2015 Legislative Session: Fourth Session, 40th Parliament
HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Monday, July 20, 2015

Morning Sitting

Volume 28, Number 4

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

MONDAY, JULY 20, 2015

The House met at 10:01 a.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Private Members’ Statements

PREPARING OUR FUTURE

K. Corrigan: For the past seven years adults have been able to complete their high school or upgrade their courses through their local school boards or at colleges free of charge. It was widely agreed that eliminating barriers for those seeking education was a good idea.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

We all agreed on that in this province. We all supported it in this House. In fact, the government’s own report, eight years ago, said: “The public interest in eliminating barriers to participation in post-secondary education requires that no tuition be charged to any adult learner seeking to upgrade their education by completing high school courses, whether or not they already have a Dogwood certificate.”

Last December the B.C. Liberals announced an end to universal tuition-free upgrading or high school completion. Students will now be charged up to $550 per course or $1,600 per term. The result is that the doors to our educational institutions are being slammed in the faces of hundreds, if not thousands, of students who are working hard to make better lives for themselves. Providing those opportunities of free adult education is not only good for them. It is good for the province and for our future. We should be encouraging, not making it harder or impossible for, people to become better educated.

When adult education was offered tuition-free in 2008, enrolment increased by thousands. Likewise, with the cuts, it’s expected that enrolment will decrease significantly and, likely again, by the thousands.

Already, in 2012, the B.C. Liberals eliminated support for electives like history, social studies, IT and law. Along with that now, these more recent and more universal cuts will mean that tuition will be charged for all core courses, including courses like mathematics, physics, English, chemistry and so on — the core courses that people take to complete or upgrade their high school.

[1005]

As a result, Vancouver school board has already closed several adult education sites, and hundreds of other courses are being closed in colleges and at school boards across this province. The vast majority of students who came back to school as adults wanted or needed these high school courses as prerequisites for other post-secondary programs. Many are immigrants whose credentials were not recognized but are determined to put their knowledge and skills to work.

The minister has claimed that because there are some grants available, nothing has changed — that the only difference is the manner of delivery. However, the truth belies that.

First, for students taking the courses through their local school board, as thousands have, there are no grants, and tuition will be charged for all upgrading courses.

At colleges, tuition will be charged for all courses, whether it’s to complete high school or whether it’s an upgrading course. The grants that are available are limited and complicated to apply for. I have been hearing, anecdotally, and talking to many representatives, many teachers and many administrators from colleges, universities and school boards across the province. What they are saying is that this is a very complicated form, and many students are simply giving up.

The reality is that thousands of students that did go back to school, that did become better educated, that did have doors open to them, that did go on to other programs and careers…. Their equivalents now, people that want to go into the system now, are simply having that door to education slammed in their face.

With regard to the grants, they are clawed back, starting at $23,400, which means that many of the working poor will simply not be able to afford their education or will have it significantly delayed. In addition, the grant application, as I’ve said, is so complicated that many are simply giving up on the process.

The reality is that the vast majority of basic education students are low-income earners who enrol because their high school courses or marks do not qualify them for entry into trades or other colleges and universities. We do know that most students who go in to do their upgrading are doing it for the specific purpose of making themselves better educated and taking other courses. They do go on to other courses.

In a province with some of the highest inequality and highest poverty rates in the country, we should not be closing the door to those that seek further education. I’m particularly concerned about the impact on colleges in smaller communities that are already fighting to offer a viable program for students that want to complete or upgrade in their home community. Many of those students that would now have to move elsewhere to get their education will simply find the barriers too significant and will not get that education.

I’ve spoken to many in the system who are very concerned about aboriginal students and the impact that it’s going to have, particularly on First Nations.
[ Page 9074 ]

I don’t believe the provincial government has thought at all about the knock-down effect. As fewer students complete or upgrade their high school courses so that they can enter other programs, the enrolment in many of those programs will be hit as well.

It’s not only adult basic education. It’s also English language learning, ELL. Some people call it ESL. Immigrants who have come here to make a better life are also being charged. Anecdotally, what I’ve heard is that, at this point, enrolment in some of the colleges — for example, VCC, Vancouver Community College — is off 30 percent. When you look at that across the province, that represents simply thousands of students that would have gone on to post-secondary education, that would have taken further courses, that are no longer going to be able to have access, that simply will not be showing up at those sites.

I think that’s a very shortsighted approach to education and one that will hurt our province in the long run. All of these programs are on the chopping block.

[1010]

M. Bernier: Listening to the member opposite, I think I should let her know that, from a government perspective, obviously, we do have a plan.

We have a plan for the future. It’s to make sure that the people of British Columbia have jobs, that the people here in British Columbia have the ability to get training for those jobs and, more importantly, that they can go home at the end of the day knowing that they’ve made a difference here in British Columbia. They’ve made it a better place for all of us. Also, through that process, they’ve had the means to raise a family, to have a good family-supporting job, to create a great quality of life for themselves and the family.

We’re aligning our skills training with the future job demands to ensure British Columbians have the skills they need here in the province to get those good-paying jobs. In fact, our government currently invests almost $1.8 billion each year in operational funding to public post-secondary institutions here in British Columbia.

Our focus is to make sure that people have jobs — that they’re ready for the jobs, and for the jobs that are in demand now. There’s very little point in training people for a job when at the very end of that they come out and there’s not a job for them to have in that field of work that they’ve been trained for. We also need to ensure that the people have the jobs for the future job demands here in the province.

So what are we doing here in British Columbia? Well, one thing I’m really proud of, first of all, is the dual-credit program. Up in my part of the province, and we’re starting to see it go around the entire province, are dual-credit programs for high school students in grades 11 and 12.

They can actually start earning credits towards secondary school graduation while, at the same time, they work towards earning credits for their post-secondary academic and trades programs, vocational programs or apprenticeship programs that they look to go into. These programs around B.C., and especially in my area, have been a huge success.

It’s not only just about the youth getting ready for the jobs for tomorrow. It’s also about our adults as well. We want to make sure that we have those opportunities for adults that are looking to better their skills.

For adult basic education we know that upgrading courses are important for many who want to transition into post-secondary education, who maybe want to get into a trade, who want to get more involved in the workforce. For an adult who is looking to complete their high school diploma, nothing has changed from the K-to-12 sector and no charges are being applied for tuition. We want to ensure that we give adults every opportunity to look at ways to be part of the workforce.

But beginning January 2015, public post-secondary institutions have the option now to charge tuition to keep adult upgrading courses. We want to make sure that they’re sustainable, that they’re equitable and around for everybody in the province who chooses to avail themselves of these opportunities and these services.

What about rural B.C.? I think that up in rural B.C. we’ve had a lot of successes I’d like to highlight. One of the big ones that was just announced was the mobile training centre. When you look at what we’ve announced through the Ministry of Advanced Education, through Northwest Community College…. We have the new mobile training centre, where it goes right across the north training people in the skills that are needed for the jobs of today and tomorrow.

In addition, LNG Canada has contributed $200,000 and TransCanada has contributed $75,000 towards this unit, and the province has put in almost $600,000 to make sure that we have this mobile training centre to go across the north for all people who want to avail themselves of that.

One thing we should agree on is that skills training is a collaborative effort. Our government has created and continues to build partnerships to ensure that our students have access to all the training that they need to get those good jobs that we have here in British Columbia and that we’re going to continue to have.

In July, just recently this year, the Premier and the ITA announced funding of over $75 million to go towards B.C.’s trades training programs through March 31 of next year. This is actually to meet industry needs — to meet the demands. We want to make sure that the people are trained for the jobs that are coming down the pipe.

I know in this House the members opposite tend to gravitate towards opposing projects in the natural resource sector, but one thing that we need to remember is that’s where the jobs are. That’s why we’re focusing on the training in this area. It’s the reason why we have high
[ Page 9075 ]
demand for trades opportunities. It’s because of the resource sector.

That’s why our government is saying yes to these jobs. That’s why we’re saying yes to the investment, why we’re ensuring that we have the opportunity for a strong future for the people of this province. We’re working across government to ensure everyone can access the skills training that’s needed for these jobs.

These are high-in-demand jobs for young people, for older workers, for aboriginals, the underemployed and those facing barriers, even, to employment and economic independence.

One thing we’re going to do is we’re going to continue to do more, because we want to ensure British Columbians are first in line for the jobs of today and tomorrow.

[1015]

K. Corrigan: It’s interesting listening to the comments of the member for Peace River South. To me, it makes no sense whatsoever.

It seems to be very short-sighted. The member is talking about jobs and talking about training at the same time as this government has made the decision to bar the door to thousands and thousands of students who are attempting to get the education that they need and get the skills that they need in order to fill the jobs that we have. Many of these people are immigrants — immigrants who already have the skills and credentials.

I’m talking about people like Yashar Hakak. He’s an Iranian engineer who left his country after he was jailed for protesting against racism and for equality. His credentials, as good as they are, have not been accepted in Canada, so he’s taking upgrading courses. He’s a very bright young man, and he and his wife are both taking upgrading courses so that he can attend SFU.

He is working afternoons as a cook in a restaurant and taking English, physics and calculus. His wife is taking English and chemistry. They will not qualify for the grants, but they can’t afford the $550 fee per course and the total estimated cost of $4,000 to get the prerequisites that he needs to go to university so that he can become an engineer in Canada and so that he can go and fill those jobs that are needed.

This is a government that is talking about training people, and yet it’s shutting the door. It’s also the same government that, since 2001, when it came into power, decimated the apprenticeship system. Completion rates are 40 percent — decimated a system that was working well. And yet, we are discussing in this House a liquefied natural gas project agreement between the provincial government and Petronas — a deal that, again, fails to ensure British Columbians will fill the construction or operating jobs.

In fact, Petronas has said to expect, at the peak of construction, 70 percent of the jobs to be filled with temporary foreign workers. Why is that? Partly because it’s cheaper, probably, but partly because the province has failed over the last decade to educate and train the workers that will be needed. And I mentioned the apprenticeship system.

Why would we compound that and make it worse when we have thousands of British Columbians, often from poorer backgrounds, that want to get into the system, want to be trained in order to take the jobs that this government claims are going to be there? Why would you compound that by decimating the college system and the entry and the way that people can get into the system?

SUPPORTING PNWER

D. Ashton: It gives me great pleasure to rise today to speak about our province’s involvement in the Pacific NorthWest Economic Region, better known as PNWER. It is more than B.C.’s involvement. More to the point, I want to speak about the benefits for our province that we are gaining by our membership in this very strong organization.

Although I’m quite hesitant at this point in time to speak about myself in the commentary, I’m incredibly proud. As of a week and a bit ago, I was elected as the vice-president for Canada at the 25th anniversary summit in Big Sky, Montana. And I would like to thank one of my peers, who was in attendance there, for holding the fort down while I was unable to go.

I’ve been the Premier’s representative at PNWER since September of 2014, and now I’m taking an executive position on the executive committee in this organization. This is a decision-making body responsible for reviewing all the activities at PNWER, and our presence helps to broaden B.C.’s opportunities and influence within the PNWER region.

By way of background for those not familiar with it, the Pacific NorthWest Economic Region is a non-profit, public-private partnership chartered in 1991 by the members of the Canadian and the U.S. jurisdictions. The ten member jurisdictions are British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, the Yukon and Northwest Territories, in Canada, and Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, Montana and Washington, in the United States.

[1020]

PNWER’s mission is to increase the economic well-being and quality of life for all the people in the region, while maintaining and enhancing our natural environment, identity and promote models of success and serve as a conduit for exchange of information. Our role gives our province very strong regional issue inputs in energy, transportation, forest management, invasive species and environmental stewardship.

I would also like to say I have the pleasure of working with the member for Kootenay West, from the opposite side of the House, and we do work very well together.
[ Page 9076 ]

It is also important to note that this will be an opportunity to promote several key priorities for British Columbia, including the development of our liquefied natural gas industry and enhancing the movement of people, goods and investments throughout the PNWER region.

My colleague from Peace River South, as I had stated, attended the PNWER summit on our behalf in Montana and took part in many of the important sessions, including participating in the legislative panel on energy and environment and participating in discussions from that wide-ranging working group. B.C. government staff also delivered presentations at three sessions: expanding the natural gas markets, forest management in British Columbia, and responsible mining and mining safety. We all know that’s front and centre for all of us inside this House.

This year’s summit was attended by more than 500 leaders of government, business and academia from northwest United States and western Canada. Some of the participants met in working groups to develop action items for agriculture; the Arctic; border issues; cross-border livestock health; disaster resilience; energy; the environment; innovation and higher education — important to many of us; invasive species, especially here in the West; trade; economic development; transportation; tourism; water policies; and workforce development.

The PNWER summit is held annually at alternating jurisdictions and, as I said, draws hundreds and hundreds of leaders from business, the legislative areas and also community. Last year’s summit was held at Whistler, where our Premier was joined by the likes of Montana governor Steve Bullock, Canadian Ambassador to the U.S. Gary Doer, U.S. Ambassador to Canada Bruce Heyman and GE CEO Elyse Allan, along with seven British Columbia ministers.

PNWER’s goals are to promote greater regional collaboration, enhance the competitiveness of the region in domestic and international markets, leverage regional influence in Ottawa and Washington, D.C., and achieve continued economic growth by maintaining our region’s natural beauty and our wonderful environment.

Members in PNWER had an opportunity for British Columbia to advance the priority issues with other regional legislators and policy-makers. Our province’s top priority, as we all know, is to grow the economy. To make this happen, effective engagement with other governments in the private sector is critical to everybody’s success here in the province. The Pacific NorthWest Economic Region is one such avenue to achieve this.

At this year’s summit some of the speakers were speaking on expanded natural gas markets, which we know are incredibly relevant to British Columbia, and a regional perimeter defence strategy for the aquatic invasive species. The borders are being set up to protect us, but we all have to work very hard to ensure that these invasive species don’t permeate our incredibly pristine waters here in British Columbia.

Workforce development, energy and the environment, water policy, best practices in mining, cross-border livestock health and cybersecurity were also discussed. Delegates heard from forest industries regarding advanced wood-building techniques and marketing by the lumber manufacturers to align building construction codes throughout our region.

British Columbia and its neighbours are separate. We all have distinctive entities, yet we have many things in common. It’s very important that we learn to use those commonalities to work together. We are working together to increase collaboration on many of the important issues that transcend our boundaries for the betterment of all British Columbians.

S. Fraser: It’s always good to respond to these types of issues.

I want to congratulate the member across the way, from Penticton, on his election as the vice-president from Canada. I also want to acknowledge the member for Kootenay West, on this side of the House. She has also been involved — actually, in many ways way back when her husband was in this House back in the ’90s and his substantial involvement, as a government MLA, in PNWER.

[1025]

PNWER spans politics in a way that I haven’t seen in many organizations. I’ve been to my third PNWER annual conference — in Whistler last year and two years ago in Portland, Oregon.

The Pacific NorthWest Economic Region, or the acronym PNWER, is a statutory public-private non-profit created in 1991 by the states of Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, Montana and Washington, and the Canadian provinces of British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan, and the Yukon and Northwest Territories.

I believe the Northwest Territories was the last member to join. They have played a key role because the Hon. David Ramsay from the Northwest Territories just finished his one-year term — they’re one-year terms — as president this year at this conference in Montana.

The new president moving in, Senator Curt McKenzie from Idaho, seems full of energy and up to the job. All the presidents must go through the process of being vice-president first from their respective jurisdiction. Senator Curt McKenzie seems excited to take on the role, focusing on some key priorities that he sees as important. These priorities change a little bit, but the organization itself, PNWER, has a mission statement: “To increase the economic well-being and quality of life for all citizens of the region, while maintaining and enhancing our natural environment.” Now, I’ll get back to that mission statement in a moment.

I was able to attend three key policy events. These are three- or four-hour events in the mornings and the afternoons of the PNWER conference. I attended “Expanding
[ Page 9077 ]
Natural Gas Markets.” I thought that would be appropriate since we were debating this in the House at the time, dealing with natural gas, Bill 30. I attended a session on mining — of course, very key considering the Mount Polley disaster and the concern that that has raised for the industry and for politicians whose jurisdictions, both spanning the border of the United States and Canada, have significant mining and what it means for them. I also attended the session, my third session, on invasive species.

These are cross-boundary issues. The issues do not stop at the boundaries, and it’s key for local governments, for state governments, and for provincial governments to work closely together to deal with things like invasive species. I’ll touch on invasive species right now. At the session — still trying to deal with some of the issues around cross-jurisdiction, cross-boundaries as far as quagga mussels and zebra mussels go, specifically as they impact British Columbia.

These little bivalves don’t have any borders. They don’t recognize any borders — state lines, provincial borders or national borders. So it is key that we in British Columbia take these issues seriously and not just pay lip service. It is important that we actually put our money where our mouth is, doing our part in preventing the spread of these invasive species, which cause not just ecological damage but certainly damage to infrastructure and water systems throughout the PNWER region.

I also attended the mining session that dealt specifically with Mount Polley, and B.C. was looked at prominently here. There are concerns still in place between the representatives from Alaska and British Columbia. How do you bring in the Alaskans in a meaningful way so that they are assured that mining operations in British Columbia and the things that happened, like at Mount Polley, do not affect their waterways and their watersheds? There’s a lot of work yet to be done there too.

I attended the session entitled “Expanding Natural Gas Markets,” in which B.C. was one of the presenters. Legislators from the PNWER region have been approaching me at the session, asking questions about our Legislature having one of those really rare middle-of-summer sessions, which legislators from across the borders know are done…

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.

S. Fraser: …because the people of British Columbia are busy doing something else.

D. Ashton: Many thanks to my peer from Alberni–Pacific Rim for his comments, especially about an organization that we all have a lot of fondness for. The Pacific NorthWest Economic Region, of which B.C. is a founding member, exists because its members have many common interests.

[1030]

We are each advancing our own interests by collaborating with our neighbours. Boy, isn’t that an interesting proposition? Maybe it’s something we could try in this House where neighbours across the aisle…. We collaborate on many of our bipartisan committees. Maybe some time we’ll collaborate a little bit better inside the House.

We are learning from one another and adopting policies and techniques, and ultimately, we are making our region much stronger on an international scale. One doesn’t need to look too far across the horizon to see where the growth in the world is today. In the Pacific Northwest region, whether it’s the northwest United States or the Pacific region of Canada, we have incredible opportunities, incredible resources, both human and mineral resources, that give us such a leg-up in the world.

The organization of PNWER is such a resounding success. It’s actually known as the gold standard of Canada and United States relations. I can vouch for its effectiveness in economic development and how it portrays that across both the United States and Canada. From ocean policies to agriculture, PNWER tackles these very vast, broad ranges of regional issues through our working groups.

These working groups are headed by two co-chairs, one from the private sector and one from the public sector, and are coordinated by PNWER members. My hat’s off to Matt Morrison, the CEO of PNWER; also, as the hon. member from across the way mentioned, Minister Ramsay, from Northwest Territories; and Sen. Curt McKenzie, new president.

There’s an awful lot happening now. I just have to take a look at what’s happened in the Northwest Territories, about that new vast discovery of oil and the opportunities it presents for western Canada to discharge that oil to all points around the world. It’s something that we have to look at.

I look forward not only to advancing British Columbia’s interests but to building a strong relationship with our neighbouring jurisdictions. We all share common ground and common subjects. By working together, we can promote the economic growth of the Pacific Northwest. We can tackle regional and cross-border issues and opportunities and advance both of our interests to the senior levels of government.

Thank you very much, and again, thanks to my peer across the way for his comments.

KEEPING OUR COMMUNITIES SAFE

D. Routley: It gives me pleasure and it’s an honour to rise in the House to discuss a very important issue to British Columbians, and that is the issue of keeping their communities safe from the threat of wildfire.

I’d like to begin with a quote from Benjamin Franklin that we’re all familiar with, and that is that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. That is something
[ Page 9078 ]
that I think most people take for granted as a truism, but we often — very often, in terms of government’s behaviour — fail to observe that very basic tenet.

This year people are very aware of the climate change that we’re experiencing — the increased temperatures, long periods of drought, long periods of dry spells which have brought hundreds of fires and, most recently, cloaked the Lower Mainland and Vancouver Island in a blanket of smoke that was affecting many people with respiratory illnesses and, much more seriously, affecting people who were dwelling nearby these fires and were sitting on wait and on notice of evacuation.

The province has spent hundreds of millions of dollars in the past few years — $300 million last year and so far, as of a week ago, $108 million — on fighting fires, but they have spent a paltry $4.1 million on fire prevention. This is the quintessential opposite of an ounce of prevention being worth a pound of cure.

We are spending hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayers’ money knowing that these drought conditions and climate change will only worsen the situation. In fact, the Premier last week acknowledged, in a press conference with the Premier of Saskatchewan, that climate change will bring even more fires and the risk of megafires in the future. Yet after spending $300 million last year on forest fire fighting, the forest fire fighting budget this year was only $60 million, and, as I said, only $4 million was spent on fire suppression.

The Southern Interior Local Government Association passed a resolution in April calling for more help from the province to clear the highly flammable debris in the forests near their communities to help prevent wildfires from spreading right into their towns. The resolution was sponsored by the municipality of West Kelowna in the Premier’s own backyard.

[1035]

These municipal leaders remind us that since 2011, when this Premier took over, wildfire prevention funding for local governments has declined significantly, while the role and the responsibility of fire prevention has been downloaded more and more upon local governments. Provincial funding now is restricted only to planning and no longer funding operational fuel treatment activities on the part of these local governments.

Last year an internal report by the government’s wildfire management branch warned that with climate change, forest fires will only get worse. It warned of the soaring risk of mega-fires in B.C. and that we will not be able to rely on suppression alone to keep people and property safe but should make fire prevention our top priority.

It seems obvious as we watch many hundreds of British Columbians remain with the stress of an evacuation alert or notice, being told they must be prepared to leave their homes in a matter of minutes, making plans for pets, getting family treasures off site and away in safety…. This is an imposition on people’s lives, a stress to communities, and it is unnecessary.

It was in 2003 that we had the worst forest fire season in history in British Columbia. It was in Kelowna, the Premier’s own backyard, where hundreds of homes burned and over 45,000 people were evacuated. It was a crisis without parallel in British Columbia but one which we can consider to be routine in the future, based on the effects of climate change and the lack of investment in forest fire prevention.

The Filmon report, done in response to the forest fire crisis in Kelowna, pointed to the need to clear the interface areas between forests and communities of highly flammable debris and fuel sources. This, if it had been done, would have minimized the risk to those hundreds of families that now face fire evacuations. Again, Benjamin Franklin: “An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.”

M. Morris: The member opposite talks about keeping communities safe, a pretty broad topic. He seems to focus in on fire prevention, interface fires — you know, the problem that we’ve seen throughout British Columbia and throughout other jurisdictions around the world with respect to the encroachment into the wilderness with various communities and whatnot. It’s something that we all have to be mindful of, but I think in B.C. we’ve done a pretty good job.

The tragedies from 2003 in Kelowna and other areas of the province here were something that we really learned from. The interface fire protection that we’ve initiated throughout the province — and prevention that we’ve initiated throughout the province — I think has gone a long way to preventing a lot of combustibles from being susceptible to fire.

This year is an unusual year with the number of lightning strikes that we’ve had. We’ve had well over 1,000 forest fires this year, but 30 percent of them still remain human-caused, and human-caused fire is something that is totally preventable.

He talks about Benjamin Franklin talking about an ounce of prevention being worth a pound of cure. If we can prevent the 30 percent…. It’s reached as high as 50 percent in many cases in the province here. If we can prevent human-caused fires in British Columbia, we’d make some gigantic steps forward in alleviating a lot of the pressures that we have on the men and the women who fight these fires, risk their lives when they go out to fight these fires on behalf of British Columbians, but also the millions of dollars that we spend from provincial taxpayers’ money to try to suppress the human-caused fires that we have here.

Lightning strikes, acts of God…. A lot of the fires that have started as a result of lightning strikes have been in very remote areas, areas that are just about impossible to try and initiate any kind of mitigation strategy to prevent
[ Page 9079 ]
them from happening. The human-caused ones seem to be in close proximity to a lot of the populated areas we have in the province.

[1040]

I think that the public is a lot more vigilant about these kinds of fires that we have and about some of the activities that take place throughout the rural parts of our province — people out there enjoying the biodiversity and the wilderness and the outdoors that British Columbia is famous for. They want to maintain that. They want to make sure that it stays pristine for generations following to enjoy.

I think we’re going to see a lot more vigilance on behalf of the public in ensuring that human-caused fires are mitigated. This government is committed to having a look at perhaps increasing the amount of penalties that we have for people that are caught throwing lit cigarettes out the window or starting a fire, perhaps leaving their campfire unattended.

When I was a child we used to have a pretty good educational program going on in the province here with Smokey the Bear and putting your fires out. I think perhaps it’s time that we reinitiated something along that line, just to make sure that everybody’s aware of what their responsibilities are, when you go out into B.C.’s pristine wilderness, in order to prevent fires from happening.

We’ve had approximately 375 human-caused fires in British Columbia this year. If we go out and do a proper educational campaign, if we double the penalties — perhaps maybe go so far as to seize or impound vehicles where people are throwing lit cigarettes out the window — I think that’s going to get the message through that this government is very serious about protecting our wilderness and our environment from forest fires and from the devastation that it causes, putting the lives at risk of firefighters, the men and women that go out there to put these fires out on behalf of all British Columbians.

We’re doing a good job. Can we do better? We can always do better. Everything that we do in society, we can always take it one step more and do it a little bit better, and that’s the focus of this provincial government to do that.

D. Routley: Thank you to the member, although I would have to challenge the member’s assertions in his response.

The member said that the government is doing a pretty good job. Well, after the 2003 fires in Kelowna burned 334 homes and forced the evacuation of over 45,000 people, the Filmon report of 2003 noted that the top priority shouldn’t be necessarily the fighting of fires but the elimination of the fuel sources in the interface area. In the long 12 years since that report was issued, only 10 percent of the work that needed to be done has been done. So this is hardly, I would say, the description of a good job.

The member also claims that these crises are something that we’ve learned from. Well, we need to learn that basic Benjamin Franklin tenet that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure and do much better than 10 percent after 12 years’ outcome. This is hardly worth the description that the member has attributed.

He also points out from his perspective that this is an unusual year. The Premier herself acknowledged that the future with climate change is likely to bring more and more drought, more and more dry conditions. So if this is an unusual year, then the unusual is going to become the usual.

We should learn truly from our experience and recognize that the hundreds of millions of dollars put into forest fire fighting…. At least some of that budget would be better spent in forest fire prevention in the interface area, even if remote fires burn longer as some ecologists and forest health experts recommend.

When we point to human-caused fires, which are at 30 percent…. That’s always a tragedy. It’s always something that we should be educating to prevent — but something that will always be with us as well. It’s just a distraction to blame human cause for this crisis. This crisis is made worse by the fact that the fuel in the interface area has not been eliminated.

There will always be human-caused fires. What we need to do is anticipate that. What we need to do is not distract people with threats of greater penalties. They may prevent some fires, but we will still be faced with an increasing threat to communities.

Currently in West Kelowna there are hundreds of people and properties at risk. There are 80 properties on alert from the Bear Creek Park fire near West Kelowna, the Premier’s backyard, where the residents are being told that they should be ready to leave their homes at any moment.

[1045]

Smokey the Bear aside and platitudes aside, if we don’t learn from our history, we will be doomed to its repetition.

CELEBRATING LOCAL SUCCESS
IN DIVERSIFYING TRADE

J. Thornthwaite: I’m very proud to be able to stand up and talk about celebrating our local success in diversifying trade. It’s a pleasure to rise in the House to give support about how our local companies are playing an integral role in growing the economy by supporting our efforts to capture new markets overseas.

One industry in which this success is readily apparent is the lumber sector. It is not that long ago that the majority of our exports were destined for the United States, but more than a decade ago this government made a concerted effort to expand trade outside of traditional markets to attract the interests of international investors, to promote the B.C. brand overseas and to create a friendly investment climate that ensures that industries like the forest sector remain globally competitive.
[ Page 9080 ]

We also supported different uses for wood through innovation and changes to the building codes in B.C. to enable bigger and greener construction with our lumber. That hard work paid off, and in 2010 annual sales of B.C. lumber to China surpassed sales to Japan, typically our No. 2 customer after the U.S. Since 2003 B.C.’s total softwood lumber exports to China have increased 20-fold. That is a testament to our government’s efforts to diversify trade and grow demand for B.C. products around the world.

We remain tireless advocates for expanding into new markets. Thanks to the great strides we’ve made in China, we aim to duplicate this success throughout Asia and India. We believe that the forest industry is a sunrise industry, and it’s currently undergoing a renaissance. That’s why we balance the economic needs of industry with environmental stewardship.

We are deeply committed to sustainable forestry. B.C. produces more lumber certified to independently and internationally recognized sustainable forest management standards than any other region in the world. We have 52 million hectares of land certified. On average we plant more than 200 million trees each year. In the spring of 2013 the seven billionth tree was planted since reforestation began in the 1930s.

B.C.’s timber harvesting land base covers 22 million hectares, and just 1 percent is harvested each year. Harvesting of that 1 percent generates more than 60,000 direct jobs. One company that is leading the way for Canadian softwood lumber exports is SPF Precut Lumber. The company exports 200 million board feet of lumber annually to 20 countries worldwide and promotes B.C.’s wood by developing blue-ocean markets in which companies use innovation to expand to places where no other firms operate so they can grow their business with little or no competition.

SPF Precut Lumber’s success story is a family success story. In 1990 Muhammad Amir and his partner, Shaheen Zafar, created Pacific Prime Investments Inc. from their small basement suite in North Vancouver. They had very little with them except a lot of ambition and a grand vision. Over the years the company has changed its name, added more family members, ventured into export and remanufacturing, expanded new markets and developed an innovative operational model. To this day the company remains wholly family-owned.

With exports across the Middle East and throughout Asia, SPF Precut Lumber is truly an ambassador for British Columbian softwood lumber. The company has introduced stud-grade lumber to markets in Pakistan, India, Thailand and Israel and made history in 2013 when it hosted the first-ever Canadian softwood lumber grading seminar in Dubai. It was also the recipient of the 2010 B.C. Export Award, which recognized the company’s contribution to B.C.’s forestry sector and its role in promoting B.C. wood products in new markets.

This year marks SPF’s 25th anniversary. I was very pleased to attend their North Vancouver celebrations in April, along with the Minister of International Trade and my colleague the MLA for North Vancouver–Lonsdale. The company used its 25th anniversary to once again host a Canadian lumber grading seminar in Dubai, where it helped provide customers in the Middle East with the know-how to make better purchasing decisions and optimize their own operations. The event was also a way to recognize and celebrate all the successful long-term partnerships that the company has made in the Gulf region since 1990 — partnerships that have helped B.C. make significant in-roads into that market.

To give you an example of just how important those relationships are, last year Canada exported more than 95 million board feet of softwood lumber to the Middle East. Of that 95 million, more than 78 million board feet were exported from British Columbia alone.

[1050]

Of that 78 million, SPF Precut Lumber exported nearly 55 million board feet, effectively giving them a 57 percent market share of all of the Canadian lumber destined for the Middle East. This is a staggering number for just one company and speaks to the amazing work that the Amir family has done to expand the export of one of B.C.’s most important resources to new markets.

Companies like SPF Precut Lumber support and enhance our government’s efforts to diversify and expand trade and to promote our great products to the rest of the world. This is one of our most important industries, and companies like SPF ensure this sector will remain robust, prosperous and globally competitive for years to come.

J. Shin: Thanks to the member opposite for her statement on the local successes our diverse trades have achieved through the tough economic conditions in British Columbia. As always, it’s my privilege to respond on behalf of Burnaby-Lougheed.

Now, empowering not just some but a broad spectrum of local trade initiatives is imperative for a not just strong but also resilient economy that can support jobs and fund services long term for, again, not just some but all British Columbians in every corner of this province. We get that on this side of the House, and that’s exactly what we have been consistently calling for right from the beginning.

As we are all aware, British Columbia is a trading province with a wealth of not just natural resources but agricultural goods and technological and professional services from all regions, for export. Our province is inherently positioned to be Canada’s natural Pacific gateway. So yes, there is no arguing that we should be seeking strategic global opportunities, especially since the years of foot-dragging has already put us well behind our competitors.

A comprehensive trade agreement with Asia-Pacific is, therefore, one of the key ways that we must pursue to diversify and strengthen our local economy. As such, the
[ Page 9081 ]
members of this House supported the federal free trade agreement with Korea last year. That said, we must remain disciplined in recognizing and also addressing the fact that our province still exports mostly unprocessed, low value-added and often carbon-intensive resources — the price of which actually decreased by more than a third in the last few years — while we continue to import mostly manufactured electrical and technological goods at much higher value-added prices.

We know of this government’s laser-focused preoccupation with the liquefied natural gas sector. It was a welcome finding that I heard from the member opposite today that with the one company alone she mentioned, we are looking at 60,000 direct jobs, which is a big contrast to the recent LNG project agreements that the government brought forward, with prospects of 330 jobs. That’s an interesting note here.

With that said though, the all-eggs-in-one-basket approach of the Liberals did cause grave concern for the industry experts as well as the community stakeholders, as we saw many other valuable drivers of our economy inflicted with growth limitations and even decline in some key sectors like technology, film, science, as well as services. So of course I absolutely welcome the latest change in tune from the Liberal bench, claiming support for the diversified economy, as that should have been the obvious priority for all levels of government from the get-go.

Now I would like to take a few minutes to highlight some key trade sectors in our province that will benefit from attention from this government. Our province’s tourism sector has improved but not kept pace with the rest of the economy, with its growth well below the average in other industries. We are talking about one in 15 British Columbians depending on jobs in this industry alone, and this industry accounts for more than a third of our GDP in accommodation, food services and transportation, all generated by tourist spending.

I urge the government to be sensitive to the small businesses right here on our soil, especially in the coastal communities that have been challenged with the ferry cuts, as well as those of us in Metro Vancouver whose livelihood depends on the steady and growing international traffic.

On the agricultural side, because of the large government subsidies to the industrial system and imported foods — and, of course, with the Liberal Bill 24 weakening our ALR last year — it still remains difficult for our local farmers to compete in our own B.C. market. With 95 percent of what B.C. eats being imported, that’s $25 billion leaving the province instead of going to our local economy. So we need real commitments and action from this government.

[1055]

Lastly, we all know that the contribution of the high-tech sector to the economy of this province is paramount. While it is great that this sector has grown steadily over the years, we still import four times as much as we export. We still have a relatively small market share compared to all other provincial and American jurisdictions, and our potential is far from being realized.

The stakeholders in this industry have long called for investment in local initiatives to grow the domestic market so that we can have the kind of economic scale required to compete with the U.S. jurisdictions that have a nationwide market — for them to base on, for access and local usage as well as export opportunities.

Now, I can go on, but as it is certainly important that we celebrate the performance of our diverse trade sector, I do want to respectfully caution the government that while it’s tempting to take credit for the progress that we have seen in these industries, we do need to look deeper into the actual numbers and trends to identify the ways we have come short at our end and consider ways we can do better to foster growth in this industry.

J. Thornthwaite: I’d like to thank the member for her remarks.

Forestry is, indeed, an important industry for our province. It represents more than 3 percent of our total GDP and contributes more than $750 million to government revenues. B.C. is also the headquarters for some of the largest forest companies in the world, and 40 percent of our regional economies rely on forest activities. And 2009 was the forest sector’s worst year, but it is recovering from the economic downturn. In 2014, B.C.’s timber harvest was up more than 34 percent from 2009, while employment in the sector was up 20 percent.

Our very own North Vancouver family business, SPF Precut Lumber’s success shows that industry can have a significant impact on expanding businesses to new markets and support our efforts to show the B.C. brand overseas.

Our government has recently signed memorandum of understanding with China’s Zhejiang province, which calls on both governments to promote the use of environmentally friendly, low-carbon wood construction and develop codes and standards in this Chinese province.

By supporting companies like SPF Precut Lumber and by developing relationships with Asia and beyond, we are ensuring that our products find new customers and that those customers are able to use our products in safe, ecologically responsible ways.

This is the result of the push for expansion that was started by our government 12 years ago. I’m very proud to see this positive impact it is now having, not just on our economy but on local companies that are helping us reach out and connect with our new global partners.

Hon. T. Stone: I now call private member’s Motion 21.

Deputy Speaker: Hon. Members, unanimous consent of the House is required to proceed with Motion 21
[ Page 9082 ]
without disturbing the priority of the motions preceding it on the order paper.

Leave granted.

Private Members’ Motions

MOTION 21 — AFFORDABLE HOUSING PLAN

D. Eby:

[Be it resolved that this House support the creation of an affordable housing plan for British Columbia to ensure housing affordability for first-time home buyers and renters, secure the housing of those at risk of homelessness, and eliminate homelessness in our communities.]

Three weeks ago I was in Maple Ridge, visiting a tent city, residents who live near that tent city and a local business that’s suffering significant losses as a result of a tent city that’s located outside its front door.

The members for Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows and Maple Ridge–Mission might want to stop by and have a look for themselves at what their government’s housing policy and inaction has resulted in for that community.

Almost 100 people, half women, are living in this tent city, which is located on a tree-lined suburban street. There, under blazing heat, people with mental health issues, with very active addiction issues and some people who are just too poor to live anywhere else are living in tents.

The neighbours of this tent city have been remarkably patient and compassionate. “We have family members who have faced challenges like this,” one said. Another said: “My husband worked with one of the guys who is living out there.”

They’ve put out hoses so that the people there can access water. Half a block away is the Salvation Army homeless shelter. The 25-bed shelter is full. They have mats on the floor for some extra people, but they are at, arguably beyond, their capacity.

Up the road in Abbotsford, that city faces the same challenge, with a tent city without end. Struggling to move the people who live in that tent city on, the city has tried literally everything and found that there is simply no solution other than housing, which is not there.

[1100]

They face a lawsuit right now for some of the desperate decisions that were made to try to move a large camp of homeless people out of their community.

In Terrace a record number of homeless people was counted by volunteers this year, and everybody knows that homeless counts are an underestimate. In this northern city, where snow piles up and temperatures are below zero throughout the winter, 74 people live on the street and in the woods just outside the city limits.

What does the Housing Minister say about B.C.’s homelessness crisis? He denies it exists. The minister told me in this place just weeks ago that a homeless person in British Columbia…. “Provided they wanted to move or they wanted to go into housing, they could actually, in most cases, take care of that the same day.”

Well, tell that to the community in Maple Ridge. Tell that to Abbotsford. Tell that to Terrace. It’s one thing to say something in this place, but it’s quite another to try to convince people who live in those communities, who live across from a tent city, that you could house those people living in tents that same day. They simply will not believe you, and they should not.

The B.C. Non-Profit Housing Association says that in Kelowna, Penticton, Chilliwack, Whistler, Squamish, Nanaimo and Victoria, one in four households pays more than 50 percent of their income on rent. The rest of the province isn’t much better, with one in five households paying more than half of their income for rent.

What does our Minister of Housing say about the skyrocketing costs of renting across the province, where vacancy rates are routinely below 1 percent? He says that we live in the jurisdiction with the most successful affordable housing strategy in North American history. It would be funny if it wasn’t so tragic for the individuals involved.

Perhaps people should consider buying housing. Greater Vancouver houses now average over $1 million each, up 173 percent since 2005. Why don’t people live in a condo? Well, sure, if you’re willing to pack your kids and your partner into a one-bedroom or a bachelor. But if you want two bedrooms and you want to live in half-an-hour access to Vancouver, you better have half a million dollars in mortgage funding. Combine housing costs with child care costs, and family life in Metro Vancouver becomes completely unrealistic.

Here’s what the minister said about the cost of housing in Vancouver, which was the second-most expensive city in the world, according to Demographia. He said: “Housing prices were actually pretty affordable.” This minister is the definition of out of touch. This government needs to pull its head out of the sand and come up with a comprehensive affordable housing plan for this province.

The writing is on the wall that the approach they’ve taken to date without metrics, without any kind of measurement, shows that the money they’ve thrown at this problem to date hasn’t been successful, and B.C. residents are paying the price in so very many ways.

With that, I bring to this House the motion that British Columbia consider and implement an affordable housing strategy, starting immediately, to deal with the crisis of homelessness, to deal with the crisis of affordable housing in rental and purchase and to deal with the crisis of the fact that people simply can’t afford to live in the cities that they work in anymore.

It’s unacceptable. Government shouldn’t stand up and try to justify this situation.

D. Bing: I’d like to thank the member for Vancouver–Point Grey for putting forward his motion on housing. As this motion raises the broad spectrum of housing, my
[ Page 9083 ]
colleagues will be addressing all the various aspects individually. For my part, I will be addressing the issue of homelessness, especially in the context of my own riding of Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows.

Before I start I would like to make reference to a speech of a different sort, a speech delivered not in this House, but in the House of Commons in the United Kingdom, sometimes referred to as our Mother of Parliaments. I’m referring to the inaugural speech by the 20-year-old Member of Parliament, Mhairi Black, who was just elected last May.

In less than eight minutes, she very eloquently describes her first impressions of being a member of the opposition. Ms. Black explains why the people of Scotland deserted the Labour Party and embraced the Scottish National Party in the last election.

She also does a fantastic job of defining the proper role of the official opposition. In her own words…. Be a true voice of the people. Provide constructive and viable policy alternatives. Avoid senseless muckraking and painting your opponent with utter falsehoods.

[1105]

I know the member for Vancouver–Point Grey has been elected to the House for over two years now, but I highly recommend that he watch and listen carefully to this speech. I know the hon. member would benefit, perhaps even pick up a few tips from this remarkable young woman.

On the subject of homelessness, close to 6,700 people were connected to housing in British Columbia last year. Since 2001 the government has invested $4 billion to provide affordable housing for low-income individuals, seniors and families.

Since 2006 the number of provincially subsidized apartments and shelter spaces available for housing and those at risk of homelessness has more than doubled to 11,000. Last year around $169 million was provided to support more than 11,000 emergency shelter spaces, subsidized units and rent supplements for those who are homeless in British Columbia.

The condition of being homeless is complex. There are many different factors that can contribute to a person being left without a place to live. Mental illness, addictions, unemployment or even just a series of unfortunate circumstances can leave a person homeless.

Countries all over the world face the same challenges. That includes places like my riding of Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows. In March of this year a homeless camp formed on Cliff Avenue in Maple Ridge. Approximately 65 people reside there. Many of them are women.

From the beginning B.C. Housing staff has been in regular contact with the mayor and city staff. I, too, have been in regular contact with the mayor, most recently on July 3. Throughout the whole process, I can assure you, hon. Speaker, the Minister of Housing has been very supportive, with the aim of collaborating with the mayor and city staff to arrive at a constructive solution.

On July 8 the member for Vancouver–Point Grey paid a visit to the camp and issued a press release claiming that the local MLAs have been “completely absent” and have never visited the tent site. This is an utter falsehood, and I would like to set the record straight.

I have been working on this issue for months, and I visited the site on numerous occasions. I did so because I wanted to see the site, to talk to the people and to assess the situation for myself.

With this clarification, I am pleased to inform the House this morning that the government of British Columbia is offering to fund a temporary shelter as soon as the city can provide a suitable building. The goal is to provide immediate assistance while working to find permanent housing for those who need it.

With the help of the city and local non-profits, we are working to help people identified as homeless at the camp. Everyone who is in need of housing will be offered somewhere to live. So far, ten people have been moved into housing. In addition, about 70 rent subsidies are now available for people at the camp through the homeless prevention program. By working collaboratively, we will meet the needs of these people.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

D. Bing: That is my promise to the residents….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members will come to order. Members will come to order now.

D. Bing: Rather than showboating, I am working collaboratively to meet the needs of these people. That is my promise to the residents of Cliff Avenue and my constituents of Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows.

S. Chandra Herbert: It takes some gall for this government to claim that they have the most successful housing strategy in North America when survey after survey shows we have the second most unaffordable housing in the world. Is that a success? I don’t think so if people can’t afford to live here.

We have some of the worst homelessness in Canada. That’s a success for the B.C. Liberals. Not in my books. We have a government which has declared they’re no longer in the public housing business. They don’t believe in creating affordable housing. That’s not their job, they seem to take the belief, now.

It’s a government that thinks that it’s successful to sell off public housing, as they are trying to do with Nicholson Tower in my constituency, a housing facility built for low-income seniors, which the government now thinks needs
[ Page 9084 ]
to be put up for sale so that they can, in effect, turn half of the units, over 100 units, into market rental units.

[1110]

Over time, taking what was housing for low-income people, people who can’t afford to get into the most unaffordable housing market in North America, the second most unaffordable housing market in the world…. Those people, this government seems to think, don’t need housing anymore.

Little wonder why we continue to have a homelessness crisis across B.C. It’s not just in Maple Ridge, as the member was pointing out earlier; it’s all across this province. But to listen to the Minister for Housing, you would think everything was solved. Government by anecdote: “I met a man who got a house. Thus, everything is solved.” That seems to be this government’s approach to this.

With vacancy rates in my constituency of 0.3 percent, my constituents are feeling the pinch. I think about one of the constituents in the other day. A man who came to Canada from Iran, who had faced torture, who had faced the firing squad, somehow managed to get out alive, put his life to work here in Canada, was injured on the job, is now waiting to try and get into affordable housing that this government is now trying to sell off.

He’s been waiting on the list for ten years — ten years to try to get into affordable housing. You know why? Because he can’t afford to eat. He came to share that with me by saying: “You know, in my culture we have a saying that we slap our faces to hide our shame.” I said: “What do you mean?” He said: “Well, we slap our faces so our cheeks get colour, so it looks like we’ve eaten. We hide the shame that we cannot afford to eat.”

That’s this government’s most successful housing strategy in the world. Jeez, it’s a real shame that they refuse to see the real problems facing constituents — their constituents, our constituents, British Columbia. There’s no need to try and solve homelessness by anecdote. There’s a need to solve it with actual strategy. There’s a need to solve affordability by looking at the numbers.

But you know what? This government will not address the number of homeless people. They won’t even try and find out how many there are. They won’t address the challenges of income coming in from outside, bloating the housing market in this province to make it unaffordable for locals on low salaries. They won’t talk about that.

In my constituency we have some great examples of what collaborative action can do to build affordable housing. We have the cooperative movement — co-ops all across this province — that, if this government cared to notice, could do a lot more to provide affordable housing for people of a whole range of incomes. Not just low-income people are feeling the pinch but people from most income brackets, except for the very wealthy.

Now, my constituents often will say to me: “Well, wait a second. I live in Coal Harbour, but I never see my neighbours.” In fact, the studies seem to show that one-quarter of the units were empty since the day they were bought. We have this horrible disparity where in part of the constituency the units are empty. Nobody has even visited them. Then in the other part of the constituency, where the vacancy rate is so low, there’s no way to find an apartment, and if you do, chances are it’s incredibly unaffordable.

That’s the problem we have. There’s no easy solution, but you actually have to develop a strategy. You actually have to acknowledge it is a problem. Well, the B.C. Liberals may not think affordable housing is an issue. If they don’t think it’s a problem, if they just say it’s solved, as the minister claims, poof, it’s solved. Well, that doesn’t work.

You actually have to do the hard work. You actually have to work with developers. You have to work with the provincial government and the federal government to say: “We need to get back into the housing business.” Federal governments, provincial governments of all political stripes used to believe that government had a role for good. Government had a role to solve housing affordability. We need to do that again.

J. Martin: As the member for Chilliwack, I’m pleased to speak to this motion regarding affordable housing. I’d like to begin by describing the government’s record of providing affordable housing and fighting homelessness in Chilliwack.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

To begin with, 2013 marked the opening of the new Chilliwack Health and Housing Centre, giving people who are homeless or those at risk of homelessness access to supportive housing and on-site health services. The two-storey former hotel in Chilliwack incorporates a 22-unit supportive housing component and its residences, managed and operated by Pacific Community Resources Society.

[1115]

Funding for this project was provided by the B.C. government, with over $3½ million toward capital costs and another $230,000 in annual operational funding for the residential component. The city of Chilliwack came up with $500,000 to contribute. Pacific Community Resources Society came up with $50,000 in equity toward the project. The Real Estate Foundation of B.C. also came up with a $50,000 contribution.

Fraser Health will provide $25,000 annually for three years toward the operating costs of the health contact centre and $33,000 in annual operational funding for the residential component. Fraser Health will also make significant contributions through primary care, mental health and substance-use services provided in the centre.

Overall, I would like to congratulate the minister responsible for taking affordable housing and the issue of homelessness so seriously and with a deep degree of passion. Over the previous decade whatever portfolio the
[ Page 9085 ]
minister was assigned, the housing file has always followed the hon. member for Fort Langley–Aldergrove. Over that period two Premiers have trusted the minister and with good reason. He has presided over the most successful housing strategy in North America.

We don’t have to take my word for it. Let’s look at what the former member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant said before she resigned.

“I know one particular minister that I want to just say probably is the happiest person to see me go because he will no longer receive the stacks and stacks of letters and cases that I send his way. That would be the Minister for Housing, the Deputy Premier…. To his credit, I must say this. He actually took these cases seriously, and in many instances he made the effort to try to resolve them. For that I thank him…. I know that he extended his efforts to try to make that happen.”

How much higher praise can an opposition member heap on a government minister? That is an impressive statement of the facts.

At this time I’d like to recognize the hon. member for Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows for all the work he has been doing quietly behind the scenes to address the homeless camp on Cliff Avenue in Maple Ridge.

Contrary to a press release issued on July 8 by the member for Vancouver–Point Grey that contained false and misleading information, the member for Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows has been working diligently to bring various parties together to find a solution in his riding.

Rather than orchestrate a cockamamy partisan press conference at taxpayers’ expense and shamelessly use vulnerable and homeless people as props for a photo op, such as the Vancouver–Point Grey member did, the member for Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows is working on a constructive solution that includes an offer by the government of B.C. to fund a temporary shelter, in cooperation with the city of Maple Ridge, until people can get permanent housing.

Again, let’s hear what the mayor of Maple Ridge, Nicole Reid, had to say on July 17.

“I’m relieved that we are finally able to talk about this publicly. We have been working behind the scenes with B.C. Housing for several weeks to make this possible. I’d like to acknowledge the assistance of the MLA for Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows who met with us again on July 3 where we discussed this solution. This announcement clearly indicates that our local MLAs have been working for our community behind the scenes.”

Quite frankly, I think the member for Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows deserves a public apology. I want to go on the record insisting that an apology be forthcoming to that member. He may be soft-spoken, but I can assure this House that the member for Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows is keenly determined to work with others in a constructive and a productive fashion, which is far more than I can say for opposition members of this House. I very much look forward to that apology.

Deputy Speaker: It being Monday morning and we do allow considerable latitude that we haven’t in the past, I would remind members that attacks of a personal nature will not be tolerated, and we should keep to a policy level if we could.

J. Shin: It’s my pleasure to speak on behalf of Burnaby-Lougheed in support of the motion on the floor calling on the House to (1) support the creation of an affordable housing plan for British Columbia’s first-time homebuyers and renters, (2) secure housing of those at risk of homelessness and (3) eliminate homelessness in our communities.

Let’s start by looking at some numbers. It’s no news that Metro Vancouver is the second least affordable housing market in the world, with the average price of a detached home costing between $800,000 to even over $1 million.

So let’s forget the dream of a white picket fence then. How about a new two-bedroom apartment? Easily over $400,000. In fact, the one that I saw in Burnaby was going for $500,000 for a new two-bedroom that was a little over 600 or 700 square feet.

[1120]

What about the old two-bedroom condos, then, that should be going for a lot cheaper than that? The catch-22 there is that you’d be looking at, still, at least about $400 to $600 per month in strata maintenance fees for repairs and updates that these older buildings require, which end up being equivalent to a monthly mortgage payment for a property worth $150,000 more.

The statistics are alarming. An estimated 11,000 British Columbians — and these numbers are underestimated often — are homeless, living on the streets, under the bridges, in the parks. Tack on another 40,000 people whose homelessness is categorized as hidden — living out of their cars, couch-surfing from place to place. Many of them are immigrants and vulnerable youth. Then another 66,000 are in a paycheque-to-paycheque situation, with a third or more of their income going towards housing and at risk of eviction or, of course, the renovictions. Add to that more than 40,000 residents in housing co-ops, over 2,000 of whom are actually in my community of Burnaby-Lougheed.

Of course, let’s not forget the tens of thousands of students scrambling for affordable residences during their studies and many seniors on a fixed or limited income not being able to age in place in their community. Even the middle-income families are squeezed out of the market and driven further and further away from their own communities where they grew up or work.

In a province of 4.6 million this means about one in ten British Columbians are without or struggling to put a roof over their heads — over 10 percent of our population effectively homeless or at high risk of it.

How did we get here? Michael Shapcott, the founding member of the Canadian Homelessness Research Network, states that the housing crisis in our country is tragic, but it’s a predictable outcome of three decades
[ Page 9086 ]
of political inaction. From the ending of the national housing program to a gaping disconnect between local wages and skyrocketing costs of living — and, of course, from the scarcity of affordable rental apartments and an accessible home ownership pathway to a defunding of co-ops and social housing — many British Columbians are underserved by the existing policies that desperately need strengthening, if not the utter ignorance of the issue by their policy-makers.

Housing is a fundamental human right under the United Nations codes. It’s a shame that Canada is the only country in the G8 without a national housing strategy. British Columbia, likewise, has no plan.

What is the actual impact of foreign investment? How much does buyer speculation come into play?

There’s no quick and simple magic solution to the housing crisis. But what can the three levels of government do to positively intervene? Well, we wouldn’t know, because the Liberal government doesn’t even have any real data on this issue for analysis.

With my colleagues on this side of the House highlighting and advocating for various demographic clusters — from those in overheated, resource boom towns to those living with challenges — I would like to emphasize the value of co-op housing, providing safe and healthy living spaces to over 14,500 households in B.C., approximately a thousand of which are also in Burnaby-Lougheed, in my community.

As we know, the federal government’s operating agreements for co-ops are expiring this year through 2020. Instead of moving in the right direction, we’ll be seeing hundreds of B.C. families and individuals on limited and fixed income displaced from their homes and communities with no firm action committed from this government. These are not just our seniors who have earned dignified retirement but also young families — those of us with disabilities, single parents and new Canadians. These are my constituents. These are real people with names and faces that I’ve gotten to know personally at their doorsteps.

Housing is a shared responsibility and too important an issue to be caught up in a blame game between the levels of government. I look to this House to work with the Co-op Housing Federation, as well as other community and business stakeholders, for practical solutions to the housing crunch for B.C. families.

L. Reimer: Thank you to the member opposite for bringing forward this motion for discussion.

We believe in preserving affordable housing for those who need it most and, in most instances, provide them with the support services that help them to become more productive members of society. In some cases, this means transitioning from a dependent state to an independent state. Independence cannot happen without a home and support services.

[1125]

We are committed to helping people who are homeless and those who are at risk of being homeless to receive access to housing and support services. We’re making record investments in housing and supports for low-income families, to ensure that every family has access to affordable housing.

We’re committed to Housing Matters B.C., our comprehensive strategy to address short-term and long-term housing needs, which was introduced in 2006. Housing Matters is the most progressive housing strategy in Canadian history. Since 2001 we have invested $4.4 billion to provide affordable housing for low-income individuals, seniors and families and in supporting families in my community of the Tri-Cities.

With partnership, we can do more. Our community is home to organizations like the Hope for Freedom Society, where both men and women are supported through addiction, homelessness and those at risk of homelessness. Their outreach and advocacy team has operated in the Tri-Cities since 2006. The team’s job entails tracking the homeless population, establishing contact, providing assistance in the search for suitable housing, creating a rapport, and providing resources and follow-up on clients who have secured housing.

Hope for Freedom outreach and advocacy also has the ability in some cases to subsidize rent for those we have housed. The society was a recipient of an award of merit from the Tri-Cities Homelessness and Housing Task Group.

The efforts by Hope for Freedom and task force efforts to decrease homelessness and improve the lives of British Columbians facing housing challenges are just astounding. In fact, Mayor Greg Moore of the city of Port Coquitlam said: “I don’t know if anybody else can name a city within this region or even within the country that has taken its homeless resident count from over 200 to less than 60 in a five-year period. I think part of the success is the fact that it is the community that is providing the service.”

I’d also like to mention the Tri-Cities Homelessness and Housing Task Group. This is a community homeless table representing the Tri-Cities communities of Coquitlam, Port Moody and Port Coquitlam, British Columbia, Canada. It’s a member of the Greater Vancouver Regional Steering Committee on Homelessness. It has been chaired for many years by Sandy Burpee, whose contributions and efforts were recently recognized with a B.C. Community Achievement Award. Members include non-profits, government agencies, local government, community groups, business, politicians and citizens concerned about homelessness and housing affordability in the Tri-Cities.

The Tri-Cities Bridge Shelter operates nightly from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. during the period of November 1 to March 31. The shelter has a capacity of 30 mats. In Coquitlam the cold weather mat program has operated for many
[ Page 9087 ]
years, thanks to the volunteer efforts of many churches and their parishioners.

There’s also the extreme weather response shelter, which operates at Trinity United Church on Prairie Avenue in Port Coquitlam. These programs not only provide service to those in need but have also served to educate the public about homelessness and those in need. As well, we have the SHARE Family and Community Services society that provides food hampers.

I must also mention our new building at 3030 Gordon Avenue in Coquitlam, which will provide 30 units of transitional housing, 30 emergency shelter rooms and, during extreme weather conditions, an additional 30 shelter beds in dormitory rooms. Residents will have access to a number of on-site services, including 24-7 staff support, learning space for counselling and skill development programs, a commercial-grade kitchen, a dining area, storage space and laundry facilities.

The governments of Canada and B.C. will provide a combined investment of approximately $12.9 million through the federal-provincial housing initiative. The city of Coquitlam has provided the land valued at $405,000. RainCity Housing and Support Society will manage and operate the development.

Providing this kind of shelter and housing has been a priority for the city of Coquitlam, the Tri-Cities Homelessness Task Group and B.C. Housing for a number of years. It will be of great benefit to those in need. When community, local government and senior governments come together, it’s a win-win for all.

M. Mungall: It’s my pleasure to rise in the House today to speak to a motion put forward by my colleague from Vancouver–Point Grey. The member for Vancouver–Point Grey put forward a fantastic motion that calls on the provincial government to create an overall provincial strategy, a housing plan with the goal to increase affordability and, equally important, to eliminate homelessness.

[1130]

To me, knowing what I know from my communities, from communities all across British Columbia — obviously, most notably, in the Lower Mainland — this is an issue whose time is overdue.

It’s not that we have finally got to a place where: “Oh, we should start addressing this.” It has been an issue that has been ignored by government for far too long. The programs that we’ve seen from government are piecemeal. They’re not part of a broader strategy. They’re not addressing the overall issues that communities are facing and the distinct issues that might exist in a rural community that are different than in an urban community. That’s why we need a broader housing plan — not one-off approaches, not photo ops and press releases, but an actual strategy, a plan that will put this province to work on making housing more affordable.

We all know that British Columbia is facing an affordability crisis. We see that, obviously, in the Lower Mainland. I mean, goodness, when you think about the average price of a detached home costing $1.1 million and we have families making $30,000 a year on average, $40,000 a year, how on earth would they ever be able to afford what previous generations have taken for granted, which is the ability to own their own home?

I know that my peer group is feeling the squeeze. They’re feeling the pinch, the inability to even get what’s needed for a down payment, much less be able to afford mortgage payments.

But along with middle-income earners, of course, people at the lower end of the income spectrum who rely on rental housing are finding that rental housing is being priced far and far outside their reach.

Recently a report was done by the Social Planning and Research Council of B.C. They looked at family homelessness in Prince George, Kamloops, Kelowna, Nelson and Nanaimo. They released the report just in September 2014. What they found is that 65 percent of respondents have incomes of under $1,500 a month; 34 percent reported that they did not have enough money to pay bills in the past month, while 64 percent could only pay some or no bills at all.

On top of that, 29 percent reported that they had a medical condition. I wanted to highlight that point very quickly because a lot of people think that people who are at risk of homelessness are people who have mental illness, who have addictions, who are having medical issues, but it’s only 30 percent, about that, consistently over the years. That means the vast majority are just struggling to make it by.

I think what’s important to note…. I see that time goes by so quickly here in these debates, but I did want to highlight one of the grand failings of this government, and maybe a housing strategy would address that. That’s the discrepancy between the average rents by bedroom type and what is allowed for shelter allowance by income assistance for people who have disabilities or who are relying on income supports.

So $375 is the maximum amount for a single person; for a family of two, $570. In Quesnel a bachelor, which is the lowest rent available in British Columbia, is at $439; for a one-bedroom, $536. If we look at Kamloops, we see $661 for a bachelor. A single mother with a child would not even be able to afford a bachelor apartment in Kamloops. In Nelson, we see it’s $600.

We can be doing so much better in this province, so let’s start with a plan to make that so.

[1135]

R. Lee: The issue of affordable housing is an important topic, and one well worth discussing in this House. We all know that British Columbia is a popular place to live. People from across Canada and around the world want to come and live here. Who wouldn’t, given B.C.’s spec-
[ Page 9088 ]
tacular natural beauty, our continent-leading outcomes in health and education, and strong and stable economy?

This popularity also creates a problem — the demand for housing and the fact that, especially in the Lower Mainland, there is limited land for us to actually build houses. There are also other land pressures such as industrial use, commercial properties, hospitals, schools and vital transportation infrastructure. This all creates a dilemma and the reason why we are talking about this subject today.

Are there any easy fixes to this issue? I think we can all agree that the answer to this is no. That’s why it’s important we come up with realistic plans in looking for solutions.

In Burnaby our government has been helping to create more affordable housing for seniors. For example, in 2013 the Swedish Assisted Living Residence — a 64-unit assisted-living development funded by the governments of Canada and British Columbia, along with community partners — was opened. Total capital cost for the project was approximately $17.6 million. Some $10.63 million was provided through the federal-provincial housing initiative, a partnership between the government of Canada and the B.C. government under the investment in affordable housing agreement.

In addition, the government of Canada provided $22,836 in proposal development funding towards the project. The B.C. government provided construction financing of $4 million for the 18 private-pay apartments. The Swedish Canadian Rest Home Association provided the land, valued at $2.214 million, in addition to equities of nearly $200,000. The city of Burnaby provided $355,000 for the project. It was a great collaboration.

In 2007, supported by B.C. Housing, 38 two-bedroom units near Confederation Park were preserved as affordable housing, managed by the New Chelsea Society. Since 2009, women and children seeking stability and support when leaving the first stage of a transitional housing have more options in Burnaby with the opening of the Dixon Transition Society’s Wenda’s Place, a $3.98 million development. The province provided a grant of $2.48 million.

Many people would prefer to own their own homes. For most people, buying a home is the most important purchase they will ever make. Most have to borrow money and carry a mortgage, of course, especially for the first-time homebuyers. My city of Burnaby has a high proportion of first-time homeowners. This is why, for me, it’s very important that these first-time buyers — who tend to be singles, young families or recent immigrants to Canada — are given a break, when buying their home, to help them with the first-time-homebuyers program.

Through this program, British Columbians who enter the real estate market for the first time can see a reduction or even the elimination of the property transfer tax. It can save them up to $7,500. In last year’s budget we saw the threshold increase to $475,000 and a partial exemption on the price of homes valued between $475,000 and half a million dollars. There is also the homeowner grant, helping individuals and families with their residential property taxes.

There is a property tax deferral program, as well, and a home-renovation tax credit for seniors. For seniors who are renting, as we know, we have the SAFER program, which provides cash assistance to eligible B.C. residents who are aged 60 or over. Since 2006 we have the RAP program, so currently more than 100,000 families receive assistance.

[1140]

S. Hammell: It does give me pleasure to join the debate around homelessness and a housing program that we could put up in British Columbia.

It seems to me that any government that wanted to make a distinct difference in any particular area…. The first thing they would do is create a plan — a plan that had a lot of buy-in not only from the members of the government and the government caucus but also from the cities around the province that have an immediate need and see homelessness most acutely because they deal with it in their cities and on their streets and are constantly confronted with the tensions and the issues that surround homelessness.

If we had the government decide that it was in all our best interests to follow up on a provincial plan around homelessness and affordable housing that reached not only into the Lower Mainland and into the cities that surround the Lower Mainland but also up into the rural parts of British Columbia, particularly those parts of British Columbia that feel the intense cold of the climate as winter appears and people are left on the streets in dire climates….

I know that in the city of Surrey there is acute interest in dealing with the issues of homelessness and the issues around affordable housing. All of us in all of our cities look at our citizens and know that it is difficult to achieve housing in the current conditions in the Lower Mainland. Of course, that does spread out and impact the rest of the province as well.

We know that not only is housing expensive in Vancouver itself, but the pressure on prices moves out to the suburbs as the prices rise in the city of Vancouver itself. We know that many of the cities have moved in terms of allowing and registering secondary suites, where many, many people move to, often in their first rental homes. Even if you look at the cost of secondary suites in the city of Richmond, you’re looking at around $1,000 a month for a secondary suite.

It becomes just beyond those people that are either on minimum wage or not making a livable wage to reach, to be able to have affordable housing. It’s particularly difficult for those people who are leaving their homes and trying to strike out on their own.
[ Page 9089 ]

The other issue that is worth mentioning is that oftentimes when you talk about homelessness — in particular homelessness — you’re talking also about those people who are mentally ill. The last thing we would do in our province is turn people out onto the streets who had a physical ailment in the numbers that we do with mental illness. So when you talk about the homeless, you’re often concurrently talking about mental illness if the homelessness is deeply entrenched.

I just think we can do better. We are a province that has compassion. We care about the people within our communities. We do need from this government a plan that shows commitment and a plan that has consulted with the communities and the cities in our province, one that we can build together and produce strong outcomes for those people who are affected by the high cost of housing and homelessness.

[1145]

D. Ashton: I want to thank all the speakers on this very challenging but very worthwhile endeavour that we all try and address. On behalf of the constituents of Penticton, Summerland, Peachland and Naramata, it is my pleasure to add my voice to the motion from the member for Vancouver–Point Grey on housing affordability and eliminating homelessness.

Some may believe that they have the monopoly on the best methods of addressing social issues, but in fact, I’m very proud of our government’s record on commitments to ensuring that every British Columbian who needs access to safe, secure and affordable housing has that opportunity. We believe it is every British Columbian’s right to have a safe roof over their head. And although we can agree that this is easier said than done, we are all working to make this a reality.

We are committed to helping people who are at risk of being homeless receive access to housing and support services. So $4 billion plus — $4.4 billion is my understanding — is an awful lot of money. That’s the amount that has been invested since 2001, providing affordable housing to low-income individuals, seniors and families. We believe affordable housing should be for all those who need it the most. In most cases we provide them with the support services that help them become more productive and active members of society.

In 2006 our government introduced Housing Matters British Columbia, our strategy to address short-term and long-term housing needs. I’m very proud to say that it has been the most progressive housing strategy in Canadian history.

We’re developing Housing Matters B.C. to improve the lives of British Columbians facing housing challenges. All of us know how important it is for everyone to have that safe and secure roof over their heads. While the strategy addresses the full range of housing, from homelessness to home ownership, the main focus is on ensuring that those who are most in need have help to improve their access to housing and have those support services in place.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Our government is investing in long-term housing solutions and support services to address the critical areas of housing for people who are homeless, have mental health issues and/or addictions. We’re building new housing in communities all over British Columbia. We’re partnering with local governments, First Nations and community organizations. We are providing long-term source funding through the housing endowment fund. We’re also continuing to build on this progress with Housing Matters B.C., which was first introduced, providing new and expanded programs to reduce homelessness and build up the supply of affordable housing.

The six strategies of Housing Matters British Columbia are that those facing homelessness have access to stable housing with integrated support services — and that’s incredibly important, very, very important; that B.C.’s most vulnerable citizens receive priority for assistance; that aboriginal housing needs are addressed through a strong aboriginal housing sector; that low- to moderate-income households have improved access to affordable and stable renting of rental housing; that home ownership is supported through an avenue of self-sufficiency; and that B.C.’s housing and building regulatory systems are clear, effective and balanced.

Housing issues in Vancouver get the lion’s share of attention in our province, and that’s understandable. But I want to take a quick moment to speak about how this government is helping people in the Interior and the north.

In 2008 the B.C. government signed a partnership agreement with Habitat for Humanity to develop several affordable home ownership options for families, individuals and those with low to moderate incomes. This partnership has developed under one roof in Vernon; Boundary multiplex in Grand Forks; Veneto Place in Fernie; and in Salmon Arm, the Willows, which is 11 two-bedroom, affordable home-ownership apartments for low- to moderate-income families.

The B.C. government has provided $5.5 million in funding to purchase development properties in Salmon Arm. We recognize that these initiatives are crucial to the well-being of British Columbia and families who need that extra helping hand. We are proud of the fact that with our assistance, people are transitioning from homelessness to secure housing, which in turn leads to meaningful, family-supported employment.

Are we there yet? Absolutely not. Are we close? We’re closer than we’ve ever been, but those folks still need a hand. I would encourage…. All working together can make a big difference.

[1150]

R. Fleming: I want to join in congratulating, thanking, the member for Vancouver–Point Grey for submitting this topical motion on affordable housing and the housing challenges that British Columbia has, for debate from both sides of the House this morning.

The high cost of housing — make no mistake — is what British Columbians in almost every B.C. community talk about on a daily basis. It’s what consumes them. It’s what challenges their hopes and drives many of their fears in terms of improving their lives for their families.

What we are missing in British Columbia today is a government that listens to those hopes, to those fears, to those anxieties around a place that all of us love but worry about whether we can afford to continue to live here and get ahead in British Columbia. That’s what consumes middle-class British Columbia families — the evaporating dream of being able to afford and own a home.

Now, affordability impacts all types of families and individuals in British Columbia. We have an affordability challenge that runs the complete gamut of the housing spectrum and income levels.

On the rental market, in many communities it’s a supply problem. I can well remember a date in my constituency, 2002, when the government brought out some new Liberal MLAs at that time for a ribbon cutting and celebrated the opening of a great B.C. Housing project called Tillicum Station.

Why that’s significant is that it was the last family social housing project completed, funded and opened by B.C. Housing. That was 13 years ago. The entire spectrum of family-affordable housing built, developed and operated by B.C. Housing has been forbidden as a policy intervention.

Those today form 75 good units of housing that are able to house families in my constituency affordably. We don’t have that coming on line in our rental supply, and we haven’t for over a decade, while housing prices have dramatically risen — in some communities doubled or even tripled in value.

So just as housing was becoming more unaffordable in British Columbia, that was the time when British Columbia was ramping down its intervention to house working families in our communities. That’s why we got to where we are. To hear the government even deny that we live in a distorted marketplace is laughable — to hear the Premier deny that this is a reality.

The first clue that British Columbia has an affordability challenge in its housing is to look at where we are: number one in all of North America in terms of the least affordable real estate prices. That would be the first clue. We’re second in the world only to Hong Kong.

The problem for us and B.C. families is that we rank 23rd out of 28 Canadian cities on incomes. So hugely high prices, at the top of the global spectrum of real estate prices, and significantly modest incomes. That demands government’s attention, and it has not been getting it.

The Real Estate Board of Greater Vancouver has estimated that a new home, a single-detached home, in Vancouver is $1.2 million. Over the past five years Vancouver homes worth $1 million to $2 million have doubled in value — the past five years, doubled in value.

A turbocharged housing market is continuing to grow disproportionately to family incomes. We have a problem. Vancouver’s median house prices are, on average, 9½ times greater than median household income, significantly higher than San Francisco, Sydney, Australia, Los Angeles and London.

The question that Vancouverites want to know is: why? Why is their housing market so turbocharged when other places with higher economic growth and higher earnings are more reasonable?

The Economist magazine asks that very question. They quote urban planner Andy Yan, who is on Vancouver’s planning committee. Wouldn’t it be interesting to take Mr. Yan’s opinions and other housing experts from across Vancouver and actually give them some official status, some official place to advise housing policy in British Columbia? But no. It doesn’t happen.

Mr. Yan asked the questions this government should be asking. Is there, for example, an impact of foreign investors on real estate prices being driven up higher than they should be in greater Vancouver? Perhaps there is. It’s proving it that is difficult, says Mr. Yan.

He knows that it’s not wage growth, because the statistics show that very clearly. It’s not the economy here, because the growth levels have been modest. What we do know, at the end of the day — and this is all we know — is that real estate has been completely decoupled from the local economy in Vancouver.

The questions are being asked. The government doesn’t want to hear them. The crisis goes on, and that is unacceptable.

R. Fleming 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 11:55 a.m.

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.

Copyright © 2015: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada