Budget estimate debates for the Ministry of Advanced Education were held yesterday. I took the opportunity to ask the Minister whether she was considering reintroducing a needs-based grant system for postsecondary students and, if so, when?

Below I reproduce the text and video of the exchange. As you will see from the response, I am cautiously optimistic that we will be heading in this direction.

Video of Exchange

Text of Exchange

A. Weaver: I have a number of questions. To speed the process up, we’ve delivered them through to the minister’s office in advance. Hopefully, we’ll be able to get through these in a timely fashion.

My first question is with respect to student loans and need-based assessment. We are, as the Chair will know, the only province in Canada without a form of a needs-based grant system for post-secondary students. We used to have one in British Columbia. In 2004, it was eliminated.

My question is: is the minister considering reintroducing a needs-based grant system and, if so, when?

Hon. M. Mark: Chair, I thank you for the question from the member opposite.

We are committed to making post-secondary education training more accessible and affordable. Every year we provide approximately $56 million to students to reduce funding barriers and improve access and affordability. Of this amount, approximately $32.3 million will go to over 20,000 students to reduce B.C. student loan debt in 2018-2019.

We also provide targeted debt reduction to students completing programs for certain in-demand occupations — to medical and child services professionals working in underserved communities — as well as to students with disabilities.

But there is more to do. Students are telling me that the upfront costs of a post-secondary education are also a barrier. We want to ensure that we have the right mix of financial supports in place to help students be successful. The previous government had 16 years to shape the student financial aid system in British Columbia and introduced a number of new programs while discontinuing a number of others, including replacing the previous needs-based access grant with the loan reduction program.

I’ve asked my team to take a close look at the full range of financial supports we provide to ensure the right supports get to the right students at the right time. We will not leave British Columbians behind.

I thank the member opposite for the question.

A. Weaver: I appreciate the answer. I’m just wondering if we can potentially get a yes or no on that. Is the minister considering a needs-based grant system or not? I appreciate the other information she gave, but the question was quite specific as to whether a needs-based grant is expected to be introduced in the province of British Columbia. We are the only province in the country of Canada to not have such a system in place.

Hon. M. Mark: We are considering it, but we’re doing the policy work. There is a saying: fail to plan, plan to fail. We’re reviewing the number of resources available to students. We want to hit the right target.

Today in the legislature I rose during question period to ask both the Minister of Social Development and Poverty Reduction, as well as the Minister of Education, how the upcoming poverty reduction strategy will ensure that all children and youth have equal access to menstrual products.

Coincidentally, today was also the launch of United Way’s Period Promise, a campaign designed to raise donations for, and awareness of, the financial challenge facing women struggling to make ends meet.

As you will see from the exchange (reproduced in video and text below), I was very encouraged by the responses from both Ministers.

Video of Exchange

Question

A. Weaver: The 2018 child poverty report card found that one in five children in British Columbia are currently growing up in poverty. That’s over 172,000 children, many of whom are in deep poverty, up to $13,000 below the poverty line.

We also know that these children are very likely to be Indigenous, immigrants or racialized minorities. These children often go to school hungry. Their families are worried about basic necessities, such as shelter and groceries.

Now, consider the approximately 86,000 impoverished children and youth who require menstrual products on a monthly basis. Consider the fact that most families under the poverty line are single mothers and their children. For many individuals, managing menstruation can require additional products of birth control.

Through you Honourable Speaker to the Minister of Social Development and Poverty Reduction, how will the upcoming poverty reduction strategy ensure that all children and youth have equal access to menstrual products?

Answer

Hon. S. Simpson: Thank you to the member for the question.

The cost and availability of menstrual products is a real issue, especially for poor women who often face the choice of purchasing those products or buying other essentials, including food. This should not be the case.

We all expect when we enter a public washroom that toilet paper is readily available and free. Why that isn’t the case for menstrual products is a very good question. One, I suspect, that if men had a menstrual cycle, we wouldn’t be asking today.

The member’s question is particularly timely today. The Parliamentary Secretary for Gender Equity has kicked off the Period Promise campaign here at the Legislature. People can support that campaign through donations of products or cash at the Finance Minister’s office until March 28, and those will go to a very good purpose.

But more directly to the member’s inquiry, this is a societal question. It requires societal change, and as it impacts women — particularly, poor women — it’s an affordability question. Affordability is a cornerstone of the poverty reduction work in front of our government, and we’re taking that work on.

Supplementary Question

A. Weaver: Thank you to the minister for the very thoughtful answer to the question. My supplemental is this.

Last week the New Westminster school board announced that they will be providing free menstrual products in all of their elementary, middle and high schools beginning this September. This will not only reduce costs faced by financially struggling families; it will improve access to education for girls and non-binary folk who menstruate.

We know that students, if they can’t manage their periods, will remove themselves from extracurricular activities and even miss school. Providing menstrual products gives all children equal access to education. But this program places a financial cost on school districts that are already strapped for funds and facing teacher shortages.

My question is to the Minister of Education. All children deserve equal access to education. What is his ministry doing to provide menstrual products for students in British Columbia?

Answer

Hon. R. Fleming: I would thank the member for the question. It’s obviously a very important issue for students across British Columbia. When students can’t access menstrual products, it can often impede their ability to participate in sports or extracurricular activities, or maybe they even have to miss learning time by having to miss classes.

We see this initiative that New Westminster has undertaken as an important part of promoting an overall student success agenda that the government has in working with our school district partners. I want to take this opportunity to commend the New West district for showing the lead here. It’s a great initiative; there’s no question about that.

It has also garnered some interest from school districts. I expect to be meeting with our education partners about this particular issue — the school trustee association, among them. I would say in the meantime that we do have some existing funding streams that can be assessed to do what New Westminster has done in other parts of the province. The CommunityLINK fund is one of those that may be an area where they can pay for menstrual products.

I want to say, too, on a personal note that I thank the United Way and, in my community, the Victoria Labour Council for the Period Promise campaign. I was pleased to go out personally and make some donations last week when they were doing a fundraising. Those activities are ongoing during this campaign. It’s very promising, and it has led to a very productive discussion in the school district.

I think this is an issue that fits with our government’s overall affordability agenda, and we’re happy to engage in that discussion with school districts.

Today in the legislature I introduced Bill M206, Residential Tenancy Amendment Act, 2019.

This bill amends the Residential Tenancy Act to provide tenants with the ability to end their fixed-term lease if staying in the rental unit is a threat to their safety or security. It broadens the somewhat constraining family violence provisions introduced by the B.C. Liberal government in 2015 and gives, for example, a tenant exposed to sexualized violence by a roommate or a neighbour the right to break their lease so they can move to a safer home.

Below I reproduce the video and text of the introduction of the bill along with the accompanying press release.

Video of Introduction

Text of Introduction

A. Weaver: I move a bill intituled Residential Tenancy Amendment Act, 2019, of which notice has been given in my name on the order paper, be now read a first time. This bill amends the Residential Tenancy Act to provide tenants with the ability to end their fixed-term lease if staying in the rental unit is a threat to their safety or security. It broadens the somewhat constraining family violence provisions introduced by the B.C. Liberal government in 2015 and gives, for example, a tenant exposed to sexualized violence by a roommate or a neighbour the right to break their lease so they can move to a safer home.

A new term “occupant violence” is defined in the bill and makes it explicit that the regulations listing which professionals and practitioners are authorized to provide a confirmation statement about family violence have the same powers in cases involving occupant violence.

The written third-party verification can be provided by police, listed medical practitioners, counsellors, First Nations support workers, victim support workers, among others. Having regulations that extend verification powers beyond law enforcement is vital, as not all survivors will be able or willing to involve the police.

In cases of domestic violence, risk of injury or death can actually increase if a violent partner learns their spouse has contacted police or is planning on leaving. Having a range of professionals able to vouch for victims will allow them to choose the safest option for their situations.

The previous B.C. Liberal government did a superb job with the development of these regulations. “Sexual abuse” is explicitly listed under occupant violence. “Sexual abuse” is used rather than “sexual assault” for violence because it aligns with and is already defined in existing laws, such as the Adult Guardianship Act and because it is a broader term that includes sexual assault and sexualized violence.

By using the word “including” before the list of crimes covered by occupant violence, the law is kept inclusive of a range of situations that could fit the broader intent, rather than explicitly specifying which situations would be covered.

No one should be forced to live in close proximity to their perpetrator. This bill supports survivors.

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

Motion approved.

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

Bill M2016, Residential Tenancy Amendment Act, 2019, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Media Release

B.C. Green Caucus tables Residential Tenancy Amendment Act to expand protections, supporting survivors
For immediate release
March 7, 2019

VICTORIA, B.C. ‚— The B.C. Green Caucus has introduced an amendment to the Residential Tenancy Act that, if passed, would provide tenants with the ability to end their fix term lease if staying in their rental unit is a threat to their safety or security.

“No one should be forced to live in close proximity to their perpetrator – this bill supports survivors,” said MLA Andrew Weaver, who introduced the bill on the eve of International Women’s Day. “We are building upon the good work of the BC Liberals’ in 2015, when they added the family violence provision with support from the BC NDP. This bill, drafted in consultation with the legislative drafters and stakeholders like West Coast LEAF and Ending Violence Association of BC, expands on existing provisions to insure that all victims have the same rights. It gives, for example, someone who is sexually assaulted by their roommate or neighbour the right to break their lease so they can move somewhere safe.”

West Coast LEAF says the scope of crime against tenants is difficult to gauge given these types of crimes are underreported, but the changes are needed.

“While family violence continues to account for a significant portion of all reported crimes in Canada – approximately 25% – other forms of violence remain prevalent in B.C. and disproportionately impact marginalized communities including sex workers, Indigenous women, and LGBTQIA2S+ individuals,” said Elba Bendo, director of Law Reform, West Coast LEAF. “The proposed amendments are a welcome step towards ensuring that survivors of all forms of violence are able to relocate to keep themselves and their families safe.”

Ending Violence Association of BC executive director Tracy Porteous estimates there are approximately 60,000 incidents of sexual and domestic violence in British Columbia each year.

“That equates to over 1,000 incidents per week,” said Porteous. “Most often, this violence takes place in a home and once that happens, the ‘home’ may not be a safe place any longer. The previous Act allowed for women affected by family violence to be released from the confines of their lease, so they could be free to seek safety, however that provision did not extend to survivors of sexual assault or survivors of other acts of violence. We would like to applaud the B.C. Green Party for introducing this proposed amendment to the Residential Tenancy Act today that will constitute a step forward toward making B.C. a safer place for all citizens. We think a plan that leaves no one behind is the best plan, and we thank Andrew Weaver for his leadership in this regard.”

“B.C. Green Caucus believes updating current legislation or drafting new bills to advance protections for women and other vulnerable groups is simply good governance,” said MLA Weaver, “whether it’s workplace protections like the 2017 bill preventing employers from requiring select employees to wear high-heeled shoes in the workplace, or in 2016 when I brought for the Post-Secondary Sexual Violence Policies Act.”

-30-

Media contact
Macon McGinley, Press Secretary
+1 250-882-6187 |macon.mcginley@leg.bc.ca

—

Today in the legislature I rose during Question Period to ask the Minister of Social Development and Poverty Reduction about WorkBC‘s new procurement process, a process that has undermined the work of numerous community-based non-profit organizations that help British Columbians find work.

This year’s bidding rounds for Work B.C. contracts no longer require bidders to demonstrate a flow-through to community organizations. Previously, at least 25 percent of the public money was required to flow out to other local organizations. The removal of that requirement has shattered the collaborative networks that provided multiple social care services, some of which have been in place for 30 years or more.

Below I reproduced the text and video of the exchange.

Video of Exchange

Question

A. Weaver: It sure sounds like there are some fun and wacky times happening down there at the end of the opposition bench. I suspect this must be some kind of rite of passage for MLAs to their second term.

Work B.C. awards contracts for a number of services across B.C. and has a long relationship with non-profit organizations that help British Columbians find work. However, Work B.C.’s procurement process lacks rigour and transparency.

Last year major regions were amalgamated to larger catchment areas for services. The change came with little warning to the service providers and resulted in many local organizes no longer being able to compete. The RFPs that went out were heavily biased towards bigger organizations, often for-profit companies based outside of B.C. with no connection to the local communities, and no points awarded for community connection or knowledge.

Consolidating major services like this means that local non-profits cannot compete and more multinational companies are hired to do the same work, and so public dollars don’t stay in B.C.

My question is to the Minister of Social Development and Poverty Reduction. Why was such a substantial change sprung on B.C. non-profit service providers, with no public consultation, when nothing in previous evaluations indicated that the change was necessary?

Answer

Hon. S. Simpson: I thank the member for the question. In fact, the changes that we’ve made around Work B.C. are changes that will put more money than ever into this system. We’ve had, over the last number of years, about $230 million annually that’s been invested in Work B.C. Under this model, $249 million will go into Work B.C. centres. We will increase the number of centres from 84 to 103 across the province. In addition to that, there are two new provincial programs around assistive technology and apprenticeship services that are now supporting initiatives across the province.

In terms of how those contracts were let, you’ll know the procurement process is one that, as a minister, I don’t get involved directly in. I would say to the member, though, that in terms of how the resources got allocated…. Under the previous program, the one we’re under now, 49 percent of the money went to the profit-making companies and 49 percent went to non-profits. Under the new system, 57 percent of the dollars will go to non-profits, 39 percent to the profit sector and 4 percent to a public institution. We’ll be watching this moving forward, but we think we’ve found the balance.

Supplementary Question

A. Weaver: In fact, I’m interested to hear that the minister suggests that the balance has been found. You know, it’s ironic that this government is actually increasing unemployment through its Work B.C. contracts as communities across B.C. lose their non-profits. So to think that the balance has been found…. If the balance that has been found is increasing unemployment and money going to multinationals, I would suggest that the minister may want to have a look at his file a little closer.

This year’s bidding rounds for Work B.C. contracts no longer require bidders to demonstrate a flow-through to community organizations. Previously, at least 25 percent of the public money was required to flow out to other local organizations. The removal of that requirement has shattered the collaborative networks that provided multiple social care services, some of which have been in place for 30 years or more. The statistics we heard from the minister are simply not accurate, because they do not reflect the 25 percent of money that is no longer required to flow through.

Local non-profits have community connections and must reinvest any profit they achieve. Major for-profit multinationals lack community connections and do not have to locally reinvest profits. Government is now using public dollars to connect international companies that have no on-the-ground service to the local communities in our province to provide those services.

My question, again, is to the Minister of Social Development and Poverty Reduction. What was the justification for a process that has no requirement anymore for bidders to demonstrate any flow-through to local community organizations?

Answer

Hon. S. Simpson: I thank the member again for the question. In fact, this was a two-step process. It was required, under the request for qualifications, where bidders qualified to go forward to the proposal stage…. There was, in fact, a request for information regarding their connection to community. From that qualification process, up to four bidders were able to go forward in the RFP process for each of the catchment areas. So in fact, what the member has talked about did occur there.

The reality is that what we got told in this process…. I spoke to service providers who said: “We are seeing less people, but the people we’re seeing need more of our time.” So we’ve structured a program here that very much allows those service providers now to deliver extended services so that the people who really need the support, the people who aren’t seeing employment now, have a greater opportunity for that.

It fits in as a critical piece of the poverty reduction strategy that we’ll be moving forward. We’re looking for the opportunity to give persons with disabilities, to support women escaping violence, to support recent immigrants, so that they get opportunities at employment they’re not seeing today.

I’m confident this program will give us those opportunities. I’m looking forward to its success.

A few weeks ago I wrote a piece expressing my concerns about the botched rollout of the BC NDP’s speculation and vacancy tax.

Since that time we have continued to receive a high volume of feedback, including thousands of emails, many scores of phone calls and numerous in-person visits to our constituency office. Many have expressed frustration about the tax, particularly the difficulty in making contact with government to speak to a live person about the specifics of the tax and its potential exemptions. We have received countless reports that the phone number provided to the public leaves people on hold for hours. This is unacceptable.

In fact, my own staff attempted to phone this number to get clarification about the tax and gave up after being on hold for 90 minutes. This is unacceptable.

The fact is, there are myriad nuances in the various situations affecting the people to which the tax may apply. My office is doing the best we can to help out, but I can tell you that our frustration levels are very high as we believe it is inexcusable for the government to have introduced this new tax measure without ensuring that adequate resources are present to help people navigate through its complexities.

Some of the most frequent concerns regarding the speculation and vacancy tax expressed to my office are listed below:

1. Privacy of Information

• Concern has been expressed about private information that is required to complete the declaration form, including having to provide a Social Insurance Number.

We have been advised that the government requires personal information such as Social Insurance Numbers to confirm that homeowners claiming the personal residence exemption do meet the requirements. In addition, the personal information provides confirmation of how much a person must pay if they do not qualify for an exemption.

2. Security of Information

• Given the recent highly publicized breaches of security experienced at major corporations and governments across the globe, concern has been frequently expressed about security of private information and risk of it being compromised.

We have been advised that the information collected through the government’s eTaxBC application is encrypted upon entry and masked. As a result even government employees cannot access the information without specific authorization.

3. Use of Information

• Concern has been expressed about how personal information will be used by government and for what purpose, now and in the future

We have been advised that the personal information collected under the Act is protected in a manner consistent with the BC Government’s Information Security Policy, Federal Security Standards and provisions of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

4. Access to timely information

• We have been advised of, and experienced directly, excessive wait times on the phone to speak to an agent for clarification of the tax and eligibility for exemption.

The government has provided information on its website regarding the application of the Act and the various categories of exemption available to homeowners. Many of our constituents have found the website lacking in almost every way. The explanations are not clear and there are very few concrete examples to examine.

For instance, in order to claim a Personal Residence exemption the website says a person must be “… a Canadian Citizen or permanent resident of Canada who’s a B.C. resident for income tax purposes …”. If one of the owners had to move for work related purposes the website says the parties could claim for 2 principal residences if both were still in BC. However, the website is silent about situations where the spouse has had to move out of the province or country for work and is therefore no longer a BC resident for income tax purposes. There is a section regarding the situation if a person lived in the property and had to move out of the province. That section says an exemption could be claimed. However, that section directly contradicts the original section which says the applicant has to be BC resident for income tax purposes.

This is just one example of the many problems people are facing. Attempts to resolve issues by phone are stymied by an incomprehensible and contradictory website and the completely inadequate resources the government provided to deal with public inquiries.

And there are two issues we are still struggling to get answers to.

i) Appeal

• What process is in place to appeal the tax

Update: since publication of this blog we have been informed that you can “appeal” by writing to the Ministry or the Minister outlining your situation and requesting an appeal; that will trigger the appeals process.

ii) Cost to taxpayer

• What is the cost to the taxpayer to administer this tax

I will continue to raise the concerns I am hearing with government to ensure that people are able to get the information they need. In particular, I will press government to take action to improve the accessibility and timeliness of information and make sure people can reach speculation and vacancy tax agents on the phone who can answer their question. Thank you for your patience. You are not alone in your frustration.