2016 Legislative Session: Fifth Session, 40th Parliament
HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Thursday, February 18, 2016

Morning Sitting

Volume 32, Number 10

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

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 18, 2016

The House met at 10:04 a.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

Hon. T. Lake: Only 44 percent of British Columbians can name two signs of a stroke. That alarming fact was shared with many of us by our guests visiting us today from the B.C. and Yukon Heart and Stroke Foundation.

[1005]

What does one have to do to recognize the signs of a stroke? All we need to remember is FAST — F-A-S-T. F for face: is it drooping? A for arms: can you raise both? Speech: is it slurred or jumbled? Time to call 911 right away. Act fast, because the quicker you act, the more of the person that you’re going to save.

Today in the gallery and meeting with members today, we have members of the Heart and Stroke Foundation of the B.C. and Yukon. We have Adrienne Bakker, the CEO; Mark Collison, the director of government relations; Alice Miro, the manager of the Heart and Stroke Foundation; Dr. Douglas Clement, who is a volunteer and a former Olympian and a Heart and Stroke Foundation volunteer; Dr. Allan Holmes from Iridia Medical; and Canada’s first chief medical health officer, Dr. David Jones, who is also a board member for the Heart and Stroke Foundation.

They’re hosting a complementary risk factors clinic today in the Hemlock Room. I encourage all members to stop by between ten and four to get checked out, make sure that they don’t have any risk factors for heart disease or stroke, and ask all members of the Legislature to welcome our guests here today.

J. Darcy: I’d like to join with the minister in welcoming the exceptional leaders from the Heart and Stroke Foundation who are here with us today. They concluded their presentation this morning with a slide that said it’s “10 percent inspiration, 90 percent perspiration.” Certainly, indeed, they inspired us this morning to work even harder on issues like the AED devices, the automatic external defibrillators, to make sure that every British Columbian and every public place has access to them and also, very importantly, issues like marketing of food to children in order to decrease the risk factors and very much as a preventive matter.

I certainly look forward to meeting with them in the near future as well, and I thank them for the work they do every day to improve the health of British Columbians.

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: I’m very pleased to have Qualicum First Nation Chief Michael Recalma, who graciously appears as Santa Claus at my yearly Christmas function at my constituency open house. I’m happy to see him today — not in his Santa outfit; as well as Councillors Arnold Recalma and Sara Swanson; and consultant Cindy Stern, the adviser to chief in council. They will all be meeting with myself and the Ministry of Transportation today. Would the House please make them feel welcome.

J. Rice: Today I’d like to welcome to the House Lisa Purves from Victoria, along with her two friends — Janet Northcott, from Kamloops, who was once a resident of Prince Rupert, and Lois Elliot, from Prince Rupert as well. Many might know Lois as the partner of the former MLA for North Coast, Gary Coons. Please, would you make these people feel welcome.

Hon. J. Rustad: In the precinct today are the sister, niece and two grandnieces of the president of the Métis Nation of B.C., Bruce Dumont. Visiting us today is Doreen Bergum, the respected appointed elder from Métis Nation of Alberta. Also, joining Doreen are her daughter Karla and two grandchildren, Faith and Keagan. I would ask the House to please make them welcome.

Hon. M. Morris: I’ve got a couple of different announcements here to make this morning. First off, my beautiful wife, Chris, is accompanied by my sister-in-law, Sheryl, and my brother, Chuck Morris — emphasis on the “m,” not the “n.” They’re here today. Would the House please make them welcome.

On another note, I’m proud to also introduce Mr. Graeme Roberts, the chair of the Vehicle Sales Authority board of directors; Ian Christman, the registrar of motor vehicles for the Vehicle Sales Authority; Doug Longhurst, director of learning and communications; Blair Qualey, the CEO of the New Dealers Association of B.C.; Michael Stevulak, the board chair of the VSA; and Ken McCormack, the CEO of the Automotive Retailers Association. Would the House please make these gentlemen welcome.

[1010]

L. Krog: I mean no criticism of the minister’s introduction, but Graeme Roberts deserves a much more fulsome welcome to this chamber. I want to remind everyone here that he was the former mayor of Nanaimo, notwithstanding the fact he’s now cocooning with his fellow conservatives in Brentwood Bay. I always introduce him to my close friends as my favourite old Socred. Would the House please make him welcome.

Hon. B. Bennett: Actually, in the same vein, there’s another gentleman that was introduced by the Minister of Public Safety, Blair Qualey, who heads up the New Car Dealers in the province. That also deserves a bit more
[ Page 10482 ]
context. The New Car Dealers have been helping government deliver the electric car program, or the clean energy vehicle program is what it’s known as.

Hon. Speaker, $30 million has gone into incentives to get more electric cars on the road. We have the most charging infrastructure of any province in the country. We’re really proud of this program. In the balanced budget that was just announced, there’s yet more money for incentives for electric cars. I’m sure that all of us think that that’s a great idea and that everyone will vote for that component of the budget.

Statements

MICHELLE WOLFE AND
SNOWMOBILING TOURISM AWARD

G. Kyllo: My hometown of Sicamous is best known as a summer destination and the “Houseboat capital of Canada.” But it may come as a surprise to many of you that Sicamous is also one of the top snowmobiling destinations in B.C.

The Canadian Council of Snowmobile Organizations recently bestowed an award for outstanding tourism promotion and development of snowmobiling to Michelle Wolfe of the Sicamous Chamber of Commerce. The council writes that Sicamous has been an emerging market in B.C. “due largely to the efforts and support of Michelle and the chamber of commerce for the local snowmobile club.”

I, too, would like to recognize Michelle Wolfe’s efforts for tourism and recreation in the Shuswap. I encourage the House to join me in thanking Michelle for a job well done.

Introductions by Members

J. Horgan: Two years ago I made an introduction. It was the first day of early morning question period, and it happened to coincide with the anniversary of my marriage to the sainted Ellie. And today — imagine that; two years later — I don’t believe I can match that introduction because it was epic. But today I would like to ask all members of the Legislature to join me in thanking Ellie for putting up with me for now 32 years. Thank you very much.

D. Ashton: I would like to welcome Megan Parisotto and Jamie Cook, two government caucus interns, very hard-working individuals and very knowledgable individuals, that are with us today in the gallery.

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

BILL 9 — MOTOR DEALER
AMENDMENT ACT, 2016

Hon. M. Morris presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Motor Dealer Amendment Act, 2016.

Hon. M. Morris: I move that the bill be introduced and read for the first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. Morris: I’m pleased to introduce the Motor Dealer Amendment Act. These amendments will modernize the act and enhance consumer protection by providing new tools to the regulator, the Vehicle Sales Authority, to address non-compliance.

These new tools include the introduction of administrative enforcement options into the act, similar to other consumer protection legislation in B.C. The amendments will also support the professionalism of the motor vehicle sales industry by adding additional regulation-making authority to develop a professional code of conduct for licensees under the act and license new and growing segments of the industry, such as vehicle wholesalers and brokers.

A new consumer advancement fund is proposed to promote education and awareness amongst consumers. The amendment will additionally allow for the transfer of trusteeship of this new fund and the existing customer compensation fund to the Vehicle Sales Authority in order to reduce administrative costs and cut unnecessary red tape.

Finally, this bill is proposed to enhance administrative fairness and transparency by allowing for reconsiderations of licencing and enforcement decisions, as well as decisions in respect of consumer applications for compensation from motor dealers.

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

Bill 9, Motor Dealer Amendment Act, 2016, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

[1015]

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

SAINT ELIZABETH HEALTH CARE
AND ROLE OF HOME CARE

G. Heyman: Since 1908, Saint Elizabeth Health Care has been an active participant in developing and promoting community-based health services.

They were among the first health organizations to provide palliative care to AIDS patients in the late 1980s and the first to provide a home chemotherapy program. Saint Elizabeth’s has a strong presence through its Vancouver-Fairview office.
[ Page 10483 ]

The service I hear the most about in my community is home care and support. These services allow seniors and people living with disabilities the opportunity to live comfortably in their own home, maintaining independence and a far higher quality of life. The hard work, care and compassion of home care workers are important to, and valued by, the many constituents who could not live independently without them.

In addition to assistance with necessary personal care and hygiene, daily living activities, medication reminders and exercise, community health and personal support workers are often the first to spot deteriorating health and cognitive conditions or emergency situations.

Trained home care workers have often been the first to notice the signs of a stroke or a heart attack. Their knowledge, training and experience are irreplaceable, have saved many lives and extend far beyond what volunteers are trained to do.

Home care services like those offered by Saint Elizabeth and other agencies throughout B.C. should be celebrated and expanded. They improve life for the many who need assistance, social contact and knowledgeable monitoring but can receive it comfortably in their own home and community rather than in a facility.

Tonight at the Blusson Centre in Vancouver-Fairview, I’ll be joined in a community forum by the seniors advocate, Isobel Mackenzie, and Maria Bonatino of Saint Elizabeth. I look forward to a well-attended, lively discussion on the importance of home care and the impact that reduced levels of support are having on those who need a little help to remain connected to their community.

WHISTLER SPORT LEGACIES

J. Sturdy: The legacy of the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games lives on in British Columbia through the Whistler Sport Legacies. This non-profit organization is responsible for operating the Whistler Olympic Park, the Whistler Sliding Centre and the Whistler Athletes Centre, facilities that contribute to the vision of being a centre for sport excellence.

These Canadian national assets contribute to developing young athletes of the future. Athletes from all across Canada come to Whistler to train in cross-country skiing, biathlon, bobsleigh, luge and skeleton. In fact, 16 of the 54 athletes participating in the Youth Olympic Games in Norway this week call Whistler their home or their training base. Whistler Sport Legacies inspires more than just those pursuing Olympic and Paralympic dreams.

Through public sport experience programs offered at each of the facilities, anyone can participate. You, too, can experience an adrenalin-fueled ride down the world’s fastest bobsleigh track — fortunately, with the guidance of a trained pilot.

You and your Thunder on Ice team fly through the turns at speeds over 125 kilometres an hour and accelerations of up to 4G. There are discover and experience programs for biathlon, luge, skeleton — head-first down the track, I remind you — and, most astounding to me, ski jumping.

A quote from the brochure says: “After a brief instructional session with a top-notch coach, jumpers can head up to the top of the in-run for their first flights off the 20-metre hill.”

Whether you’re a participant or a spectator, Whistler Sport Legacies is certainly delivering on their mandate to grow sport for everyone.

B.C. INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

K. Corrigan: A recent visit to the B.C. Institute of Technology with the Leader of the Official Opposition and colleagues provided a reminder of what a critical engine of innovation and creativity the institution is for our province.

Thanks to BCIT Faculty and Staff Association president Teresa Place, executive director Paul Reniers and other faculty for hosting our tour, and BCIT president Kathy Kinloch for joining and welcoming us.

BCIT is one of British Columbia’s largest post-secondary institutions, with more than 48,000 students at five campuses, including the main campus in Burnaby that we visited.

[1020]

It offers practical career credentials designed for the workplace in applied and natural sciences, business and media, computing and information technology, engineering, health sciences and trades.

Our tour included two great examples of innovation and creativity. Faculty members Joey Dabell and Joe Newton showed us the solar canopy demonstration project, which provides solar-powered lighting for the school’s parking lots.

Electrical and computer engineering instructor Craig Hennessey provided a fascinating demonstration of the far-reaching implications of gaze-tracking technology, which actually computer-tracks your eyes and can be used in everything from interactive gaming to advertising research and security systems. It has great potential as a tool for those with limited mobility, because it is possible to actually browse the web or type using only the gaze of your eyes.

These were two examples of the great breadth of practical innovation by faculty members. BCIT has been and continues to be essential to the educational and economic future of British Columbia. Thanks so much to the BCIT faculty association for a great day.

ACTIVE SENIORS IN RICHMOND

J. Yap: We all have heard how our population is aging and the demands this can put on our health care sys-
[ Page 10484 ]
tem. Richmond is particularly fortunate, as our seniors are some of the healthiest in Canada, and many are proactive in staying fit.

The YMCA is helping seniors, creating its active seniors program, following a two-year UBC research project. This program is unique, as it is specifically designed for those folks over the age of 55.

Richmond resident Nina Graham, an unstoppable senior in her mid-80s, participated in this study just to see how she compared with her contemporaries. Not only did she participate in the study, but afterwards she enrolled in a further course, attended classes, studied hard, passed the tests and became a volunteer fitness instructor for this physical activity and wellness program. I told you she was unstoppable.

The active seniors program, along with Nina, is changing lives. Although physical activity is important in aging well, so is socializing, and this program provides both.

Another physically active Richmond senior, also in his 80s, is George Ng. You may see him walking throughout Steveston or riding his bicycle several times a week, rain or shine, north on Railway, headed to the oval for a workout. George has been active throughout his life and doesn’t let chronological age slow him down.

Everyone’s personal health situation is unique. However, let us applaud seniors like Nina and George, who are examples to all of us interested in wellness, physical activity and good health.

COW BAY MARINA AT PRINCE RUPERT

J. Rice: Many members in this House will remember that last year, when it came to my fishing endeavours, I was essentially skunked. But this year, this session, I have some good news. It took four years of planning to become a reality, and we have the city of Prince Rupert, the Port of Prince Rupert for the waterfront lease and the leadership of Community Futures of the Pacific Northwest, managed by John Farrell in Prince Rupert, to thank for making a dream come into reality. The new Cow Bay Marina is open for business.

In March of last year, construction of the 51-berth marina began. The new marina will offer slips up to 70 feet in length, with overflow moorage for larger yachts. Docks will offer 50-amp power and fresh water to travelling boaters.

Prince Rupert has long been needing this service to provide boats travelling to Alaska, to Haida Gwaii, to the Khutzeymateen and to explore the Great Bear Rainforest. Surveys of passing yachts showed we were losing berthing of about 1,200 yachts a year, and we were only able to offer moorage for ten boats. Yachts make a significant contribution to our economy in Prince Rupert.

The challenging work of the pile driving was done by a local business, Broadwater Industries. Furthermore, the marina will be protected by a 183-foot floating breakwater, which will be accessible to the general public. The goal is to install washrooms, laundry and other facilities, making this a welcoming and attractive place.

A place-making workshop is coming up to let the public decide what they’d like to do with their public space, an example of strong community engagement and collaboration. Ideas have come up such as adding picnic tables, fishing places, a space for kayaks, canoes and paddleboards — to store their vessels.

[1025]

This Cow Bay Marina is an excellent example of developing a diversified economy in local resource communities. It helps weather the lows in the all too common lows of boom-bust economies in resource communities. Congratulations, Prince Rupert. I look forward to actually catching the big one this year, off the dock.

HISTORY OF GREENWOOD

L. Larson: Greenwood is Canada’s smallest city. Hard-rock copper was discovered there in the 1880s. By 1899, the population was 3,000 people. The original townsite was laid out in 1896 by Robert Wood, who used his own money to build roads into the townsite from the mines. In 1918, as the result of a drastic drop in copper prices and with the closing of the B.C. Copper Co. smelter, the population started dropping. By 1940, only 200 people remained.

In 1942, during World War II, the population grew dramatically with the arrival of 1,200 people of Japanese descent who were moved off the coast for internment in Greenwood. With an undaunted spirit, like the miners before them, the Japanese turned Greenwood into a bustling community, and in 1945 the city council worked hard to keep those new citizens in Greenwood. Many stayed and became permanent residents.

The buildings in Greenwood that remain reflect the unique heritage of the area. One of those historic buildings is the courthouse, built in 1902, an almost forgotten treasure untouched by time.

One of its unique features are three stained-glass windows designed and constructed by James Blomfield. James became known as an outstanding Canadian stained-glass artist. His father, Henry, started the first local glass art firm in New Westminster in 1890. In 1896, Bloomfield and Sons was awarded one of the contracts for supplying the stained-glass windows for this provincial Parliament Building.

Hidden away in a dusty corner in Greenwood are three of this artist’s windows. A committee has been formed in Greenwood to ensure that these windows last another 114 years and to open this untouched piece of B.C.’s historic architecture to the public so that they may also experience a step back in time.
[ Page 10485 ]

Oral Questions

DRINKING WATER QUALITY
AND TESTING IN SCHOOLS

J. Horgan: Yesterday we asked the Minister of Education why it was that high lead and copper volumes were found in drinking water in four Prince Rupert schools. The minister didn’t answer, but the Minister of Health said: “The health officer in Prince Rupert has determined, through routine testing, that there are slightly elevated…levels.” Now, those slightly elevated levels were 14 times higher than Health Canada’s guidelines, but if that’s “slightly elevated” to the minister, so be it.

I want to get a little bit deeper into these “routine tests” that the minister referred to. Can he explain to the House and to the people of Prince Rupert just what those routine tests were that led to the finding of lead and copper volumes 14 times higher than Health Canada’s guidelines?

Hon. T. Lake: As I said yesterday, the problem of lead leaching from old plumbing has been around for decades. In the ’80s and ’90s there was a lot of mitigation that occurred throughout the province of British Columbia — in fact, all across North America — in recognition of that issue. We have had past examples in Kitimat, for example, where this was recognized, and that’s why the health officer in Prince Rupert decided to conduct some testing in these schools. Once the elevated levels were discovered, mitigation methods were put in place to ensure that children are protected.

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

J. Horgan: The only jurisdiction in Canada that does routine testing of water is Ontario. The minister suggests that there was testing done in Kitimat. That’s part of the story, to be sure. The story, however, is that a science teacher in Kitimat was doing an experiment with salmon eggs. When the salmon eggs didn’t hatch, she asked a friend at DFO to do some testing on the water. What was found? High levels of lead and copper, which led to the health officer being advised that fish eggs were not hatching and that therefore there might be a challenge to public health.

[1030]

That’s not routine testing, and if it’s best practices in British Columbia to have science experiments in high schools or elementary schools determine what a safe level of drinking water contamination is, then we’re in more trouble than I thought we were.

My question to the minister is this. Is it best practices in British Columbia to rely on science experiments in classrooms, or are there actually regular, routinized assessments of drinking water in schools across British Columbia?

Hon. T. Lake: The article the member refers to was based on a school in Kitimat, as I referenced earlier. The abstract says that “although water is typically not an important source of these metals, intermittent use and corrosive water” can cause metals like copper and lead to leach out.

That’s why Northern Health was aware of this situation. They worked with the school district, in that case, to remedy the problems there. That information led to increased awareness, which is why the medical health officer tested the schools in Prince Rupert.

As far as the province is concerned, the B.C. Centre for Disease Control did a complete review of all blood tests on lead in B.C. from 2009 to 2011. It was only rarely that cases of elevated lead levels were detected, and in fact, the source was related to diet or natural remedies, not to water.

Madame Speaker: Leader of the Opposition on a supplemental.

J. Horgan: That may be great comfort for those who were tested between 2009 and 2011, but the report that the minister and I are referring to, “Investigating Elevated Copper and Lead Levels in School Drinking Water,” was published in 2014.

My concern, again, is that six scientists wrote this report, three of which work for the Minister of Health — three of them, three of six, half, work for the Minister of Health — and their findings were that they support the need for routine monitoring of drinking water in schools. “Exposure to copper and lead in school drinking water can substantially increase the daily intakes of these metals when levels are highly elevated.”

A recommendation from three scientists that work for the Minister of Health concluded that routine monitoring in schools was an appropriate course of action, based on the information that they were publishing in their journal.

We don’t know how long this has been going on. We don’t know whether or not the government will commit to routine testing, and based on what’s going on in Shawnigan Lake, just up the hill from here, based on what’s going on in Spallumcheen in the Interior, certainly people in British Columbia should have some concern that we’re working with science experiments from kids in school to come to conclusions and determinations about whether our drinking water is safe.

Will the Minister of Health or, certainly, the Minister of Education commit today to ensuring that there are thorough and ongoing reviews of drinking water in schools right across British Columbia? Let’s start on the North Coast and make sure every kid who’s taking a drink out of a faucet in this province is safe.

Hon. T. Lake: In fact, the member should know, because he was a participant in the government in the ’90s, that this was actually a widespread problem in the 1990s.
[ Page 10486 ]

Many mitigation measures were taken at that time, and the result of the studies that the B.C. Centre for Disease Control did showed that there was no risk of elevated lead exposure across the population of British Columbia.

Now, if the member doesn’t want to take my word for it, this is from our provincial health officer, Dr. Perry Kendall, whom I think all of us in this House respect. He says that studies from B.C. Centre for Disease Control show there is no population exposure putting kids at risk, and studies have shown that in schools where historically high levels of lead in drinking water fountains occur, the kids are not drinking enough water to have health risks.

Now, having said that…. These are the words of Dr. Kendall, I should say, if the members opposite want to listen.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Hon. T. Lake: Having said that, when elevated levels are detected, mitigation measures are put in. In this case, flushing is taking place, and filters are being put on to ensure that the level of metals in that drinking water are within the drinking water guidelines.

J. Rice: Yesterday I asked the minister how long he had known that school children in my riding had been drinking contaminated water. The minister refused to answer, so I’ll give him another chance.

[1035]

How long have children in Prince Rupert been drinking contaminated water, and how long has he known about it?

Hon. T. Lake: As I mentioned, Dr. Kendall has informed me that the situation in Kitimat that was discovered is not an unusual situation in older buildings, particularly if you have a water source that has a low pH. You will get leaching of lead and other metals, sometimes, into the water. That situation alerted the provincial medical health officer for Northern Health in Prince Rupert, and the testing was done.

Now, if the members are truly worried about lead exposure, according to the Centre for Disease Control, they should be railing against natural remedies that are full of lead and that are apparently raising lead levels in children. I don’t hear them talking about that.

But we have taken measures to ensure that the water in Prince Rupert, Kitimat and other schools is safe for our children to drink.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Hon. Members, the Chair will hear the answer and the question.

J. Rice: There are many remote communities in my riding, and according to the paper authored by the minister’s own staff, many should be concerned about high lead levels. This information was published in a 2014 report on the Kitimat issue. Can the minister tell parents in my riding when the water was tested in schools in Queen Charlotte, in Masset, in Port Clements, in Bella Coola? And what were the results of those tests?

Hon. T. Lake: Medical health officers in all of our health authorities take their jobs very seriously, and as soon as there is a concern that is discovered in any situation that puts people at risk, they investigate. That is exactly what they did here. When lead levels were determined to be high by testing by the medical health officer, action was taken immediately to ensure that mitigation measures were put in place. Parents were informed. And we ensure that the children have safe drinking water in those schools.

R. Fleming: The minister just answered the question by saying that when there is a concern, the health authorities react. Well, there is a concern. There’s a concern that was published by three scientists in his own ministry, and there’s been no testing.

The question that was asked by the member for North Coast was: when did the Minister of Health know about the elevated lead levels in these schools, and will he tell the House, in a straightforward manner, when, in fact, he was first made aware of this discovery?

Hon. T. Lake: I was made aware of this, this week. As soon as Northern Health reported those results, we were made aware. In fact, I take the advice from people who have expertise in this area. Dr. Perry Kendall is someone that I think all of us respect in terms of his recommendations. Dr. Kendall assures me that after the Kitimat situation….

That alerted other medical health officers in the region to test the water. In fact, that’s exactly what happened. As soon as the problem was determined to be a potential problem, water was tested, action was taken, and as Dr. Kendall says, there is no widespread risk to children in Prince Rupert, in Kitimat, or any other place in British Columbia.

SUPPORT FOR FIRST RESPONDERS WITH
POST-TRAUMATIC STRESS DISORDER

S. Simpson: There is a growing consensus in British Columbia and across Canada that post-traumatic stress disorder is a real and very serious occupational threat for first responders. We know from evidence that police, firefighters, ambulance paramedics, sheriffs, corrections officers and dispatchers experience PTSD at about two times the rate of the general population.

More than 80 first responders have committed suicide
[ Page 10487 ]
in Canada since April of 2014. Unfortunately, too many first responders are struggling to get services in a timely and effective manner.

We know that Alberta, Manitoba and now Ontario are taking, or have taken, action on a presumptive clause in the area of workers compensation on this issue.

[1040]

Will the minister reconsider the position she took in estimates last year and initiate work on a presumptive clause for first responders who suffer from PTSD?

Hon. S. Bond: I know that every member of this House and British Columbians do care a great deal about the impacts of the work that first responders do in British Columbia. Many of us, in our personal lives, have relationships with people who go through those very difficult circumstances.

British Columbia, in 2012, was the first jurisdiction in the country to recognize that there are impacts in your workplace that could impact your mental health and wellness. In fact, in the legislation that we put in place, we did look at recognizing post-traumatic stress disorder.

Here in British Columbia today, once a person has been diagnosed with PTSD, there is a series of supports put in place immediately. All of us are concerned about the impacts on first responders’ lives, and we are continuing to look at ways that we can provide the kind of support that they deserve.

Madame Speaker: The member for Vancouver-Hastings on a supplemental.

S. Simpson: What we know is that the extent of that support that’s apparent now is this committee with WorkSafe and a number of the unions and others. But we know that that committee is not adequate. We know that that committee has been directed that legislation is not to be part of its conversation. WorkSafe has been clear. Now many of the participants in that committee are telling me that it’s bogging down, and they’re starting to be frustrated with its progress.

The minister knows the story of Lisa Jennings. I know that the minister has met with Ms. Jennings, who is a fast first responder and who has been a strong voice for those who suffer from PTSD. She’s with us in the gallery today.

Lisa, though, is like so many first responders who’ve provided critical services, often in traumatic circumstances, for all of us and our families and our communities. Many of those first responders are now suffering the consequences of those services.

Will the minister tell first responders today that she’s going to take action on a presumptive clause, and if not, why not? It can’t simply be about money.

Hon. S. Bond: I have indeed met with Ms. Jennings, and I have, face to face, told her how much I appreciate not only her service to British Columbians, but I deeply respect the courage with which she has brought this issue forward in our province and across the country.

To the member opposite, it is about more than money. Today in British Columbia, and especially when I met with Ms. Jennings and a group of others that have been dealing with PTSD…. We talked about what some of the gaps may be, what we needed to do to improve supports. I have worked very directly with WorkSafe to ensure that if there is a concern about PTSD, it is dealt with extremely quickly. We have had claims accepted in British Columbia.

I’m the first to admit that there is more work to continue to do to support our first responders. But we do need to recognize that in British Columbia today, there is a pathway to support first responders. Does there need to be more work? Yes, and that’s why we are working very closely with the Minister of Health and others to identify the gaps — in particular, identified to me by Ms. Jennings — between community supports and WorkSafe supports. That work is underway.

It is about more than money. It’s about making sure we have an appropriate way, the right supports in place. And that work continues to be done.

MASSEY TUNNEL REPLACEMENT PROJECT

V. Huntington: Metro Vancouver has asked the Minister of Transportation for a two-month extension to the comment period for the project definition report on the Massy Tunnel replacement. Metro needs this additional time to complete its calculations of the project’s impacts on both regional land use planning and infrastructure.

The minister has indicated he is not open to the idea. He says the environmental assessment has started and that there will be future opportunities to comment. But the environmental assessment office was looking for comments on the valued components identified in the project definition report, and it is these components that Metro needs more time to consider.

[1045]

Will the minister consult with his colleague the Minister of Environment in a genuine effort to have the comment period on the valued components extended as per the request of Metro Vancouver?

Hon. T. Stone: The financial stewardship of this province, as evidenced in the balanced budget earlier this week and which is the envy of the country, is why this province has the confidence and the wherewithal to move forward with what will be a multi-billion-dollar project creating 9,000 jobs in British Columbia.

Now, with respect to the member’s specific question relating to consultation, I will say this. We are just concluding the third formal consultation as part of the George
[ Page 10488 ]
Massey Tunnel replacement project. Metro Vancouver has had many opportunities in those three consultations to offer their input.

We also have met on 20 separate occasions with Metro Vancouver — some of those meetings were with mayors, some of those were with staff — since 2012. All of their input has been incorporated into the project definition report, the business case and, in fact, the 3,700 pages of information that’s been released to this point.

I will highlight, as well, that with respect to the environmental assessment process, the project is in the preapplication phase. There are two comment periods available. This is a terrific opportunity, through the balance of this year, for Metro Vancouver to ensure that their concerns, their input, is reflected in what will be a critical piece of infrastructure for all British Columbians.

Madame Speaker: Delta South on a supplemental.

V. Huntington: Just to answer that comment, the staff at Metro Vancouver are every bit as professional as are the staff in the Ministry of Transportation, and if they feel they need more time to consider valued components, then I think the minister should genuinely consider that request.

In 2013, the minister said that a review of B.C.’s tolling policy was “high up on his to-do list” and that he would engage in “vigorous discussion and debate in order to bring fairness and equity to the hard-working people south of the Fraser.” But with no discussion and debate, the minister recently announced that the new Massey bridge will be tolled. It would seem that the hard-working people south of the Fraser are going to pay for the bridge after all.

A provincial tolling review should have started years ago, and this minister should have been leading it. Instead, he decided the people south of the Fraser should shoulder the financial burden for the largest infrastructure project in British Columbian history. Why didn’t the minister follow through on his promise, and will he commit to starting that review today?

Hon. T. Stone: Again, we are very excited that we are moving forward with the largest infrastructure project in the province. At this point, it will address the single largest bottleneck in the province. There are 80,000 commuters, and I would hasten to suggest to the member opposite that a good number of them are her constituents who are sitting in their vehicles day after day because of the congestion that exists at this point.

This project is going to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This project is going to facilitate expanded transit. This project is going to create a lot of jobs.

With respect to the member’s specific question on tolling, we’re obviously very well aware that there is a vibrant debate, a discussion taking place in the region with respect to tolling.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Hon. T. Stone: We welcome the input of all British Columbians in that debate. At the end of the day, the tolling policy requires that we engage with British Columbians whenever tolling is considered for major infrastructure, and that is exactly what we are doing on this project.

[1050]

INVESTIGATION INTO
REAL ESTATE TRANSACTIONS

D. Eby: It was last week that the Real Estate Council of B.C. wrote to realtors saying that the actions of a few realtors had “shaken public confidence in the real estate industry.” In fact, it’s the Real Estate Council’s and this government’s lack of oversight that has shaken public confidence.

Realtor Banti Shahi, for example, was hired by a Burnaby family to sell their home. He told them he had found a buyer. He hid the fact that he was also the agent for the buyer and that he would receive additional commission if they sold to this person. He also lied to the buyer, saying he’d pay the buyer half of his commission. He never paid a dime.

Mr. Shahi was never suspended, not even for a day. It took the Real Estate Council a year and eight months just to fine him.

To the Minister of Finance: why is the Real Estate Council investigating itself when they allow Mr. Shahi to continue selling property after ripping off not one, but two B.C. families on the same transaction?

Hon. M. de Jong: Maybe I can correct at least one thing the member has said. The Real Estate Council, which is statutorily responsible for this self-regulated profession — and it has been a self-regulated profession for many decades — has sought the leadership assistance and expertise of the independent real estate superintendent, with whom I know the member has had an opportunity to meet.

She is in the midst of putting together an informed and experienced panel to look at precisely the kinds of issues that the member alludes to today, describes today. He will know from our past conversations in this chamber that I share concerns about circumstances in which real estate agents are not fulfilling their primary obligations and duties to their client.

The work of the superintendent is underway. The panel is being composed, and I expect their first report by the middle of April.

Madame Speaker: The member for Vancouver–Point Grey on a supplemental.
[ Page 10489 ]

D. Eby: When Shahi Sahaly lied to the Real Estate Council about a court finding that he had committed fraud, he kept his licence, wasn’t suspended. When Frank Chu committed fraud by altering a contract to secretly double the commission to be paid by his client, he was allowed to continue selling property in B.C., even when he appeared yet again before the Real Estate Council on another offence.

When realtor Ama Basari committed fraud by secretly altering a contract to double the commission he took from a family buying a home in Surrey and then committed four other violations of Real Estate Council rules on just three transactions, he was suspended for just 30 days.

Within the last three months, four realtors who have stolen money from B.C. families through deceit had their cases decided by the Real Estate Council. Not a single one lost the privilege to sell real estate in B.C.

The minister knows the Real Estate Council has a prominent role in running this investigation into themselves. With their high tolerance for fraud on B.C. families, why is this council investigating itself and its own problems that led to the public loss of confidence in realtors in B.C.?

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, two things. First of all, for reasons that the member is well aware of, the Real Estate Council most pointedly is not investigating itself. It has sought the leadership and expertise of the separate and independent superintendent, who exists statutorily, organizationally, administratively entirely separate from the council.

If the member is expecting any kind of defence, let alone spirited defence, of behaviour on the part of realtors that falls short of the standard they are expected to uphold professionally, he will not receive it from me. It is for that reason that the superintendent is engaged. It is for that reason that we are anxiously awaiting the results of their work.

As I have said and members of the government, including the Premier, have said, if the kind of behaviour that is described continues and unless we see a plan and evidence of an approach that will eliminate that behaviour, the government reserves the right to act statutorily.

[1055]

DISABILITY BENEFITS AND
BUS PASS PROGRAM CHANGES

M. Mungall: This week the Liberal’s budget presented a lot of smoke and mirrors. Bad ideas were made to sound nice with words like “choice” and “increase to rates.” But looking behind those words, here’s what we see: the tenth year with no increase to shelter or cost of living for people with disabilities and the cancellation of an annual bus pass program that cost $45 per year. Its replacement is $580 more expensive each year, at $52 a month.

While the government gives with one hand, it’s taking away with the other. My question is to the Minister of Social Development. Why is she playing a shell game with the province’s most vulnerable citizens and their well-being?

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: There are, absolutely, people around this province who need our support, and that is why we continue to improve our policies and create some of the most progressive policies in the country. Budget 2016 provides $456 million to the Ministry of Social Development….

It’s unfortunate that the member opposite doesn’t seem to understand the changes that we’ve made and the significance of over $1 billion in new money for social programs in the next three years.

For the record, let me clarify that 40,000 individuals in British Columbia with the designation of persons with disabilities assistance were not eligible for the bus pass program because of where they live. That change that we have made makes…. It creates an equity around the system for people with disability but also provides an increase in their rates and gives them the freedom to choose how they make their transportation decisions.

M. Mungall: Well, no surprise. We hear a lot more of this rhetoric from the minister. She’s talking about choice. She’s making grand claims that they’re doing everything they possibly can. But this is what they’ve done. They’ve cancelled a bus pass program that people around this province relied on. It cost them only $45 a year, and that has been confirmed. This cancellation has been confirmed by groups like Inclusion B.C. It was all over the media yesterday, and the minister should maybe check into that, then, if she’s saying otherwise.

The fact of the matter is that the $45-a-year program has been cancelled, and there are people who have no choice but to now shell out another $52, and they’re not getting an increase.

Many seniors who relied on the $45-a-year bus pass now get nothing, and it is shameful.

I want to know from the Minister of Social Development: why is she making life harder for seniors in this province?

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: Again, let me clarify for the member opposite, because she doesn’t seem to get it. The bus pass program will still be eligible for those people who choose to have it. They are receiving an increase, and people in her community are receiving the increase. The policy reforms that we are making are making life better for British Columbians.

[End of question period.]
[ Page 10490 ]

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: Madame Speaker, continued debate on the budget.

[1100]

Budget Debate

(continued)

K. Conroy: I’m delighted to finish my comments this morning, but I do want to clarify for the members opposite a couple of issues that were raised just as I was finishing up last night.

The two sites where I know that people are actually leaving this province to go to work — they’re going north of Fort McMurray, Alberta. One site is called Fort Hills, and the other site is CRNL’s Horizon project. The members opposite seemed to have a problem with that.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

And no, the people I was referring to about social assistance were not people coming from Alberta but are, in fact, lifelong B.C. residents struggling to find work. Now they get to struggle even more with the quagmire of the 1-866 number that is service at this ministry.

Let’s hope the money coming from the ministry will actually get rid of this dreaded number and there will actually be people who can help you. Maybe we could get some more hours in the Trail office so that it could be open from nine to four and people won’t have to stand out in the rain, the snow or hot sun, lined up to wait for service.

Then there are the benefits increase to disabilities. Well, let’s actually hear what Inclusion B.C. had to say about those benefits.

“People with disabilities living in B.C. will receive a small increase to their disability benefits, but there’s a catch. Having increased by only $120 since 2001, B.C. disability benefit rates of $906 a month are among the lowest in the country.

As our provincial government said in the budget, it’s supposed to have the best financial outlook in the country.

“It was finally ready to announce an increase in benefits. Inclusion B.C. was incredibly disappointed to learn that the newly announced increase is both inadequate and comes with strings attached tied to the transportation subsidy that an individual receives.

“Says Inclusion B.C. executive director Faith Bodnar: ‘This announcement simply equalizes the hopeless poverty of people dependent on persons-with-disabilities benefits. The Finance Minister indicated that the rate increase will level the playing field and provide choice for people with disabilities in how they use their transportation funding with reference to those who sell their bus passes. This disparaging viewpoint and callous attitude are deeply offensive to the poorest and the most vulnerable people in B.C. People on PWD struggle with impossible pressures, including whether to get an extra bit of extra money to buy food or take the bus.’

“Inclusion B.C. continues calling for a serious plan to raise people out of poverty and increase and index the PWD rates to reflect the rising cost of living. Touted as the most prosperous province in the country and the most expensive, they have neglected people with disabilities for too long. The consistent failure of our government to address the needs of our most vulnerable citizens is unacceptable.”

She goes on to say:

“The minister is correct when he said in the budget speech: ‘The measure of any society is reflected in the degree to which it is willing to help the most vulnerable and create the kinds of supports that will truly make a difference in their lives.’ By this measure, B.C. is failing our most vulnerable.”

A fairly damning but sadly accurate account of this budget announcement: failing our most vulnerable.

Let’s talk about the lack of investment in our resources. The Liberals like to quote numbers. Well, let’s look at some of the numbers in the forest industry. There are 33,000 less forestry workers working in this province today, and 150 mills have shut down.

Seven million cubic metres of logs have been exported, logged and shipped overseas for other countries to mill, utilize and process into products. Products that are used in their countries are sent back here for us to buy. What do we get out of those logs? Only the jobs to log them. All of the other benefits of those logs are garnered by the country where they are sent to.

The mining sector is also struggling, with only “don’t pay your hydro now; pay later” help from this government. Many in the industry say that either won’t work or it’s not enough. There is a way to help the mining industry, one that worked extremely well in the ’90s. It was a huge benefit to the province. That would be the job protection commissioner.

The government should bring that position back. The community of Trail benefited, as did Golden, just to name a few. In Trail, Teck Cominco was struggling. The job protection commissioner came in and worked with the company, the city and the union, the United Steelworkers. The city lowered taxes, the union gave concessions, and the province gave Cominco millions. But in exchange, they got the rights to Brilliant and Waneta dams, rights to develop additional energy.

They gave millions but got two incredible assets in exchange, assets that have been a huge boon to the region and the province. It helped provide the impetus for the development of three power projects in the area. In partnership with the Columbia Basin Trust and the Columbia Power Corp., they developed the Keenleyside, Brilliant and Waneta dams, projects that created jobs — thousands of jobs and incredible benefits to the region. The job commissioner not only saved jobs; it created jobs.

[1105]

This kind of thing is what a forward-thinking, progressive government does — one that wants to work with people in the province and thinks long term, not about the next photo op or the next election.

What about conservation in this province? Is there anything there in the budget? Unfortunately, no.

Today a child born in B.C. could end up living in poverty, as again and again our province ranks up there as
[ Page 10491 ]
one of the highest in the country when it comes to child poverty. This budget doesn’t address it.

B.C. students can look forward to some of the highest student debt for post-secondary education. This budget does not address that. Kids are in crowded classrooms, not getting the education they should be getting. This budget does not address that.

Again, while so many folks will not benefit from this budget, it does provide a half-a-billion tax cut for the richest 2 percent. Why? Why would a government do this to the people of the province? Am I cynical? Yes, and with good cause.

There are far too many people not working in this province. There are far too many people who are struggling, far too many families who are struggling to make ends meet, and this budget does not address that.

You have to ask: what great legacy is this province leaving? Really, how can people look themselves in the mirror when they get up every morning? Be part of that government and think: “This is the legacy we’re leaving to our children and grandchildren”?

Really, this budget does not do it. It does not leave a legacy there that this province can be proud of.

Deputy Speaker: The member for Nanaimo–North Cowichan is seeking leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

D. Routley: I’d like the House to help me welcome two friends from Nanaimo who are visiting today, Louise Gilfoy and her mother-in-law Barb Gilfoy. Louise and her husband, Bill Gilfoy, have been seven-year residents of Nanaimo. Bill is a landscape contractor, too busy at his work to be here today with my guests.

Louise is a registered nurse in the emergency room of Nanaimo Regional General Hospital — a very dedicated person who gives so much service to people at her work and in her daily life in the community. She’s very involved in political issues as an activist in the community. I’ve spoken to one of those many times in this House, that being — and there’s a chorus now — the Colliery Dams issue in Nanaimo. She was active in resisting the destruction of that park.

Most notably now, in recent months, she’s been heavily involved in spearheading the settlement of a couple of Syrian refugee families in Nanaimo, organizing resources, greeting and support for those people.

I really thank her for the work that she does for the community of Nanaimo, and I’d hope the House can help me to welcome her here.

Debate Continued

Hon. R. Coleman: I’m honoured to stand today to speak about balanced budget 2016 and the effects that it has on the future of British Columbia. Along with the message in the throne speech and things that I’ve been involved in, I want to speak about a number of things today. Obviously, you can’t cover everything, so I will concentrate on pieces of this.

Before I start, though, I know that other members have taken the opportunity, and I do, too, want to take the opportunity, to thank a few people before I start my remarks today.

On May 28, I will have been in this Legislature for 20 years. [Applause.] That’s not that good. Nobody on the other side applauds that, do they? But, hon. Speaker, it is, as you know — and for those that are new in the Legislature and those who have been here a while — a taxing job on family, whether extended family, children, grandchildren, spouse. I really do want to thank my family for their continued support over that period of time, and I do that whenever I get the opportunity.

I also want to thank my staff in my constituency office, who do a tremendous job on behalf of British Columbians and particularly in my riding. But I also want to thank another group of people, the people who are my staff in my ministry over here in Victoria, in my office, as a minister.

But more so, in addition to that, I’ve grown over the last 20 years to understand something that’s really special in Canadian politics and in Canadian operations, whether it be the bureaucrat at the national level or whether it be a person that’s in the bureaucracy in British Columbia.

[1110]

We are gifted here to have very talented, bright and capable people who every day, non-partisan, do the job, actually do the great job they do on behalf of British Columbians. We should never hesitate to take the opportunity to thank the members of the B.C. Government Employees Union, who have worked with us for economic benefits that they can benefit from as a union and the contracts we’ve signed with those, and also the senior management, deputy ministers, assistant deputy ministers, directors in the management of government. We are blessed, and I personally would like to say thank you to them today.

Now, this job also gives us kind of a unique opportunity. A minute ago the member from Kootenay was talking about the Waneta dam, which I happened to get to visit while it was under construction. I’ve been inside every dam, pretty much, in British Columbia.

That opportunity isn’t really afforded to anybody, unless they’re somebody that has come to this House and has been able to go to mines and dams and other things that actually inspire you about just how brilliant our people are. Whether it’s in a mill or a mine or a dam, you
[ Page 10492 ]
have to take yourself back and think: “Wow. There are some pretty talented people in British Columbia.”

When the member was mentioning Waneta, what struck me was going down inside the Revelstoke and Mica dams and seeing that somebody had actually thought, 50 years ahead, to blow out the area inside the dam to be able to add two more turbines — way back in the 1950s — thinking about the future need for B.C.’s power and its stability. That’s the kind of thing you come across as you do this.

I’ve had the portfolio of Minister of Natural Gas Development for four years now, and as I’ve done that, I’ve had the opportunity…. Sometimes I have to step back and say: “How lucky am I to have the incredible education and opportunity to learn about an entirely new industry that could bring multi-billions of dollars to British Columbia but change the future for my children and my grandchildren? How often can you get the opportunity to sit and learn something at a level that is beyond what you could possibly think you might ever have an opportunity to have as a person in public life?”

I see LNG as an opportunity for economic development, jobs and those sorts of things. But there’s something special about it beyond that, which befuddles me sometimes, particularly for the members for North Coast, Stikine and Skeena, who are opposed to LNG. They’ve come out against it. They’ve said they’re opposed to it. I’m befuddled because of this.

Not only has LNG given me the opportunity to go globally and understand business and build a competitive environment with my colleagues with regards to this industry, but it has given me an incredible opportunity to make friendships with a group of people that I would never have had a chance to meet.

That’s the chiefs, the hereditary chiefs, the councillors and the communities across northern B.C. of First Nations. I think something people should know about British Columbia’s First Nations leaders, not the ones you might see on the six o’clock news but the ones that are the chiefs in small communities all across the north…. When you sit down with them, you’re struck by a couple of things. One is their leadership, their passion and their concern for the people they represent in their communities. They’re the people who are sitting there saying to me: “This is an opportunity we may never see again.”

One First Nations chief said to me: “You know what, Minister?” He used my first name, actually, but I can’t use that here. He said: “My community has 40 percent unemployment. My average income is over 50 percent less than the income of the other communities in this region. My education outcomes aren’t great. I want to work on this with you to bring it to fruition so I can change the future of my children and my grandchildren in my community.”

I had another chief come to me and say: “Look, Minister. There’s something wrong here. It’s not working on the education side.” So we sat down, and we worked out a tutorial system, over the next three years, as a pilot. We can take young First Nations youth and help build their outcomes on the education side. That’s something this individual chief has a passion about. They see the future economic development, they see the opportunity, and they’re at the table.

One of the things that doesn’t get said in the media, particularly media in the Lower Mainland and from other people that might go into media with regards to First Nations, is this. Ninety percent of the First Nations across the north have already signed on to pipeline benefits agreements and economic development agreements.

[1115]

They’ve signed on to environmental stewardship agreements, and they’re actually looking and working with the benefits today to try and improve the future opportunities for their communities. They see how important this is.

Many of them are involved in the environmental stewardship right down to determining, along a pipeline route, where the sensitive plant and fauna are that are medicinal. They’re actually helping with the historical pieces, with regards to heritage, with regards to what might impact what their understanding of the land is. And they’re there every day, today, working with those companies, and employed to go out and work with those…. Elders have been out there. Hereditary chiefs have been out there, and it’s incredible.

Now, I have had the opportunity in the last few years, with the Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation, to enter into the government-to-government relationship and building of long-term benefits agreements and also collaboration agreements with First Nations.

I can tell you this: the Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation is doing an incredible job on behalf of British Columbians with First Nations. But more importantly, or in addition to, so are the people that work for him. Again, professional public service.

But I must say that I’m struck on this file by the passion and the love and the concern and vision that the First Nations have for the people in the north. And more important to that is you cannot describe the passion and love they have for their community and how important they see it that they have the ability to make decisions for themselves — economically, as a community, without somebody else telling them what they should do.

Every discussion in the work we’ve done with them, with First Nations, has been that. This is your choice. This is your leadership. This is your work, and let’s help you build a vision, but it’s going to be your vision for your individual First Nations communities and not one that’s going to be dictated by any other government or level of economy. I think that’s important.

Just in the House the other day, somebody was making negative comments with regards to another deal. On
[ Page 10493 ]
the First Nations, on the LNG, just let me say this before I move off that. I know we’re going to get there with First Nations, because we’re there. I know the leadership. I know the hereditary chiefs. I know how concerned they are and how much they believe in the future of their communities. We will, together, work for their economic future, their educational future, and have the opportunity that they seek for their communities under their leadership and no one else’s.

It does bother me that…. I feel this passionately about these communities. I feel this passionately about the leadership of some terrific people who I could actually call my friends today that I got to know on this file in First Nations communities in the north over the last number of years. It does bother me that the local representatives don’t.

I don’t understand why the members for Skeena and Stikine and North Coast are so opposed to economic development if they know the situation within First Nations communities they represent today.

I don’t understand it, because if they sat down with the leadership and saw the passion of the leadership of the Haisla or the Metlakatla or the other First Nations in the area, they would go: “Wow. Maybe this is something that could be special. Maybe it is something that could be done environmentally sensitive, bring economic development opportunities and change the lives generationally of the fastest-growing population of young people in Canada — in First Nation communities.”

My passion may be around the economic development — what’s the opportunity? — but my love of this file is because I know, hearing personally the stories directly from the leadership of the communities across the north for First Nations, that the most important piece about this is what it can do to improve the lives of those communities long term, as we work together to find the solutions to actually take care of the issues that they may have and to make sure that they’re part of the long-term solution on the environmental stewardship, environmental protection, the economic development, the training, the jobs, the education and the strength of the communities.

[1120]

I’ve had the opportunity to work with First Nations outside of LNG. Recently, just a few days ago, a letter of intent was signed with three First Nations bands — the Musqueam, Tsleil-Waututh and the Squamish — who have made an offer to government to buy the Jericho lands, with an accommodation from government relative to their strength of claim and those opportunities.

The first thing I heard was: “Oh, we don’t like what they might do. We might not like their density. Why are you making the deal with that?” I heard that from some opposition members, and I was befuddled again.

Isn’t it terrific that the Musqueam, the Tsleil-Waututh and the Squamish have come together to build economic development for their community and opportunity in housing? Isn’t it terrific that they actually recognize some affordability of housing, not just for the First Nations that they represent but also for other people in the community to be able to get in first as they build on the density and the planning for this particular property? I think it’s terrific.

I know that the opposition criticized this a few years ago when we actually did a similar deal with the Musqueam, the Tsleil-Waututh and the Squamish on the Liquor Distribution lands and the Willingdon lands: “Oh, why are you selling it? And why are you selling it to First Nations? Why are they getting a deal?” Why an accommodation?

It’s because they have a right to that accommodation and to do an economic development deal where people can go out and construct, learn trades, build jobs, create stable housing that they can use as well as take to the market.

I don’t understand what the opposition is. I really don’t. But members opposite were critical of us doing a deal like that. They were afraid that within the zoning bylaws of Vancouver and the other rules that are put in place — where portions of it have to go to affordability and other developments, which is also going to be applied on this land — it’s going to be different, for some reason.

You should go meet the guys and ladies from the Musqueam, Tsleil-Waututh and Squamish, who I’ve sat and had coffee with in my office for years, to understand how important that is to their community — that economic development and that opportunity. It’s important. It really is, for those communities. They were tough negotiators, as I understand, but the deal got done, and in actual fact, all parties are happy. Over the next number of years, the opportunity will be unbelievable for those guys — the opportunity for economic development and jobs and training for their community and for long-term financial stability of those three First Nations communities.

As we go through this and as we go through from that to other things that are going on, we have to keep in mind how important these relationships are in the entire economic picture of British Columbia, because those relationships that we’ve built in work with First Nations have allowed us to work on the economy, to work on job creation and actually helped us balance a budget in 2016 for the fourth year in a row. As I come through that, I look at other portions of what this budget means to us in British Columbia and what it means for the continued things we might want to see happen on behalf of our citizens.

Since 2001, there’s been almost $4.5 billion invested in capital for housing in British Columbia. The reason that’s been able to be done is because of prudent fiscal management and the ability to go out and do that. That’s $4.5 billion invested in housing by the government of British Columbia. If you lever up the land that’s been provided by the municipalities, by matching dollars from the federal government over the years, it gets pretty close, not to $4.5 billion but to $6 billion.
[ Page 10494 ]

What does it mean in this budget now? In this budget, there’s $355 million in additional capital for housing in British Columbia to be built over the next five years for people with disabilities, people who have situations with mental health and addictions and affordability — opportunities to partner into the marketplace to get some affordable rentals so that we can continue to use our successful subsidy programs and those sorts of things to be successful on them.

Now, that’s 15 years. But in the last ten years, $3.86 billion of that has actually been invested in capital. The outcome of that is a remarkable story with regard to affordability in housing and changing the lives of people that might be homeless, mentally ill or have addictions.

[1125]

It doesn’t mean you ever solve the problem in one fell swoop with regard to money, but I want to just give the House a sense.

It’s $4.45 billion since 2001, $3.66 billion since 2006 — not including any other contributions from other levels of governments, which also amounted to about $650 million more. Today 102,511 households are supported in the marketplace either in permanent housing or through SAFER, or rent assistance, in British Columbia.

SAFER is a program for seniors and senior households with couples where, in the marketplace, they can receive a cheque every month to offset their rent for affordability. Today there are over 20,000 of those households, equivalent to about 30,000 people, who receive assistance every month because of SAFER.

In addition to that, there are over 10,000 households of families making under $35,000 a year that are subsidized in the marketplace. You don’t know where they live. They’re not stigmatized because you say they that live in that project or that project.

That’s 10,000 households but the equivalent of over 30,000 people in rental housing in your neighbourhoods across the province of British Columbia, community by community, who are integrated into the community — helping with their affordability so that they can live and have a respectful and proud life because nobody is actually trying to stigmatize them and tell them what they are.

That is a remarkable story in its own right because that’s only in the last nine years. And could you imagine if we tried to build between SAFER’s increase of 10,000 households and, in addition to that, 10,000 other households for family housing? That’s 20,000 units of housing that you would have had to go borrow somewhere in the area of $6 billion. You wouldn’t have been helping anybody because the length of time it would take to get rezoning done, the work done, to take the lists and all of the applications and stuff. People, in many cases, would still be waiting for housing.

I always think back to the one letter I got when we put the rent assistance program in place back in 2006-2007. It was from a lady named Savannah. She wrote me, and she said: “Thank you for the rent assistance. You have really changed my and my son’s lives. I am a single mom with a 12-year-old son. Today I have a bit more money for nutrition. But more importantly, I can afford to pay for some other activities, like soccer and other things, because I’m on rent assistance.”

If we’d been trying to build, that young person — given wait-lists and stuff that could apply to this and people whose priorities be higher — would have graduated from high school by now and be in first-year university still waiting for some affordability in housing. But they got it immediately.

I bumped into a lady the other day that was one of the other people in the second year of the rent assistance program that reminded me that she was basically thinking of moving into her station wagon with her six children back in 2007. She got rent assistance. Because she had rent assistance that’s tied to market and costs, she was able to find a place that accommodated her entire family.

There are only two kids left at home. The others ones have graduated high school, and they’ve all got jobs. She had the opportunity to not be so tied up in just trying to survive that she went on to have two successful employment careers and continues to work herself. Would we have got that outcome if we decided we had to build 20,000 units of housing versus actually helping people immediately in the market? No.

What does Budget 2016 do? It continues to give additional operating money for innovation to B.C. Housing and another $355 million that can now be partnered out into communities across British Columbia.

What does that mean for any riding in B.C.? Think of it this way. This government has been incredibly successful with cities like Victoria, Nanaimo and Campbell River, with Abbotsford, Langley, Surrey and Vancouver, with other communities in the interior of B.C., like Penticton and Kelowna and Prince George.

[1130]

Many communities across the province, when we were dealing with an issue with regards to people with concerns of mental health and addictions, came and said: “We have land. We would like to partner up with you. We will reduce our development cost charges. We will speed up your rezoning if you would invest in our community to help take care of a problem in our community.”

In 2006, we bought ten SROs in the Downtown Eastside. Today we have 24 that we’ve bought, purchased, in the city of Vancouver alone. In addition to that, we’ve bought another 35 buildings across the province of British Columbia, renovated them, upgraded them for the purpose of the long-term protection for the vulnerable population they serve. What we did is we built new. In the city of Vancouver, 2,000 units have actually been built in addition to the SROs that were purchased for the people in that community.
[ Page 10495 ]

Over the next five years, communities like Coquitlam, Maple Ridge, who also have worked with us well, and Mission…. Communities across the interior of B.C., the Lower Mainland and Vancouver Island will have the opportunity — along with non-profit societies, who might have land and opportunity they want to bring to us — to partner with us, to take that $355 million commitment to capital from the provincial government and to lever it.

Where’s your leverage going to come from? Your leverage comes from…. If somebody gives you free land, you don’t have to capitalize and pay the mortgage and have it in the operating costs. So we’ll make more deals with communities with regard to the land they have, including the city of Victoria and Surrey and others that have already offered, communities across the entire interior of British Columbia, as far away as Cranbrook, who are now offering land opportunities for us to go ahead and do that.

There are development cost charges; some places are forgiving them. Community amenity charges, in my opinion, in some communities are one of the largest cost drivers against affordability for people in the housing market. Communities are taking way too much at the front end from developers and should allow that to be invested in keeping housing down.

Recent meetings have been taking place, obviously, with the new federal government with regards to where they might want to play. So you’ve got land, DCCs. You’ve got our capital. Now, what if the federal government matches some or all of that money? It levers it up even more to actually make the ability to be creative and more affordable.

What we have seen recently is the marketplace itself. In communities where somebody thinks they have a…. There’s a rule in some communities where a percentage of the housing you build in the new marketplace has to be affordable housing in whatever community it is. But if they’re prepared to take those units and reduce their strata property cost to us, we can go in and lever there too.

It is quite possible that that $355 million, over the next few years, can actually become closer to a billion or a billion five in affordable housing that can change lives, keep people in British Columbia.

What I learned on this file, starting back in 2005-2006, is that the best way to get that success of, let’s say, a billion to a billion five in new housing for people who need it — affordable housing, social housing and housing for people with disabilities, mental health, addictions and people who’re homeless or at risk of being homeless — is that somebody has to lead. The first lead takes a financial lead. Somebody has to step up and put the first money on the table.

I’m proud that since I’ve been minister — and, actually, the ministers before me in our government…. We’ve always been there. We’ve always had the money in our budget to be able to go out and be innovative and creative, to try and do things that we’ve done.

I’ll just tell you about a little project that took place in the Downtown Eastside of Vancouver on a number of SROs that were bought by government back in 2006-2007 and subsequently. We had 900 tenants in buildings and units in Vancouver. The federal government partnered with us on a 3P partnership with the marketplace and ourselves. We took old buildings, up to 100 years old, that virtually had no life, in some people’s minds, left. We did seismic upgrades. We did renovations and upgrades to the units — incredible stuff. We learned about how to do things better, with everything from the flooring and what we put in the walls to protecting against bedbugs in the future and those types of things that are also part of an operational situation.

[1135]

What we found out — or I did — more than anything is how good the people at B.C. Housing are. Nine hundred tenants were moved back and forth and not displaced. The lady who did this at B.C. Housing deserves a medal. Not only did she actually manage to move them from building to building while they were being renovated and not have any of them be lost as tenants, but they had the opportunity to move back into their same suite — their choice. She actually got to know every one of them by their first name.

That was a lot of work, a remarkable thing. If you ever get the opportunity just to tour one of those buildings in downtown Vancouver, on the Downtown Eastside, and go with somebody that knows what they had to go through to do those buildings, you’ll be amazed.

I walked into one. I was shown a beam, which was holding up the three floors above the main floor, that had been replaced by a metal beam. The beam was this big. It looked like a great big sturdy piece of wood, right? Except after they took it out and replaced it with a metal one, it was hollow. It had been rotting out from the inside. The units above there, in the near future, in any type of seismic activity, would have just fallen down.

It’s a remarkable story by the people at B.C. Housing — not by the minister, not by government. It’s actually the people who are the professionals on the ground that deliver this stuff on our behalf. Our job is to try and give them a foundation so they can go ahead and do things and accomplish things and be successful.

It’s a file you continue to learn on. You learn on because of the fact that you have to understand the people you’re serving.

There are a lot of things going on in government. I know my time is running short, so I want to say this. Without balancing your budget, without paying down your cost of operation, without understanding the fiscal side, you don’t get 2,000 units of housing. You don’t get 101,000 households that are actually being supported in the marketplace or in housing in B.C. today. You don’t get 6,000 fewer homeless people in B.C. than there were five years ago. You don’t get long-term economic opportun-
[ Page 10496 ]
ity for the people who I’ve grown to love — and respect their leadership — in the First Nations across the north.

You do this job because you want to be there for people. We can all go cut a ribbon somewhere, but remember this: it’s always about the people whose lives you can change. Whether it be Savannah or whether it be the First Nation Chief that wants a tutorial system for his community, who’s working with us to do that, or whether it be anything else, remember this: it’s about bettering lives.

We may get rhetorical in here sometimes but not today. I think it’s way too important to understand what the future of British Columbia’s children and grandchildren is, why we should work together to pursue opportunities like LNG instead of fighting about it. Because on the underbelly of all of that are better outcomes in education, better outcomes in jobs and better outcomes in economic opportunities for vulnerable populations who we are here to work with and serve — and, specifically and importantly, for the First Nations across northern British Columbia.

S. Simpson: I’m pleased to take the opportunity to take my place in budget debate 2016.

When I thought about what I’d want to say — because I’ve been making and hearing these speeches for a lot of years — I was thinking about the economy generally and thinking about budgeting generally and about how we approach that and about some of the realities that we don’t always talk about here. They are the realities of a provincial economy and an economy like British Columbia — a relatively small economy in the big picture of things, an export-dependent economy with a relatively small population.

I was thinking about budgets and how we talk about the economy. The reality is that governments probably don’t deserve too much credit or too much blame for the big economic numbers at the provincial level. The things that drive a provincial economy like ours are interest rates, the value of the dollar and commodity prices. Those are probably the three biggest drivers — and, of course, for us here, what the Americans are doing at any given time and now, to an increasing degree, what China is doing at any given time in terms of purchase of exports and where that is.

The reality is that a provincial government doesn’t have a heck of a lot to say about interest rates and the value of the dollar or what happens with commodity prices in an economy that pays a lot of attention to resources. I think that’s a bit of the reality on the big numbers that we realize in British Columbia, and that’s what the situation is.

[1140]

Then the question becomes: what is the role of the provincial government in the economy? And it really is about how it responds to those factors, how it responds to those issues, how it responds to those circumstances that it’s presented with. That’s the debate that we need to have here.

When I listen to the Minister of Finance and I listen to ministers on that side, or responders on the government side, talk about the budget here, there is a pretty single-minded focus, largely — not exclusively, but largely — on the balanced budget. I understand that. That is the place where B.C. Liberal MLAs go in this debate. It is about that issue, and I get why that is. It’s because there really is not a whole ton there, over and above that.

Balanced budgets are important things. Any and all governments, I anticipate, would like to balance budgets and work at that and find that that kind of fiscal efficiency is an important thing, as you can achieve that. But the other thing we know about budgets, and certainly about the budget in British Columbia, is that provincial budgets, the budgets of a province, are not like the budget or the fiscal statement of a business or of anybody else, at that point.

The role of government is different. It’s not simply about balancing the bottom line. It’s about a whole lot of other factors. It’s about people, largely, and it’s about being able to manage the situation for people. It’s about being able to engage and encourage the economy of British Columbia in ways that work for all British Columbians.

That becomes, I think, the debate here: whether what the government has done in 2016 and in previous budgets, and in the efforts leading up to this budget…. Has it, in fact, done a good job of doing that? I think there are some pretty serious questions about whether that has occurred. When we talk about and when I hear the Finance Minister talk about the economy of British Columbia, he glosses over — or chooses not to speak about, because I’m sure he knows — the reality of the British Columbia economy.

The reality is that when you look at the numbers in British Columbia, we have two economies in this province. We have an economy in the Lower Mainland and components of the south Island that’s pretty strong, doing pretty well. It has some real challenges, and I’ll talk about those in a second. And then we have the economy of the rest of the province, which is not in near as good shape. It’s an economy where there’s a lot of uncertainty, where people aren’t sure about jobs, where people aren’t sure about economic opportunity or people aren’t sure about where things are going.

The question becomes: does this budget, in fact, speak to those two different realities of the British Columbia economy? I’m not so sure that it does. I’m not so sure it does that at all.

In the Lower Mainland, the issues are that people are working. They’re having serious problems with making ends meet, though, because affordability is a huge issue in our community — a huge issue. Housing is, obviously, the big driver and the driver that everybody is paying attention to at the moment.

Housing affordability is a great issue. I know in my constituency, I have more people who come into my office, young families, moms and dads with young kids
[ Page 10497 ]
who come in and say: “You know, we make $50,000 a year or $40,000 a year. I got a $20-an-hour job. I’m making $40,000 a year, but I can’t find a place that’s appropriate for me and my family and my kids, and if I can find it, I can’t afford it.” That story gets told over and over again.

[1145]

The Minister of Housing talks about housing. The minister and the government have done a number of things around housing in relation to homelessness and in relation to people who suffer from mental health issues and addictions. There has been work done there.

But as the minister has said — I know, in previous estimates, to me, when I had the critic responsibility for this — other than rent subsidy, he has not seen the responsibility of government, outside of the rent subsidy program, to deal with family affordability issues. That’s a private market initiative and responsibility, and rent subsidy is the way that he and his government will support people who face challenges there.

We have a difference. We believe that there is a greater need to create affordable housing and that that has to be done.

The minister has talked about the $355 million. I’ll be very interested to see how much of that money goes into family affordability and how much of it goes into what have become the more historic and traditional areas where the minister has chosen to invest when he’s had money to invest.

Much of this money has come, of course — and we know in the housing field — from the sale of a significant number of properties, mostly into the non-profit sector with non-profit buyers who are purchasing those. I look forward to understanding those agreements better in the future, about how that’s being paid for, how that money is coming back, to what degree the non-profit sector is paying for the government’s housing initiative announced in this budget and how those organizations will be supported in terms of how they address some of the housing, moving forward, that they’ve now purchased or acquired — lots of it that is going to need support in terms of maintenance and upkeep in coming years. I’ll look forward to seeing how that all occurs.

Affordability becomes that significant issue in the Lower Mainland. In other parts of the province, the issue is: “Am I going to have a job? Is there going to be enough income for my family? Am I going to be able to address that?” We didn’t hear a lot of discussion about those issues in the budget, quite frankly.

We’ve seen the government move from the preoccupation — and I certainly understand this — on LNG, a preoccupation that was initiated by the Premier heading into the last election: $1 trillion of economic activity, $100 billion in a prosperity fund, 100,000 jobs, debt-free British Columbia. Maybe we’d even get rid of the sales tax. Now, of course, we have the Premier saying that we have to do something now around LNG to try to hang onto the 13,000 or so jobs that are in the sector today. That’s where those claims came from.

There’ll be a lot of talk about whether the market shifts and the price of oil are the driving force. Obviously, that’s a significant part of this. But let’s be clear. When the Premier made those commitments, she said she would have a plant up and operating in 2015. That would have meant a whole lot of action from 2013 to 2015, none of which occurred. All of that was in the period that largely would have preceded — much of that activity would have preceded — the oil crash. But it didn’t happen. It didn’t happen.

There were unbelievable commitments and promises made by the Premier around LNG at that time, and the only success they realized is that they fooled British Columbians in the 2013 election. That was the extent of the success of those promises.

Sadly, we have no sense that we’re going to see more success than that. We might. We might see something in the next year. Who knows. But at this point, the reality is what it is.

Now we’ve seen the government move to a discussion of diversification, and that’s a good thing. It’s something that we’ve been saying to this government since those promises started to arise — that we need a diversified economy, and we need the government to be talking to other sectors.

[1150]

We know that not long after 2013, when the frenzy was going on, on the government side, around LNG — it has cooled considerably now; I understand that — it was extremely difficult for industries and sectors that were not connected to LNG to get the government’s attention on markets, on regulatory regimes, on assistance, particularly coming through and looking at these businesses that were still recovering from the 2008 hit and were still trying to move forward. The government was not paying attention to those interests.

I hope, for the sake of those sectors — because they’re the ones that are creating jobs today, the ones where thousands of people work today — that the government now has changed gears and is paying somewhat more attention to the needs of those sectors of the economy. The needs are real. They’re signing paycheques today for thousands and thousands of people across the province, and they need more help.

When we talk about what the economy has to achieve and what it has to accomplish, we know that one of the big challenges — it certainly is, for me, a big challenge — is to reduce inequality. Reducing inequality is a combination of dealing with issues like poverty…. We know that in this province, we have about half a million people living in poverty. About a third of those are kids — a little bit less but around that. Kids don’t get poor by themselves. Poor kids mean poor families.

Of those poor families, about half, maybe more than half of them, have a full-time paycheque coming into the house. But they’re struggling. And they’re not alone. That’s
[ Page 10498 ]
about minimum wages and close to minimum wages. We went in this province…. The Premier introduced changes back in 2011 or 2012. She took our minimum wage from the bottom, after a decade of no increases under Premier Campbell, and she took it up and made it the second- or third-best minimum wage in the country.

Well, today, after the latest 20-cent increase, we are back down to the second-worst minimum wage in the country. And we will be the worst by the end of September — the worst minimum wage in the country. Some of the highest cost drivers in the country. The worst minimum wage in the country.

And it won’t get any better. We’ve indexed it, but so has every other province in the country indexed their minimum wage. It will just get worse, because we start at the bottom of the heap. Yet this minister, this government, has decided not to address that, even though the Premier committed, at the time that she made those increases in 2011 or 2012, that there would be a review every two years. The Premier talked about that review every two years. That has gone into the trash heap — that review.

The minister responsible for the minimum wage, the Minister of Jobs, was very clear in estimates that the government is satisfied with the 20-cent increase that brings the minimum wage to $10.45 an hour. She’s happy to stay at that level with the modest increases that CPI will provide, moving forward.

People are not able to live. Those people living in poverty — hundreds of thousands of people, the working poor — are struggling with that, and they’re not getting by. No matter what we believe, they are not getting by. So we have that challenge with the minimum wage.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

In this budget, there was no discussion. Year in and year out for a decade, we have talked about the need for a poverty reduction strategy. The government has continued to say no to that and talked about the best poverty reduction strategy being a job. But jobs aren’t doing well in this province.

The country is in trouble — absolutely. But we’re in sixth place in private sector job creation. Sixth place in the country in private sector job creation, and we have the worst wage growth in the country. So those people who are working, particularly at lower pay rates, are not finding a way to increase their income. They’re struggling with very low wage growth.

I was talking…. I was at an event put on, I believe, by the Vancouver Board of Trade. The CEO of Vancity, a major financial institution, and Jock Finlayson from the Business Council — both of them talked about the challenges of inequality and the challenges of wage growth as being critical factors to grow our economy in British Columbia in areas that need support.

The budget has done nothing to deal with those issues of inequality and critical wage growth. We just have not seen that in any way, shape or form here. We need to move in those areas, and this government has chosen not to touch those areas.

[1155]

We’ll know. We can contrast the 20 cents versus the tax cut for the top 2 percent. Ministers will know. We talked about year 1, when it was $236 million in a tax cut for the top 2 percent. Yet of course what we know is that’s every year. So over a four-year period, it’s $1 billion that will go into that tax cut versus 20 cents an hour for people on minimum wage. Somebody who earns $1 million a year will get an $18,000 tax cut out of that versus 20 cents an hour in the minimum wage.

The minister — and I understand why — talked about the $355 million allocated to housing — $1 billion in tax cuts for the top 2 percent over four years and $355 million for housing over five years. That is a choice. That’s a choice the government made — $1 billion for the top 2 percent and $355 million for housing affordability. I don’t think it’s a good choice.

I understand why the minister wants to embrace that. I don’t blame him. But it’s not a good deal. There’s nothing good about this.

As we read in the newspaper post-budget, it is a budget of half-measures, of mediocre measures, wrapped around a government that embraces the balanced bottom line. I understand why they embrace the balanced bottom line, because there’s not a lot else to talk about in this, other than the bottom line. There’s not a lot else about this budget that anybody is going to be terribly proud of.

They talked about children and family supports. Those dollars were put there because of the absolute disaster in that ministry in the last year — suicides and deaths. The children’s representative and Mr. Plecas’s report, on issue after issue, saying: “You have to deal with this, and it’s going to cost money.”

This isn’t about being magnanimous about this. This is about serious damage control. As we know, there is nothing more important than damage control for this government.

I will reserve my place to complete my comments after the lunch break. I move adjournment of debate.

S. Simpson moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. T. Lake 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 11:57 a.m.

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

Copyright © 2016: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada