Third Session, 41st Parliament

(2018) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Monday, October 15, 2018

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 157

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Bill 42 — Assessment Amendment Act, 2018

Hon. S. Robinson

Bill 43 — Miscellaneous Statutes (Minor Corrections) Amendment Act, 2018

Hon. D. Eby

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Registered disability savings plans

M. Elmore

Small Business Week

C. Oakes

Referendum on electoral reform

R. Singh

Music Heals Foundation and music therapy

L. Reid

Burnaby Central Railway

J. Routledge

Rosedale Harvest Festival and agricultural parade

L. Throness

Oral Questions

Cannabis store openings

S. Bond

Hon. M. Farnworth

M. Stilwell

Impact of employer health tax on businesses

A. Olsen

Hon. C. James

Cannabis store openings

J. Johal

Hon. M. Farnworth

Cannabis regulation

P. Milobar

Hon. M. Farnworth

Illegal cannabis store operations

M. Morris

Hon. M. Farnworth

Motions Without Notice

Legislative sittings until 9 p.m. on Mondays

Hon. M. Farnworth

Tabling Documents

B.C. Ferry Commissioner, annual report, fiscal year ending March 31, 2018

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 39 — Poverty Reduction Strategy Act (continued)

Hon. J. Sims

Hon. J. Darcy

Hon. S. Robinson

N. Simons

D. Routley

A. Kang

J. Rice

Hon. S. Simpson

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 37 — Land Statutes Amendment Act, 2018 (continued)

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Bill 37 — Land Statutes Amendment Act, 2018

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 40 — Electoral Reform Referendum 2018 Amendment Act, 2018

Hon. D. Eby

M. Lee

S. Furstenau

B. D’Eith

Tabling Documents

B.C. Arts Council, annual report, 2017-18

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 40 — Electoral Reform Referendum 2018 Amendment Act, 2018 (continued)

T. Stone

A. Olsen

R. Coleman

A. Weaver

R. Glumac

D. Barnett

MONDAY, OCTOBER 15, 2018

The House met at 1:35 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Mr. Speaker: We will begin with the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum

Resources, who is going to introduce us to one of the cutest little people

on the planet.

Hon. M. Mungall: Thank you very much. I don’t disagree with that, hon.

Speaker.

I want to introduce the House to the newest addition to my family.

This is Zavier Andrew Roman Matieschyn. He came into the world on July 21 at

10:04 in the morning, after a mere 12 hours of labour. He came in at 8

pounds 9 ounces, and he’s been growing like a weed ever since. He is, of

course, the light of my life and the light of his father’s life, Zak

Matieschyn, who is just up in the gallery this afternoon.

Zavier, his dad and I would like to thank, of course, our midwife,

Catherine Ruskin; Dr. Moola; the maternity nurses; and everyone at Kootenay

Lake Hospital. Him coming into the world was just a wonderful experience. It

was a difficult experience, but it was wonderful.

Of course, I want to say a special thank-you. A lot of people look

over and don’t know about it, but our maternity services at Kootenay Lake

Hospital didn’t come without a little bit of a fight. The parents who led

that fight — I want to thank them, because I got to benefit from all of

their hard work.

Of course, I want to thank everybody in this House for making this

moment possible and for making our democratic institutions more

family-friendly so that anybody can run, and they don’t have to choose

between parenthood and being an effective MLA. I think that makes our

democracy stronger. I’m so glad that the support for that came unanimously

from this House.

Thank you very much, everybody. Thank you for welcoming Zavier with

such open arms.

L. Larson: I’d like to introduce today our good friend, Jason Goertzen. He’s

brought with him his parents, Ed and Karen, who live in my riding. Would the

House please make them welcome.

Hon. B. Ralston: Here to celebrate CMEBC manufacturing Day at the Legislature are

Andrew Wynn-Williams, divisional president for B.C. of Canadian

Manufacturers and Exporters; Dennis Darby, who is the president and CEO of

the national organization; and a series of business owners and operators:

Andrew Booth, chief commercial operator at Stemcell Technologies in

Vancouver; Tod Gilbert, president of Vehicle-Mounted Air Compressors,

Nanaimo; and Rob McCurdy, CEO of Pinnacle Renewable Energy from Prince

George.

Non-resource manufacturing is vital and growing. Manufacturing

contributes to our economy. In addition, in these times, export development

is crucial to the future success of any business in the province. This

organization is dedicated to pursuing those objectives.

I would ask that the House make all of those people

welcome.

G. Kyllo: I, also, would like to extend a warm welcome to the Canadian

Manufacturers and Exporters Association who are joining us today. As

mentioned, we’re joined by Andrew Booth, CCO of Stemcell Technologies; Willy

Manson, from Stinger Welding of Prince George; Mark Gladstone, commercial

risk adviser with CapriCMW. We have Tod Gilbert, president of VMAC, Air

Innovated; Gerry Friesen, FreFlyt Industries; Lyle McGladderly with IPC;

Jordan Perrault with the Construction Foundation of B.C.; Robert McFarlane

with Capri; and Dave Weller of KOSTKLIP.

Now, the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters Association is the

country’s leading trade and industry association, serving as the voice of

10,000 leading companies. Manufacturing matters here in B.C., where

manufacturing is the fourth-largest contributor to the provincial GDP and

the third-largest employer. Manufacturing contributes 30 percent of the

business tax revenue paid to government, 42 percent of the private sector

research and development and almost 65 percent of British Columbia’s

exports.

Would the House please make those members from CME very

welcome.

[1:40 p.m.]

T. Wat: It is my pleasure today to welcome a delegation from Hong Kong, the

city where I was born, where I was educated and where I started my family

and my career.

Joining us today are the board of directors and student ambassadors

for the Tung Wah Group of Hospitals. Let’s welcome the chairman, Mr. Vinci

Wong; Mr. Gabriel Au; Mr. Kazaf Tam; Mr. Herman Wai, who was a high school

student of my daughter, Tin Lee; and more than 60 students, teachers and

staff of 18 secondary schools of the Tung Wah Group of Hospitals.

The Tung Wah Group of Hospitals is the first charitable organization

founded in Hong Kong. It was actually established much longer than B.C.

joining Confederation. It was established in 1870 and is a familiar name in

the global Chinese community. They started the ambassador student program in

2015. They travelled to Los Angeles, London and San Francisco, and this year

they picked Vancouver as the place for them to widen their horizons, to

improve their skills in many respects and to study our Legislature and our

political system. Today they had a tour of the Legislature. They had a lot

of Q and A to me, asking how tough it is to be an MLA in this Legislature,

especially as a woman.

Also joining them is a crew from Fairchild television, the biggest

national Chinese TV station, which is located in my beautiful riding of

Richmond North Centre.

Please, every one of you, give a big round of applause to the

delegation from Hong Kong.

A. Kang: I would like to welcome some of my friends who are here in the gallery

today from the greater Victoria Taiwanese Canadian association, and one of

my very special friends, May Lee. She also brings with her all her friends:

Angi Lee, Shelly Hung, Scott Lambert, Alex Kuo, Daniel Hsu, Bihru Chang,

Julie Lee, Linda Ho-Lin and Li fen Lin. They have made my stay in Victoria

very special. It’s almost like a home away from home experience. I know that

I can come to Victoria, and in the evening, I could actually go home to

auntie and someone who would make me a nice rice dinner. Please have the

House welcome all my friends here today.

R. Kahlon: It’s my honour to welcome some guests here in the House today. Rene

Sandhu is a constituent of mine who is here with the B.C. real estate board

and here to speak to all the members of this House. He has brought with him

today his family: Tarsem Kaur Singh, Sajjan Singh Sandhu and Savalli Kaur

Sandhu. These two young ones will be here, watching question period today

and watching our democracy in action. Please make them welcome.

D. Barnett: I would like to introduce a friend, a past colleague and a great

community gentleman from Williams Lake. He’s involved with the Williams Lake

Stampede, with our indoor rodeo, and he is also president of the B.C.

Northern Real Estate Board. Would the House help me welcome Courtney Smith

here today.

M. Elmore: I’m very pleased to welcome members of the Rising Up Against Unjust

Recruitment coalition who are here in the Legislature to talk about the need

to protect temporary foreign workers from abuse and exploitation by

recruiters and employers in British Columbia. We have Natalie Drolet, the

executive director of the Migrant Workers Centre; David Fairey, co-chair of

the B.C. Employment Standards Coalition; Erie Maestro, from Migrante B.C.;

Irene Lanzinger, the president of the B.C. Federation of Labour; and a

number of other folks advocating on behalf of the rights for all workers.

I’ll ask everybody to please make them very welcome.

L. Reid: I, too, would like to welcome the newest babe to the floor of this

chamber. I’m happy to share with you that my little girl spent her first

three years here and is in first year university this year, so absolutely

none the worse for having been raised with you lovely souls.

Welcome.

T. Redies: We have several members of the Fraser Valley Real Estate Board with us

today, constituents of mine who I’d like to recognize: Val Berg, AlNoor Teja

and the new, incoming president of the Fraser Valley real estate

association, Darin Germyn. I’d like the House to make them

welcome.

[1:45 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: Visiting the Legislature today and in the gallery is the mayor of

Telkwa, Darcy Repen. Telkwa is a beautiful and small community in my

constituency where the Bulkley and Telkwa rivers meet. Darcy is not seeking

re-election, so I want to thank him for his public service over the last

four years. Although we’ve not always seen eye to eye, in a true rural

cooperative manner, we’ve worked together for the benefit of the citizens of

Telkwa. I would like the members to please make him welcome.

D. Ashton: It gives me great pleasure to introduce a gentleman, a very well-known

real estate agent in Penticton, James Palanio.

James, thanks for coming down today.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL 42 — ASSESSMENT

AMENDMENT ACT,

Hon. S. Robinson presented a message from Her Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Assessment Amendment Act,

Hon. S. Robinson: I move that Bill 42, the Assessment Amendment Act, 2018, be

introduced and read a first time now.

I am pleased to introduce the Assessment Amendment Act, 2018. The

proposed legislation aims to protect community-sustaining jobs that

major industry properties, class 4, provide to British Columbians. These

properties can include saw mills, mines, smelters, large product

manufacturers and other similar operations.

Under the Assessment Act, B.C. Assessment is required to value

properties based on their actual market value when considering highest,

best or future use — the most probable use of a property that would

return the highest value. However, the act also requires B.C. Assessment

to classify properties based on current or actual use. Property tax

rates for class 4 are significantly higher than residential or

commercial rates in most municipalities.

When local governments adopt or make changes to the official

community plans that identify these types of class 4 properties for

future redevelopment, typically as residential towers with a commercial

component, the properties will be valued at their future highest and

best use. As a result, major industrial properties that are valued based

on future development potential but taxed as industrial facilities can

be subject to significant increases in property taxes despite there

being no change in their actual use. This increase can be cost

prohibitive for continued operations.

We are aware of at least one facility, which employs dozens of

personnel, that is facing a several-fold increase in property taxes as a

result of the discrepancy between valuation and classification, an

increase that would put these very important jobs at risk.

As many are aware, closure of any major industry facility can have

drastic and far-reaching impacts, threatening the economic well-being of

individuals, families and entire communities. We are taking action to

prevent eligible major industry properties from making the decision to

cease operations and lay off staff due to high carrying

costs.

The proposed legislation would authorize B.C. Assessment to

continue assessing qualifying properties based on their current

industrial use rather than their future highest and best use for a

period of two years with the option for extension. Valuation based on

classification would result in significant property tax savings prior to

redevelopment and support the continued operation of the facility. In

return, we’re asking for a commitment to maintain their current use in

an equivalent or greater level of productivity for that two-year period,

ensuring that these jobs are protected.

Mr. Speaker: The question is first reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

Hon. S. Robinson: I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 42, Assessment Amendment Act, 2018, 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.

BILL 43 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

(MINOR CORRECTIONS)

AMENDMENT ACT, 2018

Hon. D. Eby presented a message from Her Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Miscellaneous Statutes (Minor

Corrections) Amendment Act, 2018.

Hon. D. Eby: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time

now.

I’m pleased to introduce Bill 43, the Miscellaneous Statutes

(Minor Corrections) Amendment Act, 2018. This bill is a collection of

minor corrections and technical housekeeping amendments to various

statutes. As part of the statute revision process, the office of

legislative counsel routinely identifies and brings forward these types

of corrections. The minor corrections in this bill are part of the

routine process to ensure that B.C. statutes are orderly and

correct.

[1:50 p.m.]

Mr. Speaker: The question is first reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

Hon. D. Eby: I move the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 43, Miscellaneous Statutes (Minor Corrections) Amendment Act,

2018, 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)

REGISTERED DISABILITY SAVINGS PLANS

M. Elmore: October is Registered Disability Savings Plan, or RDSP, Awareness

Month, and 2018 marks ten years since the federal government launched

the RDSP. I’m happy to say that British Columbia has the highest

per-capita enrolment in the country, with more than 31,000 British

Columbians with disabilities taking this important step in planning for

their future.

We want to make sure that every eligible person with a disability

knows that this valuable savings plan and the resources and support to

sign up for it are available. Right now we’re at about 40 percent uptake

in B.C., and there are still tens of thousands of British Columbians who

are eligible but don’t yet have an RDSP.

Saving for the future can be a daunting and stressful undertaking,

but its importance cannot be overstated. Too often we hear about people

with disabilities facing poverty. In fact, people with disabilities are

twice as likely to live in poverty as other British Columbians. That’s

why RDSPs are such an important poverty reduction tool. They can help

provide a safe, secure and independent future for people with

disabilities.

I want to recognize the work of the RDSP action group in making

sure RDSP information and supports are getting to those who need it. The

action group has updated their guide, which is available on line at

rdsp.com, to help individuals, families and caregivers.

Reducing poverty is a serious challenge for our province. The RDSP

program is an opportunity for people with disabilities to save for their

future, regardless of income level, and have the peace of mind of

knowing that they will have savings available as they age.

There is still a lot of work to do to ensure that every eligible

British Columbian has the information that they need to start an RDSP. I

encourage everybody to visit rdsp.com to sign up or to help someone

start a registered disability savings plan today.

SMALL BUSINESS WEEK

C. Oakes: The week of October 15 to 20 marks Small Business Week here in

British Columbia. To help show our appreciation for the one million

British Columbians who work in the small business sector, let us all

demonstrate our support by visiting our favourite small business and

and challenges facing small businesses. So join the #smallbusinessweek.

This culminates on Saturday with an exciting initiative by the Canadian

Federation of Independent Business called #smallbizsaturday. It can be

your favourite corner store, the place where you work or any one of the

thousands of businesses that bind our communities together. By showing

your support for local businesses, you are not only promoting local

entrepreneurs; you are also supporting our own province.

In my own riding of Cariboo North, small businesses come in all

shapes and sizes, including ranchers, logging contractors, truckers,

real estate and manufacturers. As policy-makers, we have a

responsibility to ensure a competitive business climate to help the

small business sector prosper.

I was really encouraged to listen and to hear what businesses have

been saying to the government with the Small Business Task Force. They

identified the cumulative tax burden as the number one impediment to

growth. Respondents from all across British Columbia recognize

increasing taxes, such as the carbon tax and, in particular, the

employer health tax, as challenges that small businesses are concerned

about.

Participants say that the emerging tax on payroll will drive up

their costs of doing business and may result in reductions and general

price increases for goods and services. These are the types of issues

that small business owners from all over British Columbia want us to

consider.

I invite all members of this House and the general public to think

about this during Small Business Week and to show your appreciation for

the backbone of our provincial economy.

REFERENDUM ON ELECTORAL REFORM

R. Singh: One week from today, starting on October 22, over three million

referendum ballots will be mailed out to registered voters across

British Columbia.

[1:55 p.m.]

So will begin one of the most important referendums of our time,

and on November 30, we’ll find out whether British Columbians will

decide to keep our current first-past-the-post voting system or move to

a system of proportional representation.

The debate is passionate on both sides. But whether you believe

our system should remain as it is or you believe it is time for a

change, there is one thing we can all agree on: that everyone should

make sure their voice is heard, and vote.

If British Columbians vote for proportional representation, we

will make history. B.C. will be the first in North America to do so, the

first to adopt a system where a party that gets 25 percent of the vote

gets 25 percent of the seats. It’s an important….

Mr. Speaker: Member. Member, if you might be seated, please.

MUSIC HEALS FOUNDATION

AND MUSIC

THERAPY

L. Reid: It is my pleasure today to rise and speak to you about Music

Heals, a Canadian charitable foundation that raises funds and awareness

for music therapy in Canada. I was delighted to hear Ms. Danielle Rana

speak about the organization at a meeting of the Richmond Chinatown

Lions Club. She explained the benefits of music therapy with such

enthusiasm as she told us about the position and function of the

organization she represents.

One of the resounding themes to music therapy is testimony and

narrative. We were astounded to hear how many different people in our

province have had their lives changed by crossing paths with a music

therapist.

Danielle told us about people who hadn’t spoken in years singing

“Let It Be,” by the chorus. She told us about music therapy in

palliative care, to guide a person through the end of life with the

kindness and safe familiarity of their favourite songs. She told us

about music used to heal emotionally, physically, spiritually or

mentally, and how music therapy’s benefits are so vast that its full

potential is not wholly known yet. Music therapy is so versatile, as its

practice comes from the application of music from an accredited music

therapist in whichever direction best serves the patient.

Danielle also spoke of the need for increased support and

volunteers so that Music Heals may continue to deliver their programming

to those who need it most. I would strongly encourage all those present

here today to look into music therapy programs in their communities and

support this organization however they can.

BURNABY CENTRAL RAILWAY

J. Routledge: This summer I took a ride on the Burnaby Central Railway. “What’s

that?” you might ask. If you google it, you’ll read that it is a hidden

gem, so hidden that most lifelong Vancouverites don’t even know about

it. I didn’t really know about it, and I live right down the street.

Then, this summer, I was invited to their 25th anniversary. Since then,

I’ve been back twice.

The Burnaby Central Railway is a unique ride-on miniature,

lovingly built and operated by the volunteers of the B.C. Society of

Model Engineers, located in a charmingly groomed forest just north of

Confederation Park. There are two miles of track that wind their way

over bridges, through tunnels and around hills. The engines are steam

powered.

What is it about train travel that so captures the imagination?

Well, we’ve certainly been taught that it was the railway that built

this country, that the railway led to industrialization, opened up new

markets, tied regions together, created a demand for resources,

technology and labour and the communities that grew up around them. Or

maybe it’s that train travel evokes a simpler time, when we could sit

back, watch the ever-changing landscape and find peace in the rhythm of

the rails.

Some would say that old-fashioned train travel is gone forever. I

hope not. But it does mean something that so many children —

Internet-savvy children, smartphone-using children — flock to the

Burnaby Central Railway every weekend to ride the rails. We owe a debt

of thanks to the B.C. Society of Model Engineers for keeping train

travel alive in our hearts.

ROSEDALE HARVEST FESTIVAL

AND AGRICULTURAL

PARADE

L. Throness: In the fall of 2015, Chilliwack city councillor Chris Kloot and

his wife, Nella, thought it would be a great idea to hold an

agricultural parade in Rosedale, just east of Chilliwack, to honour the

farm country where they grew up. The community was on board, and within

a few weeks, they had enlisted the fire department in Rosedale to put on

a pancake breakfast and lots of local producers to enter their tractors

and other equipment in the parade. It was all an immediate

hit.

Fast forward a few years, and the parade is way longer now. The

crowds are bigger. They’ve added blueberries to the pancakes, and there

are lots of booths with things to sell and places to eat and activities

for kids. Of course, politicians are attracted to parades like moths to

a lightbulb, so I was privileged to ride in the parade for the third

year, throwing copious amounts of candy to justify my

presence.

[2:00 p.m.]

Rosedale is a tight-knit community of poultry and dairy producers,

greenhouse and nursery operators rooted in the rich soil of the Fraser

Valley. Everywhere you look would make a great postcard, from lush,

green fields and straight rows of nursery plants to verdant trees and

stunning views of Mount Cheam. Rosedale farms are typically large,

clean, prosperous and expertly run, using the latest technology by

farmers who are aggressive entrepreneurs, many with multiple business

lines.

At the heart of Rosedale lies community and families, most of whom

share Dutch or German heritage. Many who ride in the parade know those

who are watching it, and it’s all one more opportunity to get together,

to catch up with each other, sharing their love for their way of life

and the beautiful place they call home.

I’d like to pay tribute to Chris and Nella Kloot, Jocelyn Kloot,

Jack Klaassen, Kristy Klaassen, Lisa Neels and Laura Terhaar, who work

hard to foster an enhanced sense of community in Rosedale, organizing

what has already become a fixture of country life in the Fraser Valley,

the Rosedale Harvest Festival.

Oral Questions

CANNABIS STORE OPENINGS

S. Bond: Cannabis legislation takes effect in two days, which is a delay

from the original July time frame. It has been noted that B.C. lags

behind many other jurisdictions, with plans to open only a single store

on Wednesday.

Can the Minister of Public Safety provide the House and British

Columbians with a timeline for opening additional stores?

Hon. M. Farnworth: As the member will well know, the legalization of cannabis in this

country and the province of British Columbia is probably one of the

biggest public policy shifts in the last 50 years. British Columbia has

taken very much a collaborative approach in terms of the legalization,

and when it comes to the opening of retail outlets, we were very clear

right from the beginning that local government would have a crucial say

on whether they wanted public stores, private stores or a combination of

both, or to have no stores at all.

That process has been well received by local government. Local

government is responsible for the location and deciding on the number of

stores in their communities. They have also taken their time to put

their policies in place and consult with their local communities. Many

of them have indicated to me that after the local government elections,

we can start to see an increase in the number of stores being opened up

right across the province of British Columbia. Over the next few months,

you will see a ramping up of both public and private stores.

Mr. Speaker: Prince George–Valemount on a supplemental.

S. Bond: Well, we would certainly agree that it is a massive shift in

public policy. But that’s true for Alberta as well as British Columbia.

And the similar situation in Alberta is that they also require local

approval. Here’s the difference. The Alberta government has said that

their approval process takes two to four months and that 100 stores are

expected to be open by the end of the month.

We concur with the concept of local involvement, but when we look

at the rules, they were the same for Alberta as they are for British

Columbia.

Can the minister follow the example of Alberta and lay his plan

and timeline for opening additional stores?

Hon. M. Farnworth: We’ve laid out our plan. We’ve laid out the legislation. We have

debated that legislation in this House. And I will tell you one thing

that we are not going to do. We are not going to rush the legalization

of retail outlets without making sure we’ve done the proper background

checks to make sure that organized crime is not part of any application

for any legalized store in the province of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker: Prince George–Valemount on a second supplemental.

S. Bond: As I said to the minister, we would agree that there is a balance

between local decision-making, and we have been very clear about our

position on that. We also know that there needs to be a balance in that

decision-making. But let’s be clear. The first step to eliminating a

black market is to have sufficient numbers of legal stores open to the

public.

[2:05 p.m.]

Here’s the timeline, to the minister, from Alberta. Seventeen

stores will open on Wednesday, 100 by the end of October and 250 stores

within the first year.

Again to the minister, a simple question: what is the timeline for

opening additional stores in British Columbia?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I must admit that I’m a bit fascinated by the response from the

member opposite. I’d like to remind her that at UBCM, the Leader of the

Opposition stood up and gave a speech and referenced cannabis. At that

time, he made out a number of statements. I was kind of wondering,

“Where has he been for the last year and a half?” because he stood up in

front of UBCM delegates and said: “Government should not be forcing

Richmond to open a store if they don’t want one.”

Interjections.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Oh, I see a nerve has been touched.

You know what, hon. Speaker? We made that really clear — that

we’re not going to force stores down the throats of communities that

don’t want one.

The other issue that I would like to put on the table, if they’d

like to hear the answer…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, we shall hear the response. Thank you.

Hon. M. Farnworth: …is that we are in the midst of local government elections, and

local government has made it really clear. They want to deal with those

applications after those elections have taken place. That’s exactly what

is going to happen.

While we will have the store open in Kamloops and the public,

on-line retail outlet, which will serve the entire province, other

stores are going to open up during the months ahead. As I said, we are

going to make sure that it is done properly, and we are going to make

sure that we address the issues that the public is concerned about —

that we do the proper background checks around organized

crime.

The member may think that rushing stores and getting things in

place is the way to go. We intend to ensure that it’s done properly,

that it meets the needs of British Columbians and meets the needs of

communities. We’ve been clear on that right from the very beginning, and

we’re clear on that going into the future.

M. Stilwell: According to the Minister of Public Safety, there have been 173

retail cannabis licence applications submitted to the

province.

Can the minister please provide an update on the average length of

time to process an application and how many stores will open this

month?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Well, I thank the member for her question. I would like to remind

her of a couple of things. First off, the federal government only

finally passed the legislation legalizing cannabis, with all the rules

and regulations on both Bills C-45 and C-46, at the end of June. We put

in place the application process to start opening in August. The portal

went up.

We have now received 173 applications. Sixty-five of those

applications have been assessed for their completeness and have been

found to be complete in every detail. They have been forwarded to the

local government that has the approving authority. Thirty-five of those

applications are, in fact, in jurisdictions that have said they are

ready to deal with cannabis applications now.

The other issue being done at the same time is the background

check on those applications to make sure that there are no links to

organized crime, that we know exactly where the money is coming from. If

there are any issues that require a much deeper dive, that will also

take place.

Again, I will say to the member that the approval process for

stores comes in place when local government says they’re ready to deal

with it. They’re in the midst of local government elections. I expect

stores are going to open up — in fact, I know stores are going to open

up — in the months after that.

Guess what. We’re making sure we do it right. It’s not rushed,

because we’ve seen what happened when that side of the House was on this

side and rushed through applications. Guess what. It ended up being a

mess.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Parksville-Qualicum on a supplemental.

M. Stilwell: Getting those stores open to displace illicit sellers is a

critical step in eliminating that criminal element that the minister is

so concerned about.

[2:10 p.m.]

According to the minister, 35 applications, as he mentioned, have

been sent to willing local governments, who are ready and willing to

have the stores in their communities.

When did the province refer these applications to the local

governments, and how many are expected to open in the next

month?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I must admit I am quite fascinated by the sudden desire to

suddenly have all these stores open on day one from that side of the

House.

I have to ask you, hon. Speaker, when they sat over here, did any

of their ministers go down to Washington and Oregon and talk with

officials down there? No. Not one did. Not one went down….

Interjections.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Oh, the token minister.

The point being…. The applications are received by the province.

The applications are assessed for their completeness by the province.

Approximately two-thirds of applications have been found not to be

complete, so they are sent back for the additional

information.

The remaining one-third of those applications, once they’re deemed

to be complete, are then sent to the local government responsible, as

well as the work being done within my ministry in terms of the

background check. That is currently underway and has been since the

portal opened, and 173 applications shows there’s considerable

interest.

As I’ve said before, we’re making sure it’s done properly, done

with local government consent, that the public has had input, that the

zoning rules and everything meet the needs of local government — that

they’re the ones who decide whether or not they want a public store or

private store or no store at all — and that the due diligence is done

around links to organized crime or money laundering or fraudulent

claims. Only then, once all of those conditions have been satisfied,

will a licence be issued.

That’s the right approach to take, and we’re sticking to

it.

IMPACT OF EMPLOYER HEALTH TAX

BUSINESSES

A. Olsen: Since becoming an MLA, I’ve heard from businesses in my riding

that they’re having substantial challenges handling increasing costs —

affordability.

The Saanich Peninsula is one the largest industrial land bases in

the region. It is home to most of the established manufacturers in the

CRD. As a result, we benefit from having many medium-sized businesses in

manufacturing, retail, food and tourism. Businesses like Butchart

Gardens, Viking Air, Epicure, Schneider Electric and Morinwood — all

have reached out to me expressing legitimate concerns.

With skyrocketing housing costs, transportation problems getting

to the peninsula, businesses are facing challenges in keeping their

operations sustainable, and they don’t feel that government is helping.

There is inadequate workforce housing or public transportation in the

region. Government’s decision to implement a new payroll tax

substantially adds to their operational costs.

My question is to the Minister of Finance. What is the government

doing to help businesses like these remain viable and keep jobs here, in

light of the accumulated challenges they’re facing?

Hon. C. James: Thank you to the member for the question.

As we know on this side of the House, it is important to remain

competitive. B.C.’s economy is strong, and we are going to keep it that

way while investing in the people of this province to help build a

strong economy.

I’m very proud that, in fact, many of the items that have been

raised by the member are areas that we have set as a priority for the

budget. Business after business after business talks about the challenge

they have when it comes to affordable housing. We have a crisis because

it was ignored by the other side. We are addressing the housing crisis

not simply for tenants and families who need to work and live in their

communities. We are also addressing it for businesses, for exactly the

competitive issue that the member raised.

[2:15 p.m.]

So investments in housing, investments in child care, investments

in remaining competitive. I’m happy to listen to the member talk about

businesses and raise those issues with me. I’ve had many conversations

with businesses. We’re going to continue our good work to remain

competitive and keep our economy strong.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Saanich North and the Islands on a

supplemental.

A. Olsen: Thank you to the members on the other side for paying attention to

the questions. Thank you to the minister for the response.

Many businesses in my riding are feeling real impacts on their

bottom line from this new tax. Business leaders are worried about

whether they can continue to do business on the Saanich

Peninsula.

Some are unlikely to leave. Take Butchart Gardens, for example.

It’s not particularly mobile, but we shouldn’t tempt them. For others,

we compete for their business. Viking Air has manufacturing centres here

and in Alberta. If they left for Calgary, it would be devastating.

Schneider Electric employs 280 people in Central Saanich. They have a

payroll of $20 million. In 2017, they paid $42,000 for their employees’

medical services premiums, and in 2020, they will pay $390,000 for the

employer health tax. Schneider’s local management will have to defend to

head office…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, we shall hear the question. Thank you.

A. Olsen: …why they should stay on the Saanich Peninsula or even in British

Columbia.

My question to the Minister of Finance is this. What are you doing

to ensure that B.C. businesses remain competitive in the years ahead and

that the employer health taxes you have proposed won’t be the final

straw, having the effect of driving business off the Saanich

Peninsula?

Hon. C. James: In fact, right now we have the lowest unemployment rate in the

country right here in British Columbia. We are finally, after years of

stagnation, seeing wage increases in British Columbia, helping families

in our province.

In order to help the very businesses that that member talks about,

we are investing in post-secondary education to make sure that members

are trained for the businesses, to work in this province. As of 2020,

British Columbia, the last province with medical service premiums, will

eliminate them so individuals can save $900 a year, and families will

save $1,800. We’re investing in health care and keeping our businesses

competitive.

CANNABIS STORE OPENINGS

J. Johal: On October 3, 2017, the Premier said: “We are well advanced in

terms of the retail elements of cannabis legalization” — well advanced.

Yet by all accounts, one year later, B.C. lags behind many

provinces.

Can the Minister of Public Safety explain why, if this file was so

well advanced more than a year ago, there’s only one store legally ready

to open on day one?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Again, I must admit, I am fascinated by the direction that we’re

getting here from the opposition. They’re concerned that we haven’t

rolled out stores right across the province, and they seem to be all

smoked up about that in question period here.

I want to make it clear to the member that one of the things that

we made sure we did, in terms that we are well advanced, was working

with local government. That’s why we held a consultation process in this

province that took place in September, which 48,000 individuals right

across this province responded to. That’s why we put together a working

group at UBCM to deal with the issues of retail legalization in local

communities right across the province.

In communities like yours, hon. Member, in Richmond, which, when

it started out…. Everyone assumed that everybody would either have a

government store, a private store or a mix of both. Richmond came to us

and said: “No. We’d like you, Minister, and government to consider that

communities such as ours may not want to have a retail store.” We sat

down with Richmond, we worked through the issues, and we

agreed.

[2:20 p.m.]

When the legislation came forward to this House, we made it clear

that communities that didn’t want to have a retail outlet — like

Richmond, the community that you represent — wouldn’t have to have one.

So I’m a bit puzzled as to why you seem to be up today asking questions

as to why we haven’t rolled out more stores fast enough.

Mr. Speaker: Richmond-Queensborough on a supplemental.

J. Johal: I don’t disagree with the minister in regards to consultation with

local communities. But you had a year to prepare for this week. That’s

the point. Here is a headline from October of 2017: “B.C. Premier Touts

Marijuana Preparedness.” In October 2018, one year later, the headline

reads: “B.C.’s Pot Shop Licensing System Lagging….”

Licensing stores is critical to addressing the black market. Can

the minister explain his timeline to match the 100 stores that Alberta

anticipates will be open this month?

Hon. M. Farnworth: To listen to the member of the opposition, it’s almost like you

have to wave a wand, and everything is all done. During this past year,

not only have we consulted with British Columbians….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, we shall hear the response. Thank you.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Not only have we consulted with British Columbians on cannabis

policy in general, put together a working group with UBCM, consulted

with First Nations, consulted with dozens of industry and trade and

professional associations around this province dealing with the myriad

issues that come about because of legalization; we met….

Interjection.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Yeah, it’s called governing. It’s something that you’re not

doing.

For example, local communities had significant questions around

issues such as the ability to control the number of plants being grown

in a private residence. They do now. Communities had real concerns.

Stratas had real concerns. Businesses such as landlord associations had

real concerns about the ability to regulate the smoking of cannabis and

the use of cannabis products in private rental dwellings. All of those

kinds of policy initiatives have been undertaken in the last year. We

have addressed all of them, and nearly all of them to the satisfaction

of the people being impacted by the legalization of cannabis.

We are not going to apologize for doing this right. I have been

really clear that it is going to take time to establish a legal retail

market in this province. It starts on October 17. It is going to ramp up

in the coming months. It is going to be one that we can be proud of

because it will allow regular British Columbians, not just the big

chains, to participate in what will be an exciting new opportunity in

this province.

CANNABIS REGULATION

P. Milobar: That was a very interesting answer, because there seems to be a

pretty wide

interpretation of what “doing it right” means from the

government.

Gerald Thomas is the director of alcohol, tobacco, cannabis and

gambling policy and prevention for the Ministry of Health. Just two

weeks ago he said: “Having just spent the last eight months of my life

consumed by the cannabis monster, I call it, I would suggest with most

of the folks here that we don’t have it right.”

To the minister, this statement was two weeks ago by a senior

civil servant. Is it accurate and is it true that this government

doesn’t have it right when it comes to the cannabis file?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Kamloops certainly seems to think we’ve done it right when they’ve

got the first government store in the province. The Landlords

Association seemed to think we’ve got it done right when we said that

landlords in this province will have the right to say who does and does

not smoke cannabis and use cannabis in one of their rental units to

protect their investment.

[2:25 p.m.]

The medical community said we got it right, right at the very

beginning, when we said that we will not sell cannabis and alcohol in

the same outlet, something which you guys said needed to happen. I think

we got that right. I think we got it right when this side of the House

was the only jurisdiction in this country that led the fight to get

clarity at the border, in terms of people who will be working in a

legitimate and legal business in this country.

I can tell you that in the last few months, once that issue came

to the fore, there were many entrepreneurs who were saying: “Hang on a

second. We were looking at investing in cannabis retail in this

province. We’ve pulled back because of the uncertainty at the border.”

It was this province that got that clarified, it’s this province that’s

been doing it right, and it’s this province that will continue to do it

right.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Kamloops–North Thompson on a second

supplemental.

P. Milobar: It’s no surprise that outside agencies would be singing the

praises. They probably got the memo of what happens to you if you

dissent with the government.

However, internally, Mr. Thomas had much more to say. Again, two

weeks ago: “Please keep us in your hearts, because those of us in the

civil service are doing our best to make sense of this insanity, and

it’s insanity because we haven’t handled it well to date. That’s the

truth.” Again, from two weeks ago.

If civil servants working on this file don’t have the confidence

in this government’s approach, how does the minister expect British

Columbians to have any confidence?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Well, I just laid out a whole series of ways in which we’ve got it

right. I’ll lay out a few more for the member.

The legalization of cannabis also represents a significant

economic opportunity for many regions of this province. Kamloops, with a

store, clearly recognized that. But many other communities and regions

in this province recognize that.

That’s why they were very concerned when the federal government

brought out its initial regulations where the only licensed production

that was really being considered was large-scale production, which would

severely disadvantage regions in this province where there is a lot of

expertise that has the opportunity to become legal.

Well, because of the efforts of this province and my ministry, we

got the federal government to change those regulations so that

small-scale micro producers — and I know that the Agriculture critic

would be really happy to know — were included in those changes so that

it will create significant economic opportunities, not just in the

Kootenays and on the Island but for First Nations as well. We got that

right.

One final thing. I’d like to remind the member from Kamloops that

his predecessor, the former Health Minister, Terry Lake, was on Global

the other night saying we got it right. I’ll tell you what. I’ll take

his opinion over yours any day.

ILLEGAL CANNABIS STORE OPERATIONS

M. Morris: In a couple of days, British Columbians will be faced with

marijuana becoming legal in B.C. and Canada. They should have the

confidence, when they walk into a retail outlet, that they’ll be buying

a legal product from a legal establishment. Instead, many will be buying

unsafe products supported by traffickers and illegal

activity.

To the Minister of Public Safety: how long will you allow legal

dispensaries to operate outside the law?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the member for his question. We have put in place a number

of enforcement provisions, both in legislation and through regulation.

As the member well knows, because we went through this during the

legislative part, there will be two key elements of that

enforcement.

One will be what applies to the legal retail stores. Much the same

as alcohol is right now, there will be licensed cannabis inspectors

whose job it will be to ensure legal operations abide by the laws of the

province and of the country.

[2:30 p.m.]

At the same time, there is a second unit, the community safety

unit, located in my ministry whose job it will be to do enforcement

around illegal operations that currently do exist and have existed, I

might add, in this province for quite some time, especially when that

member sat on this side of the House.

What I’ve also said, and the member knows this, is that

enforcement decisions are made by the police. If it’s criminal activity

being involved, they will have the ability to continue criminal

investigations, and I have no doubt that they will be doing

that.

What we’ve also made clear is that the enforcement is not going to

be happening overnight — that as legal stores come into being,

enforcement is going to be ramped up. That was a position that was also

enunciated by the chief of the Vancouver police department just the

other day in the media.

Mr. Speaker: Prince George–Mackenzie on a supplemental.

M. Morris: I’d like to quote the president of the Cannabis Commerce

Association of Canada. He says: “It’s all a last-minute disaster. I

expect that most of the people operating cannabis dispensaries are going

to continue selling their grey-market cannabis, and law enforcement is

probably going to turn a blind eye.”

Again to the minister, how long will he allow both a legal and

illegal retail system to exist in this province?

Hon. M. Farnworth: This is an issue we take extremely seriously. That’s why, when it

comes to applications to retail legal cannabis, there are thorough

background checks done. When signals come up, there are deep dives being

done, which is why we’re not rushing to approve licences. We’re making

sure that it’s done properly. We’ve also been working with the police in

terms of the best way to approach the issue, because we are going to get

to a fully legal system and deal with the grey market.

When it also comes to that member saying, “We’ve heard nothing

from the government,” all I’ve got to say is this: what were they doing

when they sat on this side of the House and dope dealing was taking

place in Robson Square market, and not one word was uttered by that side

of the House when they sat on this side of the House?

[End of question period.]

Motions Without Notice

LEGISLATIVE SITTINGS UNTIL

9 P.M. ON

MONDAYS

Hon. M. Farnworth: I’ve got stuff for you.

Interjection.

Hon. M. Farnworth: And it’s legal. Yes, this is. It’s by the book.

I have shared this with the Opposition House Leader and the House

Leader for the Third Party.

By leave, I move:

[1. That the House will sit until 9:00 p.m. on the

following dates:

Monday, October 15

Monday, October 22

Monday, October 29

Monday, November 5

Monday, November 19

Monday, November 26

2. If at the hour of 9:00 p.m. on the dates listed

above, and the business of the day is not concluded and no other hour

has been agreed on for the next sitting, the Speaker shall leave the

Chair until 10 a.m. Tuesday.]

Before you call the question on that, I also want to assure

members that there will be that break from 6:30 to seven. The House will

adjourn at 6:30 and reconvene at seven o’clock.

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

Tabling Documents

Hon. D. Eby: I have the honour to present the annual report of the B.C. Ferry

Commissioner for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2018.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call continued second reading debate on Bill 39, the Poverty Reduction

Strategy Act.

[2:35 p.m.]

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 39 — POVERTY REDUCTION

STRATEGY

ACT

(continued)

Hon. J. Sims: It’s my pleasure today to resume debate on the Poverty Reduction

Strategy Act legislation — a pleasure in the way that I’m so happy to

see this legislation being debated in this House, though I would have

been much happier if this legislation had been introduced a long time

ago. After years and years of ignoring and, I would say, seriously

underfunding social programs, what we’re seeing in British Columbia

right now is that we have a poverty rate that is totally

unacceptable.

B.C. has the second-worst poverty rate. Usually, we want to

celebrate when we’re second in something, but this is not something that

we, as British Columbians, want to celebrate. I’m sure that everyone on

both sides of the House finds this level of poverty in our beautiful

British Columbia unacceptable.

Right here in Canada, in B.C., we have 557,000 people living in

poverty. That’s over half a million people, and out of those, a figure

that is absolutely staggering is that 99 percent of them are children.

As you know, we are one of the wealthiest provinces. We are resource

rich, and we have, on the average, a fairly high income level. It’s

because of all of those things that it is so staggering to have a

poverty rate that is so high.

It pleases me that we have, after many, many years, a Minister of

Social Development and Poverty Reduction and a government that is

committed to setting real targets so that we can start addressing this

very serious issue in our province.

I’m a mother. I’m a grandmother. As most of you know, I have been

a teacher most of my life. It’s very hard for children to understand why

they do not have food on the table, why they have to go to school

hungry.

I want to reflect on that for a little bit. Sometimes when we go a

long time when we don’t get our regular meals, we complain about being

hungry. I’ve heard that even in these hallowed halls — talk about hunger

because people have been busy. They haven’t had time to eat. Imagine

those who live in poverty, who are trying to pay rent, trying to buy

clothing or medication, if they need it, and then knowing they have so

little, so little that they can spend on food.

[2:40 p.m.]

All of us know that the cost of shelter and food and

transportation has gone up incredibly. Our social assistance has not

kept pace with the cost of living or with the cost of housing. Because

of that, there is a growing number of children living in

poverty.

When I talk to people who are not from Canada…. When they look

into who we are, they find it hard to believe that even in a country as

rich as Canada, we have such dire poverty levels — that the gap between

the rich and poor is growing and that here in Canada, we have a growing

number of people who are the working poor. It’s where the mom and dad

are both working, but despite that, because the cost of living and the

cost of housing are so high, they are still considered to be living well

below the poverty line.

If you want to address an issue, we could all make speeches and

then just go home. But you and I know, Mr. Speaker, that if you want to

bring about change, not only do you need good policy but you need to set

targets. I’m proud of the targets that our government is setting,

targets that will ensure that over the next five years, we will reduce

the overall poverty rate by 25 percent and the child poverty rate by 50

percent.

There are those who will be questioning why it is going to take so

long. That’s because the previous government so grossly underfunded, for

such a long time, social programs and did not keep pace with the cost of

living for social assistance. Wages were artificially suppressed. It is

hard to make up that deficit of 16 long years in a very short

time.

What we have taken is a very reasonable approach where there are

definite targets, and we are focusing on reducing poverty for children.

When you reduce poverty for children, you reduce poverty for their

families. We know that to break the poverty cycle takes thoughtful,

systematic action. It doesn’t happen by accident.

An investment in reducing child poverty — and also poverty, in

general — is an economic investment. We hear a lot from the other side

about economic investment. Let me tell you one of the best economic

investments you can make for the future is to invest in our

children.

We know that children living in poverty are not as well prepared

for school as those who come from homes that are more comfortable. We

know that children who are fed and are not hungry while they’re trying

to learn will perform better at school, therefore improving their

chances of having a higher income once they leave school. We also know

that there is a very strong correlation between education and health.

There will also be savings in the health sector when we invest in

reducing child poverty.

The biggest investment and the biggest benefit is to have children

who are not hungry living in British Columbia, to have children who are

excited about going to school to learn and to play with their friends,

not children who are worried that they are hungry, they haven’t had

breakfast and even supper was light. We’re talking about nutrition as

well. We all know what a critical factor nutrition plays in our health

and well-being. All of that is necessary.

[2:45 p.m.]

I’m so proud to be part of a government that, over the last 14

months, has taken considerable steps to rebuild our social programs.

When I go out into my community or travel around the province as

minister, I hear from people. “You’re making a difference. Government is

making a difference.” Whether it comes to child care…. People are saying

that now because of the new child care policies in place: “I can

actually go out to work, and because of the savings I’m making, I can

actually afford to spend more on my children, more at the dinner table.”

And that is a good thing.

Over the last year, thousands of people have moved into new

affordable homes. I was in my riding, in my city of Surrey, the other

day when an event was held to celebrate the work that has been done on

homelessness. To have the tent city, which was a real embarrassment and

sadness in Surrey…. But in Whalley, that tent city — it was just

unbearable to walk down there.

I visited that many times while I was a Member of Parliament and

even after that. To have that area now cleaned up and to know that every

one of those people are now in housing where they have a room, where

they can close the door, where they have their own bathroom — that’s

what our government has been doing.

We know that MSP premiums being cut in half is also helping

families. And the minimum wage is going to go up.

There isn’t one magic pill to address poverty. It’s a multifaceted

approach. Our government is coming at it from that angle. Part of that

is having a strategy with firm, firm numbers to make sure that we do

reduce the poverty.

It’s always great to have dreams and aspirations because that’s

what motivates us. It motivates me that we’re working on a plan to get

rid of child poverty and poverty per se. It motivates me more when I

know that that plan just isn’t a dream over the next hundred years but

that we have concrete targets for the next five years. And it holds all

of us to account to make sure that we meet those levels that we have

set.

I don’t want to have to try to explain to my children and my

grandchildren why they are living in beautiful British Columbia and we

are not doing anything to address child poverty. And I want to say to

them: “Look, you have a government right now that is addressing child

poverty, has firm targets. You know what? In five years, we will have

reduced child poverty by 50 years.” My granddaughter still thinks that’s

going to take too long, and I agree with her. I agree with

her.

I won’t go into the situation we were left with by the previous

government which, for 16 long years, failed to make the investments —

and I would say economic investments — in the people of British

Columbia.

I know that many people will join me, whether they’re sitting at

home or across the House. There is no reason why we would have children

living in poverty. Let me share with you a story that was told to me by

one of my constituents, who was a teacher.

[2:50 p.m.]

What this teacher said to me was: “You know, Jinny, what I find

one of the hardest things to do every single day” — she teaches in an

inner-city school, by the way — “is when I go to school and I know that

I haven’t met the needs of the kids. I feel a sense of failure, no

matter how hard I try. And most of my stress comes in because I know

that the children who walk into my class bring with them the impacts of

the isms that have hit us, whether it’s poverty, whether it’s racism,

whether it’s homophobia.”

She said: “All of those things are hard, but I have no answer when

a child asks me, ‘Why is it that we don’t have enough food?’” She said

that there are other children sitting in the class who then write her

notes. In her class there are children who bring fruit from home. It’s

not so that they can eat it. They bring fruit into the classroom so that

their classmates can eat it.

We have teachers, we have social workers, and we have students who

realize what impact hunger has. You just have to go and see the lineups

in the food banks. That is why I think that for the sake of our

children, we have to all unanimously support this plan.

Hon. J. Darcy: I’m very pleased to rise in my place to discuss the Poverty

Reduction Strategy Act legislation. It is, indeed, a historic time in

the Legislature of British Columbia. There are a lot of eyes on this

place — people both in British Columbia and people across the country,

but especially people in British Columbia and especially people who have

been living in poverty. Their eyes are certainly on this Legislature as

we debate this bill. After years of the B.C. Liberals ignoring and

underfunding social programs, the result has been that British Columbia

has the second-worst poverty rate in Canada.

Our government has introduced the poverty reduction strategy

precisely because today, in British Columbia, there are 550,000 people

who are living in poverty, and 99,000 of them are children. It goes

without saying that having over half a million people living in poverty

and having 100,000 kids, almost, living in poverty, is not good for

children. It’s not good for people. It’s not good for the economy. It’s

not good for our province.

This poverty reduction bill is long, long overdue. It is indeed a

sad statistic for a province as wealthy as British Columbia is. Despite

our strong economy, too many people have been left behind. That’s why we

have developed British Columbia’s first poverty reduction strategy. I

want to take the opportunity to congratulate the Minister of Social

Development and Poverty Reduction, who first introduced legislation in

this House through a private member’s bill in 2011. Finally today we

have a legislated poverty reduction strategy. It certainly marks a

turning point in our province. It is a historic first step that sets out

very bold poverty reduction targets.

I’ve had the opportunity, since we were a week not in this House,

to be back in the community, and I can tell you that an awful lot of

people I’ve spoken with in my community of New Westminster but also

other people in the province — people involved with mental health and

addictions and people involved with housing and homelessness — are very,

very moved. They’re very emotional about this step that our government

is taking, because it’s been a very, very long time coming.

We’ve had 16 years of neglect. We’ve seen bus pass clawbacks.

We’ve seen no help for people living with disabilities and people on

social assistance. Essentially, the most vulnerable in our society have

been ignored by the B.C. Liberals. So it is so exciting that as part of

this poverty reduction plan, we’ve set very, very bold targets. They are

bold. Our targets are to reduce the overall poverty rate in British

Columbia by 25 percent and to reduce the child poverty rate by 50

percent.

[2:55 p.m.]

These are not just numbers. These are people’s lives. They are the

lives of people in every constituency across this province — whether you

sit on the government side, whether you sit on the opposition side or

whether you represent the Third Party.

How can we expect children to succeed in school if they come to

class hungry? That’s happening. That’s happening for almost 100,000

children who are living in poverty. We know that children who live in

poverty don’t do nearly as well in life as children who are not living

in poverty, that poverty negatively affects their health outcomes, their

education outcomes, and it traps them in a poverty cycle. We have to

begin to break that cycle that keeps people trapped in poverty from one

generation to the next. That’s exactly what the poverty reduction

strategy aims to do.

We also know that poverty disproportionately affects Indigenous

people in this province. This is critically important and has certainly

been welcomed by First Nations and Indigenous organizations across the

province, because they know very well that when you lift up children,

you lift up the entire family.

I think it’s really important — the process that the Minister of

Social Development and Poverty Reduction undertook, which was an

extensive consultation throughout the province of British Columbia. This

strategy was directly informed by listening to people living in poverty

across British Columbia as well as organizations involved in supporting

the most vulnerable people in our society.

They held consultations in dozens of communities, and people in my

community and others that I’ve spoken with really said — and they’ve

said this over and over again, about the poverty reduction strategy

consultations but also about other consultations that our government has

been involved in — that they are feeling listened to for the first time.

They’re feeling listened to for the first time in a very, very long

time. I know that the minister himself and the member for

Vancouver-Kensington attended all of those sessions.

This strategy, of course, the poverty reduction strategy, is just

one component of what we’re doing. We got started really early on.

Within weeks of when our government was sworn into office, we were

already beginning to act on issues that affect the working poor and that

affect people who are living in poverty.

On the medical services premium, which is an issue that I’ve heard

about over and over and over again in my constituency office — reducing

it first by 50 percent, and then it will be eliminated altogether.

Raising the minimum wage — because work should lift you out of poverty,

not keep you there. Increasing the minimum wage and getting it to $15 an

hour is a really important step forward.

The work that my colleague the Minister of Municipal Affairs and

Housing has been doing has been truly groundbreaking for British

Columbians but also in our country. As you have heard the minister

herself say and as I have had the opportunity to also tell people across

this province, we are well on our way to meeting the commitment of 2,000

temporary modular homes for people who were previously homeless. The

minister responsible has announced that we will be moving ahead with

2,500 more units of modular housing, and very importantly, those modular

housing programs have mental health and addiction supports that are

embedded in them.

We’ve taken action on MSP. We’ve taken action on reducing the

minimum wage, taken action on homelessness as a first step — but

tackling affordable housing in a number of ways. We increased support to

youth aging out of care, a group in our society that is at great risk of

moving into a life of poverty, moving into mental illness and substance

use and moving into being homeless. So that was a critical

piece.

I could go on about this for some time — all of the initiatives

our government has taken already. Let me mention one last one, and

that’s child care. When we have taken…. This is the first new social

program in British Columbia in an entire generation.

[3:00 p.m.]

It’s important for all children. It’s important for families. It’s

important for the economy. But it is especially important for vulnerable

kids, because it means that those children who are living in poverty,

those children who are now severely disadvantaged, will have the same

opportunities as other children to universal, affordable, quality child

care. That will enable them to get a good start in life. All of these

measures about helping to lift people out of poverty but also breaking

the poverty cycle and creating pathways of hope to people who are

affected.

When I was first elected five years ago, one of the first stories

that I heard was from a single mom in my community who was living in

poverty. She had three young children. She told me that she couldn’t

afford to buy new clothes for them. They had secondhand clothes,

hand-me-downs. But one day, as a result of an effort by a local

charitable organization in our community, she was able to get a

brand-new coat for her son. Her son was so excited. He put this coat on,

and he didn’t want to take it off.

He went to bed that night. When he got up the next morning to go

to school, he went to put on the coat, and he noticed that the cost of

the coat, the price tags, had been taken off. He wept and he wept and he

wept, and she couldn’t understand why. He explained to her, through his

tears, that he wanted to go to school wearing the coat with the price

tags on so that he could tell the kids in school that he finally had a

new coat — because living in poverty was so stigmatizing and always

having clothes that were visibly secondhand clothes, hand-me-downs, was

stigmatizing.

In addition to the direct benefits to kids, to families, about

lifting them out of poverty, this issue of stigmatizing people who live

with poverty is also huge, because that leads to so many other issues

affecting young people and affecting families.

Too often families living in poverty are forced to make

unacceptable choices. We’ve all heard them, people who come to our

constituency offices and say: “I had to choose this month between paying

for medication or having some healthy food in the House.” Or single moms

saying: “You know, I feed my kids first and I eat last, if there’s

anything left over, because there’s nothing more important than them

having food in their mouths.” People end up choosing and making what are

unacceptable choices.

There are many people…. I don’t know who said it first, but the

true mark of a society is how it treats its most vulnerable people. A

poverty reduction strategy surely is a sign of our society and about how

it’s going to treat the most vulnerable people in our society. It is

about lifting people out of poverty and giving them a leg up so that

they can have a pathway to hope.

I was looking back at some of the comments that were made by

members of the opposition when the House met last. I read some comments

from the member for Chilliwack-Kent, who said — I’m glad that the member

opposite is in the House — that he wanted to talk about a fundamental

difference….

Interjection.

Hon. J. Darcy: Okay. My apologies.

What the member for Chilliwack-Kent said, on the record, was that

he thought there was “a basic difference in perspective” between our two

parties. “Our party thinks less about poverty production and more about

wealth creation and economic development.” The phrase “poverty

reduction,” he said, “sort of suggests that we accept poverty as a fact

of life,” and: “We’re just going to reduce its harm by putting a few

more of taxpayers’ dollars into people’s pockets.”

Nothing could be farther from the truth. We all know about a

poverty cycle that can continue from parents to children and to new

generations. Surely, what’s important is that we give people the

opportunity to move out of poverty and to be able to live different

lives.

[3:05 p.m.]

I know that the Minister of Social Development and Poverty

Reduction is working very, very hard on programs that do exactly that:

give people who are now living in poverty and who are able to work the

opportunity to work. I know that we’ll be hearing more about this in the

months to come from the minister responsible.

In the Work B.C. program, for instance, there’s an investment of

$2 billion over six years in employment supports. That is focused, in

particular, on people who are living with disabilities but also on women

who are trying to flee violence. For women to be able to say no, they

need to have the opportunity to have economic independence — having

roofs over their heads, which is something that the Minister of

Municipal Affairs and Housing has been working very hard on doing,

including in my community.

I’m very proud to say that in my community, our city council has

embraced this. They have taken courageous leadership in saying that it

is critically important that we support women at risk. We need to have

the services and supports there in our community, but they also, first

and foremost, need to have roofs over their heads.

I know that the Minister of Social Development and Poverty

Reduction — I was just speaking with him about this a little bit earlier

— has really expanded the work of the presidents group, which is a group

of major CEOs in this province, specifically about how to create more

employment opportunities for people who are now living in poverty, for

people with disabilities.

Of course, it doesn’t just mean saying: “You have to go and take

this job.” It means working with employers to ensure that workplaces are

supportive, are accommodating of people who are living with disabilities

— whether those are physical disabilities or whether those are mental

health or substance use challenges. All of these are absolutely about

lifting people out of poverty, creating pathways to hope. For some

people, for as many people as possible, that pathway to hope involves

supportive employment.

The other issue that I want to touch on is the very close

connection between poverty and mental health and addiction. Every

survey, every study that has been done on the subject tells us that the

overwhelming majority of people who are living in poverty are also

struggling with mental illness or addiction and that the overwhelming

number of people who are homeless are also struggling with mental health

and addictions.

There was a report that came out recently, a survey that was done

of homeless youth that was related to the homeless count in the Metro

Vancouver area. The figures there were really startling. Between 60 and

70 percent of youth who were homeless were dealing with a mental health

issue, and around 50 percent were also struggling with substance use

issues.

If someone is struggling…. This is a quote that comes directly

from the consultation that the Minister of Social Development and

Poverty Reduction was involved in. One of the people who took part said:

“If someone is struggling with addiction and wants help, they seem to

have so many overwhelming hoops to jump through before they can get

assistance.” Other people who took part said things to this effect:

“Poverty negatively affects everyone, especially the mentally

ill.”

At the same time that we offer various housing supports, at the

same time as we offer income supports, at the same time as we offer

greater opportunities for training and skills development for people to

be able to gain employment, we are working hand in hand with the

Minister of Social Development and Poverty Reduction and hand in hand

with the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing in order to ensure

that the mental health and addictions supports are also there for

people. These issues are integrally linked, and we can’t do one without

the other.

We know that if people are on long wait-lists — and they have been

on long wait-lists because of years of neglect of our system of mental

health and addictions — it can only lead to their lives spiralling

downward and out of control. I can’t tell you how many people I have met

with personally, how many people I’ve spoken with personally, who are

today living with opioid addiction, who are today living poor and living

homeless, who talk about the struggles that they’re facing with

addiction.

[3:10 p.m.]

Many of these people began…. Some of them worked in trades and

transport. Some of them worked in the forestry industry. They worked in

a wide variety of industries. Sometimes the downward spiral began with a

workplace injury, sometimes with a car accident and, at one point or

another, turned to street drugs and opioid addiction. These people are

now living poor, and many of them are also homeless.

It’s absolutely critical that we navigate mental illness and

poverty at the same time, and that we navigate mental illness and

poverty and substance use and homelessness and the lack of affordable

housing at the same time. Certainly, the people that were consulted in

the process of developing this strategy talked, over and over again,

about how poverty and uncertainty worsened their mental health and made

it harder for them to live full lives.

Communities, big and small — communities represented by people on

this side of the House, represented by members of the Third Party and

represented by members opposite — all contributed in this process, and

the message was the same. The message was the same. I’m, frankly,

surprised that we aren’t hearing members opposite talking about the

stories in their own communities about people who are living in poverty

and their calls for help, which our government is finally

answering.

In the course of the consultations that the minister responsible

was engaged in, he also heard an awful lot about the importance of early

identification and intervention services for youth who experience trauma

and mental health issues. That’s one of the pieces that we’re going to

be acting on. We have said from the beginning we’re taking a

whole-of-government approach to these issues. The Minister of Social

Development and Poverty Reduction works closely with me and other

ministers on our mental health and addictions strategy. We all work very

closely with the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing on the

strategy for housing and homelessness.

We have to do it in an integrated way. These are not separate

issues. These are issues that we need to tackle at one and the same

time. I’m very, very proud. I’m very honoured to have the opportunity to

rise and to speak to this historic piece of legislation in the province

of British Columbia. It is something that is long overdue. It is

something that is good for the people affected. In particular, it will

mean that when we reach our goals — and they are ambitious goals — we

will finally someday soon be able to have children go to school without

being hungry. That means that children will have the opportunity to

learn in the same way — have the same opportunities to learn and to

thrive and to prosper — as other children do.

The more supports that we can give to people living in poverty

today — whether that’s income support, whether that’s housing, whether

that’s support for mental health and addictions, whether it’s child care

or an increase in the minimum wage — is good for the economy of British

Columbia. This is a win-win, and I would dearly love to see members

opposite standing up and joining us and having this entire House

unanimously support the need for a poverty reduction strategy and work

with us rather than against us in meeting the very ambitious goals —

bold goals but goals that we absolutely need to reach.

Hon. S. Robinson: I’m very proud to rise in support of the Poverty Reduction

Strategy Act on this second reading debate. I know that all of my

colleagues are very proud to stand and to participate in this debate,

given that it’s been a long time coming. There have been years of

chronic ignoring and underfunding of the social programs that really has

led this province to have real significant problems around the poverty

rate.

[3:15 p.m.]

When you think about the fact that we have 100,000 children in

this province who go to bed hungry, I’m mortified. And I know that

British Columbians are mortified. And it’s embarrassing, frankly. We

have a lot of work to do because there’s been so much neglect over the

years.

I’m very proud of my colleague, the Minister of Social Development

and Poverty Reduction, for his work in going out and consulting very

broadly, right across the province, with people who have lived in

poverty and people who serve others who live in poverty, and for making

sure that they understood that we understood what it was that people

needed, what it is that will make a difference.

You know, in my work as a family therapist, I’ve always queried:

“How much of a difference is enough of a difference?” Right? Because

when people struggle with whatever it is they’re struggling with,

sometimes it’s just a little bit of help that they need to get over that

hump. I can think of some of the clients that I have worked with over

the years where, in fact, that was true.

I can think of…. In my community, in Coquitlam, there was a story

of a man who was living in poverty and who found himself homeless. He

participated in a cold/wet weather map program in my community, where

the local churches were opening up their doors to allow people who were

homeless to have a dry, warm place to stay at night. It was

controversial at the time when this program was underway, but it was a

very successful program.

There was one particular story that stood out of a gentleman who

was staying out of the elements, staying overnight in a local church.

Somebody asked him how he found himself here in this place, where he

didn’t have enough money to pay rent. He didn’t have enough money to get

a bus ticket to visit with his family. He had reached the

bottom.

He said: “You know, I have two hands. I am strong. I can work. But

I can’t go to a worksite without work boots, and I can’t get enough

money to buy work boots if I can’t get a job.” This was the barrier. I

remember hearing this story about how this volunteer said, “Well, what

size are you?” and went and got this gentleman work boots, and he was

soon on a jobsite. For some people, that is what they need.

I can think of another family, a family that I worked with when I

worked at SHARE Family and Community Services. I remember getting a

referral from this family that said that the daughter, who was going to

school, was sort of letting their teacher know that things weren’t well

at home — that Dad had lost his job and that their heat, hydro, had been

cut off. It was just around Thanksgiving, so it was getting cold. And

because they had no lights, it would get dark. By seven o’clock, 7:30,

it was getting dark. They were studying by candlelight, and it was

really hard. This was a good student, and she wasn’t as prepared as she

had been.

The teacher contacted the organization. We reached out to find out

what it was that this family needed. What was the barrier? You know, it

turns out that it was a single dad with three children, and he had

lost…. He had gotten injured on the job, and he was in transition in

terms of getting WorkSafe, but in the meantime, he had fallen behind on

his bills. So hydro was cut off.

What it meant, for him…. The barrier for him and his family was

$200. It was $200 that was going to make the difference to this family

and keep them from losing everything, everything that they had worked

hard for. Again, the organization stepped up. It’s not the mandate of

the organization, but they said: “We don’t want you falling into

significant poverty.” If $200 was going to keep the heat and the lights

on and make a difference, then that’s what they were going to

do.

Here are a couple of examples of what I would call short-term

interim poverty, where we can actually take action and keep people from

having things get worse.

I have another story that I’d like to share with the House. This

one is one that has been near and dear to my heart. It’s a story about

Naomi. Naomi came in to see me about counselling when I worked at the

Jewish Family Service Agency back in the ’90s. She was coming to see me

because she was having a hard time parenting her son. She has four

children. She would come in, and she would be distant in our counselling

conversations. She would not be able to focus.

[3:20 p.m.]

I would ask her how things were going. “You seem to be having a

hard time participating. What’s going on?” She said she hadn’t eaten in

48 hours. “Well, why? Why haven’t you eaten in 48 hours?” She said:

“Because there’s no food in the house.” She didn’t eat so that her kids

could eat. This woman did not eat anything substantial because she

wanted to make sure that her kids ate. I started to get really curious

about her life and about the choices that she had to make so that her

four kids could have what they needed.

The story of Naomi is long, a story of poverty for a long time.

She was raped at a young age and has lived with trauma her entire life,

taken advantage of her entire life. She was married for a short period

of time, about eight years, and had four children in those eight years.

Her husband was violent. She had the wherewithal not to protect herself

but to protect her children. When he turned on her oldest son, she said:

“That’s it. We’re out of here.” Naomi is an amazing mom.

She had been struggling every day since. She had taken advantage

of the opportunity for subsidized housing. She managed to make that

happen. She had somebody give her a car, but because it’s expensive to

insure a car, she would only insure it for the four months of the worst

weather so that she could get her kids around. They could not have to be

in the wet elements as she was helping them get to whatever programs she

could actually identify for them on a very limited income.

Here was this woman who was coming for counselling so she could be

a better parent for her children, and she was struggling with poverty.

The biggest issue for Naomi and for her four children was that they were

poor. It wasn’t going to get any easier for her. All the counselling in

the world wasn’t going to take care of the poverty that they were

facing. What worries me — and here we are 20 years later, taking a look

at this, finally having a poverty reduction strategy — is that it’s too

late for Naomi’s children.

I suspect that Naomi’s children are old enough now to have

families of their own. I have lost touch with Naomi. We know that

there’s a cycle of poverty, and it’s very likely that Naomi’s children

are poor. I want to make sure that her grandchildren have the

opportunities that weren’t afforded to Naomi as a parent and weren’t

afforded to Naomi’s children.

It’s important that we have a poverty reduction strategy to

address these kinds of issues because it’s not just about numbers. It’s

not just about 100,000 children. It’s about their opportunity. It’s

their lives — to have a different trajectory, a different course of

action.

Now, in the interim, given that we are very late to this poverty

reduction table…. You know, the rest of Canada seems to recognize, the

rest of the provinces seem to recognize, that it’s really important to

have a coordinated strategy and to have targets because that’s important

to move forward. You don’t know where you’re going if you don’t know

where you’re headed, so it’s really important that we know where we’re

headed.

It’s really been community groups that have filled in the void. I

want to give a shout-out to the many community groups that have been

filling in the gaps in the interim until they could get a government

that actually cared about making sure that children had enough food in

their bellies so they could learn properly.

I want to talk about two groups in my community that have done an

outstanding job. I want to talk about the Share food bank. I worked for

Share for a number of years before I became an MLA. I think it’s really

important to recognize where food banks came from. When things were very

difficult in the ’80s, during a recession, they were supposed to be a

“temporary” relief for families that were really struggling. They’ve

become permanent fixtures in our communities.

Frankly, when I worked for Share — I was a fundraiser for the

organization — I would get so frustrated about having to beg people to

contribute money to the food bank and contribute goods to the food bank

because it’s not an answer to poverty. It’s an answer to help fill

bellies. But that’s not the answer; the answer is to help people move

out of poverty.

[3:25 p.m.]

Jobs are absolutely a key component, but jobs themselves are not

enough. If children can’t learn, if children don’t have the capacity to

focus in school, if they’re not getting the nutrition that they need, if

they’re hearing their parents fight because the stress of poverty is

destroying the fabric of their family, then how are they going to learn

the skills to have the job that pays the bills?

This is much bigger and much more complex than jobs. We need to

make sure that people are ready, that they have the supports they need,

that they have the opportunities.

I go back to the single dad whose hydro was cut off, right? Here

was a dad who had a job. He got injured in the workplace, but there were

not enough supports for him to continue to pay his bills. He was at the

very, very edge of falling down the poverty rabbit hole, which would

grab a hold and suck this family down. So it’s really important that we

have a broad sense of what it means to have a poverty

strategy.

The food banks have been outstanding. I remember saying I want to

put food banks out of business. I don’t want there to be families that

have to turn to a food bank because they don’t have enough money in

their pockets to go buy food at a grocery store like everybody else.

That’s not the answer to poverty.

In my community, the firefighters do a gala every year. It’s

coming up on October 27, and I look forward to joining them. But I

always go with a heavy heart. I go with a heavy heart because they talk

about…. What they are doing is raising money to feed children who are

poor. They want to feed them with a nutritional breakfast and snack

program at four of the schools in my community in Coquitlam.

I have tremendous respect for their efforts to make sure that

children are eating, but I want to put them out of this business too.

It’s not okay that we have children going to school hungry and that our

firefighters…. I mean, I’m grateful that they are doing charitable work,

and I think it’s wonderful that they want to give back to the community

but not around this. They should raise money for lots of other things,

but this one, I think, is one that all British Columbians need to rally

behind and make sure that it works better.

I want to take a few minutes to talk a little bit about what it

means to have a poverty reduction strategy. This act sets out the

requirements and commitments. But we need to remember, because it’s such

a complex problem…. Because of what the minister and the parliamentary

secretary heard on the road, we know that it’s about a number of

issues.

It’s why I’m so proud of the work that we’re doing in tandem with

the Minister of Social Development and Poverty Reduction in recognizing

that housing is a key component of poverty reduction. It’s absolutely

critical. We’ve certainly heard, from the report that the minister did….

The theme that came up, I think, in every single one of their community

meetings was housing. Housing eats up, in some cases, 50, 60, 70 percent

of people’s incomes. That is really….

You can’t sustain that. You can’t sustain that for a number of

reasons. You can’t, then, take care of your family. You can’t make sure

they’re getting nutritious food. You can’t pay your bills. It also means

that you can’t participate in the local economy. You can’t go out to

restaurants. You can’t get haircuts. You can’t buy products. You can’t

use services. That means that the local economy starts to suffer too. So

it’s really a bad plan to not have a poverty reduction strategy. We need

to actually look at this in a much broader perspective.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

I’m very proud of the work that we’re doing together, recognizing

the housing component, that we’d already started on when we formed

government. We started in September with significant increases,

recognizing that we need to address those who are most vulnerable, those

who are homeless.

I’m very proud of the fact that, in under a year, we were able to

commit 2,000 units of modular supportive housing for those who are most

vulnerable. We still have more to do. Those programs are…. Many of them

have been opened. Hundreds and hundreds of them have been opened. We’re

seeing the impact that’s making in Surrey and Vancouver. More are

opening here on the Island, in Parksville and Cowichan.

[3:30 p.m.]

We’re going to continue to open up these homes in the north, in

Smithers and in Queen Charlotte. We’ve got some coming up in Richmond.

This is really, really important — making sure that we can provide for

the people who are really, really challenged. They don’t even have

enough resources to have a roof over their head, so we’re already

starting to take steps to address that.

More than that, we’re investing in housing for others. I was

talking about Naomi, who had fled a violent situation in order to

protect her four children. I think it’s important to recognize that it’s

been 20 years since there’s been any investment in housing for women

fleeing violence.

Our government has committed significant resources to make sure

that those women and those children have the opportunity to have a safe

place to call home. That comes with transitional housing, so they have a

couple of years to get their feet underneath them, to figure out what

their next steps are so that they can make sure that their needs are met

and so that they don’t fall into this travesty of poverty that really

takes a hold of families for years and years and generations. We need to

be able to intervene.

We’ve done this also with our Indigenous housing fund. We’ve had

dozens and dozens of proposals on this fund, making sure that we can

provide housing for the Indigenous people in British Columbia both on

and off reserve. What the report has shown, and we’ve heard this before,

is that Indigenous people are absolutely overrepresented in the number

of people who are poor. Making sure that they have housing will help

ease some of those challenges.

We also have had almost 150 proposals for affordable rental homes

for families and seniors throughout the entire province. That’s almost

$2 billion of housing that we’re committed to delivering for those

families, 14,000 units. Families have been struggling.

I think of the single dad who was at risk of losing his job. He

was in between. He’d been injured in the workplace. I think about the

difference having that kind of housing would have made for him. His

hydro wouldn’t have been cut off if he’d had more affordable

rent.

This is about real people, real people who have been struggling

every day. When I think about Naomi…. I remember hearing from some

people in my life who said: “You know, people have to be willing to work

hard. Working hard is what gets you out of poverty.”

Well, Naomi and the single dad are two of the hardest-working

people I think I’ve ever met. Sometimes it’s not about hard work. I try

to think about Naomi’s day. When I asked her what her day was like, she

talked about getting up and getting the kids ready. Oatmeal was always

the breakfast because it’s very inexpensive, but there was no brown

sugar and there was no milk, so they had to eat it a little bit thick.

She would make it more watery so that it was a little bit more palatable

because she couldn’t afford those as extras. It was a limited

supply.

Also, even shopping, she would trek from store to store. She would

check coupons to find out…. If she went to one place, she can get toilet

paper cheaper, but she’d have to go to another place because mac and

cheese was on sale. For her, it was a day of squeezing every single

penny out so that she could stretch her very meagre dollars.

This is what we’re talking about. These are the people that we’re

talking about. The kind of investments we’re making in housing, the kind

of investments we’re making in child care help ease that burden for

these families so that they could make their dollars stretch further, so

they could take care of their children in the ways that they want to

take care of them.

There are other ways that our government has looked at how to

reduce poverty, whether it’s eliminating the MSP, raising the minimum

wage, eliminating the tolls on the two bridges. What was interesting was

talking to families in Maple Ridge and in Surrey. Traditionally, that’s

been where the most affordable housing has been in the Lower Mainland.

But then you added in the tolls…. Remember that these places aren’t well

served by transit — we’re working on that as well — so that meant

needing a car, and it also meant having to pay tolls.

[3:35 p.m.]

It actually hit the people who were really doing their best to try

to make ends meet. They had these added expenses. That was a cost burden

that nobody else…. If you were living on the west side of Vancouver, you

didn’t have to pay those. If you were living in West Van or North Van,

you didn’t have to pay those. So here it was: where you had the most

affordable housing was where these people, if they managed to get a job,

had to commute and had to pay these tolls. It really was quite a

burden.

I think it’s really important here that British Columbians will no

longer have to hang their heads in shame at having such a high poverty

rate when we have such a thriving economy. They get to actually be proud

of the province they live in, because we are putting a plan together.

It’s a multiministry plan that attacks a very significant problem from

many different angles, because really, you can’t just attack it with one

answer. There’s no one answer that’s going to fix poverty. It’s

multi-pronged. It’s about making life better for British

Columbians.

I’m very proud to support this legislation going forward, and I

would expect everybody in this House to support this legislation. This

is about children, and we need to all get behind whatever it takes to

make sure that children have what they need to grow and to

thrive.

N. Simons: I appreciate this opportunity to speak on Bill 39, Poverty

Reduction Strategy Act. Having sat in this chamber since 2005, it’s been

a recurring theme. It’s been a recurring request. It’s been a recurring

urging of the then opposition party to engage in some sort of process

where we can actually make a plan to reduce poverty, not just hope that

some sort of vague job strategy’s going to do it. It’s knowing full well

that a job strategy may, in fact, be focused on jobs, but it isn’t about

reducing the amount of poverty for children and families who are living

in poverty now.

Let’s point out that half the people living in poverty, as

measured by the market basket measure, are working poor — people who are

working, people who are in the workforce. The idea that we can

accomplish a strategic reduction in the number of children and families

living in poverty without a plan is, obviously, impossible.

It may be what the opposition would like us to do. I’m hearing

mixed messages. But I believe that it would be difficult to object to

simply having a strategy to try to address the fundamental structural

problems that result in such a significant amount of poverty in our

province.

We can argue over whether we’re the second or third or fourth or

fifth. To me, that really doesn’t matter. As long as there are children

and families and individuals experiencing poverty in this province of

great wealth, it’s our responsibility and it’s our duty to try and

address that. To hope, to cling to some sort of vague hope that other

strategies are going to address this issue, I think, is foolish. I think

it’s shortsighted, lacks imagination and is not exactly a very

compassionate approach. It’s not a realistic approach.

The idea that the only way to reduce poverty is to provide

incentives is, again, without imagination. It’s callous and does not

reflect the values of the current government of British Columbia. I

don’t believe it reflects the values of most members of the opposition

either. So I find it pretty surprising that, even in their very limited

discussion of this bill, they seem to be uninterested in commenting on

this, other than to say that it isn’t going to work.

I think, really, it’s obvious that the opposition just wants to

maybe duck and hide after considering their record for the last 16

years. It was 16 years of the problems getting worse, not getting any

better.

Seriously, I don’t understand….

Interjections.

N. Simons: Well, it seems that I’ve hit a nerve. If they have any evidence to

suggest that they made any specific efforts to reduce poverty in our

communities, they should show it to us. They should actually have the

internal fortitude instead of chirping from behind their benches like

cowards. They should really just speak to the issue, maybe take an

opportunity to explain their record for the last 16 years. Why don’t

you?

Interjections.

[3:40 p.m.]

N. Simons: Yeah, it’d be nice. Some of you might understand it but obviously

not the ones chirping now. They may not have seen poverty. Maybe they’re

just not used to discussing these issues. It’s uncomfortable for them,

because they don’t really know what it is. That’s what I suspect is the

problem. They can chirp all they want. It’s not like I’m not used to

it.

The issue at hand is whether or not this government has the

ability, has the fortitude and has the desire to address some of the

social inequalities that exist in our province. If they don’t want to be

part of that, they can vote against this strategy, as they’re likely to

do, because they don’t want to admit their failure. Maybe that’s just an

ego thing. I trust it is, judging from the comments and who they’re

coming from.

I’m, quite honestly, very proud of the fact that our government,

early in its mandate, has decided that this is something that we’re

going to maintain as a core strategy to try to address the inequality

that exists in a higher rate than many other provinces with far fewer

resources, far fewer mechanisms at their disposal to address this. We

have the ability to do this. It’s our responsibility to try. I would

have expected that it would’ve been widely accepted as an appropriate

approach.

Being the only province in this country without a poverty

reduction strategy should be an embarrassment to the opposition that

exists now. It should be an embarrassment, because quite frankly, it

wasn’t due to the lack of information. It was due to their ideological

principles that they thought they couldn’t do anything about it. They

obviously failed to even consider doing something about it, which is

really too bad.

If you think about it, a child born in 2001 lived for 14 years

until 2014…. For 17 years, they lived under a government that really

didn’t care about them. When you talk to kids who’ve lived under this

government for that length of time, you know that they’ve not been given

the same opportunities as other children in other provinces. It’s

probably just a little bit of a defensiveness from them that they

realize this is on their watch, that poverty has maintained a foothold

in this province that they were unwilling to even attempt to

address.

I’m pleased that our government, with the Ministry of Social

Development and Poverty Reduction, has taken this important

step.

Now, I’ve worked a lot of my career with people who live in

poverty, people we often call vulnerable, people we call the have-nots.

I think that one thing for sure is that British Columbians are

resilient. British Columbians of all economic levels are resilient. We

have the capability in this province to address this issue. I think now

that we have a government that’s committed to doing so, we should

celebrate that.

Now, obviously, this has been an issue that was discussed in the

past under the previous government. When I was on the Select Standing

Committee on Children and Youth, my first go-round on that committee, we

held hearings into poverty reduction. Some of the members opposite might

not remember because they might not have been here, but we

did.

Members of the opposition were in the majority on the Children and

Youth Committee, and this was a topic of discussion we all agreed needed

to be aired. We held hearings, and we concluded that, in fact, this was

a serious concern in British Columbia.

Maybe they’ve changed their minds since then. I doubt it. Why

would they? It was 2010. Things haven’t gotten that much better.

Obviously, our government is doing a lot to address the fact that

services have been cut for so many in so many ways and that the cost of

living has increased and wages haven’t, really.

I think that in looking back at their predecessors, they might

learn something. Important hearings were held in Vancouver and

discussions held here in Victoria to try and address some of issues that

are raised in the discussion around child poverty reduction.

[3:45 p.m.]

The Select Standing Committee on Children and Youth heard from a

number of witnesses: Dr. Evan Adams; Julia Norton; Steve Kerstetter and

John Millar from First Call; Dr. Paul Kershaw; Seth Klein; Mary Collins;

Barbara Kaminsky; Noelle Virtue of the B.C. Healthy Living Alliance; Dr.

Michael Prince, Lansdowne Professor of Social Policy at the University

of Victoria; and Dr. Carol Matusicky, director of Burnaby Family Life.

Each presenter was given questions ahead of time and asked to provide

their input on issues around poverty in British Columbia, an issue that

was recognized as important in 2010 that, apparently, is less important

now, for some reason, in the minds of the opposition. But it’s obviously

high on the list of priorities for our current government.

Dr. Adams recommended that the committee include recommending to

government to commit to greater Aboriginal self-determination. That was

one of the recommendations he made. I’m glad that our government is

actually taking steps in that direction.

Make economic development a priority. Economic development is

obviously working well under this government. There seems to be

significant confidence in the investment climate. We’ve seen recently

the investment in three Catalyst mills. That’s a good sign.

LNG investment is something else that makes many people very

pleased. That’ll create employment and educational opportunities, which

was exactly what Dr. Evan Adams recommended.

Work on issues around housing and physical environment. Clearly,

we understand that to be part of the issue. It’s necessary to have a

strategy putting these issues together and trying to figure out a

strategy.

Usually, the opposition talks about needing to have well-laid-out

plans. Here’s a well-laid-out plan to begin this process of implementing

a strategy that’ll have a positive impact on people in this

province.

The representation from First Call, the B.C. Youth and Child

Advocacy Coalition, pointed out the high incidence of poverty in British

Columbia and that it’s the root cause of ill health, leading to higher

health care costs and a decline in human capital.

I’m quoting from the report, which is the annual report,

2009-2010: “Representatives for the advocacy coalition stress the need

for a direction plan with targets, outcomes and reporting features.” I’m

looking forward to that. I think that’s going to be an essential part of

a plan.

They also advocated for an increase to welfare rates and minimum

wage, things that the previous government had no interest in doing.

Institution of a living wage index to the cost of living — that’s

something that’ll obviously be considered in this plan. An expansion of

existing programs was also recommended.

We’ve done many of the things that have been called for. But I

think, really, what government tries to do is to implement policies in a

well-laid-out and well-planned way.

The First Call coalition requested that the accountability

structures for this poverty reduction plan be with a minister. I believe

when we have a minister whose title includes poverty reduction that

we’ve identified that as a worthwhile recommendation.

Dr. Michael Prince, the Lansdowne Professor of Social Policy,

someone who some people might consider an expert in the field, talked

about the importance of a poverty reduction strategy. He described the

causes of poverty as multiple, complicated and interrelated. If they’re

multiple, complicated and interrelated, to me that suggests the need for

a plan and not for a hope. Hope isn’t a plan.

He described child poverty as a product of different contexts of

low income. There are housing and homelessness, education and literacy,

economy and the labour force, public policies and services. Societal

values.

When one has an opportunity to look at the expert testimony that

has been calling for a poverty reduction strategy, I think even the most

skeptical among us in this House would be convinced that it is time for

a strategy, and previous positions on this or previous failures in the

past should not predetermine their views on this current plan. I hope

that they don’t.

I hope that, in fact, members from the opposition recognize this

as a perfectly legitimate opportunity to try and make some inroads into

addressing this issue.

[3:50 p.m.]

In August 2009, obviously as a result of seeing what she had seen

in her role as representative, Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond wrote about the

importance of a clear plan. She started her editorial with: “If there is

truth in the basic principle that society is judged on how we treat our

most vulnerable, B.C.’s lack of progress in reducing child poverty

should provoke a lot of soul-searching.”

That soul-searching may have happened. It may not have. I’m sure

that there were members of the government at that time who thought this

should have been a higher priority. I know and respect those people, and

I think that they were right. The fact that it’s coming up now should

give them hope as well. While we are experiencing economic good times,

in terms of employment rate, investment in the province, I think it’s

our responsibility to use whatever strategic advantage we have to

address some of the foundational inequality that exists.

Dr. Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond also pointed to how children are

often the ones who pay the high price of poverty in this province. When

a member from the opposition equated our harm reduction strategy, in

terms of dealing with the opioid crisis, with a poverty reduction

strategy, dealing with poverty, it’s a little bit appalling, actually,

to suggest that we don’t have to do a few things at the same

time.

While we’re trying to address the opioid crisis with harm

reduction, it does not mean that we don’t try to improve the services to

help people abstain or move away from drug use. To suggest that while we

attempt to reduce poverty…. It doesn’t mean we’ll not pay attention to

the job situation or the economic viability of our communities. To

simplify it to that level is a little bit, shall I say, simplistic and

slightly insulting as well.

When we’re trying to address harm reduction in the opioid crisis,

it’s to help people survive so that they can make another decision, so

that they have another day, maybe find those handholds to health. Maybe

they’ll find those stepping stones with family or community to become

healthy. Those are harm reduction strategies. They’re efforts to reduce

the harm. But while we reduce the harm, we don’t forget about the

underlying and root causes, nor do we ignore the fact that we need to

address the ongoing crisis.

With poverty, in general, it’s the same thing. While we hope our

economy stays strong and while we work through policy and hard work to

make sure our economy stays strong, we still have to try and address the

issue of poverty, because there are little two- or three-year-olds,

infants, toddlers, children growing up in homes where poverty exists

right now.

Maybe some members will say: “Well, it’ll teach them to be

resilient.” I still think that when you know families that have to go to

the food bank twice a week, when they have to get vouchers to get bus

tickets to go to the food bank twice a week, where they have to wait

until school’s over so that they can take their children, because they

can’t pay for sitters, to go to the food bank twice a week, that’s a

problem in a province of great wealth.

Maybe it’s the ideological foundation of some to think that it’s

just about hard work and just about people pulling themselves up by

their bootstraps. There’s always room for compassion, always room for

policy that addresses the needs of those children. We have meals in our

schools now for kids pretty universally around the province. Is that not

a reflection of poverty? Is that a reflection of poverty? Are we

ignoring what it’s reflecting? The fact that we have lunch programs, hot

lunch programs, the fact that we have breakfast programs in almost every

school, the ones that weren’t closed by this government…. Are we looking

at poverty in rural communities?

[3:55 p.m.]

We’re talking about how rural communities are suffering. Our rural

communities are suffering because infrastructure has been taken away.

Schools have closed. Courthouses have closed. Hospitals have closed.

Emergency rooms have closed. That’s in the rural part of our province. I

represent a rural riding. The representatives of other rural ridings

should know better.

Interjection.

N. Simons: The member wants to mention one example of how I might not be

right. But when you look at 24 courthouses closing, when you look at the

hospitals that closed in the Interior, when you look at almost

200….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members, through the Chair.

N. Simons: So 111 schools were closed in the first three years of that

opposition’s government, and it came close to 200. What does that do to

a community? How many people here would take their young family and want

to move to a rural community when they see their schools closing, when

they see their restaurants closing, when they see the bike stores

closing? Those aren’t the kinds of communities that we necessarily would

want to move to. We want to move to places that are dynamic.

Part of government’s responsibility is to support rural areas so

that the poverty that exists in rural areas is not heightened, is not

deepened the way this government did. You know, a little bit of

soul-searching on their part might cause them a little bit of

discomfort. That discomfort might lead them to learn a little bit about

the effects of poverty, not just on our communities but on our province

as a whole.

I’m really pleased that we are…. Some complain that it’s taken us

so long. It’s laughable. I’m glad that it’s finally happening. I think

this is going to be something that…. While we’re the last in line, while

we were the last to get into the lineup, we’re there now. We’re happy to

be there now. We’re glad that we’re actually…. After foot-dragging and

sticking their feet in the mud, unable to move forward, we’ve finally

done it. I’m glad we’ve finally done it. I would have preferred it

if….

Interjections.

N. Simons: For those who may be watching, we’re talking about a bill — Bill

39, Poverty Reduction Strategy Act — the opposition seems to be against.

I’m not sure why. It’s not going to hurt them at all. We’re glad we’re

finally doing it.

I think it must be embarrassment over the fact that it took them….

Well, they just didn’t do it. They saw every other province doing it.

Every single province in this beautiful commonwealth of ours has a

poverty reduction strategy. We’re finally getting one. We’re finally

getting one, and they’re complaining. I’m not sure if they’re

complaining or if they’re just chirping, because I can’t, quite frankly,

find anything wrong with it.

If they think that the platitudes we heard…. “Our poverty

reduction strategy is about jobs.” Well, you know poverty still exists

when people have jobs. Half of the people who are living in poverty…. I

must say, using this poverty measurement — it’s not our measurement, the

market basket measure; it’s a Statistics Canada measurement — half the

people that are living below this level are working poor, are people who

are collecting paycheques and coming home from work. There are people

who are working poor, working people, who go to the food

bank.

I was always surprised…. Now we’re reacting to a housing crisis

with emergency responses. We’re reacting to an opioid epidemic with

emergency responses. It’s like there was nothing in place. There was no

structural integrity to our social support system that allowed us to

escape from what we’re dealing with now. That is a government that was

lacking imagination, lacking any real consideration for the needs of the

less fortunate in this province.

I’m happy that we’re finally doing it. I’m not saying…. I’m proud

of the fact that this government is the one doing it, but it’s not

exactly like a happy occasion that we have to have a system now in place

— that we have to have a plan to address the failures of the previous

government. It’s not a moment for celebration and joy. It’s a moment for

deep reflection, in fact.

I’m glad that the members opposite are listening, because it’s

time that they heard the voices of the people they ignored, the

communities that they ignored, the children that they didn’t think

of.

[4:00 p.m.]

This is a plan to get something in place to address

this….

Interjections.

N. Simons: The members opposite, now, are taking offence at the comments that

I made that they were useless when they were in government when it came

to addressing child poverty. Yet they don’t w