Orders of the Day

Hon. R. Kahlon: In the main chamber, I call second reading on Bill 6, Supply Act.

In the Douglas Fir Committee Room, I call Committee of Supply on the Ministry of Attorney General. After that completes, I call Committee of Supply for the Ministry of Citizens’ Services.

In the Birch Committee Room, I call Committee of Supply for the Ministry of Tourism, Arts, Culture and Sport. After that completes, I call the Committee of Supply for the Ministry of Jobs, Economic Development and Innovation.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 6 — SUPPLY ACT (No. 1), 2024

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 6; S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.

The committee met at 2:35 p.m.

On clause 1.

The Chair: All right, Members, let’s draw this committee to order. We’re here looking at Committee Stage for Bill 6, Supply Act (No. 1), 2024.

Hon. K. Conroy: I’d like to just introduce the staff with me today. I have Tiffany Ma, the assistant deputy minister for Treasury Board, and Tu Tran, the director of fiscal planning for Treasury Board.

I look forward to the questions from the members opposite.

P. Milobar: I’ll only have a couple of questions. The Supply Act is fairly straightforward for its purpose of essentially keeping the doors of government operating while we keep moving through regular process. As I said in my second reading comments, as a matter of…. The opposition obviously has big issues with the overall budget, but we’re not taking big issues with the supply bill, just to try to keep the doors of government running while we express our concerns around the overall budget.

I guess the question on clause 1 for the minister is…. It’s 2/12. I seem to recall…. Maybe I’m wrong on this. I always thought it was 3/12, so three months out of the year, typically, in the supply bill. I notice it is in other clauses, but not on the first. I’m just wondering why that one was deemed to be only two of the 12 months.

Hon. K. Conroy: So 3/12 was done for the last couple of years, but 2/12 is the standard, and we are continuing on with that.

P. Milobar: Of course, given it being an election year…. Typically, we have a fixed election date, but obviously, because of the 2020 election that veered away from the fixed election and was a snap election, there’s a lot of speculation out there around potential of a spring election.

Does anything in clause 1 get compromised in terms of the operations of the government if there was a snap spring election as opposed to the scheduled election in October?

Hon. K. Conroy: I think the Premier has made it pretty clear we’re not having a snap election, so the answer would be no.

Clauses 1 to 4 inclusive approved.

Preamble approved.

Title approved.

Hon. K. Conroy: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 2:40 p.m.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

BILL 6 — SUPPLY ACT (No. 1), 2024

Bill 6, Supply Act (No. 1), 2024, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. K. Conroy: I call second reading on Bill 4, Municipal Affairs Statutes Amendment Act, 2024.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 4 — MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 2024

Hon. A. Kang: I move that the bill now be read a second time.

I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to this important piece of legislation. I’m honoured, as the Minister of Municipal Affairs, to be tabling this bill in the House. Bill 4, the Municipal Affairs Statutes Amendment Act, has four key goals, which I will speak to in more depth. It responds to the Municipal Finance Authority’s request for additional time to prepare year-end reports and financial statements, thereby improving the quality and timeliness of reporting for the MFA.

It modernizes the Union of British Columbia Municipalities Act, the UBCM Act, and it responds to the city of Vancouver’s request for improvements to its administrative efficiencies with respect to dog licensing and its approval process for development permits.

To achieve these goals, Bill 4 proposes to amend amendments to the Municipal Finance Authority Act, the Union of British Columbia Municipalities Act and the Vancouver Charter.

[2:45 p.m.]

The MFA is a corporation without shared capital, owned and operated by member local governments, whose purpose is to provide financing and short-term investment opportunities for regional districts, municipalities and institutions. Under the Municipal Finance Authority Act, the MFA Act, which governs the MFA, the MFA is currently required to hold its first annual meeting of its trustees on or before March 31. The amendments to the MFA Act will extend the deadline for the MFA’s first annual meeting to May 15 from the current deadline of March 31.

In recent years, the MFA’s reporting requirements have become more complex. The amendments to extend the deadline for presentation of these reports at the first annual meeting will allow staff adequate time to prepare year-end reports and financial statements required for the meeting. It will also bring the reporting deadline in line with the deadline for local governments to finalize their audited financial statements.

I am pleased to respond to the Union of British Columbia Municipalities’ request for amendments to the Union of British Columbia Municipalities Act, the UBCM Act.

The UBCM was established in 1905 to represent the common concerns of municipalities through B.C. The UBCM Act establishes the UBCM as a statutory corporation and sets out the objects of the UBCM. Since then, the UBCM and the local government system in British Columbia have changed significantly, and the current membership of UBCM now also includes regional districts, member First Nations and the Islands Trust. The amendments in this bill will promote more inclusive language that currently reflects the current membership of UBCM.

The current version of the UBCM Act also includes several outdated administrative provisions. It requires a resolution of the membership to cooperate with other organizations, when in practice, these decisions are currently made by the UBCM executives. Additionally, it states that the UBCM will certify its area associations, while in practice, the UBCM does not oversee the area associations.

The amendment in this bill will update the UBCM Act to reflect the modern and efficient operations of the UBCM. There are several legislative cross-references in the UBCM Act which provide UBCM with its administrative structures. In some instances, these cross-references are to repeal statutes, such as the Company Act, which was replaced by the Business Corporations Act.

The amendments in this bill will remove the references to repealed statutes and replace them with current legislation or new wording, while maintaining the intent of the legislation. These amendments will improve the readability of the UBCM Act and bring it in line with current legislation.

I’m pleased to present proposed amendments to the Vancouver Charter, which will enable the city of Vancouver to expedite administrative processes with respect to dog licensing and landscaping.

The proposed amendments will enable the city of Vancouver to delegate decisions about the suspension or revocation of dog licences to staff. Currently the Vancouver Charter requires that decisions to suspend or revoke dog licences be made by council. Staff are better positioned to make an informed and expeditious decision about whether to suspend or revoke a dog licence. These amendments will allow animal control officers to decide whether to suspend or revoke a dog licence, and the decision can be appealed to Vancouver’s chief licence inspector.

Additionally, the proposed amendments will expand Vancouver’s existing authority to provide council with the ability to require landscaping provisions as a condition of a development permit. They will streamline the building and development approval process while also helping Vancouver in reaching its climate change adaptation objectives. It is anticipated that these amendments will improve the efficiency of Vancouver’s approval processes for development permits and expedite its administrative process.

We have also been attentive to the requirements of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act as we develop this legislation. As a result, we have notified First Nations as follows.

[2:50 p.m.]

The proposed amendments to the UBCM Act will also reflect that First Nations, including modern treaty nations, are eligible to be members of the UBCM. All nine member First Nations have been notified of this proposed legislation.

Our government is listening to the needs and requests of local communities and our partners by improving administrative efficiencies, clarifying their authorities, and providing them with the tools they require to respond to their communities’ needs. The proposed amendments in Bill 4 are supported by the Municipal Finance Authority, the UBCM, and the city of Vancouver, where the amendments impact them specifically.

With that, hon. Speaker, I want to thank you and all the members of this House. I look forward to hearing from my colleagues in the continued debate today on the second reading of this bill.

D. Ashton: I am pleased to rise in this House to con­tinue the debate on Bill 4.

As mentioned by the minister, the purpose of this bill is to give the Municipal Finance Authority more time to prepare its financial reports. It updates UBCM language to reflect its membership and requires the report of the director and staff pay on the financials and also enables the city of Vancouver to require landscaping changes on development permits as well as delegate the review of dog licences and suspensions.

Our B.C. United party is in full support of modernizing the legislation. We especially support the including of First Nations and other local governments in the preamble to the UBCM Act. This reflects the crucial role these governments play, as well as for the membership of UBCM. While the bill is extensive, its changes are relatively straightforward, and we are ready to speed the process along so that it can become law.

I would like to thank you. To help on the expediation, if at all possible, the briefing notes that were presented during the discussion would be greatly appreciated. That would help us facilitate a quick response to the bill.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, I acknowledge the minister to move the second reading.

Hon. A. Kang: Thank you, hon. Speaker, and I thank all the members and my opposition critic for his remarks. I look forward to continued discussion and debate on Bill 4.

With that, Speaker, I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Hon. A. Kang: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole to be considered at the next meeting of the House after today.

Bill 4, Municipal Affairs Statutes Amendment Act, 2024, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I call second reading of Bill 5, Child, Family and Community Service Amendment Act, to the House, the main House.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you. Bill 5 has been called for second reading. Okay.

We’ll take a short recess to get the appropriate people here, but yes, we’ve called Bill 5, Child, Family and Community Service Amendment Act, 2024.

We’ll be in recess for a short while.

The House recessed from 2:53 p.m. to 2:55 p.m.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

Deputy Speaker: All right, Members. Let’s call this House back to order. Thank you for that short recess.

We are here with Bill 5, Child, Family and Community Service Amendment Act, 2024. I acknowledge the Minister of Children and Family Development.

BILL 5 — CHILD, FAMILY AND COMMUNITY
SERVICE AMENDMENT ACT, 2024

Hon. G. Lore: I am pleased to be here today to speak to the amendments to the Child, Family and Community Service Act.

I think an important place to start with my remarks is with the calls to action from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and the calls to justice from the inquiry into missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls.

I was often reminded, as Parliamentary Secretary for Gender Equity, by the minister’s advisory council for Indigenous women that these are not just reports, but that the work that went into them was sacred.

The very first of the calls to action demands change in the child welfare system to address the historic legacies and ongoing impacts of child welfare policies on Indigenous children, youth, families and communities. The calls to justice also demand a recognition of self-determination and inherent jurisdiction over child welfare. They call to transform current child welfare systems fundamentally so that Indigenous communities have control over the design and delivery of services for their families and children.

These calls and the work of the First Nations leadership and many Indigenous organizations and rights and title holders across the province have guided work across government and our ministry.

Across government, we are committed to reconciliation. Child and family services are an absolutely essential and central space for this work, because for far too long, Indigenous children and youth have been overrepresented in the child welfare system. So I’m honoured to be here, to be speaking to these bills and to these amendments as part of our work to meet Declaration Act action plan priorities.

When passed into law, this bill will strengthen opportunities for the exercise of inherent Indigenous jurisdiction. These amendments give us the legal tools that we need to get out of the way of Indigenous jurisdiction. It allows us to dispense with notice when Indigenous law applies and to withdraw from court proceedings regarding a child. This will mean we can avoid unnecessary court and administrative delays in children returning home to their communities.

These amendments also build on the landmark work of Bill 38. The other component of this package removes barriers to Indigenous jurisdiction through an amendment to broaden the definition of the term “Indigenous child.” This change enables Indigenous governing bodies not yet exercising jurisdiction to identify their children and become involved in the planning and coordination of their care.

This amendment supports nations that are still building capacity towards full jurisdiction to maintain an active role in the care of children belonging to their communities, and it makes sure that nations can identify their own children and youth so that we can work together to support children and youth to stay connected to community and culture by, for example, sharing information and working together on care plans.

These amendments are only possible because of First Nations communities and leadership that shared wisdom and advocacy and the collaboration that happened with Indigenous governing bodies, modern treaty nations and Indigenous partners, including the First Nations Leadership Council and other partners across B.C. who guided us and allowed us to continue to do this work better. I’m grateful, as the new minister, for their dedication to this work and for the opportunity to walk together in discussing these important issues.

It’s absolutely vital that every child in B.C. has the opportunity to thrive, to be safe, to belong and to be connected to their community and culture. When safety is a concern, it’s essential that we do everything to find a solution that keeps kids connected to their culture and community.

This work has gathered momentum since the province passed the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act in November 2019, and these amendments help move this work forward.

[3:00 p.m.]

The amendments in this legislation are also essential, as work to balance important privacy rights, while ensuring that the ministry’s ability to carry out children and family services can continue while respecting the privacy of individuals.

In April 2023, the Court of Appeal determined sections of the Child, Family and Community Service Act required procedural safeguards to be added to respect the privacy of individuals, again while meeting our ministry’s critical needs to be able to access important information for child protection.

Section 96 is vital to MCFD’s ability to carry out our mandate and remains vital to collecting updated information when a child protection concern has been rectified, leading to a child’s safe return.

The safeguards, which are proposed in this package, include defining personal health information; ensuring a standardized and in-writing approach through the use of a form; establishing the requirement to provide an after-the-fact notice to a person who is the subject of a request and letting them know that information has been obtained, as well as how to seek a review; and enabling an administrative review process.

While not subject to the court decision, we are making amendments to Section 79.2, as well, to introduce privacy safeguards for Indigenous families while continuing to be able to access necessary information, and respect and uphold Indigenous law.

These amendments to the Child, Family and Community Services Act are vital to the continued work to uphold Indigenous jurisdiction over child welfare and ensure that MCFD and Indigenous authorities can continue to provide service while respecting privacy.

I’d like to also thank the former minister for the work that she did in introducing important legislation and starting us on the path for these amendments.

Again, I’m grateful for the time, wisdom, knowledge and energy of everyone who contributed to these amendments and to the work that they’ll enable. I look forward to the committee process, and I ask members of this House to support this bill.

I move second reading of Bill 5.

N. Letnick: Thank you to the minister and government for introducing Bill 5. The official opposition has a few comments to make on the second reading.

We’ll make sure that we have a robust procedure done through committee stage, as we go through each clause, to make sure that it meets the needs of British Columbians, in particular those who are Indigenous and also children of British Columbia, to make sure that their information is safeguarded.

I’ve seen many bills in this Legislature over 15 years, and Bill 5 is, I must admit, one of the shortest ones, just two pages and just a few clauses. Including commencement, it’s seven clauses.

The scope…. The impact of Bill 5, if it’s not implemented properly, could have damaging effects on privacy issues for our children in the province of B.C. We have to make sure that we canvass every clause of Bill 5 very carefully, and my colleagues and I will do that when we get to the committee stage.

As a recap, what the bill does is…. The government has amended the definition of “Indigenous child” to include Indigenous governing body or Indigenous authority. They’ve added a definition of personal health information — which includes oral, physical or electronic form or any other form which needs to be examined given the broad nature of the definition form — and it also defines when and how only an Indigenous authority can access personal health information.

One thing we discovered, as we were doing research on the bill, is that the definition of personal health information is different than contained in other bills. So we’ll canvass that in the committee stage to find out why the government has proposed a definition that’s different than is already enshrined in legislation in other bills.

It would be nice to have consistency across government on definitions, but maybe they have a compelling case.

[3:05 p.m.]

We look forward to hearing about that and also to hear the opinion of the Privacy Commissioner on whether or not the bill meets the test of ensuring that the privacy of the children that are being included in this bill is being kept.

We don’t want to have unintended, negative consequences. I look forward to hearing, at the committee stage, what the Privacy Commissioner had to say when the government referred the bill to the Privacy Commissioner. That would be a good place to start.

The bill ensures that Indigenous governing bodies who wish to exercise their rights to look after their children must first plan. That entails identifying their children currently in the child welfare system. This appears to be a positive step to further reconciliation — reconciliation, of course, that all members of this House support.

We understand that the addition of personal health information was in policy and practice, but the Court of Appeal has dedicated, by April 2024, that the government must elevate practice and policy to legislation, given the sensitive nature of the information. So it’s going to go from policy and practice into the legislation itself, again, as mandated by the court.

In question, though, is the fact that it has been mandated by the courts and not fixed sooner. Why did it take the court to mandate this, and why wasn’t it done before that? So we can canvass that in the committee stage as well.

Also to be canvassed is: do the amendments satisfy the court’s need for “adequate procedure safeguards”? Are there any unintended consequences? As I said before, what is the opinion of the Privacy Commissioner?

In the end, for second reading, that’s all I really have to say, other than to ensure that all members of the House know that we are supportive of reconciliation but also supportive of maintaining private information as private, where it needs to be, making sure only appropriate bodies have that information. We’ll canvass that quite extensively through committee stage.

A. Olsen: Thank you for the opportunity to speak to Bill 5, the Child, Family and Community Service Amendment Act, 2024.

This bill is amending changes that were made just a couple of years ago. I think it highlights the incredible power that the Ministry of Children and Family Development has when it comes to children and families in this province.

It highlights the reality that faces a parent whose ability to parent their child is in question. It often leads to full exposure of those people. I think that, as we see from the court case that resulted from the changes that were made back in 2022, the downstream impacts that that has on people…. Trust in government. Trust in the health care system.

As we learned from the In Plain Sight report, specifically when it comes to Indigenous people accessing the health care system and under the scrutiny of the child welfare system…. Unfortunately, Indigenous people are far more involved in the child welfare system than I think anybody in this province would like to see. The implications of government intruding too far have deep ramifications for whether or not a person will want to access health care.

The implication of that, for anybody who has worked in health care in First Nations communities, is the realization that, in fact, we see many people not, then, accessing health care when they need it. That has extremely detrimental impacts on their health and well-being.

Of course, that information could then be used to determine whether or not a parent is suitable to continue parenting their child. So we see the absolute vicious cycle that these laws can and may create.

[3:10 p.m.]

We hear from the parent who was unnamed but referenced in the decision from the Court of Appeal on section 96(1) last year that, in fact, their trust in government, their trust in the health care system, their trust in the information that they gave to their health care provider being kept private — a private matter between them and their health care provider — has been shaken. And the absolute tailspin that that may and can create for people has very much a detrimental impact.

As we saw in the discussion in that decision, a change in this bill replacing the word “necessary,” when it comes to information that the ministry is able to collect on somebody, to information that’s “reasonably required.” We’re very interested, I think, about how the ministry intends on applying that.

I think it’s important to acknowledge the tremendous amount of discussion — I think several pages of discussion — about reasonableness. When the decision is being made on how to apply that, it will be interesting to hear how the ministry is going to go about applying this new wording of “reasonably required” and how reasonableness is going to be applied in this new instance, once this bill has the support of this House. We look forward to the debate on that.

I think it’s important to acknowledge that the tools that this ministry and that this act gives the people on the front lines, who are often faced with astonishingly difficult decisions that they have to make. Actions that are then resulting from the tools that we give are extremely detrimental to health and well-being of children in this province, separated from their families, put into extremely isolated situations away from their families.

I know the ministry is working towards trying to place children more and more with their own family members, but the people that are on the front line making these assessments have an incredibly challenging job.

As we debate that job in this House and as we often are faced with scrutinizing that work, it’s usually void of the reality that those front-line workers have to face in these terrifying decisions, really, I imagine, for them. I did want to just pause here for a moment and just make comment on the job that we have here to make that work as easy as possible and as clear as possible. And that the work that we do in this House is thoughtful and that we view it in an integrated and interconnected way.

The decisions, for example, as I pointed out, to access somebody’s private health matters, can have a spiraling effect on them and on their family and on the life chances of their children. Indeed, a decision that might be made on the fly, in that moment, can have life-changing consequences and intergenerational consequences. The decision to apprehend a child, the decision to access someone’s health care, can lead to a deterioration of trust in government that can then lead to intergenerational impacts. I think it’s important that we acknowledge this.

Finally, I applaud the government’s work to transition jurisdiction of Indigenous child welfare to Indigenous communities and Indigenous agencies, to delegate those and to transfer that jurisdiction. I’ll just make this comment about it. What is being transitioned is the result of decades of a deliberate attempt to undermine the Indigenous families.

[3:15 p.m.]

As we go forward in this effort to transfer jurisdiction to Indigenous communities, we have to recognize that we’re also transferring the detrimental work of this government to separate, to undermine language, to destroy family. So we’re not handing a perfect situation…. In fact, we’re handing over a far from perfect situation.

What my hope is, is that this ministry doesn’t have it in their mind that what they’re handing over now is the responsibility without the resources. That when child welfare jurisdiction is once again the responsibility of Indigenous parents and Indigenous communities, the resources that would be there to support those families that have been impoverished because of the decisions that have been made by this ministry in the past, that intergenerational poverty that is the result of tearing the family’s fabric out from underneath them…. They can’t now be volunteers. They must have an adequate amount of resources to deal with the intergenerational inheritance.

I just want to leave it at that, but I look forward, as my colleague previously spoke to, to looking at this bill in detail as we go through each of the clauses. Indeed, a very short bill, but we’ll go through it and see if we can understand how the reasonableness test is going to be applied.

We look forward to supporting this government’s efforts and Indigenous government’s efforts in the transition of child welfare to our families and to our communities.

HÍSW̱ḴE SIÁM.

N. Simons: I appreciate this opportunity to speak in favour of this bill, obviously.

One of the reasons, one of the things that compelled me into politics 20 years ago was the state of child welfare in the province and, in particular, the state of child welfare as it was being applied in Indigenous communities.

I spent about ten years as a director of an Indigenous child welfare agency, under two different governments, and I saw what happened in 2001 when the current opposition party became the governing party. I saw the impact of that on Indigenous communities and Indigenous children, and I thought to myself that it’s important that the voice of those who aren’t represented…. I could be helpful in that regard.

I’ve seen progress over the last number of years, progress that had been truncated by the previous government, as the process for Indigenous communities to reclaim the authority that was taken over the administration of child welfare, which in a sense is how children and families are strengthened, how they are supported, and how they are ensuring safety of their children….

This has been a circular route to get here. And I think it’s a good day when we see more legislative power empowering Indigenous communities to restore their authority that they had.

The delegated system of child welfare was designed as a path towards Indigenous autonomy, the restoration of autonomy over child welfare. It consisted of Indigenous directors and directors of Indigenous organizations providing child welfare services, coming together and developing practice standards, developing operational standards and establishing, actually, training programs for social workers working in Indigenous communities.

That all came to a halt around 2002. The province engaged in these efforts to regionalize. They hired Deputy Minister Lesley du Toit, whose perspective was not one that was shared by directors of Indigenous child welfare agencies, and it created a delay. We are where we are now belatedly. Many of the advances that were happening were slowed, only resulting in worse outcomes for communities and, obviously, for children.

[3:20 p.m.]

The restoration of autonomy is essential. The steps that we’re taking sometimes seem burdensome and bureaucratic, because governments don’t always act fast, but this is an important step. This is a step that will improve the outcomes for families. We just need to continue working on that.

We need to continue to ensure that the results of the Human Rights Tribunal in Ottawa, which said that Indigenous children were not receiving the same supports as non-Indigenous children, the corrections made and the funding provided by the federal government, in addition to legislative changes, are steering this sector back in a good direction.

I want to raise my hands to those who came before, who worked so hard. We’re talking about years and years ago, a group that was called the Indian Homemakers society, strong women from community who insisted on restoring their authority, that their communities would have the ability to say what was best for their children. Subsequently, and in the years to follow, community members from across the province came together and actually just essentially forced government to recognize that this was an essential part of autonomy.

I think of those people as former colleagues and admire their strength and their persistence in pushing governments in the right direction. I think this is pushing us further in that direction, so I’m happy to support this legislation.

With that, I thank you for this opportunity.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further comments, minister to close the debate.

Hon. G. Lore: Just in closing, I thank my colleagues for their initial thoughts. I look forward to having the conversations in committee stage around privacy, around the importance of definitions and around what these amendments, this work, means for children, families and communities.

With that, I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Hon. G. Lore: I move that the bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 5, Child, Family and Community Service Amend­ment Act, 2024, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I call second reading, Bill 7, Social Development and Poverty Reduction Statutes Amendment Act, in the main chamber.

BILL 7 — SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT AND
POVERTY REDUCTION STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 2024

Hon. S. Malcolmson: I move that Bill 7, the Social Development and Poverty Reduction Statutes Amendment Act, 2024, be read a second time.

This bill has two major components. We are making changes to the income and disability assistance legislation and setting new poverty reduction targets so that we can better help people get out of tough times.

I want to recognize my colleague the MLA from Sunshine Coast, who started this work. A year and a half later I have the great honour of bringing it into this place. I’m very grateful for the members from my minister’s office team — our Social Development and Poverty Reduction Ministry has been working very hard on this work — and particularly for the people around the province whose voices have informed this work. I will talk more about them as I describe the legislation.

In tough times and in all times, we know we are strongest when we look after one another, so we have been investing in people. Since 2017, we have helped over a quarter of a million people out of poverty through things like job training, child care, increasing income assistance rates five times, increasing minimum wage seven times. We exceeded our legislated poverty reduction targets. We’ve reduced overall poverty by 45 percent and child poverty by more than 50 percent.

[3:25 p.m.]

We were on the right track, but global inflation and the terribly increased cost of living have been especially hard on people who were already struggling, so we are setting new and ambitious poverty reduction targets.

The proposed legislative change to the Poverty Reduction Strategy Act of 2018 moves B.C. to ten-year targets and deepens them to reduce poverty by 60 percent, child poverty by 75 percent, and seniors poverty by 50 percent.

Two things about this. One, setting a ten-year horizon for all the targets will keep government focused on systemic and generational change. Second, the seniors target is a new one. It wasn’t in our 2019 poverty reduction strategy.

We really have been hearing that even though seniors generally, as a population, haven’t had as many troubles with poverty as other targeted populations in the 2019 poverty reduction strategy, seniors who are in poverty tend to be in deep poverty, and seniors in poverty are very vulnerable. We’ve been hearing, all of us in this chamber, stories of seniors’ homelessness and increased food bank use, which have told us that we need to focus here.

I met with David Kennedy, a senior from Nanaimo. He was here in the Legislature yesterday, Tuesday. He told me that the current situation with the cost of food, housing and other basic necessities can be a real challenge for seniors and can put them at particular risk. Our commitment to focus on seniors in our next poverty reduction strategy gives him hope and reassurance of better days ahead.

Thank you, David, for sharing your very powerful story about making it through, getting connected with supports, getting connected with federal pensions, being able to find affordable housing.

Thank you to Ballenas affordable housing society in Nanaimo and the Nanaimo Family Life Association for navigating him through those supports. This is how these stories often go, with people coming together.

We know that the impacts of global inflation have hit people hard, especially those caught in intergenerational poverty, and Indigenous people and BIPOC communities. That’s why, in this amendment, we are also refining and broadening the key populations impacted by poverty. We have identified key groups such as unattached singles, who are at particular risk of poverty. These are the populations that, as minister, I must consider when writing the next poverty reduction strategy.

We’ll also continue to work with Indigenous partners to incorporate Indigenous wellness measures and actions into our work, moving forward. We heard well that the StatsCan measurement of poverty across Canada does not reflect Indigenous experiences — for example, how you value the richness of the land or the impacts when people are separated from the land. We’ve heard that, and we have a commitment to do this work together, moving forward.

Now, you’ll remember that the old government had no plan to tackle poverty. Our province was the only one in Canada without a poverty reduction strategy under what used to be the B.C. Liberals, now B.C. United and B.C. Conservatives. When our government formed government, we made a plan, and we made it into law.

We exceeded the targets that we set, but people are hurting now, so we know we have to do more. Over this past year, we’ve been working to renew that 2019 poverty reduction strategy in the face of new pressures on British Columbians.

Over this past year, we heard from over 10,000 people across British Columbia, 70 percent of whom had lived experience with poverty. Their voices informed these new targets and the new poverty reduction strategy that will come out next month.

Two things that they said really stood out for me. People told us that they feel better and they’re better off when they have a job and the community connections that a job brings. Also, the 2002 legislation that governs income assistance and disability assistance is a real barrier to both work and assistance.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

The old government’s 2002 legislation was designed more to get people off welfare than it was to get them out of poverty. It reflected the BCUP’s belief that there was something wrong with people who needed a so-called handout. It made life harder for people who were already struggling, and it made poverty worse.

[3:30 p.m.]

We are making a different choice. This bill updates our foundational income and disability assistance legislation. That’s the B.C. Employment and Assistance Act, BCEA, and the disability assistance. Our reforms are designed to help people improve their lives, not punish them for falling short. We’re making significant change to the employment requirements for people on income assistance to better support them in finding and keeping a job.

I met yesterday with Michael Pootlas, who was here in the gallery. I met him last year in Vancouver and was really inspired by his story. He talked very openly about how he had an acquired brain injury, how he struggled with substance use and isolation. He had real medical challenges as a little baby.

But with the right supports at the right time, which included counselling, skills training and employment, he was able to find a job as a janitor. He said employment supports helped him overcome intergenerational trauma, and the work that he does, that he’s really good at, that he’s really proud of, is creating a good life for himself. It’s creating income security.

He also really sees the contributions that he’s making to community. He’s a really proud Haíłzaqv man. His family is really proud of him, and he’s really inspiring.

It’s stories like that that we used to build this reform to our employment assistance, income assistance legislation. Like Mike, people say that they feel better and they’re better off when they have a job. So we are reducing barriers for those who can work, while continuing supports for those who cannot.

Here’s more detail on the most significant change that we propose. The 2002 rules operate on the assumption that everyone who seeks income assistance is ready and able to work if a job is available. But in reality, many people face real barriers to employability. They have complex needs and may need a lot of support before they are able to get a job and keep a job. So with today’s proposed addition of what’s called a client needs assessment and employability plan, it’s built into the legislation. That will help those who have barriers.

It’ll give them options like training, completing a financial literacy program. It might be anger management counselling so that they can keep the job that they got. For some people, it might be a start that is as small as committing to community service or volunteer work. That will be their commitment. Our expectation is, and the design is, that that then supports people on the continuum of work. We support them getting back into the workplace and move them along that continuum.

I’ve got a couple of examples with made-up names, but they are composites of people that have described their journey through income assistance. It’s stories like these that really informed the changes that we’re making today.

Here’s one example, a person that I am calling Jo. Here’s her situation. She has a learning disability, an undiagnosed mental health condition, and she applies for income assistance. She is required to sign a templated employment plan, the same one that anybody in the province on income assistance would fill out. It obligates Jo to find and accept employment. There’s no other option. If she doesn’t sign the form, she’s denied assistance.

With the change that we’re bringing today, Jo will be completing a client needs assessment with a worker who will create with her a tailored employment plan that will set Jo up with counselling and life skills training.

Here’s another example — again, someone that I’m making up. I’m going to call him Ben. He gets a job, but he’s someone that had a workplace injury. He has a history of relying on substances to deal with the pain associated with the workplace injury. He’s had an interruption. He’s in his 50s. He gets a job but then is fired for showing up intoxicated.

In our existing system — here’s the status quo — a worker and a supervisor decide that Ben was fired for just cause, quite fair. But a consequence must be applied. In this case, with our status quo, he is cut off income assistance. We can imagine, because we’ve seen this in our communities, that his now losing both his job and income assistance is going to spiral him into a desperate place. Desperate people do desperate things. Not a helpful path. Once these changes are made in legislation, then Ben’s story can change.

[3:35 p.m.]

In this scenario, with the employability plan that we’re putting in place, a worker…. Then we go back to Ben showing up at work intoxicated. He is fired, but in this new scenario, a worker reaches out to Ben and offers to update his needs assessment. He would then be referred, for example, to a vocational rehab program. Once he received the support that he needed in this better, future universe, he would then be better able to get a new job, have that income stability, get an apartment. Two different paths for someone like Ben, and that hope and that possibility are what informs his legislative change.

People who are ready to go into the workforce — they might be on income assistance for a short time — will have a plan with employment obligations, just as they do right now. It’s very important to understand if you are employable or there are no barriers to that, then you would have a plan with employment obligations. You’d be reporting monthly on your efforts to get a job, and that would certainly be strongly encouraged.

In another area of reform, we’re proposing to get rid of the mean-spirited financial penalties that too often push people deeper into poverty. We want to move away from penalizing people for making mistakes in a system that can be very difficult to navigate. We’ll do this by eliminating fines for people who have incurred an overpayment due to misreporting their income.

Repayment will still be required, and severe consequences remain for those who commit fraud. But for those who just make a mistake on the paperwork, repaying the overpayment is enough of a penalty. We are also introducing a more graduated system of financial penalties for people who don’t follow their employment plans.

I’ve heard a concern through the media from the Leader of the Third Party that changes in this bill would confer more power to the minister and put additional burdens on income assistance recipients. I want to be really clear. We all want people to have the supports that they need. The changes in question reduce barriers for recipients of income assistance. Once implemented, people receiving assistance will have a reduced burden, not an additional one.

The minister is and always has been, in the legislation, the statutory authority under our income assistance acts. But since it’s not practical, of course, for any minister to administer assistance to over 200,000 people, the legislation in the past, and now, allows ministry staff to do that work.

The amendment in this bill removes some of the minister’s current powers. Nothing increases my powers here. Nothing in the bill would make me want to deny or give me the power to deny assistance. That’s just not something we would ever want to have happen.

Finally, another area of change, and I’m almost finished here, is that our government made a commitment when it passed the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act to bring our legislation into alignment with UNDRIP. These amendments do that to all three pieces of legislation, and we look forward to working with nations, going forward, to make that real for their governments.

In conclusion, we are building a system that acknowledges barriers, that works to reduce them, a system that supports people toward employment and ensures people get the help that they need to get out of poverty.

D. Davies: I’m pleased to rise in the House today to add the official opposition’s response to Bill 7.

The bill sets a ten-year target to reduce child poverty and poverty as a whole in British Columbia, which is obviously something that we can support. I think everybody in this House does support that. By attempting to reduce barriers for people receiving income assistance or disability assistance, by setting a new target, Bill 7 also looks at reducing seniors poverty. Again, all things that we certainly, everybody, strive for in this House.

These are noble goals, and no one in British Columbia should be living in poverty, yet this bill comes in light of a disturbing report from First Call Child and Youth Advocacy Society that shows an unfortunate upward rise in the child poverty rate here in British Columbia.

[3:40 p.m.]

One in seven children in B.C. now lives in poverty. That’s over 120,000 kids. The rate for the 67 First Nations that were in this study is a staggering 31 percent, which is double the national average. For kids who live in single-family households, the rate is, again, 40 percent. According to First Call, this government has overseen the first annual increase in child poverty since the financial crisis in 2008. Today there’s the equivalent to 10,000 additional children living in poverty than then.

This tragic explosion of poverty isn’t limited to children, though. B.C. has the second-highest poverty rate in the country and the highest seniors poverty rate in Canada. In fact, over this past number of months, I’ve had the pleasure to tour a number of food banks in different communities across British Columbia, in literally all four corners of this province. The number one growing demographic of food banks is seniors, followed by single-parent families.

Clearly, again, whatever this government has been doing for the last seven years has not been working. Seven years is a long time for the government to be making significant impacts. As with so many other pieces of legislation that we’ve seen come through this building, it’s the results that we’re not seeing. Despite this government running record-setting deficits and unbelievable debt, we are still seeing people suffering.

In fact, shortly after the budget was released, numerous poverty and social organizations across the province were quick to get onto social media and say how disappointed they were in this government, that out of an $8 billion deficit, there was no money to support them. More people are homeless. More people are struggling to put food on the table. More people are dealing with the daily reality of poverty.

We cannot turn a blind eye to the harsh reality that still persists today. More importantly, we cannot turn a blind eye to the results that the government is getting. While we can, of course, support the goal of reducing poverty, the B.C. United caucus has some significant questions about the functionality of the bill itself and how it is going to be enacted to indeed benefit British Columbians. We do look forward to moving this bill into committee stage so that we can dive into those questions.

First, this bill introduces key concepts like a client needs assessment or employability plan without clear definitions of what these terms mean, leaving substantial interpretation to the minister’s discretion. The bill concentrates decision-making authority within the minister’s office, effectively making the minister’s decisions regarding the client needs assessments and the stated employability plan, final with no opportunity to appeal or review.

In the actual bill, it says: “A decision of the minister in respect of any of the following matters is final and conclusive and not open to review by a court on any ground or to appeal….”

[3:45 p.m.]

Secondly, the bill’s potential to increase government bureaucracy is particularly concerning for individuals with disabilities, a group that often faces significant challenges navigating our already red-tape-burdened support system. The minister, I myself and others have met with many of these different disability groups out on the front lawn. One of the biggest things that they talk about is their inability to navigate the system that is already in place right now, to get the supports that they need.

We just look at any piece of legislation that this government has brought forward in the last seven years to recognize that they love bureaucracy. They love red tape. This bill is supposed to be something that reduces barriers, but when you put a bunch of gatekeepers in the way of stuff, that does anything but reduce those barriers. At a first and second go-through of the bill, it looks like there are gatekeepers and bureaucracy to be presented — more things for people who are already struggling just to get through the day — which they’re now going to be required to navigate through.

Further, we do not know how the government plans to accomplish the targets that they have set now, the ten-year poverty reduction plan, which fits into a significant piece of this legislation, and the plan to move forward, on which we are now in second reading and wrapping up today, moving to committee stage probably early next week and finishing up — without even seeing the plan, because it’s not released for another month.

Again, we just have to look at other pieces of legislation to see that this is how this government operates: “Trust us. Just trust us. We’ll get you the information. Just trust us.” Well, not only the opposition but the people of British Columbia should be seeing the entire piece of the legislation, what it looks like moving forward, including the ten-year poverty plan, before we dive into a debate, before we’re wrapping up this bill.

We’re not seeing that. That’s unfortunate. Certainly, there will be a lot of canvassing during committee stage on that. We are committed to engaging with non-profits, charities and development centres to hear their views of this legislation. This bill was introduced in this place yesterday afternoon. Here we are the next day, already in second reading. It makes it very difficult to do proper outreach and talk to these different organizations about how a piece of legislation is 100 percent going to impact them in some way. We don’t get that opportunity.

We definitely do look forward to scrutinizing this bill in committee stage, seeing what that looks like. We certainly want to acknowledge that this acknowledges the Indigenous rights and involvement, but I go back to the goals of all of us in this House, which is to remove those barriers, to support our vulnerable population, a person-centred focus.

[3:50 p.m.]

What we’ve seen, certainly over the last seven years, and what we are seeing now today certainly isn’t that. It’s just adding more layers of red tape and bureaucracy on top of something that is already near-impossible for many of our vulnerable population to stickhandle their way through right now. This just complicates the issue more. Again, we have heard from some people that are very concerned. I met with some folks, yesterday afternoon and today, that have real concerns with this bill.

We add on the affordability crisis that is already impacting British Columbians, with rates that have not changed — nothing in the budget. People are still upset from the $300 clawback that was done by this government a few years ago and that has not been restored. Pretty much every single advocate group, including the opposition, has been calling for that to be restored. It has not happened.

When you talk about an $8 billion deficit that this government is running, that’s a drop in the bucket. As we go through budget estimates in all the other ministries, it’ll be really interesting to see where this $8 billion really is and how much it really will help people. I’ll tell you, the people that do need help are the people in this bill, people that are facing poverty, people that are on disability.

Again, I’m not very optimistic that this bill will make a significant impact. My gut feeling, from a first read through it, tells me that folks are going to have even more challenges to receive the benefits that they so much need.

With that, I do look forward to debating this bill in committee stage, and with that, I’ll take my place.

S. Furstenau: I rise today to speak to Bill 7, the Social Development and Poverty Reduction Statutes Amendment Act.

I appreciate the comments from my colleague from the official opposition, and I share many of the concerns that he has raised. I think it’s important, for the record, to just identify some of the things that are in this act. These amendments repeal the act as it is and replace sections with new language.

To give a flavour of the language of the Social Development and Poverty Reduction Act, I’ll just read a little bit of this into the record.

“Section 9 is repealed, of the act, and the following is substituted:

“Client needs assessment and employability plan

“9 (1) Each recipient in a family unit must, when required to do so by the minister, participate, to the minister’s satisfaction, in the completion of a client needs assessment, and enter into an employability plan with the minister.

“(2) The minister may, in an employability plan, specify conditions with which a recipient must comply.

“(3) A dependent youth may request that the minister complete a client needs assessment for the youth.

“(4) If the minister completes a client needs assessment at the request of a dependent youth under subsection (3), the youth may request that the minister enter into an employability plan with the youth.

“And (5) The minister may at any time amend, suspend or cancel an employability plan.”

That’s the language of the legislation of these amendments.

[3:55 p.m.]

I go back to the work that was done under the confidence and supply agreement, the basic income panel review and the report that they put out in 2020. I had the benefit of attending a couple of their full-day sessions where they invited experts, advocates and people with lived experience to come and inform the work that they were doing on that panel.

Over and over again, the input — the report really reflects this; I keep going back to this report — is that the system for income assistance and the system for assistance for people with disabilities are incredibly complex, incredibly difficult for people to navigate.

I’ve got a document. I won’t hold it up; I know the rule about props. I can describe what looks like a very, very complicated colour wheel that shows over 120 support programs that are available to people on income assistance and disability, and the literally dozens of agencies by which people need to navigate to access those supports, and the dozen federal and dozen provincial ministries that are the direct access points.

It’s no wonder, when I consider the system as it’s displayed in this chart — again, I recommend that people go to the basic income report from 2020 to look at this — that we find out that a huge number of people don’t even get the supports that they’re entitled to. They don’t even know that they exist. Then the onus and the burden keeps coming back to the individual: “Well, you didn’t apply for it. You didn’t fill out this form. You didn’t come back and refill out this form.”

For people with disabilities, for people who are struggling with poverty or for people who have had bad experiences with government, with institutions and with those services that are meant to help them, this is an incredible onus and burden on them. The message is really: “If you can’t navigate this, then you’re just not going to really get access to the supports that you should rightly have.” That’s one.

Two, when I look at the language again in this bill, we continue to use this language around employability plans and specific conditions that people have to comply with — compliance and meeting the requirements.

The interesting thing, when you look at the language here, is that the person that has agency is the minister. As we understand the system to be, the powers of that minister are delegated to people working in this ministry around the province. That power, it says right in the legislation, is to “at any time amend, suspend or cancel….” Now imagine that you’re in an agreement, and you’re accessing benefits, but you exist with this knowledge that at any time this could be amended, suspended or cancelled.

Interjection.

S. Furstenau: I hear the former minister saying: “No different from now.”

I ask, then, what is the purpose of a social democratic government? Where’s the 2016 NDP who would have been saying exactly what I’m saying right now, and who would have been saying it’s not good enough that people are living so far below the poverty line that there’s not a chance that they’re going to get out of that trap — not a chance. Instead, it’s like: “No, this is fine. We’ll just carry on.”

Seventy thousand children in this province living in poverty, which means the parents of those 70,000 children are also living in poverty.

[4:00 p.m.]

People on disability are living deeply below the poverty line. This isn’t good enough. We are in a province and a country with an enormous amount of wealth. We have billionaires — seven of them, at last count. Maybe we have more now. Sent to millionaires, many of whom think that B.C.’s a great place to be.

I wonder if that’s because we have the lowest income tax rate for the highest earners in Canada. Across Canada, the highest income tax rate, $150,000 in income. In B.C., we are the champions of taxing the wealthiest the least. We’re also the champions of ensuring that disability rates are so far below the poverty line that people are absolutely having to depend on food banks and on additional supports just to survive.

Let’s have another part of this conversation. I met with Disability Without Poverty this morning, a really great advocacy group. They do really data-based knowledge gathering. They come out with reports. They advocate on behalf of people with disabilities. Some really interesting data in here: 16.5 percent of people with a disability live in poverty in this country; 27 percent of people in Canada have a disability.

You start to add these numbers up: eight million people in our country with a disability, and 16.5 percent of them live in poverty. That’s over 1.5 million people in Canada. Of those who live in poverty, 41 percent, close to half, are disabled. There is a very direct connection between disability and poverty.

Then we have fascinating things like how if you’re a disabled person and you happen to fall in love with another person and get married, you’re going to see a clawback of your supports. In 2024, in Canada, we have governments who think it’s okay to determine whether a person with disabilities should experience clawbacks if they want to enter into a relationship with somebody else.

I started a PhD a long time ago. You’ll note I said started. I have a master’s degree in medieval history, but I was very fascinated — I still am — with Tudor England, the England of Henry VII, Henry Tudor; Henry VIII, we all know about him; and Elizabeth I. There was a huge transition happening in England over this period. The early modern period, it’s called.

One of the transitions — this is what I was going to do my research on, and maybe I’ll go back to it one day — was the way in which England as a country navigated the transition from Catholicism to the Anglican church. We all know, to some degree, the story of this. Henry wanted a divorce, and then we got a new church, because the Catholic church would not grant him a divorce. But in the theological shift that happened from Catholicism to the Anglican, which was more of a Protestant sect, was this challenge around the idea of charity.

[4:05 p.m.]

In the Middle Ages, in the Catholic church, charity was one of the most important virtues. It kind of imbued the institution. The monasteries were a very important conduit for charitable work, for ensuring that there were supports to people who were poor in any region. But also, individually, there was this whole theological idea around charity being a very important aspect for how you ensure eternal salvation.

The Anglican church rejected this notion of charity and said that charity wasn’t a form of work, of spiritual work, that would actually result in you making it into heaven or not. Because predestination, in the Anglican church, really says your soul is kind of determined when you’re born. That brought in this whole idea that your material aspect was somehow a reflection of your internal, of your soul.

This resulted in the first very significant shift into how poverty was looked at, at an institutional level, from a government perspective, whereas prior to the shift from the Catholic church to the Anglican in the U.K., poverty was seen as a way in which people did good work. They engaged in charitable work.

In the 17th century, we saw the first introduction, under Elizabeth, of the poor laws, the Elizabethan poor laws. This started to create this idea of: what do we do with poor people? It created this idea of: “Well, they should get to work, right? We should make them work. We can’t just let people be poor, not doing anything.”

Then there was a distinction made between worthy poor people, people who had disabilities, and the less worthy poor people, people who should just pull up their socks and get to work. For that, there were workhouses that were created.

The fascinating thing about these workhouses is it was determined that the people who were working in those workhouses should be paid significantly less than somebody who is working out in the wider society, so this institution of this idea that if you’re poor, one, we’ve got to make you work; two, your work is going to be valued less.

Here in B.C., single people working in this province, single people who are working — 22 percent of them live below the poverty line. We are still replicating the conditions of 17th-century England in that people are trapped in poverty.

People are expected to work for less than a living wage and, in doing so, lose the benefits that come with all of these supports that are available to people on income assistance; or, if they’re on income assistance, you’re expected to enter into an employability plan with a minister, and if you’re not meeting the conditions of that employability plan, guess what. The minister can cancel or suspend that plan at any time.

What does this do for people? Does it create agency, dignity, certainty, stability, the ability to dream, to take risks, to do things? No. It’s a trap. Instead, if we looked at how we create supports for people who are disabled or supports for people in poverty that give them dignity, agency, certainty, predictability, the ability to take risks, the ability to take chances, the ability to dream, the ability to meet their full potential….

Well, for example, and this is what we proposed in 2020, you could say: “Okay, you as an individual, you qualify for income assistance. Instead of you coming back every month and checking in and having to expose everything about everything in your life and being kind of watched over and put under this experience of like, ‘nobody trusts me,’” right? We’re not working from a place of trust in these systems. That’s for sure.

[4:10 p.m.]

Instead, imagine if we said: “Okay. For 12 months, no questions asked, we’re going to provide you with income assistance. No questions asked. A year from now, let’s check back in. But for 12 months, we’re going to give you certainty. We’re going to give you predictability. We’re going to give you the supports that allow you to dream or take risks or consider starting a small business or consider getting some education.”

All of these things that all of us know. We’ve all had the benefit of this. But you can’t do those things unless you have that foundational piece. “I can predict what my income is going to be three, six, nine months from now.” If you don’t have that, you exist in a state of perpetual uncertainty. And what’s it like to exist in a state of perpetual uncertainty?

None of us know that, at least not for the last little while. We’ve got pretty good certainty. We know the cheques are going to be deposited in our bank account every two weeks. We know that our expenses are going to be covered. We know that we’re going to eat well. We know that we have health benefits, all sorts of benefits. And fascinatingly, our salaries are tied to cost-of-living increases, except for sometimes we decide to forgo those.

Mostly we can actually count on that predictability. But people on disability assistance, people on income assistance? Nope, not even that basic level.

We’re not going to tie these to cost-of-living increases. So as the cost of living goes up…. And we talk about that in here all the time. Boy, we’re really going in there for the “over $85,000 in income” folks. We’re really going to do some good work for them. Housing. But if you are living already below the poverty line, on income assistance or disability assistance, no cost-of-living increase for you.

Is it any wonder that we are seeing a deepening of poverty and that we are seeing people who are moving from being housed to being homeless? We have unchecked market forces, particularly when it comes to housing, yet checks on everything a person does if they’re collecting disability or income assistance. Boy, oh boy, do we keep a close eye. We monitor everything.

I think we can do better than replicating 1601 Elizabethan poor laws. I really do. I think we can take the guidance of the experts that we asked to do a job for us. They told us: “You want to alleviate some of the deepest poverty in this province? Here are three things you can do right now.”

One, a basic income for youth aging out of care. Why? They don’t have the support systems that most of us get to have. When our kids grow up, they know they’ve got a support system. They’ve got a family support system. They’ve got a social network. They’ve got a community support system. Those kids have a safety net. But kids aging out of care? No safety net. So, one, a basic income for kids aging out of care.

Two, a basic income for women fleeing domestic violence. The decision to remove yourself and your children from a situation where your life is at risk or their lives are at risk…. And we’ve seen the data. We have a femicide problem in this country. The decision to leave risky situations like that is not hindered by: “Am I going to be able to feed and clothe my children? Are we going to have a place to live?”

Right now way too many women are staying in incredibly dangerous situations because they won’t have that certainty and security of having a place to live and being able to feed and clothe their children. That’s No. 2.

[4:15 p.m.]

The No. 3 recommendation from the basic income task force that we asked…. “Please give us a report. Give us guidance, expert guidance.” Two years of work they put into it.

Number 3 was a basic income for people with disabilities. Not taking away the other existing supports, in all of these cases, but just insisting that for youth aging out of care, women fleeing domestic violence and people with disabilities…. We just say as a society: “Guess what. We are not going to expect you to live below the poverty line.”

Then we can start counting in real numbers. How many people are we lifting out? How many people no longer live in poverty? And then: what do they get to start contributing? This is what we’re all losing, and this is really important to understand. All of us lose when people are trapped in poverty.

I did a quick search earlier today. People with disabilities who have made contributions that all of us benefit from.

Stephen Hawking. Nobody told Stephen Hawking: “Sorry. You’re going to just have to live below the poverty line while you figure out the nature of the universe.” Had Stephen Hawking been told, “Sorry, you’re going to have to just live below the poverty line,” I don’t think he would have figured out the nature of the universe if he didn’t know where his next meal was going to come from or whether he had a place to live or whether his benefits would be clawed back if he got married to the woman he loved.

Frida Kahlo. Helen Keller. Oh, Franklin Roosevelt. Stevie Wonder. Michael J. Fox. Andrea Bocelli. Marlee Matlin. Christopher Reeve. Beethoven.

When we create the conditions in which people with disabilities are trapped in poverty, we all lose, all of us. So legislation that — I don’t know — changes some language and says: “Oh, we’re going to change our targets….”

I was thinking about this, Madam Speaker. This government treats poverty reduction targets the same way it treats emissions reduction targets. Just keep throwing numbers out there. Nobody is going to notice that we’re going in the wrong direction.

Oh, but 2019. Oh yeah. Okay. But 2019. We’re in 2024. We have tens of thousands of people in this province who don’t have a place to live, who are living in tents and under tarps and being treated with contempt, I’m sorry to say, by members of this Legislative Assembly, spoken about with utter contempt.

Nobody wakes up and says: “You know what my goal is? My goal is one day to be homeless.” Nobody wakes up and decides that. It’s not a matter of pulling up your socks. If the only pair of socks you’ve ever had are this big and full of holes, good luck pulling them up.

We need to reframe how we treat poverty and disability, and we can. We always have the choice. Where we are right now is a matter of policy decisions. Policy decisions have gotten us here. Policy decisions will keep us here, or they will move us somewhere else. What I see in this legislation and what I see from this government is…. We’re pretty good with the policy decisions that got us here.

[4:20 p.m.]

You know where I see that the most, Madam Speaker? I often say this. The government tells you what it values by how it spends its money. Let’s look at the plan this government has for social development and poverty reduction.

Temporary assistance. Updated forecasting for this year is $57.913 million; next year, $53.4 million; the year after that, $52.7 million; in ’26-27, $52.7 million. So either we’re solving poverty and people aren’t going to need temporary assistance, which I don’t think is the case, or we’re budgeting to provide less to people when they need assistance.

What about disability assistance? Right now the up­dated forecast for ’23-24 is $122 million; ’24-25, $125.7 million, ’25-26, $127.3 million; and ’26-27, $127.3 million. For people with disabilities out there, if you’re anticipating a significant increase in how this government plans to support you, you need to look at the budget. It’s right there; it’s not coming. If only they were a fossil fuel company — tax credits left, right and Christmas. It’s Christmas for fossil fuel companies around here in a tax credit giveaway, the marathon that we’re in. Yeah, I would say I’m pretty disappointed.

One other thing that we could do, in my last minute, is to look at countries that are starting to measure well-being — not GDP and not…. I don’t know what we measure — all these targets. We talk about targets, targets, targets. Then it’s: “Oh, don’t talk about those targets anymore.”

New Zealand, Scotland and Iceland have brought in well-being budgets, and they report out on those measures every year. That’s one way that we can hold ourselves accountable as a government and as a society. Is the money that we’re spending actually achieving better well-being for more people, for those 70,000 children living in poverty right now?

I would hope that that’s something that we’d all want to be doing. I’m waiting to see evidence of that from this government.

N. Simons: I just want to stand in support of Bill 7, making some changes to three acts, clarifying some language and setting new targets for a poverty reduction strategy. I’ve had the benefit and pleasure of being in this chamber, in this House, since 2005. I was in opposition for 12 years and, during those 12 years, I have to say, trying to get government to listen to arguments that support the need for a poverty reduction strategy. They fell on unreceptive ears.

The community, members of the Legislature from the opposition at the time, public interest groups and social support networks all said that if we are truly interested in addressing the issue of poverty in British Columbia, we need to have a strategy, a plan — not just any strategy or any plan, but a plan that has targets, that has timelines and that is ultimately measurable in order for not just policy-makers but the public to be able to ascertain whether or not the targets were being achieved.

[4:25 p.m.]

I remember talking about it in the chamber in the early and mid-2000s, and being told in various ways — as my colleagues were, those who were there at the time — that the best poverty reduction strategy is a job. They were not considering the fact that there were so many children living in poverty, or that there were a number — obviously, thousands — of people who were unable to obtain employment. That was their simplistic response to what is obviously a complicated issue.

Those arguments that we made repeatedly from the opposition from 2005 on, in the time that I was here…. I remember it being spoken about. It was nothing — no response to the urgent need that people in our communities were feeling.

I would just point out that in 2005, that was not far removed from 2002. It’s important. We’re not going back quite to the Middle Ages here, as my colleague across the way wanted to do — just 2002. It’s about as far as back as I remember, and I would say that the actions taken by a government, some of whom are still here in opposition, of course, including the Leader of the Opposition, who was here in the 2000s….

We saw policy changes around the issue of child poverty and poverty in general that were draconian, punitive, mean-spirited, counterproductive, harsh and, ultimately, negatively impacting on British Columbians.

Let me just remind this House that in 2002, the then Liberal government, now called the United, not only cut welfare rates, social assistance rates for people, for single people, for seniors; they closed down dozens of offices that were in place in order to provide services directly to clients. They closed something like…. I have the number. I’ll say dozens, because that could be a lot, and it could be three dozen, at least three dozen offices. They cut the social assistance ministry budget by 30 percent.

Let’s not forget. When the opposition says angrily that we don’t know what they’re going to do, that we shouldn’t presume we know what they’re going to do…. They didn’t tell us in 2001 that they would cut social assistance in that huge way. They never said anything. Their platform included nothing about cutting social assistance.

They cut the ministry budget by 30 percent. They reduced the workforce of the ministry by 30 percent. They reduced rates for single parents, for seniors, for families. They reduced the rates.

I remember this. I was a financial assistance worker with the ministry, with my first job in the public sector. I was assessing, as a 20-year-old, eligibility of clients who came to the office. I’d have a form with carbon paper in it, a triplicate form. I’d fill out names and addresses. I’d ask about their assets. I’d ask about the last time they had a job. I’d ask about what their plans were.

It’s all very invasive, of course. It is. There are ways of reducing that, and I think that the ministry has become less harsh since then. It’s not the ministry of no anymore.

At the time, there were plans put in place for people who sought assistance from the province in order to get past some challenges, to assist them in their daily costs of living, to essentially try and provide the needs of these individuals who had no other source of income. It was the social safety net for people living in poverty. It was the social safety net that had evolved in British Columbia.

[4:30 p.m.]

In 2002, the cuts that came into place sent us backwards in this province. We all know, and I think I mentioned it in 2007 or 2008, that the cost of poverty and the cost of doing nothing about poverty will come in the years to come. We will see the impacts of not addressing poverty in the years to come.

I’ll take nothing away from anyone who says we need to do more. I will absolutely agree. I will say: have a voice; make that voice heard. We all want to see poverty reduced. We all want to see ways that we can balance the various needs of the province but ensuring that those who need support from government get it.

I’m never satisfied. I don’t think anyone in this chamber should be satisfied when we say we’ve made some improvements. There are always going to be improvements. I appreciate people putting out ideas on how things can be better achieved.

One of the things that I think helps is that when people need income, we increase the income assistance rates. Let’s not just forget that the Liberals, now United, brought in cuts to social assistance rates. They cut emergency crisis grants. They cut the seniors supplement. They cut the clothing allowances. I mentioned the crisis grants. Those can’t be seen in any other way than mean-spirited.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

So when the people on this side formed government in 2017, one of the first actions they took was to increase income assistance rates. It was something that everybody in the sector was asking for. We increased the social assistance rates after they had been frozen.

The government that cut the social assistance rates barely increased them at all and then froze them for a decade. Minimum wage didn’t go up, child care subsidies didn’t go up, food bank supports didn’t go up and they froze income assistance rates. Is that not going to have an impact on those living near the poverty line and their children and their families? Yes, it will.

We didn’t just increase the rates once. We’ve increased them numerous times. We did that because we need the rates to increase, and I think we still need to see rates increased. But we have taken major steps, and we are continuing to take major steps. We implemented a child poverty reduction strategy, and we enshrined it in legislation, the strategy with targets and timelines. That is, in my opinion, progress.

If we can say that we’re reducing the number of people living in poverty, it’s a good thing, but it’s not accomplishing the goal. The goal is to get everybody out of poverty. And we are striving towards people not living….

Interjection.

N. Simons: No, it’s not.

According to the member for Saanich North and the Islands, it’s not the goal to get everyone out of poverty. But I say it is the goal, and I think that we need to continue to work towards that goal. I’m sure that the member is going to have an opportunity to stand up and speak for himself on this subject.

It’s an important subject, and it may arise passions in people. It’s a subject close to my heart. I’ve seen the impact of poverty. I’ve seen what it does. And I know the cost of poverty on our communities, on the quality of life of everyone in our communities. I see good-hearted people making efforts in their own ways to have an impact on poverty and to reduce the impacts that poverty has on people.

[4:35 p.m.]

I know that when children go to school hungry, their capacity for learning is impacted, but it’s also a reflection of the challenges their family may have. So to embrace the child and support the child in the school by providing food and nutrition, that’s good. But it would be better if all families in this province had everything they needed to ensure the child was fed.

We know, in fact…. The member previous to me did talk about the correlation between disability and poverty. There is, in fact, a need to ensure that our policies address the challenges that people living with disabilities face.

I would just say that there are ways…. We have improved the system. The rates have increased. The earning exemptions have increased. The crisis grants have increased. The supports for children returning to school have increased. And you know, it’s not going to be enough until we’ve eliminated poverty.

If there are other ways to do that, if in fact the study on basic income came back saying that it would be cost-effective and successful, we would have had a different approach with that. But as it turns out, the system that we have in place has many elements of the basic income guarantees.

I would say that we can’t stop working towards the goal of reducing poverty. We can’t stop, and we can’t be thwarted by this idea that it’s impossible. We’re trying, and we’re finding ways to provide the necessary supports so that people can find their strength and achieve the best of their ability.

In the case of work, in the case of helping social assistance recipients in their work, I think we had a system whereby people on social assistance, if they were considered eligible to work, they would be expected to fill out a form describing their efforts, having it signed by various prospective employers. They would show that to their financial assistance worker, now called employment assistance worker.

But it wouldn’t take into consideration the potential barriers or challenges — life circumstances, health circumstances — that that individual would have. They would be told: “You’re considered employable. You need to do a workplan.” End of story.

I’d say: “Well, there are circumstances that make that particularly difficult for some people. There may, in fact, be some people who will not be likely to enter the workforce in a full-time way. To add flexibility to the system, to allow people to work part-time when their health and sense of self is such that they feel confident to do that — that’ll be encouraged.”

It’ll be encouraged because they’re entitled to keep more money while we continue to provide, as a province, the supports at the same level that they would receive if they weren’t working. We allow them to keep that extra. It’s important.

It’s not necessarily an incentive. It’s just a recognition that it’s challenging to live in poverty. By providing what we call earning exemptions and by increasing them, we give more opportunities for people to enter the workforce. If that’s the direction they want to go, we don’t want to be an impediment to that.

[4:40 p.m.]

I think the changes that we’re seeing reduce those impediments. Do they completely eliminate the impediments? No, they reduce the impediments.

When a client goes and visits their assigned ministry employee, that employee will be capable of ascertaining what would be in the best interest of this client, what would be in the best interest of this person, their family. They’ll be able to tailor what are the mutual expectations of that relationship.

Eligibility criteria and reporting criteria. The system has been updated in such a way that the monthly reporting is not somebody coming to your house and knocking on your door and checking your bank book. It’s a statement saying, “My circumstances haven’t changed; I continue to benefit from the assistance provided,” and that would continue.

Accessing programs that the Ministry of Social Development and Poverty Reduction provides. Accessing those programs has been characterized by some as incredibly onerous.

Interjection.

N. Simons: The member across clearly has an opinion about that, which I invite him to express when his time comes.

They say it’s incredibly onerous, and it may in fact, for some, be challenging. That’s why the minister before me and when I was the minister and now the current minister say we find that to be problematic. We accept and understand that we could be more compassionate and helpful in certain ways, and that’s why we’ve introduced the position of a community integration specialist.

These are workers who previously would be in their office, using their computers and ascertaining eligibility based on their meetings. They go into the community. They go to the parks. They go to the community centres. They go to where people are who may need access to programs.

We have numerous stories of individuals who are not in receipt of any supports being approached by community integration specialists who have particular skills. When the person receiving nothing realizes that they are, in fact, eligible and that they’ll be given assistance in acquiring those supports, it’s a good thing.

There are heartwarming stories about people thinking that they were unable to access any supports, and when they found out they were, their life improved. Their quality of life improved, and obviously, when their quality of life improves, those around them see their quality of life improve.

Now, I have friends who receive disability assistance. I have friends who receive social assistance. I know that it’s not the preferred source of income, because it is — for all the reasons. To have employment would be something that they would maybe aspire to.

We want to make it easier, and we want to provide better supports for those who want to continue on their personal journey. That may include finding employment, volunteering in the community, perhaps going out more in public and participating in various recreational community activities. We want to make sure that that’s possible.

I think the flexibility that’s been introduced in this legislation…. It may not seem like a lot to some members, but I think the flexibility and the discretion that’s being supported in this legislation will ultimately benefit those who we serve.

[4:45 p.m.]

I would say as well that when we talk about poverty reduction, it’s not just about the Social Development and Poverty Reduction Ministry providing income supports. It’s a broader, all-of-government approach. It’s about the supports that we put into the education system to ensure children are supported there. It’s about the supports we provide for families to access child care. It’s the supports that we have for individuals to secure housing.

We know we are living in a time where we’re challenged with the circumstances we face. We’ve gone through a period of pandemic. We’ve experienced a toxic drug supply that has devastated families and communities. We’ve come together, as British Columbians, to face these challenges. We haven’t defeated them. We haven’t won. The work is not over, obviously.

I just would suggest that measures that we’re taking, even if they’re characterized as incremental, are important. They are working in the right direction. We’re not closed to other opinions about how things could be achieved. In fact, I know that the minister welcomes suggestions.

I think that what we need to do is continue to focus on finding ways to support community. And by supporting community, we support families and individuals.

I would just say, as a caution, that we’ve seen governments in the past do things that shocked us, and unexpectedly shocked us. When we talk about the need for reducing, for example, our capacity to provide services, those services will be cut. If we do things that result in governments making decisions about spending, we know that those with the least of the voice are the ones who suffer. We’ve seen it before. We’ve seen it in 2001. We’ve seen it in 2008. We saw it in 2015.

It was only in 2017 that the issue of poverty even began to be addressed. We continue to address it, and I’m glad that we do, because I continue to believe that the investments that we make now will benefit us in the future, because we’ve seen the lack of investment result in some of the situations that we see now.

With that, I’m proud to support Bill 7. Thank you for the opportunity.

A. Olsen: Thank you for the opportunity to speak to Bill 7.

I think it’s important to just acknowledge that despite what the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast described this bill as, this government’s goal is clearly not poverty elimination. Otherwise, the name of the ministry that’s responsible for it would indicate that. It is the goal of the reduction of poverty.

So my response to a member who stands and suggests that the goal is something other than actually what is articulated by the ministry and that is actually supported by the efforts that are taken, clearly not efforts to eliminate poverty…. They are efforts to reduce, however modestly, poverty.

[4:50 p.m.]

I in no way suggested that that should not be the goal. In fact, yesterday in the media, I said the cost of living, just the cost to be alive, is really having dramatic impacts on people, particularly on Indigenous people.

We’re not talking nearly enough about the quality of life. The provincial government is not setting targets to create a greater quality of life for people. They’re simply setting these targets to manage the truly unaffordable cost of living. This government should be setting the goal in order to create an equitable society, and that includes poverty elimination, not poverty reduction.

See, that was the promise…. My colleague previously mentioned the 2016 NDP, mentioned it a couple of times. That’s because that’s an NDP that I, and we, had some experience with, because we sat in those rooms at that time in which the people of British Columbia returned here a balanced House with three Greens sitting in between.

The promise of the B.C. NDP was not to be modestly better than the B.C. Liberals. That was not the promise. It wasn’t even close to the promise. In fact, we heard…. The people sitting at those tables negotiating with us pled with us and told us that they would do much, much better than the crew that the members on the government side of the House now, the comfort of being in those seats for seven years now, continue to compare themselves to — a government almost a generation ago.

For the first three years of this government’s time in office, we heard about making life more affordable. Everything had the tag line of making life more affordable. You go back and take a look at it. We must have heard that a million times — making life more affordable. That’s gone from the rhetoric now, post-2020. No more conversation about making life more affordable.

So it’s a little challenging, frankly, to hear a government that’s been in power now for seven years, that has had the opportunity to actually put in place policy that could move us…. If the goal was to get us to elimination, then we wouldn’t be seeing ten-year targets that get us to not eliminating poverty, partway there. That’s even the ten-year goal.

As my colleague mentioned before, the budget doesn’t indicate, over the next three years, poverty elimination. It indicates less money being invested, slight and modest increases for people with disabilities, but other than that, it shows a decrease in the amount that this ministry is going to get in order to actually deal with the reduction or, if this is the way that the government wants to paint it, the elimination of poverty.

The goal is not for this government to do that. Otherwise, we’d be happy to see the letterhead change and the mandate of this minister change. We’d love to see the ten-year targets change to indicate that that is the goal — elimination. If it’s going to take 20 years to do it, then let’s set those targets. But it’s rich for this government to come in and suggest, and to have members stand up here and suggest, that the poverty reduction plan is also a poverty elimination plan when it’s far from that.

The member also mentioned the accessibility, the member who spoke before me. I had an incredibly ill constituent — incredibly ill; doctors were working to try to find the source of the illness — locked at home, trying to navigate a health care system that was, basically, breaking apart underneath them.

Do you know what that constituent was met with? That constituent was met with the most intrusive response from government, needing access to bank accounts to monitor the amount of money that was going in and out, and supports that were far less than what it would cost them to live.

[4:55 p.m.]

When the member stands here and pretends like somehow this government has become less intrusive, the fact of the matter is the intense pressure that was placed on that constituent added a level of stress at a time when their illness was already high.

I will not sit here and listen to this government pretend, create an illusion that somehow the accessibility is being improved. As my colleague points out, the wheel of pain, basically, for people as they’re trying to navigate programs and services and understand all of the programs and services that should be there to support them. Standing in here and creating an illusion that somehow it’s improving.

People in the depths of an illness that they have no idea what it is, already fearful for their lives, handing over their bank accounts so that somebody in a ministry, one of the people that the minister has delegated their power to, can monitor their bank accounts to ensure that they’re not cheating and deceiving the government — that’s the system that we have, desperate people having to prove themselves to a government that they really are incredibly sick.

It’s important that as we hear this government compare themselves to the clearly awful policies that came in the 2000s from the former government, this B.C. NDP government should not be judged based on how modestly better they were than those terrible decisions. They need to be judged based on their own actions and the promise of a social democratic government to actually support people — to not monitor them, watch over them, create these mazes of bureaucracy for people who are already in an incredibly challenging situation to navigate, to prove themselves, to prove their worth. That’s not the promise.

I sat and I watched and I listened to the B.C. NDP members when they were on this side of the House. That wasn’t the promise. That wasn’t the information that I used when I sat there in those negotiations that got this government to this position that they’re in now with their comfortable majority. Far cry from the questions that they were asking and the demands that they were making of the government before them.

As we see this government bring forward these modest changes and actually bring them forward as if they’re making a remarkable and substantive impact…. I grew up watching and seeing what intergenerational poverty does. I saw it firsthand. As my colleague mentioned with respect to the basic income report that came in, the basic income report didn’t say, “Make a basic income for everybody,” but it did say: “Make a basic income for three specific groups.”

This government has failed to deliver on those areas, and there are tragic consequences of those decisions — children leaving care, absolutely no resources, women fleeing abusive relationships. The reality of that is not supporting those folks. If those women have children, we know what the likely outcome for those kids is going to be — right? — a call to the Ministry of Children and Family Development. That’s what that’s going to be, because those women might not have the resources to support their kids.

What other options are left for us? We must call them. We must get them in a better position. Then they’ll become the kids that are leaving care. People with a disability. It did say create a basic income for those demographics and those groups.

[5:00 p.m.]

A government that is truly on the path to the elimination of poverty would have done that. Not a government that’s looking at the cost-effectiveness of basic income overall, but a government that is looking at the elimination of poverty would have looked at these demographics, would have taken the recommendations and would have implemented them.

We know that this government does the reports, does the investigation and then ignores them. There’s a bunch of us in here that have made recommendations to this government only to watch them fritter time away and not listen to them.

I’ve seen the impact institutionalized poverty has. It’s devastating. I’ve seen what happens when people don’t have housing. It’s horrifying. I’ve seen what happens when we don’t look at these situations with a systems’ mindset, understanding that the lack of support in the Ministry of Social Development and Poverty Reduction usually ends up in an increased caseload for the Ministry of Children and Family Development, feeding into the next generation of the spiral downward — the trap, as my colleague talked about it.

I went to a family event…. Actually, I’m going to say this: 13 percent child poverty in British Columbia, 31 percent in First Nations. Thirteen percent child poverty in British Columbia; First Nations, 31 percent. And we wonder why those statistics are so much higher in all of the other times that those families and those children interface with this government, right?

Interfacing with the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General. Interfacing with the Attorney General’s ministry. Interfacing with the Ministry of Children and Family Development. Interfacing with the Ministry of Education. Interfacing with the Ministry of Health. All of the statistics dramatically worse for Indigenous people.

If we’re not going to, as a government, do everything we can to provide First Nations the revenues that they need, the source of revenue that they need, without the government watchers holding and controlling them either, we’re not going to get that poverty rate up. We’re not going to address it. That’s the trap. We can see the trap in our own communities. It’s terrifying. It’s horrifying. It’s intergenerational. It’s incredibly sad.

We have good people in our communities that are fighting to make it better, Yet what do we have? We have a government that continues to hold on to all the revenues, not providing the opportunities that a government…. We call them Indigenous governing bodies. We don’t treat them like governing bodies, do we? We don’t give them access to the revenues that they need.

We collect a ton of revenue from their territories, put it in general revenue — property transfer taxes, natural resource taxes. We collect billions and billions of dollars from Indigenous peoples in Indigenous territories right across this province, yet 31 percent child poverty in First Nations, more than double the child poverty rate everywhere else in our province.

We can’t go back ten years and say: “Oh, that’s a result of ten years ago.” That’s not a result of just….

[5:05 p.m.]

Yeah, okay, the former B.C. Liberals, the big bad B.C. Liberals. They probably had a lot to do with that. But what about the B.C. NDP government of the 1990s? What about them? What did they do, if we want to turn this into, “We’re just better than they are,” modestly.

It doesn’t help this conversation at all to just continue to knock the ball back and forth, especially when the same kinds of governing decisions are being produced. We’re not talking about structural change. We’re not providing the actual resources to deal with the 31 percent child poverty. We’re not actually doing that in this House. We could barely even have a conversation in here about the land question without it turning into an absolute nightmare.

The access that people have to the programs and services to help them actually out of poverty is a complex maze. When we take a look at this bill and we see the targets that are set…. Fine, we’re setting new targets. We’re not addressing the actual supports that people need in order to be in a better position tomorrow. The budget paints that picture for us clearly.

We have people with a disability in this province living $10,000 or more below the poverty line. Yet what we hear is: “Well, we increased the rates.” Sure, okay. If what you need is for me to celebrate you increasing the rates, great. Excellent. Thank you so much. Except the problem is that people are still $10,000 below the poverty line when the basic income report said that people with a disability should get a basic income, not a modest increase. And the government didn’t want to do a basic income for everybody, but it was very specific.

I actually lament the fact that the party that was sitting at the table with us, promising to make remarkable change, is now sitting alone over in government with their majority, consigning themselves to being okay to defend modest change, change far from good enough for people living $10,000 below the poverty line. Those are the supports that we’re offering.

When I was at the missing and murdered Indigenous women’s march in the Downtown Eastside a few weeks back, one thing became very clear to me. The number of our seniors that are living in the Downtown Eastside is shameful. We know the supports for seniors, the SAFER program, are far below. Seniors can’t retire because they can’t afford to retire.

Is “modest” enough from a government that frames itself as a social democratic government? No, it’s not good enough. Is it something? Yes, it’s something, but it’s far from good enough.

HÍSW̱ḴE SIÁM.

J. Sims: It is my pleasure today to rise and speak on the legislation that is before us, Social Development and Poverty Reduction Statutes Amendments Act, 2024.

Like my other colleagues in this House, that’s what I want to believe: that every one of us would want to see the elimination of poverty, including child poverty. We would want to make sure that we are lifting people up.

[5:10 p.m.]

I’m so proud of the current minister and the previous minister for having worked on these amendments to make sure that we carry on the gargantuan work we started way back when we decided to develop a poverty reduction plan. That may not seem like a big thing, but I’m a teacher, and I know that if you are teaching students or if you’re tackling an issue, you need to have a plan, but you also need to have targets.

A government of a previous ilk, that sits in opposition now, did not have a poverty reduction plan. As a matter of fact, some of the steps they took were exactly the opposite. When the rest of the country was dealing with reducing child poverty, B.C. had the highest child poverty rate in Canada, one of the richest provinces in Canada having the highest child poverty rate.

You know, it was a different government. I’m so happy to be in government and sitting on this side of the House. It was a different government back in 2002, a government that brought in legislation to cut people off welfare. That was not going to get them out of poverty. Just because you reduced the supports, reduced what they need, does not mean that poverty disappears. Yes, you get to say fewer people are now on social assistance.

Really, it reminds me of what happened in education with the so-called red tape around special needs kids. When the designations were taken away, so many kids who needed critical supports suddenly didn’t qualify anymore. In many ways, this legislation in 2002 did exactly the same.

It reflected on the opposition, which was then in government, their belief that something was wrong with helping people up. They really wanted to push people down. I’m so proud to be part of a government…. The budget reflects that, a budget that knows that during good times and during tough times, we are better off as a society when we lift each other up, when we support each other.

There is a very old saying that you judge a society by how well it looks after its kids, its sick, its elderly and those that cannot afford to look after themselves. I can say, categorically, that a government of a different ilk, back in 2002, had a failing grade on every one of those.

I’m so proud of the work that has been done by this government since 2017, starting with a poverty reduction plan, lifting social assistance rates, which had not been lifted for a long, long time, addressing minimum wage. We went through an era where we had a training wage and a minimum wage that hardly moved. I don’t think it moved at all for a while. Really, all of those things drove more and more people below the poverty line.

I’m not going to say things are perfect. They are far from perfect. As I always say, lots done, lots more to do. We’re going to carry on doing that.

When minimum wage is raised, it makes a difference to those people who are now getting a decent wage. It’s not perfect, because cost of living has gone up after COVID. We have seen internationally — it’s not unique to Canada — the result of inflation and what it’s doing to people, not only who are below the poverty line, but working people in that middle-income range as well.

[5:15 p.m.]

Everybody has been impacted. But you know who gets impacted the most? Those who live below the poverty line. They know what it’s like when they go grocery shopping, and they’ve got to walk past the fruit aisle and the vegetable aisle. They’re going to look for products that will be cheaper, that’ll stay within their budget.

We know that in the 2000 decade, the lineups at the food banks grew tremendously. I can tell you, today, they are not short either. But without the measures taken by this government, they would be far longer today.

When I visit food banks, I’m always heartbroken when I see families with children. I see seniors. I see people from a cross-section of different communities. I see people who are really well-dressed, and I see people who are not so well-dressed. But all of them are there because they need food.

I heard from the previous speaker a lot of concern around the child poverty rate and how different it is between the child poverty rate and the rate amongst Aboriginal children. That rate has improved. Is it good enough? Absolutely not. But I can remember when that rate was at over 50 percent. I can even remember when it was closer to 60 percent. It’s now not in an acceptable range, but we are moving in the right direction.

To me, as a teacher and as a mother, always wanting things done immediately. But we know that when we’re bringing about systemic change, it takes time. It takes time to change the systems. But we also…. It takes time for us to invest in growing the economy, which this budget does, but at the same time making sure that we are investing in people as well.

That’s why I’m so pleased to see that we’ve made some progress. More than a little progress. I think we should all really think about this positively. We didn’t just move the dial a little bit. The dial’s been moved a fair bit. It still has a long way to go, but we moved it. But for those children and those families that fall within the numbers that exist today, it’s painful for them.

Yes, I heard my colleagues say that there are some requirements that they have to meet, looking for jobs, getting some training, but all of that has been made available. I’m so glad. I’ve talked to many people in my constituency who tell me that the job training that they accessed through the various programs made a huge difference to their lives. It allowed them to be lifted up, and they rose, and they are being lifted out of poverty.

Something we always forget — child care. One of the biggest social programs brought in by this government is a move towards $10-a-day universal child care. We have made great progress in that area. Lots more to do. But I can remember when I had my children, what a struggle it was to find child care.

I’ve talked to families ever since I was elected who tell me how expensive child care is. So not only are there a great number of people with kids in the $10-a-day child care, some are paying less, based on their income. We forget that. Some are paying a lot less, and some are not paying at all, and they’re getting that coverage.

Other parents are telling me that if it was not for the child care subsidy that they receive, one of the parents would not be able to go to work, and they would actually end up living in poverty. They would not be able to do the kind of things that they want to do with their families.

[5:20 p.m.]

You know, since 2017, over a quarter of a million people have been lifted out of poverty. That’s happened through job training, child care and increasing income assistance rates five times and the minimum wage seven times.

I don’t often throw out a lot of data, but I am going to use this number. This government exceeded the legislated poverty reduction target. We actually exceeded them. We reduced overall poverty by 45 percent and child poverty by more than 50 percent. I wish it had been 100 percent. Every one of us sitting on this side of the House wishes we had been able to do that, but we know that to bring about change, and systemic change, takes time.

Now there are new targets being set. Not only did we exceed; we are setting new targets, and they are ambitious. I salute the minister for having set such ambitious targets, because once you set a target, you not only aim for it, but you aim to exceed it.

That is what I’m counting on, based on the fact that this government has taken a cross-government approach to tackling a serious issue like poverty. We all know that if those who live in poverty are left there, the cost to the system is much, much higher — costs in education, costs in health care, costs in policing. You name it; they are there.

The new targets are to reduce poverty by a further 60 percent — remember we’ve already exceeded, and now it’s to reduce; and to reduce child poverty by another 75 percent — I’m hoping we can get to a much higher number than that, Minister; and senior poverty by 50 percent. I am so delighted that we haven’t just said we’re going to make improvements, that we have actually set targets, because when you set targets, you reach them.

To use a simple example, I used to tell myself I was going to walk every day. You know what? Sometimes I did, and sometimes I didn’t. Sometimes I walked for ten minutes, and I thought I had done more than enough. Other times I thought: “You know what? I’ve done half an hour.” And the odd day, I would do a lot more.

Then I got challenged by one of my kids to do five kilometres a day. It wasn’t easy, Mr. Speaker; let me tell you. I’m a bit competitive when it comes to that kind of thing, but I managed to live up to the challenge that my daughter had set out, and it’s because she had set out that challenge. Now if I don’t walk that distance, I think something is wrong.

In a similar way, we have concrete targets that the minister and all ministries across government are going to work on to make sure that we achieve them. I mean every ministry. The Jobs and Innovation Ministry will be working on this, because as they’re growing the economy, growing good-paying jobs, it allows us to tackle these social issues. Everything is integrated. It’s not that things are in little cubicles all by themselves.

We know, as we hear — and I’m sure my colleagues are as well — more and more from seniors, that they are really feeling the pinch with the increase in costs of groceries, of heating their homes, of the general cost-of-living inflation that has been out of control. So I was really pleased to see, in the targets set this time, that they are specific targets that we’re going to meet to address senior poverty and child poverty, absolutely yes.

[5:25 p.m.]

Many people will say: “Why are we doing this? Why don’t these people just go out and get a job?” I hear that in my constituency from some people. I can remember talking to one gentleman who could not understand why the social assistance rates had been increased again. So I asked him: “How much are they?”

He didn’t really know; all he knew was that we had increased them. When I told him how much they were…. Then I asked him: the last time he was out with his group of friends, how much did they spend on dinner? And once he responded, I said: “You spent more money on one dinner with your friends than this individual gets for the whole month.”

It’s not that once you receive social assistance, you think you’ve hit a special vault in the Bank of Canada. When you look at the prices people have to pay for rent and the price of food, it is very hard to survive on that. That’s one of the reasons I’m glad that we do have a target.

We do have a target to get more people out of poverty. We absolutely have to. That has to be done for the sake of all of us. Society loses its stability once you have more people who cannot make ends meet. People get desperate. They get their backs to a corner. Besides all of that, that’s not who we are as British Columbians.

As we grow our economy, as we invest in projects, as we build infrastructure that grows good-paying jobs, we set targets there to make sure that those who are in the disadvantaged groups are getting a lift up there as well. As we’re doing all of that and growing the economy, we must take a percentage of that and make sure that we lift those who are living below the poverty line and that the assistance that’s available allows them to live a life of dignity.

You know that our seniors built our country, built our province. Many of them had very, very hard times after World War II and even during World War II. They really struggled, but they worked damned hard to build this province and this country.

As they go into their retirement — as some people like to say, golden years — surely, we must all realize that they need to have a life such that they can live and enjoy their retirement, a life of dignity, where they’re not looking for handouts, but where they are supported and lifted up so that they can live with the dignity that they deserve. Every person deserves that. That is why it is so important to start looking at seniors and how impacted they are by this international inflation and how much they can actually purchase.

Often when people talk about those who are on social assistance or disability assistance, people have images that these people are getting loads of money just handed to them, but we know that is not so. We know that is not so. As a society, I would say that I want to be part of a society where we are not looking at big houses and big cars but at how we look after our neighbours and support each other.

[5:30 p.m.]

For a very selfish reason, I often say to people who still want to argue on this matter that if we don’t invest now and we don’t tackle poverty, then you will be paying a higher price, as more people become homeless because they cannot afford to pay their rent, as more people are going to the food banks because there is not enough money for their groceries.

More children. When children grow up in poverty, we know it affects the determinants of health. We know that there is generational poverty as well. We have to break that poverty cycle so that children get support early.

This is why I was so happy when our government invested in a breakfast program where children can receive a healthy breakfast in the morning. As a teacher, I know that no matter how brilliant the teacher, it’s very hard to focus on learning when you are hungry and you haven’t had a good night’s sleep because you were cold at night.

In many ways, it’s the kids who I taught who brought me into the political arena. I will always remember this young man. He used to fall asleep in class all the time. All the teachers were complaining. Met with the parents — not.

Then, once I got to know him, he told me how he hadn’t had dinner. Often there wasn’t much food for dinner. At nighttime, to keep the bills down, they turned down the heating. There were three blankets shared by four kids. If you’re cold and hungry, it’s very hard to sleep. So coming into a classroom…. It was a safe place. He got some food, and he got to sleep at the beginning.

Imagine the cost to us as a society if we have children who are hungry when they are at school, children who are with families who are homeless, children who we know, when they grow up in poverty, are going to be using the health care system far more than other children. They will probably develop chronic diseases far more than children raised with food and shelter and stability.

We also know that those who live in poverty are more likely to face policing issues as well. When you are desperate, you will try many different things. And when you look at the mental health issues that exist today…. How many of them are due to hunger, to being homeless and to not having the support systems you need?

Once again, I really want to thank my colleague from the Sunshine Coast and the current minister for having the passion and the commitment to build on the poverty reduction plan, even though we exceeded our targets, knowing that there is still a lot more work to do and setting good targets.

I’m hoping that every one of us in this House, whether you sit over there or over here, will support every one of these measures, as they are presented to us, so we can make sure we not only meet the targets but we exceed the targets. The next time a colleague stands up and talks about poverty rates being much higher amongst Aboriginal kids, we can see that gap closing, and we can see that the 13 percent he talked about is near the zero percent.

[5:35 p.m.]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for giving me the honour to speak here. For me, it’s a privilege to represent Surrey-Panorama, I will say, one of the best ridings in the province.

I can tell you that the people in my community care very deeply about those who cannot look after themselves, about the young, about the elderly. They want everyone to have a life of dignity and one of respect.

Let us grow a province where we grow the economy. Also, we grow our people, and we lift them up.

D. Routley: It is indeed an honour to speak to the Social Development and Poverty Reduction Statutes Amendment Act.

Having had the honour of serving the people of Nanaimo–North Cowichan and, before that, Cowichan-Ladysmith, that region in the mid-Island, since 2005…. I’ve had many opportunities to address the issues of poverty and the issues of priority shown by governments through their budgets and through their approach to governance.

Even before I had the privilege of sitting in this House, I served as a school trustee and saw, at that time, the effects on children, on families, particularly those who are most vulnerable, of government policies that were just leaving them out and that failed to backstop those people, the people I represent.

In 2004, when I was serving as a school trustee, I spent a lot of time in meetings trying to save schools from closure. I spent a lot of time debating, in the school board office, budgets that were having to cut back on services for children because of cynical policies brought by the provincial government of the day, the B.C. Liberal government, now calling itself the B.C. United party. At that time, I saw how failing to have the backs and to backstop and to invest in the people of B.C. had devastating consequences for those people who needed that the most.

I think that British Columbians and Canadians, generally, love to root for an underdog. I really do. I really believe that we want to get behind those people who are trying, who start a little bit back from the starting line. Maybe we see ourselves in that. We see that it’s only by working together that we can, indeed, as underdogs, be successful.

I have a friend who is a CEO of forest companies and a very…. You might expect him to have a different point of view. He shared with me his view of this issue.

He said that if he were running a railway, he wouldn’t invest all of his money and all of the resources of his railway in the posh parlour car for the most elite passengers. Indeed, he would look for the car that was struggling the most, with squeaky wheels and problems that were slowing down the whole train. Only by taking care of that, in that order of priority, could he make the train run smoother, run faster. It really struck me as being a good metaphor for what we’re talking about here right now.

I’m a cyclist. I cycle a lot less than I wish I could. I think of cyclists on the highway. When you’re driving down that road, you look at cyclists going in either direction. One may have a struggling face, gritting and struggling against an unseen opponent. The other, on the other side, is smiling and seems to be riding easily. You can’t always tell just by glancing at people what challenges they face. One cyclist is facing a headwind; one cyclist is facing a tailwind.

[5:40 p.m.]

It’s easy to look at that and assume that one is better at cycling than the other. In fact, it’s really an unseen challenge that is holding one back and propelling another.

I think that British Columbians understand that too. They understood in 2005, when the B.C. Liberal government came to power and, in its first act, offered a 25 percent income tax cut. They understood that they, as regular British Columbians, would get far less benefit than the most wealthy British Columbians from that measure.

They also saw that that 25 percent tax cut translated into at least a 25 percent cut across the ministries, some over 30 percent. That created a deficit in services and supports for the most vulnerable British Columbians that we are still, to this day, fighting to redress.

This government introduced the first poverty reduction plan in British Columbia in 2002. In so doing, it set targets to reduce poverty, set targets that weren’t simply met by increasing rates, which we did, but by coordinating the policies and actions of government across the spectrum to support people in British Columbia.

It was an investment and a notion that if we were to make this investment in the people of the province, we had the faith that they would excel and thrive, and so would the province. So would our communities. I say that we have been proven right.

The Leader of the Official Opposition, when he was in government…. They froze rates for a decade after they had reduced them. It’s hard to believe that a government would actually reduce the rates of support for the most vulnerable British Columbians, but that’s what they did. They froze the senior’s supplement. It had been introduced in 1987 and never increased. It was at $49.30.

This government doubled that, the first increase ever. In the ten, 12 years that the Leader of the Opposition was Finance Minister and in other positions, B.C. had the highest child poverty rates. While he was overseeing the budget of British Columbia, that former B.C. Liberal government, now B.C. United party, did things so heartless and so penalizing as to take bus passes away from those people who were on disability assistance.

What could possibly be the aim of such measures? Could it be that they were trying to lift people up? It seems impossible that that could ever be the conclusion when we look at what they did.

They froze the minimum wage at $8 for a decade. In fact, they introduced a training wage of $6 per hour for the first 500 hours of employment, which obviously encouraged employers to lay off people before they escaped that $6-an-hour training wage. These were heartless and difficult challenges for the people of B.C. We had to sit here in this House, for those 12 years I was in opposition, and watch measure after measure be brought forth that hurt British Columbians.

Since we formed government, we have given to the people of B.C. seven increases in the minimum wage. In fact, now it is tied to the rate of inflation. So every year, it will be going up according to the level of inflation. Those people who are working at that wage level will not see themselves slipping back from others.

Those are the kinds of things that a government does if they care about people. Those are the kinds of things that government does if they believe that investing in the people of the province will lead to a successful province.

When I was a school trustee, I watched the cynical targeting of small schools and school districts — rural in particular.

[5:45 p.m.]

At a time when student enrolment was clearly projected to decline, as opposed to now, as student enrolment is growing, they attached funding for education to a per-student model and did away with catchment areas for schools.

That led to the communities who were hardest hit by a reducing population losing schools and cutting programs. It was a cynical move so that they could say, “Oh, well, we gave $9,000 per student in the past, and now it’s $10,000, so it’s the most ever,” even though that declining enrolment led to a declining funding of education.

In both Education and Health, they settled contracts with teachers, nurses, doctors, and then failed to fund them so that, indeed, health authorities had to cut beds. Over 2,000 acute care beds were cut in the first four years of that former government. Over a dozen long-term-care facilities for seniors were closed.

We saw them privatize the supports for seniors in care, and that led to the largest mass firing of women in Canadian history. We saw them increase medical insurance premiums, MSP premiums, by 50 percent and then by 100 percent.

We eliminated MSP premiums. At the time, we were the only province in Canada that charged individuals a premium for their health care. That was the largest middle-class tax break in generations.

We were also the only province in Canada that didn’t have an employer health tax. We have introduced an employer health tax. But at the time of the introduction of that tax, it was the lowest in Canada.

This year’s budget increases the exemptions for businesses who pay that tax from half a million dollars in payroll to $1 million, with a graduated application of the tax up to $1.5 million. That’s because we understand that small business needs the support of government, as do the people. When we introduced the minimum wage and raised it, we also gave small business a tax break to compensate for that.

It is with calculation that our government has supported the people of B.C., and it was with calculation that the former B.C. Liberal, B.C. United government undermined people. We can look far and wide through the policy decisions of that government and see examples.

In school districts, they claimed to be eliminating red tape. But what they really did was eliminate the protections for special needs children and allowed funding from districts that were already starving to flow away from those children. We saw them eliminate the designations for school librarians and other specialty teachers and saw those positions evaporate.

At the same time, we saw school class sizes increase. In fact, the previous NDP government had settled the previous contract with teachers at a reduced wage increase in order to deliver improvements in classroom conditions to those teachers. The former B.C. Liberal, B.C. United Party government came in and tore up those contracts. It took years of fighting for teachers to defend that, to turn that around, and it’s this government that is reinvesting in those services for children.

We can look at welfare benefits. The fact that they were told that 60,000 children would be affected by their cuts to income assistance…. The benefit rates for welfare recipients between 55 and 64 were dropped — were dropped. Single parents were no longer entitled to keep $100 per month of family maintenance payments. These were measures that were penalties to people who were struggling, rather than supporting people who were struggling.

[5:50 p.m.]

This government supports those who struggle because we understand that investing in those people will make them successful, and thereby our communities and our province will thrive.

Shelter allowances for families with two or more children were reduced. It’s a sad list to read. I think one of the most telling examples were the changes that the previous B.C. Liberal, B.C. United party, government made to the Manufactured Home Park Tenancy Act. Throughout British Columbia, there were many manufactured home parks that were an affordable housing option, particularly for seniors in our province, my grandmother being one of them.

It was like a grey- or silver-haired rush hour, a little bit after the regular rush hour, as these communities that grew…. There would be one person, and that was my grandmother, who could drive and would drive others to their medical appointments or to shopping. These were simple arrangements that people came to that were undermined by that previous government when they took away the penalties for redeveloping those manufactured home parks.

I saw veterans. I saw seniors who were in their 80s and 90s.

Deputy Speaker: Could the member help connect to the legislation in front of us?

D. Routley: Absolutely.

These were all measures that increased poverty. These were all measures that were taken by the previous government that are now being undone by this government through a poverty reduction strategy that coordinates the actions of government, that coordinates the legislation of government to support people. The comparison is inescapable.

We saw the outcomes of that throughout the province as manufactured home parks were redeveloped and people were dislocated. This government, as part of our efforts to support people who struggle, reintroduced penalties for redevelopment of manufactured home parks and reintroduced larger penalties that would have those developers support the dislocation of people by helping them with the costs of moving.

One of the first things that previous government did was eliminate the child care program that was in place at the time, a $14-a-day child care program that was just being introduced. That was one of the first things they did. One of the first things this government did to support people through efforts to reduce poverty was to support child care with subsidies, new spaces and subsidized wages for employees.

In Nanaimo–North Cowichan, the constituency I represent, just in the last four years, we have seen over $79 million of investment in child care. That equates to 118 early childhood educators who have seen $755,000 of wage supplements come their way through this government. That includes $24½ million directly in subsidies to parents. These are life-changing investments for people who struggle. This is all a part of this government’s approach to reducing poverty.

One of the first things I did as a government caucus member was attend the announcement, with former Premier John Horgan at Vancouver Island University, of the measure this government took to eliminate post-secondary tuition for those people who had been in care of the province.

I have said before in this House that everyone in that room was in tears. All of the people who were there — the students who were there to talk about how it impacted their lives, the professors and instructors who were there, even the Premier’s security detail — had tears on their cheeks because it was so clear what a huge measure this meant for the people affected.

When we think about the impacts on Indigenous people in this province, well, it’s quite clear that there have been a disproportionate number of children in care who are Indigenous. Appropriately, they will receive support in a magnified way through that investment.

[5:55 p.m.]

The measures that we’ve taken lifted a quarter of a million people in this province out of poverty. We reduced overall poverty rates by 45 percent. We reduced child poverty rates by 50 percent.

Now, there’s no doubt that inflation in the last year or so in food and housing has definitely chipped away at those gains, but that isn’t stopping our government. We have committed, through this act, to greater goals. We have committed to a goal of reducing overall poverty rates by 60 percent, reducing child poverty rates by 75 percent and reducing seniors poverty rates by 50 percent. And according to our record, those are goals that we expect to meet.

Some of the measures taken by the previous government were indeed penalizing. The two-year independence rule for young people leaving home, that they had to show they’d been two years independent before they could in any way qualify for assistance — how on earth is that empowering? How on earth, unless you blame them for their circumstances, is that in any way something that a rational person would do?

We don’t blame the people of B.C. who struggle. We understand. Like other British Columbians and Canadians, as I pointed out earlier, we fight for the underdog, and we do things that will raise people up.

The disability assistance exemptions in the province now equate to almost $1,400 a month that a person on disability assistance can earn without being clawed back. That is the highest in Canada. That will have impact not only for those people but for small businesses in this province, because it opens up more employable hours to their businesses and encourages people to be inclusive of people with disabilities.

Poverty reduction plans aren’t simply about raising people’s incomes. They’re about increasing the quality of people’s lives and their self-esteem. It’s about empowering people to be the best that they can be, and that’s, I think, the core value of our government.

That’s why I’m proud to stand here and speak about this in our budget. That’s why I’m proud to have served in this B.C. NDP caucus and why I know and have faith that these investments will continue to bear fruit, will continue to show that the results in B.C. are the best in the country, because not simply of a government but because of a partnership between government and the people of this province.

People recognize that. They recognize that this government isn’t poaching and targeting those who struggle. Instead, we are identifying problems and rolling up our sleeves and solving them for the betterment of the people of B.C.

We have done so many things that I am so proud of. The B.C. affordability credit is $164 per adult. B.C. Hydro customers throughout the province are seeing $100 credit on their bills.

These seem small. Of course, they are, in relation to the wealthy people who benefited from that 25 percent tax break that the B.C. Liberals gave on their first day in office. But they are significant to people who struggle in this province, and they are integral to a comprehensive approach to poverty reduction that is more than simply reducing poverty and increasing income. It’s about empowerment, it’s about quality of life, and it’s about people in B.C. thriving.

We more than doubled the climate action tax credit. It’s now $447 per adult. One and a half million renters in this province benefit from the fact that we have capped rents at below inflation levels.

[6:00 p.m.]

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

The previous B.C. Liberal, B.C. United party, in opposition, opposed that. They wanted to see the rental rates increase by the rate of inflation plus 2 percent. That would have made rents increase in this province over the past year or two by 6 percent to 8 percent per year. Instead, they’re capped at 2 percent. That would have been inflation permanently embedded in our economy, and it would have been a challenge for renters, which they would have to cope with going forward.

Instead, we have protected those people. Starting this coming year, renters will see a $400 tax credit. These things add up.

We doubled the seniors supplement, as I said earlier.

We are giving people lower ICBC rates by an average of $500 per year. This is after the previous B.C. Liberal government had skyrocketing ICBC fees, not because ICBC was more expensive to operate, but because they were taking funds from ICBC in order to show a balanced budget, creating deficits in order to show a balance, creating deficits in the lives of struggling British Columbians in order to give rewards to those who are wealthy. We saw an average of $420 in rebates to ICBC customers.

The B.C. family benefit of $2,850 for a family with two kids and the $750 top-up for single parents is another measure that this government has taken in order to reduce the costs for families in British Columbia, particularly for families who struggle. We’ve reduced child care costs. I quoted numbers from the riding which I represent. That has a life-changing impact for families with children, who now can afford sports and vacations for their children, can even, perhaps, afford a down payment on a home because of what we have done.

We ended MSP premiums, as I said. That was a $900 advantage to individual adults who paid that fee on their own. Yes, we raised disability assistance payments. We raised income assistance payments. We eliminated the interest on student loans.

These are obvious advantages to people in the province who struggle to meet the costs of living. This is all part of a comprehensive approach to reducing poverty and to supporting people.

We created the B.C. access grant. The previous government eliminated student grants. First-year grants of up to $1,000 that were being provided by the B.C. NDP in the ’90s were eliminated by the B.C. Liberal government in 2002. We’ve created the B.C. access grant, and that grant is up to $4,000 per year for students in post-secondary.

We have made transit free for British Columbia’s children under 12. This is an enormous advantage to families. I remember, even in my own life, living in Victoria with my mother, after our family separated and her having to measure out how much we could do, where we could go by bus, because of the cost. That’s been a cost that has challenged vulnerable and struggling families for generations. Now they can take their kids where they need to go, where they want to go, without paying transit for those children under 12. That’s a huge, huge investment in their lives.

Eliminating post-secondary tuition for children who have been in the care of the province. I mentioned it before, and I think it deserves mention again. This is an enormous investment. The announcement was made at Vancouver Island University. Vancouver Island University had already pioneered that by doing it from their own financial planning. Now that’s a reality throughout this province, and it has a life-changing effect for so many people.

[6:05 p.m.]

And 128,000 people are now receiving basic dental care, those people who struggle. These are things that have an enormous impact on their quality of life, on their self-esteem, on their potential. We have invested in food banks and school lunches. We’ve invested $66 million in supporting food organizations supporting food security; $16 million in community food security initiatives; $50 million to food banks, food distributors and food access programs. These are huge investments that have an even greater impact because they support people who struggle.

The difference is clear. This government is backstopping and partnering with the people of B.C. to empower them. That previous government targeted them and penalized them for their struggle.

This bill increases the targets this government has set for itself to give further and even greater support to British Columbians, and I’m proud to support it.

R. Parmar: For some reason, ever since I became elected, I always seem to follow the member for Nanaimo–​North Cowichan, which is an issue because I just want to say “ditto” and end it. But boy, for almost 20 years, very, very thankful for his voice, his reason.

It’s clear from what he’s shared from his time as an MLA and certainly from his time as a school trustee and the services provided to his community that we’ve had a period of cleaning up to do. All of that certainly could be put at risk in October of 2024, but in the meantime, we’re going to continue doing our work.

I just want to begin by acknowledging how incredibly honoured I am to be standing and speaking in support of this legislation. I want to thank my colleague the Minister of Social Development and Poverty Reduction. I want to recognize the work of the previous minister, the MLA for Powell River–Sunshine Coast, in bringing this forward.

We all know here, in British Columbia — in fact, across Canada and around the world — global inflation is pushing up costs. Right now and for the last little while, and I think for the next little while as well, things are going to be really difficult for people. We know that food prices have gone up. A Bank of Canada report from a couple of weeks talked about shelter rates. Of course, a lot of different challenges, as we look at gas prices as well.

We know that this has been an extra difficult time for our most vulnerable population, for Indigenous peoples, for our BIPOC population as well. My colleagues who have stood up and spoken to this legislation have talked about the real barriers to employment, the real barriers to opportunities for people at a challenging time.

As I start my comments for the next little while on this Social Development and Poverty Reduction Statutes Amendment Act, 2024, I think of the time and period during COVID, in which things were really tough. When you look back to March and April and May, schools had shut down for a period of time. We saw women’s employment in British Columbia, and, in fact, across Canada and around the world, decline significantly, certainly because of the fact that schools had closed.

Also, we saw those working in hospitality sectors and a number of other sectors, like manufacturing and, to an extent, construction as well, decline. Those were tough times.

One of the things I remember from Dr. Henry, during her remarks on a daily basis, was how this pandemic has certainly taught us that these impacts face people in a different way. It’s so important for governments, for all parties and all organizations to acknowledge the impact of the global pandemic and all of those other challenges before us in a way that respects and acknowledges the most vulnerable people in our society.

Again, I want to thank the minister, who’s done an extensive amount of engagement with sectors.

[6:10 p.m.]

I know that the day that she introduced the legislation, I looked up to see a number of my constituents and a number of partners here on the south Island. Julian Daly from Our Place. I had an opportunity to tour Our Place a couple of weeks ago. I know that there are those out there that have criticism towards our place, but I remember leaving that conversation and leaving that tour thinking: “What would Victoria and Vancouver Island look like if there wasn’t an Our Place and the work that they’re doing?”

In doing that engagement, the minister clearly met with a lot of people, made room, did a lot of listening and learning and brought forward a piece of legislation that, certainly, I’m going to be enthusiastically supporting. Clearly, from the people that were standing next to her and with her in support of this legislation, it’s clear that she’s been able to address a lot of concerns over a number of years.

What I admired most from getting a chance to observe the press conference was this saying: that we are strongest when we look after each other. It is so critical for governments of all political stripes to have that mindset.

Again, that has been a mindset that we’ve had since 2017, under Premier John Horgan, and now our Premier as well — that British Columbia’s most competitive advantage is not massive tax subsidies to the rich, like we’ve seen in other provinces and what we saw for a period of time, from 2001 to 2017, under the B.C. Liberal, now B.C. United, party, but lifting people out of poverty and supporting people and supporting our most vulnerable. That is our competitive advantage.

People are our competitive advantage here in British Columbia. That’s something that everyone on this side of the House has been talking about and has been delivering on since day one. It’ll continue to be our primary focus for as long as we sit on this side of the House.

There are a number of pieces that I want to mention in the time that I have. We know that in 2002, the old government’s legislation was designed to cut people off of welfare, not to get them out of poverty. It reflects the previous government’s belief that there was something wrong with people who needed a handout. In 2002, there was a period of decisions that the government, the B.C. Liberals, now BCUP, made that were shocking.

For my family, it hits home. The member before me, the member from North Cowichan, talked about the mass firing of HEU workers. Both of my parents were HEU workers. In one single day, with two pieces of legislation, my parents both lost their jobs: the sole providers of our family, for me and my sister, at the time — my little brother wasn’t born yet — and my grandmother, who lived with us. They fired both of my parents, privatized their jobs. Just like that, they lost all their income.

At a time when they were thinking about growing their family, at a time when they were thinking about moving into a bigger home…. We lived in a very small town home, three bedrooms, with five people. Things were tight. They made a drastic change that impacted my family, impacted so many women of colour, so many people of colour and new immigrants, that was absolutely devastating.

Again, by making that decision, they put people in poverty. It’s absolutely shameful. A number of people in my family…. What a shame to see the member across the way laugh at that. That’s the fact. It’s such a shame, even though she wasn’t a member at the time, that she would laugh at something like the mass firing of HEU workers.

That’s why I was so proud — I wasn’t in the House at the time — to be a part of a party in a government that supported bringing forward legislation to bring back…. We’re going to be celebrating, just in a few short weeks, one year since we brought back those workers into the HEU, one year since we celebrated bringing those workers back into the public sector after that side, the B.C. Liberals and BCUP, privatized them.

Do you know what hurts the most? When they privatized them, my dad got a call back. He got a call back to come to work, but they gutted his wages. They absolutely gutted his wages.

[6:15 p.m.]

Shame on the member for laughing at that. Shame on the member for people in her community that she devastated and a party that she supports. Shame on her for laughing at that. Shame on her for supporting a leader, the Minister of Finance in 2012, who was the Leader the Opposition when he said this on B.C.’s income inequality rate: “I just have trouble with people saying, ‘Oh, because there’s a gap that there must be a bad thing.’ You know, remember, as I mentioned earlier, and I’m not being flippant, but in Cuba they don’t have income inequality because they’re all poor.”

That was the Leader of the Opposition when he was Finance Minister under the B.C. Liberal government. Absolutely bizarre.

That’s, again, the record of the B.C. Liberal government, and it’s not all. Let’s hear…. Back in 2013, CBC spoke to the Leader of the Opposition. For ten of the 12 years that the Leader of the Opposition was a cabinet minister, B.C. had the highest child poverty rate in the country. CBC has quoted that.

A reporter asked a question where he said: “So there’s a report saying the child poverty rate is one of the highest here.” This is the Leader of the Opposition. Folks at home, you should listen to this, because this is the guy that wants to be the Premier of British Columbia.

The Leader of the Opposition said: “Well, you have to be careful of those reports, because the report will always show B.C. having the highest child poverty rate, because we have the highest housing prices in the country. So there is a direct correlation between housing prices and how they deem child poverty.” That was the Leader of the Opposition when he was Finance Minister. Certainly, I could go on and on and on about their time in government.

What we’ve committed to in this legislation and in our work, since we formed government in 2017, was the goals we brought forward in 2019. I also want to recognize and acknowledge the current minister, the past minister, but also Shane Simpson, who was the first Minister of Social Development and Poverty Reduction, who initially had brought this forward.

Our 2019 goal, as the member before me mentioned, was to reduce poverty by 25 percent. We reduced it by 45 percent. Again, as was acknowledged by the member before me, we reduced child poverty by more than 50 percent. But that’s not good enough. People expect more. We know if the BCUP ended up back on this side, poverty rates would go up. That’s their record. That’s what British Columbians know. That’s what they’ll be voting on in October of 2024.

We know that we’re on the right track, but very quickly we could be on the wrong track. Certainly, as the minister has acknowledged, as all of the members on this side have acknowledged, we know that this October there’ll be an opportunity for British Columbians to choose their future. We’ve certainly got a lot of work ahead of us.

We’re making changes to income and disability assistance and setting new poverty reduction targets. Again, I just want to spend a little bit of time talking about the changes to social assistance and disability assistance laws. We know that people say they feel better and are better off when they have a job and a community connection. I want to acknowledge, and I know all members in this House will acknowledge, the work that employment centres in our communities do.

For me in particular, in Langford–Juan de Fuca, we have WorkBC, Peter and his team, based in the West Shore and Langford, serving the entire West Shore region, as well as Sooke. They just opened a new office not too long ago. I’m looking forward to having the minister pop by for a visit to see the incredible work that their staff do to support people free from any stigma — destigmatized — and really clearly focused on providing whatever they can to support people in their time of need.

That’s the support system we’re building. We’re reducing barriers, ensuring people get the help they need to move out of poverty, not push them aside like was the record under the previous government, but getting them the support they need to get back to work or to get to work. We’re helping people improve their lives.

I remember, when I was chatting with Peter, one of the things that he shared with me in terms of supports that he provides, based off of support that he gets from government, is the ability to be able to provide people clothes to go to interviews, to do job interviews. That’s huge. When you’re living in poverty, when you’re someone who’s unhoused, the ability to be able to go purchase a suit or to purchase clothes, to be able to go and participate in a job interview is crucial.

I remember being at a youth centre in Surrey not too long ago, and they had a barber there. To see the smiles on people’s faces when they were getting their haircuts…. These are people whose parents probably couldn’t afford to get them a haircut. And to see the business community and those getting out and supporting them was so heartful and so important to see.

[6:20 p.m.]

As part of this legislation, the Poverty Reduction Strategy Act, we’re making changes. We’re setting new, am­bi­tious poverty reduction targets. We’re setting new ten-year targets, and we’re increasing them.

We acknowledge that we’ve done a lot, as my colleague from Surrey-Panorama said. We’ve done a lot. We’ve got a lot more work to do, so we’ve set new targets where we’re reducing poverty rates by 60 percent. We’re reducing the child poverty rate by 75 percent. And for the first time, we’re setting a target to cut the seniors’ poverty rate by 50 percent. There is a lot more work that we can be doing, and it’s so important that we continue those efforts.

You’ll remember that the old government had no plan to tackle poverty. When they formed government in 2001, they slashed budgets. They slashed the health care budget. They slashed every budget. Gordon Campbell had this fixation on cutting the budget by 25 percent.

If those at home have no idea what I’m talking about, you can talk to George Abbott, or you can read his book. He set it out clearly. He was a minister during that time. I had a chance to read George’s book. It was very crystal-clear what Gordon Campbell and his folks were trying to do at that time. During that period, after the hard work of the previous NDP government at the time, our province was the only one in Canada, during the period of the B.C. Liberal tenure, without a poverty reduction strategy. Again, that was the record of the BCUP.

As part of this work and the pressures facing British Columbians, it’s so important that we recommit our efforts. That’s why we are increasing the minimum wage. We’re eliminating interest on student loans, as my colleague talked about. In Langford–Juan de Fuca alone, since we implemented the Childcare B.C. plan, families, parents, have saved $34 million. Thirty-four million bucks back into their pockets since we implemented the Childcare B.C. plan.

I was at Centre Mountain Lellum Middle School, where I had an opportunity to be able to engage with middle school students and join my colleague, the Minister of Education and Child Care, to announce a replenishment of $20 million towards the student and family affordability fund so students who are not in a position to can participate in school field trips, in sports academies and other things as well.

That’s on top of $214 million we’ve invested in the feeding futures program. In my community, we have a great relationship with Backpack Buddies that ensures that good, fresh food heads home with those who need it.

I can go on and on. We touched on the bus passes and how, because of the cold-hearted decisions of the UP…. The Liberals, when they were on this side of the House, tried to rip bus passes, 3,500 of them, out of the hands of those who need it. I could go on and on about the impact that this has had on students.

In my short period, the last two weeks that I’ve been the Parliamentary Secretary for International Credentials, I’ve had a chance to talk to students. They remember the record of the B.C. Liberals and the BCUP. They remember the wacky times, as Andrew Wilkinson used to say, when he compared renting as a period of wacky times.

I could go on and on, but I’m going to end there because I know my colleague from Maple Ridge wants to speak to this too. But I’m so impressed with the work that’s been done on this legislation.

I’m ashamed at the member across for laughing at the work that we are doing.

Interjection.

R. Parmar: You were laughing, Member, and you should be very mindful of that.

I am so impressed with this legislation. I hope that all members in this House will stand up and support this and recommit to our efforts to reduce poverty all across British Columbia.

B. D’Eith: I rise today in support of the Social Development and Poverty Reduction Statutes Amendment Act, 2024.

Before I start, I did want to say a few things just in regards to my own community and how important advocates have been in regards to this issue around poverty reduction. We have incredible community networks in Maple Ridge and Mission who’ve worked tirelessly on issues around poverty, on social justice. Having them constantly put our feet to the fire and always be reminding us of issues is really important, and I just wanted to reach out to them.

[6:25 p.m.]

One in particular I just wanted to mention is Bryce Schaufelberger, who actually has a self-advocacy net. As an aside, he’s part of the Mission Blazers floor hockey team, and they were part of the Special Olympics nationals that were recently in Calgary. I just wanted to say how proud I am of them for showing so much spirit, going to Calgary and representing our community.

I know from talking to Bryce how so many of the people he works with, because he works with people with disabilities, are on or close to the poverty line and are really struggling with many issues like housing and affordability. So I wanted to recognize that.

I also want to recognize that people are facing real financial challenges with inflation. This is actually putting so much pressure on folks in terms of food and housing and so many other issues. It is particularly difficult for people who are on income assistance and disability, and I just want to recognize that.

I also want to say especially that it also hits people who are caught in intergenerational poverty and Indigenous people and the BIPOC communities, and recognize that. So many people are facing barriers to employment and employability, and they have complex needs. I think it’s really important to recognize that the needs are complex. It’s not as simple as, as the opposition would say: “Get a job.” They feel better if they have a job, but we have to empower people, and we have to reduce barriers, because different people have different needs.

The member opposite…. The member who’s opposite me — but not opposite, so to speak — mentioned, as well, about WorkBC, and it’s the same in my community. They do such incredible work — I’d like to shout out to them — in really empowering people and giving them the tools they need to get back into the workforce. But this is all about reducing barriers and trying to really work with people.

Now, this is in contrast, as many of my colleagues have said, in terms of the old B.C. Liberal government, who’s now B.C. United. Their legislation that they brought in quite early after getting into power in 2001 was to cut people off welfare. Not to get them out of poverty but to…. It’s this idea that the opposition had that this was a handout — and really, sort of, a series of mean-spirited legislation that denied people the support and actually just made life so much harder.

That government, the past government, didn’t have a plan. In fact, when I was running for the 2017 election, it was shocking to me when I was meeting with advocates who I’ve mentioned earlier who said we were the only province that didn’t have a poverty reduction plan.

In fact, that was something that was so important when we got into government in 2017. I’ve got to say that when Premier John Horgan had Shane Simpson on the case back in ’17 and delivered a very powerful and ambitious, I think, poverty reduction plan, we really had some hope for reducing poverty. That work was taken up by the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast and now our wonderful Minister of Social Development and Poverty Reduction with this act today.

Back in 2019, the goal was to reduce poverty by 25 percent, and we reduced poverty by 45 percent, and we reduced child poverty by more than 50 percent. So we exceeded what we wanted to do. But, as members have said, that was a great goal then, but we need to do more now. We’re on the right track, and we recognize that people are still struggling. We need to keep doing that important work to move people forward.

I think it’s important to recognize, too, that when you look at what poverty reduction is, you are looking at what is core to a just society. If we look at how we are judged as a society, it’s not how the opposition would prop up the rich and powerful or people with money; it’s how we look after the poor, the people that are vulnerable.

[6:30 p.m.]

That really is what I think judges us as a society, and that is really what is so important to look at. I truly feel, working with my colleagues in caucus, that we do that every day. We’re trying to do that. This plan is part of an ongoing plan to deal with a really, really difficult situation, where we have people who are struggling and need help, particularly in a time when we have inflationary issues.

Part of what we’re doing here is…. We have to try to have it so, again, we empower people, because having a job gives dignity, and it’s important. That’s part of what we want to do, and also, there’s a time when people need that support. They need that safety net. A plan isn’t just about a handout, as the opposition would say. It’s about a number of things.

That’s why the poverty reduction plan has always been cross-ministerial, because every ministry has a chance to contribute to this, whether it’s Housing or whether it’s Child Care or whether it’s issues around Finance, around minimum wage and all of these things. It’s a holistic look at how we can lift people up and ensure that we fight poverty in so many different ways, instead of the mean-spirited financial penalties, for example, that the opposition had when they were in government.

We’re setting some, again, very ambitious goals over the next ten years: reducing, in this act, poverty reduction rates by 60 percent from the 2016 baseline; reducing child poverty rates by 75 percent; and, for the first time, and very important with an aging population, cutting seniors’ poverty rates by 50 percent.

This is really important. I talk to so many seniors in my community, and seniors have been hit really hard because so many seniors are living on a fixed income. As prices and inflation goes up and the cost of living goes up, their income stays the same. So we have to really, really target it as well. I’m really pleased to see that we’re doing this work not just for child poverty and poverty generally but also putting some focus on seniors issues.

Across the plan, there are a number of things that have happened. We’ve helped to get over a quarter of a million people out of poverty.

Another thing. When I ran in 2017, one of the things that kept coming up from the advocates who I spoke to throughout the entire process was that the B.C. United, the then B.C. Liberals, had frozen income assistance rates for over ten years. If you look at the cost of living over that period, that means, year over year over year, people were getting less and less and less. That is so shameful.

Now, what we did, one of the first things we did when we got in, is we raised the assistance rates. In fact, since that initial raise, we’ve done it four more times — five in total. I remember I was at an event after I got elected in Mission, and one of the advocates, who is a woman who is on disability, literally tackled me, knocked me on the ground she was so happy. She was happy for…. To us, a few hundred dollars a month. But to her, it meant so much.

So when we hear about things like small little cheques from the opposition, to people who are experiencing poverty, sometimes that $100 a month, or $200 or whatever that increase, is the difference between buying food and not buying food. That is how profound — some of these changes made.

They’re not easy. Bringing even $100 to some of these rates…. The PWD rates can cost nearly $200 million. It’s not easy to keep bringing these up, but we’re doing that work, and we’re continuing to do that work.

We’re investing in food security, which is really important. We saw, during the floods and the fires, how vulnerable we are to food security. It’s really, really important that we have a supply of low-cost local food, especially given the challenges that we’ve seen with climate change.

I’m particularly happy to see our investment in school food programs. Now, this is a big part of poverty reduction, as well, because you need to give kids hope. How do you do that? You give them a good education. If you give them a good education…. How can you give them a good education if they haven’t eaten and they can’t concentrate?

[6:35 p.m.]

There are so many parts, for example, in education that we’ve done to try to lift people out of poverty.

One of the members had mentioned the free tuition for children aging out of care, for example. There are thousands of people aging out of care who have taken advantage of that program. Imagine how life-changing that is, to be able to go to post-secondary and have a chance at a good-paying job and not be caught in a cycle of poverty that can happen. That is about opportunity, and that is the sort of thing that we are providing.

Also, I wanted to talk about this cross-ministerial issue, because poverty reduction isn’t just about income assistance. Income assistance is important, but there are so many other things. One of the key things is the minimum wage. When we got into government, we had one of the lowest minimum wages in the country. Now we have the highest, at $17.40, and it’s tied to the cost of living. That means, unlike the mean-spirited policies of the past government, we’re recognizing that that has to keep up with the cost of the consumer price index. That’s very, very important.

We’ve expanded the B.C. family benefit and added a bonus, which is really important. If you think about what sorts of programs we’re doing, instead of cutting…. That’s what happened with the previous government. They cut income tax to those at the top and corporations.

What does that mean? You cut programs. Who gets cut? Well, the people that are most vulnerable often are the ones that get hit the most, whether that’s legal aid, freezing income assistance, all of those things, privatizing health care. We heard about HEU and Bill 29 and that awful, awful situation where thousands of women, mostly of colour, lost their jobs. It was just tragic, absolutely tragic. Those are the types of mean-spirited legislation, and that’s what happens when your priority is to benefit those at the top.

We don’t do that. One of the key things we’re looking at is things like child care. Child care is a game-changer, particularly for women, because it’s a trap. Anybody who’s had kids knows that if you have to pay for child care, it’s often the same cost as the job that you’re working, and you get in that trap where one of you, your partner or you, has to stay at home. There’s no point in going to work, because all your money goes to child care. You get in that trap. Then you don’t have enough money, in an inflationary situation where we’re in right now.

Allowing your partner…. Allowing those people to work, empowering women to get into trades, empowering women to get into professions, particularly, is so important. We need one million workers over the next ten years. That means everybody’s got to work, right? How do we do that? We provide things like child care.

But we’re not talking about just a little bit of money. This is like up to $900 a month for a family. That’s game-changing. That’s like 63,000 people that are getting that help right now. If you want to talk about poverty reduction, that is critical.

I also want to talk about affordable housing. We’ve got about 78,000 units that are complete or underway. There’s a lot of low-income and seniors housing that is attached to that. We’re protecting housing that could be redeveloped for low-income housing. It’s very important. As one of the members mentioned, we have a rental tax rebate of $400. These are all things to help with affordability.

Eliminating interest on student loans. Again, this empowers. When students get out of university, if they’re saddled with massive debt, then they’re already impoverished as they start. This gives them a chance to start their lives in a good way.

Then another piece of all this that helped deal with poverty is things like ICBC, things like us getting ICBC under control, things like cutting MSP premiums, which was the biggest single tax cut in a generation. Those are all really important things.

So today is really important, this act that we’re speaking to. We’re aiming to reduce poverty rates by 60 percent, child poverty rates by 75 percent and, as I said, having a new target on seniors and reducing that by 50 percent.

[6:40 p.m.]

We’re really refining and broadening the key populations that are under the strategy and really looking at things like singles, who are particularly at risk for poverty. That’s the amendment to the Poverty Reduction Strategy Act.

Then there are the Employment and Assistance Act and the Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Act that are also being amended. This builds a system that reduces barriers, and I talked about that earlier, ensuring people get the help they need to move out of poverty and into employment. The changes to income and disability assistance legislation here will better support people to find work, which is so important.

So much of this work has been done over the last seven years, and there’s so much more to do. I’ve got to say that I’m very proud to be part of a government caucus that really puts the needs of people first. I know that’s how we started, under Premier John Horgan, and how we continue with the Premier now. Every day we meet as caucus, and we always talk about: what are we doing for people today? What is our job to make life better for people today?

When we run again in October, that’s what we’re going to be doing. We’re going to be talking about how we can make life better, how we can lift people out of poverty, how we can help.

I mean, look at free contraception for women. That’s huge. That’s a poverty reduction measure right there. That’s another poverty reduction measure. It also fights for equality for women. So many of these things have….

It’s not just about poverty; it’s also about equality. It’s also about social justice. Even things like increasing access to legal aid…. That is a poverty reduction issue, because so many people who deal with things like family law are often women at risk. That’s poverty reduction. So taking this entire, holistic approach is the right way to go.

I just wanted to say, in closing, that we do know and recognize that things are getting more expensive now. That’s why it’s so important that we do have a plan to deal with poverty reduction and that we don’t just sit on that plan, that we actually keep pushing the envelope and keep pushing ourselves to do better. That’s what the minister is doing with this act. It’s pushing us to do better.

It’s like the climate action plan. It’s a plan to do better. And not only a plan to do better. You look at the climate action plan. It’s leading in the country, in North America. It’s the same with this poverty reduction plan. It’s leading.

I look over to the Minister of Housing. The work that’s being done on housing, for example, is leading the country. And it’s also part of poverty reduction, because we need more rental stock. We need more low-cost housing. We need seniors housing.

I think about Maple Ridge. We have supportive housing, and one of the places that is supportive housing…. Once we move that, we’re going to be building seniors housing. We have a beautiful building that’s going to be built. It’s not just seniors housing that’s expensive for seniors. It’s seniors housing that’s tied to income. It’s tied to income so that people with fixed incomes will be able to access that housing in a reasonable way, especially seniors on fixed incomes.

The last thing we want to see — and we see this; all MLAs see this — are seniors who are struggling on fixed incomes and close to being homeless. That’s what we want to avoid. We do not want to have seniors have to deal with that. So we’re working very, very hard on that. That’s why I really applaud the minister for adding the focus on seniors here. We have children and youth, children who are dealing with poverty, but we also have to be laser-focused on seniors issues as well.

With that, I will take my seat, and I will proudly support this bill.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, Minister of Social Development and Poverty Reduction to close debate.

[6:45 p.m.]

Hon. S. Malcolmson: Thank you to all my colleagues from all three parties for participating in the debate. I will maybe just say a couple of things in response, in reflection, with some of the things that have been said.

I do enjoy and appreciate my critic on the Social Development and Poverty Reduction file, but I will just say his opening comments gave me pause: that our poverty statistics were bad, that we hadn’t generated results. Well, we’ve removed a quarter of a million people from poverty. These are using StatsCan numbers: a 45 percent reduction in poverty. We did what we said we would do. We set a goal; we made the investments; we made the measurement.

In contrast, the former B.C. Liberals froze income assistance rates at $610 for a decade, including when their leader was the Finance Minister. We’ve increased rates five times. They took away bus passes from people on disability. We returned the bus pass. They never touched the senior supplement. We doubled it. And on it goes. So I look forward to the conversation, at committee, with my critic and my colleague. But the facts stand, you know?

More facts, just in response to some of the pieces that were raised in the conversation. Under our government, we have the lowest income rates in Canada for people who earn under $150,000 a year. And one of the first things we did was increase taxes on the top 2 percent. That’s in contrast to what was characterized by one of my colleagues across the way.

We’ve increased social assistance rates 50 percent. If we had only indexed rates, they only would have gone up 23 percent. Again, that’s better for people. That’s the pulling ourselves out of the hole in which we were left by the previous government. That is where we are.

Yes, I take the comment of many of the colleagues that the plan on how we are going to achieve those poverty reduction targets that we are setting now in legislation has not yet been produced. Our deadline for that report, the next poverty reduction strategy, is March 31.

Now I’ll note that B.C.’s first poverty reduction strategy, which came in 2018…. The legislation came in 2018; the poverty reduction strategy was tabled a year later. In this case, we’re going to do it four weeks later, so I think that’s actually pretty good.

Absolutely, we don’t legislate all the details of the plan. We legislate the poverty reduction targets, and we legislate the populations who are particularly susceptible to living in poverty. That’s what’s legislated, so that is what is being amended in that one section of this bill.

Again, the poverty reduction strategy is built based on the advice of over 10,000 people across the province. That is due March 31. That is the plan that will elucidate how we are going to reach those poverty reduction targets over ten years.

A reminder also to colleagues that we have a legislative requirement to table an annual report about our efforts to implement the poverty reduction strategy on an annual basis. So that is incumbent on us as something that we’re going to do.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Yes, the system is complex to navigate. We admit that. That’s partly what we’re trying to repair with this bill. But it’s also one of the real benefits of us having returned…. When the previous government had cut social workers from income assistance, we’ve returned the community integration specialists, who do system navigation and help people in incalculable ways. We are very grateful to have their work. They are helping that system navigation, in addition to all of our not-for-profit partners, for which we are grateful.

The final thing I’ll say is…. It really kind of sums up where we were 20 years ago compared to now. This is a quote from Auditor General Wayne Strelioff in 2004: “We believe that a key assumption of the ministry in arriving at this decision,” to weaken disability assistance, “was that a large number of recipients would fail to qualify, therefore losing their disability status, and the result would be significant cost savings to government and taxpayers.”

[6:50 p.m.]

That is the old thinking. What is represented in this bill is the new thinking.

With that, I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Hon. S. Malcolmson: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 7, Social Development and Poverty Reduction Statutes Amendment Act, 2024, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consi­deration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported resolution and progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Committee of Supply (Section C), having reported resolutions, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. R. Kahlon moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow.

The House adjourned at 6:52 p.m.