2014 Legislative Session: Second Session, 40th Parliament
HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Monday, April 7, 2014

Morning Sitting

Volume 10, Number 3

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

MONDAY, APRIL 7, 2014

The House met at 10:03 a.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Private Members' Statements

CLIMATE CHANGE

G. Heyman: Last week the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued one of its seven-year reports. This was a three-year joint effort that involved more than 300 scientists.

[1005]

Among the comments in the report are that "the volume of scientific literature on the effects of climate change has doubled since our last report." The summary of the report mentioned the word "risk" more than 230 times. That's six times more than the last report seven years ago. In the words of a leading scientist, there is the "potential for crossing a threshold that leads to large system changes, and that's a very unknown world." The report went on to say that in tandem with poverty and inequality, climate change poses a much more direct threat to both life and livelihood.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

It's common in this House for us to strive to be hopeful. In fact, it's common for all politicians to strive in our exchanges with the public to be hopeful. It's the easiest approach to take. It's what wins us friends. But as leaders and in this chamber we need to be honest with each other, and we need to be honest with the public. We need to look beyond simple messaging if we are to create hopeful solutions to the issues and problems that face us.

I don't need to go through the long litany of the effects of climate change that potentially face us because we already know what many of them look like. Many of them are here today. We have seen wildfires in Australia. We have seen heatwaves in Europe and across the United States.

We hear about the acidification of the oceans killing the coral reefs, and we need look no further than here in British Columbia, where in February we had a massive die-off of scallops and oysters — a significant impact on our aquaculture industry. Eighty to 90 percent of the crop on the south coast died off as a result of ocean acidification.

Last July was the driest in 60 years, followed by flooding in southeast B.C. and Calgary. And of course, we know about the effect of the pine beetle on our forests.

The UN report went on to say that governments do not have adequate systems in place to protect populations, particularly the poorest, the weakest and the most elderly who are, of course, the most under threat, as are low-lying island nations that depend on a subsistence fishery to feed themselves. That is true here as well. We are told that food prices are projected to rise worldwide, and we've seen the effect of food price shocks in the riots that have occurred recently in both Asia and Africa.

As an author of the report said: "We need yields to grow to meet growing demand, but already climate change is slowing those yields." For us here in B.C., not just to feed our own population but to assist in feeding people around the world, we need to protect agricultural land. We need to understand that as climate changes and growing zones shift northward, we need to be aware of not just our needs today, not just what land is used for, for agriculture today but what it will be used for in the future, what it will be needed for in the future, what it will be absolutely necessary for in the future.

Today on the steps of the Legislature farmers of British Columbia came to talk to all of us — specifically the government, but to all of us — about the impacts of considerations we may make in this House and how important it is that they, as farmers, as the people who devote their lives to feeding us and others around the world, need to be consulted about the impact of plans that are made for our agricultural land.

All of this has a cost. Failure to address the impacts of climate change, the failure to plan for the future has a cost, an economic cost. It's not simply a question of choosing the environment or the economy today. The UN has said that this is best viewed as a risk management challenge.

Economic analysts and a variety of think tanks are clear: taking action now is far less expensive than waiting. For example, the estimates of the Alberta government on the costs of dealing with the flooding in the Calgary area and southern Alberta kept climbing. They are now over $6 billion as a result of one catastrophic weather event.

[1010]

It is time for clear plans. It is time for honest plans. This is not something that can be left to a future generation. It's not something that will be fixed in five years, ten years or 20 years if we do nothing now. We need a climate action plan. We need leadership from the federal government and from the provincial government and all of us here in this chamber, because individual actions are not enough.

We need a commitment to a climate action plan that we will follow through on. We need to meet the legislated targets which we have set for greenhouse gas emission reduction, and we are on target to miss those legislated targets.
[ Page 2832 ]

As we develop resources, we need to add value. As we develop resources that involve greenhouse gas emissions, we have to clearly say where we will find the offsetting reductions elsewhere in our economy, elsewhere in our community, because we have a responsibility to ourselves and to others around the world to do that.

It's not just a matter of preventing catastrophe. It's a matter of seizing the economic opportunities that are to be found in transit, in retrofits, in clean technology and in energy.

The latest news means that now is not the time to turn back. We want jobs for families today, but we want jobs for the future. We want hope, not fear. An environmental deficit, just like a financial deficit, cannot be left to future generations, and an environmental deficit of the nature that the UN has told us about can never be repaid.

Michelle Stilwell: Like other British Columbians, I am extremely proud of the leadership that this government has demonstrated on climate action. Under the direction of this government, our province has earned international recognition for both our leadership in the green economy and our commitment to protecting our environment.

Climate change is affecting every part of the world, and B.C. is not immune. It's clear that governments at every level must make commitments and take action to address climate issues. Our government is doing just that, and we're doing it very well.

For our government it's not just simple messaging. In B.C. we don't just talk the talk about climate change. We take action and prove that it is possible to protect the environment while growing the economy. We do have hope. We are committed to building our record of reducing our carbon footprint and keeping our environment clean.

We have taken concrete leadership on climate action, saving on energy costs for the provincial public sector and encouraging investment in emission reduction projects that are driving the creation of a low-carbon economy. British Columbia is committing to reducing our carbon emissions by 33 percent by 2020 and by 80 percent by 2050. Ours is the first jurisdiction in all of North America to have a carbon-neutral public sector.

In 2007 the province and the Union of B.C. Municipalities established the voluntary B.C. community climate action charter, and 90 percent of B.C. communities have signed on to this charter, proving just how important climate action is to British Columbians. To achieve carbon neutrality, municipalities invest in greenhouse gas reduction projects in their communities and purchase offsets. The province supports their efforts by returning 100 percent of carbon tax dollars to charter communities. The member from Delta just told me that his community will be receiving more than $212,000.

It is clear that the revenue-neutral carbon tax has created positive change for our communities. We are taking action not only to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions and provide incentives to develop cleaner technology but to establish our province's role as a leader in the development of a new green economy. The more we create opportunities for people to live more environmentally friendly lifestyles, the better off we will all be.

This leadership also guides the development of B.C.'s liquefied natural gas industry. Our government right now is working to ensure that B.C.'s LNG operations are the cleanest in the world. Discussions are taking place with industry right now to make this a reality.

Climate change is a global issue. By exporting natural gas, B.C. will supply growing markets with the cleanest-burning fossil fuel.

[1015]

LNG is the biggest opportunity for B.C. to help reduce global greenhouse gas emissions by helping countries like China reduce coal-fired power generation with natural gas. Did you know that to match just one year of China's proposed emissions reduction, B.C. would have to shut everything down — every car, every school, every factory and hospital — for at least a year and a half?

We can grow our economy, and we can do it responsibly. The Premier has been clear that B.C. will remain a climate action leader. The B.C. jobs plan reiterates the leadership position, reaffirming that climate action policies are the driver of innovation and economic outcomes.

On October 28, 2013, the Premier and governors from Pacific Coast Collaborative partner states signed the west coast action plan on climate action and clean energy. It reinforces B.C.'s commitment to clean energy and clean economy initiatives, as well as committing Washington State and Oregon to adopt carbon-pricing policies that align with existing mechanisms in B.C. and California.

Climate change is such a global issue that requires action at every level, from small-town neighbourhoods to international trade. Moving forward, our government will continue to work with the province's families, businesses and community leaders on environmental goals that will benefit our environment, our economy and our world.

G. Heyman: Thank you to the member for Parksville-Qualicum for her remarks and for her caring about the issue of climate change, but let me simply say that the 772 scientists who wrote and edited the UN report on climate change have made it clear that world leaders have only a few years left to reduce carbon emissions enough to avoid leading to massive global warming, catastrophic global warming, that will be felt everywhere in the world, including here in British Columbia.

Let me say that I will acknowledge that a number of steps were taken a number of years ago by the Liberal government to deal with climate, to initiate a climate action plan, to introduce a carbon tax — a leading-model carbon tax. But let me also say that since that time we
[ Page 2833 ]
simply have not seen enough commitment to follow through, and in this latest iteration of the government, climate change seems to have been reduced to words and not action. We have seen no meaningful new climate actions tabled since 2008.

As for reductions that are planned to meet, under the emission reduction targets act, the Globe and Mail last December said: "No one believes B.C. will meet the target of cutting its greenhouse gas emission 33 percent by 2020…. A B.C. government report has indicated it expects a robust LNG industry could at least double B.C.'s GHG emissions." That's this government's own report.

I will reiterate that as we develop a gas industry or any industry that involves significant GHG emissions, we need to plan for GHG reductions in other parts of our society and industry. It may well be true that if coal-fired plants in China are replaced by liquefied natural gas–fired plants, there will be an overall reduction in GHG emissions, but where is there a commitment from the government to tie the export of LNG to a reduction in the use of coal, to a substitution of LNG for coal?

We can grow the economy through developing resources as long as we account for GHG reductions. We can also contribute to GHG reductions and build the economy by investing now in transit, in energy conservation, in energy retrofits across the residential and commercial sectors. We need to ensure that our children will look back and not condemn us for ignoring this challenge but thank us because we heeded science, took action and safeguarded their future, just as we looked after our well-being today.

L. Popham: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

L. Popham: This morning I have three incredibly special guests to introduce here in the chamber. They are three farmers, two from the Kootenays and one from Vancouver Island. Their names are Erin Harris, a dairy producer; Oliver Egan, who is a vegetable and fruit producer; and Dan Ferguson, who has Dragonfly Farm in the Cowichan Valley and is part of the Cowichan Agricultural Society.

[1020]

These farmers are joining us today at the Legislature so that we know who our farmers are and we know what they produce and we know how important it is to support the agricultural land reserve.

Private Members' Statements

CANCER AWARENESS

Moira Stilwell: Following World Cancer Day in February and cancer awareness day, or Daffodil Day, in April, I rise to speak to the House today about cancer awareness.

Of course, we're really all very aware of cancer, personally in terms of all of us being touched by either personally having a brush with cancer or being treated for cancer, losing a loved one to cancer, being involved with parents who may be struggling with cancer or being in the process of being diagnosed, or even knowing a child who bears the burden of cancer or has passed away from cancer.

Certainly, we're all very personally aware, and we probably think about it fleetingly more often than we'd like to admit. You get to a certain point in life where every twinge and symptom causes some people to wonder if it is in fact cancer. We certainly think about our friends who are going through chemo at this moment in time. So we are personally aware.

We also hold closely held misbeliefs or myths about cancer, which I'm going to talk a little bit about, only because if you as an MLA can bust these myths for individuals as you speak to them, even in your office, you will be helping cancer care and understanding in the province, and that's a worthwhile thing to do.

Of course, politically we're aware of cancer as well. We as a government, through the Ministry of Health, fund the British Columbia Cancer Agency, something we're all justifiably proud of and something that every government, every mandate in British Columbia, has contributed to — a really huge, remarkable success story that, as I say, we are proud of and want to see continued.

According to the Canadian Cancer Society, the probability of a Canadian developing cancer in their life is 46 percent for men and 41 percent in women, so nearly a 1-in-2 chance of developing cancer. Approximately 23,000 people will be diagnosed with cancer this year in B.C., and just to put it in a more broad perspective, there are almost 200,000 B.C. residents right now living in B.C. who have had a diagnosis of cancer. About 65 percent of adults and 80 percent of children diagnosed with cancer are expected to live at least five years following that diagnosis.

In British Columbia we're proud to have some of the best cancer outcomes in Canada, including the lowest overall mortality rate — that is, people dying of cancer. And something we don't always talk about and probably should be encouraging even more is the lowest overall incidence of cancer. In other words, we have the lowest number of people being diagnosed with cancer.

That is due to a number of pillars that I'm going to talk about. The first, of course, is prevention, which comes
[ Page 2834 ]
from healthy communities and healthy lifestyles, something that we're very proud of in British Columbia. As you know, not smoking is an important way to prevent cancer, and we have more British Columbians who don't smoke. And except for me, and possibly a few other people here, we also have a lot more active people here in British Columbia, which helps them prevent cancer. I think that that's something that we all share in, and there are many public policy levers that can continue to help that.

I just want to bust a couple of myths quickly around that, in that many people think there is nothing you can do about getting cancer. The fact is we believe today that more than 50 percent of cancers are preventable. Changing your health and following guidelines, including being tobacco-free, eating food that's good for you, keeping your weight within the recommended body mass index, moving every day and staying sun-safe all help to prevent cancer.

The second pillar that British Columbia can be proud of, and often leads in, is screening, which is detecting cancer early to either prevent it from developing, in the case of colon cancer, which I'm going to talk about, or in breast cancer, as a secondary kind of prevention where you detect the cancers early. British Columbia has excellent screening programs. Those are things that we need to ensure we continue to allow and encourage British Columbians to take advantage of.

The third is system performance, quality and research guidelines. I think we all agree that the B.C. Cancer Agency has great strengths in those areas and is recognized not just in Canada but often in the world.

[1025]

Cancer treatment — care, delivery and follow-up — is exemplary in British Columbia. To an extent as part of the Canadian cancer system, but certainly, British Columbia continues to lead because of the leadership at the Cancer Agency and government and partner organizations like the Canadian Cancer Society, B.C. Yukon here and, of course one of my favourite organizations, the Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation of B.C. and Yukon.

Finally, of course, for those who do survive and for those who may not survive, quality of life and working for quality through to end of life are big parts of what we do well here in B.C. well and should be proud of and should continue to work on.

Last year we invested nearly $600 million in the B.C. Cancer Agency to provide British Columbians with those important services. For example, we know that most of the time — not always, but seven minutes doesn't allow me to go into it — when cancer is found early, it's easier to treat.

Certainly the jewel in the crown of the screening program is the cervical cancer screening program, which was established back in 1955 — the same year, by the way, that a new 36-bed boarding home was completed and named the B.C. Cancer Institute Private Hospital, as it had evolved into delivering overnight nursing care. So that was our first cancer hospital.

Regular screening of women for cervical cancer has radically altered the course of that disease and reduced the death rates. Of course, now with the HPV vaccine that we are offering to young women, we expect even further gains in reducing the burden of cervical cancer for young women. As you know, there is now talk about the importance of young men having the vaccine in the prevention of a certain kind of oral cancer that is on the rise.

Screening is meant to identify, as I said, early cancers or precancerous conditions. For example, the breast cancer screening program or screening mammography program in British Columbia, which is 25 years old, is one of the leading screening programs in this country. About one in nine women will develop breast cancer in their lifetime, and research has shown that with regular screening, the number of women who lose their life to that disease is reduced by up to 25 percent. Since its inception in 1988 through 2012 the screening program has provided more than 4.5 million screening tests for free.

J. Darcy: I'm pleased to be able to respond to the member for Vancouver-Langara. I think she spoke very eloquently about the impact of cancer on people's lives. Certainly, when we attended the reception by the Canadian Cancer Society held just the week before last, it was very clear…. When people in the room, mainly MLAs, were asked to raise their hands about whether they'd been personally affected by cancer, about a third of the hands went up, and many more would have gone up if it was about a loved one who had been affected by cancer. So certainly, cancer prevention is a priority that all of us share in this House.

The Canadian Cancer Society asks us to imagine: what if half the people who are expected to get cancer this year didn't, through prevention programs? In British Columbia that number would be almost 12,000. The Canadian Cancer Society is actually proposing the creation of a cancer prevention centre — I know that that's something they've met with government about — a national resource that would be based here in British Columbia. Its focus would be absolutely on accelerating the translation of new knowledge about cancer into practical and publicly supported changes in policy and on education programs.

They report some important successes already in prevention programs that they have pioneered, including a breast cancer risk assessment and prevention centre, an investigation into the relationship between cancer and the social determinants of health, as well as a study into workplace awareness of harmful exposures and how to reduce their risk.

One of the issues that the B.C. Cancer Society is calling on us to support this year very strongly is something
[ Page 2835 ]
that has come to attention in the last few years, and that's the call to ban all flavoured tobacco products. We now have flavoured cigars, flavoured cigarillos, water pipe and chewing tobacco — all candy-flavoured tobacco products that are on the market and designed by tobacco companies specifically to target youth and to encourage youth to begin smoking.

[1030]

In British Columbia the statistics show that of youth who had consumed tobacco in the last 30 days, 53 percent of those young people had consumed flavoured tobacco products. That's a pretty powerful statement.

Flavours, of course, grab the attention of youth and make them more likely to want to experiment with tobacco products, especially…. I don't know if any of the members opposite have seen how some of these are packaged, but they're packaged very attractively, with bright colours. Some of them look like candy; some of them look like lipstick, lip gloss, mascara wands. Many of the youth who experiment using flavoured tobacco products are not fully aware, in fact, that they contain tobacco themselves.

By using these marketing tactics and also by exploiting loopholes in existing federal legislation, the tobacco industry is trying to attract new customers, new smokers, at a time when smoking rates are falling — or, at least in British Columbia, remaining stable at 13 percent for a number of years.

The members opposite may be aware that I have tabled a private member's bill that calls for a banning of flavoured tobacco. I expect that it will be discussed later this month. This is certainly an issue on which I hope that we can have all-party agreement, both sides of this House, because this is absolutely about prevention of cancer, especially amongst young people.

I want to touch on one final issue, and this is a group that falls through the cracks. These are the survivors of childhood cancer who, because of the treatment itself they experienced, are suffering many late effects of that treatment. That includes secondary cancers, organ failures, fertility issues, and so on.

They've called for the creation of a specialized clinic to deal with their particular health needs but also to provide screening for the survivors of childhood cancer so that they can be screened and can know in advance what risks they face of further cancers, what risks they face of other devastating health consequences of the treatment itself. This is a real gap in our health care system.

It is absolutely about ensuring that we have better health outcomes, in this case for adult survivors of childhood cancer, and that, in particular, we do the kind of risk assessment, the kind of screening, to prevent those young people who have already been through the horrible experience of cancer as children so that they won't be exposed once again to those cancers — or at least that everything humanly and medically possible is done to prevent it.

Moira Stilwell: Thank you to the member for New Westminster for her comments, which I think are knowledgable and speak to some of the needs that we want to address going forward. Going forward, I think it's important to be very proud of the B.C. Cancer Agency, having worked in partnership with government over all of the years since its interception, and partner organizations like the Canadian Cancer Society.

They have both been prescient in their vision, and that has led to them being leaders in this province. The Canadian Cancer Society, in terms of its strategy to move much more towards prevention, I think, has been very key and, as I say, prescient. Their campaigns and efforts to ban cosmetic pesticides have been very prescient.

I agree that flavoured tobacco being sold to people under 19, who are the only people who would be interested in flavoured tobacco, is completely inappropriate. As a physician, I completely support the idea that we need to make sure that cigarette retailers and makers are not marketing to young people.

Finally, to the B.C. Cancer Agency, whose leadership, in partnership with government, who funded, and also agencies like the B.C. Cancer Foundation, in their move towards molecular medicine. This was something started long, long ago, before people in government began to hear about the idea of molecular medicine and personalized medicine.

This is the future, and the B.C. Cancer Agency has been one of the groups at the forefront, along with, of course, Genome B.C., which we have funded and is doing important work in genomics. A vast portion of their portfolio is directed at health.

THE VALUE OF SENIORS HOUSING

K. Conroy: Housing for seniors comes in many forms in this province. Many live in their own homes — sometimes with support and more often than not without any support — homes they have lived in for the majority of their lives or ones where they've downsized, sometimes moving to a condo or a townhouse.

[1035]

Some are in independent housing, such as the Rota Villa in my home community of Castlegar, a housing complex built by the Rotary and the community many years ago, and it still continues to provide housing for seniors in our area today. Others live in independent supportive housing, assisted living or complex care.

The provincial government has said it is committed to ensuring that seniors can remain in their homes and age in place. Yet the lack of adequate and affordable housing in B.C. means many seniors are forced to choose between paying for accommodation or buying food and prescription drugs. I continue to hear of seniors who have been prescribed a set dosage of drugs cutting their dose in half to make the prescription last longer and save money, but
[ Page 2836 ]
ultimately putting their health at risk.

The affordable housing crisis in B.C. has a direct impact on seniors' health. Contrary to stereotypes that all seniors are secure homeowners with healthy pensions, one in five seniors rents their home, and 14 percent of B.C. seniors were living in poverty in 2010. For unattached seniors, the situation is much worse; 40 percent are living in poverty. Just over half of the seniors in B.C. who rent in the private market have problems paying for their rent. According to the 2006 census, 12,000 seniors in B.C. spent more than half their income on housing; 94 percent of them were single women.

There are a number of types of low-income seniors housing available, which includes senior supportive housing, which is market or subsidized housing for seniors that includes some on-site support or hospitality services like housekeeping, shopping, cooking, and social and recreational activities. Research shows that supportive housing can help keep seniors independent, healthy and out of the hospital. However, only about 14 percent of the available supportive housing in B.C. is subsidized by the provincial government. The remaining 86 percent must be rented at market costs, which is too expensive for many seniors in this province.

Assisted living is a form of housing that includes the provision of hospitality services and prescribed care services like help with medications, bathing, grooming and dressing. Low-income seniors are eligible for partial subsidies from the provincial government to help pay for assisted living, yet they still must pay up to 80 percent of their monthly income for accommodation and care. Non-subsidized residents typically pay between $1,500 and sometimes up to $5,000 a month for that kind of care. The average market rent for assisted living and senior supportive housing has increased by 55 percent since 2005.

Senior social housing is non-market public housing — cooperatives and non-profit housing — targeted to people over 55, with no on-site support. It is funded mainly by provincial housing programs. Between 2002 and 2012 we have seen just a 2 percent increase in the number of social housing units in B.C. Over the same period the number of seniors over 55 in B.C. increased by over 36 percent.

Manufactured mobile homes are another common form of low-cost housing for seniors. Today seniors living in manufactured homes have limited protection under the Residential Tenancy Act and are often left homeless if the land they live on is purchased for development. Too often we have heard stories of seniors who have lived in their manufactured home for years suddenly given an eviction notice, as the landowner has decided to sell the land or build condos — too many stories of seniors who have nowhere to go and often homes which are too old to move, or there's no place to move them to. Protection needs to be brought in for these seniors.

There are rental subsidies through Shelter Aid For Elderly Renters — or SAFER, as it is known — a monthly financial subsidy from the provincial government for low-income seniors to help them pay for suitable housing in the private rental market. SAFER subsidies have not increased since 2005, yet the average rent in B.C. has increased by 23 percent over that time. As a result, there is a growing gap between the rental subsidy that seniors can get and their actual cost of housing.

Even the Union of B.C. Municipalities is asking the government to adjust the monthly rent levels under the SAFER program to actually reflect the prevailing cost of housing for seniors across the province. As well, they are asking the government to eliminate the requirement of annual reapplication to the SAFER program. Asking a senior to reapply annually, regardless of their health or abilities, has resulted in them often losing months of rental subsidy before the reinstatement can actually occur.

Seniors in this province are struggling under the B.C. Liberals. They are paying more for B.C. Hydro, more for ferry fares. The cost of food is going up, rents are increasing, and the fact is that the fastest-growing number of homeless persons in this province are, sadly, seniors.

[1040]

They just did the homeless count in Langley. They found people living in cars and in parks, some staying in shelters, abandoned buildings and homeless camps in wooded areas. When they did open the homeless shelter, it created a decline in the visibility of homelessness in Langley. However, it's gotten much more complicated. The age of the people on the streets and in the shelters has risen. Fraser Holland, an outreach worker, said it used to be rare to see people in the 55-to-65 age range. Now, unfortunately, it is commonplace.

Some are chronically homeless. Others have recently found themselves in the situation, due to medical issues, the death or divorce of a spouse or dwindling financial resources that lead them to not be able to make the rent. It used to be homelessness was a young people's issue in Langley, and they were not concerned at all about seniors. But now it's seniors.

I'm hearing the same concerns across the province. In Vancouver from 2008 to 2011 the number of homeless seniors living on the streets actually went down, but the number living in shelters increased by almost 83 percent, with 48 percent of them being homeless or near homeless for one year or more.

A provincial government that is serious about prioritizing the dignity of our elders and supporting them to remain in their homes needs to increase the availability of affordable housing options for the many low-income and vulnerable seniors living in communities across B.C.

The SAFER rates need to be looked at so they reflect the actual rental costs in housing markets across the province. The residential….
[ Page 2837 ]

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.

L. Larson: I'm pleased to respond to this statement on senior housing in British Columbia.

Today's seniors are living longer, healthier lives and want to maintain their independence as long as possible. Currently one-sixth of our population is over 65, and between now and 2020 that population will double. In the last decade this government has invested $2.8 billion in affordable housing for low-income individuals, seniors and families in all communities across British Columbia.

To give our seniors a wide range of options for comfortable and safe environments to live in, we have invested in a range of choices to provide independent living for as long as possible. Shelter Aid for Elderly Renters has helped more than 16,700 seniors across the province to pay their rent. Due to initiatives in housing by this government, 21,000 seniors live in independent social housing in communities across British Columbia. Living in your own home longer also means services will need to be provided in home.

The United Way of the Lower Mainland is developing and managing the implementation of Better at Home, a non-medical support program that provides transportation, shopping, light housekeeping and social contact for seniors in their own homes. It is being rolled out in 60 communities across British Columbia.

This government expects to spend another $2.5 billion on home and community care this year for seniors, an increase of 60 percent since 2001. There are 26 percent more clients receiving home care professional services, and the number of hours of care per home support client has increased from 212 hours to 249 hours, again since 2001, and 68 percent of all home support recipients pay absolutely nothing at all for care.

The B.C. care aide and community health worker registry has been established to improve standards of care in the care aide and community health worker occupations and further protect those who are vulnerable.

We have also introduced incapacity-planning legislation, providing more legal options for capable adults to express their wishes and decisions for their future health care and to manage their routine finances and care without the need for a lawyer.

Independent Living B.C. is a housing for health program that serves seniors who require some support but do not need 24-hour institutional care. It offers assisted-living suites to bridge the gap between home care and residential care. Over 4,300 such units have been created around the province.

[1045]

Senior supportive housing funds renovations and upgrades to existing housing for low-income seniors and persons with disabilities to enhance accessibility and improve safety systems, and 765 existing senior units have been converted under this program.

The Home Adaptations for Independence program, another partnership with the federal government, allows eligible homeowners and landlords to access up to $20,000 to pay for accessibility modifications to their homes. Since January 2012 more than 300 seniors and people with disabilities have received funding from this program.

In April 2009 the federal and provincial governments launched a new $123 million seniors rental housing initiative to build approximately 1,300 new housing units for seniors. Approximately 1,200 units funded under that program have now been completed, and there is a housing registry in a centralized database that helps seniors find subsidized housing available in their areas.

In January 2013, in partnership with the UBCM, 27 communities received age-friendly grants of up to $20,000 to help create programs or tools to address the needs of their older residents.

B.C. is the first jurisdiction to appoint a seniors advocate. Isobel Mackenzie brings many years of experience working on behalf of seniors locally, provincially and federally. We're confident we have found a strong voice for B.C. seniors.

In conclusion, we know it will take a collaborative effort to continue to address the complex needs of our quickly aging population, and we are committed to working with health authorities, community stakeholders, the seniors advocate, patients and their families to ensure that seniors in B.C. receive the best possible care.

K. Conroy: Thank you to the member for Boundary-Similkameen for her comments, but the reality in this province is that seniors still continue to suffer. I think what the government needs to reinvest in is home support, medical home support, to keep seniors in their homes longer.

I'm well aware of the Better at Home program that is provided by the United Way of the Lower Mainland throughout the province, through funding from the provincial government. It is working very well for some seniors in the province but not for everyone. It doesn't take care of the seniors who can't afford the additional services. It doesn't take care of seniors who require additional medical services.

Unfortunately, even though the United Way is expanding this program with additional dollars from the government, it is cancelling grants to other programs it used to fund, much-needed programs whose services have actually saved the government financially.

Among the people hit by the terminations will be the dozens of seniors who rely on the $250,000 in annual United Way funding for the Seniors Services Society's temporary housing program. This program, now posed to collapse in September, takes homeless seniors from the streets or out of shelters and puts them into basic private rooms and apartment buildings until they can
[ Page 2838 ]
get permanent housing.

It's devastating to the organization, seeing that seniors, when they can't get this housing, are ending up going back into the hospitals and acute care beds. They're going back into shelters, and they're going back to the streets.

The society has 20 apartments that are used for seniors for an average of four months each on an emergency basis. The cost to house each senior is $20 per day. More than 95 percent of the society's 176 clients to date have found permanent housing by the end of their tenancy. They're staying in the apartment for maybe an average of four months, but afterwards they find permanent housing.

The executive director says, "The traditional shelter that you have in mind isn't the best fit for seniors," adding that people who may be frail or experiencing health problems should not have to walk around the streets all day without a comfortable place to rest.

This temporary housing program started in 2007, and it helps to improve living conditions for a population that the United Way has estimated is the fastest-growing homeless group in the Lower Mainland, one that has grown by more than 250 percent in just six years. Almost one in four seniors in the area who are 65 or older live in poverty.

The executive director said the society has begun to look for partners who can replace the United Way funding but said nothing promising has emerged. "We have a pretty strong case here — a social case, a business case — and we're confident something will come up." Their ultimate goal would be that the provincial government should step in.

If the government doesn't step in, one has to ask at the cost of the shortsightedness, which is really unfortunate for seniors in this province.

[1050]

NORTH SHORE ARTS GROUPS

J. Thornthwaite: It's with great pleasure that I rise in the House today to talk about the thriving arts community on the North Shore and the importance of supporting arts and culture across the province. Both art and music are languages that cut across racial and social borders. They allow us not only the freedom of expression but also the ability to build strong communities by bridging cultures and bringing people together through shared experience.

My community is home to a myriad of galleries, theatres and music societies, and on any given night you can tour an exhibit or catch a live performance. It's a wonderful environment for professionals and emergent talent, particularly because we have so many organizations on the North Shore working to help artists perfect their craft and find an audience. Today I'd like to recognize two of these groups.

The Seymour Art Gallery Society was established in 1985 and maintains an active exhibit space in the heart of Deep Cove. They welcome more than 25,000 visitors each year and promote interest in the arts by showcasing the work of local and national talent. I was very fortunate to be able to tour the gallery with the Minister of Community, Sport and Cultural Development, and I must say it's an incredible facility with knowledgable staff and fantastic exhibits.

I'd like to encourage anyone who hasn't visited the gallery to check out the latest exhibition, Start with Art, an annual display that aims to educate and help children cultivate a love for the visual arts.

On that day in December we also visited the Deep Cove Shaw Theatre and the Deep Cove Heritage Society. It's a lovely building in the heart of Deep Cove and a gem to visit. I would highly recommend it.

The second group I'd like to highlight is the North Vancouver Community Arts Council. The council has served the North Shore for more than four decades, helping amateur and professional artists find their voice and engage with the community. The council has been instrumental in making the arts more accessible to the entire region and was recognized in 2009 with a Business Excellence Award from the North Vancouver Chamber of Commerce. The council will play an important role in B.C. Arts and Culture Week, which kicks off on April 20, to raise awareness of the role that arts and culture play in all aspects of our life.

This year the council is partnering with the North Shore Art Crawl Society for the very first time, to put on the fourth annual North Shore Art Crawl. From April 26 to 27 more than 300 artists in 76 locations will take part in the crawl, opening their galleries and displaying their work to the public. This free event is a great opportunity for residents and visitors to meet our local artists and purchase their work.

I was able to attend last year's crawl in September, and I had a fantastic time meeting artists, seeing how they work and discussing their art and where they find inspiration. The art crawl that year, last September, received a ranking of 10 out of all of Canada for the number of activities registered. I'll just give you a little snippet of what I attended on that day: a farm mural painting at Maplewood Farm, another gem in my riding, where I was spotted attempting to get on and off a horse; Open Skies, Participatory Painting at Artemis Gallery in Deep Cove; a pottery and arts studio at Parkgate Community Centre.

I also attended the public art unveiling, Lost Stream Found, at Northlands Terrace with Mayor Walton. I also visited a master photography exhibit, at Lynn Valley heritage and museum centre, of Leonard Frank; and the Illumination Project, a decorative tile workshop at Lynn Valley United Church, which I participated in.

Like similar events in New Westminster and East Vancouver, the North Shore Art Crawl has quickly be-
[ Page 2839 ]
come an annual highlight for the arts community. While it started off as a grass-roots initiative to provide more exposure for local artists, the crawl has become so big that it now requires the council's help to coordinate the amount of participants and displays.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

I encourage everyone, if they're in the area on April 26 and 27, to take part in the crawl and meet our local artists and crafts people. There are things to see throughout the entire North Shore, and our artists are eager to meet you.

The North Vancouver Community Arts Council and the Seymour Art Gallery Society are vital to the North Shore arts community. They have helped foster countless artists, and I'm very pleased that our government continues to support them year after year. Over the last decade the North Vancouver Community Arts Council has received more than half a million dollars in community gaming grants, while the Seymour Art Gallery Society has received more than $400,000.

[1055]

This is in addition to and separate from the funding received by North Vancouver Arts Council, which for the Seymour Art Gallery was almost $9,000. These grants ensure that both groups can continue to promote local artists, provide a platform for them to display their work and enhance our appreciation of the arts.

Our government is committed to supporting arts and culture in the province. Since 2001 we have provided arts and culture organizations with more than half a billion dollars — more than any other government in our province's history. That commitment will continue in the 2014-2015 fiscal year, when more than $60 million in funding will be distributed provincewide.

L. Popham: I'd like to thank the member for her statement about arts in her community on the North Shore. Raising awareness, accessibility, participation and engagement in arts and culture for people right across the province not only enriches our lives but is part of a complete community. More and more, we're making the connection between a healthy arts and culture community and the economic vitality of that community.

We can look towards one of our icons of urban planning, Jane Jacobs, for a once-controversial view about the role and placement of arts and culture in the planning of our communities, intermingling the possibilities of arts and culture into our developed areas as part of revitalizing our heritage and scaling it to fit into our neighbourhoods. Making it accessible to everyone is proving to have a lot of merit. Having our citizens find culture through eyes on the street, as Ms. Jacobs passionately campaigned, allows arts and culture to thrive, leading to vitalization and revitalization in an organic way.

Having access to arts and culture not just as a seasonal opportunity or special occasion reflects the economic health of our local economies. As federal dollars and provincial dollars are restrained towards the arts, we see them in a position of survival rather than reaching their full potential.

A paper brought forward by Virginia Tech states that high concentrations of creative enterprises and workers in a geographic area may provide a competitive edge by elevating a community's quality of life, improving its ability to attract economic activity and creating a climate for innovation to flower. Communities in which arts and culture activities of all types flourish are important for the recruitment and retention of a skilled and educated workforce in a city or a region. The presence of arts and culture in a specific neighbourhood or community location can increase attention and foot traffic, bringing in visitors and attracting more economic development.

As we grapple with a tight provincial budget, an argument can be made that the budget for arts and culture is an investment whose returns can be measured in the most standard ways, but also in ways that we are discovering are a measure for our quality of life. The success of the arts on the North Shore is another argument for having a standing committee for arts, culture and the creative economy, in my view.

Arts and culture in British Columbia employ more than 87,000 British Columbians, including almost 26,000 artists. In 2007 the creative sector GDP was estimated at $4 billion. Its growth between 2003 and 2007 outpaced the growth of agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting combined.

I believe that more should be done to connect the dots between government policy and the economic impact of arts and culture in this province. We need to forge stronger connections between arts leaders and tourism advocates, including Destination B.C. Formalizing this connection and making the arts a more central part of our provincial tourism strategy is a simple and long-overdue step that could lead to improved regional economies, protection and support for our unique cultural institutions and more stable careers for those working in the creative industries.

The success of the arts on the North Shore can be an example of how important arts and culture are to British Columbia, but let's not stop there. Let's make sure we seize the opportunity provincially to ensure that we bring arts and culture and the creative economy into the Legislature, where we can all participate in supporting policy that seizes the full potential that we all know is there.

In tough economic times one might argue that we can't afford to invest in the creative class, but I'm here to argue that in tough economic times investing in arts and culture becomes more critical for the well-being of our society.

[1100]

J. Thornthwaite: Thank you to the member for Saanich South for her interest and commitment to arts and culture.

I'd like to continue my remarks about a program that was established in 2013 to help non-profit arts and culture groups renovate and improve their facilities. B.C. Creative Spaces is a one-time funding program from the Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development. This month the program will provide more than $800,000 to arts and culture, First Nations and friendship centres across the province to help with capital improvements or with the purchase of specialized equipment.

These grants will be used to improve local arts infrastructure such as theatres and community arts centres, allowing organizations to reach a broader audience and helping communities attract new visitors and investments. This funding will also allow First Nations communities to showcase and share their cultural heritage with even more people.

In total, 41 organizations will be receiving grants, including a North Vancouver group, the Gordon and Marion Smith Foundation for Young Artists. This is an important for the North Shore, and I'm very happy to see that it is receiving funding. Gordon Smith is a celebrated artist himself. He and his late wife, Marion, dedicated their lives to supporting and promoting art education.

The foundation was established in 2002 to support the North Vancouver school district's art education program, Artists for Kids. The foundation provides scholarships for talented students to pursue post-secondary art education and runs the Gordon Smith Gallery of Canadian Art. The foundation is receiving $15,000, which will go toward a museum storage facility for the Artists for Kids collection.

Organizations like the Gordon and Marion Smith Foundation for Young Artists provide cultural venues that make B.C. communities vibrant, exciting places to live and work. They contribute to local economies, enhance our quality of life and enrich our cultural appreciation and awareness through art. They are vital to the development of communities, and I'm very proud to be part of a government that recognizes their importance and continues to provide them with support.

Hon. T. Stone: I now call private member's Motion 12.

Deputy Speaker: Hon. Members, unanimous consent of the House is required to proceed with Motion 12 without disturbing the priorities of other motions before it on the order paper.

Leave granted.

Private Members' Motions

MOTION 12 — POVERTY REDUCTION WORK
IN OTHER JURISDICTIONS

M. Mungall: It's my pleasure to rise today to speak to this motion, as I'm the member who put it forward. So the viewers at home know what motion we're speaking to, it is:

[Be it resolved that this House acknowledge the work being done in other jurisdictions to reduce poverty.]

The reason I brought forward this motion is because there is a tremendous amount of work being done in other provinces that, frankly, as I look back home in British Columbia, is not being done here. I think that other jurisdictions around this country are showing us the success of what they are doing. They are developing best practices that we have a lot to learn from. They're the very things that we should be implementing here.

One of the things that you see across the country in all but two provinces — here in B.C. and in Saskatchewan — is a poverty reduction plan. As other provinces develop these poverty reduction plans, we see forward movement in actively and significantly, meaningfully, reducing poverty — lifting people out of poverty, putting food on their tables, being able to pay their bills, having good housing, children going to child care, accessing the supports they need so that they can learn in the classroom and move on through the K-to-12 system with success, enter post-secondary education, get the skills training and post-secondary education they need so that they can get the jobs that are required today and in the future and themselves have a good life.

At the end of the day, when we talk about reducing poverty, that's exactly what we're speaking to — the idea that every single citizen in our society deserves to have a good life. They do not deserve to live in poverty. No one does. If we work from that premise, we will see the good stories that are coming out of other jurisdictions and look at how we can implement them here rather than ignore the problem, which is, of course, what the government has been doing, and provide piecemeal solutions that don't actually look at the broader picture.

[1105]

Specifically, as I mentioned, there's a poverty reduction plan in all provinces but here and Saskatchewan. Here's what we're learning from poverty reduction plans. Quebec was quite a leader. They are on their second poverty reduction plan, started in 2010. They've learned a lot from that. They've learned how to engage the citizenry, and they've made great strides in reducing poverty.

One of the things that they did was they increased income assistance rates. They looked at child care and provided affordable child care throughout the province and made sure that there were educational supports for children as well as employment program supports. Unlike
[ Page 2841 ]
British Columbia, where we've cut those employment program supports significantly — by 46 percent just this year alone from last year's budget — they have actually implemented better employment programs to help people get good-paying jobs.

One of the things that is being done in Manitoba right now as part of their poverty reduction program is that they recently announced a new shelter benefit program to support low-income people in private housing. The Manitoba rent assist program will be available to both income assistance recipients and other low-income Manitobans, and it will replace the current income assistance shelter allowance and RentAid programs.

What this plan will basically do is increase housing rates to 75 percent of the median market rent. Here in British Columbia we know that the rental support for people on income assistance is $375. That's the basic. If you are a single mom with one child, it's $570. The maximum that you could possibly get, if you are a single parent with six kids, is $820. The lowest rent available, on average in this province, is $436 in Williams Lake. The average rent for a bachelor suite in B.C. is $1,069. So I dare say that this province is way off, and Manitoba has found a solution for dealing with the housing crisis that people are experiencing there.

Another thing that we could be looking at here that other provinces are doing is the discontinuation of clawing back child support dollar for dollar from parents receiving income assistance. In Quebec they allow for a $100 exemption. In Ontario right now they are researching the possibility of allowing for 50 percent of child support to be retained by parents. That's something that we could be doing here.

We have to stop taking money out of the hands of B.C.'s kids, because it's wrong. I look forward to hearing what other members have to say on those very issues.

M. Dalton: In response to the remarks from the member for Nelson-Creston, I will say that British Columbia has seen a reduction of child poverty by about 43 percent over the past decade or so. Right now we have the lowest level of child poverty in decades. I believe it's about 30 years. So we've come a long way. There's certainly a lot more to do, but we're on the right track.

As MLAs, we all meet people in our offices and our constituencies who struggle with poverty and the challenges of making ends meet. It's especially troubling when children are involved. Our hearts go out to them. I know that as MLAs, we do all that we can to connect people with supports and resources. I must say that one of the most rewarding aspects of being an MLA, with my constituency staff, is being able to see real, direct improvements and help with people that are facing real problems.

In preparation for my remarks, the first question that came to my mind was: what is poverty? Many years ago I spent some time in a Central American country in a couple of jungle villages, assisting with church organizations. It was a real revelation of human nature. In one village I slept in a hammock. There was the occasional chicken and piglet running around the house. Children were barefoot. There was a school in the community, but they had a challenge paying for pencils.

[1110]

One thing I'd noticed…. Well, a few things. One is with what I had, just my sofas and my home…. My wife and I were recently married. We had very modest means, but I saw that we had more just with the sofas than they had in their entire household. But I noticed that people in these villages were just as happy as people in North America. It really made me realize that happiness does not consist of an abundance of things. Not that things are bad, and we certainly want people's material comfort to increase, but life is more than that.

In another village I stayed with a family. This family had one light bulb and one fan. I noticed that there were some people in the community that were actually jealous of the luxuries that these people had. I would say most people in North America and Canada and British Columbia have more than a fan and light bulb. I saw that, really, wealth and poverty can often be a matter of comparison.

I looked up the definition of "poverty" in Wikipedia, of all sources. I'll read the definition. "Poverty is a general scarcity or dearth or a state of lacking certain material possessions or money. Absolute poverty or destitution refers to deprivation of basic human needs, which commonly includes food, water, sanitation, clothing, shelter, health care and education. Relative poverty is defined contextually as economic inequality in the location or society which people live."

I just want to speak about absolute poverty or destitution, and that is universal. It doesn't matter where people live. There are certain elements that are necessary for our survival. One would be, and it might seem silly, safe drinking water.

One of the biggest advancements in First World nations is improvements in drinking water. We have seen probably about…. There are millions of people, children that die every single year because of poor drinking water, dying of cholera, typhoid, malaria, diarrhea. This is something that we all benefit from because we are in a wealthy nation. There are more people, more children that have died in the last couple decades because of poor water conditions than died from the Second World War.

Also, clothing — that's a need. I know in Maple Ridge that there are about half a dozen thrift stores that provide low- or no-cost clothing for the needy. So it is available.

Shelter. I haven't seen children, as I've seen in other places, living on the streets. There may be some, but it's a rare occurrence, and normally, there is intervention.

Food. I have not met children starving in British
[ Page 2842 ]
Columbia in the past 50-some years. If they were, then I think that would be, normally, wilful or criminal negligence.

Health care. It's available to one million free. About 800,000 pay no health care premiums, and one million British Columbians are subsidized.

Basic dental coverage. Education is covered. There are many different things.

C. James: I find the last speaker unbelievable when it comes to knowing about the reality of poverty in British Columbia.

I would like the hon. member who just spoke to come and speak to the mother who is living in a car with her children in my community — to tell them that there isn't poverty in British Columbia. There is huge poverty in British Columbia, and this government has ignored it. It's long past time to deal with it.

The member talked about the basics. Well, we are talking about the basics here. We're talking about 153,000 children living in poverty, and children don't live alone in poverty. Those are families living in poverty.

What has been this government's response? It's been regional poverty plans that the Minister of Children and Families acknowledged have only served 72 families total over the last couple of years.

Now, I'm grateful that the government is doing anything to serve families, but I have to tell you that the minister could not tell me whether those families were out of poverty. They had done no tracking. They had not expanded the program. They had not put in place what is needed in this province, which is to address one of the fundamental crisis areas facing British Columbia, and that's the area of inequality.

[1115]

I believe that governments pay attention to things that they measure, that they set as priorities, that they put in place to be looked at across government. This government has done nothing to put in place a provincewide poverty reduction plan.

I'm sure we'll hear the members opposite talk about a disagreement of statistics. Well, if we had in place a provincewide poverty reduction plan, let's sit down and agree on the statistics to use. Let's end this ridiculous argument that takes away from focusing on children and poverty and actually agree on the statistics.

We could also, then, put in place a plan that would include all of the ministries that impact poverty in our province — Education, Health, Housing, Social Development, the Ministry of Children and Families. We could actually include all of those ministries in putting together a comprehensive plan.

No one is naive enough to believe that we are going to solve child poverty overnight. It's complex. It requires work across ministries. But for some reason this government seems to think that that's a reason not to do anything. Well, that's not a reason not to do anything. We must address this crisis in British Columbia. We have to do it because it's the right thing to do, but also because it's the right economic thing to do.

We don't need another study to tell us that children living in poverty cost our system when it comes to health care. Their health outcomes are not as good. They face challenges later in life. It's not only the right thing to do, it's the right economic thing, to address the issue of poverty in British Columbia.

But again, we see no measurements. We see no attention. We see no focus, and we certainly don't see it as a priority in British Columbia.

We have the worst income gap of any province in Canada. The Canadian Medical Association lists poverty as one of the leading factors determining health in our country — a leading factor. Again, the government is doing nothing to address this. There's a connection, as well, between physical and mental health. Physical health deteriorates with poverty, therefore there are challenges when it comes to mental health.

We could get started with a provincewide plan. As I said, we could agree on the measurements. We could agree on first steps to start. The clawback of child-family maintenance could be the first place to begin, where we say that when parents are contributing towards a child and raising that child, that family should be eligible to keep those resources. Because that's what those dollars are meant for. They're meant for the children.

To the members opposite who say that we're not dealing with poverty, I would challenge them. I would challenge them to go and meet with families who are living in substandard housing — families who do have to make choices between food and recreation, who do have to send their children to school without the fees that they need for many of the activities that every other child is taking part in, parents who are making the choices that they aren't going to look after their own health and their own needs.

It's basic care like dental care that children are going without because we don't have a poverty reduction plan in place.

I challenge the government again. If anything should be non-partisan in this place, it's putting in place a provincewide poverty reduction plan and addressing the crisis that we see in British Columbia. I challenge the members to take the plan that's in place. I challenge the members to agree on it, and I challenge the members to address child poverty today.

R. Sultan: Four years ago I completed a rather large statistical study of the community profiles associated with having a high proportion of low-income families with children or, as we commonly describe it, childhood poverty. I was motivated by the advocacy group First Call releasing a report with the startling news that my own
[ Page 2843 ]
constituency of West Vancouver had one of the highest childhood poverty rates in all of British Columbia, right up there with Richmond.

I ran the numbers for these 54 British Columbia communities and was further surprised to find that with only two descriptors — the percentage of single moms and the percentage of immigrants in any community — one could predict almost two-thirds of the proportion of low-income families with children.

[1120]

Statistics Canada does not use the word "poverty." They refer to "low income." By their definition, in 2012 low income for a family of four living in Vancouver was any household earning less than $43,942. Let's say $44,000. Outside of Vancouver the number is $36,600.

Certainly, a family of four in Vancouver trying to make ends meet on a family income of $44,000 is a big challenge. Whether it means living in poverty is in the eye of the beholder. I salute First Call, which regularly issues these press releases on childhood poverty, for convincing all of us to adopt their terminology that these are indeed poverty-line cutoffs.

The good news is that Statistics Canada points out that one-third of the persons they categorize as low-income move out of that category each year, while 3 percent of all Canadians who are not low-income move into that category each year, so there's considerable circulation of people in and out.

The bad news is that a percentage of the population, relatively small in Statistics Canada's view, experiences persistent low income, including lone mothers, immigrants, members of visible minorities, people with less education and people with activity limitations. Clearly, it is upon these groups that we should focus our social efforts.

The motion we are debating today suggests we learn from others. Being of Swedish extraction and having lived in Sweden from time to time, I'm aware that the general social condition for all levels of Swedish society is quite good. That is not, however, attributable in the main to a distributive tax policy. It is attributable, in my personal observation, to the fact that the Scandinavian countries seem to have a more highly developed sense that we are all in this together and that we should help one another, and they do.

In contrast, I spent a full decade of my life training MBAs at the Harvard Business School, otherwise known as the West Point of capitalism. I've concluded that bloody tooth-and-fang capitalism is not in fact going to automatically solve our low-income problem through some trickle-down mechanism.

This debate today is worthwhile. We really are our brothers' keepers, and we should work harder at it.

J. Shin: I can't agree more with my colleague the member for Nelson-Creston to have this House acknowledge the work being done in other jurisdictions to reduce poverty. It is my pleasure to support her motion this morning on behalf of Burnaby-Lougheed.

As we are very well aware, there is a string of sobering facts straight off of Statistics Canada that are echoed by a broad spectrum of stakeholders as well as the subject matter experts alike. We've all heard it: worst rate of overall poverty in Canada for 13 years straight, worst rate of child poverty, worst income gap, worst rate of child vulnerability, worst record of job creation, worst affordability, worst student debt levels. And that's worst as in dead last in this entire country — and not surprisingly, as it turns out. We are apparently one of the only two provinces in the country without any plans for poverty reduction.

What I mean by that is that no, a regional poverty reduction pilot plan with only 100 families or less wouldn't qualify as a plan for the half million British Columbians living in poverty in this province, even if this abandoned pilot project was to have continued.

Now, what's more disturbing is that B.C. has seen an increase in the poverty rate every year, when across Canada poverty rates have been decreasing. Of course, it's easy to tune out and look the other way when, as governors, such unflattering and inconvenient facts of our own performance are repeatedly reminded.

Instead of continuing to quote the numbers and trends that we are all aware of, as real as they are, let's draw faces to describe poverty. What does it even look like? Is it a well-deserved consequence for the so-called lazy in our society? Is it the addicts homeless on our streets? I would say that that's hardly the case.

Poverty looks like a young family of three with the father working full time at a minimum-wage job without any benefits, struggling to gross $22,000 a year while going to night school to better his odds, and the mother finding a part-time gig for a few extra grand here and there while raising the child.

[1125]

Even so, they would together bring barely $2,000 a month home after 13 percent of income tax, which is ironic in a country that lets the biggest corporations pay as little as 1.25 percent for tax.

From that $2,000, let's take away a two-zone monthly transit pass for $124 — or likely $170 for three zones, as the housing costs drive people further and further away from the city. Dock off another $102 for MSP, and that's after applying the subsidy. There will be, of course, many cold winter months now to keep gas and hydro bills at less than $80 with the rate hike. Minus $1,000 for a basement suite. Shave off another $100 for property insurance and phone bills. And you're expecting this family…. What's left is essentially $20 a day for food, clothing, schooling and all life's incidentals.

It turns out one-third of our poorest children in B.C. have parents that are employed and working full-time year-round. These are the people in our society that I
[ Page 2844 ]
think are just as hard-working and capable as many of us that are in this House, but without the kind of parents and relatives, job benefits, insurance, savings plans, other resources and privileges in life that we have and that we often take credit for ourselves.

I represent many of these families in Burnaby-Lougheed, a good portion of them from the immigrant community, and my family is one of them. My family, my parents are hard-working, intelligent people who came to this country. It didn't matter how desperately they tried, we never had a family dinner together.

But if it wasn't for access to quality education that was affordable with the student loans that were available and if it wasn't for the different social services and programs that were available for me and my brother, my parents wouldn't have the kind of life they have today. Nobody in this House can look at them in the eyes and say: "You don't deserve a better shot in life."

My family…. I am a product of everything that was available in this country, that was available in this province and that I'm seeing for myself now is getting worse and worse year after year after year. What was available for my family is what I would like all of us to fight for to make sure that they continue on for the families that we have in B.C. and for the generations to come.

Now, one of the things that I want to highlight is the special circumstances that our immigrant community faces. They are disproportionately affected by poverty and are three times more likely to be poor than Canadian-born persons. The census shows that compared with 9.7 percent of Canadian-born persons falling below the poverty line, a disturbing 34 percent…. That's three times as many recent immigrants live in poverty. Immigrants arriving in Canada, as we know, face many challenges, and these challenges compound their ability to look for housing and employment.

I'll just wrap it up. I again thank the member for Nelson-Creston for her motion.

M. Hunt: I look at the resolution, and I find the resolution an interesting one. As we're looking at the concept of poverty, it says to look at the work that is being done in other jurisdictions. Fortunately, I've had the exceptional opportunity of being able to sit on the executive council of two world bodies dealing with local government. Part of the process that they're working with is certainly dealing with poverty reduction in each one of their different countries.

It comes under different names. For example, with the United Cities and Local Governments, which is the world body for local government, poverty reduction comes under the banner of aid effectiveness and decentralization, where the concept is: how do we take those dollars that are coming into those countries and effectively use those dollars to reduce poverty?

Canada and the Netherlands have been major sponsors of this and have actually done a lot of the work on it because of the examples that we have here in Canada and also within the Netherlands. It's the same thing within the Commonwealth Local Government Forum. But the focus of poverty reduction in each one of these organizations and throughout the world is focused on local economic development — in other words, creating jobs.

I give the simple example of dealing with Mali. For those of you that aren't familiar with Mali, that's where Timbuktu is. We're used to talking about Timbuktu as being way out in the middle of nowhere. Well, it's in the Sahara Desert, and Mali is the country.

[1130]

The unemployment rate there is 30 percent, and 50 percent of the population in Mali receives under $1.25 a day in income. The international definition of poverty is under $1.25 a day. Mali is in the 260s of the 283 countries for their economy, so obviously, they have massive challenges there.

What is the world doing in Mali to help them with poverty reduction and working with them? Well, actually, the mayor of the suburb just outside of Bamako, which is the capital city, wanted so desperately to take me out to show me her community because she was so proud of how Canadians had helped her community. And in fact, as I got there, she took me where? She took me to the garbage dump. Of all places, the garbage dump was where she took me.

Along comes this cart being pulled by a donkey, and she had a massive smile on her face, because this was garbage collection. Now, instead of the garbage going into the local rivers and the lakes, creating pollution and disease, they were now taking them to a centralization…. They were separating the organics out, which were being used to feed the cows and goats. They had separated the plastics, the metals, because this was all producing local employment, local jobs for those people. So they were in fact making use of the resources that were coming into their country and stretching them out.

The Federation of Canadian Municipalities is working with ten municipalities there and also 12 in Burkina Faso — they both speak French — working together to create local development and create local jobs within their community. The capital regional district, right here where this House resides, is working in Tanzania. Prince George is working in Vietnam. We find many different municipalities all across Canada, and lots of them in British Columbia — the Columbia-Shuswap regional district, Golden, the township of Langley, North Vancouver, Pemberton — all working with other nations that are in abject poverty, and the focus of every one of those is on creating jobs, working with jobs.

We find in Puerto Rico, where resource extraction is a major source of employment…. What are they doing there? They're looking to Canada for lessons learned from Canada, in fact, in how we are creating local jobs
[ Page 2845 ]
by skills training, exactly what we see going on in the north of B.C. with First Nations, where opportunities are coming in for resource extraction. But they're using those opportunities to develop skills training, to develop jobs, to create future sustainability through employment. We see the same thing in Ukraine, where they're working into a free market economy. The focus: LED, local economic development.

When we look at Greece, at Spain…. They have tried to reduce poverty by debt and taking the resources of debt, but they still have unemployment of 26 percent and 28 percent because they're not creating the jobs, the sustainable jobs for people, and that's what we're doing here in the province of British Columbia. We are, in fact, working on a job creation strategy, and it's called the B.C. jobs plan. What we are doing is creating jobs for our people, and our focus is that if we create those sustainable jobs in the province, as we see in other jurisdictions in the world, that is the greatest way of reducing poverty.

D. Donaldson: I'm pleased to take my place. Rather than like a couple of members on the other side who are depicting how happy people are in poverty in places like Africa, I'm going to talk about poverty reduction here in B.C. and in Canada.

Other jurisdictions have had a poverty reduction strategy in place, and that is why I'm very pleased to stand and talk in support of the motion from my colleague from Nelson-Creston: "Be it resolved that this House acknowledge the work being done in other jurisdictions to reduce poverty." Quebec has had a poverty reduction plan since 2002 — 12 years; Newfoundland and Labrador, since 2006 — eight years. Ontario, Nova Scotia, Manitoba.

In fact, B.C. is only one of two provinces without a poverty reduction plan. Why is this important? Well, it's important because we have to look at the indicators in this province. We have the worst income gap of any province in Canada — that is the difference between how well people are doing and how not so well people are doing — the worst gap. We have the worst rate of overall poverty in Canada for 13 years straight. We have the worst rate of child poverty in Canada for nine of the last ten years, and we are last place in job creation.

That's why it's important to look at what's going on in other jurisdictions. There are lessons to be learned. In Quebec, for instance, they now have the least number of people living in poverty in Canada. They've introduced and earned income exemption for child support payments so that people can go out and earn a little bit of extra cash and not have it come off their child support payments.

[1135]

We also look at other jurisdictions and other provinces. They've seen an increase in families headed by lone mothers, an increase in median incomes in 2010 and 2011. These are provinces with poverty reduction plans.

In B.C. what have we seen? We've seen the median income for female lone-parent families drop from $32,000 a year in 2010 to $21,500 in 2011. That is why we need a poverty reduction, comprehensive strategy in this province.

First Nations are an especially marginalized population. If you look at the socioeconomic indicators and the social determinants of health, we have a lot to be ashamed of in this province with regards to the First Nations population.

Where I live, and these statistics are not abnormal for the rest of the province, people of First Nations descent are four times as likely to die of medically treatable diseases as those in the rest of the population. Thirty-two percent of housing is substandard and in major need of repair. That's four times the provincial rate. Graduation rate from secondary school is about half the provincial average, and there's a life expectancy gap of six years between First Nations and non-aboriginals in this province.

Those are numbers for Stikine. They're also numbers that reflect what's going on in the rest of the province.

It's important to work on a poverty reduction strategy, with targets, timelines, a coordinated set of policies that's comprehensive and long term. But in the meantime, it's incumbent upon us to not pursue policies that will make things worse. An example I can provide is changes proposed to the Agricultural Land Commission and agricultural land reserve that increase the risk of higher grocery prices by reducing our capacity to grow our own food in B.C. It also expands our dependency on imported foods.

Groceries, food — this is an area that people can least afford to cut back on in this province. I think instead what we could do is support the B.C. Local Food Act that the official opposition has introduced. It's a comprehensive strategy on purchasing locally grown food. It's got a legislative plan to increase local food production, marketing and processing. Those are some of the things we can do in the meantime.

I also want to point out that many First Nations depend on salmon and moose in order to not starve. That's just the fact where I live and around the province as well. It's not a luxury. That is why it's important for this government — and under a poverty reduction plan, until we get there — to consider a cumulative effects assessment.

That's something that the University of Victoria's Environmental Law Centre asked the Minister of Environment to do under section 49 of the Environment Assessment Act, where the minister has the ability to order a strategic and economic environmental assessment of liquid natural gas development in British Columbia. That was mocked by the Energy Minister and not taken up as a serious suggestion.

I speak in support of the motion. We can learn from elsewhere, other jurisdictions. In the meantime, let's not make things worse.
[ Page 2846 ]

S. Sullivan: I would also like to acknowledge the member for Nelson-Creston for bringing up this important issue of poverty and low income. I certainly believe that it's an issue that all of us should be constantly aware of and should be working on. We need to do all we can to give people the opportunity to have their needs met and, more than that, to live full, flourishing lives. All of us are in favour of that.

I do recall reading a quote from Dwight Eisenhower. He was a very important general and a President of the United States. He said: "I have found in my life that plans are useless, but planning is indispensable." It's important that we have an active role in trying to address issues as we see them, as they come up, as they need to be addressed.

I can tell you my own experiences. I had a certain brush with low income or, you might say, poverty in my own life. When I just turned 19, I had an accident, acquired a disability that left me on welfare and living in social housing for a number of years. I certainly did feel the sting of not having a lot of money.

[1140]

In those days the welfare system was set up for people with disabilities so that if you made any money, you had to give it back. If you had any benefits, you would actually start to lose benefits. By making some income, even a modest amount of income, you had to give it back, and then you would start to lose benefits like access to housing, access to transportation and things like that.

I worked with some other people with disabilities to try to address that. What we were thrilled with was that, actually, this government started to relax that so that it was possible for people with disabilities to make up to $200 a month and not lose it. That was a great move. This has been moved up slowly but surely, so people with disabilities are able to make modest amounts of income before they start losing that from their income assistance.

This has been a great development, in my mind, for many people with disabilities. It certainly hasn't solved the problem. Many people with disabilities aren't able to take advantage of those benefits, but it is going the right direction.

I think that when the members opposite identify issues, they need to bring them up, we need to know about them, and we need to address them as we find them. Sometimes what happens is that when you develop the overall plans, the plans become the focus themselves.

I've certainly seen that in my work with the city of Vancouver, where the plans become the focus and positive developments stop happening while the planning is in place. We need to do planning on a constant basis, and we need to address these problems as they come.

No one wants to see especially children living in poverty. I know that a lot of the effort has been to end child poverty through supporting and defending the creation of family-supporting jobs. That is absolutely essential. Children are not in poverty by themselves. Children are in poverty because their parents are in poverty.

We need to be able to support in every way we can. That is why we are focused on creating jobs, building a strong economy. That certainly is an important element to that. The best way to lift people out of poverty is to ensure that they have all the help they can with work, with getting a job and getting well-paying jobs.

I acknowledge the member for bringing this up. I think it's an important issue. I think we need to be active always on this file. I would encourage all the House to support that.

M. Karagianis: I'm very happy to stand this morning and support the motion that has been brought forward by my colleague from Nelson-Creston. In fact, I think the remarks that we've heard from the opposition members here support the idea that poverty is an issue for all British Columbians, not just for those who are living in poverty.

In fact, across this country and certainly throughout this province we know that the impacts of poverty are of great concern. Economists are talking across this country about how inequality and this issue of the working poor is a huge drain on the economy and is something we should all address, not just from a social perspective by doing what is the right thing but, in fact, finding ways to ensure that families and individuals across this province have an opportunity to prosper in the future.

There are a whole number of components that go into that. We have seen over the last decade of the B.C. Liberal government that the term "the working poor" has become entrenched in our culture. What that means is that poverty is not just abject poverty.

I heard members from the other side this morning talking about Third World poverty and abject poverty — how people were happy in their poverty in other countries. How somehow comparing that to what's happening here in British Columbia was in any way relevant…. In fact, it's disturbing to think that that is the way members on the other side of the House think about poverty and how they think about the charge and responsibility they have in this province to resolve some of these issues.

[1145]

There are a number of things that the government itself needs to face up to. One is that the issue of the working poor has been created under the jurisdiction of this government over the last decade.

Families, we now see, who are working, holding down full-time jobs, are accessing food banks, are having huge challenges with paying shelter costs and, in fact, are finding themselves very marginalized. This has an impact on the entire economy of our province and, certainly, the country.

It is something that governments should be grappling with. Instead, we see this kind of ostrich mentality on
[ Page 2847 ]
the other side of the House here — that somehow if we deny that there's poverty, if we stack up enough statistics or compare ourselves to the abject poor in Third World countries, it doesn't exist here. But that, in fact, is not true.

In fact, the government has not only ten years of the highest level of child poverty in the country but currently, in their denial about addressing poverty, is making life less affordable for families every single day.

We are going to see a 20 percent increase in hydro rates. Who will that hurt the most? Well, I know. I hear in my community. That's going to hurt people on fixed incomes. That is hurting the high proportion of single parents who are living in poverty — that growing crisis of single parents living in poverty. Anyone who is marginalized in any way at the current time is going to see a huge impact from these hydro costs.

The government is not only not taking action. They are, in fact, making life less affordable. Now, we talk about other jurisdictions, and we see great examples across this country of provinces that have taken steps to put in place a poverty reduction plan with measured goals, with measured outcomes. There are some components that we could be doing here in this province now, even if you don't want to engage in the idea of a poverty reduction plan.

There are two very clear things that this government could take immediate steps on. Number one, if you're going to have a jobs plan, you need to have a child care plan that is affordable and effective and accessible in every community here. Do you want people to get back to work, especially the single mothers who are living disproportionately in poverty? Have a child care plan so that they can find effective and affordable child care in their communities.

The other thing we could be doing is looking at the issue of shelter. This government did away with building affordable housing when they came into power in 2001. We could start building affordable rental housing tomorrow on public lands.

The government is currently going to sell off public assets in order to help balance the budget. Well, you know what? We could be doing a much better job. We could use the public lands to build public housing and make sure that we could have affordable rental housing in this province.

Two very clear solutions that the government could engage in right now. So when I hear the government continue to deny that there's poverty…. They're jacking up the cost of living for British Columbians all across the income levels in this province without any discrimination for how it's going to hurt those living in poverty or those living at the low-income end of the spectrum. That is just simply irresponsible.

They could take clear action today. If you don't want to have a poverty reduction plan, if we want to continue to sort of be out of sync with where the rest of the country is going, well, that's a choice that this government will make, but I think it's irresponsible.

We could immediately take some steps today to put in place some real support systems for those who are living in poverty — accessible, affordable child care spaces. We build housing. We can make sure that we actually are offering solutions, rather than burying our heads in the sand here in this province.

S. Hamilton: On behalf of my constituents, I'm glad to be able to address the House today on this very important issue of reducing poverty. It's a very important and complex problem that every government faces across Canada and around the world.

How do we help? We believe one of the best ways is building a strong economy that creates jobs.

All of us want our most vulnerable citizens to be cared for. In Delta we have agencies, such as Deltassist, that help people at various stages of life in facing a number of challenges. We can't underestimate the work being done at the local level.

Provincewide our government helps British Columbians by ensuring that people can take care of their basic needs every day. We encourage independence, and we help people become self-sufficient. We want to get people back to work and back on their feet. We've made changes to income assistance policies, and we try to improve the lives of the most vulnerable in our province.

[1150]

That's our province. I heard the province of Quebec invoked twice in this House with regard to a poverty reduction plan. I'm not quite sure the province of Quebec is the best example that we can hold up here. It's not exactly shining. They have the highest debt-to-GDP ratio in the entire country. They have the highest-taxed jurisdiction in Canada.

I guess that puts Quebec in an enviable position, because as a result of that, they are the recipients of disproportionate federal transfer payments flowing into their province. In a very roundabout way but in a very real way, the province of British Columbia is helping to pay for their debt reduction program. It doesn't seem to make a lot of sense to me to use that as the example.

I can't see any other way of addressing this issue, other than this side of the House raising taxes to pay for increased support. That results in suppressing economic development in this province, which turns this into a vicious circle. I don't want to be like Quebec. I'm quite proud of the financial record that this province has.

Of course, there are some people who, because of disability and other reasons, are unable to work. Members will likely know that B.C. does not charge families on income assistance for MSP and PharmaCare. Basic dental coverage is also available to kids whose parents are on assistance. For those receiving disability assistance, we're creating comprehensive support systems, and our total
[ Page 2848 ]
disability rates are in the middle range of all Canadian provinces. We also support people by offering discounted bus passes and medical supplies as well as earnings exemptions.

Housing is another area where we can help improve the lives of people in need, and our goal is to build healthy and sustainable communities. Whether you rent or you're in need of housing, housing is central to all of our lives. Our government strategy includes increasing the capacity of non-profit societies, expanding rental assistance to give people more choices, renovating social housing in need of major repair and building new units for people with the greatest need.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Since 2001, this government has invested $3.6 billion to provide affordable housing for low-income individuals, seniors and families. The rental assistance program has helped families with the cost of private-market rental housing. Working families earning up to $35,000 a year are eligible to receive rental assistance ranging from $50 up to $765 per month. Last year more than 10,000 low-income families in British Columbia received monthly cash assistance through the rental assistance program to help pay for their rent.

Time and time again we've stressed the importance of ensuring that there are jobs, and we've talked about the importance of balancing and creating a climate that encourages investment. That's something that members on this side of the House have worked tirelessly to achieve. We believe that jobs are the key for lifting people out of poverty.

Our B.C. jobs plan, which we have also spoken about many times, is worth speaking about again. Through the B.C. jobs plan we're making significant investments in skills training that will ensure that citizens in our province are the first to benefit from good jobs that are being created in British Columbia.

There's no easy answer to ending poverty, but I believe our government is on the right track to making sure we are in sound financial shape so that we will be able to keep those most in need helped.

S. Hamilton moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. T. Stone moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Madame Speaker: This House, at its rising, stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.

The House adjourned at 11:53 a.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

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

TV channel guide • Broadcast schedule

Copyright © 2014: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada