2010 Legislative Session: Second 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, March 29, 2010

Morning Sitting

Volume 12, Number 6

[ Page 3765 ]

MONDAY, MARCH 29, 2010

The House met at 10:02 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Private Members' Statements

Respecting Seniors

Mr. Speaker: Member for Saanich South.

L. Popham: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I could be handy mending a fuse

when your lights have gone.

You can knit a sweater by the fireside,

Sunday mornings go for a ride.

Doing the garden, digging the weeds,

who could ask for more?

Will you still need me, will you still feed me,

when I'm 64?

This Beatles song was written in 1967. The question asked is a romantic one asked by one young lover to another. It's a question that in its structure is playful, but in reality this question is on many aging British Columbians' minds. "How will I be treated as I age? What will become of me? When am I considered old, and does old mean that I have less value in society?"

[C. Trevena in the chair.]

The statistics show that British Columbia's population of older people is growing rapidly, with nearly three times as many people over 65 living in B.C. today as compared to 35 years ago and our older population projected to double over the next 25 years. Our demographics are rapidly shifting. Our populations are living longer, and people who we have long referred to as "seniors" don't seem to like being called that anymore.

There is a stereotype that comes with the word "senior." The most damaging is the stereotype of not being able to contribute to society and of being dependent on others. A statistic that I read in the Aging Well in B.C. report states that our province is a world leader in life expectancy. It's interesting to think that the average 65-year-old has more than two decades of good life ahead of them.

I think that is why the term "senior" is becoming unlikeable. As my friend put it, the word "senior" means the last stop before the end, and who wants that hanging over your head for 20 years? Another friend, 67 years old, was taken aback while shopping the other day when the store clerk announced in a loud voice that she was lucky to be in that day because it was seniors day. She whispered that she would have come on a different day and paid a little bit more not to have heard that.

[1005]

The more acceptable terms are "older people" and "older adults." The use of terminology is easily changed, but what is not easily changed is the future of older British Columbians living in poverty. We have an enormous problem coming our way, and that is because we have failed to address issues that we should have addressed over the past decades. The issue of older adults living in poverty is a complex issue, and for today I will focus on older women living in poverty.

When we look at the statistics of poverty in B.C., we see an uneven distribution towards women. Women raising children in lone-parent families are five times more likely to be poor than those in two-parent families. That changes as women age. Older women on their own are 13 times more likely to be poor than a coupled older woman. It seems that over their lives, women are set up to have vulnerable futures later on, even though they have contributed no less than their counterparts.

Women have been the majority shareholders when it comes to unpaid labour. Staying at home to raise children has tremendous value for our society, but this choice fails to have a monetary value later on. We see our public school systems being underfunded and becoming more dependent on parental participation. Women play a large role in helping at the volunteer level. This is not a pensionable activity, but it is priceless.

In the workforce, women account for 60 percent of minimum-wage earners. In B.C. there is no government support or initiative to raise the minimum wage to $10. In fact, this government is against it. Keep in mind that raising the minimum wage now is one tool that could help older women in B.C. later on. Enabling women to earn more now will allow them to prepare for their future.

Women who work full-time only make 71 percent of what an average man makes. There are major wage gaps between men and women, and this also contributes to women having less opportunity to save for retirement. Because of this, they've become completely dependent on public pension plans. This is where it becomes clear that we have set ourselves up for a major problem that will become impossible to ignore.

Retirement pensions, such as the Canada Pension Plan, are set up to replace earned income. Women earn less, and this is reflected in the amount they get from the Canada Pension Plan. An example from 2008 shows a maximum Canadian pension plan retirement pension at $908. The average payout to a man was $564, and the average payout to a woman was $391. That's almost a $200 difference. That could be the difference between quality of life or not.

Two hundred dollars is a significant amount that can contribute to nutritious food, renting adequate housing,
[ Page 3766 ]
affording transit fares, affording prescriptions and reasonable health care and affording eyeglasses. The list goes on and on. The more we shift expenses onto older individuals, the more they will suffer — and statistically speaking, that will mean more women suffering than men.

The demographics show that we have more women than men on the other side of 65. They will live longer, and they will live with less, and they will become a large portion of our population in B.C. that is vulnerable. The fact is, most poor older people in B.C. are women, and this will continue until we address the following factors in the Aging Well in B.C. report.

Women spend less time in the labour market than men, often because they are spending more time caregiving. Women have had lower-paying jobs than men on average. Women are living longer than men and, therefore, need retirement savings to cover more years. Women often hold part-time jobs which do not allow for pension time contributions.

Addressing issues that affect older B.C. women helps us to ensure that we all age well in B.C., but without this government taking a leadership role and lobbying the federal government for change, it won't happen. I'm looking forward to hearing the thoughts from the member for Surrey–White Rock.

G. Hogg: Thank you very much to the member for Saanich South for those comments, which I think are valid and important with respect to the demographic changes that we are facing in this province. I had the privilege of addressing the World Health Organization in London a couple of years ago around the notion of active aging and the concerns expressed with it.

The World Health Organization has developed a number of steps and stages and a checklist for looking at how we best address the needs of our aging seniors, or other words that might be better used — older people. Those included the issue of material conditions as well as the social factors that affect the types of behaviours and feelings which they face. They include respect, social inclusion, community and health services — all of those that are part of a comprehensive way to approach and to look at how we address the needs of older people in our society.

[1010]

The checklist was developed, and part of that was actually generated out of some research done in British Columbia. One of the unique things, I think, that the World Health Organization has done in terms of addressing this was to go to and interview seniors. Too often we use experts who come in and professionalize our social engagement rather than actually going to and engaging and talking and discussing with the people who are actually affected by it. They received great accolades around the world for the process they utilized.

I think one of the wonderful, unifying and harmonizing facts about our world is that despite a myriad of different governance structures that address this — and some political systems — we do generate a sense of commonality, purpose and, hopefully, political will when we start a process that starts with and engages people.

The strength of the information generated out of the World Health Organization studies, I think, is found in the wisdom of the stories of older people from around the world. I think those stories give us both purpose and a sense of joy. The task, I think, now being asked of us and political leaders around the world is: are we prepared to take action, informed action, based on that? Are we prepared to exercise our mandate, whether from a far-left or a far-right set of political assumptions?

The case for utilizing the information coming from the World Health Organization, I think, is very strong. It gives us a chance to make a difference in the lives of a growing cohort for facilitating, not dictating, a number of measures which will help provide quality of life to end of life in a constant place and at a constant level of understanding. That is very compelling.

We can exercise political will through whatever structures that we work in to improve the place in which we all live. We can demonstrate caring and compassion in a specific and concrete way, in a real place, the place where we live — and not just in countries but, certainly, in communities. Informed opinions have been presented and informed by people in the community.

John McKnight, one of the world's best-known community development people, has developed something called the asset-based community development model. He argues that governments learn through studies, that organizations learn through statistics but that people learn through stories. And the stories that have been provided to us, I think, are very persuasive.

There was an announcement with respect to the economic plan to support families and boost productivity when we recognized the downturn and in which we said new pension opportunities were going to be generated in this province. I think that about 75 percent of the private sector workers in B.C. currently have no access to group pension plans that address and respond to some of these. I understand that there is a consultation paper which is out and which closes, I believe, near the end of this month.

It gives an opportunity for us to utilize some of the models utilized by the World Health Organization in terms of generating and engaging people. The member for Saanich South, I think, has made some very strong and compelling points with respect to the role of women within the framework of our economic future and the cohort that is addressed and most dramatically impacted and affected by those issues.

I think that through the processes which have been outlined, it is incumbent upon all of us to understand those and to look at and to utilize our positions and the political will which can be generated out of our positions
[ Page 3767 ]
to ensure that we do have an inclusive society which includes, as the World Health Organization made reference to, our ability to access the services that we need. In order to access many of those services, we need to have the economic means to do that, to be able to achieve that end. I trust that this House will work cooperatively and positively towards that end.

L. Popham: I thank the member for Surrey–White Rock for his thoughtful discussion and reflections on the World Health Organization reports. I understand that there has been some effort made towards implementation of the recommendation from the Aging Well report in B.C., and I acknowledge the efforts made by this government to change the Human Rights Code to extend human rights and protection to those over the age of 65, thereby eliminating mandatory retirement.

I know that there has been work done to establish a Seniors Healthy Living Secretariat as well. There has been work done on this file, but I wouldn't be doing my job if I didn't point out where the work has been deficient.

[1015]

This report on aging makes it clear that the set of recommendations are interrelated, many of them dependent on the implementation of others for their success. It is made clear that the success of these recommendations will only happen if they are viewed as a cohesive package.

Making changes like the member from Surrey–White Rock has mentioned is great, but failing to address the reasons for older women living in poverty is neglecting recommendations that will ensure sufficient incomes for older people. The report states that we must ensure that older people have enough income to live decently and that they are set up for that lifestyle over their working years.

Addressing women and pensions in B.C. is something that I would like to see us all focus on in the House, and I will be corresponding with Prof. Claire Young, a law professor from UBC, an expert on women and pensions, to help gather information to develop a path that we can all take.

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

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

M. Elmore: Today I would like to welcome here into the precinct a constituent from Vancouver-Kensington, Edward Almoite. He's very active in Vancouver-Kensington and has been for a number of years. He's a very engaged volunteer and participant and very vital to our community, so I just ask everybody to please make him feel very welcome.

Private Members' Statements

Strengthening Communities
Through Volunteerism

D. Horne: We must, as we move forward as a province, look to volunteerism as an ability for us all to achieve some of the things that we all cherish, some of the things in our communities that we have come to count on.

As the last speaker in the last statement just so aptly illustrated, we have an aging population, and with that aging population we have some significant challenges. Our ability as a government and as a society to support those around us and to provide the services and the supports within our community that our aging population will require is something that we all as a community can work together and achieve.

I think one of the real true legacies of the Olympic Games that have just been completed is that sense of community, that sense of supporting what we all believe in, that sense of supporting our society and being proud of being Canadian and being proud of being a British Columbian.

You take a look at the 25,000 volunteers that stepped forward and supported the Olympic Games, and you take a look at how much the Olympics would have cost if those 25,000 people would have required to be compensated for their time. Obviously, that would have made the cost of the games insurmountable and something that we simply could not stage. So the volunteers made it possible for us all to enjoy the time that we've just had and to truly show the world what a wonderful place British Columbia is.

If you take a look at the volunteers within the Olympic framework, not only were they driving and providing parking assistance, providing assistance at the venues to those that were attending each of the different events, but they also were providing support to the athletes, providing support to the officials, providing support to all of those that came and made the Olympics possible.

From a personal experience, my wife Larissa spent the games and worked very, very hard with the Russian national Olympic committee as a national Olympic committee assistant. Not only did she work during the time of the Olympics, but she also worked as a Paralympic assistant during the Paralympic Games and both times was located in the villages.

It was that strong group of volunteers around each of the teams that allowed them to really reach out and achieve the successes that they all did, and it showed the people that came from around the world what truly hospitable people we are in British Columbia.

One of the other aspects that was truly illustrated through the games is that we are special in British Columbia. We are special in Canada in that we have that spirit of volunteerism. We have the wishing and wanting of
[ Page 3768 ]
our people to support our community. That's something that from a cultural standpoint doesn't exist throughout the rest of the world.

[1020]

One of the things that the Sochi organizers and the Russian Olympic Committee found most intriguing was the commitment that our volunteers showed, the ability that they possessed, the cross-section that they represented of our population, because it wasn't simply people that were unemployed or were looking to find entries into the job market.

These were people that were professionals. They were lawyers. They were doctors. They were in finance and were bankers. They were a cross-section of our entire community. The Russians found this intriguing because from their society, from their culture, people wouldn't necessarily just volunteer their time. They wouldn't just contribute their time freely without any compensation payable.

Some asked my wife, while she was volunteering, what she was actually going to get from this process and what she was getting. Obviously, as Canadians we don't always look for the remuneration to be directly from the attribute attributed to the venture that we're attending.

I also look to my personal life. Service within our communities, service and volunteerism within our society is something that goes far beyond the Olympics. It's something that in Canada, with our service clubs, we have been very much involved with for many, many years. Although as recent times come, that is falling off.

You know, you take a look at wonderful community groups within our communities — Soroptimists, Rotary, the Lions, the Kiwanis and many, many others — that contribute significant amounts to each of our communities. The people involved in each of these groups truly do care and really do provide a wonderful vibrancy, a wonderful feeling of community, a wonderful way to network and meet your neighbours and to become involved.

But as I said at the beginning, we have an aging population. Only by supporting the feeling of volunteerism, by supporting the importance of supporting our communities by supporting our neighbours, our environment, by supporting those that are terminally ill through the hospice network…. Crossroads Hospice in my own community looks to the community, looks for the volunteers, reaches out to try to make sure that they feel part of the community. It's very important that it's a two-way street, and I think with Canadians, that is something we all support and find very, very important.

The other aspect is the corporate involvement and the government involvement. One of the things that the government of British Columbia did was allow those employees within the public service who wished to volunteer during the Olympics to do that. I feel that it is extremely important as well, for us to remove the barriers to allow those that wish to contribute to the community to support them. As we move forward, that will allow us as a society to have the services and have the supports that our aging population require and need in order to live long and fulfilling lives like we all will.

I know that many opposite will be surprised at the tone and tenor of my statement, and I will now take my place and allow those opposite to respond.

Deputy Speaker: Member for Vancouver-Kensington responds.

M. Elmore: I appreciate the comments from the member opposite. Certainly on the issue of strengthening communities through volunteerism, I think it's been…. Certainly in terms of Canada and our culture, we've developed a very robust culture of volunteering. There is a recent report from the Canadian statistic and survey in terms of the volunteer levels, and British Columbia's volunteerism rate ranks at 46 percent of the population — certainly very active and engaged. That matches the national average in terms of volunteerism across Canada.

Also in terms of the benefits to volunteers, often there are many benefits to individuals. It's been documented that there are benefits in terms of inclusion in communities, and it helps in terms of mental well-being. Volunteers themselves feel a part of the community in participating, being able to connect with their neighbours and friends and also play a meaningful role in communities.

[1025]

In terms of Volunteer B.C., the organization that coordinates a number of volunteer organizations here in British Columbia, they're going to be celebrating National Volunteer Week April 18 to 25 to recognize and support the many volunteers in British Columbia that the member mentioned in terms of the many community and service organizations.

As well, we have a very active and engaged corporate sector in terms of their participation with volunteering and promoting the ethic of corporate social responsibility. I was able to attend an event last week in Vancouver-Kensington with the participation of the World Bank, participating in an anti-racism discussion with youth organized out of the South Vancouver neighbourhood centre. I certainly appreciate their exemplary example and really playing a leading role in terms of corporations being involved in their local communities, being concerned about issues and also fully participating.

In terms of the value of volunteers to the economy, the member mentioned that in B.C. we have a volunteerism rate that actually matches the national rate. But we exceed the number of volunteer hours per person annually, and it's quite a staggering number. The number in terms of volunteer hours is in the hundreds of millions and the
[ Page 3769 ]
equivalent of 165,000 jobs if we translate the number of hours spent by volunteers.

In terms of the different levels of volunteers, that ranges from the level of recognizing…. If we want to quantify the value of volunteers in the economy, the typical number is about $18 to $20 an hour. That is the benefiting contribution to the economy. So certainly there's a very productive benefit from volunteers — productivity in terms of not only skills-based volunteers.

But we're seeing an increase in virtual volunteering, on-line participation as well as environmental volunteerism, social activism that the peace movement…. We have a very active culture and, of course, the many volunteers in schools on the parent advisory committees, leisure groups, Girl Guides and certainly the religious and church organizations. I think the government, as well, plays a key role in terms of recognizing and supporting volunteers but also in trying to promote the culture and really being a support in terms of encouraging more volunteerism in B.C.

I think that one positive example of that, in terms of being able to leverage and provide a little bit of support to magnify the impacts not only to the community but to the economy, is shown by the Success By 6 model where we had the successful collaboration with the government, the United Way, credit unions, businesses and community organizations.

We're able to see the benefit of some support from government but able to mobilize the business community, community groups, volunteers and parents to really play a role and have a lasting effect in terms of communities in the urban centres and particularly in rural centres.

Certainly, there's a key role for government to play in terms of recognizing and encouraging and playing a positive role. When the member speaks about our challenges in terms of our demographics and just being able to meet the needs of our citizens, certainly there's a key role that governments play in terms of being proactive on that, being able to provide some quantifiable support to organizations and to be a player in terms of bringing together organizations.

D. Horne: I want to thank the member for Vancouver-Kensington very much. Obviously, I think we definitely see eye to eye on this issue and the importance of volunteerism and basically the support that Canadians and British Columbians show.

As the member pointed out, 46 percent in British Columbia volunteer and provide significant hours to our community and to those groups within the community. I'd just like to sort of take as a contrast, because obviously I've talked about other places in the world…. If you take a look at, for example, the United States — very close to us and you'd think would have very, very similar levels of volunteerism. But they're actually dramatically lower than we are at about a third of the population rather than close to half like we are here in Canada.

Obviously, we do indeed have that social fabric that feels it is important to support one's neighbour, that it's important to support the community and to support the wonderful and worthwhile projects that we have within our communities.

[1030]

The member also mentioned corporate participation. Obviously, there are many, many large corporations and small corporations that do support our communities in huge ways, and the list is far too long. The member mentioned some of the large banks, and they provide huge support to many community services — not only that but providing staff and people and time for groups like the United Way and the Children's Hospital and providing that little bit of extra that perhaps government can't always provide but that the community is obviously in need of.

As I said before, the government simply cannot afford to support everything. That's why volunteerism and these groups are so important to our society. They provide the ability for people to support their neighbours around them, the community in general, and allow us to have those things that we wouldn't have without their support, simply because of cost.

In closing, what I'd like to mention, which I didn't, was my own involvement in the Olympics. I believe — and I may be corrected — that I'm the only member that actually has a blue jacket. I enjoyed my time volunteering during the Olympics very, very much. It's something that I think is important — to support those things that you believe in, and so I did.

I think there were many people around me that found it interesting that as a member, I would also be driving people around during the Olympics. I had a Tahoe and went up to Whistler more than eight times and had a wonderful time dealing with some guests from around the world. It was a wonderful time. I thank you, Madam Speaker, and take care.

Success By 6

G. Coons: The quality of care received by children in the first six months of life is the most critical factor in their success. We need a partnership that will provide the experience and infrastructure needed to make real, positive differences in the lives of our children and families.

This is the Premier's 2003 statement on the launching of a new partnership to improve the lives of children — Success By 6. Recently, we learned that the Premier has eliminated funding for the Success By 6, an organization that works in partnership with local businesses, credit unions and the United Way. First, they'll have their funding cut in half and then eliminated in March 2011.

It's been determined by all partners that Success By 6 is not sustainable without the full involvement of all the three partners. The organization has already started plans to wind down their operations. Through Success
[ Page 3770 ]
By 6 more than 400 projects aimed at families with kids from birth to six years — designated to ensure that they have the tools needed to be successful in life — are funded across the province. Many are now in jeopardy due to this mindless cut.

Success By 6 programs help parents develop skills they need to provide the nurturing, stimulation and nutrition that are essential for their children to reach their potential. Early childhood development benefits the entire community, not just one segment of the population.

Over 200 communities, 30 community coordinators, 50 council partners, dozens of aboriginal community tables, 20 aboriginal coordinators…. With these funding cuts and the shortsighted phasing-out of this program, there will be significant negative consequences that will impact the seven years of highly successful community partnerships throughout rural B.C., especially in aboriginal communities.

Deputy Speaker: Member, I'd just like to remind you that it's private members' statements.

G. Coons: Thank you.

A short two years ago we basically saw Success By 6 being created — an expansive framework to honour partnerships. What we need to know is that this partnership is not an expenditure but a vital investment. Research says that payback can be as high as seven to one. For children in high-risk situations, this intervention can result in significant savings and even greater savings.

What we've seen in other research about children — kids have been outperforming bonds and equities for the past decade. Even businesses are starting to see the light, from the credit unions of B.C. to rotary clubs and the Canadian Chamber of Commerce. They recognize that the value of early childhood development and the Success By 6 program is obvious.

The government seven years ago saw the light and developed this program with the partnerships. But now it seems to be that we're leaving a lot of money on the table with the elimination of this program and the phasing-out of the Success By 6 partnership.

[1035]

Michael McKnight, from the United Way of the Lower Mainland, indicated that it doesn't make financial sense and that they're 100 percent committed to the partnership. Basically, he looked at what the priorities are. In this case, the United Way and the credit unions are committed. "But we need to ensure," he said, "that we have the government commitment."

In my own riding, Mike Tarr, who is the president and CEO of Northern Savings, indicated that Success By 6 enables a positive development of children aged zero to six and that it's a paramount duty for everybody — all businesses, all organizations and governments at all levels. He indicated: "We are certain that Success By 6's work must continue."

One aspect, a key aspect, of Success By 6 is their aboriginal engagement. You know, Success By 6 recognizes the importance of culture, language, self-determination and self-government to aboriginal people of British Columbia and has implemented an aboriginal strategy designed to work with aboriginal communities.

We all know in this province that 29 percent of B.C. kids are vulnerable entering kindergarten. These are the kids that have not had the necessary supports from zero to six. These are the kids that are at risk of learning challenges, are more likely to need remedial support and less likely to graduate — all costs that society could reduce with good early childhood supports.

Success By 6 helps by funding programs all across B.C. that support parents to develop positive parenting skills, and it's a great investment towards our educational system.

I do have to comment that Prince Rupert has the highest level of vulnerable children in the province, through the early development initiative, and the rate has been increasing over the past three years. Two years ago 66 percent of five-year-olds in Prince Rupert met educational standards for basic skills. This year only 30 percent met the standards.

Many programs are vital. In Prince Rupert there's the Tiny Tot Treehouse, the drum- and cedar-canoe-making, music, swim lessons, Mother Gooseat the Berry Patch. It supports the local StrongStart. The PACES Hub, through the Roosevelt School, serves more than 200 of the most vulnerable families in the province. All of these parents are aboriginal, basically. This supports a whole family and is vital to the success of the programs at Roosevelt School.

I look forward to hearing from the members opposite on, you know, what's happening in their region as far as Success By 6 and any justification or rationale or some compelling argument that the partnership can't continue. I want to know — and I hope to hear from the members opposite responding to this — the justification for leaving aboriginal children, the most vulnerable in our society, to suffer deficiencies that we all know must be fixed.

There are many programs on the North Coast, including Haida Gwaii, where they've got speech and language development. They've got programs working with their StrongStart programs.

Throughout the province there are hundreds of programs working in aboriginal communities, working with aboriginal parents and families that need the support and a continuation of the Success By 6 program.

M. Dalton: I'm happy to respond to the motion by the member for North Coast. This government is committed to children and early learning, and we have programs that are continuing. It's not like this is the only program that is in place. There are many programs,
[ Page 3771 ]
many expanding programs. We're constantly evaluating these programs and moving forward.

We've invested record amounts in early learning initiatives across….

Interjection.

M. Dalton: Yeah, that's why we've invested record amounts in learning initiatives. So despite falling revenues, the province is committed to the best system of support.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Member, you take your seat.

[1040]

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Member, order. Order.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Order. Order.

Would members please allow the member who has the floor to continue the debate. This is private members' statements. It's not a chance for bickering. Thank you.

Member, please continue.

M. Dalton: Yes, we as a government are investing record amounts in early childhood education. I've been teaching at the elementary level for numerous years.

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Member, would you please withdraw that.

N. Simons: Yes, I withdraw.

M. Dalton: In the past year, as I've been the MLA for Maple Ridge–Mission, I've just been amazed at all the programs that are in place, that we're expanding. It's just quite amazing.

The budget for Children and Family Development alone has seen an increase of $330 million since the year 2005. This year the province is spending up to $1 billion towards early childhood child care and supports for children and youth with special needs. The Ministry of Children and Family Development is developing new partnerships with aboriginal communities and new programs to better develop and help children.

Success By 6 has been a good program. There's no doubt about it. We have invested $27 million in the program since it began in 2003, and this year we are funding it with $2½ million. But as the member has mentioned, as a result of declining government revenue, our ability to provide grant funding has been restricted, resulting in less support than previous years. Success By 6 has decided that its current level of service is unsustainable and will wind down some of the existing programs.

In the coming days MCFD will be sitting down with Success By 6 to look for solutions, to do problem-solving about what services may be available within a limited amount of funding moving beyond the 2010-2011 years. More than half of MCFD's $1 billion investment in direct programs and services will go to children for early childhood development.

Now some of the initiatives. I'd like to talk about StrongStart. This has been on the increase. We now have over 200 StrongStart programs across the province, and this has been a very popular program. It's a free drop-in early learning program for preschool-age children accompanied by a parent or caregiver. There are qualified early childhood educators leading learning activities — including stories, music and art — to help children. We're investing $43 million to establish StrongStart centres across B.C. to support our youngest learners, and today there are over 202.

Another program which is taking millions of dollars and which we're initiating this year is all-day kindergarten. As promised in our throne speech in 2008, we are establishing an early childhood learning agency to access the feasibility and costs of providing full-day kindergartens for five-year-olds and providing parents the choice of full-day kindergarten for four-year-olds by 2010 and three-year-olds by 2012.

We have committed to begin delivering voluntary full-day kindergarten for five-year-olds starting this September. It's $44 million for this year and $107 million beginning next year. That's a very significant investment.

Districts are currently ranking their schools based on measures of community need and the availability of space. We will then use those suggestions to determine which schools to roll out the program to.

Ready, Set, Learn is another program. Over the past five years we've invested almost $15 million to operate Ready, Set, Learn, a program helping parents and families prepare their three-year-olds for kindergarten. Ready, Set, Learn helps make positive connections between….

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.

Member for North Coast concludes.

[1045]

G. Coons: It's nice to hear from the other side the amount of money that they've put into these programs, but we're talking about a program that is a partnership that leverages lots of money to get its programs. I didn't recall hearing the member talking about the amount of money going into his Maple Ridge programs — you know, the Community Services Family Place or the family support program, which takes in probably over
[ Page 3772 ]
$20,000. That is in jeopardy, and he's not advocating for that.

All-day kindergarten along with StrongStart centres do not meet the mandates or the goal that the Success By 6 program does. All-day kindergarten is not for community development, not for building partnerships.

Children First. We've heard in the media…. Children First is another program that the member failed to mention, probably because he now realizes it's more for professional service providers and not, again, the partnership that Success By 6 brings forward.

StrongStart. Again, the member talks about StrongStart. There's no comparison in the goals or mandate from StrongStart that the Success By 6 program builds into it. The key strength of Success By 6 is the involvement of various sectors — like education, child welfare, bringing in the trade unions, business, industry, employment and training, in our region the Northwest Community College, to name a few. Again, the programs that are being touted here do not meet the mandate or goals of Success By 6.

In the end, the member mentioned priorities, and it is priorities. The priorities of this government have been giving big tax relief to banks and oil companies — this year alone $100 million to banks and $282 million in subsidies this year alone for the oil and gas sector. You know, it's like making an apple pie and leaving out the apples. The program has to continue for seven years so that the leveraging can work in the hundreds of communities that it works in.

This reminds me of the fiasco with the Victoria Legion. It seems that this government is disrespecting from the cradle right to the golden years. We cannot afford to lose any portion of this vital Success By 6 program. The commitment is there from United Way partners. The commitment is there from the credit union partners. We only need the commitment from this government to ensure the success of the most vulnerable.

I will conclude that the Success By 6 programs….

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.

Energy in the Cariboo

D. Barnett: In the 1980s air quality in Williams Lake was appalling. When I travelled there, I would park my car for the day, only to come back and find it covered with fly ash. The fly ash was so bad I had to clean my windshield before driving home. Fly ash was caused mainly by beehive burners in sawmills, which used the burners to eliminate wood chip debris.

The fly ash that fell on my car fell everywhere in Williams Lake. It fell on homes, our school grounds, our playgrounds, our parks. Worst of all, it was in the air we breathed.

Today I am happy to say that air quality in Williams Lake has significantly improved, and the area is no longer littered with fly ash. This change came about because of the foresight and hard work of many individuals. Among them was a gentleman named Mayor Ray Woods, who in 1988 was determined to solve Williams Lake's air quality dilemma. In response to the regional concern, the provincial government of the day provided the northern part of the province — from Mackenzie to Fort Nelson to Valemount to 100 Mile House — with the minister of state for regional economic development.

We worked together, both local and provincial governments, to devise a plan that would be of benefit to the region. The first project in this plan was to find a solution to the air quality in Williams Lake. Funds were provided by the province, and we hired a consultant and went to work. We realized that the fly ash air quality problem was simply a symptom of the inefficient disposal of wood chips produced by the mills. Thus, the concept of a biomass plant was introduced.

[1050]

We worked closely with B.C. Hydro and sought private biomass companies. After discovering EPCOR, a deal was quickly struck. Shortly after that a contract was made with the forest industries throughout the region for their wood chips. Before we knew it, a permit was given from the province, and around 1990 the EPCOR biomass plant began construction. In 1993 the biomass plant officially opened, and soon after, the fly ash problem in Williams Lake was extinct. This incredible alternative to beehive burners emits five times less air emissions than current regulations for wood waste fire boilers permit.

The biomass plant continues to work today under the name of Capital Power Corp., and I am proud to say that it is the largest biomass power plant in North America. It has the capacity to produce 66 megawatts of energy, enough to power approximately 6,600 homes. The plant continues to use wood chips from Williams Lake, 100 Mile and surrounding industries producing wood waste.

The plant has a 25-year contract, which expires in 2018, with B.C. Hydro to sell the electricity produced by wood chip processing. The direct employ at the site is approximately 35 to 40 employees. They have state-of-the-art equipment and are operational 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

At present their chip piles are extensive. This was caused by the downturn in the forest industry. In response, the plant ingeniously sought contracts with other chip-producing industries such as construction companies. They have also accepted chips from CN railway ties. When the forest industry recovered, the plant resumed accepting their chips and no longer takes chips from railway ties. Though they may have extensive chip piles, they are certainly putting them to good use by producing electricity from wood chips that otherwise would have been burnt and simply considered waste.
[ Page 3773 ]

The plant is truly an engineering marvel and provides innumerable benefits for both the community of Williams Lake and for all British Columbians. It solved a major waste disposal problem for sawmills and enabled sawmills to close their beehive burners. This resulted in reduced particle emissions in the area by over 90 percent. The plant also improved local sawmills' competitiveness and stability within the local economy by unburdening them of their disposal tax.

I have personally toured this facility. We are very fortunate to have had the foresight, back in the late 1990s, to look at considering biomass as a solution for air pollution.

I must thank the hon. Bruce Strachan, the communities of the region and the private sector for coming together to make it happen. This is an example of a biomass energy plant which continues to work well for the Cariboo-Chilcotin. Clean energy is our future. Here is the model.

Deputy Speaker: Member for Cariboo North responds.

B. Simpson: One of the things about these statements is that you never know, based on the topic, what the member opposite is going to speak about, so it was refreshing to hear the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin talk about EPCOR. I visited that plant a number of times, recently last fall.

It was also refreshing to hear the member go through the history of that plant, because it really speaks to what I believe, and that is that we need to have an ability to govern the province through successive governments, regardless of political stripe.

This initiative started under the Social Credit government in the late '80s, continued in the 1990s — was actually built and went through a couple of iterations to make sure it was viable in the 1990s, right through until the late '90s. Then in the early 2000s, under this government's administration, there were some adjustments made there to continue to make this a viable operation.

A reason for a lot of those adjustments is because this was a company — it was actually the Edmonton Power Corp; there were very few organizations at the time that could put something like this together — that was ahead of the game. It was an understanding of where we needed to go with green energy, using wood waste residuals to create power.

[1055]

As a consequence of that, the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin must know that there are some significant issues that this company now needs addressed. The pricing of power for them has to be addressed.

As the member mentioned, the railway ties issue is an issue that has flared up as a result of what's happening in the Kamloops area, where there's a proposal for a generation plant using creosote railway ties. That is an issue that has flared up in Williams Lake. I've certainly gotten the e-mails — people raising concerns about chipping those railway ties, and there are some airshed issues.

One of the things we don't want to do — and I know the folks at this company don't want to do — is to re-ignite the flame about the Williams Lake airshed. The member is correct. The loss of the beehive burners, the fly ash — all of those issues were significant issues. We now don't want to introduce carcinogens into the air if that, in fact, is what is going on.

I know the company is sensitive to that. I know the community is sensitive to that. Hopefully, the member and I can work together if this issue flares up to make sure the community is fully apprised about what's going on and that we address that issue in a meaningful way, unlike what occurred in Kamloops, where the public got caught off guard and had to fight after a permit was already issued by the Ministry of Environment.

One of the other things I would say is that the government today seems to be struggling as to where it wants to go with energy. Biomass certainly seems to be part of it. We actually had the former Forest Minister indicate that there were at least three Site Cs in biomass. If that's the case, then we need the fibre supply analysis.

As the member must know, the company that is operating in the Williams Lake area is always quite concerned about where it's going to source a biomass — its resources — particularly as the forest industry goes through restructuring. So I would be happy to continue to work with the company and work with the member opposite to make sure this is a viable operation.

The reality we have is that we need to know where we're going with the whole biomass file — what is it we're going to do with it? — because we don't want to default our forests to fibre farms just to turn into green energy when there are all sorts of other opportunities available for us in the new green products, green chemicals, green lubricants, etc.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

I thank the member for raising this issue. Let's hope that future generations and administrations continue to work with this company. That's the way we should be governing this province on a continuous basis.

D. Barnett: I thank the member for Cariboo North for his comments.

There are some issues facing all of us in the future, but what I'm proud about is the fact that those before us thought of biomass when many people stood up and said: "No, this is not the way to go." It was another one of those processes that we go through where there are people who have more worries about emotion than they do about technology.

I guess I would also like to thank the other member from the other side this morning for singing the song
[ Page 3774 ]
"When I'm Sixty-Four." Well, I'm over 64, and I had the great privilege of working on this project from start to finish. I know what can be accomplished when we as communities and government work together with the private sector and let technology and expertise do its job and keep the politics and the emotion out of it.

This is the only way that we are going to continue to move forward with projects such as this. I get very frustrated that every time I turn around, when one project comes forward, there's emotion instead of scientific evidence first. Our airsheds are very important to all of us, and we must continue to move forward.

We have a bioenergy plant that can be an example for all, as I have said. I will continue to work with the company. I've worked on the issue of the railway ties and, once again, before the issue of technology came ahead, there was emotion first.

So I think there are a lot of issues out there that we can all support together, but mostly, the thing is that the government continues to support clean air, to support energy and green energy and biomass.

[1100]

Hon. I. Chong: I call private member's Motion 6.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, the unanimous consent of the House is required to proceed with Motion 6 without disturbing the priorities of motions preceding it on the order paper.

Leave granted.

Private Members' Motions

MOTION 6 — GOVERNMENT ACTION
ON POVERTY REDUCTION

S. Simpson: I move the following motion.

[Be it resolved that this House discuss and debate that the BC Government should immediately develop a comprehensive poverty reduction strategy.]

Hon. Speaker, this is a critical issue for British Columbians as we move forward and talk about the challenges of the economy, and as we talk about the challenges and how British Columbians are impacted by that. One of the things we know is that the impact faced by those who live in poverty is one of the most critical issues that we need to address.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

At the last estimate there are about a half a million British Columbians today who live in poverty based on the federal standard, the low-income cutoff. Of those, about 140,000 are children. I would also point out that these are 2007 numbers, the last year that these statistics were available for. I'm sure that as every member would understand, 2007 was a pretty prosperous year in British Columbia in terms of our economy, and times have gotten more difficult.

We have seen the welfare rolls increase with employables, and we can reasonably expect that those numbers — the half a million, the 140,000 children — have increased. Those numbers are significantly greater than they were before.

The other interesting thing about this — and it's one of the real challenges — is that these aren't all people who are on income assistance. What we know is that more than half of the people who live in poverty in this province today have a full-time income coming into their homes, but because of the levels of minimum wage, because of the levels of those incomes, people continue to live in poverty.

The B.C. Liberals have refused to raise the minimum wage since 2001, and that has resulted in the situation that we face today, with hundreds and hundreds of thousands of British Columbians living in poverty.

The cost of poverty is substantial. While very few provinces, and certainly British Columbia, have not looked at or done any analysis or assessment of the cost of poverty on our society here in British Columbia, that work has been done in Ontario.

In November of 2008 the Ontario Association of Food Banks, supported by a group of eminent thinkers, including people like Judith Maxwell, released a report that looked at the costs of poverty in their province. They determined that somewhere between $32 billion and $38 billion a year, or 6 percent of the GDP of Ontario, is the cost that they face on an annual basis. They've estimated that to be $2,300 per household — what every household pays for poverty in that province. Those costs are covered by additional health care costs, by legal costs and by social assistance.

In British Columbia we have a very different situation. We have a situation where nobody is responding to that, unlike in Ontario now, where the government of Ontario has moved forward with a poverty reduction strategy, unlike in six provinces across this country where people have moved forward with poverty reduction strategies.

The other thing we know, when we look at British Columbia and the situation here, is that the National Council of Welfare, a federal non-profit organization that advises the federal government on issues related to welfare, has looked at this question of poverty across the country.

When they looked across the country, they determined that eight provinces in this country have succeeded in reducing their poverty rates. It says: "Eight provinces reached record low poverty rates in 2007. Only Ontario and British Columbia did not."

This report also showed that no matter what standard you use, British Columbia has the highest poverty rates and has continually had the highest poverty rates in
[ Page 3775 ]
Canada, based on the work of the National Council of Welfare. They look at that whether it be the low-income cutoff or using the market basket measure. No matter which measurement you use, British Columbia has the highest levels of poverty in this country.

[1105]

Part of the reason for that is this government's inability and unwillingness to address this and see this as a significant issue. The Minister of Housing and Social Development has refused to acknowledge and doesn't accept the connection between poverty and costs in health care. This is absurd. It's absurd.

We know those costs will go up. We know that when we look across this country with the assessments that have been done, the difference between visits to hospitals as a percentage between…. For people who are in high-income levels there is about 13 percent visits to hospitals, and about 18 percent for people in low-income levels. There's a significant difference.

It's time for us in this province to move forward, to put a poverty reduction strategy in place, to join the six other provinces in this country that are moving ahead with poverty reduction strategies — provinces from across the political spectrum. It's time that we had a comprehensive plan that deals with housing, with child care, with training and with income levels.

It's time we had a plan that set targets and timelines for this province to bring the rates of poverty in this province down from the embarrassing levels that we have, having more people in poverty per capita than anywhere in Canada. It's embarrassing. It's shocking.

We need to bring those levels down. It's time for targets and timelines to do that. We need to do it in a transparent way so that every British Columbian can see the efforts that are being made, and it needs to be a legislated response with the force and power of this Legislature getting behind it, putting that in place.

The Minister of Housing and Social Development rejected a poverty reduction strategy in the last estimates. It's time for this Legislature to tell that minister, to tell the cabinet, to tell the Premier that we as legislators believe that something different should be done, and to provide the advice and direction to the government that it's time for a poverty reduction strategy in British Columbia — one that's effective, one that's comprehensive and one that will actually make us the best place on earth when it takes away and creates opportunity for that half a million British Columbians who live in poverty today. When we do that, we can then actually be proud about where this province stands.

J. McIntyre: I am very delighted to have this opportunity to speak to Motion 6 and perhaps have the opportunity to inform British Columbians about some of the steps we have taken to improve the quality of life for some of the most vulnerable.

No, it's not technically called a poverty reduction strategy, but nevertheless we have, over the last few years, introduced a series of cross-ministry initiatives that do work together to benefit lower-income individuals and families. No, it's not perfect. There's yet to be a country or region that has eradicated poverty, but that doesn't mean we don't try and that we don't take steps.

Poverty is very complex, often intergenerational and has unfortunately become even a culture. You hear the phrase "a culture of poverty." Certainly, if throwing money at the problem was the solution, as I often think the NDP wishes, we'd all be a lot better off.

You simply have to look at over a billion dollars that's been spent by various governments and agencies in the Downtown Eastside Vancouver to see that until recently, there's been a very long lack of progress. In areas like Regent Park in Toronto, where I grew up, there was sort of an experiment in the '60s and '70s where, really very unfortunately, a lot of the lower-income people were ghettoized and put together all in one area and not given the proper opportunities.

So yes, these are significant issues in British Columbia, especially at a time where we're in a recession now, certainly one of the worst recessions in our lifetime. We've got galloping health care costs that continue to bind what we can spend in areas that we would like to spend in. We have aboriginals that are living disproportionately in poor conditions, but we have higher costs for shelter in British Columbia. That's something that LICO, the low-income cutoff that the NDP and others love to speak of…. That biases against British Columbia right from the outset.

LICO also doesn't take into account the tax policy measures that this government has introduced over the last number of years, which have helped the most vulnerable, those at the lower-income end. Even Stats Canada goes to great lengths to tell and inform the public that LICO is not a measure of poverty. That said, I really want to reassure the House today and you, Madam Speaker, that this government is taking these issues seriously.

[1110]

Certainly, as the Chair of the Select Standing Committee on Children and Youth and at the representative's urging, we are planning to use our mandate to increase awareness and understanding of some of these issues that relate to children in care. We're using that to shed some light on the whole complexities of poverty, to look at some of the policy papers and speakers, look at what's perhaps successful in other jurisdictions.

We're optimistic that what we learn from this may shed some light on public policy going forward. The Deputy Chair, from the opposition, and I are trying to take the politics out of these issues that affect the most vulnerable.

I'd like to talk about some of the pillars that support our integrated approach to assist low-income earners or
[ Page 3776 ]
those on government assistance, because together these policies and programs are effective. They have worked to reduce the numbers of individuals that are living in poverty or below the low-income cut-off level.

I just want to throw out a few statistics here. Going back to, I guess, the most recent numbers, the absolute numbers of British Columbia residents that are below the after-tax cutoff has declined by 72,000 people from 2006 to 2007. Those are the lowest numbers, the lowest groups of people since 1991. The number of children living below that also dropped 29,000.

We want no children living below this, but the trends in absolute numbers have been going down in contrast to what the opposition has been saying. The positive results were also confirmed by Human Resources and Skills Development Canada — that MBM, the market basket measure, again, in 2007. All age groups and family types experienced a significant decline in the incidence of low income in British Columbia over that period. The trends do show it coming down. Yes, it's not perfect. We want to do more.

Let's also look at tax policy, the kinds of steps we've taken. Even just in this year's budget, the basic personal income tax credit increased 17 percent to $11,000. We've eliminated provincial tax for all those earning $18,800 a year, and the outcome of that is that 325,000 British Columbians pay no provincial tax whatsoever now. There are statistics like a family of four earning $70,000 who are paying $2,000 less in income now than they did when we formed government.

Look at housing. Over the past eight years we've spent $2 billion in housing and support programs. We have a rental assistance program that the NDP often try and laugh at and make fun of, but in fact it's helping 8,200 families by giving them a hand up and helping them stay in place and stay in their homes. Look at a similar program, SAFER, Shelter Aid for Elderly Renters. It's helping over 15,000 seniors in this province with their rent.

We have a homeless outreach program. The homeless intervention program now connects homeless people who are dealing with mental illness and/or addictions with supports. We're getting them into supportive housing.

Then you go all the way along the spectrum from what we're doing for homeless up to homeowners. We've been allowing homeowners to defer property taxes. The age when that kicks in now has been lowered to 55 years. Just in this budget we extended it to families who may be struggling right now in the economic recession, who have 15 percent equity in their home and have children. They're also now eligible to defer property taxes.

We've been raising the threshold for when the homeowners' grant kicks in gradually over the years. These are all important steps that we've been taking to help protect the lower-income earners.

Now I want to go on from housing to also talk about health measures because the health is very, very important. We've extended things like Fair PharmaCare. We've been lowering the costs for 300,000 British Columbians by a means test. We've enhanced the MSP premium assistance programs to low incomes. We've just, in this new budget, raised that threshold by $2,000 for when it kicks in.

We have health checks for preschoolers now, and we've added $1.2 billion for a mental health program. That's up 42 percent since 2001. We have the first-ever child and youth mental health plan, where we're helping to identify some of these issues in young people, because the evidence now shows us that mental health issues often emerge very early in life, earlier than we ever knew.

We are taking on the front of health, of housing, of tax policy, all these things, including the dollars we're spending on early childhood investment. We have child care. We've put another $26 million in this budget. We're supporting, I think, over 90,000 child care spaces in this province now, more than double than what we started off with.

[1115]

We have StrongStart centres. We have over 300 centres now that are helping families for free. Children with a caregiver or parent can drop in and be better prepared for kindergarten. We spent almost $3 million on Ready, Set, Learn, preparing kids for kindergarten. We know and understand that the best thing we can do is invest in youth going forward on a preventative basis.

There's a whole variety — job skills training, helping people go back to work, introducing apprentice and trade skills programming in the high schools now so that youngsters who are not going on to academic pursuits can learn a trade…. There's a whole combination of approaches that we have been taking to help the most vulnerable.

I'm very proud of this government's record. Yes, there's still a way to go, and we hope to keep on going. But one of the best things we can do is get this economy kick-started, get jobs, have people have family-supporting jobs so that they can go forward with dignity to all improve quality of life in this province.

N. Simons: I am pleased to add my support to the motion presented by my colleague calling for the government to establish a comprehensive child poverty reduction plan with targets and timelines, achievable outcomes, measurable outcomes so that we can look at the success or failure of the programs that we're engaged in.

Now, we often hear about the statistics — how many children, what it represents, how many families live in poverty — and we really should remind ourselves that it's not just a statistic. We're talking about little children who for the last six years…. So if they're zero to six now,
[ Page 3777 ]
if they happen to be living in poverty, they can see that their government has done nothing to address that in any comprehensive way.

The members opposite speak of various programs. Some of them are good programs. Most of the ones mentioned have been significantly cut recently. They all are programs that have been in place in one way or another for the past six years, yet we see six years of being the first in this country in terms of child poverty.

Even if we were to agree with the members opposite, who say they're doing enough…. I cannot believe they make that claim, but that's the tone of their response — that all these programs are designed to reduce the amount of poverty. It's not working, Madam Speaker. It's clearly not working. By every measure from independent sources, poverty in British Columbia is higher than everywhere else.

The members talk about what we need to do is kick-start the economy, as if by kick-starting the economy their ethics on this issue will change. We've seen their record for the past six years. We've seen their record during the times of economic growth. We've seen their record. Their record is a record of failure. That's why independent bodies are calling for the establishment of a comprehensive plan.

What is it that this government has against a comprehensive plan when it comes to addressing child poverty? Why is it? Is it because their failures are going to be enumerated for the public to see? Perhaps.

But I think that the goal at the end of the day is more important than this government saving face on their failure. It's about children — children who are going to school hungry, children who are going to school unable to be properly supported in that environment, children who are going to school without access to programs that other children have because their parents don't have the extra cost, with clothing and nutrition below the standard. We know what those outcomes are.

Recently I've perhaps found the reason why we don't yet have a comprehensive plan. It's because the minister responsible for this file does not see a correlation between poverty and health outcomes. He has written in a letter to a colleague of mine that in fact studies may indicate sometimes that there's a link between poverty and poor health outcomes, but that that causal link is uncertain.

[1120]

We have deniers of properly executed investigations into this subject. We have deniers of the social science literature and statistics that have been agreed to and understood by the majority of British Columbians. But we have a minister who apparently steadfastly refuses to consider child poverty as a problem.

It's a problem because it's a moral problem. It's a problem because it's an economic problem. If we don't have a comprehensive plan to reduce child poverty in this province, we're not addressing the issue properly. Now, multiministerial approaches may be beneficial, but no one is checking to make sure we accomplish anything by a certain date, and nobody is checking to make sure that anything is being effective.

It's fine to say that you have got this little program here, this little program there and that one over there, but unless someone is saying: "What's the overall plan…?" For example, talk about tax cuts and talk about the fact that there are massive service cuts to children and families in this province, the lack of nutritional benefits, the lack of dental care, the lack of you name it.

If this government doesn't think that a comprehensive plan is a good idea, say so. But don't say that you're doing the equivalent, because the government is not. The government has left this issue, hoping and crossing their fingers for six years with no measurable results showing that children's conditions are improving in this province. That is denial of the problem, and that's what is leaving children vulnerable in this province. Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this motion.

D. McRae: I am pleased to respond to the member for Vancouver-Hastings and others about this issue, and I'm also feeling a little bit guilty but at the same time kind of glad. We happen to live in a province that has the healthiest people in Canada, the longest-lived people in Canada, and yet, obviously, there are a lot of areas of suffering.

Much has been made by the opposition of the lack of a formal, comprehensive poverty reduction strategy. I wonder what they would include in such a plan. Would they include such programs like the rental assistance program that provides an average of $350 a month to low-income working families? Would they support the Shelter Aid for Elderly Renters program that provides rent subsidies of up to $18,000 a year for over 15,000 seniors?

Would the opposition support programs that provide children the best opportunity to enter the school system with the strongest skill set possible? Do they support things like the full-day kindergarten program that could be expanded in the future to include three- and four-year-olds? I'm not sure.

Do they support the $1.4 billion invested in literacy and literacy-related programs we've done during this term of government? What about the $43 million invested in the StrongStart programs for British Columbia? No, I don't want to hear anything about the $65 million to support the 90,000 licensed child care spaces. No, no, I don't want to hear about that. Would the opposition support more support for the K-to-12 or post-secondary systems? Well, do they support the fact that B.C. is investing record amounts in our school system?

Interjection.
[ Page 3778 ]

Deputy Speaker: Member.

Member, please take your seat for one moment.

There will be courtesy afforded to all members. Thank you.

Please continue.

D. McRae: So do they support the fact that B.C. is investing record amounts in our school system and post-secondary institutions? What about the number of dollars allocated to the student loan and student loan forgiveness program in our province? All this at a time when private and post-secondary schools are seeing enrolment up by over 10 percent. We hear a common trend to that.

Would the opposition suggest that the government keep as many dollars in the pockets of low-income families as possible? Let's not forget that the best support the government can provide for low-income families is low unemployment rate and increased demand for workers. We saw this from 2001 to 2008, and today B.C. is projected to have the highest GDP growth in 2010 in the country.

Would the opposition also include the fact that B.C. has the lowest provincial income tax rate in Canada or that if you are one of 325,000 B.C.'ers who make less than $18,000, you pay no income tax at all? Would the opposition include expanding Fair PharmaCare? Is that a good idea? That has reduced prescription drug costs to over 300,000 residents.

Would the opposition include the MSP premium assistance program that was done this past January? I'm not sure. How about to include the recent program change that allows children from low-income families to receive up to $1,400 over two years for basic dental services? Maybe, maybe not. I'm not sure whether they would include it, but they also might not include the climate action tax credit of $105 a year or perhaps the HST rebate of $230 a year.

Interjections.

D. McRae: There have been a lot of things brought up by this government, and obviously I've hit a tone because I hear members opposite continually going at me over and over again. But you know what? Life in B.C. has continued to improve year by year since 2001, and this government will work hard to ensure that B.C. is and remains the best place on earth.

[1125]

M. Elmore: I am very pleased to rise and speak in favour of my colleague calling for the province to adopt and implement a poverty reduction strategy. B.C. is the most healthy province and a terrific place to live on earth. Certainly I share that. I'm privileged as well, in terms of my family, but I think the issue and the concern and the folks that we're talking about are those who do not have access to that and certainly don't enjoy those same privileges. I think it's incumbent upon us as a government, in terms of representing these folks, that we need to implement a poverty reduction strategy.

I just want to address one aspect in terms of…. Okay, how do we gauge and how do we measure the levels of poverty in the province? One of the measures is conducted by a study by the human early learning partnership at UBC measuring the rates of vulnerability in students, particularly their readiness going into kindergarten — the vulnerability rates. The study concluded that there is a rate of 29 percent of vulnerability in young children entering kindergarten — that they actually weren't ready in terms of all the developmental aspects to be able to fully participate in kindergarten.

That's certainly a concern, and the target laid out by the government is for a 15-by-15 — to lower the vulnerability rate to 15 percent by 2015. That's certainly a worthy goal.

In terms of being able to move towards that, one of the issues that's needed to recognize…. I want to address two main issues: one, to reduce poverty for those children and families who experience that vulnerability, early vulnerability problems, by ensuring that our investment in early childhood development, early learning and child care — that there is a comprehensive system that families can access, a system that provides for child care spaces and quality early learning, and parents can feel comfortable leaving their kids there.

In particular, I think what the shortage is in B.C. is the need for working families to have access to these spaces and for families, working parents, particularly working mothers who disproportionately are in the records of experiencing the highest poverty rates…. The support for those families in terms of being able to access the workforce and being able to support their families — that's a necessity.

The benefits, as well, in terms of a comprehensive investment in early learning…. The scale that the report talks about is a significant investment of several billion dollars a year. The benefits would be to support children at these early years, zero to six — has found that those are the critical years in terms of optimal investment and development for children in terms of their psychological, social and intellectual development to enable them to really progress through school, to graduate and to be successful as well in pursue post-secondary studies, and that that is the best start in life.

It's a benefit not only to children and support for families, but there is also a benefit to our economy in terms of increased productivity with that investment in those kids and the concept of investing in human capital or investing in people. Those early years are a fundamental window in terms of when government public policy can be most effective. So in terms of a comprehensive early learning and child care system, that's important.

Providing that support not only for working families but also in terms of public policy to increase the maternity
[ Page 3779 ]
and also paternity leaves for parents to spend more quality time with their families….

The other aspect of that is the income supplements and also trying to support families to be raised above it. Certainly, the tax regime in British Columbia is one area in terms of measuring these characteristics, but it also has to take context in terms of other aspects, in terms of what support is needed for families hand in hand with that.

[1130]

I think those are the aspects that are important. I speak in favour of a universal, accessible, affordable and quality child care system. Certainly with investment in our early learning, Canada, British Columbia…. We actually rank lowest in terms of our investment in early child care and early learning relative to the other OECD countries. So relative to the western industrialized countries, I think we have a long way to go.

In terms of who we're talking about — families, particularly disproportionately affected by poverty; children; aboriginal children, aboriginal families; new immigrants; families who have children with disabilities…. These are the families, I think, that we need to target. We need to support and enable them and enable these kids — certainly the future of our province — the best start.

T. Lake: I am pleased to rise to speak on this very important topic in this House this morning. I want to just refer to remarks made by the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast, who said that he thought members on our side of the House thought we were doing enough. I can say to this House that we can never do enough to reduce poverty, particularly when it affects children. So I don't think anyone on our side of the House would ever agree that we are there yet. We could always do more.

Many members have spoken about the various programs that we do have already to support those that are facing challenges, financial challenges. In fact, the member for Vancouver-Kensington did a very eloquent job of relating and referring to the government's early childhood education program, and I'll speak about that in just a second.

I want to just again reinforce that when it comes to poverty, I think this should be a non-partisan issue. I think we should all work together. It's something I think we need clear definitions of. As StatsCan has emphasized many, many times, they certainly do not consider the LICO statistic as how poverty should be defined. So I think we need to move away from that dogma that we keep hearing and move to some real information.

That information…. The member for West Vancouver–Sea to Sky talked about the improvements that have occurred since 1991 in all of those measures. Are we there yet? No, we're not, but we're doing a lot to make sure that we make progress, including investment in child care, another $26 million this year. It's a subsidy for parents up to $38,000 in income and serves 56,000 low-income families in the province, and that is a real assistance to those families.

As we know, British Columbia has been mentioned — that we do have high housing costs, so approaching housing and making housing affordable is extremely important to address the issue of poverty in this province. We talked about the rental assistance program. The opposition at times has mocked that program. I can tell you that that's a hugely important program providing 8,200 low-income working families with up to $765 a month, on average $350 a month, to help them with their rental costs.

I know that my wife, when she was, well, a much younger person, when I first met her, was a child in a single-family home, and they were living in assisted housing. I know that without that assisted housing their family would have struggled to succeed.

But the biggest indicator of success, we know, is education. So as I said, the member for Vancouver-Kensington has talked about our early childhood development program, the 15 by 15 challenge to reduce childhood vulnerability going into kindergarten down to 15 percent from the current 29 percent by the year 2015. Of course we've talked about StrongStart centres. We've talked about all-day kindergarten.

Madam Speaker, the key to reducing poverty is education. The second key, the vaccination against poverty, is jobs, and that's why this government is committed to creating an economy that opens up opportunities for jobs in this province.

[1135]

D. Thorne: It's truly a pleasure for me to rise today and support the poverty reduction plan motion. It's something I've spoken about before in this House over the last five years, and certainly today won't be the last time. I certainly would like to agree with the last speaker when he calls for both sides of the House to work together on this issue. I do believe that this is something the official opposition has been calling for, for, well, five years, the same amount of time that I've been sitting here in this House. So I can only say: "What a wonderful idea."

It's really too bad that, in spite of our efforts and the efforts of many, many people across the province of British Columbia, I and my colleagues on this side of the House do not feel that we have had the support of the other side of the House in actually coming up with a plan to reduce poverty in British Columbia.

In February 2009, 299 non-profit organizations across the province of British Columbia…. Now, I'd like to stress that this is not important just in terms of the number, which is staggering — 299 non-profit organizations — but these are the groups who actually work with the people we're talking about.

These are the groups that do the hands-on work, that know the people, that work with them day to day. They
[ Page 3780 ]
don't sit here like us and talk about them like they're some nebulous group of people that are all doing well — as the speaker across the way said: "The healthiest province" and "Everybody is doing better." Hey, some people are. There is no doubt about that. We're not talking about them.

When we talk about a poverty reduction plan for British Columbia, the official opposition and myself, as the speaker right now, and the 299 organizations made up of boards of directors and members and staff who all feel the same way — thousands and thousands, hundreds probably, across the province — we're talking about the group of people who need the following. This is very simple. These are the priority action areas that these groups — 299; I'm going to keep saying it — have asked for.

This is not a difficult decision. This is not a difficult plan to implement. Six other provinces have done it, most of them poorer than British Columbia in total wealth. So it's not difficult.

But it is philosophical. This is where we have our differences on the two sides of the House. This is why…. When members stand up and say, "Hey, we're doing great. Why are they complaining all the time on the other side of the House…?" this is what we're talking about. Philosophy. Ideology. You can say the facts all you want. You can say: "We've done this; we've done that."

These are the priority areas, with targets and timelines of two years, four years, six years, ten years — so simple, so easy: provide adequate and accessible income support for the non-employed; improve the earnings and working conditions of those in the low-wage workforce — and we all know that's the lowest-wage workforce in Canada again this year, year after year after year, to our shame and to my personal disgust; improve food security for low-income individuals and families; address homelessness; adopt a comprehensive, affordable housing and supportive housing plan.

I don't mean willy-nilly. They don't mean willy-nilly. "We'll do something here; we'll do something there." They mean a plan — targets and timelines and measurable outcomes.

No. 5: provide universal, publicly afforded child care. Now, Madam Speaker, I'm going to stop on that one because I know that the Speaker herself is very interested in this topic, and I know that the member from West Vancouver talks about the great gains that have been made in child care.

Well, I'd like to quote, from 2007, the B.C. Chamber of Commerce — not a known official opposition group, as we all know — which says: "B.C. has chosen not to prioritize child care. The cost of this decision is having an enormous negative-quality impact on the ability of B.C. business to both attract women, young families and skilled workers in general to the workforce."

So the B.C. Chamber of Commerce doesn't agree with the government of British Columbia that they have prioritized child care, and they're obviously very concerned about it in terms of the economy, something I believe the government believes it has a bit of a halo around, unlike…. You know, they say that we couldn't run a peanut stand. Well, I'm beginning to think the shoe should be on the other foot.

[1140]

Anyway, let me continue with this little list. Enhance support for training and education for low-income people; and last and not least, enhance community mental health and home support services, and expand integrated approaches to prevention and health promotion services. Those are the policy action areas that hundreds of thousands of hands-on workers are asking for across British Columbia.

There is nothing inevitable about poverty and homelessness in a society as wealthy as ours. If we committed to this bold plan, any bold plan, a dramatic reduction in poverty and homelessness within a few short years is a perfectly achievable goal. Just to go on, I believe that the Premier himself feels…. If I'm quoting him correctly, and I think I am, in December 2008 he said that everything he has tried to do in public life is about children.

Then he goes on to say: "We just don't give it that name." I don't quite understand what that means. I guess it means that he believes the government is working for children all the time, but they don't call it that. That is what you're talking about when you talk about a plan. You call it what it is.

You say: "This is what is needed, this is what we're going to do, and this is the year, the timeline, when we're going to do it. It will be effective, and we will then become the seventh province in Canada to achieve that." It's not so much, really, in a province as wealthy as ours.

I'd just like to finish with one comment by the Premier's own Progress Board, the ninth report, which ranked B.C. eighth out of ten for social condition. It's eight out of ten — dropped two places from sixth-place ranking the year before — on the social condition measure that's based on the percentage of families with incomes below the after-tax low-income cutoff and on birth rates, personal property crime, etc.

This is the government's own Progress Board. If you can't listen to the opposition, if you can't listen to the 299 hands-on workers who know the people we're talking about, for goodness' sake, I expect this government to listen to the progress report that they appointed.

R. Sultan: The motion before us resolves that the government should immediately develop a comprehensive poverty reduction strategy. Well, I thought we already had one. It's called economic growth, and it's quite successful. But let's concede that as our economy recovers, some may not do as well as others. However government might continue to help those less fortunate is a proper subject for debate.
[ Page 3781 ]

What concerns me is how to identify those who are truly in need. Some statistical measures can give us poor direction. What I have in mind is the frequently cited measure of childhood poverty.

As surely as the blooming of daffodils and cherry blossoms, the opposition's denunciation of childhood poverty in our province and our government is one of the rites of spring. To summarize: "Our childhood poverty rate is really, really bad, and any government which tolerates it surely must be as well." Furthermore, I pay attention when First Call, a very active social activist organization, lists my riding of West Vancouver–Capilano as having one of the poorer childhood poverty records in the province.

In truth, my riding does have an ample share of subsidized housing for the poor — 250 units approximately; persons living on social assistance — quite a few; seniors eking out a thin existence, a rather common occurrence; and even four homeless people, according to Metro Vancouver's survey of two years ago. But for my riding to be listed as having one of the highest childhood poverty rates in all of Canada, well, I find that not necessarily very likely.

Why is B.C., on these measures, ranked so low? And within B.C. why is West Vancouver ranked so low? Well, you might say that it's because the cost of living is high in B.C. and even higher in West Vancouver. Surely it is, but that's the wrong answer.

[1145]

We are applying, usually, in these statistical references, the so-called low-income cut-off table — LICO. The LICO table is one table for all of Canada, depending on the number of children and size of community, whether you're living in West Vancouver or Glace Bay, Nova Scotia. So local cost of living really has nothing to do with it.

"Hmm, that's odd," you might say. Or you might conclude that it's because there are so many rich people living up there in British Properties on the hill and there are so many comparatively poor people living down below. Well, wrong again.

LICO is not a measure of relative income. It's an absolute dollar measure which has nothing to do with how well off you are compared to the people in the neighbourhood up the hill. In fact, it's a measure of how rich or poor you are relative to a national average measured 17 years ago. "Hmm," you might say again. "That seems a bit strange."

Finally, you might say that it's due to sampling error, but the statisticians in Ottawa who developed these numbers are very competent and take large samples, so that is unlikely. So my instinct tells me there's something else going on. My instinct tells me there are other systematic factors in the situation. Accordingly, I urge all of us to take with a grain of salt the assertion that B.C. has the most poverty in Canada, particularly childhood poverty, or that West Vancouver is an exemplar of bad.

Do we have poor people? Yes, we do. Do we have too many poor people? Yes, we do. Does our society suffer when we have lots of poor people? It certainly does. We cannot and should not deny that. Our government knows that and continues to make systematic social investment and tax cuts that create jobs, allowing British Columbians the opportunity to improve their lot in life.

For example, our track record in subsidized and social housing far outweighs the meagre accomplishments of the party opposite when it was in power, by a factor of almost ten. I researched this for a talk I gave on the subject of homelessness at the West Vancouver United Church on Friday night. I was quite amazed at the numbers in terms of what this government is doing.

To conclude, there's something seriously misleading about numbers which are bandied about. I'd be very cautious about accepting such claims, and I'd be suspicious of those who tout them. They distort the true nature of the figures taken from Statistics Canada, and I'm eager for the day that this shroud is lifted.

B. Ralston: I want to do three things in the time that's afforded to me: (1) identify that there is a serious problem; (2) identify that there is widespread public support for a comprehensive solution to the problem; and (3) make it clear that solving this problem, setting out a comprehensive plan, is part of the Canadian mainstream.

Indeed, six provinces have plans of this type. They run across the political spectrum. So for those members on the other side to disparage that kind of a solution really places them well outside the Canadian political mainstream.

The previous speaker and some of the other speakers on this side have attempted to suggest that somehow this is all a question of bad statistics and that the low-income cutoff doesn't really identify poor people in this province accurately. What these statistics show is that British Columbia has the worst rate of poverty in the country and that the average person in poverty has an income of $7,700 below the low-income cutoff.

This is not a question of a narrow definition or falling within or without by a couple of hundred dollars. This is a profound gap in the province and something that is clearly identifiable and accepted.

As the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville said, the Premier's own Progress Board — this is a research organization whose board members are appointed by the cabinet — have identified and use LICO as part of what they call the social condition. So they don't have the same reservations that have been expressed by members of the government or members of the other side here today.

[1150]

They use that as part of the definition of the social condition, and the social condition has worsened, as the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville has pointed out.
[ Page 3782 ]
So there is a problem, and it's not a question of definition or statistical error or something like that. It's a real problem, and there are hundreds of thousands of people who are suffering because they're living in poverty.

Secondly, there is widespread public support for a solution. It's not just simply members of the opposition. This group, the B.C. Poverty Reduction Committee, includes people of the stature of Michael McKnight, the president and CEO of the United Way of the Lower Mainland; David Dranchuk, the coordinator for Societal Ministry, Diocese of New Westminster of the Anglican Church.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

These are mainstream people who represent a range of groups — over 300 groups — who came together before the last election and said that it's time for a clear, comprehensive and meaningful program. Solving it, I would submit, is something that is within the capacity of government.

When you look across the country, you only have to look to the Premier of Newfoundland, who is a Tory. He has made that a personal project. It's his plan. It's on his home webpage. There are guidelines, and he personally monitors what's taking place. In fact, what I'm told is that as a result of the comprehensive government action in Newfoundland, the measures of poverty have declined. There has been real progress in Newfoundland.

The Premier of Ontario, a Liberal — although a different brand of Liberal than this particular crowd — has, again, implemented in legislation a comprehensive plan with targets, yoked the power of government, focused it on a plan and is moving forward.

The Premier of Quebec, yet another mainstream politician in this country….

The B.C. Liberals, by their disparagement of the problem, by defining it as some statistical aberration that doesn't reflect reality, are flying in the face of what is the Canadian consensus, the mainstream, which is moving forward across the country. So it's time for members here to convince their cabinet colleagues that that should become a priority of this government, and the shameful record of poverty in this province can begin to abate.

S. Cadieux: First, of course, I'd like to thank the member for Vancouver-Hastings for opening the discussion. As a wealthy nation, we have very much to celebrate, but of course, we always have much work to do. I've spent some time in a couple of developing countries — one second world, one Third World — working with people with disabilities. Certainly, in those countries when families disown people with disabilities, the result is almost always extreme poverty.

I have worked with people here who rely on our social welfare system to survive, as their source — only source — of income, and I feel very grateful that we have a social safety net in Canada and here in British Columbia. By no means do I think that the issues that create poverty in our nation are simple to solve. By no means do I think that we can throw money at a problem and make it go away. I think the issues run much deeper and are much more complex in a developed society like ours.

I do believe that currently the best way we have to fight poverty is education and jobs. They are not the only way, they are not the only solution, and I don't believe they will be the only solution or eradicate poverty. But I think it is the only way we have, as a civilized nation with an extensive social safety net, to work towards the root causes and to see some change over time in dealing with those root causes of poverty in our nation.

We are seeing investments in our economy and in job creation, including programs to help people on low incomes or on income assistance to access the job market, individualized programs like the B.C. employment program and the bridging employment program for women at risk.

[1155]

We're focusing on education right from the next generation, looking at early learning initiatives like StrongStart and all-day kindergarten, right through to investments in post-secondary, with 36,000 new spaces. All of these things work at the root of poverty, and that is to keep people from being there in the first place.

Let's just frame it a little bit. The number of B.C. residents with income below LICO has declined. That's a good start. British Columbia is home to some of the most generous and comprehensive supports for people with low incomes. These supports include subsidized housing, child care subsidies, dental and optical care for children and a wide range of employment programs.

By no means are these the only solutions, and by no means are we getting to every person and solving every person's problems, but what we have to look at is the overall structure, the overall root causes of poverty, and I think we're doing a good job of getting started on that.

M. Mungall: Noting the hour, it is five minutes to lunch, and I'll tell you, my stomach is growling. But what makes it different for me, concerning the topic of debate here, is that in five minutes, like every other person in this House, I'm going to get to go for lunch. I have bought and paid for that lunch myself.

Back in my constituency, in Nelson, hundreds of people are lining up in five minutes at Our Daily Bread, a local soup kitchen. That soup kitchen feeds thousands of people every year, people who are struggling to make ends meet, people living in poverty. They don't get a single cent of support from this provincial government.

About a year ago a gentleman writing an op-ed piece in our Nelson Daily News, in my constituency, wrote that people who are homeless in Canada are often able-bodied
[ Page 3783 ]
young males with their full wits. This coincides with a common phrase that people who are on the street panhandling hear from passers-by: "Get a job." Both of these statements highlight the lack of understanding that exists in our society around the complexity of homelessness, the complexity of poverty.

Many people spoke today, but I actually bring personal experience to this issue. I ran a food bank for several years. I worked as an advocate for people who are homeless, and then I put it all together in my master's thesis. I have been doing work to address poverty in this province for several years, and I can tell you that based on that work, it is very diverse. People who are poor are very diverse.

For every person who is living in poverty, there is a story. That complexity requires a comprehensive, coordinated, coherent and strategic plan with targets and timelines and measurable outcomes. That is what we're looking for in this province, and it is not a new idea. It is an idea that people have taken up across the country, across the continent, and it works. That's why members on this side of the House are calling for it.

What we have seen from this government are ad hoc responses that have not had the impact necessary to reduce poverty, mainly because their responses are piecemeal. They are just enough for a five-minute speech and a photo op. But we need more than that, and that is why I unequivocally support this motion.

Noting the hour, noting my growling stomach and, I'm sure, everybody else's and the fortunate situation that we can all go get lunch in just a moment, I'd like to move adjournment on the debate.

M. Mungall moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. I. Chong: I thank all members for their statements this morning.

Hon. I. Chong moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.

The House adjourned at 12 noon.

[ 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 © 2010: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

ISSN 1499-2175