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)

Thursday, October 8, 2015

Morning Sitting

Volume 29, Number 6

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

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 8, 2015

The House met at 10:04 a.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

[1005]

Introductions by Members

Hon. P. Fassbender: I have the pleasure this morning to introduce the new Auditor General for Local Government, Mr. Gordon Ruth. I had the pleasure of making the announcement at UBCM.

Gordon most recently has served as the executive vice-president of certification and operations for the Chartered Professional Accountants of British Columbia. He was the chief executive officer for the Certified General Accountants of B.C. for five years. He has held several positions in the public sector, ranging from activities in the federal government to B.C. Hydro. Mr. Ruth also spent 15 years with the greater Vancouver regional district, now Metro Vancouver, and became the chief financial officer and financial affairs of the regional government for municipalities.

Gordon officially started his position as AGLG last week. I know he looks forward to working collaboratively with local governments to help them deliver services at the best value and to creating more accountability to the one taxpayer we all serve.

Secondly, I also would like to announce two new members to the audit council for the Auditor General for Local Government: Dorothy Hartshorne, who served as a councillor for the district of North Saanich from 1999 to 2005, and Mr. Ernie Daykin, who was the past mayor of Maple Ridge. Both these individuals will join the five-member council.

I would like to ask all members of the House to help me welcome Gordon Ruth, who is in the House today, and also the two new members of the audit council.

R. Austin: Joining us in the gallery today is a friend originally from my riding of Skeena, having grown up in Kitimat. Her name is Monique Goffinet Miller.

She is no stranger to this place. At one time she worked for Hansard and actually operated the mike system up there. Even though she lives here, she is a frequent visitor back to the riding, not just because her family lives there. She also is the emcee for the annual telethon every year, so she comes back and forth.

I’d like the members of the House to please join me in welcoming her.

Hon. T. Lake: Many members of the House are certainly aware that this is Mental Illness Awareness Week.

It’s my pleasure to welcome a number of guests from the B.C. division of the Canadian Mental Health Association to the precinct this morning. CEO Bev Gutray is joined by Christopher Smith, Rhiannon Porcellato, Katie Hughes and Beth Danskin, who filled in at our event. I want to thank her for doing that this morning.

They were all here for the announcement of the gatekeeper program, which will see $3 million go towards a community-based suicide prevention program that will train up to 20,000 British Columbians by 2018 to recognize the warning signs of suicide risk and to take action to save lives.

Would the House please make our guests feel very welcome today.

Tributes

KEN MILLARD

G. Holman: I want to acknowledge in the House the passing of Ken Millard at his home on Galiano at the age of 74.

Ken co-founded the Galiano Conservancy in 1989 and left behind a legacy of more than 500 acres of protected land and nature education programs that have been offered to more than 30,000 people of all ages. He mentored hundreds of volunteers and leaves behind a strong community committed to conservation, along with a dedicated staff that has vowed to continue his work while deeply mourning his passing. I served with Ken on two environmental organizations: the Land Conservancy of B.C. and the Gulf Islands Alliance.

Ken was a gentle man, with a sharp wit that belied a steely determination. He had three distinguished careers as a physicist, a luthier — becoming the world’s foremost maker of baroque violin bows — and a conservationist.

A memorial for Ken will be held this Sunday at 1 p.m. at the learning centre that he established on Galiano. In lieu of flowers, Ken’s family requests that donations be made in his name to the Galiano Conservancy.

Introductions by Members

D. Bing: It’s very rare that I have a visitor from my riding of Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows, so I’m especially pleased today to welcome Terri Rainey from my community. Terri, apparently, is a frequent user of our ferry system, because she has young grandchildren that she visits frequently.

Would the House please make her welcome.

[1010]

R. Lee: In the gallery today, we have six visitors from the province of Guangdong, China, one of our two sis-
[ Page 9526 ]
ter provinces in the world. Four of the visitors form part of Guangdong Television. They are Liu Hong, Zhou Qiuhong, Meng Zujie and Liu Wenwen. They are accompanied by two entrepreneurs — Zheng Furong and Gao Fang. Also, from Vancouver, with this delegation, are Agnes Chow Chao and Yan Li.

Would the House please give them a very warm welcome.

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

BILL 40 — NATURAL GAS DEVELOPMENT
STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2015

Hon. R. Coleman presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Natural Gas Development Statutes Amendment Act, 2015.

Hon. R. Coleman: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. R. Coleman: I am pleased to introduce Bill 40, the Natural Gas Development Statutes Amendment Act, which probably could be also worded the housing amendment act in there as well.

It deals with four things. First, it deals with an amendment to the Residential Tenancy Act which will allow tenants to end a lease early if they are fleeing family violence or require long-term care. This is something both sides of the House have asked me to take a look at for some time — somebody leaving, whose illness takes them out of a long-term lease, whose family continues to be asked to make lease payments on a residence they no longer occupy. This, in consultation with industry, has been dealt with by bringing in this amendment.

This supports our commitment to a violence-free B.C. because it also allows anybody fleeing violence to also end a lease early in order to be able to take care of themselves in the future.

This supports, basically, our violence-free B.C. and assistance to seniors. There’s one other minor change that also will allow landlords to go into the modern age, in some way — to return the security deposit electronically, which reduces the red tape in adapting today’s technology.

The second amendment is to the Strata Property Act. The different law organizations have been doing some research on behalf of government, in consultation, and this proposes changes to the Strata Property Act, where the strata has reached the end-of-life cycle or members wish to sell the property for redevelopment. Currently a unanimous vote is required to terminate the strata corporations. We’ve been approached by all parties to take a look at this. We looked at it on a national average. The changes will make it more flexible by requiring a vote of 80 percent.

The Petroleum and Natural Gas Act amendments will facilitate, in the future or whenever, carbon-capture-and-storage projects, which reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The amendments detail safe, responsible, underground storage provisions that will meet international best standards.

Finally, the changes in the Oil and Gas Activities Act will provide the B.C. Oil and Gas Commission with the authority to regulate carbon capture and storage and will improve the regulatory framework of the act.

In addition to that, there are some changes to the Oil and Gas Activities Act and the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act, which will allow the Oil and Gas Commission to do permitting in advance of the final permitting to decide to build a major plant. It will allow the pre-work to actually be regulated as well.

I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 40, Natural Gas Development Statutes Amendment Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

BILL 35 — WORKERS COMPENSATION
AMENDMENT ACT (NO. 2), 2015

Hon. S. Bond presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Workers Compensation Amendment Act (No. 2), 2015.

Hon. S. Bond: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. S. Bond: I am pleased today to introduce Bill 35, the Workers Compensation Amendment Act.

Earlier this year, two coroners’ juries released the recommendations from their inquests into the tragic deaths of Robert Luggi, Carl Charlie, Glenn Roche and Alan Little — the four workers that were killed in the 2012 Prince George and Burns Lake mill explosions.

[1015]

Among the recommendations to government, five specifically called for amendments to the Workers Compensation Act. Bill 35 responds, with legislative amendments, directly to respond to all five of those recommendations.

Specifically, the amendments require employers to immediately report to WorkSafe B.C. all workplace fires or explosions that have the potential to cause serious injury to a worker, require disclosure of employer investigation
[ Page 9527 ]
reports to the workplace health and safety committee or worker health and safety representative, specify meaningful participation for worker and employer representatives in employer accident investigations, specify that workplace health and safety committees should provide advice to the employer on significant proposed equipment and machinery changes that may affect worker health and safety, and allow WorkSafe B.C. to proactively assist in health and safety committee matters that are in disagreement, particularly over health and safety matters.

These changes build on the amendments we made through Bill 9 earlier this year. We believe that a timely and decisive action was required in order to leave a strong legacy for the workers and their families, those that were impacted by the two tragic mill explosions in 2012. In addition, I would note that Bill 35 also addresses two administrative issues relating to WorkSafe B.C.’s annual report, service plan and to the WorkSafe B.C. superannuation plan.

I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 35, Workers Compensation Amendment Act (No. 2), 2015, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

INTERNATIONAL DAY OF THE GIRL CHILD
AND MALALA YOUSAFZAI

M. Karagianis: This Sunday, October 11, is the fourth annual International Day of the Girl Child. The day, passed by the resolution at the United Nations General Assembly in 2011, recognizes the rights of girls and the unique challenge that girls face around the world. Girls have the potential to change the world as tomorrow’s mothers, workers, entrepreneurs, political leaders and much more.

Some, like the young Nobel Peace Prize winner Malala Yousafzai, are turning fame into a movement to create a voice for girls around the world. Malala was just 15 years old when she survived being shot in the head by the Taliban. She has become the youngest-ever Peace Prize winner, and her Malala Fund is working to ensure that girls around the world have access to at least 12 years of safe, quality schooling.

Malala is an inspiration, and she’s just one of many making a difference in their communities. We can all make a difference if we commit ourselves to do better. Governments must invest in high-quality education, skills training and other learning initiatives to prepare girls for their lives, for the jobs of tomorrow and for leadership. We must continue to show zero tolerance towards physical, mental and sexual violence. That means legislation and policies that stamp out gender discrimination and which further the goals of pay equity and open the doors of opportunity.

We need to do more to make education affordable and accessible for all girls. Globally, progress is being made, one empowered individual at a time. As Malala puts it:“One child, one teacher, one book and one pen can change the world. I raise up my voice — not so that I can shout, but so that those without a voice can be heard.”

MENTAL HEALTH AWARENESS AND
LIGHT UP THE WORLD PURPLE CAMPAIGN

J. Thornthwaite: It’s mental health awareness week in Canada, a time for all Canadians to focus their attention on mental illness, learn about the impact it has on every aspect of life and offer hope to those who are suffering, in many cases, alone.

Saturday, October 10, also marks World Mental Health Day, a global push for mental health education, awareness and advocacy. That day is particularly important in British Columbia because it falls on the anniversary of the death of Amanda Todd, who in 2012 took her own life after years of abuse by people who used social media to bully, torment and play on her vulnerabilities.

Since 2012, Amanda’s mother, Carol, has been telling her story, giving her life renewed purpose by bringing awareness to mental illness. By providing a voice to others in similar situations, Carol has worked tirelessly to bring bullying and mental health issues to the forefront in schools and at home and has helped others find the courage to ask for help and come forward with their own stories.

[1020]

To coincide with World Mental Health Day and to support Carol and the work she does through the Amanda Todd Legacy, many will be taking part in the third annual Light Up Purple campaign, which encourages organizations to do something purple to support anti-bullying and mental health education.

As part of Light Up Purple, many iconic landmarks across the country will be illuminated with purple light, including the CN Tower, Niagara Falls, Science World, the Olympic Cauldron and the ceremonial entrance right here in the B.C. Legislature.

This campaign is part of a conversation that started the day Amanda died, and it’s a call to action that says we all have a part to play in ending bullying and abuse and in giving hope to the thousands of British Columbians who are living with mental illness. So this weekend, wear purple, put purple highlights in your hair or use purple on your social media accounts. It all helps shine a light on mental health and lets those who are suffering know that they are not alone and it’s safe to ask for help.
[ Page 9528 ]

ROTARY CLUB OF BURNABY METROTOWN
COATS FOR KIDS CAMPAIGN

K. Corrigan: As we head into Thanksgiving, I would like to highlight some good and very important work of the Burnaby Metrotown Rotary Club and thank them for its Coats for Kids program.

Families whose incomes are below the poverty line face tough decisions trying to balance the necessities of life, such as food and rent, with the extras, such as warm winter clothing. Many children in our community face a cold winter on the playground, dressed in clothing which does not keep them out of the rain or the chill.

This is where the Rotary Club comes in. Every year they purchase and collect new or gently used coats for close to 2,000 school children and youth in Burnaby. Credit must also go to the Burnaby school district, as well, for its great work and effort of many educators and staff who make sure the coats get to the kids who need them in a respectful way.

Various businesses, the Burnaby Neighbourhood House, the city of Burnaby libraries and other locations — including Burnaby MLA constituency offices — collect both coats and donations throughout the fall.

I want to particularly highlight this year the involvement of the Grand Villa Casino. Last year, with support of staff, they collected dozens, perhaps hundreds, of coats and made a generous donation. Our office was involved with helping with that. This year they are sponsors, along with other businesses and organizations in Burnaby.

Coats are not just for elementary school students but also for teenagers. As the community school coordinator for the Byrne Creek high school said:“I’m not exaggerating when I say that the biggest and perceived roughest of our students act like five-year-olds, giggling with excitement after receiving their new jackets…and I’m forever thankful for the Rotary’s kindness.”

Thank you, Burnaby Metrotown Rotary Club and all the other organizations and individuals who make this Coats for Kids program such a success in our community.

DELVIEW SECONDARY SCHOOL
THANKS FOR GIVING FOOD DRIVE

S. Hamilton: Today the staff and students of Delview Secondary School in North Delta are gearing up for their 23rd annual Thanks for Giving canned food drive. By the way, it’s been known as the Thanks for Giving campaign for all of those 23 years.

This evening we expect up to 600 students and parent volunteers to gather at the school gymnasium to kick off this year’s impressive event. The enthusiasm and commitment to the cause is contagious — bright young faces, smiling from ear to ear, understanding the importance of what they are about to do.

It is, in fact, the single largest one-night food drive in British Columbia. Last year, Delview Secondary students set an all-time record by collecting 22,000 cans of food in just one evening. That brings the total number of non-perishable cans of food being collected over the entire history of this food drive to some 300,000.

Delview fills the cupboards of both the Surrey Food Bank and the Deltassist. It’s a remarkable achievement. It’s a tribute to the work and determination of the students, volunteer drivers and staff organizers at Delview. Not only current students and staff, but alumni and retirees all return to help out with this annual event. It’s also a reflection of the generosity of the community at large in North Delta to respond with such kindness.

But more than anything, I think of all the families that will benefit from this effort, especially at Thanksgiving. In support of the Thanks for Giving event, I’d like all members of this Legislature to join me in congratulating Delview Secondary and wish them good luck tonight.

[1025]

OAK BAY HIGH SCHOOL
STUDENTS AND ALUMNI

A. Weaver: Yesterday I, along with the Minister of Education, had the distinct honour of attending the grand opening of the new Oak Bay Secondary School. Four young leaders representing Oak Bay’s four pillars of excellence brought a personal message to the audience, a message building upon comments they received this past spring from alumni who passed them the torch.

Academics was represented by Robert Lee, winner of the 2014 Michael Smith Science Challenge, as Canada’s top grade 10 science student. Athletics was represented by rugby and track star, Maddie Grant. Fine arts was represented by actress Veronique Beaudet, who performed magnificently as Belle in February’s production of Beauty and the Beast. Community leadership and philanthropy was represented by Ruby Tang, a leader in her school and outstanding ambassador for youth in so many ways.

Oak Bay Secondary also has a critical and foundational pillar in Mr. Dave Thomson, their principal. Without his tireless efforts to guide the school through the transition from the old to the new, we would not have been in a position to celebrate the successes we did yesterday. Oak Bay Secondary students have a rich history of success in each of its four pillars of excellence.

As an example of leadership, take Ian Cameron, student council president during my 1979 grad year, who is now an ABC news executive producer and married to the U.S. national security advisor, Susan Rice. They are some of President Obama’s favourite dinner guests.

As an example in academics, there’s 1937 Oak Bay grad, Pierre Berton, one of Canada’s most celebrated non-fiction writers and storytellers. In athletics, Oak Bay has produced several generations of international rugby stars, including Donald Carson, Norm Hadley, Winston
[ Page 9529 ]
Stanley and Mark Wyatt. Our very own Kelly Dukeshire, a security officer in this Legislature, was a much-celebrated national basketball star and a 1978 grad. And in the area of fine arts, Roy Henry Vickers, a household name and distinguished First Nations artist, author and speaker, was a member of the class of 1965.

I want to offer my sincere thanks to all the dedicated teachers, administrators and staff at Oak Bay Secondary School. Collectively, they have contributed so much to the success of their students and the wonderful culture that exists at the school.

I also want to acknowledge, with gratitude, the dedicated school district leadership, my predecessor Ida Chong and this government for their ongoing commitment to build a remarkable new facility — the wonderful, new Oak Bay Secondary School.

MOOSE HIDE ANTI-VIOLENCE CAMPAIGN
BY ABORIGINAL MEN

J. Sturdy: Today I would like to draw attention of the House to, and express my support for, the upcoming Moose Hide Campaign One-Day National Fast. On Friday, October 16, I encourage all men, aboriginal and non-aboriginal alike, to pledge their support to end violence against women and children.

The act of fasting is a sacred ritual that aboriginal people have practised for thousands of years. The Moose Hide Campaign national one-day fast calls for men to refrain from eating or drinking from sun-up to sundown. Participants are encouraged to break their fast after sunset by having a special meal with their friends, their families or their co-workers to acknowledge this commitment.

The importance of the campaign and the national fast cannot be understated. Although the campaign honours all women and children, aboriginal women are three times more likely to experience domestic violence than non-aboriginal women and three times more likely to be killed by someone they know. This needs to end.

If you aren’t able to take part in the fast, please help raise awareness of the Moose Hide Campaign national one-day fast on sites such as Facebook or Twitter. Use the hashtags #October16Fast, #endviolence and #moosehidecampaign to help get the message out that violence must stop. I encourage all men to join me in raising awareness of this very important cause. Good men have a responsibility to stand together, to be strong role models and to demonstrate that violence against women and children is never acceptable.

Before I close, I’d like to pay tribute to one of those good men, the founder of the Moose Hide Campaign, Paul Lacerte, of the B.C. Association of Aboriginal Friendship Centres, who has been able to expand this campaign nationwide. I know there is much respect in this House for Paul’s work. I look forward to seeing you all support next Friday’s Moose Hide Campaign One-Day National Fast.

Speaker’s Statement

RULES FOR QUESTIONS
IN QUESTION PERIOD

Madame Speaker: Hon. Members, during question period yesterday, the member for Port Coquitlam directed a question to a private member, the Chair of the Select Standing Committee on Children and Youth. For clarification and although procedurally permissible in restricted circumstances, it has not been the practice in British Columbia to direct questions to the Chair of a committee. While questions may be directed to the Chair of a select standing committee or special committee, as per Parliamentary Practice in British Columbia, fourth edition, at page 141, the scope of these questions is limited.

[1030]

Questions posed to a committee Chair must not suggest a particular subject for inquiry nor deal with evidence before the committee reports it to the House. Nor can the question canvass detail of how members voted in the committee.

This practice of posing questions to a committee Chair was upheld by Speaker Brewin in her ruling of June, 24, 1999, when she stated that questions may not be addressed to a committee Chairman to elicit details of voting, motions or other internal committee proceedings. Nor may questions be directed — or answered — which would have the tendency to interfere in the proceedings of the committee.

As members know, it is a long-established principle that the decision as to who may respond to a question rests with government. As Speaker, I will recognize whoever stands to answer the question, and I cannot intervene to direct or compel a specific minister or private member to answer a question.

Oral Questions

YOUTH DEATH CASE AND
GOVERNMENT SUPPORT FOR YOUTH
IN CARE AND AGING OUT OF CARE

J. Horgan: Yesterday we asked the minister about the case of Carly Fraser. Sadly, Carly is yet another example of children in care of the ministry who didn’t receive enough care, at the end of the day.

She was alone, housed in a basement apartment at age 16 against the wishes of her mother and apparently against government policy. Years later she was left alone, without supports, and ultimately, she took her own life.

The minister yesterday was saying — proudly, in fact
[ Page 9530 ]
— that she claims that we’ve reduced the number of children in care. Clearly, Carly is one of those examples. I would argue that if she believes that reducing the number of kids in care by abandoning them too soon is a good policy, she should say so today.

Hon. S. Cadieux: I can’t imagine the pain that the mother is enduring, and I am very sorry for her loss. I deeply respect her desire to seek answers that can help her make sense of the tragedy.

But for members of the opposition to continue to pose questions and speak about things that they know I cannot respond to directly, I think is….

Well, what I will say is that MCFD deals with thousands of children. Some of those are in care voluntarily. Some are in permanent care. Some are in care for a period of time.

As well, the ministry also provides services to youth and children who are not in direct care of the ministry but receive some other services. We provide a wide range of services to youth who may be living with family or a friend or independently. These services to youth can range from provision of a bus pass or help with rent to payment of medical or dental services or help with drug and alcohol counselling. Many of those services require voluntary acceptance.

Madame Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition on a supplemental.

J. Horgan: Carly’s mother, Lisa did come to the Legislature yesterday, and she asked directly — the government, through us — the questions that she was not given answers to when she corresponded with the ministry over the past nine months, trying to get answers to why Carly was left alone to tragic circumstances.

Lisa had a difficult life herself. Obviously, there were challenges within the family. It was a voluntary care agreement that started Carly’s participation and knowledge within the ministry.

The challenge now, of course, is: are we going to learn from her death? The Premier has said repeatedly that we need to learn from these deaths. We need to learn from Paige, although we won’t be learning from the select standing committee anytime soon. We need to learn from the death of Alex Gervais. But in this case, the ministry…. Because Carly was 20 hours and 35 minutes older than the age of 18, there will be no case review.

Will the minister do the compassionate thing — do the right thing — and today announce that there will be a thorough and exhaustive review of how Carly found herself alone, without supports, 20 hours and 35 minutes after she turned 19?

[1035]

Hon. S. Cadieux: As I’ve said numerous times in this House, while I can’t speak to specifics of cases, I can explain what happens when a child or youth in ministry care tragically dies or is seriously injured. It triggers a number of responses.

Firstly, there may be a police investigation. If it’s a death, there would be a coroner’s look at the situation. The director of child welfare reviews the death of any child in care. As well, if a youth has been in care up until their 19th birthday and then, sadly, dies within 12 months, the case would be able to be reviewed by the director.

When those processes have been exhausted, the representative also has jurisdiction to look at and/or review a case. I have asked that the circumstances brought before the House yesterday be looked at by the director to see and ensure that correct policy was applied.

I do want to clarify for the House, as well, that while policy is in place to allow for the review of circumstances of the death of a youth who has been in MCFD care at the time of their 19th birthday — at that time that they are transitioning out of care — it is not intended to review the circumstances of cases where youth may have been receiving services but were not in government care, or had been in government care at a previous time but not in care within 12 months leading up to their 19th birthday.

Madame Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition on a final supplemental.

J. Horgan: If I understood the minister, we’re going to now review the review of the policy that’s being reviewed by Mr. Plecas. Again, I’m encouraged, if I heard the minister correctly, that she is going to take a second look at the tragic passing of Carly Fraser. But I’m not sure, so I’ll ask her again if she could be more specific and explicit.

Carly died within the past 12 months. I read in media reports just yesterday that the minister has in place a policy that children dying over the past 12 months, even though they may well not have been within the age limit and had aged out, will be looked at. Is Carly Fraser’s case one of those cases?

Hon. S. Cadieux: I’ll clarify for the member. I have asked staff to review the circumstances brought before the House yesterday to ensure that the correct policy was applied. I am not in a position to direct the director to conduct any review. It is in the purview of the director of child welfare to decide which cases are eligible or can be reviewed by that office.

MOUNTAIN VIEW FACILITY CLOSING AND
MENTAL HEALTH BEDS IN FRASER VALLEY

S. Hammell: Mountain View Home has provided quality care for 25 years for the people in Fraser Valley who have severe and persistent mental illness. Things have been going very well.

This August, the residents and staff of Mountain View
[ Page 9531 ]
Home were told by Fraser Health Authority that their funding was being terminated and that by next summer, all residents would be relocated. This news was a complete shock to the staff, the residents and the families of the loved ones at Mountain View, some who’d been there for a decade.

The minister knows that the current mental health care services in the Fraser Valley are inadequate. My question is to the Minister of Health. Why is the government taking needed services away from families in the Fraser Health region?

Hon. T. Lake: This week, as we look at mental health issues and we try to remove the stigma about mental health, it’s important that we talk about these issues.

I want to tell the member that we are not reducing the services available to people in Abbotsford. In fact, the residents at Mountain View all will have an option of being looked after at the new Marshall Road facility, which is a new concept in terms of mental health supports. It’s not a one-size-fits-all.

[1040]

It has residential care for those that require residential care. It also has assisted living, for those who want a wider approach to their mental health supports, and independent living with assertive community treatment teams.

This is expanding the resources available to families dealing with mental health in the Fraser Valley.

Madame Speaker: The member for Surrey–Green Timbers on a supplemental.

S. Hammell: The reduction is in licensed care beds, the highest-costing beds serving those with severe and persistent mental illness. The staff, residents and family of Mountain View Home are deeply concerned about the closure.

Tove and Barry Johnson are both in their 70s. They have two adult sons with severe schizophrenia. They cannot get care for Bo, who lives with them, and they fear for his life every day. Their other son Barry Jr. is living and thriving at Mountain View, because he is getting the care he needs, but not for much longer.

Many of these families are here in the gallery today, and they deserve an answer from the minister instead of a numbers game. The reduction is in residential care beds or licensed care beds.

Again, to the Minister of Health: why is he throwing the lives of vulnerable loved ones into chaos?

Hon. T. Lake: The member is simply incorrect. Fraser Health is working with each resident and with each family closely, now and over the next year of transition, to ensure that all arrangements are in place for a very smooth transition to the kind of care that they and their families seek. If that is continuation of 24-7 residential care, that is in fact what they will receive at the new Marshall Road facility.

Also, they will have the option of having assisted living or even more independent living with community supports, if that is what they and their family choose.

The days of locking up people with mental illness are over. We need to offer a broader array of supports, and that is what Fraser Health is doing through this new program.

J. Darcy: Family members of these residents are here today. They are not talking about having their loved ones locked up. They’re talking about having the appropriate level of 24-hour licensed care for nursing for their family members. And they’re not getting answers from this minister.

The minister has failed to mention that his government is actually reducing the number of licensed beds for people with severe mental illnesses in Fraser Health. The B.C. Liberals closed Sunrise in 2012, taking away 30 high-needs mental health beds from Fraser Valley families. Once they close Mountain View, they’ll be taking 25 more beds. That’s 55 beds for people with the most complex needs, the most severe cases of schizophrenia and other serious mental health disorders who need the highest level of care.

Those beds have not been fully replaced, and they will not be fully replaced. Parents like Annette Vogt and Brian Foote have told this government that each time their son Brad was placed in a lower-tier facility, his condition deteriorated and he ended up in hospital.

Minister, why are you reducing the number of licensed mental health beds in the Fraser Valley that these families so desperately need?

Hon. T. Lake: Individuals living and recovering from serious mental illness need an integrated continuum of housing options. It is not a one-size-fits-all. Fraser Health is working with families and assuring families that if they would require and still want to have 24-7 continuous residential care, they will get it at a brand-new facility at Marshall Road.

[1045]

Others would choose to have a different continuum of supports through assistant living or independent leaving with assertive community treatment teams. In fact, when Marshall Road opens in 2016, Fraser Health will have increased the mental health housing capacity in Abbotsford alone by 62 spaces since 2007 and by 450 spaces across the whole Fraser Health Authority.

Madame Speaker: The member for New Westminster on a supplemental.

J. Darcy: Fraser Health Authority has already admitted what this minister refuses to admit to in this House: that there are actually fewer beds for people with the highest and most complex needs and there are less beds now than
[ Page 9532 ]
there were in 2006. Fraser Health’s own projections said they would need almost 1,000 of those kinds of beds by 2016, and they admit that today they have less than 600.

The minister knows full well what happens when we don’t provide the appropriate level of care for people with severe mental health conditions. They end up in emergency rooms or living on the street or in jail, or they take their own lives. These Fraser Valley families have already suffered enough. They deserve better from this government.

My question is to the Minister of Health. Will he commit to these families today that he will intervene to stop the closure of the Mountain View Home?

Hon. T. Lake: I’d like to remind the member opposite that she was with me in May of this year when we cut the ribbon on the start of a new 75-bed mental health and substance use facility at Royal Columbian Hospital, which will more than double the beds that are now in the aging 30-bed Sherbrooke Centre.

That would not have happened under an NDP government, because they were not going to build anything that didn’t have a business plan. We are building 75 new spaces at Royal Columbian Hospital. We are building the Joseph and Rosalie Segal centre at Vancouver General Hospital and the $325 million Penticton Regional Hospital, none of which would have been done under the NDP platform. So to talk about investing in health care on that side of the House is absolutely hypocritical.

TransLink GOVERNANCE
AND TRANSIT FUNDING

A. Weaver: Since the Metro Vancouver transit referendum failed earlier this year, we’ve been waiting for signs that this government understands the challenges facing the Lower Mainland’s transit infrastructure and that it understands the leadership role it needs to play.

The appointment of a new minister responsible for TransLink signalled to many that government was about to take its leadership role seriously. We heard almost immediately from the minister that“nothing is off the table”and that he had an open mind to changing the way TransLink was managed. And yet only a couple of months after those comments were made, we have heard that in closed meetings, the minister took the idea of giving more control over TransLink to local governments off the table.

Can the minister please let this House know what has changed since he said all options were on the table and what the minister’s plan is to ensure that the much-needed transit investments aren’t put off until it’s too late?

Hon. P. Fassbender: I appreciate the question, because at the meeting I had with the Mayors Council, I clearly said that we are willing to work with the leadership in the region to move toward solutions, not focusing on the problems but looking at opportunities for solutions. But I also challenged the mayors for them to step up to their leadership role in working with the board that they appoint to ensure that we find the path to solutions, that we look at the options that are available and to remember that this government has invested billions of dollars in transportation in the province and in Metro Vancouver.

[1050]

This government is committed to working with the leadership in the region to find the solutions that will ensure an integrated transportation system for the citizens and for the movement of goods and services.

Madame Speaker: Oak Bay–Gordon Head.

A. Weaver: Thank you, hon. Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to explore that a little more. The question of local control is critical because the province is dramatically under-resourcing its local governments, all the while requiring them to pay for a third of the transit costs.

Furthermore, both the minister and the Premier have slammed the door on the mayors’ plans to develop new, innovative funding solutions, saying that they will require a new referendum if they are to be considered. The government, frankly, has paralyzed transit planning in Metro Vancouver, and they have abdicated their responsibility to show British Columbians leadership.

My question to the Minister Responsible for TransLink is this. Since the provincial government clearly has no interest in providing leadership on the transit file, how does the minister expect local governments to move forward if the province is blocking local control over TransLink and preventing local governments from even considering innovative ways to make up for their lack of financial resources?

Hon. P. Fassbender: I know the member probably doesn’t know this or is choosing to ignore it, but I’m sure his taxpayers are very clear that they’re paying hospital tax that is not being paid by the residents of Metro Vancouver.

Also, from the day that I was appointed, the first thing I did was select two very capable people to sit on the TransLink board as government representatives, to clearly show that we are engaged in finding solutions and are willing to work with the region to ensure those solutions are found.

In addition, it is very clear this government has said our funding support for transit infrastructure development is on the table, and we’re simply asking the region to come forward with their recommendations on how they will fund their third. I find it interesting that the members opposite, as well, are opposed to be asking the residents of Metro their opinion on future funding sources because, indeed, they have a right to do that, and this government will give them that right.
[ Page 9533 ]

LIQUOR DISTRIBUTION BRANCH
OVERPAYMENT OF COMMISSIONS
TO COMMERCIAL WINERIES

D. Eby: According to an April 8, 2015, briefing note prepared for the Minister Responsible for the Liquor Distribution Branch:“Recently, it was discovered that, due to a system error, the LDB has been overpaying commissions to commercial wineries for their sales to wholesale customers.”

How much has this error cost taxpayers?

Hon. C. Oakes: We remain committed to ensuring that we have success in our wine economy, and we look at ways consumers have very clearly stated that they want more choice in British Columbia. We’re providing that opportunity. We’re making the necessary changes within government to provide consumers with those options.

At the same time, we’re supporting small and medium-size businesses having the ability to grow. Under this government, we have gone from 70 wineries in 2001 to having 318 today. We support the wine economy, and we will continue to do so.

Madame Speaker: Vancouver–Point Grey on a supplemental.

D. Eby: According to the note — this is a briefing note prepared for the minister — the error has been in place for“years”and produced overpayments to commercial wineries of“at least seven figures.”We know the error meant that on a $12.99 bottle of wine, there was a 20 percent overpayment by the government on the commission.

[1055]

We know it says:“As the retail price of a product increased, so too would the amount of overpaid commission.”Now, there was a lot of red tape in that answer.

I’m asking the minister again: what is the number? How much was overpaid under this error?

Hon. C. Oakes: I find it very rich that the member opposite continues to go down a path that suggests we are not supporting a wine economy. Let us be incredibly clear. There are more than 10,000 jobs created across British Columbia in almost every single region due to the wine economy. B.C. wineries welcome over 1.5 million visitors a year, which generates $476 million in tourism.

We remain committed to ensuring success with small and medium-sized wineries. We are committed to ensuring that consumers have the choices that we’ve said. We’ve listened to them, we’ve made those changes, and British Columbians are happy with these opportunities.

M. Mungall: It sounds a lot to me like the minister is saying:“I don’t know.”Taxpayers want a little bit more than that. Not only can’t the minister tell us what the total overpayment is, but it’s becoming clear that she actually doesn’t even have a plan to recover the overpayment, recover taxpayers’ dollars.

In contrast, when B.C.’s poorest, living on social assistance, living on disability, receive a gift, receive an overpayment, receive maternity leave benefits, this government is swift to take it back. Even income tax refunds that are overpaid are swiftly taken back by this government. Clearly, there’s a double standard here.

My question is to the minister. Why doesn’t she know what’s going on, and why doesn’t she have a plan to recover the overpayment?

Hon. C. Oakes: Indeed, we do have a plan. The plan is to listen to citizens across British Columbia. When we did extensive consultation, citizens said they wanted more choice. We remain committed to ensuring that consumers across British Columbia have more access to fantastic British Columbia wines.

At the same time, the decisions and the work that we’re doing on this side of the House ensure that our B.C. wines have the opportunity to be showcased at farmers markets, have the opportunity to be showcased in grocery stores, which provides more opportunity for our small and medium-sized businesses so critically important to the province of British Columbia, so critically important to creating jobs in this province. We are moving forward with those that we’ve heard from taxpayers in British Columbia.

Madame Speaker: The member for Nelson-Creston on a supplemental.

M. Mungall: I have no idea where the minister is, but here right now in question period, we’re talking about overpayments that this government made to wineries. We’re talking about taxpayers’ money that has been overpaid that should be recovered. I don’t even know what the heck she thinks we’re talking about over here.

If she wants to consult with British Columbians on what to do about an overpayment, I’ll tell her what British Columbians are going to say:“Get us our money back.”That’s what they’re going to say.

The double standard that I brought up in my previous question is truly breathtaking. Here we have a government that is making overpayments to wineries and not at all having a plan to take it back.

My question to the minister is: how are these overpayments any different than the overpayments that this government makes to people with disabilities, to people who are receiving their income tax refunds? How are they any different — that she doesn’t have a plan to deal with this?

[1100]

Hon. C. Oakes: As I said to the member opposite, we do have a plan. It’s a clear plan of ensuring that as we work through the transition, we’ll ensure that we are providing
[ Page 9534 ]
the supports that are necessary for small and medium-sized businesses which we on this side of the House ensure have the supports necessary to be successful to a growing British Columbia economy.

We are working through these opportunities with the wineries. We’re consulting with them, and we’ll ensure that we have success in the future.

C. James: If this government makes a mistake and overpays someone on income assistance, they’re quick to claw that back. Single mothers on disability had to fight tooth and nail to stop this government from clawing back child support payments. But when this government makes a mistake and overpays commissions on commercial wineries, this government and this minister do nothing. They won’t even share with taxpayers how much that mistake cost.

A very straightforward question to the minister: will the minister tell this House how much money this error cost taxpayers, and what is she going to do about it?

Hon. C. Oakes: As I said to the members opposite, we have a plan. We are clearly working closely with our small and medium-sized businesses to ensure that they are successful. We are in transition. We are working through opportunities to ensure that consumers in British Columbia — taxpayers….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Order.

Hon. C. Oakes: …in British Columbia — have the choice that they have clearly asked for while ensuring small and medium-sized businesses are successful.

[End of question period.]

Tabling Documents

Madame Speaker: Hon members, I have the honour to present a report of the Representative for Children and Youth, The Thin Front Line.

Standing Order 35

REQUEST TO DEBATE A MATTER OF
URGENT PUBLIC IMPORTANCE —
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO
PUBLIC SAFETY ISSUES IN SURREY

B. Ralston: Pursuant to Standing Order 35, I seek leave to move that the House do now adjourn for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance. The standing order requires that I state the matter briefly now.

Just weeks ago a Surrey elementary school was riddled with bullets at six o’clock in the evening, at a time when children could easily have been playing on the grounds. This incident shocked and outraged all British Columbians.

The disturbing trend of increased gang-related crime resulting in over 45 shooting incidents and three deaths has shocked citizens in Surrey and has resulted in a crisis of public confidence in the ability of the Minister of Justice, as the chief law enforcement officer of British Columbia, to preserve public safety in the city of Surrey and the surrounding metropolitan region.

Surrey citizens have lost confidence in the ability of the police agencies directed and funded by the Minister of Justice to devise long-term strategies to uphold public safety and to bring about successful investigations, prosecutions and convictions.

We must not wait for another violent incident in Surrey to determine the situation urgent enough to address. It would be truly wrong if this House were to treat violent gang crime in Surrey as something inevitable — not an emergency but something that the residents of Surrey were expected to just live with.

Public safety of its citizens is one of the most fundamental obligations of the provincial government. The failure of the Minister of Justice and her government to protect citizens is a matter of urgent public importance and worthy of debate in this House, pursuant to Standing Order 35.

Hon. M. de Jong: I listened with interest. It was my first opportunity to listen to the submission and the application that the member, on behalf of the opposition, is making.

I’m mindful of the very strict test that applies with respect to the application of the Standing Order 35 rule and, as I think I did earlier this year in a previous sitting, will acknowledge that the matters referred to by the hon. member for Surrey-Whalley are important. They are critical as they relate to issues of public safety, and I don’t want my remarks to in any way be interpreted as diminishing the importance that members of the public and members of this House attach to those issues of public safety.

[1105]

I do, however, feel obliged to point out to the Chair that the test for when a Standing Order 35 application may succeed has been well established by a precedent in this House. I would refer you, Madame Speaker, to those tests as laid out in Parliamentary Practice in British Columbia, pages 84 through 86, particularly to the test referring to the urgency of debate as distinguished from the urgency of the occurrence or the matter.

This is an issue that has been canvassed in the House from time to time through the session. I expect it will continue to be canvassed in the House, and that’s appropriate. But I would respectfully submit to you that
[ Page 9535 ]
notwithstanding the clear importance that all of us attach to questions of public safety generally and incidents that have occurred in the past in certain parts of British Columbia, the test with respect to Standing Order 35 has not been met on the basis of the submissions made.

Madame Speaker: I will thank both members for their submissions. I will review the remarks made today, and I will report back.

Tabling Documents

Hon. A. Virk: I’m presenting the 2014-2015 report on the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The report is laid before the Legislative Assembly under section 68 of FOIPPA.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: Second reading on Bill 39, Provincial Immigration Programs Act.

Madame Speaker: I will allow a minute for members to make their way to other duties.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 39 — PROVINCIAL IMMIGRATION
PROGRAMS ACT

Hon. S. Bond: I move the bill be now read a second time.

Madame Speaker: Please proceed.

Hon. S. Bond: I am very pleased today to proceed with second reading of Bill 39, the Provincial Immigration Programs Act. Our government’s focus, obviously, is on continuing to grow a diverse and strong economy to create jobs for British Columbians.

[R. Lee in the chair.]

In 2016, British Columbia hits a tipping point. In fact, we will see fewer young people entering the workforce than older people leaving it. British Columbia needs to look, today and in the future, at how we will provide the workers that will be necessary for the economic growth we anticipate.

Bill 39, the Provincial Immigration Programs Act, will provide a legislative foundation for the administration of provincial immigration programs. That will include, of course, the provincial nominee program or, as we call it, the PNP program.

Let’s talk a little bit about the PNP program. We recognize that it is an important economic development program for our province. It is the only immigration pathway that allows the province to have a direct role in selecting skilled worker and entrepreneur immigrants.

Most of us would recognize that immigration and matters around Canadian citizenship lie primarily with the federal government. The allocation that we receive here in British Columbia is a very small portion of the number of people who are seeking to enter Canada, and this is the only permanent pathway that we have the ability to make nominations for.

A little bit of history about the PNP program. Since 2001, the inception year of the provincial nominee program, more than 28,000 workers and entrepreneurs have been attracted to the province through this particular immigration stream. In 2014, almost 20 percent of all new immigrants to B.C. were provincial nominees.

[1110]

The growth of this very important program demonstrates the increasing importance of immigration as a key driver for British Columbia’s economic growth. This draft legislation will support B.C.’s continued role as a leader in economic immigration programs, maintaining strong economic outcomes and, most importantly for this legislation, protecting integrity.

The number of people who want to immigrate to British Columbia to live and work far outstrips the 5,500 nominations allocated to our PNP program by the federal government for 2015. We recognize, and certainly have taken a great deal of time and effort to make it clear to the federal government, that we need to significantly increase this nomination allocation, and we intend to continue to work with the federal government, once it’s in place, to further expand the PNP program. We worked very hard to see a substantive increase to this program for this year.

This new immigration legislation, together with the recent changes we made to the PNP program, is designed to basically bring practice into a legislative foundation. They will improve the transparency of program administration, and that is absolutely critical. When people want to be permanent residents of Canada and, in particular, British Columbia, this process, and making sure that it’s transparent, that it’s accountable, is absolutely critical. It will also strengthen program integrity and position us well should there be growth in the PNP numbers.

The act will improve the province’s ability to meet its obligations, because the nominations are provided to us through an agreement called the Canada–B.C. immigration agreement, where we collaborate on immigration matters. This legislation will support our ability to maximize the economic and social benefits of immigration right across the province.

The act will encompass the existing provincial nominee program, but it has also been carefully designed to enable other types of selection programs that potentially could be developed in future federal-provincial agreements and discussions.
[ Page 9536 ]

The proposed legislation, I think it’s important to point out, will supplement the existing Ministry of International Business and Immigration Act, which will continue to provide the authority for the province to enter into immigration agreements with the federal government. The authority, in terms of the ability to sign agreements, will remain in that particular bill.

But this piece of legislation, as opposed to amending the MIBI Act, which also applies to international trade agreements for the province…. It is more appropriate to retain, from my perspective, the existing broad framework for immigration agreements and introduce a new statute specifically related to the administration and integrity of immigration programs.

There is provision in the statute to establish regulations and policies related to details of administering the act, such as different selection program categories, the application process and selection factors. This allows us, I think, the maximum flexibility if we were to design new programs or modify existing ones.

Clear delegation of program authority is the first key objective of Bill 39. This bill authorizes the designation of a director of provincial immigration programs and sets out the powers and duties of that role. Historically, the PNP has been administered exclusively through policy. While the decision-making has been delegated, and is today, it has been done under policy.

Under the policy regime, statutory powers of decision-making could only be inferred from the bill I mentioned previously, the Ministry of International Business and Immigration Act, and interpretation of the Judicial Review Procedure Act. It was fairly complicated to sort out how that authority was delegated. This legislation makes clear the authority for decisions affecting the rights and benefits of prospective immigrants and improves transparency.

The director will be a statutory decision-maker under the legislation. Although certain provisions of the Administrative Tribunals Act apply — such as the protection against compulsion to testify or produce evidence about records — most do not. Many of the provisions included in the act formalize the policies and practices that are already routine to the administration of the provincial nominee program.

[1115]

The act sets out the process for applications and approvals, including the obligations of the approved person and circumstances where an approval may be cancelled. Currently the PNP program has an informal process for reviewing refusal decisions. This legislation establishes a formal review process with clear requirements and specific timelines for applicants seeking a review of a refusal decision.

I think all of us recognize that people who apply to the PNP program are very passionate about their decision to want to become a Canadian citizen, to live in British Columbia. It is essential that they are completely aware of their ability to appeal a refusal and to understand what that process looks like. In my view, it was critical that we outline what is currently practice and codify that with the act that is before us today.

There are several other things that the legislation does. It includes strong measures to ensure compliance with program requirements, including the provision for cancelling approvals of applicants who breach the requirements of the act, and banning non-compliant applicants from submitting new applications for up to two years.

Protecting program integrity is the second key objective of the legislation. This act authorizes the program to collect and disclose personal information as required to administer immigration programs. It also ensures compliance with the act and, in collaboration with Canada, the federal Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

With respect to the province’s obligations to comply under the Canada-B.C. immigration agreement, B.C. is responsible for fraud detection and deterrence and has committed, in signing the most recent agreement, to conduct quality assurance and program integrity activities. Inspection provisions in the legislation will authorize the director and delegated staff to take action to deter and detect fraud, misrepresentation and/or other program abuses through inspection powers and information-sharing provisions.

The third component of the legislation is to clarify ministerial authority to set and collect application fees. Obviously, that is designed to look at full cost recovery of the program by 2016-17.

I should point out that there has been discussion, consultations and notifications that government has conducted. We have certainly consulted with Citizenship and Immigration Canada to ensure that the act complies with the federal immigration legislation and the current Canada-B.C. immigration act.

We also, as often is the case, had confidential discussions where people reviewed the draft — those people involved in the process — and we certainly have taken feedback into consideration during the drafting of the legislation.

I also, as is the practice, looked at what other acts were in place and other provincial immigration legislation. Ontario and Quebec are currently the only provinces with such legislation. As everyone, I’m sure, would recognize, Quebec’s legislation operates under the Canada-Quebec accord, which gives that province a very unique role in immigration and obviously has somewhat limited relevance for B.C.’s proposed legislation.

We believe this is an absolutely critical program. We have a significant number of people who want to come and be part of living here in British Columbia. We have a very limited number of nominations, despite the increase that we’ve received in 2015 as a result of working very aggressively and regularly with the federal government.
[ Page 9537 ]

We will continue to work with our colleagues across the country to ensure that jurisdictions are receiving greater allocations where they get to make the decisions about who to nominate. Ultimately, the final decision obviously rests with the federal government.

That’s an outline of the act that’s before the House today. It’s a critical program. We believe it’s essential that the administration of this program is transparent, that it is accountable, because we know how important this is to people choosing to want to have British Columbia as their home. Thank you for allowing me time to have those comments.

[1120]

M. Elmore: I’m very pleased to rise and speak to second reading for Bill 39, Provincial Immigration Programs Act, which deals specifically with, in particular, the administration of the provincial nominee program. Just following on the comments from the minister, I’ll add that in terms of the history for the PNP program, it actually originated in 1998 in British Columbia under the NDP government.

This was at a time, across the country, where various provinces were negotiating with the federal government in terms of carving out an area to have direct influence on the selection of immigration, as immigration is primarily a federal area.

I’m going to get into some of the specific points that are addressed in the act and that the minister raised. I think it’s important to also have an understanding of the context of the provincial nominee program, the PNP program, with respect to British Columbia and also in our national context, with respect to our immigration trends and how that has evolved and changed, to give us an idea of this act having positive points in terms of increasing the administration accountability for the provincial nominee program.

But fundamentally, it falls short, in terms of having a comprehensive overview and a provincial overlay governing immigration matters in British Columbia. It falls short and focuses on a specific program, the provincial nominee program, which is directly under provincial control. Again, I’m disappointed to see that the government has failed to pick up a number of areas and address long-standing concerns that we have in British Columbia with respect to immigration.

When we look at the provincial nominee program, brought in, in 1988 in British Columbia, that’s in the context of…. We really saw the evolution of migrant worker programs into Canada. It was originated in 1973, with the initial program focused around bringing in high-skilled individuals in an internationally competitive labour pool, and it really started to evolve from that.

It wasn’t until we saw the program really expand on a national level…. In 2002, the Liberals opened…. From a previously quite restricted area of occupations — highly skilled musicians, professors, engineers, this type of thing — in 2002, nationally, the program was expanded to all occupations, with a further expansion under the federal Conservative government in 2006, where we saw a real influx of workers coming in, particularly into low-skilled occupations.

This is significant, because it also contributes to what we saw in British Columbia. That also mirrors the experience in British Columbia, in terms of workers coming into B.C. While we know that since 2001, the number of permanent residents becoming immigrants under the provincial nominee program is just over 20,000, we really see the comparison with 2012 and the number of workers, individuals, on a temporary status in B.C. — 74,000. While the provincial nominee program addresses a specific target and now has the ability to admit 5,500 individuals as permanent residents in B.C., it certainly does not match the overall number of folks on a temporary status in B.C. — 74,000, so tens of thousands. There’s really that discrepancy.

That takes place, also, in terms of what we’ve seen — a shift nationally, around our immigration patterns. Typically, our immigration program has been based on a model of permanent immigration, where we saw…. Certainly, my family and many, if not most, of the members’ families here came in under permanent immigration, with the exception of our aboriginal First Nations folks in Canada. This is the experience of building Canada. We’ve seen a shift.

[1125]

I want to highlight these themes that we’ve seen nationally, because it plays out in British Columbia. It will also inform, I think, the real shortfall in terms of this legislation not addressing the reality that we’re seeing in British Columbia, with respect to immigration and particularly temporary foreign workers in British Columbia.

We’ve seen, in the broader context, a shift from permanent to temporary migration. Over the past decade, our national immigration program has shifted significantly from permanent to temporary immigration. In 2008, for the first time — and this is nationally and also in British Columbia — the numbers of temporary foreign workers in Canada and in British Columbia — so the numbers of individuals coming into British Columbia — on a temporary status exceeded the numbers of individuals coming into B.C. on a permanent status.

That was in 2008 when we saw that. We’ve seen that consistent, year-after-year trend. We’ve seen that shift, and it’s now a consistent trend in terms of our immigration policy in Canada and also what we’re seeing and experiencing in British Columbia — from permanent to temporary.

While immigrants have traditionally been understood to contribute to building our province — we heard comments from the minister on that — we’re seeing now an emphasis away from that towards individuals coming in on a temporary basis and just contributing their labour.
[ Page 9538 ]
What we’re seeing is a guest worker program developed in Canada and also implemented here in British Columbia.

These are some of the aspects, I think, that the government has not come to grips with, has not come to terms with, and has not taken the appropriate leadership and also passed legislation to oversee and regulate aspects of this trend and this shift in the reality on the ground in British Columbia.

We’ve seen, as well, a shift in terms of who are individuals…. The minister mentioned that British Columbia is a jurisdiction where many folks want to come and work, and we’re seeing a shift away from high-skilled to low-skilled. The increasing numbers are folks under the low-skilled category.

One characteristic of the provincial nominee program, as well, is that it is typically folks under the high-skilled categories that are eligible to apply and not individuals under the lower-skilled categories. This is one of the realities, as well, and one of the shortfalls — that we have a current underclass in terms of second-class workers who do not have access to permanent residency, who are in a very precarious position because of the structural components of the program and how they’re brought into our province. It’s an employer-specific and -driven campaign, and it contributes to that vulnerability.

This is an area I think that we need to pay attention to and take steps. There are measures that can be brought in, compared to other jurisdictions that have looked to regulate recruiters, regulate employers, register employers and also ensure that employment standards are being upheld across the province. These are gaps, and it’s disappointing they’re not addressed in this legislation.

We’ve seen those national trends away from permanent to temporary immigration certainly also echoed here in British Columbia and a shift away from a high-skilled to low-skilled predominance of workers coming into Canada as a whole and British Columbia in particular.

I would characterize this as a situation that is untenable. It is not a situation that is beneficial for all British Columbians, including temporary foreign workers who come in and don’t have their rights protected. It also undermines social cohesion in our communities. I think it has a real impact in terms of creating that discord and, certainly, undermining the fabric of our experience around how British Columbia was built as a province and our country. These are serious matters that the government needs to take steps to address.

[1130]

We know — and the minister has mentioned in terms of the strengths of the provincial nominee program bringing in permanent residents — the value and the contribution of individuals coming in under a model of permanent immigration. We know that even though the number of workers on temporary visas far exceeds the number who are able to become permanent residents….

These individuals work in our communities in British Columbia, right across every constituency, in every small community from north to south, east to west — not only valuing them for their labour and the work that they do in the communities but that they have so much more to offer.

They have families to bring in, and they would like to contribute to building the community. These are benefits and values not only to support business and our economy, but also to build our communities and ensure that we have a socially cohesive province.

These are structural challenges that come with the nature of the federal immigration program. But there are steps, provincially, that we can take to mitigate that, to minimize the exploitation and to ensure that British Columbians, all individuals in British Columbia, are protected and that we move forward with a strong economy, valuing the rights and respecting the rights of all workers.

That’s the overview in terms of what’s happened in terms of our immigration policy. Some of the policy gaps, I guess, and one of the biggest challenges for the failure of the Provincial Immigration Programs Act that I was disappointed in, is that it doesn’t address one very serious problem that’s been identified nationally and taken up in other provinces. This is where workers coming into British Columbia are subjected to paying illegal recruitment fees.

We know that we’re talking about the Provincial Immigration Programs Act, vis-à-vis our national guest worker program, and measures that the provincial government can take to ensure that British Columbians are protected, workers are protected in British Columbia, and that exploitation of these workers does not take place. The legislation has the been passed in Manitoba, in Quebec, Ontario, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, dealing with the issue of illegal recruitment fees.

This is a big problem that all workers coming in, applying to the provincial nominee program, experience. Part of the problem is that this is an area that is unregulated. This is an area that has been noted in the federal government. Provincial governments have taken steps to ensure that this is eradicated and is not acceptable.

These are issues that I would have expected to come forward in a discussion around our Provincial Immigration Programs Act, but sadly, that’s lacking. This is an area that needs to be addressed. It creates a lot of inequality, and there’s a lot of exploitation that is happening in British Columbia because of recruiters not being regulated. We need to connect when we talk about the specifics around the Provincial Immigration Programs Act, connecting and translating policy into administration.

This is an area, as well, that has kind of been running rampant like the Wild West. We’re seeing that individual workers coming into British Columbia are being charged anywhere from $1,000 to $15,000 to $20,000 illegally for recruitment fees to secure jobs in British Columbia. This is where we need to connect that issue, and we need to see this area in legislation.

[1135]

We know that while the national temporary foreign worker program is employer-driven, part of the difficulty is that there aren’t caps on the numbers of workers that can come in. There is a cap on the number that can be admitted and administered through the provincial nominee program. This is part of the discrepancy, but still there’s the ability for the provincial government to take steps that ensure we do not see exploitation happen in British Columbia.

I would have hoped that the Provincial Immigration Programs Act would have made comment or taken steps to regulate not only narrow provisions around the provincial nominee program but address some of these broader issues that impact the tens of thousands of workers that come into British Columbia and are, basically, vulnerable to this exploitation by recruiters in British Columbia.

When we hear about the operation of the provincial nominee program, part of the cycle, which we should understand, is the labour migration cycle and the points where the provincial government can intervene to introduce legislation to ensure that exploitation is not happening. It goes from recruitment to obtaining a work permit to arriving in British Columbia to living and working in British Columbia, the renewal of the work permit and either the permanent residency or repatriation. And for 5,500 under the province, there is the ability for those individuals to apply to become permanent residents.

Throughout aspects of this labour migration cycle, we see that these create conditions for real insecurity for these individual. The typical experience for workers with recruitment has to do with their temporary status, which is problematic, and also that their work permits are tied to employers. These create precariousness and vulnerability for these individuals, for these workers, and they are often very vulnerable to paying thousands of dollars to recruiters and to others to work their way through this cycle.

These issues are not addressed in the Provincial Immigration Programs Act. It really only focuses on one small area of the provincial nominee program but leaves out these whole swaths of areas and concerns governing tens of thousands of workers, employers and businesses. We know that recruitment abuse can affect workers at all skill levels, but it’s primarily those at the lower wage, lower skill levels — that is well-documented — who pay a greater share of recruitment costs and are subject to greater exploitation than higher-skilled workers.

We also need to understand that, in particular, the increasing numbers in the lower-skilled workers…. They are also more vulnerable to exploitation because there’s often more individuals who are looking for work, and just by virtue of numbers, they fall victim to paying higher fees.

So this is an important area that has been neglected and is in need of legislation and is in need of oversight at the provincial level, and it’s one of the areas where we can take initiative. While immigration is primarily federally governed, areas around employment standards and, certainly, regulating recruiters are within our realm here in the provincial Legislature. Other provinces have taken steps to ensure that these steps are taken to ensure that workers are not exploited.

[1140]

Fees for this illegal recruitment can typically represent between six months to two years of earnings in the worker’s home currency — in some cases, considerably more. Sometimes it takes wages that a worker’s earned two to three full years at home to match what they’ve paid in recruitment fees.

The unregulated nature of these labour brokers — really, there’s no excuse for that. It gives rise to workers unnecessarily having to accrue debts, where workers have to borrow money to pay their recruiters and often become indebted for a number of years. The concern is that it is the low-wage, low-skilled workers who are paying these recruitment fees, often to work in minimum wage jobs in the province.

We have seen that these recruitment practices really exacerbate the insecurity inherent in the program. As well, part of the problem with workers in British Columbia under the temporary foreign worker program — well in excess of the 5,500 that are eligible to apply for permanent residency under the provincial nominee program.

Another problem, and it’s characteristic of the employer-driven program, is that work permits are employer-specific. The work permits are tied to the employers, and they don’t have the flexibility to…. They don’t have labour mobility. If they have a problem, they are not able to go across the street and work for another employer. This also lends to a reluctance to come forward and a problem of vulnerability for these workers.

I would think it would be an opportunity, under the Provincial Immigration Programs Act, to address these outstanding challenges. While we know that characterizing legislation around best practices…. It’s identified by the United Nations. We see it reflected in other provinces in terms of their legislation — Manitoba, Quebec, and improving on that, Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick.

Fundamental in legislation that is passed in those provinces is ensuring that no recruitment fees are charged of workers coming to work in the province. That’s No. 1. Ensuring laws that…. Fees or other charges for recruitment and placement are not borne directly or indirectly by the worker. That’s No. 1, and that’s lacking. It’s not mentioned here in the bill.

No. 2, in terms of addressing this issue, the second identified best practice is recruiter licensing and regulation. We saw that Manitoba brought it in for the first time. Ensuring that recruiters or brokers, also known as labour brokers, who identify the workers to bring them in and either are contracted by companies or employers
[ Page 9540 ]
to help with that process…. Those individuals have to be licensed and regulated.

There is a restriction and supervision of who may be registered to bring in, recruit and also place these workers — and also bringing in a standardized system of licensing or certification of recruiters. In addition, typically accompanying that is the requirement for recruiters to provide a security deposit, such as a bond or insurance, to compensate migrant workers for any monetary losses resulting from the failure of a recruitment or contacting agency to meet its obligations to them.

As well, an important component that’s lacking in this bill and that is also needed across the province is to ensure the security from exploitation, as outlined.

[1145]

If any members…. I know I’ve mentioned it to members before. Given the number of folks working in British Columbia on temporary work permits, you can pretty much go to any community across the province…. If my colleagues across the way strike up conversations…. Maybe they don’t know many who are living in their communities on temporary visas. To have those conversations — it can be surprising. When we look at just the sheer numbers — 74,000 in British Columbia. Those are a lot of people, and they often are under the radar.

Part of the problem is that there is a reluctance for them to speak up. They’re very vulnerable, and it’s a structural difficulty because of the employer-specific work permit. It’s the employer that brings them in. If my employer brings me in and I have a problem, I’m going to be reluctant to raise concerns because of my status. I could be fired and could be sent out of the country. So that’s a problem — the employer-specific work permit. There needs to be an industrywide work permit.

In terms of security from exploitation, there are steps that the province can take, as well, ensuring that there’s a proactive system in place for employment standards. We know, and it’s been shown, that complaint-driven processes around violations of employment standards are not effective and that workers are very reluctant to come forward.

We know — and I’ve heard from the minister and other colleagues across the way that it’s true — that migrant workers, workers on a temporary visa, have the same rights and protections under employment standards, which is true. But without the ability to exercise that, those are really rights on paper. Those are some of the difficulties, given the precariousness and vulnerability of these workers not having full rights and not having the confidence to come forward.

This really, I would say, undermines in kind of a very subtle way — we may not see it at first — the fabric of our society, of our communities and, really, the functioning of…. You know, if you go to get your morning coffee or whatever it is around different services and folks who are working there, for reasons, are not comfortable or confident to speak out if they have problems, then that is really, I would say, untenable here in British Columbia — that that situation and those conditions are allowed to persist.

Certainly, there are steps that we can take. I would have expected Bill 39, Provincial Immigration Programs Act, to address that, but again, that’s lacking here.

Not only difficulty around employer-specific work permits, but also that leads to — and I mentioned previously — restrictions around and workers being forced to pay recruitment fees and finding themselves in debt bondage and forced labour. We’re also seeing more cases come forward connecting around human trafficking.

That’s kind of some of the context around what’s happening in British Columbia. There are cases that have come forward in British Columbia, and there are steps that we can take to ensure that that doesn’t happen. I think that we can have agreement, certainly, in this House on that.

As well, another important step — which I’ve been disappointed that the government has not enacted and that we haven’t seen in this bill and I think is an oversight — is not only regulating and having labour recruiters having to be registered but also ensuring that employers have to be registered and licensed.

This is what, I think, also speaks towards issues of accountability and transparency, as well, around ensuring that we know which companies, certainly, are bringing in temporary foreign workers. Certainly, that’s the case in Manitoba and other jurisdictions. It also provides, I think, another level and layer of accountability.

[1150]

Part of the criticism and the backlash around bringing in a lot of temporary foreign workers we’ve seen is the concern that these workers….

This is, I think, just a really basic step that could and should be taken to identify the employers that utilize temporary foreign workers and to have a registry. This is an oversight. It’s significant because, while the numbers have grown across Canada and we’ve seen increasing numbers of now temporary foreign workers coming into Canada, British Columbia is the highest recipient after Ontario in terms of numbers. We’ve seen a real lack of leadership, and basically it has been an open-door policy with no oversight and no accountability to that program, which has resulted in not only exploitation of these workers but also a lack of accountability from employers.

This is a concrete step that would be positive, and that is important. I would have expected that when we look at the experience of British Columbia and of immigration coming into our province…. While Bill 39 deals with our provincial nominee program, and it’s positive that we’ll have a director, it’s positive that a clear administration process is laid out and positive that there’s an appeal process, there’s much more that needs to be covered.

We know that in terms of the vast number of workers who come into British Columbia, there is a responsibility, and it’s the lack of that permanent status that really lends to the vulnerability and that precariousness — the closed
[ Page 9541 ]
work permits, often the isolation, not a complaints-driven system, not having proactive enforcement. These contribute to that precariousness and vulnerability. There are specific steps that we can follow from other provinces that have addressed this matter.

I’m going to be making a few more comments about second reading of the Provincial Immigration Programs Act here. While the specific steps that have been taken are positive with respect to the provincial nominee program, there is a much broader area that has been neglected and needs to be addressed, particularly with respect to the necessity to regulate recruiters, to bring an end to the charging of exorbitant recruitment fees, to also register employers to provide that accountability and to also ensure that there’s a proactive system in place to ensure that rights are upheld and enforced for these workers.

I don’t know if my arguments have been persuasive to the minister — to include those provisions in the Provincial Immigration Programs Act — but certainly those are areas that need to be addressed. And we know that across our province, exploitation is happening and that this situation, this really unacceptable situation of second-class workers in our province, is allowed, basically, with little recourse. They’re very open to exploitation.

[1155]

There are steps that can be taken, and there’s leadership that needs to be shown from the government in terms of ensuring that employers and companies are held accountable, that the rhetoric around ensuring that British Columbians have access to jobs, that that is indeed the case, and also ensuring, along with that, that British Columbians have the opportunity to have access to those jobs and have adequate training. That has often been the counterpoint that hasn’t materialized — having employers and companies register and be accountable. These are steps that are in our control in a provincial jurisdiction, and steps that can be taken.

That, I think, brings to a conclusion my remarks on the second reading for Bill 39, the Provincial Immigration Programs Act. I look forward to committee stage to discuss some of the clause-by-clause considerations.

M. Elmore moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. B. Bennett moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Deputy Speaker: The House stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.

The House adjourned at 11:57 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