After checking for his pulse, I reached back into distant first-aid training and applied CPR. When I opened his shirt, his chest was tattooed with Looney Tunes characters: Tweety Bird and Sylvester the cat. It made him so small. It made him so childlike in a way. This was a man who was hairy and didn't smell good and was in terrible clothing, but that's exactly how I would be after a few weeks on the street without a shower and without adequate clothing.

When the emergency crews came, I stepped back, and then for days, I was upset. You know, I realized what ambulance paramedics, in fact, go through, a little bit of it, as I realized what shock that brought to me, because it was a bolt out of the clear blue sky, this happening. How ironic and how tragic that he would end up on the lawn of the B.C. Legislature in that condition in an age when homelessness and poverty were increasing so rampantly and as we tend to commodify the lives of a person like him.

He went on to live only five or six more days and then died, but in the meantime, his mother and his brother came from Quebec to see him. I received a note that told me his story. That man, a year and a half earlier, had been earning over $100,000 in Montreal as an IT specialist. That man was the uncle to a young girl who he was practically surrogate father to. Her father was gone. I saw pictures of him with her in better days, well groomed and well dressed and happy.

[1715]

The letter told me that the loss that plunged this man below those waves of despair, below the surface, was the loss of a love. The woman he loved left. He sank below the waves of depression, and his family lost track of him. He ended up here on the lawn of the B.C. Legislature, dying.

It was a stark lesson in my life that every single British Columbian is a whole citizen, that every single person on our streets deserves the full benefit, their full share of the benefit of this province, their full share of attention from their government, and they haven't gotten it.

This government has preoccupied itself with bragging: "Best place on earth to live, work and play." What a claim in the light of such levels of child poverty and such growing gaps in our society between those who have and those who don't, those who have the attention of those who should represent them and those who have been forgotten.

What's needed is for our government to reflect the values and principles that we as British Columbians hold dear. Those values include empathy, consideration. They include a healthy respect for each other, an expectation that the government will preoccupy itself not with satisfying those who would donate or those who have power but with the health of our communities and the health of every single British Columbian.

This act does nothing to turn around that train that's headed down this track, which has us leading the country with the highest child poverty rates, that has poverty rates in general skyrocketing. At the same time, the bragging…. This government, rather than running to the scene with a mop and a pail just before the Olympics in order to sweep people off the streets, rather than bragging about buying up cheap hotels, which doesn't provide a single new housing unit, should have continued the work that was done in the 1990s to provide affordable housing.

They should not have given up their responsibility to those who now find themselves homeless. They should not have introduced bills like this or bills like Bill 27 from the last parliament that exposed so many renters and so many seniors in manufactured home parks to eviction, that reduced the protections. That's the record of this government — reducing protections to people, reducing supports that should support those who are in crisis. That's the record, and this bill does nothing to change that.

Let's hope that those people who come through the doors of their constituency offices pleading for some kind of solution to this kind of a crisis will find an ear that actually hears them for once. Let's remember.

As Housing critic, I found another lesson. People multiply better than they divide. If you tell them there are 200 people homeless on the streets of the Cowichan Valley, which there are, then suddenly they become accountants of suffering. They say: "Well, is 200 a big number? How is 200 in comparison to Victoria, to Nanaimo, to another city our size?"

But if you tell them one story like the story I just told you — one story about a woman who gives up her children voluntarily because she's afraid of losing them because she has no home, one story about a senior evicted from a manufactured home park and living in a car — and then ask them to multiply that by 200, you have a real impression of what this crisis means to ordinary British Columbians, real British Columbians.

These are real people with real rights, and they are our brothers and sisters. They're the citizens this government is obligated to support, and they've failed. This bill does nothing to remedy that.

[1720]
[ Page 2371 ]

R. Cantelon: I am moved by the member for Nanaimo–North Cowichan opposite, his initiative, and I think that his courageous move goes to the heart of this matter, because he didn't just walk on by. He stopped and did something. What many people — many of us, perhaps — would have done was just walk on by, and that's at the core of this bill.

The core of this bill is to say: "We're not going to do that. We're going to stop. We're going to help that person. We're going to take them off the street, and we're going to see that they get the chance to see the light of day the next day." That is at the core of this bill.

Now, we've heard many discussions from the members opposite. Really, it's an equivocation. They say that this isn't the answer. Well, in that light, I agree. This isn't the answer, nor was it ever intended to be the answer. I think the full slate of programs that we've heard and that have been enunciated by other members on this side of the House give the answer — the wholesome approach that we've taken. I mean wholesome in the sense of an individual approach to everybody who's in trouble and in concern.

To say, of course, that we've done nothing is to ignore completely many, many facts. In the member opposite's community — I represent another portion of it — there are 1,269 units of subsidized housing that are supported to the tune of over $5 million every year in the city of Nanaimo. We have a SAFER program to assist seniors, and that's supported by $660,000 of annual payments.

But to me, one of the most innovative and effective ways that we've supported people in need of housing is the rental assistance program. We have 260 people in Nanaimo, families in Nanaimo, that receive up to a million dollars in assistance to stay in a house, to find safe, secure, affordable housing, to find that place where they can raise their families. It's extremely important.

Now, to put the other face on it, if we were to go out and build those houses, 260 units, it would cost the government probably between $50 million and $75 million capital construction to do that. Nanaimo is only a city of 80,000 people, so $50 million multiplied by the number of communities around this province would be in the billions. Here's an effective way that we can provide affordable housing for 260 people.

The members opposite have also talked about the fact that homelessness has doubled, the fact that poverty has increased. Well, actually, the best answer is a job.

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Member for Fraser-Nicola will come to order.

R. Cantelon: It's quite all right, Madam Speaker. I've respected this debate up to now. It has been quite respectful on both sides of the House, and I expect that when they hear the truth, they want to object and try and take me off my message.

The best answer to reduce poverty is a strong economy, and that's what this government is committed to do. That's what this government is committed to do with its current budget — to minimize the impact of debt, of government debt on social programs and on hindering our recovery, which we expect and hope to be quick as the economy responds.

Getting back to the issue at hand, some of the comments I have to take issue with. The member for Vancouver-Hastings said: "Grab people, and throw them in the back of a car." Well, I don't think anybody on that side of the House truly believes in their heart of hearts that that's the intent of the bill, nor do they think that the police force or other designated people are so crass and careless with human dignity and belief. I don't believe that they really think that. Indeed, that's not the case.

We also heard that somewhere in some dark room, in a star chamber, they'll declare a weather emergency. Well, that of course is not the case. Every community will have a designated person who — quite appropriately, because the weather is so variable across this big province of ours — will be the person in the community to designate when there's an extreme weather condition.

The minister can, when he feels it's all clear, override and lift the extreme weather warning. I think this community involvement — the opposition members have talked about working with the community — is exactly what our approach has been.

I'm proud to be a member of a community where the homelessness outreach program was initiated and achieved great success. I would even commend the member for Nanaimo, who sits regularly on the homelessness committee and takes an active interest in how that's going.

It began a few years ago. It started with 20 communities. Now we're up to 49 communities where the homelessness outreach program has worked very effectively. It begins with financing, as we did, to mental health workers, because these people, as members opposite said, are people. They're individuals with real lives, real hopes. They're down on their luck, but they can be redeemed.

[1725]

The mental health outreach workers make a connection first with a person, who may not have any social insurance number even, who may not have access to benefits that they are entitled to, to medical care. They first recognize them as an individual who has rights — important rights that need to be respected, encouraged and redeveloped.

As indicated by the minister, the success rate of finding these people and permanently removing these people from the street is about 80 percent. They'll help them pick up their lives, find a place to live, redeem their lives, redeem their hope and their future, and permanently keep them off the street. So it's hardly
[ Page 2372 ]
anything but a coordinated approach, and this is but one tool.

I go back to the member for Nanaimo–North Cowichan opposite, who did take the step of saying: "I'm going to do something about this person." Well, right now they don't have the ability to do that. The homelessness outreach program that we have in Nanaimo, for example — which coordinates the RCMP with a mental health worker, with the social workers, with bylaw enforcement in a coordinated effort to identify them, help them and get them off the street — does not have that power.

When someone is lying there, perhaps in a state of semiconsciousness, they can't do anything about it. They have to walk on by. They're compelled. They cannot remove that person for their own benefit and their own good and take them to a place of shelter for the night, to see that they've survived to live another day.

The member for Kelowna–Lake Country…. I want to comment. I much admire his stand today. It's not easy — it's not allowed on the other side of the House — to speak an opinion contrary to a government bill, but he's done so and indicated quite clearly, in very conscientious and well-motivated logic, to say that. I admire his stance.

His concerns are centred around the implementation, and it's been raised on both sides of the House. The member for Vancouver-Hastings also raised those issues. What happens to your possessions? What happens to this person's sense of belonging with these things? A sense of place in the world, really, is that shopping cart and those possessions around that person. Well, that too can be accounted for.

It's certainly been the initial implementation — and this is part of the implementation plan — to make sure that those persons' goods can be kept, will be kept, in a safe place, so that when the crisis of the evening passes, we hope, firstly, that that person will receive the mental help they need or any other social work they need to lift them up, to give them that step forward. In the meantime, they can rest assured that their precious possessions will be maintained.

The member for Kelowna–Lake Country also said that the key is implementation. This is a key point of implementation, but I think it does get down to a matter of conscience. From even the biblical references, the story of the Good Samaritan, do we walk by, or do we help this person? Do we pick that person off the street and save their life? That is a critical decision.

As a matter of conscience, I think I differ from the member for Kelowna–Lake Country. For me, a matter of implementation is that we must do it. In conscience, we cannot let that person suffer and die a slow, perhaps painful, horrible death on the street. We must act.

Now, this is not a substitute for other actions, as I mentioned. It is only part of a comprehensive plan, as we've successfully implemented in many communities. Does more need to be done? Yes, more needs to be done, and we'll continue to do that. I sit with saying that my conscience compels me to say that we can't walk on by. We must lift these people off the street and give them at least the chance of seeing the light of day the next day.

H. Lali: I rise to take my place in the debate on Bill 18, the Assistance to Shelter Act. You know, when you look at even the name of this bill, it's called the Assistance to Shelter Act. It doesn't talk about…. It's not the shelter assistance act. It's the assistance to shelter, which is totally different from if it had been shelter assistance. If it was shelter assistance, it would have meant they would actually have to do something concrete, to actually look at the problem that is out there with folks who are homeless and don't have a shelter over their heads.

[1730]

This is assistance to shelter, whether one's shelter exists or not, during weather that is deemed to be extreme.

You know, this bill actually allows police officers to take the homeless people to shelters during "extreme weather conditions." Police are able to use reasonable force to transport the individual but will not be able to actually hold them at the shelter once they arrive. That's really fundamental as to what this bill is all about.

It's not about taking somebody to a shelter and saying, "Here's a home for you to stay in. Here's a roof over your head" — with all of the services that go along with it to help folks who are homeless to deal with addictions. The services to deal with counselling for people's mental illness or that deal with folks who are obviously unemployed, who are poor — to actually sit with them, work with them, train them for job search or employment opportunities, or even access to educational opportunities…. All those kinds of services or even a medical centre and a number of other services that folks who are homeless require and need — that's not what this is about.

This is about actually taking people, according to some extreme weather condition, out of one locale, transporting them to another and not requiring those folks to actually stay at that shelter. That basically means it's taking homeless people from one locality and actually transporting them to another locality, and if they don't want to stay….

What if they took folks out from Downtown Eastside Vancouver and took them to Maple Ridge, for instance? They're not required to stay there, and they decide that they're not going to stay there. I don't know — what is it, about 25 miles? I haven't driven it lately, but let's take a rough guess of 25 or 30 miles from Maple Ridge, maybe more, to downtown Vancouver. There's no way for them to actually get back because they don't have the money or the wherewithal to be able to do that. So you take them out of one location and ship them off to another location.

This extreme weather, you know…. We're talking about perhaps a lot of rain — pretty cold. Folks might
[ Page 2373 ]
freeze to death. That's what folks across the other side of the aisle are saying. That's what they're saying. That can only mean it's during the wintertime coming up.

You know what else is coming up during the winter? The 2010 Olympics in Vancouver. You know the largest concentration of homeless people are actually in Downtown Eastside Vancouver, where there also happen to be a lot of services available for the homeless and the people with addictions and mental health issues, who are able to access some of those services. That's why they're concentrated there.

But to be able to take them because they're going to get all these tourists…. All of these people that are coming to the Olympics are going to be staying at the downtown hotels in Vancouver, and this government doesn't want to see "the problem," according to them, out there on the streets while all of the foreign visitors are going to be there.

So this is one way, instead of actually dealing with the issues related to homelessness and the lack of affordable housing in shelters and the services that are needed, of taking them from downtown Vancouver east side, Lower Mainland, to some facility somewhere outside of that area where all of these tourists are going to be concentrated, so that these folks are out of sight and out of mind, so that all of these visitors don't have to deal with or look at "the problem," according to the government.

That's what this is all about, because if they actually cared about doing something for the people who are homeless, they have had eight years to deal with this issue. It is under this government that this homeless problem has been able to actually increase. They allowed it to increase.

[1735]

They know it, and I know my good friend the minister…. The minister is sitting across the way, and he is a friend. I know folks out there might think: "How could the NDP and Liberals be friends?" He is a friend on a personal level. The minister is a friend, and I say that honestly.

My good friend over there has been a part of a government that has had eight years to deal with this problem. There have been so many solutions put forward by our homelessness critic, housing critics over the last number of years. I know when Joy MacPhail was here and also the member from Vancouver — I forget the exact riding; she's also in the House — even they put forward some proposals which the government could have picked up on.

The present critic for the NDP, my good friend from Vancouver-Hastings, has been involved in the housing issue before he got here as an MLA in 2005. He's done a lot of work on the housing side. He's also done a lot of work on community development — decades, over 30 years' worth of work continually. He's done all sorts of other work, professional work as well, but community development has been near and dear to his heart, especially housing over the last ten years or so.

There are a lot of proposals that have been put forward by the official opposition, and my good friend from Vancouver-Hastings has done that in his current role as critic for Housing. None of them were actually picked up by the Liberals across the way, the government.

This bill leaves a lot of power with cabinet to even alter some of the bill's intent. It's in the regulations section of this bill, which actually permits the government to change almost all of the definitions of the bill.

For example, "extreme weather conditions" is one of them. Notification and cancellation of extreme weather alerts — the power lies with the minister. My good friend has been the Solicitor General. He's been the Minister of Forests, the Minister of Housing. Now he gets to be the weatherman as well, because he has the power to be able to alter the notification and cancellation of extreme weather alerts. He's going to be a weatherman, as well, at his choosing. That's how much power has actually been given to cabinet.

They will be able to do this without any kind of public debate. No public debate needed. No consultation needed with the community. If they choose to, they can change it, and this happens to be right at Olympics time. Take the problem out of sight and out of mind.

So many proposals have been put forward by the opposition over the last number of years as homelessness under this government has been allowed to grow. We had a policy — Homes B.C. Under Homes B.C., there was a lot of affordable housing being built every year, and there was a plan. In 2001 they actually cancelled 1,700 units that were to be built. They cancelled it.

This Liberal government came in and decided that because they're going to pay off all their corporate buddies, who helped them win elections, with these huge tax breaks, all of a sudden they said, "Oh my god, we're going to have a huge deficit; we better balance our budget," which took them — what? — four years to do anyway. They decided they're going to make all these cuts. Affordable housing went out the window, and the plan for 1,200 units a year that were supposed to be built was thrown out the window.

I was an MLA in the House for ten years before. I took a hiatus and came back. During that time in my former riding of Yale-Lillooet, there were three communities that benefited in a big way. Under Homes B.C., a community, a society or even a chamber of commerce — some sort of legal entity — could make application to government to actually put in affordable housing.

We built 16 sheltered housing units for seniors in Princeton. In Merritt, 32 units of affordable housing, low-income housing, went in there. At the same time, also in the late 1990s, they added 24 units of mixed units — sheltered housing for seniors, some affordable
[ Page 2374 ]
housing, low-income, all of that — in the community of Hope as well, because that program worked.

What this government did…. The Liberals not only came in, but they cancelled that policy and stopped building affordable housing. Rent subsidies are a very poor and ineffective substitute for what is actual low-income and affordable housing.

[1740]

That's the kinds of things that these hon. members across the way are so proud of — rent subsidies. The rent goes into the pockets of the guy or the gal who built the facility, who often happens to be the same people who helped finance Liberal election campaigns. It's just a payoff, channelling the taxpayers' dollars into the pockets of those people who helped elect them.

That's not affordable housing. That's not low-income housing. That's just helping out their friends. That's what this government has done, and it is a very poor, ineffective and inefficient substitute for actual action on building affordable housing for folks so they don't have to be homeless.

A couple of other things the government did that I know some of my other colleagues have talked about. When they came into office they turned around and arbitrarily threw tens of thousands of people off social assistance, and they closed down a number of mental health facilities. Guess what happened, hon. Speaker. All of those folks ended up homeless and on the streets.

They created this problem. Instead of dealing with it and actually reducing it by building affordable housing, they cut out affordable housing and put people out on the street — whether it was the people with addictions and mental health problems or people on social assistance. Homelessness increased.

Instead of actually doing something concrete about it and building shelters and building affordable housing for people to go to, along with the services that are needed to deal with addictions and mental health problems, help with career and employment counselling as well as a medical centre and other services that are needed by the people who are homeless….

What this government wants to do is put the problem, as they call it, underneath the rug or ship them off to another community — transport them. They've given the power to the police to be able to do their dirty work. That's what it is. Rather than doing the honest thing or something that is concrete to deal with the problem….

We've been telling these folks for years and years now that they've created the problem and that they needed to fix it. Rather than doing something concrete about it, they're going to ship off this problem that they're talking about.

It's a real shame, because when you look at the name of the party opposite us, hon. Speaker, they're called the Liberal Party. When you think about big-L Liberalism, in this country over a century or more, there's a whole lot of great names that come forward — whether it's Prime Minister Laurier, Pierre Elliott Trudeau, Mackenzie King or a number of other ones who have followed, who actually believed in something and wanted to do something because of their Liberal ideas in terms of putting forward a progressive agenda.

When you look at the party in government here in British Columbia, they're only Liberal in name. I just don't know how the Liberals can actually stand up in this House and say this is the best place on earth to live. Yet we've got the highest rate of poverty under this government in this province, highest rate of homelessness of any jurisdiction in Canada, and child poverty…. The average incomes are amongst the lowest. The unemployment rate is over 9 percent now, with a record number of job losses, and they all talk about a solution. "Oh yeah, let's give people a job." That's their answer to homelessness.

When the North American economy and the Canadian economy turned around and B.C. had the benefits as well, why did the rate of homelessness under this government increase? It's because of the lack of action by this government. They don't care. They brought shame to the Liberal name.

When you look throughout Canadian history and even the history of liberalism across this world, even across Europe, you see the kinds of progressive things that Liberal parties across the world have done. But right here in British Columbia they've gone backwards — regressive policies, punitive policies, the kind of policies that are made with the lack of care in mind for those people who are disadvantaged and the people who need it the most, people who are homeless.

What's their solution? Pick them up in an extreme weather situation defined by the cabinet, put them in the back of a police van or a pickup truck or something, and ship them off. Such a shame when they actually should be putting money into building affordable housing and should stop throwing people out onto the streets as they have done — people with addictions, people who have mental health issues and people who were on social assistance.

[1745]

They created the problem, and they're not facing it. Their fix is to put them in the back of a pickup truck and ship them somewhere else where they're not seen and not heard.

D. McRae: I am rising today to speak to Bill 18, the Assistance to Shelter Act. I want people in this House to think back to last winter and the weather we experienced. British Columbia — southwestern B.C. — is well known as being one of the warmest places in western Canada, in Canada itself. But I remember that winter well.

The snow started falling on December 13. It was a weekend. So did the temperature. It didn't do what the
[ Page 2375 ]
snow usually does in British Columbia. Usually, we all know, the snow comes, and then it turns to rain. It turns to slush, and it melts. But that weekend the snow stayed. It stayed all week. It didn't snow anymore. It waited until the next weekend.

Then we had December 20, and the temperatures plummeted again. On December 20 in Vancouver the temperature plummeted to minus 7 degrees. The snow fell, and it fell. All during the students' Christmas vacation, the snow was there. It continued to fall. It didn't leave. It didn't turn to slush. It stayed cold, bitterly cold, in this province.

I remember looking at the map and seeing the jet stream for North America. All of Canada, the jet stream was below the 49th parallel, below the Great Lakes and out through New York. All of Canada was in sub-zero temperatures.

Then we went to January. If you remember, in January, then came the fog. Throughout southwestern B.C. we were covered with a blanket of fog in this province, and it was chilly. It chilled you to the bone.

You could escape the cold, cold January days by going high into the mountains. The ski hills were warm. It was like spring on the ski hills. But down at sea level, where the fog was, it was bitterly cold. People were suffering.

Why are we experiencing these events? Why are we experiencing some of the coldest weather, the snowiest weather that I've seen in my lifetime? I think we know. We're experiencing something called climate change. With climate change, we're seeing extreme weather.

The winters are getting colder. The summers, like last summer, are getting hotter. I think back to Stanley Park, and the winds came, and they've blown as hard as they've ever blown.

Even last weekend, in the Vancouver Province, I remember looking at the newspaper headline, and it went something like "B.C. Getting Hit with Twice the Average Monthly Rainfall for November in Just Three Days." We're seeing that right now in British Columbia. It is pouring rain. It poured rain yesterday and the day before. Tomorrow we'll have achieved more rain in November than we usually do in a whole month.

We know this isn't going to change in the near future. The problem is that with weather getting more extreme, the status quo — how people have become used to dealing with weather — has to change. Sometimes people don't have the access to information to realize that just because they were able to stay outside the winter last year or the year before or the year before, they don't have the tools necessary to survive some of the weather we're experiencing today.

I'm from the Comox Valley. It's a great place. I'm very proud of it. But like many, many communities across Canada, we also have some homeless people. By some estimates we have as many as 200 homeless people living in the community. It spikes in the summertime when it's easier to live outside, live off the land. It's warmer. In the wintertime they couch-surf. Some go to shelters, but lots of people stay on the streets.

Some people, under the right circumstances, can survive in almost any element in western Canada and British Columbia and the southwest corner that nature throws at them. If they can find a dry place away from the wind, maybe near a heat duct or just a little bit beside a building, they can stay warm — maybe.

They might have access to warm jackets, some blankets, a sleeping bag. It's not the best way to live, but it will keep them alive. They might have some possessions that are really important to them, maybe a pet.

But they also might suffer from things like substance abuse. They might have mental disorders, and chances are they have both. What we need as we go into this challenging time…. We need to give police the tools to help the people who are sometimes not in a position to help themselves.

[1750]

I've got great respect for police officers around the province. They have a very difficult job, and they're dealing with a segment of the population that isn't always easy to deal with. Every day we ask these officers who are very well trained to make judgment calls. Sometimes you have to make a decision. Do they make an arrest, do they give a warning, or sometimes do they just help a person by getting them a warm cup of coffee? They never have an easy day as a police officer in this province.

With the introduction of Bill 18, we are now giving police a new tool to deal with people who are at risk to themselves. We saw what happened last year when police did not have the tools needed to save the life of a 47-year-old homeless woman last December.

Police visited her three times that day. The last time was 12:30 at night. It was minus 10 degrees. They offered her assistance not once, not twice, but three times. She didn't take it. Later that night what people surmise is that she probably lit a candle — maybe to see something, maybe to help keep herself a little bit warm — and a fire started, and she died a very, very sad death.

It's easy to criticize this bill, but let's clarify. There are no easy decisions to make. The worst thing we can do is do nothing. People have brought on this great weather aspect. Well, let's look at the weather alerts. They call it the extreme weather alert. Every place has its own way of dealing with extreme weather and its own criteria. In the Lower Mainland, here are three criteria they use.

Temperature has to be at or below minus 4 degrees. Minus 4 in the southwest corner of British Columbia feels a lot colder here, with the wind blowing and the dampness in the air, than it feels at minus 10 or minus 12 in the interior of British Columbia. We often chuckle about that dry cold or that dry heat. Well, here at minus 4 it is bitterly cold, and when you get cold, you cannot get warm again.
[ Page 2376 ]

There has to be significant snow accumulation on the ground. The third factor is that conditions have to be deemed severe enough to present a substantial threat to a person's life. Those are the factors that get brought into effect if you're going to bring the extreme weather alert into places, for example, in the southwest corner of British Columbia. It's not on a whim. It's done with good reasoning to life safety.

With Bill 18 police have the ability, when they deem it necessary — not the government of British Columbia, not the people in this House, not some person on a whim, but the police — to take a person to shelter. Once at the shelter — and we thought this through — we're not going to force people to stay.

But then you say: "Why force them to go?" Well, there are lots of advantages. Once at the shelter, people will get the opportunity to connect with outreach workers to assist them to access medical, sometimes financial and housing support programs that are available to them.

Maybe in the worst-case scenario it's just a police officer cranking up the heat in a car for a slow drive somewhere that will get the person warm enough to make them realize how cold it is outside. Hypothermia is a definite issue when it comes to dealing with time outside.

I'm proud of this province's services that they provide to people living on the streets. Whether it's homes, money for emergency shelters or money for addiction support or mental health beds, this province has proven that we have done a lot in the past, but we need to do a little bit more.

This issue is complex. If there is an obvious solution, it would have been adopted here and then copied in every jurisdiction in North America. We're always looking for new solutions. I have faith in the police officers across British Columbia. They have a difficult task, but we need to give them the tools to help people in need.

[1755]

By enacting Bill 18, the Assistance to Shelter Act, we're adding a critical tool to what police officers and homelessness workers can use to help keep B.C. residents alive in the coming days. I stand in support of this bill.

G. Coons: I rise to speak to Bill 18, Assistance to Shelter Act. When I first heard this brought forward by the minister, I was optimistic when I heard the title. But when we get into the bill and look at what's in it, there are many concerns. It allows police officers to take homeless people into shelters during extreme weather conditions, and they will be able to use reasonable force but not be able to hold them there once they arrive.

There's a large component of this bill that remains with the cabinet. They have power under Bill 18 to alter the bill's intent. That's why we are standing and opposing this bill. We need to know what's in it. We need to ensure that this is not just a bill of convenience. That's how I am reading this bill.

We look at some of the issues that have been raised. Some people don't want to go to shelters, and this law could put them at greater risk. Some could be in medical distress without being noticed by passers-by, as we heard, or by outreach workers.

This bill ignores a real problem that is taking place on the streets. Basically, it doesn't address the needs that are out there. It doesn't deal with housing issues. It doesn't deal with shelter issues. Not one shelter bed will be added and no real action — just a law forcing the homeless off the street.

The minister and many members talk about Tracey. Tracey has a name. Her name is Dawn Tracey Bergman. Ms. Bergman was reluctant to lose the cart that carried her belongings. That's why she refused to go to a shelter. There was no capability, no capacity, to look after her belongings. This bill doesn't cover that at all — or somebody's pet. I refer to this bill as a bill of convenience because it just so happens that some are looking at it as during the Olympics, it's time to get the homeless off the street.

Ms. Bergman refused, stating: "Shelters around Vancouver do not allow for carts." Nowhere in this legislation does it talk about how we are going to handle a person's belongings, how we handle the respect for people, their pets. In the coroner's report on Ms. Bergman, she had an extensive history of drug and alcohol abuse.

Nowhere in the Assistance to Shelter Act does it say how it's going to work with the Mental Health Act, nor about the thousand other people on the streets that same night who couldn't find shelter or weren't allowed to bring their possessions or their pet with them. As I mentioned, this legislation is silent on whether police will transport people's dogs, shopping carts or other possessions. We need some legislation that will work with the problems we have on the streets, and this is not going to do it.

When we look at other issues…. If the minister wanted to do something, he would supply the resources and work more closely to develop additional barrier-free shelters to get the 2,000 people off the street in Vancouver who are homeless today.

I just want to take a couple of minutes to look at some of the sections in Bill 18, Assistance to Shelter Act. We look in section 1, the definitions. It defines "BC Housing," "community representative" — all of the definitions — "police officer," "police force" and "extreme weather response plan."

All the definitions seem to be straightforward and reasonable, but again, in section 8 it allows the government to change almost all of the definitions by an order-in-council. And nowhere does it define "extreme weather," giving somebody the power to provoke clashes between officers and the homeless because of the definition.

There are no parameters for what extreme weather is. It doesn't say in the legislation a certain number of days
[ Page 2377 ]
of rain or temperature under a certain number of degrees. So there is an opening for misuse and mistrust.

[1800]

Section 2 talks about "Extreme weather alert by community representative" and that the community representative determines when the weather has become extreme. But again, the bill is so vague that it can be evoked at any time it's convenient — like in February during the Olympics. That's a concern. So I'm afraid this bill of convenience is not going to work for the real problems we have on the streets.

Some other issues that I've got as we look at the definition of what accommodation is. Section 5(2)(d) talks about "other prescribed considerations" as far as accommodation. These can be changed.

Interjection.

G. Coons: Exactly.

I do have a comment from a constituent of mine, Wilf Rimmer. He wrote to me. He wrote to the minister. He wrote to the Premier. He said:

"I'm writing to you about my concern with this proposed legislation. While this assault on personal freedoms is being spun as the protection of homeless people, I view this as an assault on their civil liberties and ask you to review this legislation carefully.

"Hopefully, you will agree with me and oppose the passage. If the government truly is concerned for the welfare of the homeless in our province, there are more concrete and helpful steps that could be taken rather than this offensive attempt to offload this issue onto our police and volunteer organizations."

Wilf Rimmer wrote this to me a couple of weeks ago and wanted me to express the concerns that not only he has but we on this side of the House have.

On that, hon. Speaker, we're going to oppose this bill.

M. Sather: I rise to address Bill 18, Assistance to Shelter Act. A couple things I'd like to just focus on real quickly.

One is: how will this legislation in fact work? The police find somebody on the street. They believe the person is in distress and should be in a shelter, so they're going to say: "Hey, buddy, let us help you go to a shelter." But if the person doesn't comply, there is going to be, or very well may be, a conflictual situation where somebody — i.e., the homeless person — is going to get injured. So the intent of the bill may actually backfire, and we'll have people injured that otherwise wouldn't be.

Then when the police get to the shelter, they have said that they won't try to force the person to go inside the shelter. Now, the person might go in. They might have changed their mind. They may have been taken a fair distance from their home territory and feel that they have no other choice, and for them, their home territory might only be a few blocks. Or they may be afraid of the police.

However, they may choose not to go inside, at which time they end up in the strange territory, on the street. It's equally as cold as it was in the place that they were taken from. They may not have their belongings. Again, they're going to be at greater risk than they would have been in the beginning.

The effect of scaring people, also, because a lot of the homeless people do have mental health issues…. They're very afraid of the police, and they will be in areas where they're less likely to be found and so could be in greater danger that way.

Finally, I just want to focus on what the situation is that I'm concerned about in my community of Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows. I want to thank the minister for his involvement in us trying to get a supported-housing development in Maple Ridge. There is a lot of opposition, as one might imagine, to this centre.

People in Maple Ridge believe that the homeless — although it has, up to now, not been accurate — are being bused in from everywhere else. But what's going to happen now? Tri-Cities has no homeless shelter. If we end up with a lot of these folks being dumped in Maple Ridge, the animosity towards the homeless is going to grow. The difficulty of us actually getting that supported-housing unit on the ground and functioning is going to be diminished.

Those are my concerns: the fact that it's very likely going to backfire and make it more dangerous for many homeless people and that it's going to be more difficult in my community to sell to the community the need for supportive housing, which is really what we should be doing rather than a draconian bill to force people into shelter.

[1805]

B. Routley: I just want to take a few moments to talk about this bill, particularly why I think it's not well-thought-out. It's a bill that I'm sure somebody was turning their mind to one situation. While that situation is tragic indeed….

When I look at this bill and what's happened in the Cowichan Valley…. We had a fellow by the name of Thompson. It so happened that my wife was actually teaching English to this fellow's brother and his wife, who had some challenges in the English language, and they wanted some assistance. My wife was providing that assistance.

We got a call after this tragedy, and it was discovered that Mr. Thompson, who…. His brother knew he had an alcohol problem, and he had tried to address it, tried to refer him to help many times over the years.

Unfortunately, alcoholism had gripped this man to the point where he sought refuge in a garbage container, and that garbage container was picked up while that man was still out cold in it. At least, that's what people believe — that he was out cold. He was caught up in that garbage container and thrown in the garbage truck and dumped and crushed. That's what happened to that
[ Page 2378 ]
homeless man. I'll tell you, this bill wouldn't help at all in a situation like that.

I want to say quickly that I believe that this bill could force more people into those kinds of garbage containers. The word will get out that the solution, if you don't want the police picking you up and taking you away, is to go hide yourself, whether it's in a garbage container….

I fear there will be people hiding out in back alleyways to prevent themselves from getting picked up by the police. You think the word on the street won't travel pretty quickly, hon. Speaker, when the first one or two are picked up? You want to believe it will.

If I thought this had a chance of saving all kinds of homeless lives in B.C. and not putting more homeless lives at risk, I would be giving it a second look. But I am extremely concerned, and the reason that I will be opposing this bill is because I fear we're going to drive people into alleyways, under bridges and into garbage cans, and they're going to be hiding out. That's what's going to be going on. Instead, we need a government plan to address homelessness in British Columbia, a real plan that helps deal with homelessness throughout British Columbia.

One could be developed if we sat down in partnership with communities, if the government put more funding into alcohol and drug addiction and abuse and into real homeless shelters and aggressively went after the problem.

With that, I want to thank the hon. Speaker for this opportunity to speak on this important matter.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Hon. R. Coleman: To the member opposite who just spoke, I can't tell you that the bill will do something better for someone like Mr. Thompson, but I know there was no legislation in place to actually get Mr. Thompson to a shelter when this terrible incident happened. To make the comparison that this won't do anything…. Nothing was being done before, so maybe we should try something.

I've sat and listened to this debate. I had actually hoped that my opening remarks about deciding whether we wanted to be humanity and try and save a life versus go off on tangents all over the place and not actually address whether the members opposite cared about saving a life on the streets or not….

Unfortunately, what I thought would happen actually happened. I'm not Nostradamus, and I know I'm not Jeane Dixon — that dates me by some people's standard; some people know who Jeane Dixon was — and I can't predict the future, but I certainly did in this debate this afternoon.

[1810]

Now I have to take a few minutes to clear up some errors, some misspoken truths or facts, some things that were given by the members opposite, and I want to remind them of a couple of things.

First of all, you closed Riverview. You guys did that. You guys continued the closure of Riverview in ten years during the 1990s and never once provided programs for those people coming out of those facilities that ended up on our streets. It's not me that has to say this for you to understand it. I'll read you a quote.

This is a quote that says:

"The 1990s were a difficult decade for British Columbians, particularly for the poorest in the province…there was an increase in poverty in British Columbia by any measure. The depth of poverty was also higher and more visible on the street…the rise of homelessness, panhandling and food banks…." — it was unbelievable — "Life for the poor is more difficult and precarious than it's ever been in several decades."

That was a report done by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives — your own think tank, Members opposite — called B.C. Commentary, Falling Through the Cracks: Poverty in British Columbia, volume 3, in the winter of 2000.

Don't try and get up and say you had any solutions in the 1990s for this, because you ignored this problem. And then don't stand up in front of this House and claim that in the year 2001 a number of projects were cancelled and didn't get built, because it's, frankly, absolutely not true.

I can tell the members opposite. I can read into the record the 1,600 units of housing that were completed when government took over in 2001. I can also give you the explanation for the few that didn't go ahead because zonings didn't get completed by municipalities or the numbers didn't work or something else fell off the table. But to stand in this House and say that those units didn't get built is absolutely false. Not true. Not correct. You should not continue to say things in this House that you know are absolutely not true.

We've always had a philosophical discussion. I had one with the member from Merritt-Nicola a little while ago with regards to….

H. Lali: Fraser-Nicola.

Hon. R. Coleman: Fraser-Nicola. They keep changing the name of that riding.

The reality is this, and that is: to even think for a second, when in the 1990s British Columbia had the worst poverty record in Canadian history, absolutely the worst statistics in Canada…. They have gone down today. Today the numbers… I'll share the stats with the member opposite. I'll share the stats that the fact of the matter is that child poverty in British Columbia today is lower than it's been in two decades, hon. Members — two decades.

Then I hear this whole thing about the member for Fraser-Nicola saying, you know, that they're going to put them in a car and drive them to Merritt. What nonsense. We have people who are homeless living in a community. We have shelter space available for them. We're going
[ Page 2379 ]
to say to them: "In extreme weather situations, we'd like you to come inside. We have the authority to take you to the shelters so that we can, hopefully, save your life."

We're not transporting people from Vancouver out to Maple Ridge like the member opposite from Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows said earlier. This is just like: "Oh well, we're going to throw something up against the wall, because we actually don't want to admit that we don't want to save people's lives." It's unfortunate, but that's the sad part about this.

Then I listened to the member for Vancouver–West End and the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant. My goodness gracious, she forgot that those units got built. In addition to that, I've got a letter on file from that member telling me that developers were going to go into the Downtown Eastside and would we please buy the Carl Rooms — one SRO on the Downtown Eastside — and literally saying: "It's got to be done. You've got to protect this housing stock."

Oh, by the way, in the ten years of the NDP, in the entire province of British Columbia, they bought two SROs.

She said: "Would you please buy the Carl Rooms?" So we bought 23 of them. We bought the Carl Rooms and 23 others in Vancouver alone.

[1815]

You know what? I've never heard the member once stand up and say: "Thank you for doing that to the Carl Rooms. Thank you for saving the Backpackers Inn. Thank you for the St. Helen's. Thank you for Woodward's. Thank you for the new Lux building of 98 units on East Hastings. Thank you for all you're doing in the city of Vancouver in my community, because you're doing it."

Oh, and then they get up and say that there are no shelters. In 2001 there were 730 shelter beds in the whole province of British Columbia. Today there are over 1,500 on the annual basis plus 2,000 or 3,000 more that are used during special weather conditions in B.C., hon. Members.

Do you know what they didn't have in the 1990s? They didn't have an extreme weather strategy, and they did not have a cold weather strategy for people who were homeless on the streets of the province.

It was in spite of the fact you closed Riverview, in spite of the fact that you did nothing for them and in spite of the fact that the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives said that you are the guys who actually messed up homelessness in the province of British Columbia.

The other thing I find interesting with these guys is that they don't want to know what everybody else knows, and what it is, is this. In 2001 there were 1,300 units in B.C. of housing with supports in British Columbia. Today there are 6,000 and 2,000 more under construction for people with mental health and homelessness issues.

It's actually incredible. Do you know that the highest waiting list in history for housing in B.C. at B.C. Housing was during the 1990s? Today, in the last three years alone, that waiting list has dropped by 7,000 applicants.

As we go through this and we watch this nonsense, $261 million is being invested in housing with supports in British Columbia today to build additional housing and $120 million to build 1,305 seniors units in small communities all over the province of British Columbia.

Those are investments in housing because we believe in an integrated strategy and plan, and we have one. You're just jealous that you never had one. You can't think of one, and you can't come up with any solutions to solve the problem.

The one that gets me the most during some of this nonsense that I heard was this. They said….

Interjections.

Hon. R. Coleman: Homelessness is down in this province, Member. Homelessness is down. Did you know that? You don't want to believe it — do you? You don't want to believe it because you don't want to see it. You don't want to go down there and check. You haven't been down to the Downtown Eastside in your career, hon. Member.

In addition to this, they sit there and say that the minister is going to be the weatherman. This member is….

Interjections.

Hon. R. Coleman: Are you done?

Interjections.

Hon. R. Coleman: How many in Vancouver? What do you want to…? I can tell you what, hon. Member — 12,000 units plus since 2001. You didn't do that in the 1990s either.

You didn't do the Burnaby Centre for Mental Health and Addictions. You didn't do the other things for outreach. You didn't do the things for mental health and addictions. You didn't do anything to help people. All you did was build the wrong product in many places for the wrong reasons for the wrong clientele and leave the people who had mental health and addictions and were homeless on the streets of British Columbia with no supports after you closed Riverview, hon. Members.

Interjections.

Hon. R. Coleman: So the minister…. Oh, once in the week you're…. Oh, this is great. I'm going to give you eight years.

In 2001 in housing, $120 million a year. Today, $439 million a year, hon. Member, and 7,000 people connected with outreach and supports just in the last three years — connected to housing with supports in British
[ Page 2380 ]
Columbia by outreach workers in 49 communities across the province of British Columbia.

In just the last three years, hon. Member, 8,000 families — including families in your community and your community and your community — are receiving a rent cheque every month to offset their rent so that they can have affordability in housing for their families and better outcomes for their children.

[1820]

I know you want more. I know you want to hear more. Otherwise, I would have wrapped up by now, but I know you want to hear more.

So 3,100 more seniors are getting SAFER in B.C. in the last three years than were in the previous three years, over 16,000 seniors are getting rent cheques to assist their rent in the province of British Columbia. You guys would just throw them out on the street because you don't believe in either one of those programs.

Interjections.

Hon. R. Coleman: More? You want more? I've got more — 46 properties bought across the province of British Columbia to build therapeutic communities, to save SROs, to build new relationships with non-profits so that we can actually turn homelessness, mental health and addictions in the province of British Columbia and in communities all the way from Osoyoos to Quesnel to Prince George, right down in through the Cariboo, into the Lower Mainland and up Vancouver Island to the top of the Island.

We've been across the province solving this problem because we believe in our non-profit partners and the projects and plans that we have in place to successfully beat this in our communities.

I actually find it interesting that all we did for the last hour and a half, two hours, was listen to the members come up with every reason why someone's life shouldn't be saved on the streets of British Columbia. I heard the member opposite from Merritt and a couple of others say this: "Oh, you know, they're going to decide when a cold weather strategy comes into place."

Why don't you do your research, hon. Member? Do your research. There are protocols in place in communities all over British Columbia where community groups get together and determine what the protocol is for a severe cold-wet weather event to open additional shelter space.

It's done by the care providers. It's done by the non-profits. It's done in partnership with the community, and they make the decision based on the parameters that they set in the communities. You know what? It works. It actually works, and more shelter space opens up.

Now what we want to do is give somebody on the street the opportunity to come when that happens, to and make a decision to come in out of the cold so that they don't die. If you don't like that, hon. Member, that's fine. If you want to go out there with your misinformation with regards to what this is about, you're going to do that anyway, because that has been the style of the NDP.

I can tell you this, though. If somebody needs help this winter, we want to give it to them. Quite frankly, I happen to think that's important. We can do all the rhetorical and political and have fun with the statistics that I just had with you a few minutes ago. But this bill is about someone who might freeze on the streets in British Columbia this winter, were it not for the fact we'd give somebody a tool. If you don't want to give them a tool, that's your choice.

Given that, I move second reading.

[1825-1830]

Second reading of Bill 18 approved on the following division:

Hon. R. Coleman: I move the bill be referred to the Committee of the Whole House at the next sitting of the House after today.
[ Page 2381 ]

Bill 18, Assistance to Shelter Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

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

Hon. M. de Jong moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow morning.

The House adjourned at 6:33 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); J. McIntyre in the chair.

The committee met at 2:40 p.m.

On Vote 26: ministry operations, $146,521,000.

Hon. B. Penner: There are also three additional votes: Vote 27, Vote 28 and Vote 49. However, technically, we'll begin, I believe, debating Vote 26, which is for the ministry expenses generally for the operations of the ministry. I'll be prepared to entertain questions related to the other three votes that I've just mentioned as well.

The Chair: Minister, did you want to make opening remarks or just go straight to debate? Okay.

R. Fleming: I thank the minister. I think maybe as a courtesy, then, I will not, as well, make opening remarks and get, for the most part, straight to questions. Having just said that, I will make very brief opening remarks. We have a number of questions in areas around the budget for the Ministry of the Environment.

This is a budget that was cut for the ministry. I think there was a widespread sense of disappointment from environmental NGOs and fishing and wildlife organizations and others. We want to ask some questions about what that actually means on the ground, in our park system, for watershed protection, for all of the vital functions that this ministry provides to the citizens of B.C. and how it may also have an economic impact as it relates to tourism strategies and other things that other ministries are charged with heading up but to which this ministry is a contributor to their success or disappointment.

I have shared with the minister in advance — and I hope that this is helpful to staff with the limited time we have — what areas we might pursue and in what order. I apologize in advance if we do stray from that occasionally, because there are a number of members who have indicated that they wish to ask questions at times during estimates debate, and I don't know what their House duties are or when they will always show up. So if I can ask the minister in advance for some indulgence of that fact of life, then it would be much appreciated.

I will begin just with the overall operations and Vote 26 that the minister introduced and ask some general questions that we're looking for some answers for. The first would be around program areas being moved to other ministries.

There have been various name changes of this ministry in recent years. In fact, for a time it wasn't called the Ministry of the Environment. I know that functions and personnel have shifted between ministries. I want to ask him if there is anything in this budget that has been moved to another ministry.

[1445]

Hon. B. Penner: I'm advised that the only program that moved out of the Ministry of Environment was a completion of a move that started last year and that had to do with water quality and air quality monitoring, which went to the Ministry of Healthy Living and Sport.

I'll just respond very briefly to what the member said in his non-opening remarks, which expressed some disappointment at the Ministry of Environment's budget having to be reduced. I think that we all share a sense of disappointment that government revenues have been so adversely impacted by the global economic downturn. Certainly none of us were hoping that would occur.

We've tried very hard as a government to try and diversify the provincial economy through a more competitive tax regime to try and make sure that we insulate ourselves from economic downturns, but this global economic downturn that started just over a year ago has been very broad in its reach and significant in its impact. Regrettably, the Ministry of Environment is not immune from that downturn in revenues that have flowed into the consolidated revenue fund.

As a result, the ministry budget for '09-10 has had to be reduced. That has meant a lot of challenging work, and decisions have had to be undertaken by senior ministry officials and staff throughout the ministry in the regions. I want to acknowledge the hard work that has been done.

As much as possible we've done that without issuing layoff notices. We're trying to avoid having to do that
[ Page 2382 ]
and trying to keep as many staff working full-time as we can. We have had to then look at reducing discretionary spending and continually challenge ourselves to see if there are ways we can do things differently, to be more efficient, to get the best possible use out of every tax dollar we do get in our budget to spend.

R. Fleming: I want to maybe just ask a follow-up question on that. How many FTEs, and what was the program budget for water quality and air quality that has been transferred to Healthy Living and Sport?

[1450]

Hon. B. Penner: I'm advised that any of the FTEs that were moved over to Healthy Living and Sport were moved last fiscal year. What remained to be done was to transfer $1.225 million in program funding, and that is what's occurring in this fiscal year — following over to the Ministry of Healthy Living and Sport.

R. Fleming: Okay. I'm tempted to ask why that is a fit with that ministry as opposed to this one, but I think I'll leave that for another venue to do and ask about some of the bigger areas in the budget where we have seen reductions and hope to maybe get a more specific rationale from the minister than the global recession in terms of how this will be achieved.

Environmental stewardship. The numbers I'm getting from the Supplement to the Estimates is that it's a program reduction of about $4 million. I wanted to ask the minister, given that that is a large area with a large share of the staff who work for the Ministry of Environment, if he could tell me how that is being achieved and why environmental stewardship is suffering a $4 million cut in this budget. What choices within the ministry is that going to mean?

What does it mean in terms of full-time equivalents working in the fields across different regions of British Columbia, and again, are there any programs that are impacted or being wound down within that funding envelope?

Hon. B. Penner: Like all divisions of the ministry and probably like all divisions in government, the job has been to try and find savings where it is possible to do so while still providing a high level of service. Not an easy task, but that's what we all signed up to do when we got elected and when these people got hired within the ministry.

We have sought to achieve the reductions without layoffs to permanent staff within the environmental stewardship division while protecting and maintaining core services. We've maintained the conservation corps program, although it has been trimmed from $2.4 million to $1.06 million.

There have been a number of other strategies that we've employed which are not unique to this division — for example, reducing travel significantly. For this division a reduction of 50 percent is what is targeted in terms of travel. Fleet vehicle use is to be reduced by 25 percent. We have a goal of reducing contracting for services by 50 percent. Office-type expenses — we're hoping to reduce by 60 percent. Grants and transfers are also to be reduced, and a number of other things.

Again, one of the parameters is that we're trying to do this without laying off permanent staff. That means we have to find our savings in other ways.

[1455]

R. Fleming: I thank the minister for that answer. I think there's probably more in there, but one thing that grabbed me in his response was around the fleet downsizing. I'm wondering if that impacts in any way conservation officers and how they do their job. There have been a number of representations to me, by those who use the land recreationally, that conservation officers have to put up with a great deal when it comes to cuts that have been made in this regard.

Hon. B. Penner: I'm advised that in fact the number of vehicles for field officers has not been reduced. We have been looking to reduce the number of vehicles specifically designated for supervisors, so I think that there are a number who don't have a specific vehicle assigned to them.

Due to the number of field staff that occasionally will be on leave or away from work, we believe that there are vehicles available to the supervisors. There are just not vehicles specifically assigned to all field supervisors at this point. But all the field officers who are out responding to calls have vehicles to make use of.

One of the ways we have reduced our expenditures so far, I'm advised, in terms of travel, is our greater use of teleconferencing and trying to avoid going to meetings that aren't absolutely necessary. A part of that has been a reduction in attendance at conferences or meetings taking place outside of the province as one way of reducing our overall travel budget within the conservation officer service.

[1500]

Another thing that has apparently helped to reduce expenditures this year is that there has been a fairly significant decrease in the number of calls to the conservation officer service to deal with problem wildlife. I'm advised that this year the number of human-bear conflicts has diminished, presumably because the bears are finding healthier things to eat elsewhere.

I know that last year there was considerable concern about a collapse of the wild berry crop in the mountains. I think that played a significant role in many of the bruins finding their way into communities to avail themselves of food that people haven't properly dealt with in their back yards in terms of fruit trees or in their front yards in terms of their garbage cans.
[ Page 2383 ]

Happily, that decrease in the number of bear conflicts with people has resulted in a decrease in the number of call-outs and in the number of trips that officers have had to make using their vehicles, so that has saved us money in terms of fuel.

R. Fleming: I would like to ask about the compliance branch. Again, there is a reduction, I think, for an area that in the past, it has been suggested, has been extremely tightly budgeted for. There is, again, a cut for compliance from last year's operating expenses of $16.7 million to $15.7 million this year. It's a $1 million cut, and I wanted to ask the minister to comment on that, on how he will accomplish that budget reduction.

I note that in all of these areas that we've asked questions on so far, there are salary pressures. Again, there is another salary lift next year of, I believe, 2 percent, so these cuts are even more difficult to achieve in that regard.

But I wanted to ask him, in the area of compliance, how he's going to manage and achieve those cuts. I think that the public has been very pleased with a number of enforcements, high-profile ones, that have been accomplished by his ministry this year. They would be worried, for example, that convictions of eagle poachers, prosecutions against CN Rail spills and those kinds of things — where, you know, the government has recovered money, imposed fines and done work — might be lost if compliance capacity is reduced.

[1505]

Hon. B. Penner: The majority of intended savings, it looks like, is projected to come from a $1.265 million reduction in vehicle expenses, reductions to contracts, and other operating expenses in the range of $892,000. There are a number of other items, too, but that's where we're targeting a lot of our reductions.

In order to maintain an effective compliance and enforcement presence and to actually expand and make more effective our presence, we have entered into something called the resource management coordination project, which is a collaborative effort between a number of ministries, particularly the Ministry of Forests and the conservation officer service. A memorandum of understanding was initialled in June of 2009.

That allows us to designate a number of the compliance and enforcement personnel that work for the Ministry of Forests as special conservation officers, and 51 special conservation officer appointments are pending approval from the new chief conservation officer, who was appointed just a couple of months ago. But already, through this MOU, 131 staff or government employees have been designated as special conservation officers.

This enables us to get the best value, again, for taxpayers and to make sure that different ministries are utilizing personnel to the fullest extent. With the downturn in the forest sector, due to decreased prices in the United States and the collapse of their housing industry, I believe that there were a number of C and E, or compliance and enforcement, staff in the Ministry of Forests that weren't as busy as they previously had been.

So this was seen as an opportunity for us to work collaboratively with the conservation officer service and the Ministry of Forests C and E staff to fulfil a broader mandate than might just be the case if they were solely focused on their initial mandate of working for the Ministry of Forests.

R. Fleming: Thank you to the minister for the answer. I think that time will tell whether that may be successful or not. I wanted to ask the minister, just with regards to the last two program areas — environmental stewardship and compliance — if he could give me FTE numbers for the ministry in those two branches. That's something that was missing in the September budget update that we're debating now.

I think for the first time in budget history — at least as far as I go back — we do not have clearly defined FTE numbers in the ministry. So I want to ask him for '08-09 numbers and this budget's numbers for '09-10, particularly for environmental stewardship and for compliance.

[1510]

Hon. B. Penner: The member is correct that there has been a change in how individual ministries project full-time-equivalent numbers, as has been done in the past.

[1515]

For each ministry that's being reviewed, FTEs are routinely reported in the public accounts, and more detailed information will now be publicly reported in a new annual report on a corporate human resources plan, which is released each fall.

However, I can inform the member that there are 142 positions within the conservation officer service. That includes nine members who are assigned to the CEIU. If I remember my acronyms correctly, that stands for commercial environmental investigations unit. Is that approximately accurate? That's my first acronym for the day. There are two in the special investigations unit — SIU, if you're keeping track — which carries out undercover investigations, four positions in the CO service headquarters and two trainers who work from regional field offices but are considered part of the headquarters structure.

We've generally been, as the member noted, quite successful in a number of high profile investigations over the last year. I thank the move to a specific corporate environmental investigations unit dealing with things that are different than the typical hunting infractions or wildlife infractions.

As important as those are, I think it did make sense to have a specially designated and trained unit to go after the commercial side, because, of course, the conservation officer service has responsibility for environmental
[ Page 2384 ]
enforcement with respect to spills caused by various corporate operations in the province.

I think that that strategic change a couple years ago has been paying dividends and is recognized by our federal counterparts too. The federal agencies have come to, I believe, appreciate some of the expertise that our members are able to bring to certain complex corporate investigations.

In terms of the environmental stewardship division, I'm told that there are approximately a total of 340 positions. That includes a number of seasonal staff. So if you were to average that out over the course of a year, it would amount to about 314 people.

R. Fleming: Just for comparables, did the minister have '08-09 FTE numbers readily available as well?

[1520]

Hon. B. Penner: My staff are telling me that one of the good reasons for not dwelling so much on the official designated FTE count is because it often doesn't represent what is actually taking place. It's somewhat difficult to find at any given time just what the number of FTEs translates into when you want to find out how many people are actually working. It doesn't sound like it should be complicated, but evidently it is.

Last year, according to a piece of paper we found, our budget called for 305 FTEs in environmental stewardship. Evidently, we had more than that working, and certainly this year we do.

For compliance we had noted 146 FTEs. Some of those were working in a policy shop. That policy shop has now, apparently, been moved from the compliance and enforcement division to a centralized policy division, or shop, within the Ministry of Environment. It becomes a challenging thing to keep track of what the FTE numbers really mean in terms of how many people are working on any given day.

R. Fleming: I wanted to ask the minister about environmental protection in the budget. It goes from the '08-09 restated estimates as a $7.4 million expense to, by year three of this budget plan, a 90 percent reduction — or so it appears — and a $746,000 operation.

Now, I realize that there is money that comes into this area of the ministry from the sustainable environment fund. All things being equal, it nevertheless looks like a $7 million cut to environmental protection and the operation of that service — $4 million in year one but, by year three of this budget, $7 million. So I'm just wondering if the minister can explain how that will impact services provided by the environmental protection department.

[1525]

[H. Bloy in the chair.]

[1530]

Hon. B. Penner: Hon. Chair, I appreciate your indulgence.

I think I'll just start, first of all, by explaining the restated numbers, 2008-2009, compared to what was originally presented in 2008-2009 as part of the ministry budget for environmental protection. You'll see that the restated numbers show that instead of $14.029 million, the actual restated budget was $7.468 million.

The reason for that change in the restatement is due to a $6.614 million reduction, including the reduction of centrally managed overheads to the corporate services division — that accounted for $5.123 million — and the transfer of the climate change branch to the climate action secretariat representing $1.491 million, including $1.3 million funding from the sustainable environment fund or SEF — our second acronym for the afternoon. And there's a $1.252 million reduction due to a transfer of air and water quality monitoring to Healthy Living and Sport. That explains the '08-09 restated numbers.

Then the next column that we see is the estimates for '09-10. Just to walk the member through some of that…. Primarily, there's a $3 million-and-some budget reduction, which is going to come from reductions due to attrition. Industrial air emissions and other operating costs are projecting a decrease — and a $1.091 million reduction in intraministry transfers, including a transfer to water stewardship of $593,000.

In other words, the ministry executive identified a priority of moving some funding that had been earmarked — it's an internal transfer, I guess — nominally for the environmental protection division, and it's going over to the water stewardship division.

[1535]

R. Fleming: I think that answer was worth the wait. I appreciate that.

I just wanted to ask the minister to confirm some of the other broad areas in the budget, in particular executive and support services.

Sorry, I think I just want to focus in on the minister's office. Can the minister confirm…? We've just heard something about attrition in environmental protection. Am I reading this correctly that the operating expenses of $551,000 for the minister's office in '08-09 are set to rise to $773,000 this year? Could he explain how many additional staff will be working in the minister's office and where the rise of almost a quarter-million dollars of new expenditures is coming from in his own office?

Hon. B. Penner: In fact, I'm advised that the budget for my office is actually going down. Of course, I knew that, but I was just reminded again that my office budget is decreasing somewhere in the range of about — rough numbers — 10 percent from '08-09 to '09-10.

[1540]
[ Page 2385 ]

Primarily, it's going to be through reduced travel and perhaps less photocopying. I've already instituted an officewide policy of only printing documents on two sides of a piece of paper, please.

I encourage all members of the Legislature to make use of that function, since we now have these fancy collating printers, purchased at considerable expense — that we actually take the time to use that feature to print on both sides of a blank piece of paper. Few things frustrate me more than people not doing that. You just have to select properties before you print and choose the two-sided option. Anyway, I digress.

The reason for the overall minister's office budget appearing to increase is because of the establishment of a Minister of State for Climate Action and the need to appropriately staff that office. This year that amount is $263,000.

R. Fleming: I wish we had more time to spend on that area and others, but I want to move on a little bit and just ask about internal audits, external audits possibly, that are being conducted on any area of the ministry or ministry programs or agencies that you work with. Are there any that are currently underway, and if so, what are the reasons for those audits that are being conducted?

Hon. B. Penner: The ministry is not aware of any unusual outside audits being conducted — certainly not any by the office of the comptroller general. Every year, I'm told, there's a standard audit performed by the Auditor General's staff on all ministries at the end of year to provide assurance that the balances to be reported at the Public Accounts are accurate and that the system of financial controls within the ministry is adequate. I'm advised that the most recent audit indicated that no material concerns were identified.

There is an article today. I'm not sure if this is what the member is alluding to. There is a reference in a Vancouver Sun article today by reporter Larry Pynn about an employee within the Ministry of Environment being let go due to some concerns around financial issues. That matter has been referred to the RCMP for further investigation.

[1545]

At this point, I'm advised that I should probably not say anything more out of interest of not jeopardizing or compromising the ongoing RCMP investigation related to that matter.

R. Fleming: I want to just switch over now to talk about species-at-risk initiatives. The throne speech this year committed the minister to undertake or lead a species-at-risk task force that will report out to government with recommendations by June 2010. Obviously, it will have a number of measurable outcomes attached to it, recommendations. I wanted to ask the minister a couple of questions around this.

The throne speech was some months ago, so surely there's been some work done. As far as I know, the task force has not been named yet, but if I'm wrong, the minister can inform me otherwise.

I'm just wondering if the minister can make some comments on the timeliness of the species-at-risk task force. This is something that conservation organizations…. It's something that the opposition has worked on and tabled legislation a couple of years ago. It's that the task force has been named now, this fall, and will report out next year. If the minister could just maybe describe the scope and terms of reference for the committee that he has been asked be produced.

Hon. B. Penner: Maybe I'll just start my answer by referencing what the throne speech commitment in August was. The quote from the throne speech is as follows: "A species-at-risk task force will be established to report out to the government with recommendations by June 2010. Following the example of our climate initiative, it will be asked to suggest a new defining vision with an overarching measurable outcome that British Columbians can work together to achieve within the next decade."

It's a matter that is currently under active consideration and discussion within government. We are working on the terms of reference as well as the composition of the task forces. I hope to have something to say about this in the near future — something further, that is.

R. Fleming: I asked the minister about the timing of the announcement that was in the throne speech. The minister was minister in 2007, when there was a Wildlife Act review. The government specifically decided that species at risk not be included in the policy dialogue that it was conducting with respect to wildlife at that time.

I want to ask the minister: why did he not include species at risk in that review in 2007?

[1550]

The Chair: Committee A will recess for three minutes.

The committee recessed from 3:52 p.m. to 4:03 p.m.

[H. Bloy in the chair.]

Hon. B. Penner: When we cast our minds back to 2007, when the Wildlife Act review was underway, government had just approved and launched the new conservation framework, which is a tool to help wildlife managers and people within the ministry and outside the ministry identify where we should place our priorities in terms of dedicating government resources for identifying priority species and ecosystems for conservation.

The framework assigns key actions to each priority species and ecosystem, based on the best conservation
[ Page 2386 ]
science available and best estimation of what is required to maintain or recover the species.

The framework was intended to improve our performance by allowing us to act sooner, before species and ecosystems become at risk; to act smarter by following a preventative, science-based conservation approach; and to act and invest in a more coordinated way to make sure that we are aligning our resources with the highest conservation priorities.

[1605]

At the time, I know that the conservation framework was greeted generally by…. Well, it was well received. I think the experience has shown in the last two years that it's been an effective additional tool for government.

I'm not sure I completely accept the member's characterization of the Wildlife Act review and certainly not of the results, because we more than doubled the fines under the Wildlife Act for anyone convicted of deliberately harming or killing endangered species or species at risk. I'm going by memory now, but I believe that the maximum fine now is in the order of $500,000 and up to two years in jail if it's an endangered species.

If you're convicted of other types of wildlife offences, the maximum penalty is $250,000. But for anyone convicted of deliberately harming or killing endangered species, the penalty went up very significantly and, I believe, is now on par with the highest, or the highest, in Canada.

R. Fleming: I don't disagree with the minister about some of the compliance accomplishments of the act. Obviously, there were some good things in that review. Our concern and our reasons for asking about the species-at-risk task force that was announced in the throne speech — as to which we have no details yet here in mid-November — our intention of asking about that is because there have been missed opportunities in the past to provide real protection for species at risk.

I think the 2004 amendment act, to be fair, did list and make possible in regulation the listing of species at risk, but this has never been done. Then 2007 came along, and the Wildlife Act was reviewed again, and species at risk again were not included in the scope of that review. Now it's 2010. A lot of years can go by, and this is an opportunity to get it right.

The questions I want to ask about are on the scope of the task force and what it will be able to recommend. For example — and these are my actual questions to the minister for him to respond on the record to: will the task force cover habitat in the scope of the task force mandate? Will it look at the impact of resource extraction, the cumulative impact? Will it look at forestry? There was a recent Forest Practices Board report where there were concerns about increased harvesting in old-growth forests that have an effect on biodiversity, so will government policy regarding forestry be included as well? And will the task force be able to make recommendations to all government ministries?

Those are some things that I think are critically important to a task force that is going to accomplish what have been missed opportunities over the last six years. I'd be curious to see how the minister could answer whether the task force will have that within its review scope.

[1610]

Hon. B. Penner: As I indicated earlier, the terms of reference are under active consideration right now by government. I think that there's a very good likelihood that habitat, obviously, will be one of the factors that the task force will be asked to consider. Our government has done a lot to protect habitat on Crown land. More than 14 percent of the province now is protected by way of a park, a conservancy or an ecological reserve. That's our way of protecting the habitat and the land base in British Columbia.

But I think it's also important for members to know that when you hear about a significant number of endangered species in British Columbia, a large number of those are in the South Okanagan, and a lot of those in the South Okanagan are on private land, so the issue becomes increasingly not what we will be doing in addition to what we're already doing on Crown land but what additional restrictions we are going to contemplate for people undertaking activities on their privately owned land.

That's a change from what the focus of previous governments has typically been, which has been to protect the 94 percent or so of the province that is Crown land. Six percent of British Columbia is privately owned, and yet it's that 6 percent where a significant number of endangered species are found — again, often in the South Okanagan.

I want to quickly correct the record here, because I see that I misspoke when I talked about the fines — I was going by memory — under the changes to the Wildlife Act. Let me correct the record now. I'm reading from a backgrounder that states: "The maximum fine for the lowest type of offence in the Wildlife Act has been doubled from $25,000 to $50,000. For the most serious offences, such as killing an endangered species, the maximum fine has been increased from $100,000 to $250,000" — so more than a doubling — "with the maximum imprisonment term doubled from one year to two years. These increases will give the courts more flexibility in sentencing provisions." Those amendments were, in part, the outcome of the Wildlife Act review.

I also want to just add, while we're on the topic, that I think we have had some notable successes with respect to endangered species in British Columbia. We have now completed recovery strategies for 67 species at risk, and recovery planning for an additional 70 species is also
[ Page 2387 ]
underway. We are implementing a $3.4 million, five-year action plan to recover B.C.'s northern spotted owl through captive breeding, and conservation of 363,000 hectares of habitat that have been identified specifically as important for the owl.

Members on the Island will also be familiar with the Vancouver Island marmot recovery project. There's a significant increase now in the number of those animals. I think that by the late 1990s we were down to 80. Today I'm told that there are somewhere in the range of 255. They're still not — pardon the expression — out of the woods, but the trend is encouraging, and more work will be done.

Last year we also announced new actions — I think it was last year — for the mountain caribou, including protection for, I think, 2.2 million hectares of habitat for the mountain caribou and a number of other measures that we're still proceeding with or implementing, including restrictions on off-road vehicle use, closures and some restrictions on forest-harvesting activity.

It is a difficult balance to strike, because it can have an impact on local economies in areas like Revelstoke and the Kootenays. But on the other hand, we also feel the imperative to take steps to protect the mountain caribou.

These are a number of the activities that the Ministry of Environment has been intimately involved in over the last few years. The concept, again, behind the species-at-risk framework, though, is to try and identify which species we want to prioritize and take those steps sooner, hopefully, before species become listed on various colour-coded lists of whatever variety, so that we do not have to take the recovery steps but can head it off at the pass before it gets to that point.

[1615]

R. Fleming: At the same time that the government has announced the setting up of the species-at-risk task force, they've cut funding for one of B.C.'s species at risk, and I'm speaking about the Island marmot in particular. We learned this summer that the Ministry of Environment is cutting the funding for the marmot recovery program. That is in addition to other wildlife rehabilitation programs across British Columbia, so I wanted to ask the minister about that inconsistency.

On the one hand, he has charged a task force to make recommendations to him. On the other hand, existing efforts that he just highlighted as government accomplishments a minute ago are being cut.

If he could, in particular, respond to my question about the Island marmot program. How did he, as minister, sign off on that cut when he was told by funding partners — including the private sector, including Island Timberlands who own private lands where marmot habitat exists — that the minister would be walking away from co-funding that program?

Hon. B. Penner: I think the member is incorrect when he characterizes the ministry as "walking away" from partnering in this program. In fact, we continue to partner with the program for marmot recovery.

In addition to the funding that we've provided in previous years, which is considerable — I think that it amounts to $1.8 million since our government took office in 2001 — this year we contacted the Marmot Foundation to find out how much funding they would require to continue to do what they needed to do to keep on track with the recovery project.

[1620]

We've already been through this. The government revenues are down, and ministry budgets are down as a result of that, save and except for the Ministry of Education, Children and Families and the Ministry of Health. Other ministries have seen decreases because the government revenues have gone down, and our government thinks we have to be fiscally prudent.

At the same time, we also want to make sure we're continuing to fund important programs such as the marmot recovery program. After contacting them and having some discussion, our ministry, in addition to providing $44,000 worth of support from the conservation corps program, also provided a grant of $68,000 this year from the Ministry of Environment to the Marmot Recovery Foundation.

For the member's benefit, I'll read the following letter into the record — dated August 21, 2009 — from Jim Walker, chair of the Marmot Recovery Foundation, addressed to my deputy minister.

"Thank you for advising us of the government's commitment this year to the marmot recovery program. This is good news, indeed, and the amount you specified will allow us to continue the program almost as planned and meet the major benchmarks laid out in the recovery strategy. We'll have to sharpen our pencils, but again, we can appreciate that the government will demand this of all contribution recipients in this poor economic climate.

"It is especially gratifying that this contribution allows us to maintain the four-way funding partnership among government, TimberWest, Island Timberlands and our thousands of individual donors in continuing the support and work for another year. Hopefully this partnership will remain viable for the remaining years of the recovery program after 2009.

"I know the government places a high value on performance measurement for any of its expenditures. We are pleased to report that as we near the end of the summer season, the wild marmot population will have increased to about 210 to 230, with another 185 in captivity, up from a low of about 20 to 30 in the wild in the 1980s. About 60 of the captive population held in the breeding facilities will be released this summer.

"Strathcona Park, where the animals were extirpated over 40 years ago, now has five new pups from adults released in 2007. There are now marmots on 24 Vancouver Island mountains.

"Again, our thanks to you and the minister for 'carrying our colours' on this important ecological program in a year that is critical to its success.

"I attach an addendum that the minister might find useful if he has to respond to the media. If you require more just give me a call at…."

The phone number is provided.
[ Page 2388 ]

R. Fleming: I think that the Island marmot recovery program has said otherwise on the public record, as well, and after the date of the letter the minister just read into the record. They are, in particular, concerned about next year. Because they have reserves that could keep them going for the time being, it's the next fiscal year. As we've canvassed earlier, this is a budget that covers three years and contains budget cuts throughout the ministry over three fiscal years. That is a real concern that will not diminish.

I wanted to ask the minister one more question about this species-at-risk task force before I turn it over to my colleague the deputy critic for Environment, and that is about the comparison in the throne speech to the Climate Action Team. There was a direct reference that this task force will be similar to the Climate Action Team.

The Climate Action Team submitted a report to government, the vast majority of which — their recommendations — has been completely ignored to date. I know that there are a lot of people who put time and energy into that process who were disappointed that that has been the case.

What assurances can the minister give to whoever his appointees are going to be to the species-at-risk task force that their recommendations are going to carry weight, that they are going to be followed up on and that they are going to be incorporated into what is long-overdue species-at-risk legislation in British Columbia at some point in the future?

[1625]

Hon. B. Penner: I thoroughly and completely reject the member's characterization of the Climate Action Team, the work they did and government's response.

It wasn't this side of the Legislature that campaigned against putting an economy-wide price on carbon emissions. It wasn't this side of the House that said they would support cap-and-trade legislation and then voted against it, to a person, when it came up for a vote in the House. That's what the NDP members did, to a person. It's not this side of the House that's calling for a moratorium on investment in new non-emitting sources of energy such as wind power, tidal, biomass or run-of-river small hydro projects.

It's the NDP opposition that is continuing today to object to virtually every step that can be taken to significantly reduce carbon emissions by putting a price on carbon and by facilitating a transition from fossil fuel–based economy to an economy that makes greater use of things like electricity coming from renewable sources.

Much discussion takes place about whether in a particular year we're a net importer or exporter of electricity, which completely misses the point that 75 percent of all energy consumed in the province comes from fossil fuels. If we really want to start taking a serious bite out of that fossil fuel consumption, we need a significant expansion in our capability of producing renewable, non-emitting electricity so that we can reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

One way we have done that, and I know some members on the other side of the House objected, was to make it very clear to the Utilities Commission and B.C. Hydro that Burrard Thermal, an aging 1962-era fossil fuel power plant in the Lower Mainland, should not continued to be relied upon as a baseload of power supply.

That's something we campaigned on in 2001, 2005 and 2009. It's something that our government delivered on just a few weeks ago by giving that very clear direction that it's fine to have Burrard Thermal for emergency backup uses, but it is not to be used as a baseload supply of electricity. We want to find ways of generating additional sources of electricity in this province without having a net increase in greenhouse gas emissions or, in the case of the Lower Mainland, increasing particulate matter for humans that have to breathe the air in that already, sometimes, constrained airshed.

The task force that will be appointed in the near future to give us advice about how to proceed with respect to further actions to protect endangered species in British Columbia will draw upon the experience and the learning we had through the Climate Action Team process, which I think by any measure drew upon a wide array of expertise and produced some world-leading work and advice. It's something that our government is very proud of. I look forward to receiving recommendations from the species-at-risk task force as well.

M. Sather: Well, I think what the people of British Columbia are wanting to know is what year — or what decade, maybe — we're going to have stand-alone species-at-risk legislation in B.C.

I want to ask the minister about mountain caribou. I did try, in case the minister wonders, to canvass the Minister of Forests about this. He said it should be referred to the Minister of Environment, but there is crossover.

The Minister of Forests has talked recently about the need for commercial forest reserves and the possibility that some environmental restrictions could be lifted on those reserves.

Old-growth management areas are an essential part of the mountain caribou recovery strategy. They're critical for biodiversity. Can the minister assure the House that the commercial forest reserves will not include old-growth management areas?

[1630]

Hon. B. Penner: I appreciate the member's question about the mountain caribou. Just to elaborate a bit more on something that I said earlier in response to a question around endangered species generally, I can specify that the ministry has protected approximately 2.2 million hectares of mountain caribou habitat from roadbuilding and logging, implemented snowmobile closures over approxi-
[ Page 2389 ]
mately one million hectares of mountain caribou habitat and established section 16 Land Act reserves that restrict or prevent the development of new heli-ski and cat-ski tenures throughout the existing range of mountain caribou.

Now, whatever other actions take place in the future, our government is not going to deliberately undertake measures that will compromise our recovery objectives for the mountain caribou. That remains a top government priority.

M. Sather: Caribou in some caribou management areas are in grave danger of being wiped out. For example, the 2009 census of the South Purcell herd found only 14 caribou. This is a disastrous drop from about 70 caribou in this herd in the 1990s.

[1635]

Also, the Columbia South herd has dropped from 20 to 13 in the last year. Augmentation from other herds has been suggested but has not taken place. Can the minister explain what's going on there and why these transplants from other areas have not taken place?

Hon. B. Penner: This is a matter that's under active work right now with the ministry. I am advised that ministry staff are pursuing the idea of augmenting or transplanting certain numbers of mountain caribou from one region of the province to the areas that the member referred to.

But the member will also appreciate that there is a challenge, because that means you have to find a mountain caribou population or herd that is suitable for having numbers of their herd removed and forcibly taken elsewhere. That engages a number of first nations concerns. For first nations in the areas where the herds may be transplanted and moved to another location, that raises some concerns. Obviously, consultation is required, and hopefully, we can reach some agreement on that.

The other perplexing challenge is that as long as there are significant issues around predators, ministry staff have concerns about taking caribou from one part of the province where they are doing relatively well to another part of the province where predators may make quick work of newcomers to their territory.

With the newcomers perhaps not being as familiar with the territory or the inherent risks from predators in that new area, their life span may be short. The overall objectives of augmentation may not be met if the newcomers, the transplanted animals, don't have time to acclimatize and do what we would like them to do, which is perpetuate the species — find a partner and make more mountain caribou.

Obviously, our goal here is to try and do things in a way that is successful for the herds, but it's not an easy problem to solve.

M. Sather: The minister mentioned heli-skiing a little while ago. Given that some of these populations are near extirpation, why not just close heli-ski operations in those parts of the mountain caribou range where they're in danger of being extirpated?

[1640]

Hon. B. Penner: The ministry has been working with the heli-ski operators to find ways that their practices can be changed. I think it's fair to say that nobody wants to harm the mountain caribou, at least as far as I know.

We have actually found the sector to be reasonably receptive to our suggestions, and I'm told that a new set of guidelines has just been agreed to and implemented. I'm told that my deputy, Mr. Konkin — who I should have introduced a long time ago, seated to my right — just signed off on those new guidelines for heli-ski operations in mountain caribou territory a short while ago.

If the member is suggesting that another form of economic activity should be stopped entirely in a part of the province that's already hurting from the downturn in the forest sector, he may want to take that up with his colleague the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke, who hardly misses an opportunity to complain about the state of the economy in his part of the province and to ask the government to do something about it.

We've already taken steps to implement tighter controls on forest activity within the range of the mountain caribou. That has an economic impact. At some point that will probably have an impact on jobs. But on balance, that's something that our government has decided to do.

We've also taken steps, working collaboratively with the heli-ski industry, to get them to change some of their practices. As I've said, we've just concluded some new guidelines for them to follow to protect the mountain caribou but still allow some economic activity to occur so that people can have a living when they live in places like Revelstoke, Golden or other parts of rural British Columbia. People still need to make a living if they're going to live outside of the Lower Mainland.

M. Sather: That was rather an extraordinary statement from the minister. I thought the job of the Minister of Environment was to protect wildlife. Certainly, I would hope that's what he's proposing or supporting at the cabinet table.

I guess I'd get the same answer, but what about snowmobiles in those areas, which are also having a great impact on the area? They make it possible for wolves to reach mountain caribou at high elevations where deep snow often makes it impossible for wolves to travel otherwise.

In the Revelstoke area, for example, there are some voluntary agreements. If they're really concerned about preserving these caribou, why doesn't the minister have legislated closures for snowmobiles in those areas? Or are we just going to let them go in the name of economic development, I guess, according to the minister?
[ Page 2390 ]

Hon. B. Penner: I'm tempted to offer the member a remedial tutorial in the actions we have taken in mountain caribou.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

I know that he does come from the Lower Mainland, but it would help him to get apprised of the actions we have taken.

A Voice: Where do you come from?

Hon. B. Penner: I do come from the Lower Mainland, and I've done my homework. I would commend the member to do the same, because we have taken legal action to close one million hectares to snowmobile use in the mountain caribou range. That is something that the member, if he had been listening, would have heard me say just a few minutes ago. So I'm happy to repeat it for the member.

We are taking unprecedented steps to protect wildlife in British Columbia. It was an NDP cabinet minister who wrote to the forest union, the IWA, to say that as long as the NDP was in office and he was a minister, there would never be legislation to protect endangered species in British Columbia. That was Moe Sihota.

Our government has a different view. We are taking steps to protect all forms of wildlife in British Columbia, and at times that does have an impact on the forest sector. No question about it. But imagine our chagrin when, on the one hand, members of the NDP say, "Why don't you do more to help the forest industry?" and then another one of their members says, "Why don't you shut down economic activity?" — whether it's forestry or snowmobiling or heli-skiing, tourism opportunities that help generate jobs in rural communities.

The members of the NDP opposition still haven't figured out that in order to have funding to provide things like environmental protection, you also need to have an operating economy.

[1645]

Our government believes that we can achieve both objectives. We can maintain a vibrant economy that provides important dollars for environmental protection, health care, education, policing, forest fire fighting, transportation, roads and all the other things that people have come to expect and enjoy. But we have to do that by making sure that we continue to have an economy. If you don't have an economy, you don't have dollars to invest in everything from health care to everything else that people want.

Certainly, I would like to see us continue to generate a strong economy so it can continue to fund key environmental initiatives that are important for species in this province and for the people that live here as well.

M. Sather: The minister has just said that in order to maintain recreational activities…. They're going to maintain those recreational activities despite the effect that those might have on an endangered species, and he wants us to believe that this government is serious about endangered species. Hardly.

I want to move on to another issue, and that's about wolves and the harvest of wolves and wolf control in British Columbia. I am told by local hunters in the Cariboo that the government encourages them to kill wolves. I've heard that on northern Vancouver Island the government is using legal harvest as a management tool.

Can the minister comment on what their strategy is around legal wolf harvest? Is it to increase the kill? Do they consider that there are too many wolves in the province? I think there's a two-wolf bag limit on the Island. What is the strategy around the legal harvest of wolves vis-à-vis conservation?

Hon. B. Penner: The member — I just go back to what his last comment was — is misrepresenting what I said. He's clearly not listening. I guess we can't force people to listen or to understand. But as I've already indicated, we have taken legal steps to close approximately one million hectares of mountain caribou habitat to snowmobile use. I don't know how much clearer I can make it for the member. If he doesn't want to pay attention, I guess that's up to him.

We've established section 16 Land Act reserves restricting or preventing the development of new heli-ski and cat-ski tenures throughout the existing range of the mountain caribou, and we have taken steps on 2.2 million hectares of mountain caribou habitat from road-building and logging. Compare that to what the NDP did when they were in government — nothing, Mr. Chair, when it comes to mountain caribou.

In terms of predator control, we take our advice from scientists, so there's a 14-member mountain caribou science team that's been put in place. Now, I'm not sure if the member is asking that we take his advice over the advice of this 14-member mountain caribou science team.

If that's what the member is suggesting that the government do, then the member should clearly state that he's taking that position and he speaks for the official opposition — that the government should no longer take our advice in terms of how to manage and improve the outcomes for mountain caribou from the 14-member mountain caribou science team.

It would be interesting to see if the member has the courage of his convictions and is willing to state that for the record — that we shouldn't follow the advice of that team.

M. Sather: The minister will know from the letters he's got that there are many biologists that have a different opinion about caribou management and wolf management.
[ Page 2391 ]

Actually, my question was, as the minister will recall, on the legal harvest of wolves: what's the strategy of the government vis-à-vis conservation? I'm told that it's increased. Can the minister comment on that?

[1650]

Hon. B. Penner: I'm told that we manage the wolf populations and set the hunting limits the same way we do for other species in British Columbia. The bag limits will vary by region depending on the health of the population and depending on other management objectives, particularly mountain caribou.

[1655]

I noted earlier that one of the challenges that we're faced with in considering augmenting some of the smaller herds is the threat from predators that newcomers, transplanted animals, would have in being confronted not only by new terrain but perhaps new predators that may make short work of them.

So we have a management approach to setting harvest levels for wolves that is the same as for other species, with the exception that when it comes to wolves, they tend to be predators of other species that we're trying to protect, which are the mountain caribou in this case.

M. Sather: I want to move on to the spotted owl. I have quite a few questions, but the time is very short, so I'll just ask a couple of short ones, and hopefully the minister will answer likewise.

Will the government commit to a minimum recovery of 250 spotted owls, as called for by the federal species-at-risk legislation?

Hon. B. Penner: Just by way of background, it's true that the spotted owl has been declining in numbers not just in British Columbia, which is at the northern extent of its traditional range, but even in the heart of its traditional territory in Oregon, northern California and Washington State, jurisdictions where there is federal endangered species legislation.

Clearly, extra steps had to be taken. That's why we did move forward with a recovery plan that the government is committed to. We're in year 4 now of a five-year action plan to help recover the spotted owl's numbers here in British Columbia. I'm told that as of this year we had four pairs of spotted owls from B.C. in captivity for breeding. There has been some success with that. I believe one owl chick was produced in 2009, and that was only the second captive-born spotted owl in British Columbia and in Canada.

[1700]

We are working with our partners south of the border, who are also engaged in attempts at spotted owl recovery through captive breeding. Because of the limited number of spotted owls currently in B.C. — and therefore the limited gene pool — we may be doing some cross-border matchmaking to try and further the reproductive process.

Interjection.

Hon. B. Penner: The member for Victoria–Swan Lake suggests Internet dating. That might be one way to do this in a low-carbon way, but I'm not sure we've actually thought about that at this point.

However, the government is continuing to work with the federal government, trying to meet their objectives, and pursuing this project. It's not easy. We had, as I said, four pairs in captivity. It had been my hope that we'd have, at least, four offspring, one from each pair — but in fact, only one this year. That highlights again some of the challenges in trying to recover a species.

M. Sather: On the marbled murrelet. The marbled murelet recovery team has asked for preservation of 85 percent of the marbled murrelets' critical habitat. Does the government support that view? Does the minister support that view, and is he working with his colleagues, such as the Minister of Forests, to achieve that goal?

Hon. B. Penner: We're just trying to put our fingers on some notes about what the government is doing with respect to the marbled murrelet. I know it's one of the four wide-ranging species that we've been working to recover — spotted owl, marbled murrelet, mountain caribou. I think there's one other. It's a skill-testing question, and I'll have to get back to you on that.

[1705]

In any event, the government has undertaken considerable work, primarily through the establishment of additional protected areas, to protect the habitat for the marbled murrelet.

Now, it's been some time since I was briefed in detail on their unique challenges, but I think the last thing I remember hearing is that there's a certain mystery about what happens to the birds once they go out to sea, where they feed. It was thought that something happening out at sea may be having a contributing effect on the success of that particular species — i.e., perhaps they were encountering greater challenges in finding sufficient food to bring back to their young or to feed themselves.

I don't have any information right at the moment. Perhaps I can get back to the member tomorrow morning when I'll have some further information.

M. Sather: Well, I had another question about marbled murrelets at Bute Inlet, but I'll maybe pass on that for now.

I wanted to ask the minister a little bit about the conflict between grizzly bear viewing and grizzly bear harvest that has arisen in a couple of areas up the coast, but I'm thinking particularly in the Kootenays.
[ Page 2392 ]

One of the articles talked about an individual, a Mr. Strauss, who has an operation up there for grizzly bear viewing. He said that the biologist in question in the area, Mr. Mowat, had told Mr. Strauss that proposed extensions of the hunt — that was the issue — was an issue between the government and the hunters and no one else. Does the minister agree with that statement from his employee?

Hon. B. Penner: I can't comment specifically on the quote or comment that the member is referring to because I haven't seen it. I don't have it in writing in front of me. I can say generally that the ministry does try to take into account, when establishing harvest activity regulations for hunting various species, the existence of tenures that operators may have, whether it's for viewing wildlife or for other activities.

[1710]

That can, at times, lead to spot closures in specific locations as a result of the existence of existing tenures or other forms of licences of occupation or operations on the land base. But our overarching objective when setting harvest levels is to make sure that they're set in a way that provides for a sustainable hunt.

So we are quite conservative in how harvest levels are set for grizzly bears, the species that the member is referring to specifically. I believe the best available science indicates that grizzly bears can sustain up to 9 percent mortality per year, and we set our harvest levels at a much lower level than that, I think at between 4 percent to 6 percent; perhaps it's 6 percent. But when the actual success rate on the part of hunters is taken into account, the actual mortality is somewhere more like around 2 percent from hunting.

M. Sather: I don't think that the government really has a good handle on what the mortality is because a lot of mortality is not reported, unfortunately, especially when it comes to someone who considers the bear a threat.

Lastly in that regard, Mr. Strauss also claimed that the ministry consulted only with hunters groups on the hunting extension plan and refused to include input from ecotourism operators in the decision-making process, which is at odds with what the minister just said that they'd try to do.

So has the minister…? I mean, this was in the news. Has he consulted with his biologist out there, or has his ADM or deputy minister? Is that, in fact, true — that the regional biologist refused to consult, or the ministry did, with the ecotourism operators about the extension of the grizzly bear hunt, and if so, why?

Hon. B. Penner: My general previous answer stands. We are not in a position to answer the specific question that the member raises based on hearsay or whatever the member is referring to. We have not seen in writing what the member is talking about.

V. Huntington: I just wanted to say to the minister…. I've been listening with great interest in this discussion on the species-at-risk task force and on your conservation framework. I just wanted to ask before proceeding with my questions: is the conservation framework in place, or is it being developed at the moment?

Hon. B. Penner: I appreciate the member's interest in these budget estimate debates. The framework was launched in 2007, and it is in place today.

V. Huntington: Therefore, there is a system. Could I ask, then…? The system is in place now in which the ministry looks at habitats that are endangered, vegetation that's endangered, species that are endangered. Is there a process in place in which the ministry examines these and determines what activities may or may not take place on those ecosystems and in relation to endangered species?

[1715]

Hon. B. Penner: The short answer is yes.

The longer answer is as follows. The framework provides a set of science-based tools to determine conservation priorities and the most appropriate management actions for species and ecosystems. The conservation framework takes into account climate change and existing conservation work, and it has been endorsed by the scientific community and a number of environmental groups, including the World Wildlife Fund.

The conservation framework has already guided nearly $900,000 worth of new wildlife conservation projects across the province, including habitat protection, inventory recovery strategies and action plans for species at risk.

Conservation is not new to the province. It's something that we've been doing for a considerable period of time, particularly in forestry, but also in other resource sectors, such as mining. Particularly, under the Forest and Range Practices Act and regulations developed thereto, there are significant restrictions on the Crown land base that are in force and effect. What is kind of the point of contention is what further restrictions or limitations should be placed on private land in British Columbia.

V. Huntington: I just want to ask a series of questions. Are there regulations attached to this framework which guide the ministry in its decision-making around this conservation framework, or is it just for individuals or businesses to work around in their own best interests? How do you administer this? What obligations are inherent on the ministry as a result of this framework?
[ Page 2393 ]

Hon. B. Penner: I would say that in a nutshell the goal of the conservation framework is to help us to prioritize our conservation efforts for those species that are deemed to be the greatest conservation concern.

Then we identify what tools are needed to be used in order to accomplish the goal of looking after that particular species or ecosystem that may be deemed to be at risk. This can include inventory work, providing advice to statutory decision-makers — for example, in the Ministry of Forests the regional managers are the statutory decision-makers for a variety of applications for cutting tenures, etc. — and, as well, providing advice through the environmental assessment process when projects are proposed. It's meant to be a tool to help guide our decision-making process across government.

[1720]

V. Huntington: Perhaps I'll get right to the crux of my concern here. If it's used as a tool to guide the environmental assessment process and you have a situation where a species thought to be extirpated is located, and you have a situation where that area where the species was located is now red-listed habitat, how do you deal with that as a responsible authority during the environmental assessment process? How would you look at that in relationship to the application itself?

Hon. B. Penner: If I understood the member's question correctly, she wants to know how the EAO responds to project proposals where, within the project area, a red-listed species is identified. I'm advised by the kind gentleman here from the environmental assessment office that the proponent would be required to propose mitigation strategies. Various experts that work on our project review panel…

A Voice: Work group.

Hon. B. Penner: …work group, which includes federal and provincial agencies, would provide their comments on whether those mitigative measures that are proposed by the proponent would be suitable or adequate.

V. Huntington: The minister is the responsible authority, the person approving the certificate. Does the minister ever look beyond the discussion at the EAO level, given that it's a ministerial approval? Do you ever go beyond that discussion?

[1725]

Hon. B. Penner: It's an integral part of the B.C. environmental assessment review process that public consultation is undertaken. Everyone is entitled, if they like, to submit comments and observations about proposals that are under an environmental assessment review.

The staff at the environmental assessment office track those public comments. They'll provide a listing of those comments as well as a summary in binders that end up looking kind of like these ones here. Those are binders that get forwarded to ministers that have to make a decision. That involves, obviously, the Minister of Environment of the day but also usually a minister of a ministry that is seen as either sponsoring or in some way affiliated with a sector of the economy where that proposal is coming from.

In the case of a transportation project, it would be the Minister of Environment and the Minister of Transportation who would both have to sign off on an environmental assessment certificate for the project to be allowed to proceed. Certainly, public consultation is part of the environmental assessment office review process, and at times there can be a lot of it. There can be quite a few binders, like this one, of public commentary on any particular proposal.

V. Huntington: Well, thank you. I think I'll maybe be a little bit more specific, then, because I'm fairly familiar with the environmental assessment process. What I'm not too familiar with is how that process finally ends up in the minister's office and what the minister himself and the minister's close staff do to review those environmental documents prior to signing off on the certificate.

I mean, the environmental assessment office is one stage, but the Environment Minister is the final stage at the certificate approval. I guess I'm going back to: how does the conservation framework unfold in terms of the decision-making at the ministerial level?

If I took, for instance, the Delta South issue of the South Fraser perimeter road, there is an approval to put the road through red-listed habitat for a species thought extirpated, and the habitat is very minimal. It cannot be mitigated. It cannot be compensated. It is gone when the road goes through.

I'm trying to find out how the ministry itself looks at that process and determines that you can indeed make the decision to remove habitat from the face of the earth. It can't be mitigated. So I'm trying to figure out how the ministry involves itself in this process at the final stage, when it reviews those documents and makes those decisions and signs off on the certificate.

Hon. B. Penner: Could the member indicate for the record what species she's referring to?

V. Huntington: Yes. It's the red-backed vole. It is not a cougar; it is not a majestic grizzly bear. But it is a species thought extirpated in British Columbia.

[1730]

Hon. B. Penner: To help answer the member's curiosity about the process, when the environmental assessment
[ Page 2394 ]
office concludes their review of a project they'll put their materials, recommendations, legal summaries and other things together — including summaries of public consultation — in binders that look like this prop that I'm not holding up that ministers get to take home and read at their leisure. In my case, it's in my living room. So if you ever come over, don't expect to find a place to sit on my couch, because it's occupied already with binders.

Those binders contain all kinds of summaries, advice and recommendations from the environmental assessment office staff, which in turn incorporates input from federal and provincial agencies, whether it's the Canadian Wildlife Service, Environment Canada, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, the Ministry of Environment and various divisions within the Ministry of Environment, the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands, at times even the agricultural land reserve.

All of those different agencies provide their advice and input. That gets summarized and put into binders for ministers to digest before making a decision. Ministers can make one of three decisions upon receiving the recommendations from the environmental assessment office.

The ministers can ask for more information — effectively a time-out, asking for more details. I think I've done that with respect to one project. The ministers can also reject a proposal, or they can accept the proposal with conditions. Frequently, the environmental assessment certificates have numerous conditions attached, which form the basis upon which that project may proceed.

G. Gentner: I'd like the minister, if he can, to confirm whether or not he attended a meeting on February 9, 2009, with Intergovernmental Relations and other cabinet ministers — a briefing meeting with delegation relative to Shankers Bend.

Hon. B. Penner: I don't recall.

G. Gentner: Seven days after the meeting briefing cabinet members, the deadline for FERC's submission for intervener status, Shankers Bend, had expired. Can the minister explain why he did not pursue that matter and become an intervener on behalf of the province?

Hon. B. Penner: The member is referring to a proposal by the public utility district in a part of eastern Washington State to commission some studies looking at the potential for one of three options: a low-head run-of-river-type project, a medium-sized dam or what is referred to as the high dam proposal.

Discussions around these various options are not new. I believe the first time it was entertained and seriously discussed was in the 1920s, so almost 90 years or so ago was the first time that these proposals were under active consideration.

Interest on the U.S. side of the border has waxed and waned over the decades, with renewed interest in the late '30s, I think, as a part of economic stimulus; waned during the 1940s while interest was directed towards fighting and winning World War II; renewed interest again in the 1950s; not so much in the 1960s; a bit more in the '70s; a bit more in the '80s; again a little bit in the '90s, not so much; and then back again for more discussion.

[H. Bloy in the chair.]

I have been involved in this matter for a couple years now, from when I first heard that the public utility district — I think it's called Okanogan County, pronounced the same but spelled differently from our Okanagan — in Washington State was requesting funding from the Department of Ecology in Washington State to pursue some studies.

I've engaged with the now former Director of Ecology in Washington State, Jay Manning, to indicate that the B.C. government would not support the high dam proposal. We don't feel that that is an acceptable project, considering the impact that that project would have on our side of the border. I believe that's a position supported by local first nations and others.

[1735]

This spring we did retain legal counsel because, in order for the studies to be undertaken, approval had to be granted by the U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, or FERC, headquartered in Washington, D.C.

I pause here to note that the U.S. regulatory process is considerably different than the Canadian process. So we retained legal counsel in the United States that assisted us ably in fighting the Sumas 2 power project. It's the same lawyer that we hired in Seattle, David Bricklin, who provided us with advice about how to engage in this matter and helped us draft our intervention pleadings. Then he filed them on our behalf.

We subsequently learned that FERC had already approved the study, and in their mind, the matter was closed. They said that there were no active proceedings at the moment. If there were to be an interest in proceeding further on the part of the public utility district, the utility district would have to come forward again to FERC to take any additional steps or studies. The B.C. government, at that time, would be in its right to seek intervener status.

I have subsequently written back to FERC, the U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and indicated that it is the B.C. government's intention to seek intervener status if this matter should come up again.

Depending on who you ask south of the border, the studies won't be complete for either a short period of time or a much longer period of time. I've been given conflicting advice on that from people south of the border. But suffice to say, the B.C. government's position
[ Page 2395 ]
is very clear. We've articulated it to my counterpart in Washington State, as well as to the U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. I think just a few weeks ago I wrote a letter to the public utility district directly to explain our opposition to their high dam proposal.

G. Gentner: Obviously, the government's on position now that it is opposed to the high dam proposal that would flood the Similkameen. But clearly, the minister's also on record that he's not necessarily opposed to the medium dam proposal or the low dam proposal, which could still have adverse habitat issues, particularly in the estuary of the Similkameen River.

What I want to raise with the minister is the following. I read from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers that states: "Development of new water storage sites on Similkameen River in Canada has been considered. A new Canadian investigation for a Similkameen River dam is currently underway. Coordinated operation of any of the above Washington sites, in conjunction with the Canadian water storage facility under consideration, shall be evaluated."

Can I ask the minister what facility is being considered, north of the 49th, relative to damming on the Similkameen?

[1740]

Hon. B. Penner: Just trying to find some of the information related to the member's second question. But just for the record, I can provide a bit more amplification of the B.C. government's position with respect to the Shankers dam proposals, and I did say plural.

Here's what I said, in part, to the person named Kimberly D. Bose, a secretary at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, on August 27, 2009, by way of a letter:

"There are three proposals for the construction of hydroelectric power under consideration at Shankers Bend. The government of British Columbia has concerns regarding the potential impacts to our province.

"Under one 'high dam' proposal" — which I believe would be up to 80 metres high or 250 feet high — "the resulting 9,000 acres of flooded land in B.C. could cover two first nations reserves, provincial protected areas, a potential national grasslands park, valuable agricultural land and some forested areas. This area includes 16 listed species at risk under the Canadian federal Species at Risk Act. There is further concern about flooding in the Great Basin Desert, which contains many endangered species. We have related concerns with the other two proposals.

"Therefore, the province of British Columbia has a continued interest in project 12804-000, particularly if there are further proceedings with respect to this matter. If the Okanagan PUD" — I'll add here that that stands for public utility district — "files a development licence application in the FERC process, the Ministry of Environment will submit a motion to intervene at the earliest opportunity."

It's because of the obvious impact that the high dam proposal would have on the B.C. side of the border, as enunciated in the letter that I just quoted from, that the B.C. government was comfortable saying that we don't need to wait for full environmental review of that project.

Knowing the amount of area that would be inundated on the Canadian side of the border and the sensitive habitat in that Okanagan Valley, we took the view that that project was a non-starter from our perspective and have communicated that clearly and directly to our counterparts in Washington State, as well as to the U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

I have also pointed out, though, that the British Columbia government supports the responsible use and development of hydro power when projects are appropriately sited and designed to avoid unacceptable environmental impacts. But in our view, the high dam proposal does not fit those criteria. We know enough to say that clearly.

[1745]

If there are other proposals, including on the Canadian side of the border, for power generation, those projects would have to meet our standards. That is something that would be subject to our review process. Depending on the size of the project, not only would it need up to 50 different approvals and permits from 14 different government agencies, both federal and provincial, but it could also be subject to a complete B.C. environmental assessment process, something that we had some discussion about here a few minutes ago.

G. Gentner: I gather from the minister that the high dam is out but the medium dam is in, and it perhaps hinges on whether or not it offers opportunities of further damming up on the Canadian side.

Since the minister is busy reading letters, I have a…. Hatch Energy completed a report for Fortis, and they suggested that they can dam somewhere up by Princeton, British Columbia, in order to contribute to maintain the water flow. It's in tandem with what Washington State wants to do south of the 49th.

So I want to ask the minister a question. He obviously attended the B.C.-Washington cabinet meeting this fall, October 9, and was…. Well, my understanding is that Shankers Bend was part of the agenda with the joint cabinets. What type of agreement did B.C. come to with Washington State at that meeting, and what was discussed relative to Shankers Bend?

Hon. B. Penner: I have already told the member not once but, I think, twice that the province of B.C. has clearly articulated to the state of Washington what our view is with respect to the Shankers Bend proposal. We have expressed our outright opposition to the high dam proposal and also expressed our concerns about the other two proposals.

In fact, let me quote from the motion-to-intervene document, dated earlier this year; I think it was March 31, 2009. On page 4: "Under the low dam option, while there's no area within British Columbia anticipated to flood, the province has concerns as to how the dam
[ Page 2396 ]
could impact British Columbia in years of high water. For this reason, we believe careful consideration and environmental scrutiny is required before any decision is made regarding the low dam proposal…. Similarly, we believe appropriate scrutiny should be given to the possible run-of-river option."

That's the third option that has been proposed by the public utility district — or at least being studied. It is still very preliminary. I think it was a $300,000 study. Depending on what that study says…. And by the way, Washington State has committed to share with us the results of that study. That's something that I asked for, and director Jay Manning responded at the time and said that they would be more than happy to share that information with us.

We'll see what that says. That may well be the end of the matter. As I've noted at the outset, this has been a topic of discussion in that area for almost 100 years now, and it hasn't come to fruition. Nevertheless, we think it is important for us to remain vigilant, and that's why we have undertaken the work that we've done to date directly with Washington State as well as with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

If there is a proposal for a power generation facility on the Canadian side of the border, whether it's on the Similkameen River or any other watercourse in British Columbia, they would have to obtain numerous approvals and go through much scrutiny in order for that to happen.

G. Gentner: Moving quickly, I want to talk briefly about the Flathead. We had a United Nations delegation that met up with British Columbia. The overwhelming amount of people who attended were from the Ministry of Environment. My one quick question I have is: will the government agree to a non-staking reserve to all energy and mining activity in the entire Flathead River Valley?

[1750]

Hon. B. Penner: When it comes to dealing with the United Nations delegation that was here a month or two ago and discussions with the state of Montana, it's the Minister of State for Intergovernmental Relations that is the lead on the file, and I know that she has been actively involved in this matter.

I've had a chance to visit the Flathead Valley twice in my lifetime. The first time was 12 years ago. I think it was the summer of 1997. Again, I had a chance to go there, I believe, in September of this year — so 12 years later. The Flathead Valley looked much the same. Very little had changed in 12 years. It continues to be an area where numerous people recreate. There's hunting and fishing and some ATV use. There are forestry operations, although I suspect they've been reduced somewhat, given the recent market for our export products in lumber currently.

But the area looks much the same as it did when I was there 12 years ago. That is to say, it supports many forms of wildlife and much outdoor recreation. Certainly, that's something that we want to see continue. We want to continue to see the wildlife protected in a sustainable way, and also, we want to make sure that the water quality is protected. That's why we have stringent requirements and regulations in place for any forms of activity that are proposed in that area.

G. Gentner: Now the minister can slough off the responsibility to the Intergovernmental Relations Minister all he wants, but I want to bring it to the attention, just for the record….

Kathy Eichenberger, project assessment director, B.C. environmental assessment office, was there. Anthony Danks, executive director, strategic policy for B.C. Environment — he was there. Tom Ethier, director, fish and wildlife, Ministry of Environment — he attended. He was there at the meetings with the United Nations. Jody Frenette, hydrologist, environmental impact assessment biologist, Ministry of Environment — she was there. She gave a presentation.

We have Doug Martin, senior ecosystem specialist, Ministry of Environment. He was there. Carrie Morita, environmental impact assessment, Ministry of Environment — she was there.

Now, I'm counting the B.C. delegation, and it seems to me that 75 percent of the delegation representing B.C. was from this ministry. Yet the ministry refuses to talk about this issue. It sloughs it off to the minister. Now, I know time is limited, and boy, could we have fun with what's going on in the Flathead. The whole United Nations has decided to check it out because of the disgraceful attention this government has been placed and putting poor relationships with the state of Montana and others.

I suppose with the little time, I have very little opportunity to pursue this matter, which I was hopeful that we could be able to do here today. I suppose that my question to you is this, hon. Chair…. The province is on record. Mr. McLellan, who is an officer who works for the government, stated recently that he believes that there's a needed designation of this area to that of Purcell Wilderness Conservancy, and he believes that would be better than a national park.

I'd like to ask the minister why the government feels that. Why would it be better than a national park?

[1755]

Hon. B. Penner: Just to back up a little bit as to how we came to have a UN-sponsored delegation from UNESCO come to visit a part of British Columbia. This spring a number of environmental groups signed a petition to UNESCO asking that they add the international peace park to a list of world heritage sites deemed to be "in danger."
[ Page 2397 ]

There was a meeting that was held — I think it was in Barcelona, Spain, either in May or June of this year — of UNESCO, and the petition asked at that meeting that such a designation be added by UNESCO, saying that this part of the Flathead Valley was in danger.

It wasn't reported in the media, but in fact, UNESCO declined to make such a finding. It did not find that the area was considered to be in danger.

Alternatively, the government of Canada, I think, supported by the province of B.C., invited officials from UNESCO to come and see the area for themselves. We're proud of our environmental record in British Columbia. As I've already indicated, I've been to the Flathead area two times now, and it is an area that is spectacular. There's no question about it. So we were quite interested in having officials from UNESCO visit British Columbia.

But we also felt it was important that they take a look at what's happening south of the 49th parallel in the state of Montana. While the member here might want to pretend that Montana has got environmental standards that we should aspire to, I would choose to disagree.

[1800]

One notable observation is that they have only about 5 percent of their land base that's protected in the form of parks or protected areas, whereas in British Columbia we have almost three times that percentage but many more times that amount — many more millions of hectares — when you compare it in terms of actual amount of area covered by protected areas here in British Columbia. So I hardly think that we'll be in a position to take too many lectures from the conduct of officials south of the border.

I note that at the very time that the UNESCO delegation was visiting Montana, there was a U.S. federal court decision that had to do with grizzly bears. The judge specifically made comments that officials in Montana had to do more work to protect the grizzly bears in their state. By contrast, the grizzly bear populations in British Columbia are much more healthy.

We do have concerns in certain regions of the province, but the Flathead area is not one of them when it comes to the overall health of wildlife. We want to make sure that that wildlife is maintained, but certainly, when we compare what's happening on our side of the border to what has happened in Montana, we can all conclude that things have been much better from an environmental perspective.

Our goal as a government is to make sure that that continues to be the case. We want to continue to learn. We welcome the UNESCO officials. I'm sure they'll be making some comments in the near future, but certainly our environmental practices, I think, are top-rate.

Can we learn from others? Sure. We want to continue to learn from others, but we can also learn from others about how to not do things. I think some of the things that have taken place in the state of Montana are some of those things that we can learn not to do.

C. Trevena: I've got two questions on the environmental assessment process. In the interest of time, and in consideration of my colleagues, I'll try to wrap both of them up together. They are both relating to independent power projects.

The first is the Upper Toba hydroelectric project. I was listening to the minister talk to the member for Delta South about how complicated it is to have the environmental assessment project and how many folders and binders the minister has to deal with.

I just want to remind him that the Upper Toba hydro project involves three streams which are fish-bearing. In March 2009 DFO said that the requirements the proponent was seeking and the habitat destruction that would result from the proponent's design were unacceptable. A week later, March 16, the federal agencies withdrew from the environmental assessment, conducting their own process.

Three days later, on March 19, the EAO and the proponent apparently reached an agreement, and on March 20, one day later, the minister, I believe, signed off on that without taking the 45 days "to go through the binders." I'd like to ask the minister why it took only one day when there were, clearly, concerns from at least the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the federal proponents.

Likewise, I would like to know, on the Bute project, why the minister has decided that it shouldn't be working alongside the federal environmental assessment, but that the province is going its own way on environmental assessment as of May next year.

[1805-1810]

Hon. B. Penner: To address the member's questions about upper Toba, I think she said that ministers made a decision one day after receiving the package. That's incorrect. The project was referred to ministers with a recommendation for approval on March 20, 2009. The certificate was actually issued on March 31, 2009. It's 11 days.

The certificate contained 52 commitments to mitigate potential impacts, including maintaining sufficient in-stream flows to protect fish and fish habitat; minimizing channel erosion and fish stranding with flow ramping protocols; avoiding breeding birds, nesting habitats and mountain goat winter habitat; developing a grizzly bear monitoring plan to the satisfaction of the Ministry of Environment; and developing mitigation, compensation and monitoring plans in consultation with regulatory agencies.

The project was accepted for formal review on September 17, 2008. The environmental assessment office held a 56-day public comment period that ended on December 1, 2008. As already noted, the certificate was issued on March 31, 2009, having received approval from myself and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources.
[ Page 2398 ]

There are a number of instances where, relying on information from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and other federal agencies, we make our determinations, and the federal government makes their decision sometime later but based on the same information, often, from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and others.

One example of that is Kwoiek Creek in the Fraser Canyon near Boston Bar. The environmental assessment office concluded the review, and it was approved by myself and the Minister of Energy and Mines in March of this year. Then just at the end of September the federal government reached the same conclusion we did, which was that that project, which is a 50 megawatt run-of-the-river project, would not have any adverse impacts on the environment that could not be mitigated with various conditions.

It is not uncommon for the B.C. environmental assessment process to reach conclusions before the federal government process does. One reason that may be is that the federal government, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, in a given year can have up to 7,000 projects that come into its process, so they are pretty busy.

We're busy too, but we have a staff of about 55 people within the environmental assessment office who focus on this task of reviewing projects and coordinating reviews with federal and provincial agencies. We think that they do a pretty thorough job.

That's why, in the case of Bute Inlet, we believed that it was appropriate for the environmental assessment office to handle that review, as they do other reviews for British Columbia. The federal government decided to appoint a panel, which is something that they do from time to time, and that's entirely their prerogative. We believe that our environmental assessment staff are capable of giving us the advice that we need.

S. Fraser: Groups like Bear Aware have moved the ministry a long way towards trying to rehabilitate orphan bear cubs as opposed to destroying them, and I applaud that, yet there's no core funding from the ministry for the accredited groups — there are four of them — that do this work of orphan bear rehabilitation. There's some meagre funding through gaming.

I'd like to ask this question of the minister: why has he designated $400,000 to an experimental bear high school on Grouse Mountain when his own staff had nothing to do with it and his own ministry provides nothing in the way of support for the accredited bear rehab facilities that are existing in the province, doing the ministry's work?

[1815]

Hon. B. Penner: I appreciate the question. To start with some good news, over the last three years the number of problem black bears or black bears that get into problems by interacting with people and end up being destroyed by the conservation officer service is down 50 percent, when compared to the last three years under the previous NDP government.

We know that there's additional work that still needs to be done. We work with local communities and try to educate the public to do what they can — control within their own residences or their yards — not to have attractants that cause hungry bears to wander into harm's way.

I think we've had some significant success, but from time to time we all read about and hear about incidents like we did last year, for example. It was a year with considerable issues with bears getting into residential neighbourhoods. One woman was attacked, as I recall, in her house. She had left her door open, and a bear found his or her way in and confronted the homeowner.

The North Shore of Vancouver is no stranger to conflicts arising between people and bears. Those homes on the North Shore of North Vancouver have crept up the hillsides into bear habitat, and the inevitable has happened. There have been confrontations or conflicts. Again, there's work being done, and I commend the district of North Vancouver for the work they've done to help educate their residents on how they can reduce the number of bears getting into trouble.

In terms of the pilot project that the B.C. government supports, we felt that it was important. The Premier made a commitment in 2005, after a particularly large number of bear incidents in North Vancouver, to see if there wasn't something more that we could do to increase the chances of black bear cubs being successfully reintroduced into the wild.

I've been to, I think, three out of four of the current bear rehabilitation facilities — which, by the way, didn't get any funding under the previous NDP government either during the 1990s. It is true that it's not something that's a core part of our budget. It wasn't when the NDP had ten years in office, and it hasn't been during our eight years in office either.

What is different about the proposal for this intermediate rehabilitation facility is that it's much larger in scope. At the places I've visited, the bears have a very small space in which to move about. Sometimes you can have multiple bears in an area that's not much bigger than this committee room.

The idea was, rather than just taking the bears straight from those facilities and letting them into the woods and saying good luck, to see if their chances for survival could be enhanced if they were brought to an area — I think the proposal on Fromme mountain in North Vancouver is 32 hectares in size, or about 80 acres, much larger than anything that's currently being used — to give them a chance to forage, spend a winter and see if they can learn some denning skills to help them survive in the real world.
[ Page 2399 ]

The Chair: Minister, noting the hour.

Hon. B. Penner: I would like just to wrap up on this, but I do want to provide the member with the information he's seeking.

Interjection.

Hon. B. Penner: I'm sorry that the member doesn't support efforts to improve the odds for orphan bear cubs.

The Chair: All discussion goes through the Chair, and if everyone would allow the speaker on the floor to have the floor. Thank you, Member.

Hon. B. Penner: We have said as a government that we are prepared to set aside up to $400,000 to see if this experiment, this pilot project, could have some dividends — for capital; not for operating dollars, but for capital. There's a partner called Grouse Mountain Resorts that's willing to provide the operating cost to look after the bears and see if it can work.

It's curious that the member that represents Port Alberni on the west side of Vancouver Island has spent so much time in the district of North Vancouver — quite far from his constituency.

[1820]

Anyway, we do think that trying to find ways to improve the odds for orphaned black bear cubs is something we're supporting, but we have said that a number of standards and criteria would have to be met before the dollars will flow. One of those conditions is support from the district of North Vancouver.

Now I know, as I mentioned, that the member has been spending time in North Vancouver. I don't think it's appropriate to interfere with what the district of North Vancouver is going to vote or decide to do. I think we should allow the district of North Vancouver to make their decision unencumbered by political interference.

That said, we do think that if various criteria can be met, it's a pilot project that's worth trying. If it doesn't work, we'll have learned something. If it does work, we'll have learned a lot that can help orphaned bear cubs.

With that, I move that the committee rise, report progress and seek leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:21 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

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.

TV channel guide • Broadcast schedule

Copyright © 2009: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

ISSN 1499-2175