2009 Legislative Session: First Session, 39th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the

Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Thursday, October 29, 2009

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 6, Number 5

CONTENTS

Page

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Tabling Documents

Office of the Auditor General, report No. 2, 2009-2010, Follow-up Report: Updates on the Implementation of Recommendations from Recent Reports

Office of the Auditor General, report No. 3, 2009-2010, Observations on Financial Reporting: Audit Findings Report on 2008-2009

Summary Financial Statements

Ministerial Statements

Olympic Torch Relay and hosting of Olympic Games in B.C.

Hon. G. Campbell

C. James

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

150 th anniversary of New Westminster

D. Black

Agriculture and food industries in B.C.

J. van Dongen

Cowichan International Aboriginal Festival of Film And Art

B. Routley

Foster parents

H. Bloy

Mary Ellen Smith

V. Huntington

Olympic Torch Relay in Nanaimo

R. Cantelon

Oral Questions

Government support for Kitimat forest workers

C. James

Hon. P. Bell

N. Macdonald

R. Austin

B. Simpson

Access to influenza vaccines in Riondel and Crawford Bay

M. Mungall

Hon. I. Chong

Responsibility for H1N1 influenza vaccine program

J. Brar

Hon. I. Chong

Bear rehabilitation facility proposal for North Shore

S. Fraser

Hon. M. de Jong

Funding for Victoria bridge replacement

J. Horgan

Hon. S. Bond

Motions Without Notice

Referral of reports to committees and powers of Public Accounts Committee

Hon. M. de Jong

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 14 — Housing and Social Development Statutes Amendment Act, 2009

Hon. R. Coleman

S. Simpson

Hon. K. Heed

J. Kwan

P. Pimm

M. Mungall

M. Karagianis

M. Sather

L. Krog

B. Ralston

H. Bains

Royal Assent to Bills

Bill 2 — Budget Measures Implementation Act (No. 2), 2009

Bill 4 — Wills, Estates and Succession Act

Bill 5 — Finance Statutes Amendment Act, 2009

Bill 6 — Insurance Amendment Act, 2009

Bill 7 — Police (Misconduct, Complaints, Investigations, Discipline and Proceedings) Amendment Act, 2009

Bill 8 — Strata Property Amendment Act, 2009

Bill 9 — Wood First Act

Bill 10 — Protected Areas of British Columbia Amendment Act, 2009

Bill 11 — Labour Mobility Act

Bill 12 — Ombudsman Amendment Act, 2009

Bill 13 — Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2009

Bill 15 — Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 2009

Bill 16 — Body Armour Control Act

Bill Pr401 — Verigin Memorial Park Amendment Act, 2009

Bill Pr402 — Trustee Board of the Church of God, Richmond Municipality, B.C. (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2009

Bill Pr403 — Victoria Foundation Amendment Act, 2009

Proceedings in the

Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Tourism, Culture and the Arts (continued)

S. Herbert

Hon. K. Krueger

G. Gentner

M. Sather

[ Page 1789 ]

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 29, 2009

The House met at 1:35 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

L. Reid: I would like the House to welcome a wonderful woman in the gallery today. Brenda Shewchuk is with us. She is originally from Wishart, Saskatchewan, and she has chosen to make Victoria her home. We're delighted to welcome her to this fine city, this fine capital, and to tell you that the Wolitski homestead today is 102 years old in Wishart, Saskatchewan. I would ask the House to please make her very welcome.

Hon. S. Thomson: Joining us today in the gallery are many of B.C.'s farmers, ranchers and food processors. They're here today to meet with their elected officials. I'd like to introduce the chair of the B.C. Agriculture Council, Garnet Etsell, the chair of the organization, and ask the House to make him and all the industry representatives, the leaders of our farm organizations, who are here today welcome.

C. James: I have a guest today in the gallery, someone who has done extraordinary work in my constituency office. Many of us have the privilege of having practicum students come and work in our constituency offices to help us out. We've had an exceptional social work student in our office for the last while who has done an amazing job, shared her energy and expertise and, most importantly, her passion for the community. So I'd like the House please to make Laurie Taylor very welcome today.

L. Popham: I would like to join with the Minister of Agriculture today and welcome all of the representatives from the agriculture industry in British Columbia. The reception they held last night was incredible, and it puts an amazing spotlight on an amazing industry. So thank you so much for the efforts you put in last night.

J. Thornthwaite: I would like to welcome all of the board members for the B.C. Principals and Vice-Principals Association. We were very, very honoured to be their guests at a luncheon today. Marilyn Merler, president; Ted Whiteland, executive director; Jameel Aziz, president-elect; Carl Repp, the director; Elaine McVie, who is from Victoria; Terry Honer; Tom Aerts; Bruce Frith; Roberta Kubik; and Bryan Johnson. I apologize if I've got some translation wrong, but welcome.

Can we please get everybody to welcome the principals and vice-principals.

Hon. M. Polak: I would like to introduce Melanie Filiatrault, president, and Heather Bayes, vice-president, of the B.C. Federation of Foster Parent Associations.

Later this afternoon they will be joining me to sign a Foster Parent Rights document that represents the principles and values that exist in partnership with the Ministry of Children and Family Development and foster parents around this province.

Would the House please make them very welcome.

S. Simpson: I'm pleased to introduce an old friend of many on this side, Don Jantzen, who is with us. Don had a long history of working in the labour movement, and for the last number of years until his recent retirement, he has worked as an assistant to the mayor of Burnaby, which we all know is ranked the best-managed city in Canada. Thank you very much.

D. Horne: It's, I guess, family week here. My father was here earlier in the week, and I'd like to introduce my daughter Liza Horne, who is joining us today. May the House make her truly welcome.

Tabling Documents

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, I have the honour to present the Auditor General's report No. 2, 2009-2010, Follow-up Report: Updates on the Implementation of Recommendations from Recent Reports; Auditor General's report No. 3, 2009-2010, Observations on Financial Reporting: Audit Findings Report on 2008-2009

Summary Financial Statements .

[1340]

Ministerial Statements

OLYMPIC TORCH RELAY AND

HOSTING OF OLYMPIC GAMES IN B.C.

Hon. G. Campbell: I rise to make a ministerial statement.

Tomorrow the Olympic torch arrives here in Victoria, British Columbia, to begin a journey across our coun-

[ Page 1790 ]

try to light the way for the 2010 Winter Olympic and Paralympic Games. It's a journey that will last 105 days, cover 45,000 kilometres and will directly pass through over a thousand communities across Canada.

It's a journey that will see 12,000 torchbearers carry the flame to all Canadians and for all Canadians, including 200 community celebrations in every region and corner of our country and our province. Ninety percent of Canada's population will be within an hour's drive of those community celebrations that all begin right here tomorrow in Victoria, British Columbia, Canada.

Hon. Speaker, as we reflect on the journey that it's taken to get us here, we have to think as far back as 1997, when a group of citizens said they thought it would be a powerful idea to try and attract an Olympic Games to Vancouver.

In January of 1998 Premier Clark and the government said that the province supported that quest to achieve those games. He was followed by Premier Miller and his government, by Premier Dosanjh and his government and finally by this government in saying that yes, this would be positive for British Columbia; it would be positive for Canada. It was something that British Columbians should strive for together.

It's a journey that Mayor Robertson and I had the honour of witnessing when the torch sparked to life last week, on Jack Poole's last day on earth. It is Jack Poole, the father of the 2010 Winter Olympic and Paralympic Games, and John Furlong, the best CEO in Olympic history, who will bring the torch to us here tomorrow in British Columbia.

On behalf of this assembly and all British Columbians, I want to thank those visionaries, their incredible team of dedicated Olympic organizers and the legions of community volunteers over the past decade who have successfully brought us the games. These games will forever stand as a tribute to those people and in fulfilment of Jack Poole's dream and selfless leadership.

The torch has now been transferred to our nation's hands, and it will touch down here tomorrow morning. It is a flame that will burn boldly for the next 121 days as a fitting symbol of all that Canada has come to represent in the world — peace, brotherhood, enlightenment — an Olympic flame that burns as a beacon for the highest ambitions and aspirations of humankind, for the spirit of human potential, for the magnificence of human achievement and for the seemingly impossible physical feats that showcase the potential that each of us have if we dare to live our dreams and strive for what is greatest within all of us.

Our athletes will reach for new heights, and for the first time, I am confident that a Canadian Olympic athlete will win an Olympic gold medal on Canadian soil.

Through our Olympic organizers and literally thousands of volunteers from every corner of the province, from across this country, we will all show the world a gold-medal games that will set the new standard for Olympics everywhere.

Through this once-in-a-lifetime chance to host the Olympics, along with thousands of other British Columbians and Canadians, I will proudly showcase the best that British Columbia and Canada has to offer, not just to the world but to one another, to Canadians — to hold up our example as what can be accomplished when people work together.

Let that torch light all of our hearts with pride and confidence. Let us remember how fortunate we are to live in a country like Canada and a province like British Columbia. Let us take all the inspiration that that flame can have and carry it forward and carry it high as we strive to make the world a better place for our children and those who will follow them.

[1345]

When that flame travels across the country, it will be a golden thread that pulls together every part of our country — from the farthest northern community to the farthest south, from as far east as Cape Spear to the farthest western point at Old Crow in the Yukon. On February 12 that torch will arrive in Vancouver and B.C. Place Stadium and will start the 21st Winter Olympic and Paralympic Games right here in Canada.

As that torch burns, as that relay takes place from community to community, from hamlet to big city, it will light a spark in the eyes of all Canada's children. It will give them a sense of opportunity, of potential and of the power that each of them has in their hearts and in their communities. It will give them a sense of what we can accomplish in Canada.

So now, as we get ready to welcome the world, as we get ready to showcase our province and all the excellence that our province has to offer, I hope that all of us will join together in holding that torch high and remembering: this is British Columbia's time; this is Canada's time.

It is time for us to celebrate our great good fortune in living in this country, to invite the world and to make sure that when they come, we make new friends, find new ways of pursuing the goals that we all share — for peace, for harmony, for brotherhood — and make sure that we are always the community that held that Olympic torch highest and saw it burn brightest in the eyes of those who will follow.

C. James: I want to thank the Premier for his remarks and to add, on behalf of the opposition, that it will be an exciting day tomorrow, and it will be a proud day for all of us as British Columbians — a proud day to have an opportunity for the world to have their eyes on our extraordinary province, a place that we are very proud of.

I also have to say, as the MLA for the area, that I'm also a proud Victorian, and I'm thrilled that we will be kicking off the relay tomorrow right here in this community. I know that there's great excitement in the greater

[ Page 1791 ]

Victoria area for people to be the start of the relay and that there are people who are making those plans. I want to express my appreciation to all of those volunteers.

I also know that there will be many families who will be getting ready for the excitement of seeing their family member being part of that torch relay. It will be an incredibly proud moment for many individuals in our province who will be carrying that torch — for children, for family members, for people who've been involved in their community and in sports. I know they'll be preparing, and I want to offer all of our support and all of our appreciation for those butterflies that they'll be feeling right now as they get ready for their turn to take

part in this historic event.

I know we all join together, as I said, as proud British Columbians to be able to see this exciting journey start tomorrow and to know that the world will be getting a little taste of what all of us are so incredibly fortunate to have every single day as British Columbians. [Applause.]

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

150 th ANNIVERSARY OF

NEW WESTMINSTER

D. Black: I'm pleased to speak about New Westminster today, which is the first city in Canada west of the Lakehead. In 2009 we're celebrating our 150th anniversary, and it's been a year filled with community activities marking this significant milestone.

Our city was named by Queen Victoria herself back in 1859, and because of this royal lineage, it's often called the Royal City. New Westminster was the capital of British Columbia until a political decision was made to move the capital to Victoria.

Today New Westminster still has many attributes of a small town where people know each other and where tradition is enjoyed and celebrated. Traditions like May Day, the Hyack Anvil Battery salute, the Hyack Festival and FraserFest hold our city together.

[1350]

Traditions from other countries have also taken root in New Westminster, as we continue to welcome new citizens from around the world. Among the celebrations held this year were historical fashion shows, neighbourhood birthday parties, a Royal City Gala to salute our artistic achievements at the Massey Theatre and a heritage picnic on the grounds of city hall.

Recently I attended the City Stage New West production of Stump City Stories , an original musical based on the history of New Westminster. With songs and readings, the cast portrayed humorous and tragic vignettes of the city's early years, including the scandalous loss of the capital city status and the great fire of 1898.

New Westminster is a community with active and engaged citizens who are enthusiastic and passionate about their city. I ask all members of this House to join me in saluting New Westminster's first 150 years and in congratulating the mayor, the council and the 150 committee and everyone else who has made this year a very, very special celebration.

AGRICULTURE AND FOOD

INDUSTRIES IN B.C.

J. van Dongen: Today is Agriculture Day 2009, and I am pleased to welcome 50 farmers and ranchers from all over British Columbia. They are here to have a conversation with MLAs and government about the importance of farming, ranching and the whole agrifood industry.

The true economic impact of agriculture is often underestimated. The primary industry generates $2½ billion in sales revenue at the farm gate, more than twice as much as the movie industry in British Columbia. But that is only a small part of the whole economic story of agriculture.

B.C. farmers and ranchers are the foundation for a diversified agrifood industry that includes not only production but also a service and supply sector, processing, distribution and sale of food, flowers and nursery products. This provincewide, dynamic industry generates over $35 billion in total revenues and provides employment for 305,000 people — nearly double the construction industry.

While these numbers confirm a very significant overall contribution to the province, there are some farm sectors that are facing difficult times. The cattle and hog industries are facing the most difficult market and economic conditions that I have seen in my lifetime. But even in sectors where there have been financial losses, farmers and ranchers have continued to do what they do best. They have continued to invest in their farms and ranches and thereby in their communities.

Farmers and ranchers are by nature eternal optimists and always looking to the future. I'm proud to say that the organization that represents them, the B.C. Agriculture Council, sees and promotes a positive future for the agrifood industry in our province. I ask all members of this House to join me in a tribute to the farming and ranching families of British Columbia.

COWICHAN INTERNATIONAL ABORIGINAL

FESTIVAL of film and art

B. Routley: Over the last six years the Cowichan Aboriginal Film and Art Festival has presented and promoted awareness of indigenous film and media artists, with works coming from local, national and international filmmakers. They also facilitate opportunities for the professional development and presentation of the works of these artists.

[ Page 1792 ]

This is one of the few festivals in Canada and in the world that focuses on indigenous artists and one of the very few that operates outside of an urban centre. The work that they do and the positive impact that it has had on the community has generated international interest. Through outreach programs for youth of the region, they have worked with aboriginal education and with alternate schools and youth organizations to engage often at-risk youth in developing their voices through film and media arts.

This year over a hundred youth in the region will be working on this project. Many will be featured at the 2010 Cowichan Aboriginal Film Festival to be held April 15 through 19 of 2010. This group helps to create a greater awareness of Coast Salish artists, their work and the important role that they play in interpreting and preserving first nations heritage.

[1355]

Some of the direct benefits to the Cowichan Valley communities are the development of a creative hub of activity for indigenous film-makers with access to resources and community bridge-building through education and outreach. They are making films, teaching youth, providing economic stimulus through a growing arts, culture and heritage attraction. Please join with me in thanking this group for their outstanding work in the Cowichan Valley and in our region.

FOSTER PARENTS

H. Bloy: I rise today to speak in recognition of foster parent rights. It's my distinct pleasure to do so during Foster Parents Month in British Columbia. A Foster Parent Rights document will be signed later today by the Minister of Children and Family Development and Melanie Filiatrault of the B.C. Federation of Foster Parent Associations.

This document represents the principles and values that exist in relationship between the ministry and the foster parents that provide support for thousands of children and youth across British Columbia. This document recognizes the commitment, skills and contribution that foster parents make each and every day. This document recognizes the unique nature of the fostering community and the vital role a foster parent plays as a cornerstone in our services to children and youth across British Columbia.

Foster parents come from all walks of life. They are our neighbours and our colleagues, as is the member for Surrey–White Rock. They have diverse cultural, social and economic backgrounds, but what they all have in common is that they are ordinary people engaged in extraordinary acts of kindness.

There are almost 3,300 foster families in British Columbia. They give children a family and a safe, loving and stable environment when their own parents are not able to look after them. There is always a need for more individuals and families to open their hearts and their homes and join the thousands of other foster families who contribute to the fabric of our communities.

I encourage British Columbians to consider becoming foster parents and to take the time to acknowledge those who have taken on this incredible role in our province.

MARY ELLEN SMITH

V. Huntington: I was recently reminded that Women's History Month was closing with an important acknowledgment unspoken. A woman calling herself an independent people's candidate made history by being elected to the British Columbia Legislature.

It was January, 1918, and that individual was Mary Ellen Smith. Smith ran in a by-election in Vancouver city. She was the first woman to run politically in B.C., in the first election in which women were allowed to vote, and she was the first woman elected as an MLA.

Smith also became the first woman in the British Empire to be appointed to cabinet and to sit as Speaker. I hesitate to add that she ran as a Liberal in subsequent elections. I hasten to say that she resigned from cabinet after disagreeing with the government.

Ms. Joan Sawicki, a former Speaker of this House, suggested I read Seeking Balance: Conversations with B.C. Women in Politics . The author, herself a former cabinet minister, interviewed women MLAs, several of whom currently sit in this House. These individuals offered thoughtful and provocative views on the challenges that have faced women in politics.

Mary Ellen Smith features largely in Seeking Balance . She was undaunted by road blocks, unintimidated by detractors and unyielding in her quest to forge a path for the women who followed.

OLYMPIC TORCH RELAY IN NANAIMO

R. Cantelon: On Saturday the Olympic excitement is going to arrive in Nanaimo big time, as the torch relay reaches Nanaimo. I have to tell you: is Nanaimo ever ready. They were the first city to embrace the concept of the Olympic Games. They recognized the economic and tourism opportunities as we showcase and host the world coming to our door.

[1400]

Well, it will happen in Maffeo-Sutton Park in the Spirit Square. There will be dance schools, rhythmic gymnastics displays, cultural dances from the Celtic, the

[ Page 1793 ]

Ukrainian, the first nations and the Chinese. There will also be roving musicians, roving magicians and clowns throughout the crowd. Then it will start with an official welcome from the aboriginal Snuneymuxw First Nation, and The Kiltlifters band will perform — all family entertainment, I assure you, Mr. Speaker.

Then we'll be energized by the young Vibe Dance group, which will give us an energetic and dynamic approach. Then the big event: Michelle Stillwell, a double gold medallist and double Olympic record holder in the Paralympic Games from Beijing, will fly across Maffeo Sutton Park, or will seem to, on a zip line with the torch in hand to light the cauldron. It's going to be a wonderful event, and there will be music to follow.

That'll be the big event in Nanaimo, but that's not end of it. It'll then hit the rest of Oceanside. In the town of Lantzville they're ready to celebrate. Nanoose, Parksville, Qualicum Beach — all Oceanside areas are ready to embrace the Olympic spirit, to be excited and energized by it, and it's going to keep right on going through to February.

Oral Questions

GOVERNMENT SUPPORT FOR

KITIMAT FOREST WORKERS

C. James: Today as we sit in this Legislature, a community is facing a crisis: 535 workers, their families and the entire community of Kitimat have lost their second-largest employer, the Eurocan pulp mill. It's a blow to a town that has already seen job loss after job loss — 535 jobs gone in a town of 9,500.

My question is to the Minister of Forests. He's heard the reports. He knows the kind of damage it's going to do. What is he going to do for these 535 workers and their families who are losing their jobs in January?

Hon. P. Bell: Thanks very much to the member opposite for the question. These are very trying times for those 535 people and also for the entire community. I can tell the member opposite that I have spoken with the mayor of Kitimat this morning, Joanne Monaghan. She is doing her best to deal with this. I can also tell the member opposite that the Premier has called Joanne and spoken with her, talked to her about some ideas about how we can move forward.

I've also taken the time to talk with Hank Ketcham, the CEO of West Fraser, so that we can consider all of our options going forward. It's a very difficult time. I don't want to underestimate the challenges that we're facing.

This isn't about partisanship. This is about a community. We all need to work collaboratively together to get through this very challenging period for the people of Kitimat.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a supplemental.

C. James: It's critical that we see action and not simply words from this government for these workers and for the town of Kitimat. I'm afraid that we've heard these kinds of reassurances from this government and this minister before. We certainly saw it in the town of Mackenzie. Those workers are still struggling, and that community is still struggling.

Over 50 mills have closed under this government. Reassurances from this government have proved to be nothing but cold comfort for those communities and workers and families. The fact is that it was this government that gutted protections for forest workers. It's this government that only starts talking about action after the mill has closed down and the community is in crisis.

Again, my question is to the minister. I understand the reassurances, I understand the words, but I'd like to ask the minister: what specific actions are he and the government taking to help these workers and their families and their community?

Hon. P. Bell: Again, I hope the member opposite resists the temptation to lead into partisanship on this issue. I don't think that is the appropriate thing to do at this point.

As I said already, the Premier has already spoken with Joanne Monaghan, as have I. I've actually left messages for the union leadership, Mary Murphy and Adrian Welsh. I've not been able to speak with them yet today. My colleague the Minister of Children and Family Development has already been in touch with the community offering services, as has my colleague from Community Development.

[1405]

The member opposite brings up Mackenzie. I would like to remind the member opposite that two of those sawmills have reopened in Mackenzie.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a further supplemental.

C. James: This is not about partisanship. This is about getting action on behalf of forest workers and families and communities, making sure that something occurs that will improve things for that community.

It's important that we take a look at the record on forestry in this province. Let's take a look at tens of thousands of jobs that have been lost, 50 mills closed, gutting of the social contract, giveaway of our forest lands, a complete destruction of the value-added industry. I'm afraid, Mr. Speaker, that this is the B.C. Liberal record on forestry.

Again, my question is to the minister. The 535 workers in Kitimat, tens of thousands of forestry workers across

[ Page 1794 ]

B.C., are hurting. Will this minister admit that the B.C. Liberal forest policy has failed those communities?

Hon. P. Bell: I'll let the public be the judge of whether that's partisan or not. It certainly sounded like that to me.

The member opposite knows that we've worked hard to develop new economic opportunities across the northwest part of the province, particularly the LNG plant, which I think is a very positive economic opportunity and something that the mayor of Kitimat, Joanne Monaghan, is very supportive of. It's going to be interesting to see what happens over the coming months — whether that sees the support of the opposition or not.

It is very early days in this situation. The announcement was made about 24 hours ago. We are working with West Fraser, we're working with the district of Kitimat, and we're going to work with the union folks. I'd actually offer to the local MLA, who is an opposition member, to work collaboratively with us to get through this. There are 535 people that could potentially lose their jobs. We want to help them, and we want to help that community.

N. Macdonald: The minister is talking about finding out yesterday. Well, there was a time in this province when a minister would have been informed well ahead of any announcement by a company, but in 2003 this government gave up all of the tools they had to help communities. What we have left is a minister that is spouting, essentially, false promises and false hope. What we have seen this minister tell us about supposed solutions in other communities like Mackenzie never materialized.

Last year this minister said: "I think the worst is over." Well, clearly that is not the case. He also said that there's good news out there, but there is not a shred of good news for the community of Kitimat today.

Let's be specific. What is he going to do for the 535 workers in Kitimat who are going to be losing their jobs at the beginning of 2010? Specifically, what is he going to be doing for those workers and their families?

Hon. P. Bell: I find it very unfortunate that the critic really stoops to a partisanship approach to this issue, because that's not what the workers in Kitimat want to hear. The workers in Kitimat want to hear that the opposition and the government are working collaboratively to help the community through what is an incredibly challenging time. The members opposite, if they choose, can go down this path of partisanship. This government is taking the high road. We're going to fix the problems in Kitimat.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

N. Macdonald: What a ridiculous supposition from this minister — that he has not consistently acted in a partisan manner again and again and again. In 2005 my predecessor, as critic, made an offer to work collaboratively to set up an all-party committee that would go and try to do some of the work that would prevent this, and the government rejected it as they have rejected every sensible idea that has come forward on forestry.

Instead, what we have is a complete and absolute failure in forest policy in this province — complete and absolute. Now it is the workers in Kitimat that have to deal with that.

I have asked for a specific thing that this minister is going to do that is going to help the 535 workers, their families and the whole community in Kitimat and Terrace that are impacted by this. What specifically are this minister and this government going to do?

[1410]

Hon. P. Bell: The member opposite says: "What are you going to do?" Well, this government is in support of a liquefied natural gas plant in Kitimat, a new port in Kitimat to bring in that traffic and a new pipeline. So far the opposition has opposed that.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Minister, just….

Member.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. P. Bell: I've done my best to make this a non-partisan issue, and I hope that the opposition understands that and that they work collaboratively to try and get through this.

There are a number of initiatives already in place in the northwest that should revitalize the economy and start moving it forward, including the LNG plant. That's an opportunity for the opposition to stand up today and say: "We support that. We want that LNG plant to go ahead, and we want the thousands of jobs that will come with that construction."

I would remind the member opposite — although I've heard them say that nothing's happening in Mackenzie, one of my communities that I represent — that two of the sawmills have reopened in Mackenzie after having closed, that Conifex has purchased a sawmill in Fort St. James and reopened that one as well.

R. Austin: It's truly unfortunate that we're having this debate today, when the workers are in shock with yesterday's announcement. Before this government gutted the Forest Act, we used to have processes to plan for a just transition for communities and workers.

[ Page 1795 ]

Let me read some words from Peter King, one of the workers who were impacted by the closure of Eurocan. "I've worked at Eurocan for 34 years. If I can't get an early retirement package, I'll be left struggling to pay the bank for a home that's lost its value. Many workers with mortgages and no hope of employment in the region will be forced to give their keys to the bank and walk away."

Workers like Peter are not interested in round tables that lead to nothing and rhetoric with no solutions. They want to see some action. My question is to the Minister of Community Development. Can Mr. King and the other workers at Eurocan apply for direct transition assistance from the community development trust?

Hon. P. Bell: I asked the opposition critic whether or not he supported the LNG pipeline and whether or not he sees that as an economic opportunity for the region. He didn't answer it, so I will ask the member who is the MLA for the area whether or not he supports that. That's a significant economic initiative…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. P. Bell: …that could make a difference to the city of Kitimat.

But what I want to say to the member opposite and to Peter is that this government's going to be there for Peter. We're going to make sure that we manage through what is a very difficult time. It's very early days. We want to work collaboratively with West Fraser.

Hank Ketcham has said very specifically that he wants to treat all of his employees in a very respectful way. I'd remind the members opposite that Hank Ketcham, the CEO of West Fraser, took his time to fly all the way to Kitimat to talk to the employees personally. I think that's very respectful. I think we should all be treating the employees in exactly the same way.

R. Austin: You'd think, with all the people that the government has in PAB, that they would have seen on many occasions that both myself and the MP have been in support of the LNG plant in Kitimat.

But here's the problem. It's highly capital-intensive and not very labour-intensive. Once it is built, it'll be 35 jobs — 35 jobs that won't replace 535, maybe 700 jobs that have been lost in northwest B.C. The community development trust transition fund, unfortunately, is finished. Not one of the 535 Eurocan workers can get transition assistance from it because this government has consistently refused to match the federal dollars that have now run out.

The Eurocan workers, like all the tens of thousands of other forest workers who have lost their jobs under this Liberal government, have paid provincial taxes for decades, and they deserve to see some of that provincial tax money coming back to them in their time of need.

[1415]

Will the Minister of Community Development commit today to put together a provincial transition strategy for the Eurocan workers and for the community of Kitimat so they can get the opportunity to have a fair and just transition?

Hon. P. Bell: The member opposite, I think, points out something interesting when he says he supports the LNG plant and the port. The problem is that he opposes the pipeline that would actually connect it to something to get the natural gas to the port. That is a key link. Whether he supports that or not will be interesting, because he's consistently opposed it.

The Rural Secretariat is already on the ground, working hard to make sure that Peter and all of his colleagues in Kitimat are looked after. It's been 24 hours since the announcement.

We want to work in a collaborative way. It's become apparent to me over the last three series of questions that the opposition has little or no interest in being collaborative. I think that's a shame and, in fact, a disgrace for the member opposite, who should be supporting and finding constructive solutions to the challenges that we've faced in Kitimat.

B. Simpson: The Minister of Forests just offered one of the most partisan answers that you can ever offer in this House and attacked an individual MLA.

My question is to the Minister of Community Development — straight-up question. Can the workers at Eurocan apply for community development trust transition funds? Yes or no. Can they apply?

Hon. P. Bell: Again, the member is accusing people of partisanship. All he has to do is look in the mirror to understand where the partisanship really exists.

The Ministry of Community Development, through the Rural Secretariat, is already looking at what the options are for the Kitimat workers. It's been 24 hours since the decision by West Fraser to close the mill.

One of the members opposite said that there was a point in time when a minister would be informed. The member opposite should know what the security rules in British Columbia are. Maybe that's why they got in trouble with insider-trading allegations. Very clearly, this is a publicly traded company. It's not appropriate for there to be any announcements or any acknowledgment of that until the announcement is physically made.

We are going to work with the people of Kitimat. We are going to see what the opportunities and options are, but it's early days, and we need time to work through that.

[ Page 1796 ]

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

B. Simpson: Can the Minister of Community Development tell this House whether or not the workers at Eurocan that have lost their jobs can apply for transition funding through the community development trust? Yes or no.

Hon. P. Bell: It's been 24 hours since the decision by West Fraser on this mill. We're looking at all of our options. We want to understand the decision. We want to understand if there are opportunities to mitigate the decision, what other economic opportunities there are in the community.

It is very, very early to start asking questions like the member opposite is asking. Nor would it be appropriate to try and provide answers to that type of question.

ACCESS TO INFLUENZA VACCINES

IN RIONDEL AND CRAWFORD BAY

M. Mungall: My question is to the Minister for Healthy Living. Providing isolated B.C. communities the H1N1 vaccine is identified as a priority, but a shortcoming in planning is leaving Riondel and Crawford Bay, isolated communities in my riding, without direct access to both the H1N1 vaccine and the seasonal flu shot. Very straightforward question: what will the minister do to rectify this?

Hon. I. Chong: I understand that there are people concerned about the H1N1 flu that is out there currently, but I also know that there is misinformation that is out there.

I want to assure all British Columbians that we are working to ensure that the priority groups that need the vaccination are going to have access to that. What we're also doing, working through our provincial health officer and all the health officers throughout the province…. We're relying on their expert advice as to how to deliver the vaccine.

[1420]

I want to again assure members of this House that we have ordered enough vaccine that all British Columbians who need and want the vaccine will have access to it.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

M. Mungall: For the past 15 years a flu shot clinic has been set up in both Riondel and Crawford Bay. They have been very successful. The clinics are highly attended, and they are a natural setting to administer the H1N1 vaccine. Not just because those flu clinics have always been there but because these are isolated communities, they are supposed to be a priority. But they're being cancelled. The clinics are being cancelled this year, a counterintuitive decision in the midst of an H1N1 outbreak.

Will the minister work to reinstate the flu clinics, which the communities have relied on for over a decade, so that they can receive the H1N1 vaccine and seasonal flu vaccine?

Hon. I. Chong: This is the largest mass immunization program that this province has ever undertaken. We have experts — health experts, medical experts, in particular our well-recognized chief provincial health officer, Dr. Perry Kendall — working in collaboration with all the medical health officers across the province. They are providing the advice as to how and where the vaccine needs to be delivered. I am not going to second-guess those health experts as to how that should take place.

Again, I want to assure British Columbians that we have ordered enough H1N1 vaccines for everyone, and I want to ask all members of this House, to remind them, that we also have a responsibility not to spread fear. We have a responsibility to be community leaders, to share information with our constituents, information that is readily available on our H1N1 website. I would ask all members to take that responsibility seriously.

RESPONSIBILITY FOR

H1N1 INFLUENZA VACCINE PROGRAM

J. Brar: I want to remind the minister that you are accountable to the people of British Columbia. That's what we are asking from you, Minister.

The problem is very clear. There's no one person in charge of the H1N1 vaccine rollout plan. There is no one person — I'm going to repeat — in charge of the H1N1 vaccine rollout plan. Different plans in different locations are causing confusion, frustration and delays for the people of British Columbia.

For example, Vancouver Coastal Health is providing the vaccine through special drop-in clinics. But across the street Fraser Health won't do the same — just on the other side of the street.

Will the Minister of Healthy Living and Sport show some leadership by putting Dr. Perry Kendall, not the health authority, in charge of the H1N1 vaccine rollout for the remainder of the outbreak?

Hon. I. Chong: I will again reiterate the remarks I made earlier. Our provincial health officer, Dr. Perry Kendall, along with the medical health officers throughout the health authorities, have not taken their responsibilities lightly. They are treating this very seriously.

We know that the work of our health officials in the midst of the largest mass immunization program is being stretched to the limit. But they are working hard and diligently — and they have been over the last number of weeks — to ensure that our priority groups are vaccinated first.

[1425]

[ Page 1797 ]

We are also asking those healthy individuals to wait, probably for a couple of weeks, until the supply is large enough for the general population to access it. Again, as MLAs, as community leaders, we have a responsibility not to spread fear, to provide information to our constituents, to give them that information on our H1N1 website, which is updated regularly — several times, in fact, in one day — and to leave the decision-making as to how this is to be administered to the health experts. We are not the health experts.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

J. Brar: This minister must understand that it is completely absurd that on one side of Boundary Road you can receive the H1N1 vaccine through a special clinic but on the other side you cannot.

It is not a medical question. It is an administrative question. It does not make any sense. Does this make sense to the minister? I would like to ask that. If not, what steps will the minister take to fix it?

Hon. I. Chong: I do understand that there is concern out in the general public, but what we need to also understand is that it is important that we listen to our health professionals, our medical health experts. I want to assure all members of this House and all British Columbians that we will be cared for. We will have enough vaccines to take care of all British Columbians.

BEAR REHABILITATION FACILITY

PROPOSAL FOR NORTH SHORE

S. Fraser: Last week the Minister of Environment confirmed that the government is prepared to spend $400,000 on a controversial bear high school on the North Shore, despite the fact that bear experts say it's a very bad idea.

Now we have an FOI which shows that one ministry expert compared this facility to Mordor. That's the home of the Dark Lord in the Lord of the Rings trilogy — hardly a good place for baby bears. This expert also said the proposal was "ethically and biologically wrong," and he said: "Bears will suffer the consequences if this project goes ahead."

I'll direct this question to the acting Premier or any minister that's willing to stand up on this. When did it become government policy to ignore scientific advice and make decisions based on the whims of the Premier?

Hon. M. de Jong: I'm greatly tempted, but I think I'll take the question on notice.

FUNDING FOR

VICTORIA BRIDGE REPLACEMENT

J. Horgan: In keeping with the non-partisan tone, I'll direct my question to the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure. She will know that last week the federal government ponied up $21 million to assist the city of Victoria in a regional project to replace the Blue Bridge, not 200 metres away from this place.

Will the minister today in this place stand and commit to the people of Vancouver Island that she and her government will fully fund one-third of this project to meet the transportation infrastructure needs of the people of Vancouver Island?

Hon. S. Bond: I can assure the member opposite that anytime our federal counterparts want to bring money to British Columbia, we celebrate that here on this side of the House.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, since October of 2008 this government has announced over $4 billion worth of infrastructure projects. Those projects, and rightly so, are located all across the province of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

[1430]

J. Horgan: Reluctantly, I have to take off my non-partisan hat. I'm delighted that the minister wants to celebrate federal money. What we want on this side of the House is to match that federal money.

I'm also curious. If the government is so keen to celebrate, why was it that the minister from Sidney wasn't at the announcement? Why was it that the minister from Oak Bay wasn't at the announcement? And more importantly, of the 16 percent of the population of British Columbia that live on Vancouver Island, why is only 9 percent of the infrastructure money coming to this rock?

Again, to the minister: if the Prime Minister from 3,000 miles away gets it that this is a regional infrastructure program that deserves funding, why is it that the Liberals 200 metres away don't?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, we simply have to look at this government's record of investment in Victoria and the south Island. I know the member opposite knows that I'm going to start with a list.

In fact, one of those projects is over $350 million for a brand-new Royal Jubilee Hospital. We can't forget the fact that we committed hundreds of millions of dollars to the construction of a sewage treatment in the capital region. We have underway the largest infrastructure

[ Page 1798 ]

program in the history of British Columbia, investment right across this province, including Victoria.

[End of question period.]

Motions Without Notice

REFERRAL OF REPORTS TO COMMITTEES

AND POWERS OF

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE

Hon. M. de Jong: With leave…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. de Jong: …I move the following motion, which I'll abbreviate for the members. The reports are listed in the motion. I've provided a copy to my friend the Opposition House Leader. The motion otherwise corresponds with the standard motion that is moved in these circumstances.

[1. That the reports of the Auditor General of British Columbia deposited with the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly during the first session of the thirty-ninth parliament be deemed referred to the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts, with the exception of the report referred to in

section 22 of the Auditor General Act which is referred to the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services; and in addition that the following reports of the Auditor General of British Columbia be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts:

• Report No. 5, 2008/09: Removing Private Land from Tree Farm Licences 6, 19 & 25: Protecting the Public Interest?

• Report No. 7, 2008/09: Home and Community Care Services: Meeting Needs and Preparing for the Future

• Report No. 8, 2008/09: Follow-up Report: Updates on the implementation of recommendations from recent reports

• Report No. 9, 2008/09: Observations on Financial Reporting: Audit Findings Report on the 2007/08

Summary Financial Statements

• Report No. 10, 2008/09: A Major Renovation: Trades Training in British Columbia

• Report No. 12, 2008/09: Planning for School Seismic Safety

• Report No. 13, 2008/09: Public Sector Governance and How Are We Doing?

• Report No. 14, 2008/09: Grant Administration of the BC Arts Council; 2010 Olympics and Paralympic Games

• Report No. 15, 2008/09: Wireless Networking Security in Victoria Government Offices: Gaps in the Defensive Line

• Report No. 16, 2008/09: Homelessness: Clear Focus Needed

• Report No. 1, 2009/10: Follow-up Report: Updates on the implementation of recommendations from recent reports.

2. That the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts be the committee referred to in sections 2, 6, 7, 10, 13 and 14 of the Auditor General Act .

In addition to the powers previously conferred upon the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts, the Committee be empowered:

(

a) to appoint of their number, one or more subcommittees and to refer to such subcommittees any of the matters referred to the Committee;

(

b) to sit during a period in which the House is adjourned, during the recess after prorogation until the next following Session and during any sitting of the House;

(

c) to adjourn from place to place as may be convenient; and

(

d) to retain personnel as required to assist the Committee,

and shall report to the House as soon as possible, or following any adjournment, or at the next following Session, as the case may be; to deposit the original of its reports with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly during a period of adjournment and upon resumption of the sittings of the House, the Chair shall present all reports to the Legislative Assembly.]

With leave, I move that motion.

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: I call in Committee A, Committee of Supply, for the information of members, the ongoing estimates of the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and the Arts; and in this chamber, second reading debate on Bill 14, Housing and Social Development Statutes Amendment Act, 2009.

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 14 — Housing and

Social Development Statutes

Amendment Act, 2009

Hon. R. Coleman: I move that Bill 14 be read for a second time now.

This government is committed to providing assistance to people in most need, but we do not tolerate abuse of the system.

The amendments we're doing to the act will restrict eligibility and access to income assistance and disability assistance for those who have outstanding warrants for indictable offences. These warrants can be arrest warrants for indictable offences from British Columbia and other provinces and arrest warrants under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

The proposed legislation will allow exemptions, including those who are pregnant or who are in the final stages of life. The warrant must be for an adult in a family. Warrants for dependent children will have no impact on this act.

[1435]

If an adult in a family has a warrant, the other family members, including dependent children, are still eligible for assistance. But assistance will only be paid for family members who do not have a warrant. No assistance will be paid for the warrant holder.

The person with a warrant will remain as part of the family and, like other family members, their income and

[ Page 1799 ]

assets will be taken into account when determining how much assistance a family is eligible for. Repayable assistance will also be available to help warrant holders with transportation expenses if they choose to return to the issuing jurisdiction in order to resolve the outstanding warrant.

Indictable offences are the most serious types of offences and include crimes such as assault, breaking and entering, drug trafficking, murder, assault with a weapon and causing bodily harm and sexual assault. These are defined in the Criminal Code of Canada. Our intention is to ensure that those charged with indictable offences take personal responsibility and resolve serious charges against them before they can be provided assistance in this province.

Applicants for assistance will be required to authorize a criminal background check when signing an application form. Applicants that refuse to provide consent will not be eligible for assistance. A signed application form authorizes the province to exercise its discretion and then disclose an individual's information for purposes of verifying whether they have an outstanding warrant. In cases where an applicant indicates they have an outstanding warrant, no assistance will be provided to that individual until the warrant is resolved.

Recipients of assistance will have to indicate whether they have any outstanding warrants as part of a monthly reporting requirement. Recipients of assistance will also be required to indicate whether they have outstanding warrants during their annual reviews. The province will also have the capacity to verify information provided by the applicant or recipients to determine whether they have any outstanding warrants. This could include requesting a criminal background check.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Failing to disclose the existence of an outstanding warrant when required to do so may be considered welfare fraud and will be treated accordingly. It is important that the public knows we are taking action to preserve the public safety and protect taxpayers' money. Assistance should be provided to eligible, law-abiding citizens.

In conclusion, the proposed amendment will hold assistance clients who have outstanding warrants more accountable for their actions and protect B.C.'s taxpayers. I look forward to the comments of members of the opposition and to working through this bill through committee to discuss any of the issues and concerns we have with the implementation of the act.

I now await the other members' comments.

S. Simpson: I'm happy to stand and speak to Bill 14, the Housing and Social Development Statutes Amendment Act, 2009. What this legislation does, what this legislation proposes, is that the government has deemed that they will deny income assistance or disability assistance to any person who has an outstanding warrant for their arrest for an indictable offence anywhere in Canada.

The problem with this legislation is that what the minister says and what the legislation says are two different things. The minister released a press release in regard to this, and in his comments in introducing the bill, he spoke about serious crimes. He spoke about murder. He spoke about sexual assault. He spoke about other serious crimes and said: "These are the crimes that Bill 14 is intended to address."

The challenge we have here is that that isn't, in fact, what the legislation says. The legislation speaks of an indictable offence under the

Interpretation Act. The

Interpretation Act says that the offence is deemed to be an indictable offence if the enactment provides that the offender may — and the operable word here is "may" — be prosecuted for the offence by indictment.

What we know — and a number of my colleagues who have legal training will speak to this later in the debate — is that is a broad array of offences. It is in no way restricted to the shortlist of serious offences that the minister talked about in his press release or spoke about earlier in introducing this bill.

[1440]

It does include the single mom who doesn't have any money, who goes out and shoplifts some groceries and gets caught. She, potentially, is captured by that indictable offence. Now, whether the courts decide to make that indictable versus

summary is a whole other matter. The reality is that the prospect is still there.

Essentially, what we have here is not a case of a piece of legislation that, as the minister would like us to believe, deals with a narrow group of very serious offences. Rather, it is a much broader brush that captures a large, large number of people.

Let's be clear about what income assistance is truly all about. What we know with income assistance is that income assistance is about providing for the food and shelter needs of people as a last resort. We hear that, and I heard the minister speak of that in estimates over the last few days. The minister talked about how that's what income assistance was about. Well, if that's what income assistance is about, then let that be the service that it provides; let that be, in fact, what income assistance provides. What income assistance isn't about is…. It isn't a tool for enforcing the law, and it shouldn't be seen to be that way.

What the minister has done with Bill 14 is create that kind of circumstance where it becomes one of the tools to help enforce the law by using it as a hammer in regard to people's potential for income assistance and any outstanding warrants that they may have.

The problem that we see…. A number of people who have spoken to me about Bill 14, people who have interest in this area of public policy in the community, have raised concerns about whether this is a piece of legislation that's as much as anything about dealing with

[ Page 1800 ]

managing eligibility questions for income assistance as it is about dealing with the matters that are raised in the legislation.

I would hope that that's not what the minister's intentions are. I would hope that the minister just got it wrong on this piece of legislation. What we know is that it is a piece of legislation that doesn't achieve the objective that the minister talks about in his press releases or in his comments here.

So then the question becomes: what about serious crimes and serious criminals? What about the murders or the sexual assaults or the violent assaults or the armed crimes? What about those kinds of crimes? What about those kinds of situations? Should we, in fact, be doing something in relation to those as it relates to this question of income assistance and the ability to collect income assistance?

Well, it would seem to me that if we find people in our province…. Whether they're British Columbians, whether they're people who have come to British Columbia from elsewhere, whether they are here for the purpose of and are making the effort in applying for and collecting income assistance, let's find out if they have warrants for those serious crimes that the minister spoke about in his comments, that his press release talks about.

Then it would seem to me that our responsibility isn't to be so concerned about whether they're on income assistance. Our responsibility is to do what we need to do to try to get them back to the jurisdiction where those warrants are outstanding so that they can face justice there. If they're wanted for serious crimes, it should be our intention to do that.

The minister has talked about having resources related to this, to assist in the costs of transporting people. We've heard about con air. We have a number of those discussions that we've heard about. The Solicitor General has talked about supports for the con air concept.

If we're talking about people who really are charged with those serious crimes, then let us do what it takes to get them to the jurisdiction where those charges are outstanding and have them face their day in court, and let the courts determine whether they are guilty or innocent. Then the question of whether they're collecting income assistance in British Columbia won't be an issue for anybody, because they will have gone through the due process of the law. That's truly what we should be looking for and attempting to do with people who, in fact, are in this situation.

[1445]

The other thing we know about the law is that people essentially are innocent until they're proven guilty. So the first thing that we have to do in relation to all of these folks who might be captured by this category is at the outset to deem them as innocent until they do have their day in court and until we do determine the level of guilt or until the courts determine their guilt.

That raises another question. If people are deemed to be innocent until proven guilty, and that's what our law says, then we need to raise the question for ourselves about whether it's appropriate to deny somebody income assistance when they are not guilty of a crime. And that becomes another challenge and another question that we need to deal with.

One of the other things that the bill talks about is…. It has a self-reporting nature to it. It asks for people to disclose. You apply for income assistance. It requests that you disclose whether, in fact, you have an outstanding warrant in British Columbia or in some other jurisdiction, and if you don't disclose that or if you're untruthful in that disclosure, then that, of course, becomes an offence unto itself.

The serious crimes the minister talks about that he says this bill is to address…. Well, I would anticipate that the vast majority of people who maybe have an outstanding warrant and maybe a warrant with some justification — for a murder, for a serious sexual assault, for another violent crime…. I wouldn't have a whole lot of faith that when they go to the income assistance office and they're asked about that warrant, the first thing they're going to say is: "Oh yes, I have an outstanding warrant for murder in Ontario, and can I have welfare?" I don't anticipate that a lot of people who have that outstanding warrant are going to disclose that.

So this question of self-reporting becomes a bit of a challenge. I just don't envision people self-reporting those serious crimes that the minister tells us this bill is meant to address.

I've heard the minister speak about this in comments that he's made in relation to this legislation — about the need for current recipients to declare any outstanding warrants. I heard musings about questions around criminal record checks and the ability to do criminal record checks. If, in fact, that is what is being presumed in what would be the regulations related to this bill — criminal record checks — well, then, that raises a whole lot of questions.

If it's the government's view now that people who are on income assistance, who apply for income assistance, need to go through a process of criminal record checks or that that possibility is there, well, then, what I would say to the government is that there is a whole array of other people and other entities that the government does business with where taxpayer dollars are involved. There's a whole array of those.

What we know…. To the best of my knowledge, not many of those contractors or those bidders or folks are asked to take criminal record checks in order to bid on or to apply for any of those resources that they want. And so the beneficiaries of other forms of benefit of the government — all good things — don't need to do the same.

So you need to ask yourself a question. If what you're saying is the poor — people who are collecting or who

[ Page 1801 ]

are making application for an income assistance cheque — the poor in British Columbia, the hundreds and hundreds of thousands of poor in this province…. As the minister and everybody in this House knows, we have the highest levels of poverty in British Columbia of any province in this country. We have the highest levels of child poverty of any province in this country.

The minister knows this. Every member of that government knows this. Every member of this Legislature knows this. We are talking about a very large number of people.

[1450]

Is it the position of the government, is it the position of the minister, that those people who are poor, those people who are most vulnerable, those people who are poor and aren't living on a minimum wage that is below subsistence but are living on an income assistance cheque, should further be held under some suspicion that requires them to look at criminal record checks and such?

We all want to deal with questions related to serious crime. We all want to ensure that those people who participate in serious crime are identified and face justice in our courts. We all want to make sure that folks who get into that position are dealt with in the most expeditious way. This legislation doesn't do that. This legislation, even though the minister wants us to believe that this indictable offence is some narrow list of offences…. That isn't who this likely captures.

I can imagine the cases. We've heard this discussion before. As the minister and members of the House may recall, there was quite a controversy about a crackdown in the downtown Vancouver area. This crackdown involved the issuing of jaywalking tickets and loitering tickets and all of those kinds of things.

Now, all of those potentially lead, when people don't show up in court a month or two later — which often is the case — to bench warrants because of failure to appear. Now, do those people, where they have led to bench warrants, get captured by this legislation? Do they end up losing their welfare cheque? Well, we don't know that. We don't know what that situation is.

Hon. Speaker, this really is a very difficult piece of legislation. It's a piece of legislation that looks, as much as anything, like it is about managing eligibility lists at a time when our income assistance eligibility lists and our caseload lists are skyrocketing, largely because of the economic situation we're in, largely because of the number of employables who have lost their jobs, who have exhausted their EI, who have now found themselves in a place where they're looking at having to collect a welfare cheque.

Those numbers have grown by thousands and thousands, and every indication is that those numbers are not going to subside for the next couple of years, before those numbers start to ease off a little bit. We have to ask ourselves: is it about managing that eligibility list? When we get to committee stage, we will have an opportunity to have a discussion about that.

We'll have an opportunity, also, to have a discussion around the question of an indictable offence and what an indictable offence is. We'll have an opportunity to discuss

interpretations of what that means, particularly what it means under the

Interpretation Act, which is what's referenced in the legislation. At that time, we will be talking about a specific list.

If the minister wants to proceed with this kind of legislation, and if the minister is serious that this truly should be about those serious offences, those offences that all of us find reprehensible in this House, that all of us are concerned about — violent, serious offences that take place, often by violent individuals — then let the minister be very clear about that.

I am sure that the Attorney General's department or the Solicitor General's department could assist the minister quite ably in identifying a list of offences that could be included in the legislation, which would say: "For this series of offences, if there are outstanding warrants, these are the consequences in relation to any application you have for income assistance. If you have an outstanding warrant on any of these offences, you don't get income assistance."

[1455]

I would hope that what it would ultimately do is say: "If we identify that you have outstanding warrants, we will, to the best of our efforts, see what we can do to ensure that you are returned to the jurisdiction where those allegations have been made, where that warrant is outstanding and where you, in fact, can begin to be called to task for the offences that you've been accused of." That isn't in the legislation. We don't see that anywhere in the legislation.

As I referenced earlier, we'll also be having a discussion with the minister about the question of self-reporting, and we'll be looking to have a discussion with the minister at that time about whether, in fact, self-reporting makes sense. Is there another way to do this? Is there another approach to take around how that reporting occurs?

We will look at those questions with the minister, and we will be looking quite closely with the minister during the committee stage of this bill at some of those questions about how current recipients of income assistance are dealt with and treated and whether, in fact, it makes any sense at all for us to be invoking, you could almost argue, in some retroactive way the intent of this legislation to deal with those people who are currently on assistance.

It is a matter that is of some concern. There is no doubt about that. What we know is that this approach is an approach that has been looked at in the past. It's an approach that was rejected in the past, mostly because

[ Page 1802 ]

of how it was handled and how it was managed to be brought forward. The reality is that the rejection of it was probably the right thing to do. I find it difficult now to see a government bringing forward what is essentially the same approach that was rejected in the past.

What we need to do at this point is have a real discussion about what the intentions of this legislation are. We need to have a discussion about how we broach this legislation. We need to have a discussion with the minister about what he really looks to accomplish by moving ahead with this legislation. If the press release had been accurate in terms of what this is looking to do, then in fact we might be in a somewhat different place in terms of our particular concerns, our comments about the legislation and how it proceeds.

I've been talking to some people in the community about Bill 14, trying to get a sense from people who work with those who live in poverty, who work with those on assistance and people who are on assistance directly about this, about the sense of fairness and about whether they see a sense of fairness in this or whether they see this legislation being about them being identified in some way, being connected to those who are criminal in nature, about not being respected as people.

One of the things we clearly know is that one of the biggest challenges for people who are on assistance…. The minister and I just finished our estimates in the last few days, and we had a couple of discussions around poverty and around income assistance. We talked a fair amount during that about the challenges of breaking that cycle of poverty.

[1500]

We talked about what it takes to do that. We talked about the idea of poverty reduction and about what the components of that kind of an approach might be. We didn't entirely agree on this, but in a number of areas I think we did in fact come to some agreement. We did reach some agreement in terms of how we need to address these — both somewhat passionate, not entirely agreeing and a little bit of finger-wagging at each other. But that's the nature of this place sometimes.

I did think that we had reached some agreement about the need to show respect, the need for us to be able to treat people who find themselves on income assistance with respect, and about the need to not lose sight of what income assistance is all about, which is providing the essentials of food and shelter for people who find themselves in the most desperate situation.

What Bill 14 does is…. It doesn't accomplish that. What Bill 14 does is something very different.

What I would say in conclusion is that we have a couple of tasks here around Bill 14. First of all, the minister, in committee, is going to have to demonstrate in a way that has not occurred yet that he's right about what constitutes an indictable offence, a warrant out for an indictable offence.

Everything that we see — and the

Interpretation Act says — is that it is much, much more than the short list of serious crimes that the minister put in his press release. If that's the case and if we are — as we are — confident that this in fact is a much broader net, then it's not acceptable to British Columbians to cast the net that way and exclude people from income assistance.

We have to be assured that this is not going to turn into what almost borders on a bit of a witch-hunt of existing income assistance recipients — if they're being asked about issues like criminal record checks and such for people who are on income assistance.

We're going to have to be confident and know that this bill, this legislation, isn't a backhanded way to deal with eligibility and reducing eligibility lists for people on welfare. We are going to have to know that the government actually has a strategy for how it does deal with people who are involved in serious crimes.

This bill is one of two things. It is either unduly intrusive upon people who are on assistance or applying for assistance who certainly don't fall into that category that the minister talked about, or it's a relatively inept piece of legislation in accomplishing the tasks that the minister has stated he wishes to accomplish.

Either way, it's not a piece of legislation that moves forward the social contract. It's not a piece of legislation that is beneficial to people who require income assistance. It's not a piece of legislation that does much in terms of catching folks who have warrants out for them around serious crimes and ensuring that they face their day in court.

So we have serious concern about this. We will have the opportunity to discuss this, no doubt, further and in some detail when we get to the committee stage. I look forward to that discussion.

With that, I will take my place.

Hon. K. Heed: I rise to talk about Bill 14 and to talk about it from the perspective of having spent many, many years in law enforcement dealing with people that take advantage of the systems that we have, the systems that were created for us to truly deal with people that were in need.

[1505]

You know, it's with pleasure that I rise today. I know there are two members opposite, one in particular, that I've had the opportunity to work with in the past to deal with some of the devastation that we see in our communities and deal with the people that take advantage of the system that we have here.

I have witnessed over the years firsthand and continue to hear the frustration from public servants, police officers that are sworn to protect our communities and that are out there each and every shift, working as hard as they can, truly trying to make a difference in society. I listen to their frustrations when they deal with

[ Page 1803 ]

individuals in areas such as the Downtown Eastside of Vancouver and other communities across B.C. — the frustration of continually interacting with individuals that have escaped their jurisdiction.

These individuals will tell you that they actually left their jurisdiction knowing full well that they had a warrant out for their arrest. We're not talking about

summary conviction offences; we're talking about indictable offences.

Jurisdictions throughout Canada, when we're talking about indictable offences, those serious offences, unfortunately know full well that if they put out a limit on the jurisdiction, these individuals will flee and not come back. Because of the processes that we have here in British Columbia and the fact that this is a beautiful province, people seem to gravitate towards British Columbia.

When these individuals come to British Columbia, they don't bring a set of skills, where they're going to contribute positively to society. They bring their crime skills with them. More often than not many of these individuals that have outstanding warrants, that are actually collecting social assistance, are carrying on committing crimes here in British Columbia.

When I was the commanding officer of the Vancouver police drug unit, in fact I did research around 600 street-level drug traffickers arrested in the Downtown Eastside of Vancouver. When we were looking at descriptives, I discovered that a large majority of these individuals were wanted on outstanding warrants, outstanding indictable warrants, not just in British Columbia but across Canada.

I discovered that the majority of these individuals were also collecting social assistance here in British Columbia. We have to remember that these are people that were actually arrested for trafficking drugs in a very confined area in the Downtown Eastside of Vancouver.

I absolutely agree with the member opposite that we need to treat people with dignity and respect. We need to respect their civil rights as individuals. But I must say that these people that escape other jurisdictions — that come here and are wanted on warrants; that come here for handouts, for money; that come here to carry on with their life of crime — are not welcome. They shouldn't be. They need to take responsibility and deal with their outstanding warrants that they have elsewhere.

I believe that Bill 14 will give us the tools. It'll give police officers tools. It'll give government officials tools. It'll give people that want to truly make a difference out there tools to ensure that the people that are most in need — that their families, their children and others that require social assistance — are the ones that we're focusing social assistance on, not the individuals that have escaped to our jurisdiction because of their warrants.

[1510]

J. Kwan: I rise to speak to Bill 14, the Housing and Social Development Statutes Amendment Act, 2009.

Madam Speaker, before I get into the details of the bill, let me just outline for you a little bit about the constituency of Vancouver–Mount Pleasant. We are one of the poorest neighbourhoods in all of Canada, and as such, we have many, many challenges. It should come as no surprise to many of the members that in Vancouver–Mount Pleasant people struggle on a day-by-day basis to simply survive — people who are living in poverty, who are trying to find appropriate housing — and sometimes, in desperation, people engage in desperate acts.

Having said that, it does not take away the strength of the community, of course, and the talents and the caring that go with the people that are there. In fact, in my years of representing the community, having the honour of being able to represent Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, I've come across some of the people who are most giving and compassionate, even though they have very little to give in terms of material goods.

The community has worked very hard to ensure that there is respect and dignity in Vancouver–Mount Pleasant and, particularly, in the Downtown Eastside. The Downtown Eastside community has been referred to by a lot of people by all sorts of names, some extremely offensive. I won't use those words in this House because, frankly, it is unparliamentary.

I will say this: what we need to recognize, of course, is that Mount Pleasant is a neighbourhood. It is a neighbourhood of people who are working hard to ensure that people are taking care of each other and to ensure that they actually have the means to deal with their daily challenges.

Hence it brings us to Bill 14, the Housing and Social Development Statutes Amendment Act. What does this bill do that I am concerned about? This bill allows the government to deny income assistance or disability assistance to any person who has an outstanding warrant for their arrest for an indictable offence anywhere in Canada.

I get it when the government says that this is only meant for the most serious crimes, for people who've committed heinous crimes. I totally get that, Madam Speaker, but I think that we also need to focus in on the other issue, though.

I was just having a look at the Criminal Code of Canada with my good colleague the critic for Finance, who will be making comments later on today. We went through the Criminal Code, and virtually all offences could be indictable offences. The prosecution will get to choose whether or not to charge a particular offence as a

summary offence or an indictable offence.

Take, for example, mischief. It could be charged as an indictable offence. In the case of mischief, there are a number of things that one could encounter with a mischief charge.

[ Page 1804 ]

People may recall that in my own personal situation, I almost got charged with mischief. What did I do? I was in the Downtown Eastside protesting with the residents of the community over the Woodward's project. What were we doing that was so horrible that it warranted an investigation? I did not know about it until much later when it showed up on TV, when they said that I was being investigated. I went: "Wow. Okay."

This is what I was doing. I was in the Downtown Eastside in a protest. I was painting a daisy on the hoarding of the Woodward's building with water-soluble paint. That's what I was doing.

What we were engaging in as a community was an expression, in our belief, utilizing freedom of speech to voice an opinion about what that project meant to the community and what we had hoped for that project to become for the community. It is a signature building in the Downtown Eastside, and it meant a lot to a lot of the people, including myself as the local MLA representing the community.

I could have been charged with mischief — indictable or summarily, I don't know — but at the end, I'm happy to report, the charges were dropped. It was deemed by the special prosecutor that it would have been inappropriate to proceed with the charges against me because I'd been singled out as one individual recognized by the security guard.

[1515]

Following from that, the investigation ensued, and it would have been unfair and not in the interests of the public to single out one individual for a charge where over a hundred people, a couple of hundred people, participated in this event.

What does this have to do with Bill 14? My point about that is that a person — for example, like myself — could have been charged with mischief. With a turn in life, who knows what could happen to a person's life?

That's what happens to a lot of people who find themselves in a situation where they have to apply for income assistance. Then you may well, actually, have this noose around your neck and find yourself not eligible for income assistance.

In my case, only because I watched the television that night and happened to have caught it, I realized that I was being investigated. There could well be people who may have a warrant out for their arrest that they did not even know about. That is not actually uncommon. It happens. It happens quite regularly, particularly with the residents in my riding.

What might have been otherwise a fairly minor situation — I would even argue, protest in a form that exercises our democratic right should never have been deemed to be a Criminal Code violation — could result in a warrant for your arrest.

I would find that most unfortunate. Where's the safeguard to say that this will not happen in this bill, other than the minister saying: "Trust us. It's all going to be dealt with by regulation"?

So far, I have to say — and I'm sad to say, and I'm very sorry to say — the track record on the government side on the notion of "trust us" has not been stellar. On many other files they have proven to be not exactly trustworthy in that regard. They say one thing, and then they do another.

The HST comes to mind. Prior to the election they said they weren't going to bring in the HST. After the election — guess what. They're bringing in the HST. That's just one example. So on the notion of "trust us," I am very sorry to say that it's not worth the paper it's written on when the government says: "Trust us."

I'm sorry to say that the children in Newfoundland found out the hard way. The choir found out the hard way when the Premier's word, that says: "Trust us…." When the Premier invited them over for the Olympics to perform, it turns out to be what the Premier now says is a misunderstanding. In reality, there are real issues of trust underneath that — aren't there? So I am concerned about it with respect to that.

Another charge that's also indictable, that could be indictable or a

summary offence, aside from mischief, would be some minor theft issues. There are many people on a survival basis engaged in those kinds of activities.

It's not that I'm condoning it, Madam Speaker. Don't get me wrong. I don't think it's the right thing to do, but I also understand, though, that there are times when people are that desperate in life that they would do just about anything in order to survive. That's what it means, and we have to understand that as well.

This bill, again, does not clearly outline that those individuals who are faced with those kinds of circumstances would not be further penalized. You can rest assured that if a person cannot get access to income assistance, they will have to resort to the lower denominator in terms of a survival basis. Then I am very worried that we might end up pushing people into a place we do not want them to be in.

People who rely on income assistance…. I have to say that a lot of the people who rely on income assistance, really, are doing it as a last resort. They really, basically, have no other alternative. That's why they're there on that welfare line. Let us not kid ourselves. It is not fun to have to go through the rigour of the application and sometimes, frankly, the humiliation of that application process.

I see people in my community lined up outside on welfare day in the pouring rain waiting for that cheque so that they can put food on the table. I've spoken with some of these individuals. There are seniors there, people with families, who have children, single parents and the like, people with disability. All of them are deserving of some assistance, I would argue.

[1520]

[ Page 1805 ]

The Charter of Rights, of which we ought to be very proud as Canadians…. Under

section 7 of the Charter it actually stipulates that: "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice."

That's what the Charter protects. However, I would argue that this bill, Bill 14, undermines that very premise which the Charter has put forward — to say to a person that we will now have a way of depriving you of life, liberty and security of person. Actually, I wouldn't be surprised one bit if this bill is challenged in court and is struck down.

My office spoke with some of the folks in my riding. Ann Livingston at VANDU — here's what she has to say. She's concerned that there are many people in the Downtown Eastside who have minor infractions and have not appeared in court. They have then been cited for failure to appear and sometimes charged with contempt of court. People are then picked up and put in pretrial for a period of time. By the time they see the judge, they are released for the time already served. Some people are forced to plead guilty to be able to get out of the pretrial.

She said that some homeless people usually don't even go to collect their belongings and are released onto the street in their prison garb. She fears that people who have minor infractions like drug possession charges or even minor assault…. People do, by the way, get into scuffles all the time in the Downtown Eastside. Tension is high. People are desperate. Sometimes these kinds of situations happen. With that, they could very well be cut off of income assistance, which of course, in turn, will increase violence, crime and disorder in the streets.

So it's counterproductive, I would argue, if we bring in legislation like this that impacts, I would say, actually a lot of people, many of whom would not have been in the category of what the minister purports this bill is supposed to target — and that is very serious, heinous crimes. It could very well target people with minor offences. That happens to be up to the prosecutor to decide to charge as an indictable offence or as a

summary offence. There are many, many offences which could go either way.

At the Vancouver Aboriginal Transformative Justice Society they also worry about the legislation disproportionately impacting the urban aboriginal community, who are very different from different parts of the province. If people, again, are denied access to social assistance, this too will have devastating impacts on them.

We have to remember, with the aboriginal community, the history in which they had to suffer. Colonialism comes to mind, of course, and then we have the situation where the residential schools have left scars for generations on the aboriginal people. They're still trying to figure out how to deal with this. Some of them have, unfortunately, been deprived of parenting skills because they were taken away early in life into a residential school situation where they were disciplined for speaking their own language, practising their own culture and, frankly, just being themselves — just being an aboriginal person.

Imagine the damage for an individual when you come out of a situation like that, not to mention the kind of abuse — physical, emotional and sexual abuse — that took place in residential schools against the aboriginal community. The very fact that they survived this trauma is a miracle in and of itself, but it does not mean that they're not left with scars that have gone on from generation to generation, which the aboriginal community continues to try to overcome.

With that, we have a disproportionate number of aboriginal people in our communities who have some of the worst statistical results, whether it be around graduation, imprisonment or being in conflict with the law and so on. It doesn't mean that they're bad people, but it does mean that there's a lot of history behind what has happened to the aboriginal community, that there is a long road to reconciliation and that we must recognize that road.

We must not further penalize people who are already set back in life, who have had tremendous childhood traumas to deal with, traumas in life that I will never understand because I've never walked in their shoes.

[1525]

But it does mean, though, we as legislators better understand this history and this

chapter of this history and better bring in laws that address these issues in a way that is compassionate, that is fair and just.

Penalizing people on income assistance because they're poor…. To say that if you have a warrant out for your arrest, you will no longer be eligible for the protection of the Charter — that is life, liberty and security of person — is simply wrong. I worry very much that it's just going to push people further into the corner, and more desperate acts will take place. Then where will that take us?

We could, in fact, in going down this approach, turn it around and say: "How can we turn it around to assist the people who are on income assistance, who are faced with challenges and conflicts with the law, to take a different path? What preventative actions can we take to change the course and the trajectory of that future for those individuals and their families?"

Maybe that's something that we should put our minds to. Maybe we can actually put our minds to an ending-poverty strategy. That would be something. Other jurisdictions have done it. We ourselves could do that too.

British Columbia has had the worst child poverty rate for five years under this government. I don't think that's an accident. I don't think that's a coincidence. I think it's because of the government's policies that have left this

[ Page 1806 ]

legacy — a shameful legacy, I might add, but not a legacy that cannot be broken.

There is something that we could do about it. There is something we as legislators can come together on in a non-partisan way to say: "That is enough, and we will not let this happen anymore in our communities. It is time for us to put our minds and hearts together to say that it is time for an end to poverty."

Then we can perhaps change that history a little bit for the future. Maybe for those who are on income assistance there would be a different road and path for them in life. Wouldn't that be a novel idea — if we embarked on a journey like that in a non-partisan way, for government and opposition members and community members to come together and put our minds to it, to figure out what it is that we can do to end poverty in British Columbia and what it is that we can do to ensure that people's life, liberty and security of person are protected so that people can, in fact, live in honour and dignity?

[C. Trevena in the chair.]

I want to say this. There are some who believe — I think the Solicitor General unfortunately just said that — that people are sort of milking the system, and they're doing this. Perhaps some think that people enjoy being on income assistance. Well, in my years representing Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, I have yet to come across a person who will say: "Hooray, I'm on income assistance."

They are on income assistance because they desperately need that support, not because they want to be on income assistance, not because they want to do everything they can to collect welfare. If they had a choice, if they had other alternatives that were viable for them, they would choose those other alternatives.

Many people are on income assistance because they have no other choice. That's why they're there, and it is difficult going through that process. It is very difficult going through that process for these individuals and trying to make ends meet.

It is not like when you're on income assistance, you're rolling in the dough, because rents are high, particularly in the Lower Mainland. I know that the welfare rates set a set amount for people on income assistance for their shelter portion.

Well, as it happens, in the Downtown Eastside there are very few SROs — single-room-occupancy hotels — that are now at $325 a month. Most of them have actually gone over that, particularly in the time period now in the lead-up to 2010 and the major medal events. Many of the owners of the SROs have increased the rent. What that means is that those individuals have to take the support portion of their income assistance cheque and pay it into their shelter portion.

[1530]

With that, they have less money to survive on, to buy basic things like food, and when the winter months come, to buy a pair of boots, a winter coat and, if you have children, to actually get enough food on the table and to pay for the increased costs in the education system — the field trips, the little tournaments that the children engage in, the soccer camps, the basketball camps. All those little extra costs and fees sometimes put it out of range for these families.

Christmas comes along, and many families cannot afford a Christmas present under the tree for their little one. We just celebrated Thanksgiving, and many people did not have a turkey dinner. Those are the realities of the people on income assistance.

I would argue this. Let us put our minds to coming forward with a poverty reduction strategy so that we can end poverty. Let us put our minds to bringing forward legislation that says: "No more, we will not tolerate having children live in poverty anymore." Let us say: "No more."

It is not acceptable for the seniors who are now living in poverty today. There are more seniors living in poverty today than there were five years ago. In fact, I believe, if memory serves me correctly, that we have the second-highest number of seniors living in poverty outside of Quebec. That's not a legacy that we want.

Let us understand that there may well be people who have outstanding warrants that might be of a very minor nature, and this legislation very potentially puts them out of reach in reaching for that last resort of assistance called income assistance. Then with that we may very well push them into a corner for further acts of violence and even more dramatic situations that none of us wants to see in our communities.

I have great reservations, a lot of concerns, about this piece of legislation. I am speaking on behalf of my riding, of the many people in my community who have shared their fears and concerns with me in my office. I want the minister and the government members to hear this and to understand it.

With that, I will take my place. I hope that we can find ourselves in a place where we can one day make commitments across the House that we will end poverty in British Columbia and strive towards making sure that everybody has the opportunity to flourish; to maximize their potential, like you and me; to do what we want and believe in; and to do it with passion for the better good of our community.

We can make that happen, if there is the political will to do that.

P. Pimm: I, too, would like to stand and talk about this bill today, the Housing and Social Development Statutes Amendment Act, 2009. I'll definitely be speaking in support of this bill. I think today is probably a good day for me to speak about it, and I'll talk about that in a little bit.

[ Page 1807 ]

When you talk about income assistance, certainly, income assistance is designed to assist those that need income in times when they can't get income anyplace else. I think that's exactly what it was designed for, and that's what it should be used for. I think the current system does just that.

I heard the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant talking about some of the people that learn how to milk the system, and I think there's a lot of that that goes on. In fact, I've had some folks come up to me and brag about the fact that they know how to get around the system and milk the system and not have to do their work and do their commitments and that sort of thing.

That does bother me, when the vast majority of the folks that are out there on income assistance need the income assistance. What that does, when you have people that are out there abusing the system, is makes it that much harder for the ones who really need the income assistance to get on the system. They get scrutinized much harder because of the people who are doing that to our system.

When you look at the crime…. I heard my colleague from earlier on speaking about the frustrations of the police and the police department. I know that those frustrations exist. They do a good job. They go out, catch the criminals, bring them in, book them, put them through all the procedures, and then they let them go out. They go off to the judges, get a slap on the wrist, and then they get back out on the street so that they can go and do this again.

That frustration is not only frustrating for the police. It's frustrating for me, and it's frustrating for most people in the communities that are law-abiding citizens, who don't need to be put through that sort of thing.

[1535]

When you talk about the breaking and entering, the assaults, the murders and the high-level crimes being committed out there, for us not to approve this bill and to make it so that those kinds of people cannot be getting income assistance…. To me, I can't even believe it's coming forward as a bill. I just think it should be common sense that that should be the case. Obviously, I'm just too new to this government stuff, I guess.

To me, it seems like if we weren't going to allow this bill to pass through, we would be supporting and enabling the crime and allowing those people to continue to do what they're doing.

To import others from other provinces and import their crime level, I think, is a crime in itself. I would be the first one to say: "I'll give them a bus ticket back home." I don't want them here, quite frankly. For the rest of this side of the House that wants them here, well, fill your boots. I think it's the wrong thing.

We have a Charter of Rights. I've read through that document. It's a wonderful document. You can go through it, and it lists all the rights for each and every one of us. But do you know what? Who needs that Charter of Rights in this room? It's the people who break the law who hide behind the Charter of Rights. Unfortunately, I'm going to get a lot of flak for saying that, but that's exactly how I feel.

To me, when you talk about a charter of rights, you should be talking about a charter of responsibility that goes along with that charter of rights. That responsibility is that when you commit crimes, all of a sudden, you shouldn't be able to hide behind a charter of rights. That's how I feel. Maybe some of the rest of you might feel that way, too, probably even on this side of the House might feel that way.

The good thing about this here is that….

Interjections.

P. Pimm: We can talk more about the Charter of Rights if you want. I don't mind going into that debate for a while, because with your Charter of Rights, anybody that wants to hide behind the Charter of Rights….

I just don't think it's a good document whatsoever myself. For 99 percent of the people out there, that document doesn't even need to exist, first off. It's only about 1 percent or 2 percent of the people that it's even developed for, and it's to keep the lawyers and the judges and everybody working to support the system.

Anyhow, we carry on here a little bit. This bill here still supports all of the families in the system that have their income assistance. It just doesn't support the ones creating all the crime. I don't think there should be any support for that person, and they should be going to jail, where they actually belong.

Last night was a really good night for me. A company that I was involved in before I came down here…. We just had somebody break into my compound last night, who stole a $30,000 truck.

Interjections.

P. Pimm: Here we go. We'll support that guy. We'll endorse him. We want him to do that sort of stuff. I just don't understand that thinking at all. He may be on income assistance.

Anyhow, I thank you very much for letting me have the time to speak on this bill. I certainly support it, and I'll be more than happy to pay the bill to send that guy back to wherever he came from.

M. Mungall: When I first read about this bill in the newspaper, the Minister for Housing and Social Development was saying that we're going to be targeting people with serious offences, that we're going to be making sure they deal with their warrants and go through the justice system before they can apply for social assistance.

Putting aside my concerns around civil liberties in this province, I thought: "You know what? That's not necessarily a bad idea."

[ Page 1808 ]

We have people in this country who commit serious crimes — murders, rapes, assaults, sexual assaults on children. Those people should be going to jail. We should be dealing with them through the justice system, and that's where we should be dealing with them first, not the social assistance system.

[1540]

However, what's very important to note with this bill and what the minister doesn't go out and tell the public and what the B.C. Liberals don't want to tell the public is that it isn't just people committing serious offences. It's anybody. It's anybody who has a warrant out for their arrest.

I'm very happy to see that the minister is in the House right now listening to the speeches.

Deputy Speaker: Member, one doesn't make a reference to who is in the House.

M. Mungall: My apologies, hon. Speaker. I'm a new rookie MLA, and the rules are just coming out as I go along. I apologize for that, and I'll be sure not to do it again.

Nevertheless, I'm glad that I get to speak here today, and I hope that people on the opposite side of the House are listening very clearly, because I'm going to tell them a story about a real person who would not have been able to access social assistance, simply because she was poor and desperate — not because she had committed a serious offence, not because she had murdered anybody or assaulted anybody. Not at all. Simply because she was a single mom with hungry children.

I had the benefit of running a food bank in my community, Nelson-Creston, for two years. I met many, many people — unfortunately, too many people — in those two years. One such person really struck me, and that's the story I'd like to tell today.

A single mom. The first place she went to when she had fallen on hard times was the food bank, because what did she need that very day? Food. She needs food to exist. So did her children. She needed to pack them a lunch, make them dinner, make them breakfast, and she had nowhere to go other than the food bank. So she comes to the food bank.

We loaded her up as much as we possibly could with the items that food banks typically have — macaroni and cheese; powdered cheese; rice; pasta; some bread; maybe some potatoes, if there are still some fresh potatoes there; soup; non-perishable items.

She didn't have any meat. She didn't have any salad — any lettuce, cucumbers, carrots. She didn't have any cheese. Nothing to go with basic staples to make sure that not only herself but most importantly, especially for her, her children had a well-balanced meal, a well-balanced diet, so that they could do well in school and go on to achieve great things.

She went to the grocery store. Her next stop after the food bank was the grocery store. She couldn't buy anything there, so what she ended up doing…. It's not that I condone this, but this is a reality that the government needs to contend with when it starts to put forward legislation such as this. The reality is that she took some vegetables, put them in her pocket, walked out the door and got caught. She got caught. She was arrested for minor theft. All she wanted to do was feed her children.

Next step after this was looking for social assistance so that this situation didn't happen again, so that her desperation didn't lead her to commit a minor crime ever again. She went to social assistance, and she was able to get social assistance — a very, very meagre level of help that barely allowed her to pay the rent, much less buy decent groceries for her family, pay the household bills, buy new school clothes, some shoes for the kids to go to gym class. Very meagre is what she got on social assistance.

If this bill passes, a woman in that same situation in the next couple of months would not be so fortunate. She would not get social assistance. Here we have a situation where…. When a single mom doesn't get social assistance and is living in abject poverty, she is desperate. That's something that is contributing to child poverty. That's one of the things that contribute to child poverty in this province.

[1545]

After six years of having the worst rate of child poverty in the country, this government should be ashamed of creating any type of policy, any type of law that would further exacerbate that situation. Rather, they focus on the serious offenders. They lump everybody into that, rather than recognizing the very different realities for people throughout this province.

I want to remind the member for Peace River North, who spoke just prior to me. He talked about the abuse rate of social assistance. He said it was so common and that so many of the people that he talked to talked to him about how he could scam the social assistance system. Well, I ask that member of the House, member for Peace River North, to open up his mind and open up his understanding to what's going on in the social assistance system.

First and foremost, study after study has identified that the abuse rate is no more than 4 percent; 96 percent of people on social assistance are adhering to the laws around social assistance. So when he talks about the tremendous amount of people abusing the system, he is wrong. He does not have his facts straight.

More importantly, though, is that research studies of the current way in which social assistance is delivered in this province…. The rules put in by this government when they came into power, the rules that they put in 2002, have led people to manoeuvre throughout the system in a way that they don't necessarily feel good about.

[ Page 1809 ]

They feel that they have to tell lies just so that they can get social assistance, an amount that doesn't even meet the rent that they have to pay on a meagre place, an amount that doesn't even meet their nutritional needs.

People on social assistance are told regularly by officers at social assistance offices to go to the food bank. That's where they're going to get their food. The officers know that $610 a month is pretty much what they're paying for rent. They're paying their entire social assistance cheque on rent, so the officers say: "Go to the food bank for food. Social assistance isn't about to help you with that at all."

The two-year limit, the three-week wait and rule after rule around the welfare reforms that this government put in, in 2002 have put people in situations where they feel guilty about it. They feel like they're a criminal just for being poor. Now this government comes out very clearly that if you are poor and you do a minor offence such as theft, yeah, you are a criminal and you're not entitled to anything in our province.

As the member for Peace River North said, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms isn't needed in this country. Clearly, it seems like the entire government agrees with him, because somebody who has created a minor offence simply because they are poor and desperate, simply because they might want to feed their children, is no longer entitled to the basic necessities of life. Merely, they get nothing.

They get nothing from this government, and that's not okay. That's not okay for the children who are faced with poverty, the increasing number of children who are faced with poverty.

Interjection.

M. Mungall: I hear another member down the way say that my facts that I'm saying just aren't true. This side has not been the side accused of giving statements incongruent with the facts. It is that side, time and time again.

The people of British Columbia know that when this government says, "Trust us. Don't worry. Everything's going to be okay. Don't worry. It's just the people who have committed serious offences...." When this government says, "Trust us," the people of British Columbia go: "Yeah, right. We've been told that one before, and we're done with it."

[1550]

We don't believe them anymore, and we certainly don't believe them when it comes to Bill 14. The language is just too broad. We can not trust this government.

It targets what many people consider petty crimes — as I've mentioned, minor theft. The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant talked about many, many petty crimes. When I was a city councillor, the Nelson city police did presentations to the city council regularly. They talked about minor and petty theft, minor crimes, and they were concerned about the number of people who were living in poverty who were committing those crimes out of desperation.

This bill doesn't recognize the real stories of people in this province — people who are living in desperate situations because they are poor. It's people like the single mother who found herself at a food bank asking for food, and who then, when she couldn't get everything she needed for a healthy meal, had to go to the grocery store and do something she never, ever, ever thought she would do, and that was steal to feed her children.

This government offers her absolutely no understanding, none at all. That's shown not through their words but through their actions. This bill is that action that speaks so much louder than their words.

Hon. Speaker, I will not be voting in support of this bill. As I've said, the language is much too broad. It's attacking people who deserve the basics of life, and this province has failed them already by giving them such a meagre amount to get those basics of life, and now we're failing them again. There is no way that I will be a part of that — no way.

With that, I'll take my seat, and I urge the government to consider the people of this province, to consider the single moms who find themselves in tough situations. Clean up the language of this bill, and make sure that they're not the targets of your attacks on the poor.

M. Karagianis: I'm happy to take my place here in the discussion, the second reading on Bill 14. I would like to focus this discussion on several particular aspects of Bill 14 and the ramifications it has on some larger issues that we face here in the province of British Columbia.

I want to talk in particular about the implications here on very specific individuals in British Columbia that will be the most affected, I believe, by this new amendment to the housing and social development statutes. In particular, I want to talk about the implications in a bill that targets some of the most vulnerable members of our society and, in fact, is going to further constrain and exacerbate existing problems here in the province of British Columbia.

I am talking about the poverty issue. In fact, statistics here show us that in the province of British Columbia right now the growing state of poverty has many layers. The implications for individuals who are seeking income assistance, or who are on income assistance from time to time, are considerable when we make the kind of rash changes to the act that we are here.

Recently the Representative for Children and Youth here in the province of British Columbia released a document called Housing, Help, and Hope: A Better Path for Struggling Families . I think it goes very strongly to the heart of the particular aspect of this bill that troubles me the most, and it gives me the most discomfort.

[1555]

[ Page 1810 ]

In fact, this report is about a struggling young family who needed short-term housing assistance so that their child, their baby, could be safe. This particular family's only crime was being deeply poor, and their need for social assistance and a kinder and more user-friendly system was at the heart of a tragedy that took place with this family.

The reason I talk about it is because I see in Bill 14 that we are adding yet more layers for families like this young family to have to concern themselves with, be fearful of or grapple with in their need to try and find income assistance.

This story, tragically, is about a young family whose young baby was taken away from them not because they were unfit parents, not because they didn't love their child or would in any way harm their child. The baby was taken away because the parents needed income assistance and could not run the gauntlet of issues that faced them in trying to obtain income assistance. And that was before any of the changes that we see before us in Bill 14.

In fact, this young aboriginal family — very young parents with a very young, new baby — came back home to British Columbia and were unable to find housing and were unable to successfully obtain income assistance in a timely manner that would allow them to access housing.

So the Ministry of Children and Families came and said that the living situation they had found, which was with extended family members, was unsafe. The young family actually acknowledged that, but they had no other choice. There was nowhere else for them to turn other than perhaps homelessness, which seems to be one of the more abject choices that we are forcing many people into here in British Columbia.

The story of what happened to the family is that the baby eventually was taken away because the family couldn't find their way through the rather complex process of obtaining income assistance. They could not find adequate housing. They were helpless to try and find a way out of their situation, and so the baby was taken into care by the Children and Families Ministry.

Through a series of really unfortunate circumstances, the child was moved through several foster homes and was irreparably harmed in one of those situations. At the end of the day, the family did manage — the young parents did manage — to find adequate housing. It took them some time to do that, but once they managed to get some housing and shelter over their heads, the baby was returned to them — a baby who now requires lifelong care, who has been irreparably harmed and changed forever.

Now these young parents are faced with having to raise a significantly disabled child for the rest of their lives, and the problem that faced them was their inability to access income assistance — nothing else. No other obstacle stood in their way other than their ability to access income assistance. It was too difficult for them to navigate their way through the system to find out the kind of information they needed, to advocate aggressively for themselves and find their way out of that.

It seems to me a very sharp, sharp example here of how the system is currently prohibitive for many fragile individuals, young families, people in need. Now in Bill 14 we are throwing yet another significant barrier up, and particularly for first nations, particularly for aboriginal people who are looking for help from within this government and this society.

The conclusion that the children's representative reaches in her report is that immediate income assistance support, short-term housing grants and a positive, supporting environment would have made all the difference to this family. It would have changed forever the outcome for this family to be a positive rather than a negative experience.

Poverty and the lack of affordable housing played a major role in this tragic situation. The system was not responsible in addressing the practical issue of short-term money for housing that would have allowed this family to create a safe home for their child. As a result, the baby was separated from his family, his community and his culture, and his future dramatically changed.

[1600]

The reason I bring this up at the beginning of this debate is that this report is about housing, help and hope. It is about finding ways for the government to make it easier for families in need to access the kind of support systems that they desperately need — income assistance being a cornerstone of that. Yet we have before us in Bill 14 significant changes that will unfortunately have the most prohibitive and dramatic effect on the poorest members of our society.

I want to talk a bit more about that — the deep kinds of poverty, the complex kinds of poverty, that face many individuals who need income assistance either from time to tim