2016 Legislative Session: Fifth Session, 40th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Monday, May 16, 2016

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 40, Number

ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)

ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)

CONTENTS

Page

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Tributes

John Mathies

L. Throness

Introductions by Members

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

Bill M234 — Banning the Sale of Ivory and Rhinoceros Horns Act, 2016

M. Farnworth

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

Chilliwack residents’ response to fire in Fort M c Murray

J. Martin

Iranian-Canadian community in Tri-Cities area

J. Wickens

125 th anniversary of Coquitlam

L. Reimer

Minerals North conference in Smithers and Telkwa

D. Donaldson

MDA development of space technology

R. Sultan

Esquimalt and Nanaimo Railway

D. Routley

Oral Questions

Housing affordability in Lower Mainland and foreign investment

J. Horgan

Hon. M. de Jong

Regulation of real estate industry

D. Eby

Hon. M. de Jong

Elko Dam redevelopment project

K. Conroy

Hon. B. Bennett

A. Dix

Income assistance policy on maternity leave benefits

M. Mungall

Hon. Michelle Stilwell

Gun violence in Surrey

H. Bains

Hon. M. Morris

Tabling Documents

WorkSafe B.C., 2015 annual report and 2016-18 service plan

Crown Proceeding Act, report, fiscal year ended March 31, 2015

Orders of the Day

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Social Development and Social Innovation

Hon. Michelle Stilwell

N. Simons

M. Mungall

V. Huntington

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General (continued)

D. Donaldson

Hon. M. Morris

M. Farnworth

B. Ralston

H. Bains

[ Page 13123 ]

MONDAY, MAY 16, 2016

The House met at 1:35 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Hon. S. Anton: I have the great pleasure this afternoon of welcoming to the House — I don’t think he needs any introduction — one of my predecessors, Brian Smith, QC.

I first saw the hon. former Attorney General when I was a Crown prosecutor. He came to address our meeting in about 1986 or ’87. He was the Attorney General from 1983 to 1988. He practises now, currently, at Pearlman Lindholm here in Victoria. He’s a federal treaty negotiator, and he has the pleasure, I think…. We have the honour of having him serve on the Victoria and Esquimalt police board.

Public spirited, long-standing community member, somebody who I am free to phone and seek advice from at any time, very friendly man, very nice man, former Attorney General, very esteemed colleague — the hon. Brian Smith.

J. Horgan: I thought it was going to fall to me to introduce all the former Attorneys General that come through this place. I’m pleased to see that Brian has the good sense to wear a tie today, unlike Geoff Plant.

Enough of that. I have a number of introductions today. I want to start by introducing Hunter Lastiwka, who is in the gallery with his father, Kevin, and his grandmother Charlotte Hunter.

I met Charlotte on a ride back from Vancouver on the late-night flight to Victoria. We got to talking about Hunter. He had just returned from Ottawa, where he had gone as a young high school student to learn more about the democratic process from the federal perspective.

I thought to myself: “Self,” I said, “wouldn’t it be a good idea to bring Hunter here, in his hometown, to the Legislative Assembly in the province of British Columbia so he could see how well we comport ourselves, how important it is that we respect each other as we ask questions to and fro in question period?” I know he, as well as all those in the gallery, is very much looking forward to that. Would the House make Kevin, Hunter and Charlotte very, very welcome.

Also in the gallery today are two constituents of mine — between them, many, many years in the community. Ed Cooper, now a spry 86, is the youngest of the two. Darrel Walker is 91. Both of them are joining us here in the Legislature to see a bit of a ruckus in question period. I guess the youth would prefer to see the respectful dialogue, and the elders in the group want to see a bit of a ruckus. We’ll see if we can try and balance that out for both of them.

Ed and Darrel worked at Yarrows shipyard here in Victoria for many, many years, Ed as a boilermaker and Darrel as a welder. Both of them are fine citizens. Ed served in the Second World War in the merchant marines. Just recently, his work in Korea has been acknowledged by Veterans Affairs after many, many hard years of letters back and forth to Ottawa. Both of them are fine human beings, serving our community for many, many decades. Would the House please make Ed and Darrel very, very welcome.

J. Wickens: Today is a very exciting day for me. I have two of the most important men in my life in the House: my husband, Brian Wickens, and my dad, Gary Parkinson.

My dad, Gary, flew all the way from Ontario, not just to see his grandchildren but to witness the festivities in our question period. Now, I have to warn the members opposite that my husband asked to sit in a position in our House where he could keep a watchful eye on our government during question period.

I love both my dad and husband immensely. They have made me incredibly proud. They are small business owners. My husband, as you all know, is a milkman. He owns Wickens Enterprises. My dad built his small business from the ground up, Sportacular Events. Both of these men have supported our families through their small business, and I truly know how hard they worked. I can’t say enough. All I can say is that I wouldn’t be standing here today if it wasn’t for those two men.

Will the House please make them feel very welcome.

Tributes

JOHN MATHIES

L. Throness: I’d like to inform the House of the passing of a significant individual. John Mathies arrived in Chilliwack at 12 years of age, just in time to have the family home flooded by the Fraser River in 1948. Regardless of this setback, John and his family would spend the rest of their lives in the area.

[1340]

He had a passion for growing things, especially trees, flowers and shrubs, so he founded Cannor Nurseries in 1953. His five-acre nursery soon became 400, a great business that’s still going strong.

His second great passion was family. He married Ellen in 1955, and together they began a different kind of nursery with four children, ten grandkids and one great-granddaughter, much-loved Amelia. He loved to spend quality time with all of them.

John was a civic-minded man too, a leader in Scouts and a coach of baseball and hockey. He was a longtime

[ Page 13124 ]

director and past president of the B.C. Landscape and Nursery Association, as well as a number of other industry organizations.

Near the end, John said to Ellen: “I’ve done everything that I ever wanted to do.” Now, that’s quite a statement, one that we can all hope to say one day.

The special condolences of this House go to Ellen and also to children Deborah, Gordon, Sandy and Lisa. They can be very proud of their dad and mom. Will the House join me in applauding the life of a good man, well lived, John Mathies.

Introductions by Members

A. Dix: Today, right from the Legislature, my constituent Eileen Zheng, a remarkable young woman, launched her cross-country bike tour to promote organ donation. It was a remarkable event. I want to thank the Minister of Health, all of my colleagues from our side and the member for Shuswap who took

part in this really remarkable event.

She is a remarkable young woman. She was accompanied here by her mom. She gave her kidney to her mom a year ago February after a long wait that they had. Now she’s seeking to take that experience to the world and promote organ donation in British Columbia.

It was a remarkable event. I want to thank my colleagues for taking part and thank Eileen for coming to the Legislature and showing such great leadership on this issue.

G. Kyllo: We’re joined in the House today by a good friend of mine, former councillor of Enderby and the current mayor, Mayor Greg McCune. Greg also owns a very successful business in Enderby called Sutherland’s fine bakery. Would the House please make him feel very welcome.

S. Robinson: I’d like to welcome to the House today Keats Morton. Keats lives in Burnaby, and he works for Mountain Equipment Co-op. I happened to meet him on Facebook, that great place on the Internet where people are brought together.

We bonded over a love of geocaching. I have only had the opportunity to find a couple of dozen geocaches, some of them around this building, but Keats here has found over 6,000 of them. He’s logged them. He travels and finds them all over the world. It’s fascinating to hear how he does this. I just would like the House to make Keats feel very welcome.

Hon. T. Stone: On behalf of the member for Peace River North and the Minister of Education, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to welcome someone all the way from the Peace country here today.

Joining us is Cindy Dettling, who is a school bus driver for the Peace River North school district in Fort St. John. Cindy has really developed a reputation over the years for being a passionate advocate for getting through to motorists to stop speeding past school buses that have their flashing lights on. She came down today to participate in an announcement that we made to that effect.

I want to, on behalf of all members, thank Cindy and all of the other school bus drivers out there across the province who are responsible for the most precious cargo of all — that’s our children — to and from school. I would ask that the House please welcome Cindy here to the Legislature today.

V. Huntington: Earlier today I had the pleasure of having two groups of students tour the precinct. The first was a group of 30 grade 5 students from South Park elementary, accompanied by their teacher, Miss Maurice, and seven adults. The second group was also from South Park elementary — 29 grade 5 students accompanied by their teacher, Mrs. Kerry Lloyd, and seven other adults. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. S. Anton: I have the pleasure of also having two school groups here this afternoon. These are two high-achieving and extremely successful high schools from Vancouver-Fraserview, the first being David Thompson School. They will probably be here in question period, so I hope that they have the opportunity to see some of the toing and froing that question period brings. They are, from David Thompson, 38 grade 10 students, two adults. Of course, they are a school in South Vancouver.

[1345]

The second school is Killarney high school. They will be here today as well.

I would like to say that both of these schools are very large schools. They pride themselves in their success in academics, in sports, in music and in skills training. Killarney, in particular, has a very robust music program.

I do need to make a correction to a comment I made a few weeks ago. I was incorrect in the group that had gone to Europe, and I would like to correctly identify them. A group of 60 students from Killarney high did a European tour, but it was the Killarney band, not the Killarney orchestra.

K. Conroy: I’m pleased to introduce a classroom today, too, from my constituency, especially because it’s from Stanley Humphries Secondary School, the school I graduated from too. This is a grade 11 French immersion class with 19 students. Their teacher is here, Ms. Fiona Martin. Fiona has brought a class just about every year since I’ve been here. It’s quite a coup to bring kids all the way from Castlegar down here.

[ Page 13125 ]

I actually met with this class a couple of months ago in their classroom and talked to them about what the Legislature is like. Then they said they’d really like to come to question period, so I said: “Okay.” I told them somewhat what it’s like. Maybe we’ll be able to meet their expectations today.

This is a classroom of really engaged, politically astute, really intelligent young people. I’m really pleased to welcome them to the House today.

M. Elmore: I’m very pleased to introduce a constituent, Randy Hamm. His family — wife and daughter — and two home-learners are here today on a legislative tour. I ask everybody to please make them very welcome.

I have one more. I’d also like to introduce two friends, two very impressive young women. Sepideh Heydari is a PhD student. She’s originally from Iran. She’s a PhD student pursuing a degree in neuroscience, looking at the question of behaviour and how individuals respond to reward and punishment. Very interesting.

As well, we have Mehravet Sayadekani, who is also a PhD student, pursuing her PhD in the field of chemistry, looking at groundbreaking research around gels and the transport of drugs not soluble in water and the different uses and benefits to humans in the treatment of different diseases and challenges. I ask the Legislature to please make these two very talented and rising women leaders in our community…. Please give them a warm welcome.

L. Popham: Today I also have a school visiting. I’ve got a grade 11 class with their teacher, Mr. Paul Cunnington, from Discovery School. I’d like to welcome them to the chamber.

Today I also had lunch with Dave Eto, Dave Taylor and Holger Schwichtenberg from the B.C. Dairy Association. I, unfortunately, had a glass of cranberry juice. The Leader of the Opposition had a glass of milk, and he pointed out that I probably should have done the same. Welcome to the chamber.

J. Shin: Joining us in the gallery today are 28 members from the Iranian-Canadian community, led by Mr. Amir Bajakian. Many of them are colleagues from academia, with three PhD students, as well as ten physicians from across greater Vancouver, the Fraser Valley and Vancouver Island.

I do have to give a special shout-out to my former anatomy and physiology student Parsa Kiani. That was four years ago now, and I think it’s a happy serendipity that I would bump into him again here of all places.

It’s wonderful to be able to welcome different communities, as we have been this session. I would ask all the members to please join in having this distinguished group of British Columbians feel very welcome to the House.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL M234 — BANNING THE SALE

OF IVORY AND RHINOCEROS

HORNS ACT, 2016

M. Farnworth presented a bill intituled Banning the Sale of Ivory and Rhinoceros Horns Act, 2016.

M. Farnworth: I move that a bill intituled Banning the Sale of Ivory and Rhinoceros Horns Act, 2016, of which notice has been given in my name on the order paper, be introduced and now read a first time.

Motion approved.

[1350]

M. Farnworth: The legislation I am tabling today sees British Columbia exercise its jurisdiction as a subnational government to help close the domestic market for these animal parts. This bill closes a loophole that permits trade in ivory and rhino horns derived from animals, predating Canada’s ratification of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora.

With this legislation, B.C. would join a growing global effort to curb wildlife trafficking. California and New York are two U.S. jurisdictions who have recently passed statutes that take additional steps against ivory and rhino horn sales.

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

Bill M234, Banning the Sale of Ivory and Rhinoceros Horns Act, 2016, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

CHILLIWACK RESIDENTS’ RESPONSE

TO FIRE IN FORT M C MURRAY

J. Martin: From Chilliwack to Fort Mac, with love. I’m very pleased to rise in the House today and recognize some outstanding constituents in Chilliwack who went above and beyond a couple of weeks ago in response to the devastating fires in Fort McMurray.

Truck driver Gord Van Laerhoven came up with the idea to truck supplies up to the area where some of the 88,000 victims had been evacuated from Fort McMurray wildfires. Gord asked to borrow a company truck from his boss at Bulldog Transport, who supported the idea right away. He was hoping they could collect enough to

[ Page 13126 ]

fill one tractor-trailer with donations and anticipated paying for the fuel himself.

Chilliwack, as usual, responded in droves to fill that truck. Within 48 hours, a Facebook group had grown to nearly 10,000 members, all asking how they could help and cheering on those individuals and businesses who contributed — everything from dog food, diapers, diabetic needles, beds-in-a-bag, pillows, pallets of water, baby formula, wipes, non-perishable toys and much, much more.

Chilliwack is well known for having a big generous heart. This story brought many to tears and caused some to remark that their faith in humanity had been restored.

I want to commend these fine residents of Chilliwack and the many volunteers and generous Chilliwack residents for their efforts. As I’ve said many, many times in this House, once again, Chilliwack punches above its weight class.

IRANIAN-CANADIAN COMMUNITY

IN TRI-CITIES AREA

J. Wickens: The story of British Columbia really is a story of our people.

When I think about the community my children will grow up in, I think about the importance of diversity, the importance of knowing our history and teaching them how to honour everyone they meet, whether it be our First Nations whose territory we stand on or brand-new refugees coming from all over the world. When we talk about diversity, it goes without saying that we also refer to all of the diverse talents of the people who choose to come here later on in their lives and make British Columbia their home.

It is a great honour for me to welcome some very talented people in our Iranian community to the Legislative Assembly. The Tri-Cities has the second-largest Iranian population in British Columbia. I have had the absolute privilege to work with many Iranian families, shop in some of their wonderful small businesses and make new friends as well as learn about the amazing work that our Tri-City Iranian Cultural Society does.

The Iranian culture and the people are truly beautiful, and they make the place that I call home even more wonderful. The Iranian people in my community not only have a rich culture and glorious past but also a very bright future. The Iranian people value science, innovation and progress. Today we have the privilege of hosting some of the brightest members of this community, from students to researchers to physicians that are ready to make a difference in their fellow British Columbians’ lives.

As elected officials, we have the duty to work for the members in our community to ensure that everyone has the opportunity to reach their full potential and that everyone can put their expertise and talents to great use. I know that we have some exceptionally talented people in our Iranian community, and I will work hard every day to make sure their talents and beauty are recognized.

[1355]

125 th ANNIVERSARY OF COQUITLAM

L. Reimer: Before this legislative session concludes and we all return to our respective constituencies, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize a milestone birthday for a community that is close to my heart. This year marks the 125th birthday of Coquitlam, a city with humble origins that has grown into a beautiful part of the Lower Mainland.

Coquitlam traces its roots back to the Coast Salish people who inhabited the banks of the Fraser River for centuries. The name Coquitlam comes from the Coast Salish word kwikwetlem , which means “red fish up the river,” a nod to the importance of salmon in our culture and our way of life.

Early European settlers began to arrive in the 1860s, and steady growth eventually led to the incorporation of the district of Coquitlam on July 25, 1891. What started as a humble agricultural and lumber town has grown into a vibrant community full of young and hard-working families striving to build a better life for themselves and their loved ones.

Coquitlam is my home, and I had the privilege of serving for two terms on its city council. During my time in the community, I have come to know the people of Coquitlam as some of the friendliest, upstanding and dedicated citizens in the province.

In celebration of its milestone birthday, Coquitlam has already been and will be hosting a variety of exciting events and celebrations over the coming months, including, on June 1, the torch-lighting ceremony. I encourage all members of this House to pay a visit to one of Metro Vancouver’s best-kept tourism secrets.

Today I want to wish our Coquitlam and our citizens all the best as they celebrate their birthday. We look forward to many years of great community in our future.

MINERALS NORTH CONFERENCE IN

SMITHERS AND TELKWA

D. Donaldson: There will be some people rocking it out in Smithers, and it’s not just because Grammy-nominated hometown musician Alex Cuba is playing

[ Page 13127 ]

Thursday night. Rocking is it with the annual Minerals North Conference hosted by Smithers and Telkwa this Wednesday to Friday.

Mineral exploration spending was $272 million in B.C. in 2015, and about half that was spent in the northwest, supporting local jobs and companies. Estimates are that it takes 100 advanced exploration projects to eventually lead to one profitable mine in B.C. Getting to that final outcome requires not only starting with grassroots exploration and the right commodity prices but, in the end, a lot of public and investor confidence.

The theme of Minerals North 2016 is “Excellence through innovation.” The agenda looks great, and northwest regional geologist and organizing committee member Jeff Kyba tells me that the session on aboriginal title is getting a lot of attention. That is very timely, as the annual global mining survey conducted by the Fraser Institute showed that B.C. finished eighth from last out of 109 jurisdictions on uncertainty concerning disputed land claims. There’s much work to be done regarding investor confidence when it comes to the government approach on aboriginal title.

Another agenda panel on sustainability, responsibility and environment is also very timely in light of the recent Auditor General’s report concluding that neither the Ministry of Mines nor the Ministry of Environment are conducting adequate monitoring and site inspections and do not have the resources to do so. Public support of mining depends on confidence in government to ensure environmental risk and damage are understood and controlled.

As Jeff Kyba said: “It was about making the conference real, talking about things that are on people’s minds.” Thanks to Jeff and all members of the organizing committee. I look forward to attending, and especially, hearing if Jeff and northeast regional geologist Paul Jago can top their musical rendition of “Heart of Gold,” which they performed a couple of years ago. Rock on, indeed.

MDA DEVELOPMENT OF SPACE TECHNOLOGY

R. Sultan: Since I made my living from these industries, it’s a bit hard for me to admit that tech is overtaking forestry, mining and natural gas combined. No company demonstrates this better than MacDonald, Dettwiler, based in Richmond. Almost 50 years ago, a UBC engineering professor and a UBC mathematician developed unique radar technology, which they mounted into a satellite. MDA became a world leader in Earth observations — over 20 satellites feeding data to ground stations in over 25 countries for processing.

[1400]

MDA today builds and operates space-based platforms, globally advanced defence, security and surveillance platforms with a well-deserved reputation for quality and reliability.

When Canada wanted in on the space shuttle, CSA and NASA asked this company to build a manipulator system. Canadarm was created, leading to sales of $1.2 billion and an order for an additional four. It launched 30 satellites from the shuttle bay. It also supported the capture and repair, in space, of the Hubble space telescope.

MDA then built Dextre, an advanced Canada Hand which helps maintain the International Space Station. In 2012, MDA acquired Space Systems Loral, providing an even stronger American presence with communication satellites serving our broadband appetites.

MDA ventured further into space to the red planet, with robotic arms and cameras on the surface of Mars and navigation for rovers seeking water up there. Could this be our lifeboat if mankind really mucks up planet Earth? MDA will help NASA find out.

ESQUIMALT AND NANAIMO RAILWAY

D. Routley: The Esquimalt and Nanaimo Railway was built to service the coal industry on Vancouver Island in the late 19th century. The railway was an essential part of the agreement that brought the colony of B.C. into Canada as a new province. Robert Dunsmuir, coal baron, was granted mineral and timber rights to most of the east half of Vancouver Island in return for building the railway.

The rail line was operated for many decades later by Canadian Pacific. The large continental railway tried for years to divest of the unique, challenging and remote E&N. Eventually, a society representing local governments and First Nations along the line was formed to take ownership in exchange for approximately $100 million of tax benefits to Canadian Pacific.

The E&N enjoys overwhelming support from most Vancouver Islanders. It serves a population of 700,000 people, 70 percent of whom live within a 15-minute drive of the line. Despite many promises and assurances, the line has remained in disrepair, undermining some of the public support it has enjoyed.

Strong action by government is needed to help restore the line. Essential to a sustainable transportation future for Vancouver Island, the E&N wants to provide the 21st-century service that it promised.

Some voices have called for the removal of the rail and conversion to trails. Firstly, the E&N Rail Trail in Langford and Nanaimo shows conclusively that rail and trail can coexist. Secondly, the cost of decommissioning the rail — removing crossings and signals as well as removing or making safe the many bridges and the environmental legacy costs — would likely be much higher than actually repairing the line.

Ridership for a more frequent, modern passenger service is obvious. We can’t continue to expand traffic volumes on our roads without sacrificing the quality of life we cherish on Vancouver Island. It is a false and unfortu-

[ Page 13128 ]

nate argument to pit rail supporters against cyclists and trail users. Both groups have a common commitment to sustainability.

We need our railway to fulfil our climate change targets, to maintain quality of life and for economic development.

Oral Questions

HOUSING AFFORDABILITY IN LOWER

MAINLAND AND FOREIGN INVESTMENT

J. Horgan: Last week we had the Minister of Finance dismissing a report on the housing market in the Lower Mainland by a professor at SFU because he didn’t think he was enough of an expert. That very day, on the front page of a major daily in Vancouver, we learned that a 23-year-old student had purchased a $31.6 million home in Vancouver. Today it’s the deputy chief economist at Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce who has said that international speculation in the housing market is at critical proportions.

Even though we’ve had serious problems to this point in time, the deputy chief economist is concerned that Beijing is changing its currency rules with what’s called qualified domestic international investment

part 2, a program that will lead to even further speculation in the Lower Mainland of British Columbia housing market.

My question is to the Minister of Finance. At what point will we see some action from the government to address an issue that almost everyone in the known universe is talking about?

[1405]

Hon. M. de Jong: Thank you to the Leader of the Opposition for the question. He knows — and I think members of the chamber also know — that the government has taken some very specific steps. Those steps include what I believe is a fundamentally important step, which is to actually begin to re-create and re-establish data that will allow us to make decisions on an evidence-based system.

I heard someone gasp in a dismissive way. Surely, on something as important as decisions around how or the degree to which the state should intervene in the marketplace, it is worthwhile and legitimate to do so on the basis of informed knowledge and data. That’s what we have begun to do, and we are pleased about that.

I should also say that we have, in the budget this year, made some additional changes that are designed to assist British Columbians. These are measures that are restricted and available only to British Columbians as it relates to forgiving the property transfer tax and assisting them and their families to enter the housing market.

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

J. Horgan: We can all agree that more information is always better, but the government has been in power for 15 years now — that’s a decade and a half — and I would think they could have got on this before last week. That’s certainly the view of the majority of the people in the Lower Mainland who are seeing their neighbourhoods hollowed out by foreign speculative investments.

The chief economist agrees as well: “More information is good, but no action is foolish.” No action is foolish. We proposed in this House months ago, using the income tax system, using the property tax system, to determine what the numbers are and take some action.

My question, again to the minister, is: are we going to wait until after the election for action? This tends to be the modus operandi of the B.C. Liberals. Why don’t we take some action right now so that we can help people that are being pushed out of the real estate market? We have foreign investors coming in and hollowing out our cities.

Hon. M. de Jong: To the member, since he has offered this in a somewhat accusatorial way, I will feel entitled to remind him and his colleagues that the absence of some basic data that would be of assistance in making decisions on these matters is attributable to a decision that was made in 1998 when he and his colleagues were in power. It might have been helpful if we’d had some of that data.

The Leader of the Opposition speaks of…. I think the term he used was “hollowed-out” neighbourhoods. Well, that’s fine, except that when the city of Vancouver commissioned a study — which I have heard no one criticize as being inaccurate — it actually revealed that the vacancy rate in Vancouver over the last 12 years has marginally gone down, not up.

It may be convenient for the Leader of the Opposition…. But let me give him one bit of information. The exemption on the property transfer tax, which can save British Columbians thousands upon thousands of dollars, has already benefited 1,725 families — an average of 156 per week, 22 families per day — that buy new housing in British Columbia and don’t pay any property transfer tax.

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

J. Horgan: A year ago I asked the Premier what plans the government had to address the real estate crisis in the Lower Mainland, and she said: “Stay tuned.” Then she left and said: “Well, if people don’t like the prices, they could always move to Kitimat, they could move to Prince Rupert, or they could move to the north”. It’s definitely an option for those who have that flexibility, but for the millions of people that live in the Lower Mainland, that would like to live and work in their community, they’re being pushed out.

[ Page 13129 ]

It’s time — past time — for this government to act. The CIBC is one of two leading international institutions that has been facilitating speculative investments in this real estate market. When they say it’s going to get worse because of changes in Beijing, I would expect something more from the government than reciting statistics from the budget just tabled. I would expect some forward-looking thinking about how we’re going to address this problem that’s been festering for the past two years in the city of Vancouver.

[1410]

Again, to the Minister of Finance: certainly to goodness, if he doesn’t want to listen to the members on this side of the House, if he doesn’t want to listen to the Real Estate Board, and if he doesn’t want to listen to the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce — which is warning that it’s going to get worse and that not taking action would be “foolish” — when will he take action?

Hon. M. de Jong: I don’t want the Leader of the Opposition to sell himself short. I am always anxious to hear what members of the opposition have to say. I sometimes have difficulty understanding what they say or trying to discern a level of consistency.

Last week, the Leader of the Opposition — it’s a quote, and the member may wish to tell me that it isn’t an accurate quote — was quoted in the media as saying: “It’s not about foreign investors, offshore investors. It’s about people using Vancouver as a safety deposit box.” Then the very next day, his colleague comes into the House and says: “We mostly have a demand problem, not a supply problem. It’s foreign demand, foreign investment.”

I don’t which story the official opposition has decided to cling to. I do know this. The opposition seems consistent to this extent: their answer to this issue is to dry up demand.

By the way, based on their record in the past, they are very good at doing that, through a combination of increased taxes and other measures that would put “closed for business” up at every border entry to British Columbia. The opposition’s answer is to say to people: “Don’t come here. Don’t invest. Don’t make a future in British Columbia.”

The government — these members on this side of the House — believes the answer to this issue is to increase supply, is to ensure that people who want to build in the province have a way to do so, that there is an increased supply of housing options for the British Columbians and others who want to make a life in B.C., in the leading economy in Canada.

REGULATION OF REAL ESTATE INDUSTRY

D. Eby: We know the government doesn’t take this issue seriously. The Minister Responsible for Housing…. Here’s a quote for the Minister of Finance. Housing in Metro Vancouver is “actually pretty affordable” — the least affordable city in the world, according to an international study.

That’s how out of touch they are. When a local businessman encountered a realtor engaging in house flipping in Vancouver, and he threatened to report her for tax evasion…. He’s alleging that she threatened his life.

People in Vancouver have a lot of questions about students and homemakers buying million-dollar homes. They’ve got questions about income levels having no connection to property being purchased. They have questions about connections to money laundering, income tax evasion.

This is right in the Minister of Finance’s wheelhouse, so to him: what additional resources is he putting in place to audit real estate transactions in Metro Vancouver for tax fraud and for money laundering?

Hon. M. de Jong: The member knows, or should know, that within the taxation branch, there is a very well qualified group of auditors when it comes to the property transfer tax, which is the tax rendered in every instance where there is a registration of title. The branch is very aggressive at ensuring that those who claim exemptions for that tax are entitled to do so and that the information provided on those returns is accurate.

That same amplified diligence will be applied with respect to the new measures that we have introduced to ensure that more British Columbians can enter the housing market and fulfil that dream of owning a home.

Look, I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. I know there’s an element of this that makes the opposition very, very uncomfortable. It’s the idea that more and more people want to come to British Columbia, want to live here. That is powering the strongest economy in the country. It is creating pressure, admittedly, in some areas of the province, around things like housing.

[1415]

We can address that. We can meet that if governments at all levels will work together and understand that the solution to this is ensuring that there are even more housing options available to the thousands of people that want to come to British Columbia.

Madame Speaker: Recognizing Vancouver–Point Grey on a supplemental.

D. Eby: It’s no surprise the Finance Minister has no specifics on additional resources because there are no additional resources. In fact, there are clearly inadequate resources to investigate and prosecute tax fraud and money laundering in British Columbia real estate. That’s the only way to explain the difference between what’s happening here and what’s happening in Alberta, where the regulator actually chased somebody engaged in real estate fraud across the border into British Columbia.

[ Page 13130 ]

He’s facing two years in jail under that regulator’s actions.

Meanwhile, in our province, the owner of the largest real estate firm in Vancouver does a seminar on how to create fake bonuses and rip off clients. Still no prosecution. More than half of B.C.’s realtors are failing anti-money-laundering audits. The failings of B.C.’s Real Estate Council — still under investigation. No resolution. Even when this businessman called the cops, when he said that a real estate agent threatened his life, nobody showed up for 24 hours.

To the Minister of Finance, for his

part in this: what additional resources will he put on the table to deal with this problem?

Hon. M. de Jong: Last week, I think it was the hon. member who quoted from a report where the author advocated that we should pursue policies and we should try to emulate what is happening in that great economic juggernaut of a province, Prince Edward Island. That’s what the author of that report aspired to for B.C.

Interjections.

Hon. M. de Jong: The member is saying: “Yeah, I was a bit surprised, too, that members would be advocating we emulate Prince Edward Island in response to what’s happening.”

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. de Jong: Today, if I heard correctly, the member wants us to emulate market circumstances in Alberta. I’m not suggesting that’s a recipe for success right now.

What I do believe, and what I believe the majority of British Columbians want, is to ensure that there are options available for them, at reasonable levels, to enter the housing market; that when people make investments, they are paying their fair share; that they are meeting their taxation obligations — whether they are British Columbians or Canadians or people from elsewhere in the world who choose to come here, they are meeting their taxation obligations.

We will continue to share information with the Canada Revenue Agency. We will take additional steps to ensure that, collectively, governments in Canada are collecting from investors, no matter who they are or where they come from, the taxes that they owe to Canada and to British Columbia.

ELKO DAM REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT

K. Conroy: The Minister of Energy is very familiar with the Elko redevelopment project and even more familiar with level of support it enjoys in the Kootenays. It is supported by the regional district. It is supported by the Ktunaxa First Nation. It is supported by local residents, who are extremely proud of the work being done by the Columbia Power Corporation. Given the overwhelming local support for this project, why has the minister decided to shelve it?

Hon. B. Bennett: The Elko project is a small hydroelectric project built many, many decades ago. It produces a small amount of electricity, but an important amount of electricity. It involves a small dam that will eventually have to be replaced. It’s actually located in my riding.

I do want to assure the member opposite of one thing: that if it made sense to the ratepayers of British Columbia for that project to go ahead immediately, the Energy Minister would be supportive of that.

[1420]

However, as the member knows, because we’ve had direct discussions about this in Hydro’s case, they are doing everything that they can to reduce costs and to take pressure off rates. I think the opposition supports that. In this case, that project can be deferred until such time as we do need to do it, which will probably be five years plus.

Madame Speaker: The member for Kootenay West on a supplemental.

K. Conroy: What’s so tragic about this minister’s decision is that it will have a huge impact on local employment in the Kootenays. There are hundreds of skilled workers in our region, both the minister’s and mine, who became fully trained tradespersons working on projects for the Columbia Power Corporation and who have been able to stay in the region, stay home with their families and contribute to our communities.

Does the minister really believe that it is more important to send people to work and live in camps instead of staying in their own communities working on projects that B.C. Hydro knows are of critical importance?

Hon. B. Bennett: B.C. Hydro has not been instructed by this government to get into make-work projects. They also haven’t been instructed to invest in any power facilities in Pakistan or anywhere outside of the province.

The decision that was made around the Elko project…. The member knows this, and I appreciate the fact that she has the opportunity to ask in the House in support of her constituents. I also appreciate the fact that what the member, I think, is mainly concerned about are the jobs that are located in her riding with Columbia Power Corporation.

I do want to assure the member that we are working very closely with the Columbia Power Corporation and with the Columbia Basin Trust in terms of maintaining as many of those jobs with the Columbia Power

[ Page 13131 ]

Corporation as possible. It looks very promising that we can maintain most of those jobs with Columbia Power Corporation that are located in the member’s hometown.

I will commit to continuing to work directly with the member on this issue and any other issues involving Columbia Power Corporation, and she can continue to ask me questions in question period.

A. Dix: The Minister of Energy and the Liberal cabinet have repeatedly ordered B.C. Hydro to purchase energy for projects it didn’t need. It’s the reason that we’re in this job-killing position to begin with. I mean, it was this minister….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members, this House will come to order.

Interjection.

Madame Speaker: Minister.

Please continue.

A. Dix: Hydro rates have gone up 28 percent. We’ve lost 1,500 jobs in the mining industry, and the government has realized that even the mining industry can’t afford to pay these rate increases. These are the facts.

It is also a fact that a few weeks ago, the minister was saying that Elko was on top of the list of projects to move forward. This kind of shines a light on B.C. Liberal incompetence. B.C. Hydro had been working with Columbia Power Corporation, which had delivered three dam renovation projects on time and on budget.

Could the minister tell us when he finally realized that B.C. Hydro had too much power and decided to kill this project in the Kootenays?

Hon. B. Bennett: Well, in general, what I can say back is that as long as I am Minister of Energy in B.C., I will make recommendations to B.C. Hydro that are in the best interests of all the ratepayers of the province and not just the ratepayers in the Kootenay region. I’m surprised that he would suggest I should do otherwise.

The member has suggested that B.C. Hydro is essentially not doing anything out there. In fact, they’re investing $2.4 billion every single year in capital projects. That is going to lead — is leading, in fact — to 110,000 jobs. It’s going to add $13 billion to B.C.’s GDP. It’s going to make sure that B.C.’s electricity prices remain low-cost.

[1425]

We have the third-lowest residential electricity rates in North America. When you look around North America and you see what is happening in other jurisdictions, both in the United States of America and also in Canada, such as the province of Ontario, you will see that there is no chance we’re going to lose our position as third.

We have large hydro that we have depended on in this province for generations. It works. The opposition knows that it works, and we’re going to retain our position with the second- or third-lowest residential rates, I think, for decades to come.

A. Dix: It is a fact that this project…. The government is saying no to this project. B.C. Hydro is saying no to this project as a direct result of B.C. Liberal energy policies directed to B.C. Hydro in the cabinet room — policies that have led to 28 percent rate increases, policies that mean that the Minister of Finance treats revenue we’re getting in 2023 as revenue in 2016 to maintain the pretence of his fiscal policies, policies that have lost $1.2 billion on IPPs in the last three years and cost B.C. business in higher energy costs.

And demand forecasts, predictions that they directed from the cabinet room, have us 2,300 gigawatt hours behind. That’s a big miss, even for this Minister of Energy.

Can the minister explain or, at least, take some ownership of the fact that this decision to kill jobs in the Kootenays is a direct result of decisions made exactly, right in the cabinet room by him and his colleagues?

Hon. B. Bennett: What I can tell the member is that I don’t actually think that cabinet is even aware of the decision that was made by B.C. Hydro with respect to the Elko project. The decision was made in collaboration with me because it was the right decision for the ratepayers of B.C. Hydro.

What the opposition and what my critic is suggesting right now is that government should simply step in and just order the professionals at B.C. Hydro: “Don’t build that. Build this. Build this one over here because maybe….”

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members, this House will come to order.

Hon. B. Bennett: That is the way they operate. That is the way they think. The 1990s are demonstrative of that. They showed the world how bad they were as managers, and they would do it again if we were ever unfortunate enough for them to be elected.

The reason that B.C. Hydro, with my support, decided to defer the small Elko project is simply because we don’t need to do it right now. If the hon. member who is my critic thinks that he knows better than B.C. Hydro, then I guess that’s his right to think that. But I’m going to rely on the engineers and the accountants and the other professionals at B.C. Hydro to give me the best possible advice they can, and in most cases, I’m going to follow it.

[ Page 13132 ]

INCOME ASSISTANCE POLICY ON

MATERNITY LEAVE BENEFITS

M. Mungall: A year ago we shared Jessica Alford’s story with the Legislature. Members may recall that she is a mom who saw her maternity leave benefits clawed back by this government because her husband has a disability. We asked the government to end this mean and discriminatory policy that increases child poverty, and the government said no.

They even went on to spend money arguing that Jessica’s case should not be heard by B.C.’s Human Rights Tribunal. The tribunal disagreed. It’s in the news today, and they will be hearing the case.

My question to the Minister of Social Development: instead of spending money defending its mean-spirited and discriminatory child poverty–creating policies, why doesn’t she do the right thing today and just end this maternity leave clawback?

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: While I won’t speak to the specific case for privacy reasons, I will speak to the overall arching question regarding the policy we have in place.

[1430]

It is, in fact, the policy reforms that we have put in place that allow people to go to work and earn money and not have that income affect their income assistance cheques. We’ve gone to annualized earnings exemptions — the only province in the entire country who does that — to allow people to keep more money in their pockets, to allow them to end up receiving employment insurance.

What we do need to remember is that it is our comprehensive social safety net that is in place for income assistance to provide temporary support for those people who need it the most and for those people with disabilities who need long-term support. But remember that it is the income of last resort and that other resources and other means of income should be exhausted before coming to the province.

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

M. Mungall: What the minister has just made abundantly clear is that under the B.C. Liberals, this ministry should actually be renamed the Ministry of Clawbacks. Bus passes, maternity leave, parental leave, sick leave — I could go on. But the point of the matter is this. Why is this government choosing to spend a cent defending such mean policies when they could instead do the right thing and make sure that moms needing to take maternity leave get to keep that maternity leave benefit?

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: I could go on and on about the comprehensive social safety net we have in place — $4.4 billion since 2001 to provide subsidized housing for individuals who need the support. We provide subsidized child care, dental and optical, free MSP payments, free PharmaCare to cover prescription costs. I could go on and on.

It is this government who is committed to policy reforms to help create opportunities for individuals. That’s why we came up with the single-parent employment initiative, and that’s why we now have over 2,700 individuals who have taken advantage of the opportunity to gain education that government pays for while we provide them with child care, while we provide them with transportation, while we provide them with medical services support as well. It is this government who is committed to breaking down barriers and helping people reach their potential.

GUN VIOLENCE IN SURREY

H. Bains: Despite this government’s pronouncements, the gun violence in Surrey is not ceasing. In fact, it is escalating. On top of 60 shootings last year, in the last 48 hours alone there have been two more, bringing the total to 39 to date this year, and we have not even hit the half-year mark yet.

My question to the minister is this. How can the minister claim that he’s taking action to keep Surrey safe when the epidemic of gun violence continues to escalate?

Hon. M. Morris: The gun violence in Surrey, the gun violence in Vancouver, the gun violence in any community that we have in British Columbia is not taken lightly. The police officers are working diligently around the clock to apprehend the individuals that are involved in this.

The safety of our communities is paramount, and we have pulled all of the stops out in ensuring that all the investigators are working to capacity to put these individuals behind bars — hopefully, for a lengthy period of time.

Surrey detachment just had an open house. The CFSEU units will soon be holding an open house as well. The end gang violence program has been prolific in many of the schools throughout the Lower Mainland here. We will continue to work hard to ensure that all the communities in B.C. are safe.

[End of question period.]

Tabling Documents

Hon. S. Bond: I have the honour to present the WorkSafe B.C. 2015 annual report and 2016-18 service plan.

Hon. S. Anton: I have the honour to present the Crown Proceeding Act report for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2015.

[1435]

[ Page 13133 ]

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: In both chambers, Committee of Supply. In Committee A, it’s Public Safety and Solicitor General, and in this chamber, Ministry of Social Development.

Committee of Supply

The House in Committee of Supply (Section B); R. Lee in the chair.

The committee met at 2:39 p.m.

Point of Order

A. Weaver: I rise on a point of order. This is the first time I have been able to rise on this point of order for two reasons. First, on Thursday of last week, I spent much of the day in communications with a variety of offices to determine what transpired with respect to the closing of debate on estimates for the Office of the Premier. I also only received the relevant Hansard clip on Friday.

[1440]

As I had mentioned to the Speaker’s office, on Thursday last week, my office had coordinated through the Opposition House Leader’s office that I would be speaking to Premier’s estimates. It was agreed I would rise early Thursday morning.

Between 6:20 and 6:25 on Wednesday last week, at 292 minutes, 14 seconds, of the on-line Hansard video on May 11, the Premier rose in estimates and stated the following: “With that, Mr. Chair, I rise to report progress and ask leave to sit again.” The Chair then said this: “Hon. Members, you heard the motion. All in favour say aye.” The motion carried.

At this point, the committee had risen, and it was very clear that the Chair left his seat. There appeared to be some commotion in the chamber after the passing of this motion. Conversations went back and forth between the Premier and the Leader of the Official Opposition. The Chair remained standing during these conversations. Some notes got passed around. The Clerk also stood to speak with the Premier. The Chair returned to his seat but said nothing while the Clerk was standing and speaking to the Premier.

Eventually the Chair issued a single word. “Premier,” he said. At this point the Premier is audibly heard on Hansard saying: “It’s not mine.” She’s referring to a motion written on a piece of paper that had been passed to her. The Premier then says the following: “By agreement with the opposition, I move that the committee rise and report completion of the resolution and ask leave to sit again.” After this motion passes, the Premier states this: “Are you sure that was legally done?”

In my view, there is a very clear procedural error here. The Chair at no time called the committee back to order while sitting in the chair. Since the earlier motion to rise and report progress had indeed passed, the second motion regarding completion would, in my view, be out of order, as the committee had not been called to order again. It had simply risen.

As such, it is my view that the estimates of the Office of the Premier have not yet concluded. Hon. Chair, I would kindly ask that you consider these comments and consider providing a ruling to this House at a later time. Thank you for your consideration of this very important matter.

M. Farnworth: This is not a procedural point of order. In fact, it would be classed as argument. So, hon. Chair, I respectfully ask that you rule that this is, in fact, not a point of order.

The Chair: Hon. Members, I would take the member’s point of order on advisement. Thank you.

Debate Continued

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT AND

SOCIAL INNOVATION

The Chair: We are going back to the estimates. Minister, would you like to make a statement?

On Vote 41: ministry operations, $2,739,239,000.

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: I’d like to start by just acknowledging this afternoon some of the ministry staff that I have with me here today. I have my deputy minister, Sheila Taylor; my assistant deputy minister to the corporate services division, Len Dawes; and behind us, joining us, is the CEO for CLBC, Community Living B.C., Seonag Macrae.

I’d also like to take the opportunity to say a few words and thank, most especially, the 2,000 staff members that we have in the ministry, who are dedicated professionals, who are helping the 180,000 clients that we serve each and every day.

[1445]

I’d also like to give those who are watching at home perhaps and those here in the House a quick overview of the Ministry of Social Development and Social Innovation. We provide a system of integrated supports that help people achieve their social and economic independence. Income assistance is available to people around the province who are temporarily unemployed. There is also disability assistance for those people who are unable to work enough to sustain themselves long enough and need that longer-term financial support.

Currently, there are about 179,000 clients, of whom 100,000 are considered persons with disabilities receiving assistance. Our goal is to help people find the path to in-

[ Page 13134 ]

dependence through our employment services provided through Work B.C. centres, through the increased earning exemptions for people on assistance and through innovative programs like the single-parent employment initiative, which removes barriers to employment for single people who are receiving income assistance. I’m hoping that we will have several questions in the coming hours about that program, because it is very successful to date.

Once people have returned to the workplace, we work across government with those individuals to help them to retain their independence and to build a better future for themselves and their families. There are numerous supports that we provide that are available, whether it be subsidized child care, subsidized housing or a number of tax benefits that individuals receive — families and seniors as well.

Finally, the ministry also helps drive social innovation and entrepreneurship in British Columbia with our partners around the province.

The budget for 2016-2017 is $2.74 billion, which is a $146 million increase over last fiscal year. It includes $250 million to help with the caseload growth over the next three years, plus $170 million to increase disability assistance rates and bring fairness into our system for transportation supports for those people on disability assistance.

It truly has been a big year for the ministry. We’ve seen several policy changes in the ministry, changes that originated from much of the feedback that we received in the white paper consultation. I’m proud of those changes that we’ve been able to make and look forward to significant changes that we’ll continue to make as we work forward to find ways to make life easier and better for those individuals who rely on the province for support.

Some of those changes include the PWD rate increase, the single-parent employment initiative that I just spoke of, the changes to the EPBC programs, as well as the application process for persons with disabilities.

With that, I will leave it up to my wonderful critic from the opposition to start with his questions for estimates. I look forward to it.

N. Simons: Thank you to the minister and to the staff that’s here. I appreciate that. I hope that this afternoon we’ll shed some light onto areas that otherwise would be difficult for some to understand.

My first question: regarding those 18,000 people served through CLBC, can the minister just provide a little bit of an overview of who they are, what kinds of services they receive and possibly put some figures to what types of residential care they’re receiving? Just to have a bit of a breakdown.

[1450]

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: In response to the member opposite’s question, I think the 18,000 adults are those adults within the province that have developmental disabilities, working with the developmental community. Specifically, Community Living B.C. works to try and build more inclusive communities for people with all different abilities around the province.

We know that there has been an increase to the funding for CLBC — I mentioned that in my opening remarks — helping them serve more and more individuals. As I mentioned, 18,000 individuals are now under our support. That can be a variety of supports that the individuals may receive.

Some of them may receive staffed residential resources or live in what’s known as a group home. There are also shared living arrangements, supports for independent living and, of course, planning family support and community inclusion supports for those individuals as well.

The breakdown for those, to the member opposite, to help assist him with the numbers. There are 2,567 individuals who are receiving the residential resources or are living in group homes, 3,544 are in shared living accommodations, 1,151 are receiving supports for independent living, and 10,241 of them are receiving supports for family support planning and community inclusion as well.

N. Simons: Can the minister describe what that last category of the 10,241…? Does that include people who are currently waiting for services?

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: The number of 10,241 does not include those who are on a waiting list. These are individuals who are currently receiving supports. Those supports would include things such as the respite funding. It could be assistance with employment supports or day programs — those kinds of facilitated accommodations.

N. Simons: When that number is given, 10,241, obviously people who are in residential care and people who are in individualized funding are also receiving those kinds of services. Are we seeing duplicate numbers here, or does the total who are receiving supports, 10,241, not include anyone listed in the other categories?

[1455]

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: There is some overlap with some of the supports that people are receiving. Most often it would be those individuals who are in the home-share or independent living scenario, where they are also receiving some community inclusion supports on top of what they receive through their living arrangements.

[ Page 13135 ]

N. Simons: Does that mean that the minister has to revise the 18,000 people served because there’s the overlap? Or is that just 18,000 services being paid for? It’s a little confusing.

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: The 18,000 individuals are those that qualify for Community Living B.C. support services. Some of them are just receiving support services within their community, based on their level of ability. That’s what the assessment requires them to receive. And those other individuals may require more assistance, therefore requiring the financial supports.

N. Simons: Okay. Well, it’s just a little bit confusing in terms of how many actual clients CLBC is serving. It seems to me that that 18,000, if it includes people receiving services such as planning…. That’s not necessarily a service, a direct service. Is that number included — people who are identified as “will be requiring services,” like perhaps the transitioning youth or people whose residential option needs to become one that’s supported by the province?

Maybe I should ask: the 10,241…. Maybe I should give the minister another opportunity to answer that question. How many people are currently receiving services funded by Community Living B.C.?

[1500]

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: I understand what the member opposite is trying to get a number for, but we don’t actually have the breakdown of that number. It’s because out of the 18,000 individuals, some of them are receiving the community inclusion and the family support or are in planning processes. That’s all something that there is no cost to the client for.

We don’t break down a per-client cost of what it amounts to for that individual to receive those services. It is brought in through the facilitators, through CLBC. Some of them go in as a group to receive those services, and some of them go in and out of receiving the services as they need or as they want them. The 18,000 number is actually the amount of clients that CLBC serves and provides supports to.

N. Simons: Well, that’s kind of funny. You’d think there’d be someone keeping track. It’s a fairly significant number. Anyway, we’ll leave it at that. If I need another line of questioning on that, I’ll go back to it.

Right now let me sort of turn to the residential side of things. In 2011-12, there was a residential options review project that saw the massive closure of group homes across the province. It resulted in mass upset for most right-minded folks, who knew that moving people from their homes against their wishes was inappropriate.

In fact, the government itself came up with recommendations on how to stop that from happening by referring to group homes as the people’s actual homes and not just as a contracted resource. That was a good step. The ministry was obviously interested in trying to encourage the home-share system, the home-share option, as a residential option, and there was some focus on trying to increase the number of individualized funding.

What is the current principle or philosophy of CLBC with respect to encouraging or discouraging different types of residential options, and what are the trend numbers showing?

[1505]

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: The general philosophy for CLBC is to ensure that we are offering some choice for individuals, depending on what their needs are in the community.

I think we need to recognize that the individuals that CLBC delivers services to today are not the same individuals that we would have seen 20 or 30 years ago. Those individuals have higher expectations to be included into community, to have employment opportunities, to live independently. CLBC is constantly exploring the options to work with partners like B.C. Housing and B.C. Non-Profit to ensure that there are options for our clients to have the opportunity.

I would say that, more and more, we are seeing individuals who want to live independently. Of course, there’s always the assessment to take into account, varying for each individual depending on what their natural supports are surrounding them, what other supports they have surrounding them to help them reach their full potential.

N. Simons: Does the minister have any figures as to the number of individuals served by CLBC living in direct-contract home shares versus agency-funded home shares?

[1510]

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: Over the past eight years, home-sharing has grown to 2,200 individuals being provided the service in 2007 to over 3,500 being provided the service in 2015. Of those, about 900 individuals are being served in home-sharing by providers who contract directly with CLBC, while approximately 2,600 of those are in home-sharing arrangements that are coordinated by qualified service providers around the province.

N. Simons: Thank you very much. Is the number of direct home-share providers going up or down? And consequently, is the number of agency-supported home shares going up or down?

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: Overall, the number of home shares has increased over the years. The direct-funded home shares through CLBC…. There’s about the same amount of home shares. It hasn’t really seen an increase.

[ Page 13136 ]

However, the new home shares are almost all agency-provided or coordinated.

N. Simons: That’s the sense out there. A lot of families come to me with suggestions from CLBC to have their child or adult child being placed in facilities that they may not feel are appropriate.

I think I have to just go to a few cases before we get deep into the residential…. I kind of went out of order on my own without even being called out of order. I’d like to ask about some historical cases that still are sort of seeking out answers.

To begin with, I’d like to talk about…. And I respect that the minister’s likely response is that she won’t be able to talk about specific cases. You won’t need to, because this concerns a number of people.

Cathy Grant is a writer, advocate and active member of the community who was a participant in the deinstitutionalization process that took place many years ago. The program was called Services for the Handicapped, which was a group of individuals who initially came under the responsibility of the Ministry of Health. The group of individuals had their medical equipment needs met through a special allocation of funds that were administered by Health and were transferred to the old Community Living B.C. through MCFD.

[1515]

When CLBC, as we now know it, obviously, came into being in 2005, CLBC began administering those funds and is currently responsible for administering the funds for Cathy. Cathy is still receiving funds and is being supported, but as far as the 80 people go, there was a historic promise.

There was an understanding with these specific 80 people that were supposed to be dealt with in a separate way in order to ensure that the changes that they were agreeing to would be transitioned fairly. I think the problem is that a certain allocation of funding was made. That allocation, that separate pot that was aside from the regular general funding, seems to have been misplaced or has been swallowed up by the overall funding.

Can the minister explain what happened to the funding? I know it was before her time as the minister. I’m hoping that there is some historical knowledge of this that can inform her response. What happened to the special stand-alone funding for these 80 individuals who were transitioned out of institutions?

A. Weaver: I seek leave to make an announcement.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

A. Weaver: It gives me great pleasure to introduce to the Legislature a class from St. Michaels University School, a grade 11 socials class. They’re accompanied by their teacher, Mr. Angus Henderson. There are 19 students here today. Would the House please make them feel very welcome.

[1520]

Debate Continued

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: We’re aware of the 80 individuals who were supported in the transition out of the facilities. Those individuals had quite high support needs. In principle, we don’t reduce funding to those individuals, those 80 individuals. The supports stayed in place for them.

What would happen as they’re aging and their needs change, is that we would adjust specifically to the needs in their aging years if they have higher health needs, specifically. I can assure the member opposite that the health, safety and well-being of individuals is, of course, our priority.

N. Simons: Well, as the minister knows, sometimes requests for equipment and such have to go through a long process and sometimes are denied. I’m just wondering. Is the minister telling me that these 80 individuals, those who are still accessing services, are going to be treated the same way as any other person coming through the system? Or, in fact, in their case, the 80 of them — are they going to be treated in the way that they expected to be when they went through that deinstitutionalization process?

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: Again, the packages that those individuals transitioned with…. Nothing would be reduced for them. But going forward, as their needs changed, they would be assessed and receive services the same way as any other individual who is receiving services through CLBC.

N. Simons: I don’t think that’s really the answer I was hoping for or that Cathy was hoping for, that was expected. I hope that at this point — because we have a lot of cases to cover or a lot of issues to cover — that the minister will agree that we can discuss this further. I do think that there needs to be a level and a degree of reassurance that, in fact, what was told to Cathy those years ago is, in fact, the same thing that she would be told today. It doesn’t sound to me like that’s quite the same.

However, I will pursue it. I know that Cathy is intently watching what is said in here, and I’ll be following up with her on this issue.

Another issue that seems to be one to do with policy. Now, we have many families who look after their siblings or kids, adult or otherwise. In this case, we’re talking about adults who travel. Sometimes the CLBC client will travel with a sibling out of the country for a certain period of time.

[1525]

[ Page 13137 ]

Unfortunately, I think the minister probably knows what I’m talking about. Upon return, one of my constituents was informed that they would no longer be getting a contract from CLBC because she was spending time outside the country in excess of the amount allowable for a CLBC client. It’s her brother that she’s caring for — who’s doing extremely well — as she makes a home part-time out of the country and part-time in the country.

Is the minister considering any changes to the regulations that would allow a person who is a CLBC client and not expected to be looking for work to support themselves, whose situation is different from maybe others receiving assistance…? Is it possible that the minister would consider looking at the regulations that make it impossible for any relative of a person, a CLBC client, to spend time outside of the country, as other British Columbians and Canadians would be allowed to do without threatening the loss of their contract to care for their loved one?

[1530]

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: My apologies for the delayed response. There was a lot of conversation around it.

The policy is certainly for CLBC services to be provided in British Columbia to CLBC clients. There is that 30-day window — or we’ll say “leeway” — for the ability to allow individuals to travel outside of British Columbia, to spend time out of the country, to have a vacation or to be with their family members while they still are receiving those services. After the 30 days, there would be a pause on the services.

However, upon return to British Columbia, I would like to ensure that the member knows that the policy would be that the services are reinstated upon return. There is no lag or delay in receiving those supports once they return to British Columbia.

In regards to if it’s something that we are looking at to change in the future, it is something we are always looking at — changing policies and reforming things to modernize it. Perhaps in the future, there will be that opportunity.

N. Simons: So a constituent has a brother, she goes down to Mexico, and she takes him with her. This is going to happen more and more as aging parents take their adult kids down when they go away. Every single one of them has to be back every 30 days in order to maintain their services. I find that to be very troubling, especially since the minister thinks that is not a problem.

This is a huge issue. If this sister wants to leave her brother in British Columbia for the five months or so that she’s out of the country, this is going to have a larger economic impact on the ministry’s budget. I think that the minister, perhaps, should maybe, I would suggest, take an accelerated look at that policy.

If someone’s on MSP, they can be out of the province for seven months, but if a person who’s been on PWD since 18 and is 51 now and wants to go to Mexico with his sister, he can’t do that for more than 30 days. That’s just a big problem. That’s a real unfortunate thing.

Maybe there’s a Charter challenge in there somewhere. But because of the time that we have, I’m going to have to move on to another case. I’m going to go into the home-share stuff later, because there’s a lot to do there.

My question is about the possibility of the minister considering a British Columbians with disabilities act. Is that something that’s on her agenda to be working on? Are there, at least, any initial discussions on that, and how far along are we?

[1535]

They have committed to the engagement of provinces, territories, municipalities and their stakeholders that they will consult with in the spring coming forward. Then by spring of 2017, they will have their own Canadian disabilities act to put forward, at which time, we on our side in the province will also be watching very closely with them to have something that has similar jurisdiction for the province of British Columbia.

N. Simons: Okay. Well, thank you. If I understood that correctly, Canada is developing

an act, and we’ll be subject to it. But we might be making our own, too, or we’ll just be part of the participation in creating that act, and then it’ll be one for the entire country?

[1540]

I’ll let the minister answer that after. I’ve got to get another question in. We’re running out of time.

The service plan for Community Living B.C. changed a little bit in the last couple of years. It went from measuring service excellence to service effectiveness. Can the minister explain why they took the word “excellence” out of their service plan and simply changed it to service “effectiveness”?

[1545]

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: Just to go back to the previous question that the member opposite asked about the disability legislation. I just want to clarify for him that the whole point is that the federal government has come forward with a consultation process. We don’t believe there’s any point to having duplication. We’re trying to avoid the duplication. No point in having consultations going on in unison.

[ Page 13138 ]

What we are going to do is be an active participant in the consultation from the federal side of things. We will learn from the consultation that they do across the country. We will then use that information to harmonize our own made-for-B.C. legislation that we move forward with.

In regards to his other question on the service plan going from service “excellence” to “effectiveness,” we believe that the change in wording just better describes what we are trying to accomplish within the ministry. It is more focused on the outcomes that we provide to our clients. I think that pretty much sums it up for the member’s question.

N. Simons: I think excellence also describes the outcomes pretty well, if in fact the outcomes were excellent. They’re not always, but I’m sure in many cases they are, and I don’t want to denigrate all the efforts that are made by the people involved.

My next question has to do with the use of antipsychotic medication with folks with developmental disabilities and a suggestion from a well-considered opinion of Andrew Mitchell that, as we did with seniors living in long-term care, we need to determine whether or not the use of antipsychotics or other pharmaceuticals is being administered appropriately in Community Living B.C. facilities.

I’m wondering…. Since Vancouver Island Health is not going to review the use of such medications in their area, it goes to CLBC to potentially conduct that study. The study is required for the collection of data on seniors. Well, we did it on seniors. What are the possibilities of ensuring that the use of medication in CLBC-funded resources is appropriate? What oversight is there, and what can the minister recommend?

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: The oversight of medical care is actually a health care decision. It’s provided or prescribed by a physician that would be covering the specific client that would be under the care of a physician. It’s not within our mandate to make health care decisions.

N. Simons: Nor was it in the mandate of the seniors representative to make health care decisions, but it was her responsibility for oversight. That’s what I’m asking about — the oversight of the treatment of Community Living B.C. clients in residential care that are funded by Community Living B.C. I think it is a CLBC responsibility to ensure that they’re getting the best care possible.

If there’s no oversight, how does the minister know they are actually being appropriately administered medications?

[1550]

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: Again, licensing of group homes is through the Ministry of Health, and the oversight is then provided through a physician. Those who don’t live in a group home are monitored by their physician.

N. Simons: I guess we’re not going anywhere there. Okay. Well, let’s go to the home-share issue, as we have very little time.

Home-share providers are expected to have a first-aid certificate, WCB coverage, criminal checks, a valid driver’s licence and a clear driver’s abstract. They need to maintain transportation abilities, make sure that there is insurance liability, that the property is maintained, ensure support for individuals and that they’re safe. They need to be in good financial standing, and a physician’s certification of good health needs to be on their file. They need to attend regular meetings. They need to provide a private room, ensure emergency plans are up to date, take

part in health and safety checks, develop goals with the individual, provide liaison with many of the decision-makers in the client’s life and ensure someone is available 24-7.

The workload of the home-share providers includes administrative duties, including submitting quality-of-life reports and critical incident reports, keeping records of finances for the supported individual, keeping records of all professional appointments, taxes for the individual, medical records, respite, etc. They are expected to attend all professional appointments, like doctors and dentists, and to access treatment for mental and emotional health. The list goes on.

The work of home-share providers is, in my view, undervalued and should be held up as an example of important work in our communities. Knowing that and knowing that home-share providers have not had an increase in their level of support in probably over half a decade, five years, what is the…?

Does the minister recognize that the compensation for home-share providers leads to home breakdowns, leads to people choosing not to take up that option, both from the client perspective and from the service provider perspective? Does the minister recognize the difficulties that home-share providers face, and does she recognize that they are not adequately compensated?

[1555-1600]

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: I agree with the member opposite on how valued the home-share providers are. They provide a very important service. They are dedicated to the clients that they serve, and we are very fortunate to have quite a number of them who provide the service.

That being said, in 2003, CLBC commissioned a quality assurance review of home-sharing to guide in further development of the service delivery model. The decision from the commission to review was a result of growth of the model and CLBC’s decision to move away from dir-

[ Page 13139 ]

ectly contracting home-sharing services to having it coordinated by qualified service providers in the community.

The report was released in 2013. It revealed that CLBC had a very coherent framework for managing home-sharing with standards and service delivery practices that far exceeded other jurisdictions. The review also included recommendations to further strengthen the home-sharing.

That being said, I would note that we’re very fortunate to have the number of people who are providing the home-sharing service. It’s a tough job; there’s lots involved. It takes a huge commitment. The support that they provide to the clients in the community is very, very valuable.

The rates that are provided to home-share providers are graded, depending on the individual needs of specific clients. We’re always looking at ways that we can adjust the rates. As we go forward, from the government side, it means we need to ensure that we are growing the economy and creating jobs so that we generate the revenues needed to provide the programs and services that we offer through my ministry — more specifically, as we speak now, to CLBC. It is something that we will continue to look at.

As far as the recommendations from the review…. The review, as I said, mentioned that the home-share provider should use more of the service provider’s support to ensure that they are getting the additional supports to help them deliver the service that they do in the community. By going to the service provider–supported model, they would be able to access services, training, administration functions and issue management functions as well, to help support them in the work that they do.

N. Simons: In other words, despite the fact that there’s high turnover or there are not enough home-share providers coming forward; the fact that you have to advertise on line to find somebody to care for a client; the fact that people go for months without receiving services due to the challenges of the home-share providers and the lack of real recognition — despite all that — the minister thinks that everything is fine in home share. Well, it’s not all fine in home share.

The CEO Network did some comprehensive survey of service providers, agencies and direct-funded folks. They came up with a number of recommendations that appear to me to be entirely valid and appropriate. I don’t think they would contradict the taxpayer accountability principles, which are really what’s at the base of most of the minister’s decisions when it comes to caring for people with disabilities.

[1605]

I think the recommendation is “that CLBC revisit their emphasis on shared living as the preferred residential model, with the goal of developing a more comprehensive array of options. These might be variations on shared living that would allow more individuals to safely and comfortably enjoy ‘good lives in welcoming communities’.” That’s their first recommendation.

Obviously, home share is appropriate for a lot of people, and it’s a good option, but it does have its own challenges. The recommendation, the rationale for this from the CEO Network, which is an authoritative body of individual professionals, is: “If supported by CLBC leadership, local facilitators and analysts could take the opportunity to work collaboratively with service providers to come up with creative alternatives that might better meet an individual’s needs.”

The second recommendation is that “CLBC review and increase funding levels for shared living to support this model as a viable and long-term residential option for individuals across the life span and varying needs.” The problem is, in home share, oftentimes issues around burnout and lack of recognition and lack of support and lack of training contribute to home breakdowns.

I know what it’s like, as a social worker — the difficulty in ensuring that everyone is feeling appropriately supported. But these are recommendations that repeatedly come up: that the home-share system needs to be funded appropriately to deal with all sorts of circumstances that face an individual.

When you have the Guide to Support Allocation identifying a certain amount of money for an individual to be the amount of money that that individual is allocated…. If that person’s life situation changes, there’s very little recourse to make up for what would become a funding discrepancy.

The Guide to Support Allocation also needs to ensure that it’s a reliable tool. When you see the discrepancy in service provision region to region, you can see that it’s largely dependent on the GSA, and clearly, that’s one place where the ministry can go without worrying about the taxpayer accountability principles. Obviously, we need to have proper services that are properly funded, and I think that when it comes to people with developmental disabilities, it’s not like: “Well, we’ll wait till this economic situation improves before we can provide them a quality of life that, as British Columbians, we should expect.”

The fourth recommendation regarding shared living and home-share options is “that CLBC work with service providers to ensure that adequate resources are in place to support shared living and home-share providers.”

Now, home-share providers, I think, are the unsung heroes. They put up with a lot, and unfortunately, the reputation that they are developing is a place where you are going to be beholden to the whims of CLBC. Even the agency isn’t going to be able to advocate on your behalf. If you have an agency and you’re a home-share provider, CLBC says: “Don’t talk to us; talk to the agency.” So when you have issues fundamental to the care of an individual in terms of what they need, it’s very difficult to advocate for your client without losing patience and losing hope.

[ Page 13140 ]

On Facebook, there are a number of comments. I said: “If you had an opportunity to ask the minister a question, what would it be?” Most of them were about: “How do you expect us to provide appropriate care when we haven’t had any increase in our compensation despite the cost of living going up significantly?”

Anybody in this chamber knows that the cost of hydro, the cost of MSP, the cost of ferries, the cost of ICBC…. All of those things go up, and home-share providers are left sort of, you know, having to deal with their increased costs without any recognition from CLBC that they are doing so.

We have people who talk about…. They were thinking about becoming home-share providers. They’re not going to become home-share providers. One of the biggest challenges is that when anything changes in the life of the client, there seems to be very little adaptability, little flexibility and sort of a rigidity in the system that doesn’t allow for the individual to have their needs met.

I phoned the minister’s office today, not to…. I’m not going to go into the details of the case, but it’s a situation where a young man has been living in a home-share space for many years since his previous home-share provider passed away.

[1610]

His new home-share provider has become ill and has to deal with her life-threatening condition and does not feel to be capable of caring for this man while she’s undergoing all sorts of appointments and treatments and such.

It’s taken almost two weeks for her to get a response — maybe just a week and a half — from Community Living B.C. to explain that the situation has changed, and it’s urgent, and it’s dramatic, and it’s necessary. That just came up yesterday.

I’ve made the minister’s office aware of it, and I’m quite sure she’ll ensure that appropriate steps are taken. But it’s a symbol, or it’s an example of what happens to home-share providers when there’s a sudden…. Family commitments can make life quite difficult.

I’m wondering if the minister recognizes, the amount of compensation aside, that the flexibility of CLBC to respond to emerging situations seems to be hampered by a lack of global funding, a lack of ability to deal with contingencies. Nowhere is that more important than when you are dealing with vulnerable adults.

Will the minister recognize the recommendations of the B.C. CEO Network and take their recommendation seriously? And if so, has the ministry begun to work on these recommendations as they relate to home-sharing?

[1615]

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: As the member knows or should know, I am aware of the report and the recommendations that came from the B.C. CEO Network. I actually just spoke with them last week at their quarterly meeting.

As well, CLBC works very closely with them, collaboratively. They’ve been meeting regularly with them to resolve some of the concerns that they have raised. That is something they will continue to do, because we absolutely value the home-share providers and the services they provide to the clients in the province.

N. Simons: What concerns did they raise that have been addressed?

[1620]

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: The report is a fairly new report. It came out in January. Since then, we are continuing to work and meet with the CEO Network to work together on finding some solutions to the concerns that they’ve raised.

Just a few of the things that I can mention that we are already started with. They had some concerns about the housing forms. They wanted other options for housing support, so we’ve worked with them on that.

We have also adjusted the funding model on a trial basis for a more innovative way to deliver services through a program called Kudos, which connects individuals with developmental disabilities to other community members who have similar interests. Perhaps it’s cooking or art or other things like that. The funding model — we’ve changed it to be able to provide that service to them outside of their regular day program, perhaps.

We are also working with the health services and community living nurses in the community on aging supports to look at exploring and developing supports for individuals as they are aging in their elderly years. I think one of the more interesting ones to highlight is working with six different service providers around the province looking at new options for day programs that have more of a focus on employment and skill-building while at the day program.

N. Simons: I’m going to move on to a few cases that might have been in the minister’s mind recently. The case of Margaret Lavery and her daughter, I think, illustrates not just her own specific situation but illustrates what seems to be at times a fairly closed shop at CLBC.

I’m not saying that’s any…. I know that CLBC has to operate within particular budgetary restrictions, and I know that that’s a decision made at the cabinet table. But sometimes….

[1625]

I understand how decisions get made quickly and with a bit of force because there isn’t a lot of time for massaging and making people feel comfortable in the discussion and helping people get to a particular place. But in the case of Margaret Lavery, when I saw that the only option she was provided for her child, her 19-year-old…. When that was turned down, CLBC’s response was to cut her support hours. I don’t know if that was a coincidence

[ Page 13141 ]

or if it was planned, but usually the needs of a young person don’t change because of a decision of their parent.

How can the minister justify the service reduction for Mrs. Lavery because she chose not to accept the group home placement which she considered dangerous to her daughter?

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: The member opposite raises a question, obviously, of a personal case which I can’t get too specific on. What I can assure the member opposite is that while I truly understand that transitioning youth can be a challenging time and a stressful time for families, as they’re trying to plan for the future of their child that requires extra supports and extra needs, in the case of any child who is transitioning, there would not be a removal or a reduction of services.

In fact, CLBC would actually…. Sometimes they put in additional supports, working very closely with the family to develop a service plan and services that will meet the needs of the individual for the long term. They can put in extensive supports sometimes.

It can be very difficult to find the right supports for an individual based on their various abilities or their unique needs. But the goal always is to work collaboratively with the family to explore every possible avenue that is out there to ensure that the client’s needs are being met, at the end of the day.

N. Simons: Let me quote from Margaret Lavery.

“CLBC has been a barrier to me finding appropriate supports for my daughter. They have made decisions without consulting me. They have sent me on wild goose chases and have placed my daughter’s welfare at risk, most recently by cutting her hours of support back from 24 hours a day to 16 hours a day. CLBC cut Katrina’s support hours with the full knowledge that she cannot be alone. CLBC did this knowing that there is no way to backfill the hours unless I quit my job to do it. They did this knowing how desperate this would make me as a mother.

They did this right after I declined the only option they’ve ever offered for Katrina, an option I felt would place her at risk. Do these actions feel punitive? Absolutely, they do.”

Is the minister telling me that the reduction in hours, if it wasn’t directly related…? Would not that have been an appropriate time to say: “Let’s hold off on this until we can think of another option?”

[1630]

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: In addition to my previous answer, the role of CLBC is to always work with the families to ensure that we are finding the best possible outcomes and solutions for individuals.

The particular situation that we are discussing…. There was temporary support, an increase of support, put in place to help the family through a crisis time in the transition of the young adult out of MCFD and into SDSI services. We continue to work with that family on options to see what is best suited for their personal needs.

If the member opposite would like to talk to me privately so I can speak more specifically in regards to the situation that is occurring and what the status is of that particular case file, I’d be happy to do that with him outside of this House.

N. Simons: I bring up the case not to give an example of what looks, from the outside, as poor practice but because it seems to adhere to a pattern that seems to be emerging about how contractors are being treated. I understand the difficulty in dealing with emotionally difficult decisions and with people who are, obviously, passionate and committed and fairly tenacious in advocating for their son or daughter or sibling. I think that comes with the territory.

[1635]

There’s a support service group here on the lower Island that had its contract summarily terminated after 21 years. There was one sentence in the note saying: “Your contract is terminated. Thanks for your services.” That’s 21 years of providing support to adults with developmental disabilities, different resources over the years, from young adulthood to palliative. They did it all.

I understand that the decision that was made was based on what I consider an inappropriate reason to change the circumstances of clients, because of a communications issue, essentially. Vectis Support Services, from my understanding, from what I’ve seen, was a well-thought-of service organization in this community. It was thought of highly by medical professionals and by people involved in the community living sector but apparently not adequately to allow a contract to be maintained.

What I see as the main reason, from my perspective, was that Vectis was insistent upon paying employees and providing the services to a level that CLBC simply was unable or unwilling to provide. It’s what we saw with Mrs. Lavery, the same attitude that we see with Vectis or the same attitude that we see with another case on the upper Island in the Courtenay region, where a parent is being told that she will no longer be able to have the contract to care for her child and it will be taken away and provided to a third party without even the consent of the parent.

Now, I think this highlights an issue that maybe the minister will consider. That is the importance for everyone involved to have an outside arbiter, an outside person to assist with the decision-making process, to serve as a neutral party for those people aggrieved and to provide some insulation to those making the financial decisions.

This is not the role of CLBC. This is not the role of the facilitator or the analyst. There needs to be someone to whom individuals advocating for their families can go, either to get assistance in an impartial way — sometimes to be told that their demands are too high, perhaps, but by an independent person.

I see, when you have breakdowns of longtime service providers or highly qualified home-share providers or

[ Page 13142 ]

dedicated families, it’s a sign that there’s something fundamentally going wrong. Is the minister considering the possibility of developing or pursuing an independent body that will be able to advocate or assist or oversee the delivery of CLBC services?

[1640]

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: To the member opposite’s question, there is no doubt that we absolutely value all the support and services that our service providers provide around the province. There are 1,300 service providers that we work with, there are 2,000 families that are receiving direct funding, and there are 325 microboards as well.

As you can imagine with such a wide array of services as we provide around the province, there are sometimes things that don’t work out. We want to ensure always that there is quality service provided to individuals. But with that large number, sometimes situations arise that are not working for families and are not meeting the wishes or the desires of families.

When that happens, we ensure that families are given multiple choices where there are choices available to them, depending on the communities that they live in, to ensure there are options that we can find to resolve any potential conflicts that are there.

That being said, the member opposite asked if there was potentially somebody, an external individual that I would consider to help with that process. There are already several people in place. At CLBC, they have a complaint resolution process that is in place to ensure that families have a place to go to, to formalize any kinds of complaints they have. We also have the Advocate for Service Quality. There is the RCY, as well, the Representative for Children and Youth, and of course there’s always the Ombudsperson that people can go to if they so wish.

[1645]

N. Simons: Does the minister have any statistics on the number of complaints received, the number of complaints registered and the number of complaints that go to the first to fourth, I think, step?

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: For the last fiscal year, there was a total of 165 complaints received. And 118 of them have been resolved, and 47 of them are currently under review.

N. Simons: I thank the minister for that response.

Moving along to some other questions regarding individualized funding, can the minister possibly identify how many adults requiring 24-hour, seven-day-a-week, one-to-one care are being served currently?

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: There are multiple…. They’re kind of scattered around. Some are in residential care. Some are in home-share situations. Some of them are in group home situations. We don’t actually have those numbers with us, but we can attempt to get those for you and provide them to you at a later date.

[1650]

N. Simons: I wasn’t really concerned about where they were, necessarily, being cared for. Is the number itself hard to identify, the one-to-one care — those requiring 24-hour one-to-one care? Is that number hard to get? Overall — I don’t need it broken down.

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: It is a difficult number to ascertain. We will provide that to you if that is your wish.

N. Simons: Okay.

I just wanted to bring up a case of a family. It’s not to make any sort of criticism, necessarily, but it’s pointing out a reality. The Akbar family’s individualized funding, IF, for care requires 4½ FTEs for 168 hours a week. There are five or six caregivers involved. They get paid less. There is no funding for supervision, and they don’t get paid for staff meetings.

It represents an approximately 20 percent difference in the contracted rate, and some people would say that’s discriminatory. Does the minister recognize that parents and microboards have to compete for staff, primarily with agencies that can pay more?

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: The member opposite asked if I was aware. I am aware of the differences, but I’m also aware that individualized funding actually provides the flexibility to the individual who is receiving the funding package to ensure they can provide services in a way that works for them.

They could spend more money, perhaps, in one area and less in another, to perhaps do the service themselves to save money in another area. That’s the flexibility that individualized funding provides to be able to move the money around to a situation that works best for the family and meets their needs.

N. Simons: I appreciate that. I do hope that reading the CEO Network’s report on individualized funding…. I think some of their recommendations are potentially cost-saving, as they take into account the ebb and flow of services needed to an individual. I think it’s essential that individualized funding be appropriately designed for those individuals.

[1655]

There’s a case I’m aware of on the lower Island here, where a mom and a group of families try to get together in order to…. I’ll just read from the letter. They are eligible for services from CLBC, including 12 hours a week of individualized community inclusion funding. “We are currently a low priority because we are stable, in that

[ Page 13143 ]

CLBC doesn’t believe we’re planning to do anything to harm ourselves or our son — which is true — nor are we homeless or living in total poverty. Instead, we are a middle-class working family on a long, committed journey with our son.”

Now, what they’ve been trying to do, and what they have been doing, is getting together and pooling their individualized funding. In fact, they were actually written up in CLBC’s — what do they call it? — anniversary update. The title of this publication is lost on me right now. However, it’s a CLBC on-line newsletter in which this family and their friends were featured as being successful on individualized funding. But there are currently 12 families with InclusionWorks who are challenging CLBC to provide individualized funding for their adult children.

Would the minister, just at this point, commit to look into this particular situation to see if in fact this is an example of innovation that the ministry and Community Living B.C. would actually embrace if they knew the details of it? Would it be possible, just because of the lack of time, to say that we’ll work on this particular case and ensure that the families that are eligible are accessing the services or the funding necessary for them to be able to pursue this innovative system of funding?

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: As the member noted in his comments from the individual, they’re on a long journey with their son. I, too, am on a long journey with my son, so I understand the desire for families to come up with different ways to provide services and inclusion and social and emotional well-being for their children. It’s very innovative that one group of individuals came together to pool their funding.

What I think is important to note is that individualized funding is based on the individual’s specific needs and that that varies a great deal, based on people’s level of ability. That being said, I would be happy to look into and explore it further and to assist, in any way I can, with the group he speaks of.

[1700]

N. Simons: It’s about innovation and flexibility. I understand how decisions are made, and sometimes it’s difficult to make a decision that doesn’t look like the previous decision. So I’m glad. I appreciate the minister’s commitment to that, and her personal knowledge of what it sometimes takes to be a parent, to ensure that their children are well looked after.

I was going to ask if the ministry would commit to reducing the amount of jargon in their service plans, but I think that would be kind of rude. There are places in here that sound a little wordier than they need to be.

I’m going to be closing off here fairly soon. There’s a quote in the service plan: “Targets for increasing participation in work recognize that progress will require a shift in attitudes and behaviours, including those of CLBC staff, service providers, government partners and families. These shifts occur slowly. Consequently, CLBC expects results to show steady but slow growth.”

Now, I understand…. I think what’s necessary in the sector is people who are actually specifically skilled in linking up individuals to work placements. Right now that job is being taken on by people who haven’t necessarily had that previous experience.

I’m wondering if the minister is committed to making the appropriate investments to ensure that the target of increasing the number of individuals on CLBC’s caseload who are earning money can increase faster than they’re projected.

[1705]

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: The member opposite asked specifically about job coaching and employment services for individuals who are serviced through CLBC. We are certainly looking, or CLBC is looking, at utilizing the services of service providers who have the expertise. We also, through our Work B.C. centres, have ongoing training supports to help ensure that those who are working with our clients have the ability to work in specialized training situations for individuals.

The focus today for people with developmental disabilities, as I mentioned earlier, is quite different than what we saw 20 or 30 years ago. CLBC does have an employment focus now for the clients that we serve. It’s what the clients that we serve today want. It’s what they wish. They want to be part of society. They want to go to work.

We are actually seeing great employment outcomes. In just the last year, we’ve seen a 66 percent increase for the employment outcomes of our clients.

N. Simons: The ministry issued a letter of expectation to CLBC calling for seamless transitions from MCFD to adulthood. Is the minister satisfied with the progress of these transitions? Would the representative share the minister’s view, regardless of what it is?

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: The member opposite asked about, basically, the STADD navigator in the transitioning of youth into adulthood.

[1710]

Acknowledging that transitioning is challenging for both individuals and families, I can assure the member opposite that we are committed, and CLBC is committed, to smooth transitions to adulthood. That’s why we put in place the STADD navigators at the age of 16.

When children reach the age of 16, their 16th birthday, we start that process. The services have been provided already for 16- to 24-year-olds in several communities — Prince George, Haida Gwaii, Surrey, Kamloops, Merritt, Nanaimo and Courtenay — and we have now expanded the services to the Fraser Valley. We are currently just do-

[ Page 13144 ]

ing the hiring for those navigators to ensure that we are able to help families and individuals manage the transition.

N. Simons: As we wrap up, I just want to thank everyone for helping. I’m sure that a colleague of mine may have some other questions relating to social development.

My last question, which is a question that I think needs to be answered, is: does the minister believe that CLBC is adequately funded to provide the quality of life that we expect in our society for people with developmental disabilities?

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: I thank the member opposite — this might be my only opportunity to thank him — for his questioning this afternoon and for allowing us to respond to his questions today.

In reference to his last question, the $45 million lift that CLBC saw in this budget is something that I consider to be good news. We continue to try and ensure that the services that are provided through CLBC to the clients across the province are doing what they’re intended to do.

But the only way we can ensure that we are providing services to those members, those clients around the province, is to grow the economy, to create jobs and ensure that we are bringing in revenues to the government by saying yes to economic development.

N. Simons: I can’t really let this beautiful afternoon end on such a note. However, recognizing that there is a certain message box from which these statements emerge, I would point out that there have been opportunities for government to collect revenue, resource-based revenue, in a way that would better reflect the needs of our community. I certainly hope that the boom-and-bust economy of British Columbia does not result in a boom-and-bust quality of life for individuals with developmental disabilities.

If we are to tie economic development’s success or failure with the success or failure of vulnerable children or adults with developmental disabilities, I think we do a disservice to our office. I hope that the minister will continue to advocate and be a strong voice at the cabinet table for the people who most need her voice to be strong. With that, I thank you very much.

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: Thank you to the member opposite. I can assure him that I am a strong advocate for people with disabilities, especially those with autism spectrum disorder, those with physical disabilities, those with cognitive challenges. I am a strong advocate for those individuals living that in multiple ways.

With that, hon. Chair, I ask that we recess for five minutes to change over staff as we move to the next….

The Chair: The committee will be in recess for ten minutes.

The committee recessed from 5:14 p.m. to 5:24 p.m.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

M. Mungall: I’m pleased to join the estimates debate for the Ministry of Social Development. For those who are watching at home, thank you for staying tuned through the commercial break that featured some lovely woodworking here in the Legislature.

[1725]

I’m going to just dive right in and start with my questions on a topic that is in the news again today. It was originally in the news a year ago, and it’s in the news today because the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal has agreed to hear a mom’s case about her maternity leave benefits and not being able to keep those benefits, them essentially being clawed back off her family’s disability cheque.

My first question is: does the minister understand that every woman who’s expecting or who has just recently had a child is entitled to maternity leave benefits, and if so, why do the minister and the government believe that it is okay to then take those benefits away should they have a disability?

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: I’d like to take just a moment before I answer the member opposite’s question to introduce my assistant deputy minister from the corporate services division and policy division, Molly Harrington. And over my left shoulder, I have my assistant deputy minister for service delivery, Debi Upton.

Please, all those viewers at home, enjoy watching the next several hours as I respond to the questions from the member opposite.

In regards to the question she raised, it is a question that I answered earlier today in question period. I just want to clarify for those watching and for the record that, in fact, what the ministry does is we top up payments to ensure that people are receiving the basic level of income from the ministry and from the province, those supports that are in place for income assistance — reminding her and the members watching at home that income assistance is a temporary form of assistance.

It is there to help support individuals while they are looking for employment and also put in place for people with disabilities who rely on supports for a longer period of time and who perhaps can’t function full-time and find meaningful work.

The issue that she raises. We’ve discussed at length that, in fact, it is the policies that we’ve put in place in the Ministry of Social Development and Social Innovation where we have put reforms in place to allow individuals to earn more and keep more without it affecting their income assistance cheques. In fact, we are the only province in all of Canada to go to the annualized earning exemp-

[ Page 13145 ]

tions to allow individuals on disability assistance to receive up to $9,600 or earn up to $9,600 before it affects their income assistance cheques.

M. Mungall: I don’t think anybody would dispute — if they do, I’d be very sad to hear it — the benefit of having annualized earnings exemptions. I think almost everybody recognizes the value of that. I think it’s good to see that whoever is in government would do that. I do hope to see other provinces take that on, just as I’ve hoped that other provinces take on some of the other positive policy directions undergone in B.C., such as ending the child support clawback, which is something we fought very diligently on, on this side of the House.

That being said, we do have this very real situation where as soon as a family finds out that they’re going to need that extra income even more because a new child is on the way, the government takes away their EI. While they’re allowed to have PWD and earnings exemptions, the only reason that they have access to EI is because they are allowed to have those earnings exemptions so that they can get a job if they are able to.

[1730]

When they go to access that EI because of having a child, somehow the government has decided that that is okay to take it away. This government is using the words “top-up.” I’ve heard that before many, many times.

I mean, it sounds better than what it really is, which is a clawback. What happens is that somebody on PWD tells the government that they’re getting their maternity leave benefits and the government then claws that back off of their cheque.

[R. Lee in the chair.]

It’s really not a top-up. We’re talking about a clawback here. Money that they’ve paid into, their employment insurance benefits that they’ve paid into — they’re just not allowed to keep, under this government, because they’re having a child.

On that note, the minister has provided some languaging, such as “top-up.” She said that income assistance is supposed to be a temporary measure. But I do believe I was hearing her recognize that for some people, PWD disability benefits will be permanent. It is not temporary.

That being the case, has the minister talked to families that are impacted by this maternity and parental leave clawback? And if she has, how are they characterizing this government policy?

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: I guess we can get into a debate on the language that we use. I mean, the fact of the matter is that the provincial government expects all other sources of income to be exhausted before coming to the province. The province will ensure that needs are met of individuals to make sure that they are taking

part in our comprehensive social safety net.

That being said, an individual who finds themselves bringing a new life into their communities, into their families, to society — it’s a happy time in their lives. In fact, when they are receiving government supports, having a child brings them more supports. In fact, they would receive $860 more a month for having their first child, which is the equivalent of $10,320 per year for having brought that child into the world.

In fact, when they have their second child, they then receive another benefit, an increase in their shelter rates. They see the national child tax benefit, the B.C. early childhood benefit, the universal child care benefit. All those tax benefits, then, are provided to those individuals who are bringing a young child into the world.

As much as we don’t see the employment insurance maternity benefits…. We see that as earned income. It is an insurance program that workers and employers pay into and that, again, people are required to access those benefits before relying on provincial assistance. This is a common principle across Canada. All other provinces do the exact same thing. Employment insurance is seen as earned income.

Again, like I mentioned, when the family brings a new child into the world, they do benefit from the multiple other comprehensive social safety nets that we have in place to ensure that they are supported, whether that be subsidized housing, subsidized child care benefits, dental and optical for that child.

They don’t pay MSP payments. They would also have PharmaCare for any prescription costs they would need for that child. There are multiple other ways