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, November 16, 2015

Morning Sitting

Volume 31, Number 4

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

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 2015

The House met at 10:02 a.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Private Members’ Statements

APPRENTICESHIPS IN B.C.

J. Tegart: It’s my pleasure to speak today about how our government is helping to pave the way for all people to earn rewarding careers in the trades through apprenticeships. This is especially important in my riding of Fraser-Nicola, where our expanded programs are having a positive impact in an area of traditionally higher than average unemployment.

With thousands of job openings projected for B.C. by 2022, driven by retirements and a growing economy, we’re working hard across government to ensure that everyone can access the skills training they need for in-demand jobs. That includes young people, older workers, aboriginal persons, the under-represented and those facing barriers to employment and economic independence.

[R. Lee in the chair.]

Our job now is to re-engineer education and training to make sure B.C.’s workers and students have the skills they need to be at the front of the line for those jobs.

[1005]

Through the Industry Training Authority, our government is developing a world-class apprenticeship program for British Columbians to help build the trades that build B.C. The ITA offers more than 100 apprenticeship training programs in B.C., including 48 Red Seal trades training programs.

The main goal of ITA apprenticeship advisers is to help build knowledge and awareness of the B.C. apprenticeship system and provide guidance to apprentices and government sponsors. ITA currently employs 15 apprenticeship advisers throughout the province, including six aboriginal-focused advisers. To encourage contractors to hire apprentices and increase the number of apprentices, we recently announced a new policy — apprentices on public projects — which is going to connect more young people to the skills and training they need for careers in construction.

The new policy will leverage our government’s multi-billion-dollar annual investment in infrastructure by requiring contractors working on major public construction with a $15-million-plus government investment to sponsor apprentices. Helping to build and expand a skilled workforce to meet this demand is a key commitment under our skills-for-jobs blueprint. That’s why our government invests more than $94 million annually in industry training through the ITA.

The ITA leads and coordinates B.C.’s skilled trades system by working with employers, employees, industry, labour, training providers and government to issue credentials, manage apprenticeships, set program standards and increase opportunities in the trades.

We are also increasing the amount of targeted funding that is part of base operating grants for public post-secondary institutions by $270 million over the next four years. This means that by 2017-2018, total targeted funding to support in-demand jobs will be an estimated $450 million. We are also investing $185 million in infrastructure and equipment targeted for skills and trades training.

Part of this investment has resulted in a new facility in my riding, a facility of which I am very proud. Our government recently opened the new $1.8 million trades training building at the Nicola Valley Institute of Technology in Merritt, which accommodates 40 trades students a year.

The institute is an aboriginal public post-secondary institution with a provincial mandate governed by an aboriginal board that works and supports aboriginal communities. The new trades facility at NVIT is funded through the skills-for-jobs blueprint, which includes capital funding for new trades training infrastructure and equipment.

To date, through rural and local training opportunities, delivered in NVIT’s mobile trades classroom, NVIT has graduated 117 Bridging to Trades students from across B.C. Since 2014, another 31 students graduated from NVIT’s electrician pre-apprenticeship, foundations plumbing and piping, and foundations residential construction programs.

This new trades facility builds on the strong trades programs already provided by NVIT. It reduces transportation issues for students and supports trades students to participate in campus life activities.

Also as part of B.C.’s skills-for-jobs blueprint, our government is partnering with industry to invest a combined total of $1.2 million in the Pathways to Success program for six First Nations communities in northwestern B.C. The program is being delivered in Terrace and Prince Rupert by the Nicola Valley Institute of Technology.

Our government is providing $600,000 of the $1.2 million, and industry partners are providing matching funding. These industry partners include BG Canada, LNG Canada and Pacific NorthWest LNG.

[1010]

Our funding for Pathways to Success is provided through the new aboriginal skills training development program, which, in alignment with the skills-for-jobs
[ Page 10138 ]
blueprint, is investing up to $30 million over the next three years for new aboriginal skills training projects and partnerships.

Pathways to Success is an employment readiness and job development program that involves classroom instruction on essential skills; refresher numeracy, literacy and computers; as well as job-specific, industry-recognized credentials in areas such as occupational first aid, fire suppression and construction safety training.

Among the most important components of the program are employment support and job development. Job development involves working directly with prospective employers to inform them about the Pathways program and develop employment opportunities for First Nations. Participants are assisted in matching employment opportunities to their interests and then helped through the recruitment program through the early stages of employment.

R. Fleming: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

R. Fleming: This morning with us in the gallery are 14 students and three adults — teachers and parents — from Elizabeth Buckley School in my constituency of Victoria–Swan Lake. That school is attached to the Cridge Centre for the Family in the Oaklands neighbourhood.

Many of these students are not here for their first time, but this will be their second visit, or even more, to the House. I would ask all members of the House to make these guests most welcome here with us today.

Debate Continued

S. Simpson: I am pleased to respond to this motion regarding the role of apprenticeships today.

We know that apprenticeships are critical to our future. Skills training, apprenticeship paths are critical. But we know that we are in a situation today where the government has been scrambling to put in place a program because of the conduct of this government starting in 2002.

In 2002, the government eliminated what was then the ITAC program, cast it away and began to frame their own version of what this would look like. And this was a version that undermined the trades training program in this province in an unprecedented way.

It’s a program that ended mandatory trades so that we didn’t have those demands. It’s a program that compromised the Red Seal program by creating a structure where, instead of necessarily creating carpenters, you created framers.

It’s a program that removed unions, organized labour and educational institutions, essentially, from the discussion around trades. It’s a program that, essentially, ended the counselling system at that point — eliminated those counsellors that the member previously talked about that have been restored now. They were eliminated under the program put in place by the B.C. Liberal government in 2002.

As a result of that, we essentially had the worst skills training programs and apprenticeship programs in this country. A 30 percent completion rate on our programs — that was the completion rate. We had a situation that, instead of having companies step up and engage in apprenticeship programs, they walked away.

Why did this happen? The key to this demise, as I mentioned earlier, was the decision of government to put in place a structure and people who took a totally ideological view of skills training. They eliminated organized labour from the conversation entirely. I would note at the time that that was happening, organized labour were running their own skills training programs with a 90 percent completion rate, while the government’s completion rate was about 30.

And they removed educational institutions from the conversation. Those institutions that were obliged and required to put the foundational training in place — they removed them from that conversation. As a result, we had this situation.

[1015]

Now, what we know is that this turned around a few years ago, and what turned this around, of course, was the Premier’s aspirations around LNG, when those major investors on LNG came in and said: “You don’t have the trained workforce we need, and you don’t have an apprenticeship program that will deliver it. You’ve got to fix it if you want us to consider investing here.”

At that point, labour came back to the table, the discussion of Red Seal came back to the table, and we started to frame the program that is in place today. That’s what happened there.

The challenge with this, that we know, is that this is a program that has been framed around one industry, LNG — some health care a little bit but one industry, LNG. We know that the Premier’s aspirations and, essentially, pipe dream in terms of her view of the scope of LNG isn’t going to happen. We’ll get some LNG, hopefully, but it’s not going to happen in the way that the Premier has claimed time and time again for the last couple of years.

The challenge now will be: what happens with training? What’s the government going to do to expand and look at other opportunities, other industries and start to move to create those opportunities?

The program is too narrow. It needs to be expanded. The program needs better resourcing. It’s not good enough just to move advanced education money around without additional resources. It needs more resourcing, and it needs a commitment from employers for placements, a commitment that does not exist today. It needs
[ Page 10139 ]
to be put in place. Government needs to do better to get there, and they have not done that. The challenge will be what happens next.

The program is better today, because the people who should be at the table…. Many more of them are at the table in the apprenticeship discussion, but it is not complete. We’re going to look at a new economy. We’re going to look at innovation. We need to look at skills training that matches that new economy and that new innovation.

We have not seen that demonstrated by what’s happening with the ITA today. We can hope to see that heading into the future. If we do, then we may in fact start to see a structure of a training program that makes sense. But it was the changes made in 2002 by this government that set us back a decade. We lost a decade, and maybe we have a chance to repair it now. I guess we’ll see.

J. Tegart: I spoke earlier about some of the ways our government is investing in people, facilities and equipment to create an environment for all British Columbians to succeed in their chosen trades career path through apprenticeships. I’d now like to speak briefly about the experience of apprenticeship students.

A survey of former apprenticeship students in B.C. shows that 86 percent of students who completed their training at public post-secondary institutions in the Interior and the Kootenays were employed and earning a median wage of $29 an hour. Here are some of the other highlights from the 2014 apprenticeship student outcomes survey for the Interior and Kootenay public post-secondary institutions. Those schools are Okanagan College, Thompson Rivers University, College of the Rockies and Selkirk College.

The combined survey results found that 93 percent of respondents were very satisfied or satisfied with their in-school training, 87 percent of employed respondents were working in a field related to their training, and fully 95 percent of employed respondents said that the knowledge and skills gained in their training was very useful or somewhat useful in performing their jobs.

Our government currently delivers more than $7.5 billion a year in funding for education and skills training to help British Columbians realize career opportunities most in demand by industry. Recent investment highlights include $30 million in aboriginal skills training development fund; $13 million that has been invested for nearly 3,000 additional critical trades training seats in 14 public post-secondary institutions; and $17 million that was invested since the launch of the skills-for-jobs blueprints, allowing 14 public institutions to purchase new trades training equipment.

I can speak from experience on the importance of apprenticeships. Certainly, my riding hosts one of the largest mines in North America. One of the real attractions to our young people going into the mine is the apprenticeship program. Certainly, my husband was a heavy duty mechanic. I have family who are millwrights and have different apprenticeship experiences.

[1020]

I see our young people excited to go from school. Many of them are able to get double credits in grade 12 and move right into a very challenging job at the mine in an apprenticeship.

I think we’re on the right path. Although we may have different opinions of what that path may look like, I think that everyone in this House is committed to the apprenticeship program and the work that we’re doing to employ our young people.

AGRICULTURE AND FOOD

L. Popham: It is such a pleasure today to rise and discuss agriculture and food in the province of British Columbia. This is not a topic that is new for me to discuss in this chamber. In fact, I think people expect me to talk about this topic at this point. I became the Agriculture critic the first year I was elected, in 2009. It was like a dream come true for me, because the reason I wanted to go into politics was around agriculture and food policy.

Since that time, I requested that the Legislature bring back the select standing committee for agriculture and food. We had a committee that was active up until 2001. Then that committee was disbanded, and it has not sat or been reinstated since that time. That’s a lot of years to not be discussing agriculture and food officially in this chamber in a standing committee.

It’s extremely important to have access to a committee like that, as an agricultural stakeholder in B.C. I think it’s critically important for legislators to be able to hear from stakeholders in a formal setting like that as we develop food policies for this province.

Now, in every jurisdiction, including British Columbia, food and agriculture and climate change are common topics. This is not new. The public is embracing this idea more than ever. As we see challenges to our food systems, the importance of these discussions becomes even greater.

Last year in November, I requested that the select standing committee for agriculture be reinstated in this Legislature, and unfortunately, again, the government refused to do that. It’s always very curious to me why you wouldn’t use the standing committee process. So after maybe six attempts at trying to get this committee going, I thought to myself that we may not be able to have a select standing committee for agriculture, but we certainly can have an opposition standing committee for agriculture and food.

At that point, I had five colleagues join me, and we have endeavoured to create something that is very much like a select standing committee. I’m so happy that the member for Delta South has joined us, in the opposition standing committee, as the vice-chair of this committee. We
[ Page 10140 ]
have the member for Skeena, the member for Burnaby-Edmonds, the member for Kootenay West and the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast. We all sit on this committee, and we tour around the province in order to hear from stakeholders.

Now unfortunately, because the government doesn’t recognize this as an important committee, we have had to create ways of recording our meetings. We’ve invited people to officially submit reports to us that we can put into a report at the end of our year. We originally wanted to have everything on audio and video, so our first meeting we acquired a GoPro and recorded our day of proceedings. We nicknamed it the GrowPro, because it had to do with agriculture. We’ve done that.

We’ve had amazing support staff coming from our legislative offices and our constituency offices. I’d like to acknowledge the work that people have done to help us create this committee. Samuel Godfrey is our committee technology officer; Stephen Harrison is our committee researcher; Andrew Patrick, committee researcher; and Aldous Sperl is a committee researcher who helped us at the beginning, the first half of our year.

[1025]

Now, we did try to create this just like a select standing committee, which means we had terms of reference that we followed. We struck those in January 2015. Our terms of reference were to “examine, inquire into and make recommendations with respect to agriculture and food policy for British Columbia and, in particular, to conduct public consultations across British Columbia on proposals and recommendations regarding agriculture and food policy and practice, by any means the committee considers appropriate; and prepare a report no later than November 30, 2015, on the results of those consultations.”

We started our tour up in Williams Lake. We started that on April 8. From there, we carried on and conducted a public hearing in Courtenay and Comox on May 15. We then went to Chilliwack on June 15. On September 22, we were in Vancouver.

Every time we advertised that we were coming to hold a public hearing, the amount of response from the public was enormous. I can’t thank the people that presented to us enough. We also had a date in October where people who were unable to make it our meetings physically were able to submit reports on line.

We actually came up with quite a list of people who interacted with this committee. I would say that if you are judging success of a standing committee, this one is especially successful, because we didn’t have the support of Hansard Services or legislative services to help us navigate this.

I’ll give you an overview of what types of stakeholders came to present to us. We had Glen Valley Organics, Island Pastures Beef. The Cowichan Valley regional district came. The Young Agrarians, the B.C. dairy producers, the Comox Valley Beekeepers, the B.C. Salmon Farmers Association.

We had councillors from Quesnel. We had the B.C. Agriculture Council. We had the city of White Rock. We had the regional district of Central Kootenay. We had the district of Bulkley-Nechako. We had the Women’s Food and Water Initiative. We had the national campaign for the Wilderness Committee. We had the Agriculture Enterprise Centre from Williams Lake, Rain Coast Farms from Courtenay and Vancouver Island Organic Collective.

We had Merville Organics. We had the B.C. Cattlemen’s Association. We had Home on the Range farms. Another councillor, Chris Kloot from Chilliwack, came to present to us. The Williams Lake Food Policy Council. We had GE Free Comox Valley. We had the University of the Fraser Valley.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.

L. Popham: Mr. Speaker, I’ll continue after.

L. Throness: It’s always a pleasure to talk about agriculture in this chamber, because agriculture is such a huge commercial and cultural driver in my riding.

I want to talk for a moment about a press conference that our Minister of Agriculture held a couple of weeks ago, in which he announced that our highest-ever revenue from agriculture in B.C.’s history has been achieved in 2014 of $12.3 billion. That’s a huge amount of money and a tremendous contributor to our economy. In fact, it marks a $700 million increase from just the year before. That’s a 5.9 percent increase in one year, a phenomenal increase.

How does a government do this? How did they accomplish it? Well, they accomplished it by focusing on high-value export markets. In 2014, for example, B.C. producers led the nation in sales of blueberries, cranberries, sweet cherries, raspberries and apricots.

We could talk about farmed salmon. We could talk about apples. We could go on and on about what our local producers can produce. But using this strategy in 2014, we exported $3 billion worth of products to more than 140 markets. With $12.3 billion in revenue in 2014, it shows that our agrifood strategy is working. We’re on track to achieve our target of $14 billion by 2017.

I want to compliment the government on setting a high bar and making it public so that we’re accountable to the opposition and to all British Columbians for the results. We are achieving tremendous results, and I believe we’re going to make our target by 2017.

I want to spend my remaining couple of minutes talking about beekeeping in B.C. It’s been around for nearly 150 years, since 1858. There are about 47,000 colonies in B.C., and 2,300 beekeepers operate their colonies as full- or part-time business ventures. I recently learned of a problem with beekeeping from a large producer in my riding that I want to speak about. He’s a producer with 4,000 hives in my riding.

[1030]

This producer pollinates many of the blueberry crops in the Lower Mainland, and he also performs similar services in Alberta. He moves his hives, thousands of hives, across the border from B.C. to Alberta every year and brings them back.

My constituent has alerted me to a problem, and that problem is an insect. It’s called the small hive beetle. It’s been found in the Fraser Valley — not many of them. After inspecting thousands of hives, they’ve found, I think, about half a dozen of these small hive beetles. But the government of Alberta has indicated that it may want to quarantine and close the border to hives from B.C. over this problem. We think this would be a disproportionate response to a problem that may not even exist.

I want to describe these beetles, in a small way. They’ve been found in a number of provinces in Canada for years, without quarantines being imposed. They’ve been found in Washington since 2008, without significant damage. They thrive in hot weather in the southern states. Probably they found their way to hives in B.C. through hives that were trucked in from California. They’ve only been found here in B.C. in their adult state, which means that they may not be able to complete their life cycle in our weather and our soil.

Overreacting to this knowledge, to the presence of a very small number of small hive beetles in a colder climate like B.C. and Alberta, could have worse consequences for B.C. beekeepers than the beetle itself. But of course, there are beekeepers in Alberta who would benefit commercially from a quarantine. We want to make sure that all of our decisions are based on science that will benefit the entire industry across provinces, rather than just a few selected interests.

I want my constituent and other beekeepers to know that in B.C., the provincial government is aware of the problem. Our staff are in close contact with staff in the ministry in Alberta to head off what could be a damaging and disproportionate response to the small hive beetle.

We’re always going to stand up, on this side, for good science. We’re going to support our producers so that we can maximize the production of high-quality food in B.C. and maximize the commercial interests of B.C. producers. That, in turn, is going to benefit all British Columbians.

L. Popham: I’m so happy that that member brought up beekeeping and the importance of science, because this could be an actual debate we could have in this House that’s meaningful. Whether it’s small hive beetle or American foulbrood, these are diseases that are very threatening to the honey industry, beekeeping industry in B.C.

It’s very common knowledge, which beekeepers understand, that we do not have a vigilant inspection system in this province. We don’t have enough inspectors. In fact, the Ministry of Agriculture has cut the travel budget for inspectors, so even if there is a problem, they don’t have the travel budget to get there in time to figure that out. It’s true. This could have detrimental effects, if these diseases aren’t caught soon enough, to the interprovincial transfer of bees between Alberta and B.C. We do not have enough inspectors at the borders at the time of year that this transfer is happening. There are times of the year when it’s more busy. Beekeepers actually have to stand in line and wait. If you’ve got a truck full of bees, you’re not going to want to wait too many days standing at the border.

Until this government actually does believe that science is important and starts putting their money where their mouth is…. I’d like to have a proper debate in this House about the ministry’s budget for beekeeping.

Now, when we come down to the precautionary principle and beekeeping, let’s talk about the scientific decision this government made when it came to lifting a quarantine off of Vancouver Island. It was not science-based, and still, to this day…. That was done about four or five years ago. The beekeepers on Vancouver Island and in B.C. found out about the quarantine being lifted in the Vancouver Sun. That’s how much consultation this government does. This is not science-based. The beekeepers still contribute the lifting of that quarantine to disease spread on Vancouver Island. Let’s have a real discussion and not rhetoric coming from the other side.

If you want to hear what beekeepers think around the province, reinstate the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture. I can tell you that the opposition standing committee on agriculture has heard from beekeepers. We had amazing presentations from the people in the Comox Valley and around the province. If you really want to hear what’s going on, on the ground, particularly about beekeeping, start putting some more emphasis on science-based decision-making. You can get that input through a select standing committee, not from somebody making a decision in a back office due to political reasons.

[1035]

We travelled around the province, and I can tell you that when this member talks about how much we make in this province for agriculture, those numbers are true. But despite the importance to the provincial economy, the industry does face a number of challenges. Many producers grapple with high land prices, urban encroachment on farmland and a threat of climate change. To a significant percentage of B.C. farmers, those are.…

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.

L. Popham: Thank you.

MEN’S HEALTH

G. Kyllo: I’m proud to rise on behalf of the constituents of the Shuswap to speak about an issue of great importance to me, men’s health. Traditionally, little public attention has been paid to diseases or conditions that are
[ Page 10142 ]
considered men’s diseases. That, I think it’s safe to say, is our own fault. Simply put, men are our own worst enemy when it comes to health.

Not to overgeneralize it because not every male behaves this way, but we tend to ignore pain and changes in our health. For example, when I was a youngster, I can remember a family friend had complained of soreness in his arm for no apparent reason. His wife, along with my stepfather, urged him to see his doctor. Of course, he ignored them. He ignored the pain, thinking it would go away, and he died of a heart attack the next day. It was a wake-up call for me to always be more health conscious, to never ignore warning signs and to always get myself checked out.

Many men still refuse to drop unhealthy habits. Generally speaking, we aren’t very physically active. We don’t visit our doctors for routine checkups. We are constantly in denial that something may be wrong. Fortunately, that has begun to change. I’m proud to say that I’ve jumped on the Movember bandwagon. As you might be able to tell from the hair on my upper lip, I’ve joined the Movember campaign this year.

Men all over the world this month are growing a mustache, which is known as a mo in Australia, to raise awareness of men’s health issues. The Movember movement began in Australia in 2003 with 30 men intent on raising money for men’s health issues such as prostate and testicular cancers and depression. From those humble beginnings, it has grown into a worldwide charity that has raised more than $677 million around the world. That money has funded more than 1,000 programs focusing on prostate cancer, testicular cancer, poor mental health and encouraging physical activity.

In our province, our government last year made a $1 million donation to the Vancouver General Hospital and UBC Hospital Foundation to support men’s health. The funding went to a prostate cancer supportive care program, which offers support for prostate cancer patients and their partners for physical and emotional side effects of the disease.

The prostate cancer supportive care program is being developed by the Vancouver Prostate Centre, which will include ten modules across the province to benefit the greatest number of men and their families. The goals of the program include support for treatment decisions, improved quality of life, reducing cost per patient and improving long-term health outcomes for patients.

In April of 2013, the Ministry of Health announced $5 million to help develop research and health promotion that supports the well-being of men and their families.

The Vancouver Prostate Centre is a world-class cancer facility and a national centre of excellence providing clinical care for thousands of men. The combination of a large patient clinic and research facility make it the largest program of its kind in all of Canada.

We also support the Michael Smith Foundation for Health Research, providing $11 million to the foundation in September of 2014. This funding will help the foundation maintain the global competitiveness of B.C.’s health sector. The Michael Smith Foundation for Health Research helps support solutions to more urgent health problems by funding the best and brightest researchers and spearheading major projects to address priorities in the health system.

In July 2014, the foundation awarded 32 top health researchers with scholar awards totalling up to $411 million over five years. These awards have had a proven impact on health research in B.C. Since 2001, Michael Smith research scholars have attracted more than $1.1 billion in additional investments to B.C.’s research community and have trained more than 4,700 apprentices.

Our government is also a founding partner of the Canadian Men’s Health Foundation, which conducts important research on communicating to men about their health. The Canadian Men’s Health Foundation was launched in 2014 with the goal to inspire men to live healthier lives.

[1040]

The Don’t Change Much campaign was started to raise awareness that improving your health doesn’t mean eating kale chips or running marathons. It just means that it doesn’t take much to become a little bit healthier. The campaign’s goal is to inspire men to take small steps that can lead to a healthier lifestyle and have a significant impact on their health.

According to the foundation, only 30 percent of Canadian men’s health conditions are genetic; 70 percent are caused by our own lifestyle choices. Bad habits allow men to needlessly be unhealthy, but small changes can make a world of difference. I’m proud to be an advocate for healthier living, and I’ll have more to say about that after we listen to the comments of the members opposite.

A. Dix: Thank you to the member for Shuswap, and congratulations on the success of his campaign so far, which is, I think, inspiring to lots of people in his constituency and across British Columbia.

The Movember campaign, as the member has said, starting from really humble origins, shows what one can achieve when you have an idea and you work together and you are ambitious in a goal. Now it’s over $700 million raised globally. I think what’s interesting about the campaign is that while it’s often associated with specific diseases such as prostate cancer and testicular cancer — so-called male diseases — it also reflects an emphasis, especially this year, on mental health.

We know, for example, that men commit suicide three times as often as women and that men are three times as likely to die from alcohol-related illnesses. I think what that tells us is that when we speak about men’s health — the member talked about 30 percent genetics and 70 percent our choices — there is a third element to that, which is the social determinants of health.
[ Page 10143 ]

I have type 1 diabetes. The principal source of type 2 diabetes is poverty. If you’re going to identify one thing, it’s poverty. What that tells you is that when we’re addressing the health needs of men and of women, we need to address some other, broader, social concerns as well. This has been part, I think, of the effort and the understanding of this growth of men’s health research in recent times.

I want to acknowledge, as well, the work of my colleague from Surrey–Green Timbers and, in particular, someone who changed my view and my understanding of issues around prostate cancer. I think it’s very important that while we engage in fundraising initiatives, we also recognize that there is a role for government.

I met James Pollard when my colleague from Surrey–Green Timbers introduced a bill in this Legislature and suggested that PSA tests should be covered by our public health care system. James Pollard is the member for Surrey–Green Timbers’ stepson, the son of our dear friend John Pollard, and he has been suffering over the last number of years.

I think it’s fair to say, having met him then, that the fact that he’s still alive is a tribute not just to the health care system but to his enormous advocacy and determination on this question. James has, as I say, a particularly aggressive form of prostate cancer. He’s now 50. He was 48, and he wasn’t expected to reach 50.

What I think he has argued for and what my colleague from Surrey–Green Timbers has argued for is to use every tool at our disposal, because prevention is the most important way that we address issues such as cancer in our society — that we give every tool at our disposal to people in our society to do this. That means not just having access, if you have the resources for the test, but also having access to it if you are in need of the test, in need of the prevention, in the appropriate age group where the test will help you ensure your long-term health.

That’s why my colleague introduced legislation in 2011 on this specific point. She understood that by making people pay for the tests in our public health care system, in particular, in consideration with what the member for Shuswap said about the analysis that men are less likely to seek out care…. When you make something cost money, you make it less likely they will choose that road. Secondly, in some cases, when you make something cost money, it means they can’t afford to choose that road.

I want to acknowledge what we need to do in this House and what we need to do with respect to men’s health. One of the blueprints was set out in a report by the Northern Health Authority recently — a very comprehensive report, an excellent report — which talked about addressing the social determinants of health.

[1045]

We know that for men’s health, for example, there’s the need for access to primary care, the need that GP for Me not just be an idea but an actual program that ensures that men and women in B.C. have access to general practitioners — a broken promise by the government — and ensures that nurse practitioners are used in our health care system so that men and women have access to the kind of primary care they need to ensure long-term good health — and programs, especially, to support early learning and child care.

One of the key social determinants of health is exactly that: to ensure that men and women have every opportunity in life. That is the kind of approach we need to address issues of men’s health.

G. Kyllo: As I said earlier in my remarks, men are often reluctant to discuss our health or how we feel about the impact of significant life-altering events. Men are more reluctant to take action when we don’t feel physically or mentally well, and men engage in more risky activities that are harmful to our health.

I know that these behaviours are linked to our traditional view of male masculinity or being macho. Too many men still believe we have to appear strong and stoic. Talking about feeling unwell, either physically or mentally, can be seen as a weakness. This stigma and lack of awareness and understanding only create more silence around men’s health issues. Those issues include prostate cancer, which is the second most common form of cancer in men, with more than 1.1 million cases reported worldwide in 2012.

Testicular cancer is another serious issue, but it’s usually highly treatable. In most cases, treatment is effective, and there is a good outcome for patients. But there is a small proportion of men and boys who are not so fortunate. Testicular cancer usually strikes early, with most cases striking males between the ages of 15 and 40.

Mental health affects all men at some point during their life but is often ignored. Globally, a man dies every minute from suicide, yet many men don’t realize they are experiencing a mental health issue.

Physical inactivity is another big issue for all people and is the fourth leading risk factor for global mortality. It causes 3.2 million deaths per year. Part of the Movember campaign is to encourage men to be physically active every day during the month of November and then to encourage physical activity to become a way of life.

To help spread the word and change attitudes, I’m proud to have challenged my fellow male MLAs on this side of the House to join me in taking up the Movember challenge. I was overwhelmed when 22 of my colleagues joined me in the Movember Foundation of Canada’s national fundraising challenge. We set the goal to raise $10,000, and we topped that goal in just the first three days of the campaign.

As of this morning, our team is ranked eighth in Canada, and we’ve raised over $17,000. The idea behind the challenge was to raise awareness of some very serious men’s health issues and to have some fun while doing it. I can certainly say that it has been a success on both counts.
[ Page 10144 ]

FAMILIES AND MENTAL HEALTH

S. Hammell: When you break a bone, you know where to go for help. And how about when you find a lump that shouldn’t be there? You still know what to do. You head to the emergency ward, or you make an appointment with your doctor.

But what if you are suddenly unable to think clearly? Or something that is usually routine sends you into an uncontrollable panic? Or you know something is triggering an aggressive or unusual response, and you can’t control your behavior, but you don’t quite know what to do? Where do you go for help then?

While we have made amazing strides in the ways we diagnose and repair the human body, the brain is still somewhat of a mystery. In this province, we are not anywhere near providing the care or providing leading-edge treatment for those in our province who are mentally ill.

I’ve used this stat before, but it’s so powerful, it’s worth repeating. Nearly one in five people will face some form of mental illness in their lifetime. Using British Columbia as an example, close to one million people in our province will suffer a decline in their mental wellness at some point.

[1050]

This could range from a temporary inability to cope with a stressful or traumatic time in your life to a persistent and serious mental illness like schizophrenia or bipolar. The wide range of symptoms and causes is one of the main reasons why mental illness is so difficult, so hard, to diagnose and treat.

There is no one-size-fits-all treatment, but there are some things we do know. We know that early intervention is the key to leading a hopeful and fulfilling life. And if identified early and treated early, an illness like schizophrenia or major depression can often be successfully managed.

Treating someone with mental health problems in the community can often be a very complex problem. We have many, many people that leave psychiatric wards from our hospitals and return to the community. And we know that what works for one person might not be successful, while working for someone else would be the appropriate diagnosis.

Sometimes, though, we get it right, and we develop a level of care that allows our most vulnerable population to recover enough that they are able to live a hopeful and meaningful life. And that, I think, is what we all hope for people, regardless of whether they are mentally ill, physically ill or able to cope with life in general. Mountain View, in Abbotsford, is one of those facilities that has got it right.

Over the last 30 years, the Newby family has developed an all-encompassing care system that not only gives the most severe and persistently mentally ill a calm and tranquil place to live and thrive; it has been able to take people who enter the facility at their very bottom and provide them with the care and skills to take them from a place of despair and hopelessness all the way back to living a productive and fruitful life in the community, as judged by the people around them.

I think this is one of the key aspects of Mountain View: it is set in an idyllic, pastoral setting. It offers a place where people who are dealing with that sort of persistent and serious mental illness can be comfortable and not be bombarded by the normal urban hustle and bustle and issues that are found in that kind of environment. Within this rural setting, the residents of Mountain View can take advantage of things such as taking care of livestock, learning gardening skills and having a quiet place to reflect when they are having a difficult day.

Some of the graduates of Mountain View have told stories of how far down they were upon entering the facility — homeless and living on the streets. With consistent care and attention and the appropriate treatment, the staff and the people involved have eventually built up the skills to transition back to independent community living — a future that at one time they themselves thought was absolutely impossible for them to attain.

We have heard, from countless families of current and former patients of the facility, that before Mountain View Home, their loved ones lived a desperate and heartbroken life. They didn’t know if they themselves would wake up one day with their son or daughter in jail or dead.

One such mother said that Mountain View, in her opinion, is second only to heaven in her books. But unfortunately, in August 2016, Mountain View Home will cease to exist. The 30-plus years of honing and developing a successful care plan will be discarded to make room for a new facility that is being touted as increasing the care for the region. But this home will not have the decades of experience and the setting that Mountain View has used with incredible effectiveness.

[1055]

In the complex and multifaceted area of mental health treatment, we finally have a facility that has a proven track record of recovery for 30 years. Yet in less than a year, that will be thrown away.

D. Plecas: I’m pleased to rise today and speak about the important issue of families and mental health.

We have seen a very concerning rise in the number of people with mental health challenges, not only in British Columbia but throughout Canada and, in fact, throughout North America. One in five British Columbians will be affected by a mental health or substance abuse problem this year. These are our neighbours, our co-workers, our friends, our family members.

The mental health challenges individuals face vary greatly, as does the type of support, from education and prevention to early detection and treatment. However, and disturbingly, only one in three people who experience a mental health problem or illness report that they have sought services or treatment. As the stigma surrounding mental health lessens, through such campaigns
[ Page 10145 ]
as Bell’s Let’s Talk, we will see more people seeking help.

Recognizing that we can not take a one-size-fits-all approach to providing care and services, we have been introducing a variety of options. In my own community of Abbotsford, the new 50-bed Marshall Road residential campus is being constructed. This new state-of-the-art facility is a great example of investing more in community-based programs and ensuring that people receive the care they need in the most appropriate environment.

Fraser Health will continue to work with each resident and family closely over the next year to ensure that all arrangements are in place for a smooth transition to a new placement and the appropriate care that they need. More importantly, when the new Marshall Road facility opens in 2016, Abbotsford will see an increase in the number of mental health beds from 58 to 68. We’ll also see a wider range of services provided to patients. Equally important, across Fraser Health, the total number of mental health and addiction support beds will have increased by 31 percent by the end of 2016.

In the member opposite’s community of Surrey, there is a program called Car 67, a mental health and addictions program done in partnership between Fraser Health and the Surrey RCMP. Through this program, teams of uniformed officers and nurses are called in to provide mobile assessments and crisis intervention when there’s a mental health issue. Last year they had 1,800 calls for service. It is through programs like this that we can get people the help they need and get them on the right path and decrease the number of interventions with both police and health care facilities.

Mental health problems frequently begin early in life, with about half starting by age 15 and three-quarters starting by age 24. Intervening early when challenges occur helps achieve better outcomes now and later in life. With that in mind, I should also mention that some $94 million is invested annually to address child and youth mental health and substance abuse challenges in British Columbia. The number of children and youth receiving treatment has more than doubled since 2003, to almost 29,000. Families have access to many resources and programs to help them overcome these challenges.

Assertive community treatment teams — or ACT teams, as they are known — are another success story in this province. These teams are comprised of police officers, nurses, peer support workers, rehabilitation specialists, therapists and clinicians. They provide treatment and rehabilitation for clients struggling with mental illness and substance abuse issues. Treatment includes providing long-term, 24-7 health care and life skills supports, which includes job training, assistance with finding independent housing, social interaction, counselling and maintaining physical and mental wellness.

[1100]

In its first year, an ACT team in Vancouver helped achieve a 70 percent reduction in emergency department visits, a 61 percent reduction in criminal justice involvement and a 23 percent reduction in incidents of victimization. The ACT teams are just one aspect of the many services and approaches being developed in response to the province’s mental health action plan.

S. Hammell: While I respect and appreciate the member and his comments, I just have to take issue with a few of the statements he has made.

All of us understand the appropriateness and the contribution the ACT teams make. Unfortunately, ACT teams are not everywhere in the province. Nelson has asked for an ACT team or a Car 67 to come up and assist them with the issues of mental health in their community, and it has been refused.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

The ACT team costs $2 million a year to put on the street, and it is not the only answer to the mental health issues in our community. We have in the health region of Fraser Health a facility that serves very, very well. It’s a facility of excellence for those people who are severely and persistently mentally ill. These are people who cannot function on their own in the community.

We know and everyone in this House knows that not everyone can be served by an ACT team; nor can everyone who is seriously mentally ill be housed inside the community independently. Some people need a registered, licensed care bed where they have 24-hour assistance if needed. It is not a locked or secure bed that is found in our hospitals. This is a residential care bed.

You have a facility in Abbotsford that is excellent, that has had 30 years of excellent service to the community, and because there’s a new widget floating down the stream, you’re going to abandon something that works well, serves the community well, is supported by the families who have their people in that institution or in that home. You’re going to shut it down for some facility that does not meet that same kind of criteria.

In the predictions of the Minister of Health, it was predicted that in 2016, we would need 900 licensed care beds. We have under 400. What this ministry is doing now is shutting down 25, where 25 people will be displaced from their caregivers, displaced from their homes, displaced from a facility that has served them, on average, for ten years, and that’s all right. Somehow that is okay in terms of our mental health care in this facility. I just think we can do better.

Hon. T. Stone: I now call private member’s Motion 29.

Deputy Speaker: Hon. Members, unanimous consent of the House is required to proceed with Motion 29 without disturbing the priorities of the motions preceding it on the order paper.
[ Page 10146 ]

Leave granted.

Private Members’ Motions

MOTION 29 — SUPPORTS AND
SERVICES FOR PERSONS IN NEED

L. Larson: Thank you, hon. Speaker.

[Be it resolved that this House continues to encourage government to provide targeted supports and services to British Columbians in need, helping them secure a life of independence.]

In the spring of 2014, Accessibility 2024 was introduced with the goal of making British Columbia the most accessible province in Canada, and in the past 18 months, a great amount of work has been done by multiple groups and agencies toward that goal. The objective is not to focus on only one issue of the most vulnerable in our society but to engage people and communities at all levels to recognize the challenges and be part of the solution.

[1105]

It includes technological advances for those with physical and developmental disabilities to make their daily lives easier. It is housing and related home supports, and most importantly, it is the creation of welcoming, supportive work environments so that all have the opportunity to contribute to their personal well-being and future security.

There are targeted supports for employers — the Canada job fund and the Canada job grant, through the Ministry of Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training — and agencies like the Vancouver Foundation, which provide grants to support those needing assistive technologies for employment support.

There are also accessibility-related funding opportunities and resources for municipalities, communities and groups. Age-friendly communities, job creation partnerships, healthy communities capacity-building, home adaptations for independence and the quality-of-life program through the Rick Hansen Foundation are just a few of those resources.

In addition, the employment program of British Columbia provides comprehensive employment services and supports based on an individual’s need. EPBC is delivered by contract service providers through 85 Work B.C. Employment Services Centres throughout B.C., ensuring that British Columbians can access standardized needed services and supports.

Services are also provided to students identifying as having a disability and seeking to access disability services. Disability services or Disability Resource Centres are available in 26 post-secondary institutions on more than 80 campuses throughout British Columbia. They provide learning and environmental services and supports to students with disabilities and liaise with the student, faculty and other campus offices in a manner that is supportive of the student’s educational needs.

There are many other non-governmental agencies that dedicate their energies to helping those with disabilities. The Neil Squire Society, Community Living B.C., Inclusion B.C. and the Open Door Group are just a few of those agencies providing health and support for our most vulnerable citizens.

The British Columbia Aboriginal Network on Disability Society is an award-winning provincial not-for-profit charitable society serving the unique and diverse disability and health support service needs of the aboriginal population of British Columbia. BCANDS provides a vast array of services to eligible clients and organizations, both within aboriginal communities and within British Columbia’s urban and rural centres.

The Ministry of Social Development and Social Innovation works closely with the employers and service organizations within B.C. through the presidents group and the Minister’s Council.

In 2014-2015, the Ministry of Social Development provided employment services to nearly 110,000 people, an increase of 35,000 compared to the first year of the employment program of B.C. in 2012-2013. We have also put into place a wide variety of services and supports so that all British Columbians who wish to can have a fulfilling job and a better life for themselves and a better future for their children.

I will leave my colleagues to go into more detail on these programs.

M. Mungall: Today, we’re debating a motion that has been put forward by a government member: “Be it resolved that this House continues to encourage government to provide targeted supports and services to British Columbians in need, helping them secure a life of independence.”

I am very happy to speak to this motion. I agree with the principle behind it. That being said, the previous member listed off a long list of…. I believe what she’s trying to do is boast about some of the government programs.

But what’s interesting is that, despite what government is doing, B.C. is still left with the highest rate of poverty in this country, the highest rate of child poverty in this country. That’s just not the last year, but that has been the case for well over a decade under this government’s watch.

While the government is making some steps — let’s say, to be generous — to address some of these issues…. For example, last week, they lifted the asset levels for individuals who are receiving persons with disabilities benefits to $100,000, and that’s a good step. Of course, we would concede that. It’s a very New Democrat idea, in fact. I believe other New Democrat governments in this country have done similar things.

[1110]

Allowing gifts to help with rent and food — another very New Democrat idea. I’m happy to see this govern-
[ Page 10147 ]
ment see the light of day and adopt that idea. I do want to thank, in fact, if I can take a moment to do so, the staff in the ministry and the advocacy groups around the province who have been working for these steps in the right direction and who are able to see those announcements and see the fruit of their efforts.

That being said, going back to my point about highest levels of poverty in the country…. Part and parcel of that, I believe, are the cuts that this government has done to the employment program of B.C., EPBC, as the previous member noted. We have seen some drastic cuts by this government. We saw about an $80 million budget in ’09, in 2010, and now we’re at $29 million. That is a massive reduction.

What do we see on the front line? A reduction in services. That’s not because the non-profits and the job organizations and businesses who help provide EPBC services are wanting to reduce their services — not at all. It’s because the funding is reduced from this provincial government. Time and time again, year after year, we see these budgetary cuts, so people with disabilities who want to get a job are not getting the help to do that.

What’s worse for the 16 percent of people who do receive PWD, who do get a job, should they find themselves sick or need to take time off of work for maternity leave or parental leave? This government takes their benefits away. The rights that you and I have and every other British Columbian has to employment insurance…. People with disabilities in this province do not have those rights because this government will not recognize that.

If this government truly wanted to solve policies like that and policies like funding EPBC and the variety of other policies — such as forcing people on disability who are seniors to apply for their CPP early, which causes distress for the rest of their remaining lives…. If they really wanted to tackle these issues and so many more that this government puts forward, they would allow us to debate my bill for a poverty reduction plan and they would pass that and join the rest of Canada — join the rest of Canada — in having a legislative poverty reduction plan, because these plans work.

Once we can address poverty in a meaningful way, in a way that truly reduces poverty for people with disabilities, that’s when we’re going to see the ultimate result in accessibility and people with disabilities being able to live independently, being able to work, being able to be accepted into the workplace. That’s when we actually take a concerted effort and look across all ministries on what can be done. Only a poverty reduction plan has been able to do that in this country. It’s proven to work in other jurisdictions. It’ll work here in British Columbia if only this government would let it.

D. Bing: On behalf of my constituents of Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows, I’m pleased to speak on this motion: “Be it resolved that this House continues to encourage government to provide targeted supports and services to British Columbians in need, helping them secure a life of independence.”

We do understand how challenging it is for low-income families who are struggling to get by. I want to focus on a couple of new initiatives that we have made to support British Columbians.

We have made changes to allow British Columbians receiving disability assistance to be able to hold significantly more assets and to receive financial gifts and inheritances, with no impact on their monthly assistance. This is a huge change for these people and will significantly change their lives, as they will be able to have more secure financial futures.

These changes will allow people receiving disability assistance to live more independent lives while building a more secure financial future and giving their families more peace of mind. It is through targeted supports, like changing asset limits, which will help these British Columbians to achieve a secure life of independence.

[1115]

Beginning December 1 the amount of assets that people receiving disability assistance may hold without losing eligibility for assistance will rise to $100,000 for an individual with the persons-with-disabilities designation. This will rise to $200,000 for a couple where both have persons-with-disabilities designation. Currently the asset limits are $5,000 and $10,000, respectively.

For the first time in B.C., persons with disabilities will be able to receive cash gifts with no effect on their eligibility for assistance. Under current policy, people receiving income and disability assistance can only receive one-time gifts without affecting their eligibility. In the case of an inheritance, the higher asset limits will free up many clients from having to set aside that money in a trust.

As well, government is also changing the way trust payments are handled. We are giving people receiving disability assistance greater flexibility in how they use that money, and this leads to more independent lives. In addition, the $8,000 annual cap on trust payments is being eliminated. These changes will allow people receiving disability assistance to enhance their financial security, while also giving their families, friends or community groups the opportunity to provide additional support.

There are nearly 550,000 British Columbians that self-identify as having a disability. More than 20,000 of these British Columbians have set up a registered disability savings plan to help them to save for the future. Those who are eligible for this program are people who are eligible for the Canada disability tax credit — people who are under the age of 60 and residents with a social insurance number.

Currently 11 percent of all persons with disabilities under 50 in B.C. have an RDSP. This is higher than any other province. In the past year, 2,800 British Columbians have set up an RDSP. The federal government matches every dollar contributed.
[ Page 10148 ]

October marked the second annual RDSP Awareness Month in B.C. It is estimated that only one-quarter of British Columbians under 50 who are eligible for the disability tax credit have opened an RDSP. Another 60,000 people in this age group could benefit from opening one up.

B.C. was the first province to support RDSPs when they were created in 2008. We can do more to raise awareness in our communities. We are working with leaders in the financial and disability community to promote the uptake of RDSPs. Financial security is one of the building blocks of Accessibility 2024, a ten-year action plan to make B.C. the most progressive place in Canada for people with disabilities.

Working together, we can create a more inclusive, accessible British Columbia.

N. Simons: I have to say that when I first saw this statement on the order papers, I thought we’d just punked the government somehow, because I can’t believe that they have the gall to actually talk about improving and encouraging more supports for people to live lives of independence when you see their record on the issue.

If you have a glance at headlines over the past three or four years, if you go back ten years, this is going to be one of the most embarrassing legacies of this government — the lack of support for seniors, for vulnerable children, for adults with developmental mental disabilities. And I could go on. It was almost like, I thought: “Oh, we’ve got them now. They’re walking right into this obvious failure of their government policies.”

If you could ask anyone where this government has failed the worst …. And let me say, there are a lot of areas where they’ve failed. But if they have not failed worse than in treating seniors, people with developmental disabilities and children at risk…. I don’t know how we can get worse. I do not know how you can get worse.

This government is saying that this vainglorious attempt to try and improve their image…. In fact, the reality facing people in our communities is worse now than it has been in years.

I cannot believe that we’re talking about increased asset limits. Yes, sure. That’s fine. But talk about the people who are on disability getting something like — what is it? — $531 a month in support. Talk about reality for a minute. What is the reality of people with disabilities in this province? What’s the reality for parents of children with developmental disabilities in this province?

We’ve seen evidence of that. We’ve seen suicide. We’ve seen absolute despair from parents who are caring for their children with developmental disabilities. This government has the nerve to say let’s continue to promote independence?

[1120]

Let’s try to get some serious action on the efforts to support these people instead of just making words up and reading scripts written by people who aren’t really understanding of the situation facing people. It just troubles me greatly that the government can put forward a motion like this. I have a lot of respect for the member for Boundary-Similkameen. She means well. But this is an effort here to cloud over the reality facing families in this province, families that are vulnerable.

We don’t have to go very far back to look at the failures to promote independence for children who are living in government care. What is promoting independence? Shoving them in a hotel room? Are they serious? They’re talking about supporting independence. The most obvious thing that this government has failed at is supporting families and people in vulnerable situations.

People are living in poverty. We’ve never seen poverty like we do now. How many food banks do we have? How many people are going to the food banks? Is that promoting families living independently? I cannot understand how this…. A parent and a child on disability. The support a parent with a disability gets if they have one child is $672 a month. That is not promoting independence.

I’m shocked that they’re actually putting this forward as something that they’re good at, because they’ve failed utterly — completely and miserably. The impact has been severe. It has been acute. It has been consistent. It has been hurtful to families in this province. Their programs for families who are vulnerable, for children in care, for seniors, have been abysmal. And the fact that they come and stand here and pretend that it’s anything otherwise, I find problematic, to say the least.

D. Barnett: On behalf of the constituents of Cariboo-Chilcotin, I am pleased to stand and add my voice in support of this motion. Our government understands how challenging it is for low-income families who are struggling to get by. We know that the best social assistance program is a good-paying job that provides people with dignity, respect and opportunity. We believe that people who can work want to be self-sufficient, support their families and contribute to their communities.

Our comprehensive social safety net is in place to provide temporary support to help people find meaningful work. It is also meant to help people who need longer-term support. That is why we have the single-parent employment initiative in which we are investing $24.5 million over five years to help single parents get the training and support they need to move off income assistance and find a good job. The most effective way for parents to provide for their children is through a good job that provides a steady income.

But we understand that there are some parents who face greater challenges and need extra support in building the lives they want for themselves and their children. That is why our government is making a major investment in 16,000 single parents on income and disability assistance. That will provide significant supports to help them transition into the workplace.
[ Page 10149 ]

Through the program, which launched on September 1, eligible single parents can access approved training programs that last up to 12 months for in-demand jobs or paid work experience placements, and they will be able to stay on income assistance while they train for their new job. Government will also cover their child care costs during their training and for up to a year once they start working. Benefits include up to 12 months of funded training for in-demand jobs or a paid work experience placement; transit costs to and from school; child care costs during their training or work placement and in the first year of employment; and health supplement coverage for a full year after they leave income assistance for employment. Single parents will also be able to remain on income assistance if they attend a training program.

Increased earnings exemptions, to $400 a month. The single-parent employment initiative is complemented by a number of other government supports for families on income assistance that will make the transition to employment easier. These include an increase to the earnings exemption for families with children from $200 to $400 a month and from $300 to $500 a month for families that have a child with a disability.

[1125]

We will continue to make changes that are sustainable, recognize individual needs and help build and maintain a strong economy as the foundation of a far-reaching social safety net.

B.C. is also home to some of the most comprehensive supports for low-income people and their families in Canada. These supports include subsidized housing. We have invested $4 billion since 2001 to provide affordable housing for low-income individuals, seniors and families in communities throughout the province.

MSP subsidies. Nearly one million British Columbians receive Medical Services Plan subsidies, including more than 800,000 residents who pay no MSP premiums at all. Child care subsidies, to help low-income families afford child care, are helping more than 21,000 children each month. Free dental and optical care for children, and more.

Our tax system also provides support for people raising children. In addition to income assistance, a single parent has access to almost $5,500 per year in benefits that are provided through the income tax system. A single parent with one child under six could receive up to $7,323 per year in combined provincial and federal benefits, and a couple with two children under six can receive up to $13,677 a year. By providing a full range of supports and removing barriers to employment, we are giving single parents the opportunity to take advantage of our growing economy and create a secure tomorrow for themselves and their children.

S. Chandra Herbert: Well, the only way I can interpret this motion — a motion which calls for standing up for the most vulnerable so that can they live “a life of independence” — put forward by the B.C. Liberals is that this is a cry for help from their back bench. This is a group of people who are saying: “Our government is not acting, is not caring, is not looking out for the vulnerable. So this must be some way that we can try and get attention.”

Either that, or it’s a defence mechanism, as their constituents tell them that there are too many folks living in poverty, too many children stuck in a life of poverty and vulnerability, too many people who are homeless: “Why won’t you act?” This way, they can clip what they said in the Legislature, send it back and say: “Look, we’re doing all we can.”

Well, I had hoped that in this debate we would hear more from the government side about how we need to do more, how we need real action today, how having the worst child poverty rate in Canada for ten years in a row isn’t good enough, isn’t something they should applaud, isn’t something to be patted on the back for.

It’s a government that’s been in power for 14 years, with ten of them, at least, having the worst child poverty rate in Canada. You’d think that they would be a little humble. You’d think that they would say: “Yeah. Jeez, you’re right. We’ve got to do better.” But no, that’s not what we’re hearing today. When families face some of the highest debt levels in all of Canada, when people’s wages are stagnated, yet government user fees, hydro fees, etc., go up and up and people are falling farther and farther behind, this government claims that that’s a victory.

Indeed, I heard the Housing Minister the other day say that they had the best housing strategy in North America. Well, if we’re going to stand up for the most vulnerable, we’ve got to acknowledge that the housing strategy of this government is an absolute failure. We’ve seen continued homelessness, continued hikes in homelessness. We’ve seen people not being able to afford housing. We’ve seen many in my community living one paycheque away from homelessness because rents are too high.

No, in order to address a problem, you can’t applaud yourself, pat yourself on the back and say: “We’re standing up for the most vulnerable so they can be independent. Just those people that tell us that that’s absolutely not true, we’ll ignore.” You can’t delete the poverty that exists in this province. You can’t delete the social problems that this government has created. No, you have to admit that they are there so we can address them.

The other challenge that you’ve got to acknowledge is that not everybody has a fair shot, that not everybody has an equal opportunity to succeed. It would be great, in this House, to see government members acknowledge that some people start at first base, that some people start an inch away from home plate and that other people aren’t even being able to get on the field. They don’t have equipment. They don’t have training. They’re just struggling to try and get enough to eat.
[ Page 10150 ]

But no, this is a government that seems to think that by being born on third base and getting a free walk home, you’re a winner. For everybody else: “Well, you just didn’t work hard enough.” Well, that’s not how it works. Hard work, but also support for those most vulnerable, is required. That’s why this motion speaking about “targeted supports” also excites me.

[1130]

This government could make targeted supports for students facing incredible rates of homophobia, violence, racism and other forms of discrimination in their schools. They could stand up and say: “No. We’re going to call for explicit protections for students facing that kind of violence.” But they don’t.

This is a government that could follow along with Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island, Northwest Territories and, soon, the federal government and explicitly make targeted action to protect transgender British Columbians, who face incredible rates of violence and discrimination. Put that into our human rights code, as we have legislation that’s waiting and that could be called for this House to enact. But again, this government won’t act for transgender people — unlike the vast majority of Canadians.

Targeted violence and targeted discrimination require targeted responses. We know that. Targeted responses to poverty — again, a poverty reduction plan that looks at the rates and other strategies, a housing plan that actually acknowledges that not everybody is born with a million bucks…. Those would be starts.

We could acknowledge that there’s a problem here. We could have speakers say that and go through the specific ways that we could address that in our communities. Instead, what we have is a government saying, “Look how great we’re doing,” while too many people struggle in poverty. “Look at all these people that don’t have to pay taxes,” they’ll say, “because their incomes are too low.”

Well, that’s not a success. That’s a failure. These people don’t have an income, and they can’t afford food. Seeing food bank lineups stretch further and further and further is not a victory. That’s a failure. Yet that’s what we’re seeing with this government.

I remember sitting and talking to the Premier when she was a radio host. At one time, she claimed that food banks shouldn’t exist. They were a band-aid solution that we should try to get rid of because everybody would have enough food. I liked that Premier then, in those days. But these days it’s a Premier that doesn’t acknowledge that there’s a problem at all. That has to change.

D. Plecas: Since we balanced the budget three years ago, one of the hallmarks of this government is to deliver relief to the people who are most in need in this province. Low-income British Columbians, people with permanent disabilities and those receiving income assistance are the very first beneficiaries of a balanced budget.

Because we are no longer borrowing to fund day-to-day operations of government, we can now afford to expand our social support network and make sure that people who need help are receiving it. I campaigned on this promise in the last election. Thanks largely to the efforts of our Finance Minister — his hard work and diligence — the member for Abbotsford West, we are delivering on that promise.

My colleagues have described how the groundbreaking single-parent initiative, worth some $25 million over five years, will help single parents get the training and support they need to move off income assistance and find a good job. The single-parent initiative will benefit 16,000 families across British Columbia and will continue to provide social supports until they transition comfortably into that good job.

My colleagues have also described how we are increasing benefits for those with permanent disabilities. British Columbia is the first jurisdiction in Canada to introduce annualized earning exemptions. Instead of calculating the amount of money a disabled person can earn without affecting benefits on a monthly basis, the rules have now changed so that people can keep all of their money, up to $9,600 per year, before it affects their disability assistance. For a couple with one partner being disabled, that amount increases to $12,000. If both adults are disabled, that amount increases to $19,200 annually.

It is all about removing barriers to employment so that people who want to earn money will be able to do so. As my colleague from Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows explained earlier, we are also taking an enormous step forward for disabled British Columbians by allowing them to hold significantly more assets, with no impact on their monthly assistance.

[1135]

Because of this government, a person receiving disability assistance will soon be able to hold $100,000 in assets without losing their eligibility. For disabled couples, this limit increases to $200,000. Currently, those asset limits are $5,000 and $10,000, respectively. This is a significant increase.

For my part, I want to highlight the fact that the government has doubled the amount families receiving income assistance can earn, from $200 to $400 per month. That means somebody receiving income assistance can earn up to $400 a month before their income assistance is affected. We are essentially removing another barrier to work, or a disincentive to work, by allowing people to earn money while collecting income assistance.

For families with a child who have a disability, their earning exemptions are now being increased from $300 to $500 a month. We expect this to benefit over 10,000 families across British Columbia.

I want to conclude by saying that this government will continue to balance its budget. The more we can keep our
[ Page 10151 ]
finances on an even keel, the more we can afford to help people most in need and remove barriers to obtaining rewarding employment.

M. Karagianis: I’m happy to take my place here in this debate this morning.

I think it’s interesting, when you listen to the members on the other side of the House. They are painting such a rosy picture of what’s happening in British Columbia. They list off all of these vast numbers of services that are being put in place for the most vulnerable in this province. Yet this is a government that’s been in power for 14 years. What they are effectively doing now is they are making up for 14 years of very bad public policy.

Now we see them begin, one tiny step at a time — dragged, pushing and screaming and kicking, by advocacy groups around this province — to restore some of the very services that they cut at the very beginning of their term in office. It’s just fascinating to me that the government…. Somehow they act as if they just arrived today and are now doling out largesse everywhere, and that is not true.

If it were true that there was such an abundance of services here, we would not have seen a rash of suicides coming out of the Children and Families ministry because children have not had adequate supports there. We have seen an unprecedented number of suicides there. That speaks more clearly to what’s happening with front-line services than anything this government is currently touting this morning.

Trying to take a more logical and humane approach to those living on government assistance would be step 1, I would think, for the government. Yet there are examples that walk into my office every single day where the government has taken the very opposite stance.

I’ve got a senior right now who has been forced to go to CPP disability in order to survive. What does the government do? Well, they cut him off from receiving a bus pass, right? A simple thing. A senior living on a PWD income that’s very meagre, and the government won’t give him a bus pass.

We fought in this House, day after day after day, for one of my constituents who was living with cancer — contracted breast cancer and needed to have a double mastectomy. Her doctor said that she needed to go on health supplements in order to get healthy enough to go through this surgery. Because she could not work, she’d had to go on income assistance.

Would this government give her those supplements? Absolutely not. When someone in the community, the Esquimalt Legion, stepped forward to give those supplements to her, the government said: “We’ll claw back, penny for penny, everything that would be given to this woman.” That is an inhumane way to treat individuals.

Eventually, the government did back down but not until they had fought publicly day after day after day. Now we see that they’re coming forward with a policy to be more gentle and accepting around gifts. If they’d been that way, then my constituent wouldn’t have had to fight so hard to keep her life and to get the surgery she needed.

Honestly, it would be remiss of me, in this conversation about service provision and the most vulnerable in this province, not to mention the desperately needed transportation option for the Highway of Tears. Here is a community that is very vulnerable — people living in remote areas along the Highway of Tears, women and children who are forced to hitchhike every single day to get a loaf of bread and a quart of milk, to go to the doctor and to go to work.

Why? Because the government refuses to put in a public transportation system, accessible and affordable, along the Highway of Tears and in communities along that route.

The interesting part of all of this is that this government also has chosen, at the same time…. While they talk about this little scattering of increased services that they’ve finally been forced into putting back into the system, this is a government who chose to give a huge tax break to the most wealthy in this province.

[1140]

While they want to talk about doling back small amounts of money, little ways for people to stay at the poverty line…. There’s no poverty reduction plan, and they’re happy to brag about how they’re going to keep people at the poverty line by giving them back nickels and dimes. They were happy to give hundreds of millions of dollars of tax breaks to the most wealthy instead of reinvesting in making sure that every British Columbian who was vulnerable can live a dignified and humane life. A bus along the Highway of Tears could save lives tomorrow. It’s not a big-ticket item. The government refuses to do it.

This bragging this morning about how they are now suddenly returning all kinds of largesse to a province after years and years of cuts to services in communities that have hurt families, that have hurt young people, I find appalling. The rosy world that they have painted here this morning — if it only existed in British Columbia, then there would be no ills in the world at all.

D. McRae: I’m speaking to the motion: “Be it resolved that this House continues to encourage government to provide targeted supports and services to British Columbians in need, helping them secure a life of independence.”

The member opposite just rose and spoke. I don’t think it is about bragging whatsoever. I think it’s about making awareness. As I go through this speech, you’ll understand where I think that awareness needs to be highlighted in our province.

First of all, let me compliment the Minister of Social Development and the staff, the 2,400 staff of that Ministry,
[ Page 10152 ]
of SDSI, who work incredibly hard serving persons who are vulnerable in this province.

Now, in 2013, one of the things we campaigned upon in this party was making us one of the most progressive jurisdictions in the world, most progressive in Canada. Accessibility 2024 is a document that was produced after wide-ranging consultation around the province from stakeholders, from individuals, from people who have an interest in this area, to make sure we’re doing the right thing. It provided us with a road map. I’m proud to say that that document is not just a static document. It’s a living document, one that continues to grow.

Let’s just look at this year alone. For example, what has happened this year alone to help individuals? Well, the single-parent initiative that was brought in started in September. I will argue it was, perhaps, the single-most impactful social program change I have seen in my time in government. Why do people need to know about it? Because they’re still unaware.

Just last Wednesday, I was in my office, and a lady was outside the window, looking at the poster on the window, writing things down. So I went out and said: “Excuse me, can I help you?” She goes: “I want to find out more information about this program.” I said: “Really? Well, come into the office.” What did we do? We printed off information on the single-parent initiative. We explained to her where the Work B.C. office was. We explained where her daughter needed to go. She wasn’t looking for herself. She didn’t know, and her daughter didn’t know, that the single-parent initiative was out there. We want to make sure we continue to connect those individuals.

What else have we done this year? Well, we’ve also increased earning exemptions. So individuals and persons with disability, before, could make $500 a month. This year we’ve increased it to $800 a month. But we didn’t stop there, because sometimes individuals with disabilities can’t work 12 months a year. Perhaps a job is not there. Perhaps their disability prevents them from working 12 months in a year. So sometimes they have an opportunity to work for a short period of time.

Well, by annualizing the earning exemption, we allow them to perhaps put more dollars in their pocket. Individuals are able now to earn up to $9,600 a year. If they’re married, with a spouse, they can earn up to $12,000 a year. Why? It’s the right thing to do. We heard it from British Columbians, and we acted.

But we didn’t stop there. Members opposite may remember Budget 2015. There, the Finance Minister talked about the family maintenance exemption program, a program that we heard loud and clear from British Columbians needed reform. So what did we do? Well, we got rid of it. Why? Because we listened to British Columbians. We wanted to make sure more money is put in the pockets of families and parents to make sure their children have a better life.

Just last week, the Minister of Social Development and Social Innovation gathered with stakeholders. Who were those stakeholders, Mr. Speaker? Well, there were some people you might recognize. Al Etmanski. Why would you recognize him? Well, he’s a leader in British Columbia. Not only does he have the Order of British Columbia; he has the Order of Canada. Joined by Jane Dyson. Who is she? Well, she also has the Order of British Columbia. Why? Those are two individuals who stood with government and recognized that this province is doing good work and encourage us to do so. They’re also joined by members of the Minster’s Council on Employment and Accessibility.

Who is not there? Well, the former chair of that accessibility council. Why? Because she is actually in Ottawa right now. You might remember her name, Mr. Speaker. Her name is Carla Qualtrough. She is now the Minister of Sport and Persons with Disabilities in the federal government. Why? Because she has taken her leadership role, which she shared with the province, to Ottawa. We continue to do those supports.

If I may, we just finished October. October was RDSP Awareness Month. British Columbians have taken up RDSP more than any other jurisdiction in the country. Why? Because it’s a great opportunity. The federal government will match $3 to $1 for input by individuals going there.

[1145]

The members opposite might say: “What happens if people don’t have any money to put into their RDSP?” Well, in that case, just so people are aware, for RDSPs, if you have no money to put in, over a 20-year period, you can actually get $20,000. When can you start contributing? From the day you get your social insurance number.

In theory, a child…. My daughter got her social insurance number before she was one year old. Now, hopefully and thankfully, she won’t have to use an RDSP, but that’s an opportunity to put those moneys to work really early in a person’s life. And they can stay in that eligibility until they’re 60 years old. Who else is eligible? Make sure, for the RDSP….

We want to make sure people know about these things, which is why we stand in this chamber and talk about the good work that is being done not just by this government but by the federal government. We want to make sure that they know that to be RDSP-eligible, you have to have a social insurance number, you’re under 60, and you’re eligible for the federal disability tax credit.

If people in your community don’t know about it, as MLAs, we need to make sure they do. Part of that is standing up in this chamber to make sure that awareness is there — not on just this side of the House, but the opposition also needs to rise up and make sure that they’re talking about it.

A lot of work has been done since Election 2013. More work needs to be done, but I’m proud of the efforts of this government, and it continues to go forward.
[ Page 10153 ]

D. Donaldson: I rise today to speak to the private member’s motion from the B.C. Liberal member for Boundary-Similkameen, who moves: “Be it resolved that this House continues to encourage government to provide targeted supports and services to British Columbians in need, helping them secure a life of independence.”

I’m in support of the intention of this motion, although words “continue” and “encourage” are misleading in the first instance and weak in the latter instance.

When a young First Nations girl like Paige needs targeted services and supports, we should be there to assist her, to help her achieve a life of independence. Instead, the full services and supports that were available to her as a foster child were suddenly removed overnight when she turned 19, as are this government’s rules.

The foster parents were told to pack up her belongings and deliver them to her last known school in a garbage bag. Less than a year later, Paige was dead from a drug overdose in a public washroom near Oppenheimer Park in Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside. This is a vulnerable girl that was left, as a teenager, to live alone in the Downtown Eastside while in the care of the government.

The details are sobering. She moved 50 times in a two-year span before she aged out. Before turning 19, Paige had three terminated pregnancies, was in need of mental health treatment, was addicted to drugs and likely involved in the sex trade. She was labelled as service-resistant. It didn’t have to end up the way it did. The targeted supports and services for Paige weren’t there, especially after she turned 19 and was cut loose due to this government’s rules.

Paige is only one of the many cases that have recently come to light. There is Carly Fraser who died just over 20 hours after turning 19, jumping off the Lions Gate Bridge less than a year ago. She needed mental health and addiction services, but her mother’s repeated pleas to this government to intervene over the last few years of her young life fell on deaf ears. The mother still can’t get answers from the ministry as to why her daughter didn’t get the help she needed. Where were the necessary supports and services?

Alex Gervais was an 18-year-old who fell to his death from the fourth-floor hotel window after his group home was closed, a hotel where he stayed for months, against ministry policy, because of a lack of foster care spaces or residential care options. Where were the necessary supports and services?

Alex Malamalatabua, 17, was found dead after leaving B.C. Children’s Hospital’s adolescent psychiatric unit on a day pass following a five-month stay because no appropriate residential care facilities were available — five months in a psych unit when stays are only supposed to be one month. Where were the necessary supports and services?

Nick Lang killed himself at 15 while attending an addictions treatment program. The ministry’s own investigation found the level of service Nick received from the ministry before he entered the treatment program did not meet his needs or policy requirements. Again, where were the necessary supports and services?

Although the motion says we should encourage the government to act, that seems pretty weak in light of the circumstances I’ve described. No, “encourage” isn’t strong enough. It’s a moral obligation to act. We have not seen a government that has focused on providing supports and services to kids and youth in care. We’ve not seen the leadership necessary to address all the underlying issues.

Not surprisingly, we have not seen the financial commitment to do what this motion is proposing. Enough of encouraging this government to have the backbone to stand up for kids and families in this province, because the track record just isn’t there.

[1150]

I say they must provide the supports and service so the most vulnerable children in this province — like Paige, like Alex Gervais, like Alex Malamalatabua, like Nick Lang — have a chance at the life of independence. It must happen, or this government will be judged by a legacy of wasted human lives, when they had the chance to make the outcomes so much different but decided not to act.

J. Martin: This has been very informative, hearing my colleagues discuss the many, many initiatives that are available to help British Columbians secure a life of independence. The one thing that has struck me is the stark difference between the government and the opposition: that we understand full well that the best social assistance program — and I know the opposition isn’t going to like this — is a good-paying job that provides people with dignity, respect and opportunity.

The government believes that people who can work, want to work. They want to be self-sufficient, support their families and contribute to their neighbourhoods and communities. That’s why the government is focused on creating jobs and building a stronger economy, so we can secure a brighter future for B.C. families.

Under the B.C. jobs plan, we are making significant investments in skills training to ensure that British Columbians are always going to be first in line for good jobs created right here at home, good jobs created by projects that we support and the opposition doesn’t, such as Site C, the northwest transmission line, Pacific Northwest LNG, and on and on it goes.

Since the B.C. jobs plan launch, we have added almost 70,000 jobs and are third in the country for jobs gains. There are also all the jobs that will be created with future infrastructure projects and investment in B.C.

Government provides a wide range of services and supports to people with disabilities, helping them find work through employment program of B.C. and Work B.C. Nearly 17,000 people with disabilities have successfully reached their employment goals using these services. Through programs such as technology at work, we can
[ Page 10154 ]
provide assistive technology to help people with disabilities find employment. We’re providing $3 million a year for assistive technologies to assist those people.

In B.C., we have 84 Work B.C. employment services centres all around the province, providing a full array of employment services. Since launching these centres in April of 2012, almost 200,000 people have received support and services. The employment program of B.C. serves all unemployed British Columbians looking for work and who are eligible to work in this country. People on income assistance and employment insurance are encouraged to start at the Work B.C. employment service centres so they can get back into the workforce a.s.a.p.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

In 2014-15, more than 10,000 apprentices received apprentice financial living supports. Hon. Speaker, 87 percent of people receiving services from the employment program of B.C. have accessed training aligned with specific jobs that people are looking for.

Of course, we know we can always do more when the financial situation allows, but any changes we make will always be designed to give people a helping hand, to get them back on their feet and break the cycle of income assistance dependency. We don’t want to go back to the situation in the ’90s, when one in ten British Columbians was on social assistance.

We’re able to help British Columbians because we say yes to jobs, and we say yes to investment in this province, such as the Coquihalla Highway and the 10,000 jobs that the NDP was against; such as the Alex Fraser Bridge and the 1,800 direct jobs and 2,700 spinoff jobs that they were against; such as the Canada Line and the 7,000 construction jobs they’re against; such as the Sea to Sky Highway improvement project and the 3,000 direct jobs they were against; or the new Port Mann Bridge that I drove under yesterday, which created 8,000 jobs.

I drove under it because I was on the South Fraser Perimeter Road — 4,000 construction jobs, leading to 7,000 long-term jobs in Delta and Surrey, which they were also against. Site C — 10,000 jobs they’re also against. I just heard word of a $1.5 billion investment coming to the Hemlock Resort — many, many construction jobs, primarily for First Nations. Still waiting to see if the NDP is going to be against those jobs too.

Interjection.

J. Martin: Here we go.

All British Columbians are better off because this government says yes to development and yes to projects and yes to jobs. What a tragedy that the NDP will not join us.

Madame Speaker: Hon. Member for Chilliwack, if you’d be so kind as to note the hour and adjourn the debate.

J. Martin: Absolutely. I got a little carried away there. My apologies.

Noting the hour, hon. Speaker and colleagues, I move adjournment.

J. Martin 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