2017 Legislative Session: Sixth Session, 40th Parliament
HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Monday, March 6, 2017

Morning Sitting

Volume 42, Number 10

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

MONDAY, MARCH 6, 2017

The House met at 10:03 a.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Tributes

KIDSPORT COMMUNITY AWARD
RECIPIENT MICHELLE STILWELL

G. Hogg: To achieve excellence in sport on a world stage speaks volumes about a person’s ability, fortitude and drive. To achieve excellence on the stage of life by contributing to the well-being of others speaks volumes about a person’s character, compassion and caring. To achieve excellence both in sport and in life, to selflessly give of oneself to inspire and to support others, is a testament to one’s commitment to their community and to humankind.

The member for Parksville-Qualicum has combined excellence in sport as a six-time Paralympic gold medallist with excellence in community contributions as the 2016 recipient of KidSport B.C.’s Community Champion Award, in recognition of her contributions and dedication above and beyond in the service of KidSport B.C.

Congratulations and thanks to her, a true community champion.

[1005]

Orders of the Day

Private Members’ Statements

SUPPORTING RESOURCE SECTOR JOBS

D. Donaldson: I’m happy to rise today to speak on the topic of supporting resource jobs in this province. Here are the results of the Premier’s so-called jobs plan for northern and more rural areas of B.C. The number of people on welfare in the north has increased 10.7 percent, compared to a year ago — 2½ times the provincial average.

[R. Lee in the chair.]

Year over year, increases in the number of people on unemployment insurance jumped by 12 to 17 percent in northern communities, 12 percent in Prince George, 17 percent in Williams Lake, 21 percent in Vernon, 22 percent in Salmon Arm, 25 percent in Kamloops and 29 percent in Penticton.

These Statistics Canada numbers show that the B.C. Liberal view of how great the economy is doing in the province ends somewhere around Hope. What can be done differently? Here are a few suggestions.

First, make basic family costs like B.C. Hydro and ICBC rates more affordable. Both have skyrocketed between 25 and 36 percent in just five years under decisions made by this government — and nothing to slow the trend.

On top of a 30 percent rise in B.C. Hydro rates under this Premier, we can expect another 10 percent increase in the next few years. And an ICBC report predicts a stunning 42 percent increase in the next few years. There was nothing in the recent budget to address either of these hidden taxes. They take money out of the pockets of families and resource workers, which means less disposable income for spending in northern and rural businesses. That equates to fewer jobs.

Second, settle comprehensive land and resource agreements with First Nations. The B.C. Liberals’ approach is to sign one-off agreements on a project-by-project basis. That’s their approach. Although these do bring benefits, they are no match for the certainty of comprehensive agreements. Even the former B.C. Liberal Attorney General Geoff Plant says the current approach is misguided. That lack of certainty results in less investment which is needed to support jobs, especially in the resource sector and resource communities.

At the foundation of comprehensive agreements are land use plans. Land use plans need to be created and existing ones updated in partnerships with First Nations, in the context of the Supreme Court of Canada’s Tsilhqot’in decision in 2015 on title and consent.

They are especially important for certainty around natural resources like minerals. Nothing puts a finer point on the danger of losing critical investment to elsewhere than the latest Fraser Institute survey of mining companies, for instance, which ranks B.C. 18th from the bottom out of 104 jurisdictions when it comes to “investor uncertainty concerning disputed land claims.”

That is the record after 16 years of B.C. Liberal government. Calling hereditary chiefs who disagree with her idea of development “ragtags” as the Premier did just last year, does little to advance reconciliation or foster certainty.

Third, in forestry, we’ve lost 30,000 jobs under the B.C. Liberals. We still have many forest-dependent communities in the north, so the forestry portfolio needs attention. The Premier’s all-eggs-in-one-basket approach, focusing solely on LNG, has diverted almost the entire attention of the resource ministries to that one sector, to the detriment of others like forestry.

Tenure reform is long overdue to allow more access to fibre from the forest to more entrepreneurs. Value-added opportunities need attention to reduce the number of raw log exports that have hit record levels under this Premier,
[ Page 14062 ]
averaging six million cubic metres a year — enough, by conservative estimates, to support 4,500 workers.

The Northern Rockies municipality, with Fort Nelson at its core, made withering criticisms of this government’s forestry jobs plan when they wrote, just in November:

“Rather than encouraging a restart of the forest industry and the employment and prosperity it would foster, the tenure system has supported the speculative hoarding of wood and the export of unprocessed logs and jobs away from Fort Nelson. Changes need to be directed toward discouraging wood hoarding; greater local and First Nations involvement; flexibility adaptability to changing realities; rewards for innovation and investment that leads towards economic diversification; and how best to repair the broken links between resource communities reliant on their sustainable forestry development.”

That pretty well sums up the job-destroying legacy of 16 years of B.C. Liberal government in this province when it comes to forestry.

Fourth, recognize, protect and expand the existing jobs supported by natural resources and make that a priority when considering other proposals that put those jobs at risk. Here’s a big example of that: the jobs derived from the freshwater fishery in northern communities. In the Skeena River watershed alone, that is worth $25 million a year and supports hundreds of jobs. We’re talking the wild salmon resource.

[1010]

These are community located jobs, whether in guiding, retail, material and equipment, processing, transportation, hospitality, accommodation and construction.

This sustainable resource, supporting existing jobs, can be put at risk when a government with blinders on about anything except LNG doesn’t see or understand the impact of development — in the Eelgrass beds around Lelu Island, for instance. Those beds, which provide critical rearing grounds for salmon smolts transitioning between fresh water and salt water at a precarious stage of their lives, if damaged or destroyed, would irreversibly impact the wild salmon runs of the Skeena, according to independent, peer-reviewed science.

A smaller example in this category is one I just recently witnessed at the community meeting in Kitwanga but one that I know has had numerous examples over the last 16 years. A plan is proposed to cut timber in an area at the base of the class A Seven Sisters Provincial Park, along Highway 16, that would destroy pine mushroom habitat. For those who don’t know, pine mushrooms cannot be cultivated, and there’s a high demand for them in Japan.

Pickers can make an important cash infusion into their seasonal employment. The estimated 10,000 cubic metres of merchantable timber would, perhaps, provide two winters of logging employment. The pine mushroom patches in this forest will support pickers with a direct cash input for years and years. Again, a lack of consideration for long-term jobs and the creation of uncertainty for loggers and commercial mushroom pickers, both of which are resource sector jobs.

Statistics Canada shows that this government’s jobs plan has failed those living in the north, but it is the people in the communities who know that this B.C. Liberal economy is not working for them. It’s time for a new approach to resource sector jobs in this province.

With that, I’ll take my place and listen to the response from the government side.

G. Kyllo: I’m proud to rise today to speak to supporting the resource sector jobs in our province.

The B.C. jobs plan has focused on eight sectors, originally, and on trying to grow the provincial economy and create jobs across B.C. In direct contrast to the comment of the member opposite, we have been focused on diversifying British Columbia’s economy, and we’re now focusing on nine separate sectors to provide economic growth across British Columbia.

The resource sector is a vital sector in our province. The key sectors of the B.C. jobs plan — including forestry, mining and natural gas development — provide good-paying, family-supporting jobs for hard-working British Columbians so they can take care of the people they love. The resource sectors are an integral part of the B.C. jobs plan, which has taken B.C. job growth from below the national average to the highest in Canada. The unemployment in B.C. is currently the lowest in Canada and has remained there for the last eight consecutive months.

International goods exports have grown by 10 percent and now total almost $36 billion, with B.C. having one of the most diversified markets in Canada. B.C.’s economy has expanded by just over 12 percent or nearly $25 billion. We want to see that growth continue, especially in our natural resource sector.

One way we’re doing that is from Budget 2017, and that’s eliminating the PST on electricity. Beginning on October 1, the tax rate on electricity will reduce to 3.5 percent from the current 7 percent, and it will be eliminated entirely by April of 2019. This is good news, especially for our resource sectors, helping them to remain competitive in global markets.

Another measure from Budget 2017 is the extension of the mining tax credit as well as increased funding of $18 million to the Ministry of Energy and Mines over the next three years to support mine permitting and oversight. The forest sector is receiving record support with a $150 million investment in the reforestation initiative. This is the kind of support that I am talking about. It’s unfortunate the opposition refuses to support the budget, which includes these important measures to support our resource sectors and the economy of rural B.C.

We appreciate and understand that the growth of the jobs sector in B.C. has largely been in Metro and in the southern part of Vancouver Island. That is not unique to British Columbia. We’re seeing that across Canada and around the globe as there are more people moving to larger centres.
[ Page 14063 ]

Our government has focused on a diversified jobs plan and providing supports for rural British Columbia. The rural dividend fund is a $25-million-a-year investment now committed for an additional three years — a $100 million investment in supporting rural communities with populations below 25,000 people and providing them the supports to help them to look at diversifying their local economies. As well is the recent appointment of the Minister of State for Rural Economic Development.

[1015]

Our government is aware of the differences between the economic growth that is happening in rural parts of our province and that in the Lower Mainland. We have a focused commitment on diversifying both our sectors which serve our province as well as on diversifying the markets.

We’ve worked hard on diversifying markets with other parts of the globe. Back in 2001, 74 percent of all of our trade was with the United States. Our government has made a continued focus on diversifying those markets and increasing trade ties with Asia. We’ve now reduced our reliance on the U.S. market to 54 percent. These initiatives on diversifying the sectors that we focus on in B.C. and diversifying our markets are one of the reasons why B.C. continues to lead Canada in economic growth.

The forest sector directly contributed $7.3 billion to B.C.’s economy in 2015, employing nearly 60,000 people and supporting more than 7,000 forest sector businesses in B.C. Forest products accounted for 36 percent of B.C.’s total exports in 2016.

Locally, in my region, companies like USNR and the Sawmill Equipment Company in Salmon Arm design, develop and manufacture world-leading sawmill equipment for companies here at home and around the globe. Great West Equipment just recently opened a new facility in Spallumcheen, providing heavy-duty equipment sales and service largely to support the resource sector. These businesses support good-paying, family-supporting jobs in my community.

B.C. is a global leader in using wood technology and design. UBC’s upcoming student residence will be one of the world’s tallest hybrids at 18 storeys and is slated for opening in 2017. Our government has invested more than $400 million since 2005 to support forest area wildlife infestations. Our government is working hard to support development in rural B.C., and we will continue to do so.

D. Donaldson: After 16 years of B.C. Liberal government, that hodgepodge of announcements we just heard from the member for Shuswap is, frankly, an insult to resource-dependent communities in this province. Perhaps the member didn’t hear that unemployment in one of his own communities has risen 22 percent year over year, according to Statistics Canada.

After five years as Premier, this Premier wakes up and realizes that rural B.C. is important, just before an election, and puts together a grab-bag of previous announcements with no plan and no theme and no objectives.

I’ll give you an example — the rural dividend fund. I have a community, Telkwa, who has been looking for a less than $2 million contribution from this government towards a water tower, something as basic as safe water in their community. Yet this government can spend $16 million on government advertising, telling the rest of the rural province area how great the economy is doing. Telkwa can’t even get less than $2 million for safe water from this government.

Post-secondary funding was mentioned. This is a government so arrogant that they dictate to communities what is good for them when it comes to post-secondary funding.

I had a First Nations person who was in control of post-secondary skills training in their area. They were contacted by a community college saying this government had provided money for LNG training in their community. They have no LNG jobs or any kind of LNG on the horizon in their community. They don’t have those natural gas resources. They need jobs and some training in mining, and that money wasn’t there. That shows the arrogance.

To recap, we need action on affordability for resource workers. We need comprehensive land use plans and land claims with First Nations to increase certainty, especially investment around the mining sector. We need tenure reform in forestry and more attention on value-added. We need to have existing jobs and the resources that support them considered in decisions around development — and protect the wild salmon resource in northern rural areas. And we need a better focus on post-secondary training and to let communities dictate what needs to be done in their communities to support resource sector jobs.

Those are the kinds of actions a government that was concerned about supporting resource sector jobs in this province would undertake. I look forward to this side forming government on May 9 and undertaking those kinds of accomplishments.

[1020]

RECOGNIZING SEARCH AND RESCUE IN B.C.

J. Thornthwaite: There’s not a winter weekend that goes by that we don’t see our local search and rescue crews on the news, rescuing lost skiers, hikers or even those this weekend buried in an avalanche. Our North Shore mountains offer some of the finest back-country opportunities to hike and ski in the world.

Yet as beautiful as the back country can be, it can also be a treacherous place if the weather changes or recreational users become injured or lost in the wilderness. That’s when an extraordinary breed of citizen known as a search and rescue volunteer comes into the picture.
[ Page 14064 ]

The SAR volunteers forgo free time with their families, subject themselves to rigorous training and place their own safety at risk to locate those who find themselves lost or injured. Selfless and dedicated SAR volunteers perform a life-saving service that all British Columbians consider invaluable. In fact, many international visitors also owe a debt of gratitude to our SAR volunteers. They make us proud in the eyes of the world.

It is for all of these reasons listed above that the provincial government is making substantial contributions to support our small army of 2,500 SAR volunteers. This includes a $10 million announcement in 2016 to help to bolster training, administrative support and equipment renewals. This money was provided to the B.C. Search and Rescue Association, who work with their membership to allocate funds throughout the province, of which $100,000 went to North Shore Rescue.

This investment builds on the almost $9 million that the B.C. government already provides each year to cover ground search and rescue operational costs for deployment. This includes training and equipment costs as well as the insurance and liability for members of the 80 groups serving across the B.C. landscape.

In my own community, I had the privilege to know and honour someone who dedicated their life to North Shore Rescue — Tim Jones. Tim Jones was an advanced life support paramedic and unit chief with the B.C. Ambulance Service, but he was most well known for being the leader of North Shore Rescue. He was instrumental in the building of that organization. He mentored those who would follow in his footsteps and, of course, saved many lives. Tim participated in more than 1,400 missions and helped more than 1,600 people.

Tim Jones is a true hero of British Columbia. In 2011, Tim received the Order of British Columbia for his long-standing efforts in search and rescue on the North Shore. It has been three years since he passed away, but his legacy lives on. A little over a month ago, I stood alongside the family of Tim Jones with his fellow SAR volunteers, MLAs and the Premier of British Columbia to name a peak on Mount Seymour in his honour. Tim Jones Peak is a 1,425-metre peak within the boundaries of Mount Seymour Provincial Park.

As part of our renaming of the peak, the province funded a helipad on Tim Jones Peak to aid in their rescues. I was pleased to assist North Shore Rescue with securing the funding necessary to construct the emergency helicopter landing pad where they store their cache.

North Shore Rescue regularly responds to emergency search and rescue calls in this area. That always requires the rapid deployment of resources. Having the emergency landing pad allows North Shore Rescue to safely and quickly put volunteers into the area. Furthermore, by having an equipment cache on site, SAR volunteers have access to heavier rescue and medical equipment when the weather doesn’t cooperate and volunteers have to make their way on foot.

Last year, I was pleased to help secure an extra $188,000 worth of funding to support life-saving longline helicopter equipment. This was in addition to their annual $100,000 gaming grant. The longline equipment enables the extraction of the lost and injured as well as the deployment of SAR volunteers into inhospitable terrain.

North Shore Rescue was the first search and rescue team in British Columbia to implement helicopter longline rescue, and the region has come to rely on this capability. As a matter of fact, it was Tim Jones himself who was instrumental in developing longline capabilities for North Shore Rescue.

Our government recognizes the value of North Shore Rescue and the other 79 search and rescue organizations all around the province. We remain committed to working with the B.C. Search and Rescue Association and all of the volunteers in order to ensure that we have a sustainable and successful program moving into the future.

S. Simpson: I’m pleased to have the opportunity to stand and speak to this motion in regard to our search and rescue team.

[1025]

We know that last week, here at the Legislature, on the second of March, we had the unveiling of the memorial for search and rescue and the 17 volunteers who lost their lives in dedicated service to the people of British Columbia as search and rescue volunteers. That memorial has now joined police, fire and paramedics out here on the legislative precinct, and rightly so.

The member before spoke about Tim Jones. We know that Tim Jones has become an iconic figure in British Columbia for many. He has been recognized, quite rightly, time after time as such a great example of somebody who dedicated themselves to community service for this province and to providing an incredibly critical service in search and rescue — and providing the kind of leadership that he had, not just for the North Shore, but Tim, I believe, was the face and provided that leadership for search and rescue across the province and has been recognized for that. And the recognition is very deserved.

We know that the demand for search and rescue services continues to climb — more than 1,300 incidents last year, where there was a demand for search and rescue services. That’s more than triple the number of demands of service requirements and service requests that we saw in incidents in 2001.

What we have today is 2,500 dedicated volunteers across this province who risk their own lives, who take time away from their families and who do this as volunteers to help fellow British Columbians and people who are visitors to our province when they get in trouble in the back country and in the wilderness. They are often the first people there, and they are the people who suc-
[ Page 14065 ]
ceed way more often than not in being able to rescue people who need it. And they are, too often — in those sad instances where people don’t survive those trips — the people who come in and do the recovery work as well. Eighty organizations across the province do that work.

There is a challenge, though, and the speaker before talked about the support that the government has provided. I know that support was welcome and, as was noted, largely supporting training and equipment. We know the government made a contribution last year — a two-year contribution that is being used for this. The challenge is that they need sustained support for administration and fundraising.

As the provincial association for search and rescue has said: “The province of B.C. must provide assured, adequate annual funding and support as presented in their proposal for search and rescue.” And they asked for that in order to deal largely with administration and fundraising. You have 2,500 dedicated volunteers who do this work every day, and what we need to do is provide not just annual, every year, but ongoing support that they can rely on so that those 2,500 people can do the job they’ve come to do, which is to help people who need their help and deal with those issues.

We have recognized the critical importance of search and rescue in this province. Now government has to support this volunteer-driven initiative like they mean it, and that means ongoing, committed, sustained support for the long term, year in and year out, particularly on the administrative and fundraising side. Let the volunteers do what they do best.

J. Thornthwaite: Thank you to the member for Vancouver-Hastings for mentioning my friend Tim Jones.

Our government has made some of the largest investments in the history of the province to support search and rescue teams. The government covers the cost of helicopter contracting, fuelling, provides mileage and meal costs for volunteers, training and equipment, liability insurance, workers compensation benefits and the administrative costs of the B.C. Search and Rescue Association. This amounts to almost $9 million in annual contributions. Many individual SAR groups also benefit from community gaming grants to support their operations, including North Shore Rescue.

Budget 2017 also contains a special recognition for individual search and rescue volunteers. Our government has introduced a $3,000 tax break at the cost of $1 million to the province. This non-refundable tax credit can provide a benefit of up to $151.80 each year. The credit amount is $151 because British Columbia already has the lowest middle-class income tax rates of any in the province. The tax benefit matches the federal tax break, also worth $3,000, and when combined, upwards of $600 a year goes back to these deserving heroes.

[1030]

Naturally, search and rescue volunteers serve because of their commitment and not for any reward, and we are indebted to them and their commitment. The tax credit is, therefore, a recognition of their individual sacrifice and the public service that search and rescue volunteers provide.

In closing, I would like to thank all 2,500 search and rescue volunteers that serve in all corners of this province. Last week I had a privilege to attend the unveiling of the B.C. Search and Rescue memorial on the legislative grounds. The memorial honours fallen heroes who have paid the ultimate sacrifice in the service of our public safety.

Indeed, the memorial bears the name of Bob McGregor, who was an eight-year veteran mountaineer of North Shore Rescue and a training officer for the group, who died during a training mission in the Tantalus Range on August 5, 1989.

Two weeks ago I stood in this chamber to honour our friend Tim Jones, a loving husband and father and friend.

M. Farnworth: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

M. Farnworth: In the precincts and in the gallery today are four constituents of mine. It’s a real pleasure to introduce a city councillor, Brad West, and his wife, Blaire West, and their now two-month-old baby boy, Liam West.

He’s their first child, and in this the year of our sesquicentennial, I will make a prediction that if young Liam has the political instincts and inclinations of his parents, he may well be sitting in this House at our bicentennial in 2067. Accompanying them is Brian Leavold. I ask the House to make these constituents of mine most welcome.

Private Members’ Statements

EDUCATION IN RURAL B.C.

K. Conroy: I don’t think anyone in this House, on both sides of the chamber, would disagree with me if I say that a good education is one of the most important things we can provide for our children. I also think most would agree that schools in rural and remote communities are often the hub of the community. However, in B.C., the past 16 years have been difficult times for rural communities.

Let’s look at the facts. In 2002, the current Premier, then as Education Minister, changed the funding formula for K-to-12 education. Prior to 2002, the government used the model called program-and-cost funding, but the Premier, then the minister, changed it to the per-pupil funding.
[ Page 14066 ]

The program-and-cost model required the province to meet or manage increases in cost or new services offered by the school districts. Since the B.C. Liberal government had committed to freezing education funding for three years, keeping this model would have meant that the minister, now the Premier, would have been responsible for deciding which programs to cut in school districts. By switching to a per-pupil model, the amount of funding each district received would be based on the number of students, and the decisions on cutting programs was downloaded onto school districts.

This funding formula change has allowed this government to underfund school districts for over a decade. As a result, 315 schools have closed across the province during this time. School districts have really struggled, especially in the past few years, as decisions to close schools fell on their shoulders.

Let’s look at the community of Osoyoos as an example. In January 2016, just a year ago, the local school board for school district 53 first proposed closing Osoyoos Secondary. They said a lack of funding from the government, declining enrolment and increased classroom capacity were the reasons for considering the closure.

By April 2016, the school board was forced to vote to close Osoyoos Secondary School. Leading up to this decision and after it, the community was united against the decision. Students, parents, teachers and local officials led the fight, and multiple town meetings were held on the issue.

Our own education spokesperson, the member for Victoria–Swan Lake, attended a number of these meetings, while the local MLA refused to, insisting there was no reason for her to attend. But the community saw it differently and kept the pressure on. In fact….

Deputy Speaker: Member, private members’ time is not supposed to be partisan. The practice is that in a statement, no groups or members should be identified.

K. Conroy: Thank you. I’ll carry on talking about the community.

In fact, during the process, they gathered almost 4,000 signatures on a petition addressed to numerous people involved in education in the community.

[1035]

They asked:

“Public consultation is to begin on these options presented by the school board to consider: the closure of Osoyoos Secondary School and the transfer of students to the Southern Okanagan Secondary School; or the closure of Osoyoos Elementary, the renovation of Osoyoos Secondary to a K-to-9 school and the transfer of grades 10 to 12 to Southern Okanagan School.

“We the undersigned — concerned parents, future parents, grandparents, students, future students, business owners, citizens and visitors of Osoyoos, B.C. — want to see these options off the table.”

In other words, they wanted to keep Osoyoos Secondary open.

After considerable pressure from Osoyoos and other districts across the province, in June of 2016 the new rural education enhancement fund was announced. This was one-time funding for rural districts facing school closures. While the government wouldn’t provide a specific figure for how much funding they would provide, they said the amount each district would receive would be the same as the amount in expected savings from closing the school. They had until June 30, 2016, to apply.

The government issued a press release on June 30 stating that the amounts of funds from the rural education enhancement fund would be used to keep seven rural schools open. School district 53 was one of them and could now keep Osoyoos Secondary open for the 2016-2017 school year. There were six others on the list.

On June 30, 2016, the local Osoyoos school board voted to rescind a bylaw passed in April that would have closed Osoyoos Secondary. The vote passed 5 to 2. After putting the community through considerable turmoil, Osoyoos stayed open, and my understanding is that it is thriving.

It’s interesting that also, while this issue was throughout the province, it carried on. The rural education funding carried on. The government announced that they launched a website to facilitate on-line discussion on the topic and hold some regional meetings.

Lastly, they said that their new rural education strategy would be ready by the summer of 2017 — in the summer of 2017. Not now, not while school boards are already in planning stages for the next years and looking at what schools they might potentially have to close and whether they have enough funding — not until summer of 2017.

I know that a number of people attended the meeting that was held in Trail on these issues. A number of issues were identified, including the importance of rural and remote schools as hubs for their communities, of transportation to reach schools due to geographical challenges. That was reiterated many times.

Community groups that are now being forced to seek alternative locations as schools find themselves having to charge for usage of space, due to rising costs of keeping schools open during the off-hours — and how much those community groups often benefit the school districts.

They also talked about the loss of citizens, due to the loss of jobs in the resource sector that support rural school growth, and about the lack of funding for aging buildings in the rural districts — all really good issues that the communities are grappling with but are waiting to get answers until the summer of 2017. School districts are frustrated by this, frustrated that they won’t know what’s going to happen to the rural schools until the summer of 2017.

There is still uncertainty in the rural districts in B.C. In fact, last week we had another petition from the concerned folks in the Osoyoos area that was presented to the House. This petition said: “We the undersigned urge
[ Page 14067 ]
the government to recognize that all kids in B.C.’s public school system deserve secure, stable and predictable education funding and call on the government to invest in our rural communities by properly funding our schools to keep them open beyond the current school year.”

The petition said that they wanted to ensure that rural schools, rural communities, could be confident that their schools would get the funding that they deserve and the funding that they need to ensure the best rural education for the kids in their communities.

You know, there is good reason to be concerned. People are worried that what happened back in 2016….

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, hon. Member.

D. Ashton: On behalf of the citizens that I have the pleasure of representing from Penticton, Peachland, Summerland and Naramata, I’m pleased to respond to the private member’s statement on education in rural B.C.

In June of last year, under the recommendations of the Premier, the Minister of State for Rural Economic Development and the Parliamentary Secretary for Rural Education were tasked to create a rural education strategy. The strategy was specifically designed to target rural schools in the districts outside of greater Victoria, Lower Mainland, Kelowna and districts with populations greater than 15,000 people.

[1040]

Unlike the densely packed urban areas, when a rural school closes, it often leaves very few alternate options for students, and it can be incredibly disruptive to the community. For the youth and the young children, their experience of school can be as much about the community as it is about receiving an education. During the critical stages of their social development, events like changing schools can be very jarring, potentially negatively impacting them in their learning experience.

With that being said, we also need to be very mindful of the local enrolment trends, the availability of funding, school board and community needs in order to find a healthy balance between maintaining a high quality of education and the economic viability of keeping a school open with fewer and fewer kids attending.

Through the rural education strategy and the hard work of the ministry staff, we were able to keep several B.C. schools open. Under the enhancement fund, the amount of funding districts will be eligible for is to be equal to their expected savings from closing the school.

Districts would be able to apply for the annual rural education enhancement funding if they met the following criteria: they’re in a rural community or sub-community outside of greater Victoria, the Lower Mainland and Kelowna areas with a population of less than 15,000; closure would eliminate specific grades within the community; funding is used to keep the school open; and closures due to the facility condition or extreme enrolment decline are not included. Through this funding, more than $2 million was allocated to keep seven rural schools open across four school districts.

This issue was particularly significant and timely, in March, for the people that I have the pleasure of representing in my area, because it was decided that they were going to close two schools: West Bench and Trout Creek Elementary. Trout Creek was my alma mater. For those of you who are unfamiliar with the area, West Bench is located directly beside Penticton, right beside the Penticton Indian Band. The upper reservation, the reserve area, hosts a very high population for West Bench School — approximately 30 percent. The school is incredibly important to the local band.

Trout Creek is technically part of Summerland, although many in our community think it is a stand-alone community because it’s a very, very tight community. As the news broke of the potential closures, I was able to assist, with the incredible help of some very concerned but very proactive parents that came forward with some credible ideas. It was suggested to the ministry that a special adviser be appointed to overlook the complex issues of closures and, also, to be able to use some of the surpluses, which the school board had saved, for keeping both of these schools open.

When the options failed, the province stepped in and, through the rural enhancement funding — $369,000 for Trout Creek and $369,000 for West Bench — both schools were able to stay open. We provided a lot of stability to the parents and the students. When you take a look, there are 70,000 less kids in the province attending school — 1,900 in my area — since 2001. Being able to keep these schools open and to keep those incredibly dedicated teachers that represent the education backgrounds for these students made a huge difference in both of these schools. I cannot say thank you enough to those teachers that really do make a big difference.

We are able to do this because we had our ducks in a row. That’s my way of saying it. We have the opportunity because of the responsibility — what this government has shown now and into the future — of being able to run a very sustainable and a very, very balanced budget going forward. It gives us the opportunity of having those funds available when the need arises specifically.

In closing, I just really want to thank the students, the teachers and the parents for the work that they did to ensure that these schools stayed open and to come forward with some very good and viable ideas that I hope the school boards — not only in my area but in the areas that are challenged around this province — will take under consideration to keep those rooms full.

K. Conroy: I think that school districts across the province still have good reason to be concerned. Back in 2016, a number of the districts applied for schools slated to be closed in 2017-2018, and the ministry told them
[ Page 14068 ]
that they would be supported by the rural education enhancement fund, so that the schools could remain open.

Some of these schools included some in Kootenay Lake school district: Winlaw Elementary in Winlaw and R.W. Graham Community School in Slocan City. Both are vibrant schools and definitely the hubs of their community. The parents in those communities also had to rally to save their schools from closure. Both provide unique, excellent programs for their communities and the students who live there, not to mention the many services provided, as they are, indeed, a community hub.

[1045]

There’s also Texada Elementary on Texada Island, where I lived the first four years of my life. My older sister went to school there — a great rural school.

The government said they planned to make all districts aware of the application process for the 2017-2018 year before the end of February 2017. Well, the end of February has come and gone, and still no information for school districts as to whether these schools will be on the chopping block. What’s ironic is that chronic underfunding of rural schools in B.C. has been going on for 16 years, and suddenly, before an election, this government has decided they need to pay attention.

The Premier wants us to forget her role in this underfunding, her role from the beginning. She has neglected rural education for 16 years, and hundreds of schools have closed across the province. Communities like Osoyoos had to fight this government to keep their high school open. It worked for them. Other school districts and other parents and other groups across the province have had to fight. Now, as it’s getting close to an election, all of a sudden there’s funding for rural schools.

Rural school districts are frustrated. Well, we must stop this haphazard approach to funding education in this province. Governments need to provide secure, stable and adequate funding for B.C.’s public schools. We need to ensure that school districts can be assured that they are going to get the funds they need to not only keep schools open but to pay their teachers, to ensure that buildings are kept up to the standards that they should be. Our public school systems don’t have that right now.

Our kids and grandkids require this to ensure what we all agree on. We all agree that a great education to prepare them for their future is what our kids deserve in this province. We need to do that with stable, secure funding, which is not happening with this government right now.

SUPPORTING WINTER SPORT IN B.C.

L. Larson: I’m pleased to speak this morning on winter sports in B.C.

I represent the geographically diverse riding of Boundary-Similkameen, a riding well known for its summer tourism and agriculture and wine. But as winter sets in, it opens up the door for an entirely different scope of activities. The cold also signals the time at which many people come out to play. Today I have the honour of speaking to what brings thousands of people to our province from around the globe — winter sports.

As the members know, when the snow descends upon British Columbia, it becomes a very picturesque location, making for beautiful photographs. The landscapes shown often give off an air of quiet serenity. If one were to look more closely, however, one would see scenes of bustling activity.

Many British Columbians enthusiastically embrace the drop in temperature as the season when their pastimes begin. They play hockey in arenas and on frozen outdoor rinks. They drop a lure in any of the hundreds of frozen lakes scattered across the province to catch fish. I’m not a winter sport enthusiast myself, but even I enjoyed ice fishing with my grandchildren.

Some choose to go into the back country on their snowmobiles in search of an adrenalin rush, and of course, people ski and snowboard.

British Columbia has some of the best skiing in the world and sees approximately six million skiers and snowboarders annually. This number equates to a huge 34 percent share of all Canadian skier visits. The 2015-2016 season alone generated 5.6 million ski visits and revenues of $618 million. Still in mid-swing, the 2016-2017 ski season has had an extremely strong start. Many resorts are already reporting record numbers for visitation and revenue in December.

These resorts are able to accommodate a multitude of activities and events. They host ongoing visits by international travel media from the United States, Mexico, Australia, Japan, the United Kingdom, China and Germany. They also include nine travel media visits to Big White, four to Silver Star and 20 to Sun Peaks.

This year Sun Peaks has already hosted the winter Okanagan Wine Festival, the Air Nation snowboard tour and the Telus Nancy Greene Alpine Classic. Over the weekend, the Sun Peaks Nordic Festival, a family-oriented cross-country race, was also completed, and the FIS Speed Ski World Cup is expected to wrap up on the 8th.

Our government is pleased to support the resort municipality of Sun Peaks with funding, through the resort municipality initiative, in the order of $300,000 in 2016.

[1050]

Sun Peaks was also able to recently complete an NHL-sized ice rink. They received $842,000 in funding from the province, from community recreation funding and the resort municipality initiative, for the project.

At Silver Star Mountain this year, they’ve already hosted the Canadian Open Tour Slopestyle, the Winter Carnival Snow Sculpting Competition and Slopes for Hope, where skiers and snowboarders attempt to ride the vertical distance of Mount Everest in one day to fight cancer. And on the tenth of March, they are holding the Monster Energy Boarderstyle competition.
[ Page 14069 ]

Mount Baldy, located just an hour from Osoyoos, recently hosted the Slackcountry Cup. Apex Mountain Resort has already accommodated the Canadian series moguls; Brewski, an event that featured local craft beers, ciders and spirits; and the Vertical and Vintages Wine Festival, which just happened on Saturday.

It would be a little white lie if I said I was forgetting one of the resorts, because the truth is that it’s very hard to forget Big White. Big White, located southeast of Kelowna, is aptly named. It has 15 lifts, capable of servicing 8,000 skiers per hour to a patrolled ski area of 2,765 acres with 118 designated trails. These trails vary in difficulty from beginner to extreme, with a total approximate distance of 105 kilometres of marked runs. The total size of the resort is over 7,000 acres. As with most of our Interior ski resorts, Big White is expanding to host summer biking and hiking events as well.

Accommodation at Big White includes three village hotels, 25 home complexes, 244 vacation homes and cabins, and one ski-in, ski-out youth hostel. That is a lot of mountain. Big White has ice climbing, tubing in the snow, children’s snowmobiles, ice skating, snowshoeing, dogsledding, horse-drawn sleigh rides, cross-country skiing and numerous family events.

On top of injecting millions of dollars into local economies, the tourists and residents that make use of winter facilities see the added benefit of good health. From young children that have barely begun skiing to seniors who have been active in athletics for decades, winter sports allow us to remain involved in our communities. So although it may be freezing cold out there sometimes, I know that thousands will be keeping warm out on the rinks, lakes and slopes, enjoying our great winter activities.

S. Robinson: I’m pleased to stand in this chamber in response to my colleague from Boundary-Similkameen to talk about winter sports here in British Columbia. As an avid skier — a pretty decent skier, I have to say — and a very bad hockey player, I recognize that in order to be an active Canadian athlete, one has to have some connection to winter sports.

There are so many winter sports to be had here in British Columbia. We’ve got skiing — different kinds of skiing. We’ve got alpine, back-country, cross-country, heli-skiing, cat-skiing, biathlon, ski-jumping and freestyle. We have snowboarding. We have alpine, boarder cross, slalom, snow skating, slopestyle. I don’t know what that is; I have to research that one. We have para-snowboarding. We’ve got snowmobiling, snowshoeing. We’ve got sliding sports like tubing and tobogganing.

We have yukigassen here in British Columbia. That’s competitive snowball fighting. I want to partake in that. Perhaps we could do that with the other side of the House. We have snowsnake, a traditional First Nations game.

Then of course, there are the ice sports. We have ice skating. That includes figure skating and speed skating. We have hockey, sledge hockey, ringette, curling, wheelchair curling, ice climbing. We have different kinds of sledding, whether it’s bobsled, dog sled, luge or skeleton. And we have, of course, broomball, which I played when I was a young child in Montreal.

Now, these traditional winter sports all have snow or ice as part of their activities, but we also know that there are other sports that are played around British Columbia, that British Columbians engage in many different sports that occur during the wintertime that are not necessarily connected to ice and snow. Some of the winter sports that we see here in British Columbia are sports like gymnastics, wrestling, soccer and water polo. These are all played during the winter season as well. While we are all very proud to cheer on our athletes in all of these traditional and non-traditional winter sports here in B.C., I worry that we don’t necessarily see the support that they should have from this government.

[1055]

We know that in order for all of these sports to thrive in our communities, we rely on volunteers to organize and coach our children as they develop their skills, their confidence and their fitness levels.

We also know that in order to make these sports thrive, we need to have the support of gaming grants to subsidize some of the activities that help make these programs successful here in British Columbia. So it was disappointing last fall, and it was actually quite disturbing, to see how there was a complete failure to ensure that gaming grants — critical funds that these sporting groups rely on — were successfully adjudicated and awarded in a timely manner. Back in October, government stalled on over 1,100 grant applications, many of which would support winter sports in our community.

The White Rock South Surrey Skating Club was in a panic last fall because of the government’s bureaucratic shuffle. An eight-week delay in confirming the grants meant that these groups had to consider cancelling their winter programming. A soccer club in Surrey cancelled their girls program. They didn’t have assurance that they would be able to receive the funds in order to expand to a new program, because they hadn’t heard about the funding. That is rather disappointing to me.

Now, the North Shore Titans Water Polo Club — although it’s played in the water in the winter, it is a winter sport — had significant stress this last fall because there was such a delay in the funding announcement. I believe that if we really are champions of these winter sports, if this government and this side of the House really are champions, we would do everything to make sure that those volunteers, those coaches, those activities can go as planned.

At the end of the day, we all value sport because it’s good for our health, it’s good for our communities and it’s great for our children to have success at these early ages in things that they want to try. But unless the com-
[ Page 14070 ]
munity organizations have the supports that they need in order to make those programs successful, we’re really not providing the support that they need.

With that, I’ll take my seat and wait to hear the response from my colleague.

L. Larson: Thank you to the member opposite for the response and also for expanding on the list of winter activities that are available.

Earlier I spoke about the incredible amenities of Big White. It’s just one of the three major ski resorts in my riding. I neglected to mention at the time, however, some examples of some of the events they have recently hosted and plan to host.

In January, there was the B.C. snowboard cross. The first week of February saw the para world championship, in which disabled athletes compete and show off their skills. It should be noted that our government provided $165,000 in funding to support the Big White 2017 World Para Snowboard Championships. Later on this season, they will hold the Western Canada Ski Cross Finals and Peak Pride, an event designed to promote inclusiveness and acceptance.

These events, hosted in the world-class facilities around our province, are part of the reason that so many people return to British Columbia, winter after winter. By encouraging people from other places to come and visit the land we call home, we’re able to better educate them about the wonders of B.C. From an education perspective, it is great to know that some schools are offering skiing as part of the curriculum.

At Sun Peaks and Big White, students are able to ski from their front doors to the slopes. The students in my area, in Oliver and Osoyoos, participate in programs at Mount Baldy from January to March, and some of the sponsorship comes from local groups to help cover the costs. This sort of early education is part of the reason we are top-tier in the world of winter sports. At Phoenix Mountain, outside of Grand Forks, gaming grants support many youth programs.

By developing an interest at a young age, youth may obtain a passion for the outdoors and a love of the winter that stays with them for life. We may not all appreciate the length of winter this year, but thousands of British Columbians are enjoying one of the longest and best winter sports seasons ever.

Hon. T. Lake: I now call private members’ motions.

[1100]

Deputy Speaker: Hon. Members, unanimous consent of the House is required to proceed with Motion 5 without disturbing the priorities of the motions preceding it on the order paper.

Leave granted.

Private Members’ Motions

MOTION 5 — HOMELESSNESS

D. Eby: I move:

[Be it resolved that this House support action to address the unacceptable situation of more than 70 homeless camps in the Lower Mainland and throughout B.C.]

We’ve said many times in this House and outside of this House that British Columbia is in a housing crisis — from runaway real estate prices and rents — in many parts of Metro Vancouver, south Vancouver Island, the Sunshine Coast and the Interior — to record low vacancy rates in that rental housing to full shelters.

But when a reporter asked me who is hardest hit by this provincial housing crisis, I have to say the answer was quite obvious: the people who are housed in the lowest-rent housing who are now homeless as a result of this crisis and living in the streets.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

The people who were, of course, homeless even before this crisis started in earnest are the worst hurt by this ongoing problem in our province and this government’s more than ten years of indifference to this problem. In fact, a significant number of these people are actually dying.

This government has been indifferent to the increasing loss of low-cost rental housing, indifferent to money laundering and shell companies operating in our real estate market and using it as an investment instead of as a place to live, indifferent to short-term rentals eating up rental housing stock, indifferent to fixed-term leases, indifferent to the growing unhappiness of constituents with the housing crisis.

Metro Vancouver reports that the incidence of homelessness in their region has increased annually over the last 15 years, with more people living in shelters, on the streets, in cars or in homeless camps. You can see it in the wealthiest neighbourhoods, and you can see it in the poorest neighbourhoods. The desperate poverty is visible and growing.

The mayors of Metro Vancouver got together, they compared their numbers, and they came up with a shocking total: more than 70 homeless camps in Vancouver, Langley, Maple Ridge, North Vancouver, Surrey, Delta, Burnaby and Coquitlam. How did we get there? Well, it’s easy to hit this level of crisis when the number of unsheltered homeless people jumps 26 percent every year since 2011 — more than 9 percent growth per year since 2002.

The members on the other side are going to have a chance to speak to this, and they’re going to insist that they’re spending record amounts of money on housing in this election year. Just wait. It’ll be here soon — 2018. But we know where that money came from.
[ Page 14071 ]

This government has been selling off public properties to non-profits, many with limited ability to pay for capital improvements. They help these non-profits get mortgages to buy these properties and increase the provincial payments to them to cover the mortgage payments. According to the Auditor General, while this shell game of borrowing and buying gives the province money now to spend on housing, taxpayers will ultimately have to spend $1 billion down the road so that this government can say that they spent half a billion dollars this election year.

It’s this kind of shortsighted election-year planning that has gotten us into this problem in the first place. The government wants everybody to forget more than a decade of neglect that resulted in the situation we’re now in, even if it costs an extra half a billion dollars.

The Metro Vancouver mayors compiled other disturbing statistics: 4,000 people in immediate need of housing now, five new people homeless in Metro Vancouver every week, shelters in Metro Vancouver at 97 percent occupancy, Metro Vancouver’s 2017 homeless count expecting to see an exponential increase in numbers. And it’s not just Metro Vancouver.

Today a building full of seniors in Kelowna face a massive rent increase, the sale of their building, are terrified about homelessness because the vacancy rate in the Premier’s own constituency is less than 1 percent. In Kamloops, a record number of young people under 18 are living in the streets, engaging in survival sex work.

[1105]

In Abbotsford, tent cities where tent cities had never existed before. In Victoria, a tent city so big that continued for months, and the Housing Minister had to apologize for underestimating the scope of the problem. He had stopped collecting statistics from homeless shelters about the number of people turned away because the shelters were full. In Prince George, a record number of makeshift forts in the woods around the city, and in Terrace, a record homeless count.

Beyond the inhumanity of leaving a growing number of people in the streets — seniors, young people, people with disabilities and others — this government needs to take action.

M. Hunt: It’s an honour to rise today and take part in this important debate on behalf of my constituents in Surrey-Panorama.

Despite the claims made by my friends in the opposition, our government is committed to providing support and assistance to people dealing with homelessness in British Columbia. Since 2001, we have spent over $4.9 billion to provide affordable housing for low-income individuals, seniors and families. The wide range of supports and programs in place deliver direct assistance to those who need it most.

Every year, the government provides hundreds of millions of dollars in funding for emergency shelters, homeless rent supplements and supportive transitional housing that helps those who are homeless find homes and begin to rebuild their lives. We provide funding for transition houses — safe homes for women and children starting a new life after leaving abusive relationships.

We help provide supportive housing for individuals suffering from addiction and mental health challenges. We fund assisted-living and accessible apartments for seniors and people with disabilities. We provide subsidized rental units for individuals and families, and we offer rental assistance to keep private market rental affordable for low-income families and seniors.

Since 2001, we have added nearly 24,000 new units of affordable housing, with an additional 2,500 units in development or under construction right now. Last year alone, we created more than 2,800 new affordable rental housing units in approximately 42 communities across this province. We were able to achieve this partly through the more than 1,420 rental supplements we provide through the new homeless prevention program.

It’s our government’s rental assistance program that I want to speak at length about today. The rental assistance program introduced by this government in 2006 provides low-income working families with children, whose combined income is less than $35,000, assistance for rental payments. It also offers the Shelter Aid for Elderly Renters program, which provides monthly cash assistance to more than 18,000 seniors across the province, helping them stay in their homes, with an average monthly payment of $180.

What these programs achieve is giving hard-working families and retired, fixed-income seniors the opportunity to stay in their homes and live in their own communities. Rental assistance helps over 30,000 families and seniors across British Columbia — people who, without this assistance, would be left to fend for themselves and would possibly be living on the streets.

What truly boggles my mind is the fact that the NDP is actually against rental assistance for families and seniors. When we introduced these innovative programs, the NDP actually voted against the program. The member for Victoria–Swan Lake even went so far as to say: “A rental supplement program doesn’t do a thing for my community.” He actually said that — “doesn’t do a thing for my community.”

Interjection.

M. Hunt: Well, I hate to bother the member for Victoria–Swan Lake with facts, but the reality is that in the city of Victoria, 4,758 households receive housing assistance. What would this member say to those families in his community? Would he tell them they’re on their own? Would the NDP cancel these programs? What would that mean to these families across the province that rely on these programs?
[ Page 14072 ]

The fact remains that these rental assistance programs help families and seniors lead dignified lives in their own communities. We’re proud of these programs. They provide people with the help that they need when they need it, and they give them the opportunity to stay in their own communities. It means that they don’t have to move into government housing or onto the streets.

[1110]

Our government remains committed to continuing to help provide housing assistance to families and seniors throughout the province of British Columbia.

S. Robinson: I’m pleased to speak to this motion: “that this House support action to address the unacceptable situation of more than 70 homeless camps in the Lower Mainland and throughout British Columbia.”

I got involved in politics in 2007, six years after the B.C. Liberals came to power. I got involved because the homeless situation in the Tri-Cities had ballooned and a local church in my community had decided that enough was enough. They wanted to host a cold–wet weather mat program and needed to get the city’s permission to do so. I got involved because I thought it was a fabulous idea and I wanted to make sure that council of the day knew that there was community support.

It was my first-ever appearance before council. Little did I know that stepping up to lend my small voice to this small action in my community would first take me to Coquitlam council as a city councillor and then here, in this chamber, as the voice of citizens living in Coquitlam-Maillardville.

What I didn’t know at the time was just how much this homeless situation would continue to grow in spite of our small local efforts. We managed to eventually squeeze some resources from this government to actually build a shelter in our community that opened last December. The shelter has been at capacity since the day it opened because there is nothing else existing in the community.

Part of the reason there’s no capacity is that there’s nowhere else for the people who are at the shelter to go, because there’s nothing affordable for them to rent. There’s no affordable housing in my community that people can move on to because this government continues to bury its head in the sand, pretending that there’s no housing or homeless crisis.

The fact that this government actually refuses to do a proper provincial homeless count tells British Columbians that they don’t even want to know the scope of the problem. And they don’t want to know the scope of the problem because they have been ignoring the problem. The fact that this Premier and her Housing Minister have instructed homeless shelters to stop counting those who are turned away from shelters is the most telling evidence that they are just not interested in understanding what’s really going on in British Columbia around housing — because if we don’t count them, then we can pretend that they just don’t exist.

British Columbians know that those living in our streets, on our park benches, in tents in our parks and along our rivers…. They know that the problem exists, and they know that this B.C. Liberal government is content to just ignore the problem.

The Minister of Housing likes to brag about all the new units of housing that he has created, and we just heard it from the members opposite. What he doesn’t tell you is that they count the new shelter spaces as new units of housing. Well Minister, a mat on the floor is not housing. That’s not housing for them. It’s not housing for me. It’s not housing for anybody in this chamber. It is not housing. It is simply a mat on a floor.

For years, housing advocates, like the B.C. Non-Profit Housing Association, have been calling for at least 3,000 units of affordable housing every year. This government has just refused to listen. Now we have a crisis on our hands. The truth is that this government just doesn’t care about those who are homeless or at risk of homelessness.

Right after the last election the Minister of Housing declared: “We don’t build social housing anymore.” It would appear that this government prefers to have people build tent cities instead. There are more than 15,000 people on the wait-list for supportive housing in British Columbia — 15,000 people. Rents in the Lower Mainland are through the roof.

The B.C. Non-Profit Housing Association, in partnership with Vancity, developed the rental housing index. Of the 98 communities reviewed for this index, Coquitlam is the second-worst performer in the province when it comes to rental housing. This explains why 17 people who had temporary shelter on a mat during an extreme weather event last week turned up at my colleague’s office in Port Coquitlam, protesting that they had to leave the shelter because the weather warmed up a bit. That’s a policy of B.C. Housing. That’s a policy of this government.

How is it that this government thinks it’s okay to tell people: “It’s a few degrees warmer; time for you to move on”? How is it okay that women leaving abusive relationships can’t find affordable housing so they’re left sleeping in their cars? How is it okay that S.H., a 19-year-old who aged out of care, died alone in a tent city because there was no one to ensure that she had housing? How is it okay that there currently are 56 children homeless in Kamloops?

This is outrageous. My expectation is that this government will take action today.

[1115]

L. Reimer: I’m pleased to rise today and speak regarding the motion put forward by the opposition member for Vancouver–Point Grey. Issues of homelessness and housing are issues that affect us all. They’re issues that touch our communities because they affect the most vulnerable amongst us.

It’s an issue I know firsthand and that this government is taking seriously. We have not ignored this problem.
[ Page 14073 ]
Just last week our government announced an investment of $5 million for a new housing project in Port Moody. I’m proud to have worked with our government and our community on this project. This project will provide 55 new affordable rental homes for low-income and moderate-income British Columbians.

Last year alone our government invested approximately $1.3 million to provide subsidized housing and rent supplements for more than 300 households in Port Moody. It makes a difference in my constituency, and I’m certain that there are other members here who are aware of how similar projects and investments in their communities are also helping.

In fact, there are over 104,000 households in our province — no small number — that benefit from a diverse range of provincial housing programs and services offered by this government. Just over two years ago, it was this government that launched the homeless prevention program to provide British Columbians at risk of homelessness with rent supplements to help them access rental housing in the private market.

Our government is working to address homelessness through the provincial housing strategy Housing Matters B.C. in cooperation with the federal and our local governments. There’s a first point of contact through the homeless outreach and aboriginal homeless outreach programs. There’s an emergency shelter program. There’s an extreme weather response program. There’s a homeless prevention program specifically for at-risk groups.

Our government recognizes the challenges posed by homelessness and the need for affordable housing, and that’s why we are taking action. I’ve seen the benefits firsthand in our Tri-Cities community. As a former Coquitlam councillor, I saw the emergence of our cold weather map program and the province’s involvement in the building of 3030 Gordon. I know the same is true for members, on both sides, in many communities.

Let’s be clear: homelessness is not a partisan issue. It’s a matter that I hope all members in this House are concerned about, and it’s a matter that this government is taking action on. To suggest otherwise, the opposition seems to be forgetting that under an NDP government, poverty in British Columbia soared.

In fact, between 1990 and 1999, take-home pay in our province dropped by a staggering 8.6 percent. In fact, even the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives noted that the NDP years for British Columbia were “a difficult decade for British Columbians, particularly for the poorest in the province.” The report goes on to say: “The depth of poverty was also higher and more visible on the street — in the rise of homelessness, panhandling and food banks.”

That report, Falling Through the Cracks, should make for some interesting reading for any opposition member who somehow thinks that homelessness and housing are issues that they hold some moral high ground on. Again, issues of homelessness and housing are issues that affect us all. They are issues that touch our communities because they affect the most vulnerable.

This government is taking action with investments in affordable housing, with actions to help those facing homelessness. We recognize that this is an important issue. I’m pleased to take part in this debate.

J. Wickens: A person’s quality of life is largely determined by their housing situation, impacting their health, employment and level of education. Adequate, suitable and affordable housing is an essential element for our healthy communities.

In British Columbia, we have a housing affordability crisis. It’s no surprise to me and my colleagues that this has a domino effect in so many other areas. The purchase price for housing, particularly in my community of Coquitlam, has increased dramatically in the last five years. It has increased in all forms of housing: detached homes, townhomes and apartments.

When home purchase prices increase at these dramatic rates, so do the rental prices and availability. Less people able to get into the market who, historically, should have means that they occupy rental units that should be going to other people.

[1120]

According to the rental housing index, Coquitlam is the second-worst performer in the province, with an overall rating of “critical” and a ranking of 71 out of 72 communities in British Columbia. Coquitlam is the second-worst performer of 521 communities across the country. And at this time in Coquitlam, there is projected demand for 3,400 units of affordable housing — right now.

Today I want to talk a little bit about how this housing crisis disproportionately affects women particularly. This week all of us will be going out to celebrate International Women’s Day, with the theme “Be bold for change.” I urge everyone in this House to think about what needs to be done for vulnerable women in the province of British Columbia when it comes to housing.

Domestic violence and death due to domestic violence has gone up in British Columbia. That is completely unacceptable in 2017, and it is a direct result of the failures of this government. It’s also a result of ignoring the housing affordability crisis, one of the factors that leads to this increase in domestic violence.

For years, this government has refused to acknowledge that there was a housing crisis. Right after the last election, our Housing Minister actually said: “We don’t build ‘social housing’ anymore.” Now, before another election, the people of British Columbia are supposed to forget everything. Well, I know who won’t forget — the women who have suffered because of it and the front-line staff who’ve had to deal with this crisis for years.

Lack of appropriate long-term housing often forces women to return to abusive relationships or fail to leave
[ Page 14074 ]
them in the first place. In the moms group that I am in, there’s an opportunity for women to leave anonymous member posts. It breaks my heart every time I see a post about a woman who is in a potentially dangerous situation, desperate, because they can’t afford to leave it, and they can’t afford to find affordable housing.

According to the B.C. Non-Profit Housing Association, the B.C. provincial government has identified women and children leaving abusive relationships as a priority population for receiving housing assistance. However, funding for violence-against-women services continues to be reduced, and policy and programming in B.C. continues to be inadequate in supporting women and children leaving violent relationships who are seeking long-term housing and trying to heal from abuse.

This morning there was an article in the Province about the announcement that this government made about Delta’s first transition house. That house is desperately needed as a first step, but the article outlines the way in which it was done as absolutely shameful. The way this government treated people fighting for women and children on the front lines like it was some sort of game needs to be seriously addressed. “It’s shabby treatment of the people who were working for a whole year to try to make it happen.” It’s unacceptable.

There are a lot of things that can be done to address housing affordability and to make the lives of women and children in this province better. I am proud to stand with my colleagues and have real sustainable solutions. We support good ideas, like UBC’s B.C. housing affordability fund.

Our leader has committed to investing in co-op housing, something that is needed to address the long-term housing needs of women, in particular. We are committed to making the lives of women and children better by committing to a poverty reduction plan and affordable child care. People in B.C. deserve so much better.

D. Plecas: Thank you to the hon. member for this opportunity to discuss the very complicated issue of homelessness, particularly in the context of British Columbia and, in particular as well, the Lower Mainland.

I note that the member for Vancouver–Point Grey is referencing the recent report of the greater Vancouver regional task force, entitled Addressing Homelessness in Vancouver, in his motion.

The motion again reads as follows: “Be it resolved that this House support action to address the unacceptable situation of more than 70 homeless camps in the Lower Mainland and throughout B.C.”

[1125]

As the member is aware, the provincial government is moving forward with record investments in affordable housings and other supports to address homelessness and its prevention. But I’m not certain the member is aware of the numerous concerns we should have with the report’s methodology, concerns I’d like to point out here.

With respect to the data collection calculation, the report uses the citation: “Based on 2016 income assistance cases that are no fixed address within Metro Vancouver.” The document claims that 4,000 people in the region have an immediate need for housing. Yet that figure is based on “no fixed address” data provided by the Ministry of Social Development and Social Innovation. It should be properly noted that people who are identified by the ministry as “no fixed address” include many different types of clients, of which only some, but not all, are homeless people.

For example, no fixed address includes people who have moved and have not provided the ministry with their new address. It also includes many clients who are registered as no fixed address because they use the ministry for their own address due to dispute with landlords.

The study also claims that 34 percent of homeless people suffer from mental illness and 49 percent have an addiction. Again, this is an assumption based on the 4,000 people registered as no fixed address by the ministry. However, it’s absolutely impossible to derive these numbers from “no fixed address” data because clients are not required to report mental health conditions or addictions.

The report also makes reference to some 70 homeless camps located in the Lower Mainland. But if you look deeper into the fine print, the definition of encampment is rather vague. According to the report: “70 encampments with up to four persons reported within Metro Vancouver.” That’s what it includes. In other words, just one person could, in theory, constitute an encampment according to the calculations within this report.

I certainly don’t want to minimize the plight of someone who is, in fact, homeless. What I’m trying to point out here is that the conclusions of this particular report are based on questionable methodology, and as such, the report is not necessarily painting an accurate picture. It is certainly not one that we can be confident in.

While the report calls on the provincial and federal governments to work together, it should also be noted that both levels of government invested more than $375 million in Metro Vancouver last year alone to provide affordable housing and rent supplements to more than 61,000 low-income households. This includes more than $138 million to provide emergency shelter and housing for the homeless, some of which I know comes to my community of Abbotsford South.

Our government — and, in particular, the Minister Responsible for Housing — takes the issue and causes of homelessness very seriously. We remain committed to making a better life for those in need. I guess if we’re really being honest about it, we would place the word “done” by this government — and in particular, the Minister for Housing — into context. That is, we need to ask: is there a government anywhere in this country that has done
[ Page 14075 ]
more to provide shelter and homes and support otherwise for people in need?

The answer to that question is a resounding no — not even close.

G. Heyman: Well, if one of the root causes, and there are many, of homelessness is poverty and the inability on any number of measures to provide for a family in a region, in a province, where housing prices are out of control, where rents are out of control, then the answer to the member for Abbotsford South’s question about whether there is any province that has done anything more than this province and his Housing Minister to address the issue of homelessness is yes — in every province in Canada that has a poverty reduction plan. B.C. does not.

[1130]

The member for Abbotsford South can argue about methodology in the homelessness report, but the fact remains that we have a huge level of homelessness in Metro Vancouver, and it is spreading not only through the region but throughout the province. That is on this government’s watch. That is the important point here.

For the member for Port Moody–Coquitlam to try to put the blame for a homelessness crisis on a government that hasn’t held office in this province for 16 years is cold — and I mean cold — comfort to people who are living in homeless camps, are living without a roof over their head, are facing eviction from their homes, their rental homes, or simply can’t afford rising rents that are out of control in British Columbia, out of control in Metro Vancouver. The fact remains that since this Premier took office in 2011, the number of unsheltered homeless has increased by 26 percent every year.

Causes of this are myriad. Poverty is obviously a great cause. But when I talk to people in my constituency, or they come into my office, they tell me about the out-of-control rents in Vancouver-Fairview that they can no longer afford. When I look at the records between 2013 and now and I see that over 4,000 registered renters have moved out of the area…. Obviously, we don’t know all the reasons, but one of the reasons is rising rents.

When we see a situation where people actually have to bid for a rent instead of simply respond to an advertised rate — bid up, and they just can’t afford it — we have a problem. When we have people being renovicted without any control whatsoever by this provincial government, we have a problem. Because when people lose their home, when they lose their rental home, many of them, in fact, do end up homeless.

One of the recommendations of the Metro Vancouver report was an increase in the supply of rental housing that is affordable to households with incomes below $30,000 a year, and that we support the retention of existing affordable rental units as well as construction of new ones. There need to be fair tenant-relocation policies, and the Leader of the Opposition has proposed those. Standards for requiring relocation plans for tenants and replacing demolished units need to be in place around the province, not just in some communities.

Last May the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant introduced a Protection from Renoviction Act, which proposed changes to the Residential Tenancy Act. It would give renters who were evicted time to find another place to live and right of first refusal.

Time and again, members on this side of the House have called on this government to close the loophole that is being exploited by landlords with fixed-term leases that result in rent hikes of as much as 30 percent.

The list goes on. There are numerous actions that could have been taken by this government. Instead, they cut the budget for the residential tenancy branch — already facing a lack of resources.

This government is pretending we don’t have a homelessness crisis. This government is pretending that they’re doing more than anyone else, but the fact remains that they are playing catch-up when they promise new units. They’re not coming on line. Many of the units being promised aren’t new; they’re simply existing units being renovated.

We need an affordable housing plan for renters in British Columbia, and we need it now.

S. Gibson: It’s a pleasure for me to be here in the House today to speak, on behalf of my constituents of the Abbotsford-Mission riding, to this motion by the member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

I want to acknowledge the earlier remarks — I think they were well taken — by the member for Abbotsford South.

[1135]

Homelessness is an issue that’s faced the Lower Mainland for many years, and we, as a government, have taken firm action. We’re a caring government. We realize this is an issue that is pervasive.

Homelessness is a challenge that encompasses many difficult issues and different issues. I want to focus a little bit this morning on mental illness, because mental illness, clearly, is one of the causes that leads to homelessness in our province.

The Ministry of Health spends more than $1.5 billion every year in mental health and substance use services, and many of those are expended here in the Lower Mainland area of our province. Our government expenditures in mental health include a new 105-bed mental health facility on the Riverview lands as a part of the centre for mental health and addiction facility, and that will be completed in 2019.

We’ve heard about the Joseph and Rosalie Segal Centre in Vancouver, opening this year and built at a cost of $82 million. A new 75-bed mental health and substance abuse facility is set to open at the redeveloped Royal Columbian Hospital site, also in 2019, as part of a three-phase development.
[ Page 14076 ]

In November 2013, we introduced a plan to reduce barriers and service gaps and support research-based services for people with substance use and mental illness. Health authorities and police partner to help hundreds of severely addicted and mentally ill patients secure housing and employment in order to have fewer interactions with police and spend less time in emergency rooms.

We’ve provided $3 million to expand and support a provincial addiction medicine education and research training program for clinicians, making it the largest in North America. We also provided $1.5 million of new funding over three years to the First Nations Health Authority to support the establishment of an additional aboriginal suicide critical incidence response team that will augment the eight teams already around our province.

Funding also supports land-based and culturally safe substance use treatments for First Nations communities. Program activities include culturally based assessment, detox and treatment services with appropriate follow-up, referrals, aftercare and ongoing monitoring.

I might add, too, that $50 million has been allocated to annual funding since 2012-13 to support integrated primary and community care programs within regional health authorities. Of course, the focus area is mental health and substance abuse programs.

In addition to what the Minister of Health provides, the Ministry of Children and Family Development received a significant increase in funding to address child and youth mental health. This includes $45 million over three years for more mental health counselling and treatment for children; $12 million for up to 28 additional specialized youth addiction treatment beds; and also increasing youth services centres, up to five sites, expected to reach 2,500 more clients annually.

We’re providing $5 million to support mental health services for post-secondary students and $11 million over three years for the B.C. Centre on Substance Use.

Prior to these commitments, there were 203 beds available in B.C. specifically for children and youth with mental health and substance use challenges. Seventy-eight acute and tertiary beds were available, and 103 community-based youth mental health and substance beds were also provided, including 20 residential substance treatment beds. Twenty-two beds were also funded by the ministry, providing full-time attendance programs for youth offenders and addictions issues. These are community-based programs, used as an alternative to custody of youth 12 to 17 who are involved in the justice system.

We’ve also opened more than 400 new substance use beds across the province in the past three years as part of our commitment to open 500 later. We’re addressing mental health, and this is an important aspect of resolving homelessness in our province.

This government takes homelessness very seriously. Our record stands, and we’re very proud of it.

G. Holman: I’m very pleased to speak to this motion. Just a quick response to some of the comments from members opposite.

[1140]

We know, on this side of the House, that government takes homelessness very seriously. That’s why they’ve refused to initiate a homeless count, provincially, in British Columbia and why they refuse to count the folks that have been turned away from shelters in British Columbia. That certainly is an indication of how seriously they take it.

Of course, the data indicates that while they may take it seriously, the problem is getting much, much worse. Statistics mentioned by my colleague from Point Grey indicate that just since 2011, homeless counts have been increasing by 26 percent per year, and since 2001, 9 percent per year. The problem is getting worse, and that’s why we’re raising this issue in the House today, as we have throughout our four-year term.

I do want to make the point that while the focus of the resolution is on homelessness, in fact homelessness is part of a broader problem of housing affordability in British Columbia and the broader problem yet of affordability — period.

In my constituency, I was able to secure funding to do a needs assessment on the Saanich Peninsula, one of the highest-income areas in British Columbia. We have thousands of households, approximately 4,000 households on the peninsula, spending greater than 30 percent of their income on shelter. That is the CRD’s measure of core housing need. There are 550 households who are paying more than 50 percent of their income on shelter costs. That excludes the four First Nations within my constituency, whose housing situation is even more dire.

In greater Vancouver, of course, the number is much, much worse: 60,000 households spending more than 50 percent of their income on shelter costs and 15,000 folks in British Columbia on the wait-list for supportive housing in B.C. Again, it’s an indication that while this government says they’re taking it seriously, the problem is getting much, much worse in British Columbia.

I want to raise the broader issue, which some have touched on here, that affordable housing is part of the bigger affordability problem in British Columbia. In fact, this government’s policies are making the problem worse. British Columbia has the highest levels of debt in Canada. Part of the reason for that are the huge increases in MSP premiums, in ICBC rates, in hydro rates, in tuition fees and ferry fares, which have taken, quite literally, over the 16 years of this government, thousands of dollars per year out of household incomes in British Columbia.

In the face of those policies, it in fact is making the problem worse. I think the expression is “peeing in the wind.” The policies of this government are, in fact, mak-
[ Page 14077 ]
ing the issue of homelessness and affordable housing in this province much, much worse.

Now, it is incumbent upon members of the opposition to propose solutions. We have, a number of times. They have been refused by this government.

We’ve proposed, a number of times, legislative changes to fix the loopholes in rental legislation — the fixed-term lease problem, the renoviction problem. This government refuses to pass that legislation.

We’ve suggested that public land should be used for affordable housing projects in British Columbia. School districts, because they’re so strapped for cash, are selling off their public lands which, in fact, could be used for affordable housing. There was an instance on the peninsula that was just an example of this recently — the school district selling off its lands because it has to.

We’ve proposed an affordable housing fund, funded by folks who don’t pay income tax in British Columbia. Again, this government has refused to implement that kind of policy. We’ve proposed investments in co-op housing — again, refused by this government. So much for their caring about homelessness and affordable housing in British Columbia.

[1145]

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members. Members are cautioned to use parliamentary language while they’re making comments. Please be careful.

S. Sullivan: I’m pleased to speak on the motion before us today. Cities across the world face the challenge of homelessness, and we need to stand firmly, compassionate and humane in our attempts to assist people who experience homelessness in our province. At a time when our province is having unparalleled prosperity, we must ensure that those who are most vulnerable and at risk must receive the necessary supports to get off the street, to overcome addiction, to treat any mental illness they may suffer from.

We are facing a challenge that is as multifaceted as it is persistent. Homelessness has been a challenge for Vancouver for decades. When I was mayor of Vancouver, it was a serious problem. I had the opportunity to go onto the street and meet with many people who were experiencing homelessness, and it did give me quite an insight into the challenge. For the most part, I found they were actually wonderful people who just had met challenges in their life. There were certainly people that were experiencing problems with mental illness, people who were having problems with drug addiction. I met a surprising number of people who were from outside of the region, outside of the province and even outside of the country.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

One of the things that I and my council did was that we went to the person who is now the Deputy Premier and the Minister for Housing, who was at that time in the same role. We offered up 14 sites, of property that was owned by the city of Vancouver, and offered them to be used for housing. To his credit, our Deputy Premier accepted all of them and went into a process of building brand-new social housing with supports for up to a couple of thousand people.

Another thing I experienced when I was mayor was that I started getting persistent reports of somebody buying up low-income housing, single-room-occupancy hotels, in the Downtown Eastside. It was quite a concern. We were worried that some speculator was coming in and wanted to make a real estate play on this.

It turned out that it was actually our Deputy Premier, the Minister for Housing, who was buying up all of these single-room-occupancy hotels. He purchased over a dozen of them at the time and then went into a serious and significant effort to upgrade them all and give them good-quality living. It’s because of the intervention of this government and the current Deputy Premier that we have a much better situation than we would have had.

We’re not the only city that is experiencing this. In the city of Seattle, I might bring up to your attention, the 2016 tally of homelessness went up by almost 20 percent over 2015, and it nearly doubled since 2012. It is a regional issue, partially because of our progressive and effective policies on homelessness and partially because of our climate.

As a government, we recognize that despite the hard work that we’ve put in at all levels of government, we need to do more. We’ve already invested more than any previous provincial government, and funding has increased by more than $40 million since 2011. We invest more than $200 million annually for emergency shelter services. We invest that in subsidized housing. In November, we announced $49 million for more than 600 units of housing for those in need.

[1150]

We’ve built almost 1,400 new supportive housing units in partnership with the city of Vancouver. We’ve also bought — it’s now up to 24 — SROs in Vancouver and are investing more than $143 million to renovate 13 of those buildings. Last year we provided $375 million to support subsidized housing and rent supplements, supporting over 60,000 low-income seniors, families and individuals in the Metro Vancouver region.

M. Mungall: It gives me great pleasure to rise and speak to a topic that is, seriously, the number one conversation point amongst my peer group. Whether we’re at the coffee shop, we’re having a games night or we’re going to the movies, you can rest assured that anybody under age of 40, and even anybody under the age of 45, is talking about housing and the fact that being able to afford
[ Page 14078 ]
a home is one of the most difficult things that we’ll ever be able to achieve financially in our lifetime.

This motion seeks “that this House support action to address the unacceptable situation of more than 70 homeless camps in the Lower Mainland and throughout B.C.” Coming from a rural part of this province, I think it’s really important to talk about what’s going on outside of Metro Vancouver but also how what’s happening around B.C. and what’s happening in Metro Vancouver are actually quite related.

In Nelson, we have had, in the last 16 years, a growing number of people who are homeless. Our homeless shelter, which serves from the Alberta border up to the Okanagan, is running at over 100 percent capacity throughout the year. What that means is that there are more people coming into the shelter than we actually have room for. While this government says, “Oh, a mat on the floor is the same as an actual housing unit,” we know that’s not the case. You only need to ask people at Stepping Stones in Nelson about that.

The city of Grand Forks recently did an affordable housing survey, and what they found is that 54 percent of the survey respondents spend between 30 to 50 percent of their monthly income on housing. The reason why that kind of number is significant and why the city of Grand Forks is concerned is because those are the people who are at most risk of becoming homeless.

We’ve learned over the last 16 years, while the B.C. Liberals have been in government, that it’s when people are spending more than they can afford on their housing, particularly their rental housing, that they are at most risk of homelessness. That’s why we see homelessness having increased exponentially over the last 16 years — not only in Nelson, not only, potentially, here in Grand Forks. We just need to look at the numbers — some really sad numbers — for example, coming out of Kamloops. Fifty-six kids, right now, are homeless in Kamloops.

We see camps growing across the province. In the Lower Mainland, because Metro Vancouver did a study, we now know that there are about 70 homeless camps. There are three in Vancouver. There are two in Maple Ridge. There’s one in Surrey. That camp saw a young woman, who was transitioning out of government care, die. We’ve brought her story to this House in the Legislature.

Those are the types of things that are happening in B.C., but they don’t have to be. There are solutions, and as my colleagues have pointed out, the New Democrat opposition has been bringing those solutions to this floor for 16 years. We have been asking the government to take meaningful action, and we have seen our solutions and our offers of support fall on deaf ears.

We hear a lot of rhetoric. We hear a lot of promises. But when you’re promising $1 million for a program for an emergency shelter for youth that actually shut two years ago because you wouldn’t give it a dime when it needed it…. Clearly, we have a government that’s completely out of touch, that has no idea what’s actually going on, on the ground.

We could be having solutions that use public land for affordable housing projects instead of selling it for the richest development possible. We could be investing in co-op housing. The New Democrats have committed to continue those investments when the federal government pulls out. We could allow post-secondary institutions to build student housing by fixing a simple accounting technical issue that they have to abide by. We could have fair tenant relocation policies, replace rental units and build more rental housing in this province that’s affordable so that people aren’t living paycheque to paycheque and at the whim of potential homelessness.

[1155]

We could provide renters with protection against renovictions and close fixed-term lease loopholes. We could do a provincewide homelessness count so that we have a better understanding of the problem that exists in this province and so that we could actually identify solutions based on reality rather than political announcements weeks before an election.

One of the things that I’ve done in this House repeatedly is introduce a poverty reduction plan. We could do that too. It would have such a positive impact for this province. I look forward to the day when this House will finally adopt real solutions to address homelessness in B.C.

M. Mungall 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 11:56 a.m.

Access to on-line versions of the official report of debates (Hansard),
webcasts of proceedings and podcasts of Question Period is available on the Internet.
Chamber debates are broadcast on television.

Copyright © 2017: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada