2017 Legislative Session: Sixth Session, 40th Parliament
HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Monday, February 20, 2017

Morning Sitting

Volume 41, Number 9

ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)
ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 20, 2017

The House met at 10:02 a.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Tributes

WELDON FEEDHAM

G. Hogg: On February 11, Surrey–White Rock lost a pioneer and a gentleman. Weldon Feedham was born in White Rock in 1930. At age ten, he wrote a letter with a hand-drawn picture of a pistol on it, as he felt this was a way of helping to defeat Hitler. His sense of patriotism started early.

He was a two-term president of Semiahmoo high school student council, and he won a special award for his outstanding contributions to the school. He was in the Royal Canadian Air Force for 39 years. He was aide-de-camp to British Columbia’s Lieutenant-Governor George Pearkes, and he was a White Rock city councillor. He volunteered for the historical society, Sunnyside seniors villas and the Royal Canadian Legion.

Weldon was positive, energetic and polite. He cared deeply for the people of our community, and he had a profoundly positive impact on both it and them. His smile, his humour, and his volunteering of time and resources live on in his legacy of caring and in the wonderful memories that he’s left us all.

Thank you, Weldy.

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

BILL M217 — FIRST RESPONDERS
ACT, 2017

A. Weaver presented a bill intituled First Responders Act, 2017.

A. Weaver: I move that a bill intituled First Responders Act, 2017, of which notice has been given, be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

[1005]

A. Weaver: I’m pleased to be introducing a bill intituled the First Responders Act, 2017. This bill amends the existing Fire and Police Services Collective Bargaining Act to also include paramedics and emergency dispatchers, giving them the same collective bargaining rights as other first responders.

As it stands now, paramedics are not considered as an essential service. By including them in the collective bargaining act, we would eliminate labour disputes and the use of strikes or lockouts. Instead, this bill would give them the ability to resolve disputes through binding arbitration. It would help paramedics and dispatchers, and it would help the public.

As citizens, we owe the first responders sincere gratitude for helping us in times of crisis. As members of the Legislative Assembly, we are shamefully indebted to them for leaving them to shoulder the weight of a horrific drug overdose epidemic. We allowed them to become overworked while undersupported. I hope that this bill will begin to repair that strain. It represents a proactive attempt to deal with the initiative that has been brought forward by Elections B.C.

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 M217, First Responders Act, 2017, 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.

Orders of the Day

Private Members’ Statements

WAITING TOO LONG
FOR HEALTH CARE

J. Darcy: Every day, every week, I hear from people from all corners of British Columbia about the challenges they face getting health care when they need it, where they need it.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Recently I had the opportunity to visit Kamloops and Vernon, and the story was the same. People are waiting too long, far too long, for health care.

In Kamloops, I met with Bernice Sterwick and her husband, John, a cancer patient who also has severe heart and respiratory conditions. After moving to Kamloops, they tried in vain to get a family doctor and were forced to travel to Quesnel and Chilliwack, in all kinds of weather, to see a GP. After 13 months, they finally got a doctor — in Salmon Arm, that is.

Bernice and John are not alone. I’ve spoken with family members in Kamloops who haven’t had a family doctor for seven years. Roughly one in three residents in Kamloops doesn’t have a regular family doctor, or a nurse practitioner either. That’s 30,000 people, despite this
[ Page 13638 ]
government’s promise of a GP for Me for every British Columbian by 2015. It’s now 2017, and Kamloops is, quite frankly, ground zero for this government’s failure to provide British Columbians with access to primary care.

The Health Minister claims this government has made progress, but the government’s efforts have only connected 1 percent of the population in Kamloops to a family doctor. That’s 1 percent of the people who actually need it. That means hundreds of people are still lining up every day to get into walk-in clinics, with many ending up going to the emergency room at Royal Inland Hospital when they can’t get in. Yes, we have indeed seen a flurry of announcements recently, but the good people of Kamloops should not have to wait until a few months before an election for this government to act.

In Kamloops, I also spoke with Jennifer Dawn Adams, who waited over a year for an MRI and, then, another 18 months after that for her surgery — a total of 2½ long years. Why? Because under this government, surgical wait times are among the worst in Canada, and wait times for diagnostics, like MRIs, are among the worst in the developed world. Patients like Jennifer Dawn Adams, and many others like her, are forced to languish in pain while they wait.

In Kamloops, just as across B.C., as a direct result of this government’s underfunding of seniors care, the frail elderly in care homes are waiting far too long because of severe understaffing. Across the province, nine out of ten care homes aren’t meeting the government’s own standard of 3.36 hours of care a day. In Kamloops, eight out of eight care homes, 100 percent, are not meeting that standard, and the impact on the physical and the emotional health of our seniors is very, very serious. Seniors in Kamloops deserve better. All seniors in B.C. deserve better.

In Vernon, people are also waiting far too long for care — all kinds of care. The wait time for an ultrasound of the heart is nine months — nine months — when the benchmark says that they should be done within one month.

[1010]

Patients in the North Okanagan have been known to wait two hours for an ambulance after falling and breaking a hip. Seniors in Vernon are also waiting and waiting for care, with none of the six care homes there meeting the government’s own standard.

What does that mean in real human terms? It means residents, the frail elderly, going without baths, being woken up far too early and having to sit and wait two to three hours before meal time. It means seniors not being toileted in time and the indignity that goes with that. And it often means that staff have no time to just talk to residents, to comfort them, to have the kind of nurturing and caring relationships that make all the difference in their lives.

The use of antipsychotic drugs on seniors that don’t have a diagnosis of a psychosis and the use of antidepressants for seniors that don’t have a diagnosis of depression are especially high at some facilities in Vernon. Home support workers in Vernon and Kamloops are also working on the clock, as they say, with 15 minutes for one job, 15 minutes for another task and then rush, rush, rush to travel to see the next client.

Hallway medicine is also alive and well in the North Okanagan, with patients in alcoves and in surgical hallways far too often. People are waiting far too long to have their hospital rooms cleaned, despite the fact that cleanliness is critical to infection control.

Family members and health professionals alike told me that throughout the Okanagan, just as across all of B.C., there are not enough youth mental health programs and not enough early intervention to prevent youth from turning to self-medication and addictions, and long wait times for treatment and recovery programs affect people of all ages.

In Vernon, in Kamloops, in the Okanagan and across B.C., patients and families are simply waiting far too long for health care — families who work hard, who help to build their communities, who pay their taxes; seniors, who have contributed so much to our province and deserve so much more dignity and respect. Because of this government’s choices, they’re waiting far too long for health care.

Deputy Speaker: Any response from the government side?

S. Sullivan: I thank the hon. member for her presentation and her efforts to highlight opportunities for improvement in the health care system. I do, however, take some issue with her characterization of the health care system in such gloomy and dismal terms. It does seem to contrast with the actual feelings of British Columbians.

I note that just recently there was a survey of developed countries with their health care systems. Canada had 74 percent of all citizens happy with their health care system. That was actually higher than the percentage of the other countries that were surveyed. They had 65 percent of their citizens happy with their health care system.

I do believe that there are many opportunities for improvement, and the member has highlighted some of them. But it’s important to remember that we have a very, very good health care system. I also note that our government has more than doubled medical school seats, adding 160 undergraduate seats since 2003. B.C. now graduates 288 medical students a year from UBC, and we’ve increased the number of practising nurses to more than 50,000.

I just can’t help but note, to make a contrast to the hon. member’s party when it was in power, that during that decade, they failed to create a single new medical school space and also cut the number of nurse education spaces, whereas this government has added 4,800.
[ Page 13639 ]
Given that this is the week of our budget, we can’t fail to notice that almost half of taxpayers’ dollars go into our health care system.

[1015]

But there are lots of good things happening that are improving health care as we go. The Ministry of Health invested $25 million this year in additional one-time funding supports. B.C.’s strategy for surgical services focuses on patient-centred quality care. This builds on the $25 million last year, which saw more than 5,000 additional surgeries completed, particularly for people who had been waiting more than 40 weeks for their surgery. Furthermore, there are no waits for unscheduled surgeries. More than half of all surgeries in B.C. are unscheduled and never placed on a wait-list.

Health authorities are working with the Ministry of Health on short-term and long-term plans that align with B.C.’s strategy for surgical services. There are a number of, I think, very exciting things that have been done recently. This includes investing in 16 new state-of-the-art operating rooms at Vancouver General Hospital in partnership with Vancouver Coastal Health and the VGH and UBC Hospital Foundation — a $102 million project that will see 2,200 additional surgeries done each year.

We saw a lot of media on that recently. I know people in Vancouver and British Columbia…. Many of these are actually surgeries that are done for people outside of Vancouver, even though they are in Vancouver hospitals.

B.C. has made tremendous gains in improving access to surgery. There are some stats that I’ve found here that I think the member will be interested in. Between 2001 and 2016, we have increased the annual number of knee replacements from 2,922 to 8,088. This is a 176 percent increase. I’ve got numbers for total hip replacements. The total hip replacements in 2001 — 2,892. Today, it’s 5,918. This is a 104 percent increase. I’ve got another statistic here for cataract surgeries. Now, in 2001, there were 31,215 cataract surgeries. Today….

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.

J. Darcy: Let me be clear that if people are facing a life-threatening situation in our health care system, they do get immediate care. They get excellent care. There’s absolutely no question about that. But all of the numbers that the member opposite wants to put out…. The members opposite cannot ignore the reality that under this government, wait times for things like hip and knee replacements are the second worst in Canada and wait times for diagnostics like MRIs are among the worst in the developed world.

The fact that the government has very recently started making one announcement after another after another, with an election coming, frankly doesn’t do anything for those folks that have been languishing in pain for many, many years.

I want to talk about another aspect. That’s the affordability crisis that is facing more and more people, when it comes to health care. When I was in Kamloops and in Vernon, every day, every week…. I hear from patients and from health care workers that patients are having to pay more and more out of their own pockets for care. As a result, they often go without.

About a man who was discharged after hip surgery and couldn’t afford to fill his prescription for blood thinners, which is really vital when you’ve had that kind of surgery, and so he went without. About patients who require physiotherapy but can’t afford it, and so they go without. About clients who need more home support or need home medical equipment but can’t get it and can’t afford to pay for it. So they either go without, or they end up very quickly being readmitted to hospital, at all of the expense that it means to our health care system, because they can’t cope on their own. About patients who need an MRI and see those who can afford it jump the queue and go to private clinics, while they have to wait, sometimes in debilitating pain.

Even though we cherish our universal public health care system in Canada, the reality is that affordability of health care has become a huge issue here in B.C. The fact that British Columbia is the only province to still have a flat tax for health care, MSP, where you pay the same whether you earn $42,000 or $400,000 or $4 million, is a big burden for families. It’s made even worse because those MSP premiums have increased by over 100 percent since this government came to power.

[1020]

People in Kamloops, people in Vernon, people across B.C. are waiting too long for health care. People in Vernon and Kamloops and across B.C. are experiencing a serious crisis when it comes to affordability of health care. The people of Kamloops and Vernon and the Okanagan deserve better. The people of British Columbia deserve better.

TOURISM IN B.C.

J. Yap: Last week I had the opportunity to provide a response to the Speech from the Throne. I spoke to the global economy and the fact that we are still operating in the context of uncertainty. However, one bright spot on the horizon continues to be right here in British Columbia. We are the leading economy in Canada, and our strength lies not in just one or two sectors or another, but, rather, in the diversity of our provincial economy.

Tourism is just one part of the economic mix that British Columbia has to offer, and it is currently growing in leaps and bounds. In 2014, the economic contribution of the tourism sector grew more rapidly than that of the B.C. economy as a whole. That’s a remarkable statistic.

Total revenues from tourism in 2014 were $14.6 billion. Those revenues flow from over 19,000 tourism-related businesses in the province. Well over 127,000 people
[ Page 13640 ]
make a good living in tourism because everyone wants to come and see super, natural British Columbia.

In 2015, a total of 4.9 million visitors came to visit B.C. Considering British Columbia has a total population of 4.6 million, that means we had more people flow through our borders and visit our province than actually live here. That, too, is a remarkable statistic.

I live in Richmond, and YVR international airport is located close to my riding of Richmond-Steveston. YVR, as you know, is like a small city unto itself. It employs over 24,000 people, and it’s the first place that most international visitors see when they first visit British Columbia, or, indeed, Canada. As a matter of fact, in 2016, YVR was named the best airport in the world. This is the first time Vancouver International Airport has earned the ranking, and it’s the first North American airport to do so.

YVR focuses on delivering remarkable customer experience, resulting in 91 percent customer satisfaction ratings three years in a row. YVR has seen both strong passenger and airline growth over the past year. Vancouver International Airport added 11 new destinations and attracted two new airlines, including Xiamen Airlines and Beijing Capital Airlines. This extends our reach into important markets in Asia and sets the stage for more tourism growth.

For example, every international flight to YVR generates the equivalent of 200 direct jobs. By working in close collaboration with Destination B.C., YVR is delivering on the B.C. jobs plan through enhanced air access to our province, and it is working. In 2016, international visitors were up 12.2 percent for the first 11 months of that year. That puts YVR well on its way to their five-year goal of 25 million passengers by 2020.

One of the things our government did to increase air traffic was to eliminate the jet fuel tax back in 2012. That saves thousands of dollars daily on long-haul flights to Asia and makes YVR extremely competitive. It’s also one of the reasons we were able to attract new airlines like Xiamen and Beijing Capital.

There are a lot of things the government is doing on the home front to make B.C. the international destination of choice. For my own part as Parliamentary Secretary for Liquor Policy Reform, I have been active on this file since the B.C. Liquor policy review was launched in 2013. We’re now at the stage where 90 percent of my recommendations have been implemented. Changes to the liquor landscape have been nothing less than transformative in helping to boost tourism, making our hospitality industry more competitive.

[1025]

Take the microbrewing industry, for example. Thanks to our liquor policy reforms, there are now 125 microbreweries that dot the landscape of our province, with new operations opening at an unprecedented rate. These breweries are located throughout the province. So we’re taking advantage of this opportunity to launch the B.C. Ale Trail, made possible in part by a $70,000 investment through Destination B.C. Tourists and craft beer enthusiasts can now explore B.C.’s thriving craft beer industry and local attractions with ease.

The same applies to wine trails in British Columbia. Wine enthusiasts from all over the world have a whole network to explore through B.C. vintners. There are winery regions throughout our province, from Vancouver Island to the Okanagan Lake country and to Osoyoos and the Similkameen. This is how liquor policy reform is supporting the tourism industry in British Columbia.

L. Popham: It’s a pleasure to respond to the member across the way. I’ll agree with the member that tourism is doing well in British Columbia, and it’s definitely an industry of the future, something to develop more and more.

I was involved in the wine industry myself before becoming an MLA. I know that our wine industry is a key factor in our tourism plan. The wines of the past in British Columbia have soared into wines that are recognized internationally as some of the best wines in the world.

Now, when we talk about who is attracted to our province and why they’re coming here, they are definitely coming to see super, natural British Columbia. As the member mentioned, we are in a situation of uncertainty with our global economy. It’s so important to make sure that we stabilize our tourism industry here in the province of British Columbia.

One thing we know about who’s coming to our province and why is that we have an enormous amount of international visitors coming here to take a look at our grizzly bears. Bear viewing is a key factor bringing international visitors to the Great Bear Rainforest, for example. Now, 25 companies who operated within the Great Bear Rainforest surveyed their customers, and of the customers of those companies, 79 percent said that bear viewing was the main reason that they visited the Great Bear Rainforest. These visitors spent approximately 3.8 days in the Great Bear Rainforest. So they’re coming here specifically to see our wildlife.

There’s an overwhelming conclusion that grizzly bear viewing generates more value than grizzly bear trophy hunting. So we, as the opposition, put forward a plan for grizzly bears. Just some time ago there was an announcement by our leader. What he said was:

“It’s time for some leadership on the grizzly bear issue. We can look after our natural environment, respect the outdoor traditions of this province and grow the economy if we make the right choices. That should start now with a change in how we treat the iconic grizzly bears in British Columbia.

“This province has had a proud outdoor heritage that includes hunting and fishing. We also have a future that includes welcoming the world to enjoy our spectacular scenery and wildlife, creating jobs for British Columbians and a tourism industry that is second to none. Our heritage and our future can thrive together if we make the right choices.”
[ Page 13641 ]

We are against trophy hunting of the grizzly bear on this side of the House, and the government side of the House has failed to support this idea. They have failed to show any leadership in that way.

Chief Councillor Doug Neasloss — he’s the chief councillor for the Kitasoo — was quoted as saying: “The Coastal First Nations banned the grizzly bear trophy hunt in the Great Bear Rainforest four years ago. A provincial ban is long overdue to stop the needless killing of grizzly bears for sport. Grizzly bears are respected by many First Nations across this province. Bear claws, hides and teeth are not trophies.”

[1030]

On this side of the House, we are planning on holding nation-to-nation discussions with Coastal First Nations to help us achieve a proper wildlife management plan that includes cultural practices and goals. We would also consult from one end of the province to the other with hunters and guide-outfitters to make sure, as this legislation would roll into place if we became government, that we would consider everybody’s gains and losses. That’s the way we would consult to make sure that this is rolled out in a fair way, the way that consultations should take place in British Columbia.

Now, along with having a ban on grizzly bear trophy hunting, we would never put forward something like that without also putting forward a comprehensive plan on wildlife and habitat management in this province. This is something that’s been lacking. When people come to our province as tourists, they do want to see what we have to offer. If we’re not taking care of our wildlife on the ground, we won’t have that to offer long term.

J. Yap: I appreciate the member opposite’s concurrence with the fact that our tourism industry is so important for our province. I covered, in my earlier comments, how liquor policy reform has helped support the expansion of tourism in our province. I’d like to use my remaining time to focus on things a little closer to home, in my riding of Richmond-Steveston.

As many are aware, the B.C. film industry is an important part of our diversified economy, and it’s also an important boost to tourism. What fan of the hit TV series titled Once Upon a Time on the ABC network wouldn’t want to visit the mythical town of Storybrooke, Maine, which is actually set in my community, Steveston village?

Taking advantage of all the heritage buildings located throughout town, Once Upon a Time generates tremendous benefits for local residents in my riding, both directly and indirectly. Fans of the show and curious travellers from all over come to see and tour the real Storybrooke. Some perhaps even take a free self-guided walking tour with the Once Upon a Time walking map from the Tourism Richmond Visitor Centre and have the opportunity to purchase Once Upon a Time souvenir merchandise there, as well, to take home.

The continued success of this series brings real economic benefits to Steveston. It also allows members of our community to feel pride in knowing we are contributing to the 38 percent increase in tourism revenue that we’ve seen provincially over the last decade.

It’s clear that tourism builds communities, promotes cultures and creates year-round jobs in every region of our province. It’s the reason why our province invests $98 million annually to help to promote British Columbia as a top destination for tourism. While we are still navigating an uncertain global economy, you can be sure that our provincial government is making all the right investments in our tourism sector.

RESTORING INTEGRITY
TO THE POLITICAL PROCESS

G. Holman: As opposition spokesperson for democratic reform, I’m very pleased to speak to this statement about the need to restore integrity in politics. I’m sure all of us in this House would agree that integrity in politics is very important. I want to make clear that the purpose of this statement is to address the systemic issues with our electoral, election finance and governance rules, not to make personal accusations.

Too many of our citizens don’t believe that governments and elected officials are always acting in the public interest or adhering to the higher standards of ethical conduct. This is discouraging citizens from participating in the democratic process.

I wouldn’t agree with those who believe that politicians are less ethical than the average citizen. However, I do agree that elected officials must adhere to the highest ethical standards and, as importantly, must be perceived as doing so. Unfortunately, our laws in British Columbia don’t meet the highest standards. They are clearly inadequate in comparison to other provinces in Canada and at the federal level itself.

[1035]

This isn’t just my view. It’s the opinion of a growing number of voices inside and outside B.C. with no particular ideological or partisan bias. Independent organizations such as IntegrityBC and others have drawn a straight line from corporate donors to government contracts and lax enforcement of laws protecting the environment and workers.

As one pundit describes it, where there is smoke, there is fire, and in B.C., there is plenty of smoke. My point here is not to prove there is fire. My point here is to advocate for rules that avoid the smoke altogether.

For example, the fact that the Premier has now given up her stipend from the Liberal Party is irrelevant. The real problem is that the law in British Columbia still allows such arrangements to occur, and our citizens demand better. Polling by Insights West for the Dogwood Initiative indicate that 86 percent of British Columbians
[ Page 13642 ]
support a ban on corporate and union political donations, including 81 percent of those who voted Liberal in the last election.

As I noted earlier, much of the legislation needed to restore integrity to B.C. politics is already in place in other jurisdictions. While government revels in somewhat overblown and carefully selected comparisons to other jurisdictions on B.C.’s economic performance, they don’t appear concerned that B.C. is seen as a laggard on election finance and other laws that better ensure politicians are above ethical reproach.

In fact, this government has heightened concerns about the influence of big money in B.C. by removing long-standing spending limits on political parties in the 60 days prior to the campaign period. This reinforces the power of big money right before the formal election campaign begins. The use of taxpayer dollars to fund politically tainted government advertising further exacerbates the situation.

I believe that the citizens of B.C. understand and support the need to get big money out of politics, ban donations from outside of B.C., reinstate pre-election spending limits on political parties, give the Auditor General authority over government advertising and ban party contributions to the salary of any Premier, any cabinet minister.

I believe citizens also agree that standing committees of the Legislature should be empowered to review and propose legislation. They understand we need laws to protect whistleblowers reporting government waste or mismanagement. They know we need stronger legislation to prevent conflicts of interest by elected officials. Our citizens and non-government groups also have the right to participate in public policy debates without fear of intimidation and legal reprisals known as SLAPP suits.

Restoring integrity to B.C. politics also means we have to make elections fairer. I believe the citizens of B.C. are fed up with an unfair voting system that gives 100 percent of the power to so-called majority governments typically elected with less than 50 percent of the votes.

I also want to point out that restoring integrity to politics also means we need to strengthen our independent watchdogs. For example, independent watchdogs, like the environmental assessment office created in the 1990s, better ensure that governments live up to their own laws and standards.

Unfortunately, the environmental assessment office has fallen on hard times, twice approving a mine in the territory of the Tsilhqot’in which would convert a pristine lake, providing food fish for First Nations for millennia, into a tailings pond. More recently, the EAO’s approval of a contaminated waste site in the Shawnigan Lake drinking watershed, relying on the evaluation of a professional with a financial interest in the project, speaks to the corruption of the independent environmental review process.

Another key watchdog is the B.C. Utilities Commission, which has been precluded from reviewing tens of billions in private power projects and also the $9 billion Site C project. This decision by government is going to cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars per year forever.

There is no more important watchdog in British Columbia than the Representative for Children and Youth, who reports on the status of 7,000 children in care.

What these examples mean is that restoring integrity to politics in B.C., considered broadly, is about more than worthy principles such as trust and accountability; it is also about protecting taxpayers and even lives.

[1040]

D. Plecas: I’d first like to thank the member for Saanich North and the Islands for tabling this morning’s motion concerning restoring integrity to the political process, although I must say I don’t think “restoring integrity” is the best descriptor here. I think maintaining integrity is what we’re really talking about. I say that because I believe that at least in this province, and particularly at the provincial level, elected officials do act with integrity, and I must say I don’t think “restoring” integrity is the best descriptor here. I think maintaining integrity is what we’re really talking about. I say that because I believe that at least in this province, and particularly at the provincial level, elected officials do act with integrity. I believe they believe strongly that they should.

There’s also an absence of any indication in recent times that people aren’t acting with the utmost integrity. Without question, it behooves any elected official to act with integrity. In the event an elected official acts in a deceitful or dishonest manner, it reflects on the institution as a whole. Certainly, that applies here in this Legislature. It can rock the foundation of any democratic institution and fuel public cynicism towards the political process in general.

I know our government believes that B.C.’s electoral process should be fair, accountable and transparent in all respects. We follow the current rules, and we expect other political parties to do the same. With respect to fairness, there are strict limits on the amount of money any party or candidate can spend during the election period. With respect to accountability, there are rules in place to ensure that political parties disclose the names of donors and how much they contribute.

With respect to transparency, the B.C. Liberal Party has taken the disclosure process one step further by proactively and voluntarily moving towards real-time reporting of party donations within ten business days. This is an unprecedented move by any political party in the history of the province, and we are encouraging other parties to follow suit.

We know there’s a public appetite for more information on how political parties are funded, and we want to accommodate that by allowing the public to have ac-
[ Page 13643 ]
cess to information in a transparent and timely fashion. Public accountability and transparency is the key to integrity. Regular reporting on political party donations is one of the ways that we can increase accountability for British Columbians.

For the purpose of this debate, I’d like to invite the hon. member opposite to express the opposition’s position on transparency and why disclosure of political donations should not happen on a real-time basis. Hypothetically speaking, if a union or corporation were to donate, say, $10,000 to a political party, shouldn’t the public be allowed to see that information before an election?

For example, prior to the last election, we know that the NDP received large-scale donations from unions in the province. These are obviously important sources of funding for the opposition, so I’m interested to know what alternatives the hon. member is suggesting.

If we exclude unions and corporations from making political contributions, does he perhaps favour a publicly funded model, such as a taxpayer subsidy on a per-ballot basis? Or should political parties be responsible for raising funds on their own? I look forward to hearing the member’s response.

G. Holman: Thanks for the comments of the member opposite. Just a couple of quick responses. As I tried to make clear in my comments, it’s not about the behaviour of particular elected officials; it’s about the rules that are in place. The rules are not, clearly, meeting the highest standards that are in place elsewhere in Canada, including in most of the major provinces and at the federal level.

In terms of big money in politics, again, the issue isn’t how quickly you disclose donations from large organizations like corporations and unions; the issue is the fact that they’re allowed to be made at all. In our view, that’s the key issue; that’s the important issue. Big money needs to be banned from elections. It’s not a question of how quickly you disclose where your contributors are coming from.

[1045]

As to the suggestion or accusation that because we support the banning of big money from politics, that obviously means we support a per-voter subsidy, that’s simply untrue. We’ve never said that, never said it at all. This is just a smokescreen to avoid the key issue, which, in our view, is to remove big money and the perceptions around that from politics altogether.

I want to return to why restoring integrity to politics is so important. In British Columbia, it’s because our citizens are demanding it and showing us through their declining participation that, without changes, we risk further alienation from the democratic process. Just look to the south for an example of voter alienation that can potentially become more destructive than we can imagine.

The most important poll of all, elections also provide clear evidence that confidence in the provincial political process, in part because of public concerns about the lack of integrity in politics, has been pushing down voting participation rates for years to the point where 40 to 50 percent of our citizens don’t even bother to vote in B.C. elections.

Since the 1970s, voter turnout has dropped from approximately three-quarters of voters to just over half of eligible voters, and only 30 percent of eligible voters among those aged from 18 to 24 choose to vote. Younger voters, in particular, are tuning out of the political process, and they are the demographic to which the electoral, election finance and governance reforms appeal the most. That in itself should tell us something, and this assembly would be derelict in its duty if it ignored these warning signs.

CELEBRATING B.C.’S FILM INDUSTRY

D. Ashton: As you folks know, I have the honour and incredible privilege of representing the beautiful and vibrant area in the riding of Penticton, a riding that’s world-renowned for its incredible wine industry, its beaches and also the fruit industry.

Today, however, I would like to talk about another industry that often brings bounties into the homes of the people of British Columbia, and also all around the world — the B.C. film industry.

British Columbia is one of the top centres for screen production excellence in North America, with a long history of producing award-winning feature films, television series, documentaries and commercials. B.C. has become an internationally recognized hub that offers full-service production, thanks to experienced creative and technical talent, extensive production infrastructure and award-winning expertise in digital animation, visual effects and post-production facilities.

Our location on Canada’s stunning west coast places us just a brief two-and-a-half-hour flight away from and also within the same time zone as Los Angeles, making British Columbia an ideal location for studios, independent production companies and networks based in the United States to do business.

In the last five years, B.C. has grown to become one of the world’s largest centres for visual effects and digital animation, with over 60 domestic and foreign-owned visual effects and animation studios present here. The industry has an incredibly strong balance of international and domestic production activity, with foreign productions accounting for three-quarters of the total production in British Columbia.

We host a vast amount of production space, with over 60 studio facilities in British Columbia’s motion picture industry, and they can service over 45 productions at once and accommodate all sizes of productions.

We also have a very well established post-production industry, with a robust talent base that includes award-
[ Page 13644 ]
winning colourists, editors, engineers, sound mixers, composers and musicians.

British Columbia offers highly competitive, easy-to-access and reliable provincial tax credit programs which have provided significant cost savings to domestic and international producers who do visual effects, animation, production and post-production work in British Columbia. Just take note and look what’s happening in Kelowna today with the incredible digital animation production facilities that are now present in the Interior. These tax credits help add to an already attractive prospect of domestic and international studios producing a film or a series in British Columbia.

Now, if I may shine the spotlight on a few statistics that help to show how well this industry is doing. With 297 film and television productions and direct spending of $2 billion in the 2015-16 season, B.C. is one of the top production centres in North America. Foreign-made series accounted for $790 million in spending in British Columbia, out of a total of $2 billion in production. That compares with $618 million for feature films.

[1050]

Some of the members in this House may regard and have recently viewed some of the films that have come out of British Columbia: The Mountain Between Us; Death Note; Fifty Shades Darker; Okja; the new Power Rangers; Solutrean; Tully , an award-winning picture that involved an airline captain saving a terrific amount of passengers, which happened in New York; Deadpool; Star Trek Beyond; or War for the Planet of the Apes.

Others may have seen the provincial TV series shot in our beautiful province: Arrow, season 5; Bates Motel, season 5; DC’s Legends of Tomorrow, season 2; Girlfriends’ Guide to Divorce; or I, Zombie, which is in season 3 — just to name a few.

This incredible range of subject material covered in any of these productions mirrors, I believe, the wonderful diversity that we have here in our province. A testament to the characteristic strength of the British Columbia film industry lies in its resilience to the recent current events that have taken place worldwide. Due to a weak global economy and the somewhat concerning protectionism statements from our friends in the south, risk is all around us. Despite this, British Columbia has experienced an increase in production over 2016, driven by the weak Canadian dollar and expansion in product-streaming devices like Netflix, Hulu and Amazon and their investments in British Columbia.

As it was outlined in the throne speech, thanks to strong leadership, a sound plan and especially to the hard-working people of British Columbia — not only in the Lower Mainland but also in the Interior — our economy reigns strength of the celebrity status that puts us amongst the top of our peers when it comes to job creation, especially in the film business.

I’m happy to say that the motion picture industry in British Columbia supports approximately 25,000 direct jobs. That’s a substantial amount of highly talented and experienced workforce present here. These people work hard and have contributed substantially to help put our economy in the happy position that we find ourselves in today.

G. Heyman: It’s a pleasure to join my colleague the member for Penticton in celebrating B.C.’s film industry today. Wow, what an array of statistics and numbers. I’ve got some here as well, but perhaps the member and I should take a tip from the activity of the great animation studio in Vancouver-Fairview, Atomic Cartoons, step in front of a green screen and animate the presentation of the tremendous gains the B.C. film industry has made over the years.

We know that B.C. represented 32 percent of the total volume of film and television in Canada, a little behind Ontario. Ontario is bigger. A significant 60 percent of foreign location and service productions in Canada took place in B.C., according to CMPA’s Profile 2016.

We do have some areas, however, where we could grow. B.C. only produced 17 percent of Canadian television and 16 percent of Canadian theatrical productions, trailing both Quebec and Ontario. While we’ve been successful, there’s room to grow.

The member for Penticton correctly pointed out that film tax credits — and, especially, B.C.’s labour-based film tax credit — have played a tremendous role in helping to build the industry in British Columbia. Of course, that tax credit was brought in by the New Democrat government in 1999, at the tail end of that awful decade. I note that the Minister of Energy and Mines, to celebrate the fact that the NDP brought in the tax credit, has donned an orange tie to be here with us today.

Vancouver has a tremendous film and television industry, and it’s a great boost to our economy. The member for Penticton noted that we have a tremendous post-production centre. Two great studios in post-production are in my riding of Vancouver-Fairview — Encore and Method Studios. We have hundreds of creative and finishing editors, post-production supervisors, colourists, coordinators, engineers, people involved with information technology, composers, data wranglers. These are good-paying jobs, and the growing visual effects and animation cluster are all good news. We need to continue to support them.

One of the reasons we need to do this is that when we can offer services for a production, from inception right through to post-production, it’s just that one added factor, that one added feature, that will attract producers to bring their productions to British Columbia, as they have been doing.

[1055]

One of the reasons this has happened was the expansion of the digital animation and visual effects tax credit to post-production. I will comment, however, that given
[ Page 13645 ]
that this was a 2013 election promise of the Liberals, and it only cost $2 million in the budget when it was finally brought in, I’m not sure why the government waited two years to bring in that particular measure. But it has been brought in, and it has had a positive effect.

Let me close by talking a little bit about the creative arts generally in B.C. — not just film and television, but digital media, books and magazines, music production, all of which have come together under a group called B.C. Creates to promote the creative arts in British Columbia. The amounts are over $4 billion in annual GDP. Those are old figures — likely higher; 85,000 skilled jobs, also likely higher. This puts the province’s creative economy shoulder to shoulder with B.C.’s resource industries.

But despite the Minister of Community, Sport and Cultural Development promising at a B.C. Creates event that it would be a priority of his government to support this sector, we find no mention of arts and culture in the throne speech, no mention of film and television in the throne speech and no recognition of the important role the creative industries play in a diversified modern economy in British Columbia.

Let me simply close…. All of these creative industries are covered by Creative B.C., which expanded from the B.C. film development commission. Creative B.C. has a budget of $2.2 million, with a one-time boost for music of $15 million, which will run out. That’s compared with Ontario at $30 million — even Saskatchewan at $7.4 million and Nova Scotia at $5.3 million. We can do better. I hope to see more money for the creative sector in the upcoming budget.

D. Ashton: I want to thank the hon. member for Vancouver-Fairview. It’s good to see that both sides of this House are in full support of this incredible industry that brings an awful lot of highly paid jobs and a very clean industry to this wonderful province. I also would like to correct myself. It’s Sully, not “Tully.” I apologize profusely. I haven’t seen the movie yet, but I will.

I’m sure we’ve all had one experience or another with popular Net streaming devices like Netflix or Hulu or Amazon. Netflix recently ordered the production series of Altered Carbon, a big-budget science fiction drama that is being filmed in a former newspaper plant in Surrey. The company responsible for the Surrey studio, Skydance Media, has made this location a permanent option for this company. I’m happy to hear this, as it means there will be even more opportunities for the people of British Columbia to show off their talents and their skills when it comes to the big screen.

There are also a few feature films that have recently been produced in my own backyard, in the Okanagan: Blackway and the Disney movie Tomorrowland. In the past there have been numerous commercials, television and documentaries produced in the Okanagan and in the Thompson-Nicola region. Members will be happy to hear that the Okanagan has a full-time studio, a converted vacant clothing factory, that will now allow even more production to be made there.

Anyone who has travelled our beautiful province knows how important it is to preserve the natural beauty that we have here. This is why I’m happy that our government is committed to working hard to protect this magnificent place we all call home so that British Columbia’s film industry can continue to show the world through the big screen just how lucky each and every one of us is to live here.

Hon. T. Lake: We will now move to motion 2.

Deputy Speaker: Hon. Members, unanimous consent of the House is required to proceed with this motion.

Leave granted.

Private Members’ Motions

MOTION 2 — CHILD CARE
AND EARLY LEARNING PLAN

J. Wickens: I stand today to move:

[Be it resolved that this House enter into discussion and debate of a $10 per day childcare and early learning plan that supports families and builds our economy.]

[R. Lee in the chair.]

I would like to start this morning by talking a little bit about what parents and families are currently going through in British Columbia when it comes to child care.

[1100]

I believe that elected officials have a duty to go into their communities and hear from the people that they were elected to serve. When it comes to child care and the early learning experience for children in this province, experts and parents in our communities are saying that we have moved from crisis to complete and utter chaos.

One mom has told me she is on 24 child care centre wait-lists. Another parent I know is spending $1,200 a month and on a wait-list for their six-month-old. Parents have told me stories of having to quit their jobs because there is no one that can take their child with a disability, and the wait-lists for supported child development go years and years.

Only a quarter of B.C. children five years and younger have the opportunity to have a spot in a licensed daycare facility — one quarter of our children. And babies have died in unregulated child care. No parent should ever have to lose their child just because they have to go to work to provide for their family.

These stories are heartbreaking, and they are inexcusable, but they are addressable. The current approach in
[ Page 13646 ]
British Columbia is not working. Parents, businesses and child care experts are calling for reform, and the only people who will not respond is this B.C. Liberal government.

We have a plan. There is a solution, a made-in-B.C. plan, not created by politicians or bureaucrats, but a plan put together by some of the best child care experts and endorsed by economists in British Columbia. The $10-a-day child care plan is a made-in-B.C. plan, born to address the chaos we find ourselves in today. It’s a plan that benefits children, women, families, businesses and our economy. And most importantly, it strengthens our community.

There is overwhelming evidence and research that investments in our children’s early years have great long- and short-term cost benefits. Providing affordable child care removes the economic barriers that exist, prohibiting many parents, mostly women, from entering or returning to the workforce.

But making child care affordable is only the tip of the iceberg in this plan. The $10-a-day plan would take our current patchwork of child care services and create a cohesive system of early learning and care for children. The $10-a-day plan demands a new early care and learning act, which is desperately needed to ensure that all children access quality early learning experiences.

The $10-a-day plan addresses building capacity in the child care field, growing the number of qualified early childhood educators so that children can be cared for in safe, reliable learning environments.

Putting all of this together means a better start in life for many children, more opportunities for women and families. Full implementation of the $10-a-day plan will have significant impacts on our economy. On full implementation, we will see 69,000 net new full-time jobs.

Every child should be given equal opportunity to be cared for in qualified, well-trained, licensed professional child care spaces. Every parent deserves the right to know that they can hug and kiss their child goodbye, go to work for a day and return to their child happy, safe and cared for.

This government has neglected and ignored the need for child care reform for far too long. Our children deserve better. Our families deserve better. It’s 2017, and our communities deserve better. Things do not have to be this hard. We can build a better B.C., and we can do that in a way that includes $10-a-day child care.

M. Hunt: It’s with great pleasure that I rise on behalf of my constituents in Surrey-Panorama, who I have been listening to and have been talking to about this issue, and participate in this morning’s debate.

[1105]

Now, let’s be clear. Child care and early learning are vitally important to the development of our province, and our government is committed to providing the necessary services for our children’s needs. That’s why we’ve introduced the B.C. early childhood tax benefit, a program that provides tax-free monthly payments to families to assist with the cost of raising young children under the age of six.

But what I would like to talk about this morning is the proposal put forward by my friends in the New Democratic Party. Like most of the schemes they come up with, the NDP has determined that to help families with the very real issues related to the costs of raising children, the solution is to create a massive government program, a program that will cost an estimated $2 billion a year.

The fact is that this program is unaffordable and wildly irresponsible, and you don’t need to take my word for it. All you have to do is listen to what the former Leader of the Opposition, the member for Vancouver-Kingsway, said in 2013: that $10-a-day daycare is not affordable.

Let’s quote him directly. “We are not going to be in a position to afford that. If we look at the size of the program, $1.5 billion to $2 billion, we’re not going to be able to proceed with that.” Mr. Speaker, you know that even when the members of the opposition think of a program as being expensive, it’s really expensive.

Now let’s take a second look at the one province in the country that has introduced a similar scheme, the province of Quebec. When the province of Quebec introduced a $10 daycare scheme, it cost taxpayers $565 million a year. But the costs quickly spiralled out of control, and the price tag ballooned to over $2.5 billion a year. Now, what service did the taxpayers in Quebec receive for this massive tax bill? Well, recent media analysis shows that some child care centres in Quebec have — wait for this, Mr. Speaker — wait-lists of up to three years.

The question remains: how is the NDP going to pay for this daycare scheme? Although it took months to get the NDP to finally answer the question, the Leader of the Opposition has now finally admitted that the NDP will pay for their scheme with higher taxes. Last month, the Opposition Leader said: “How is this going be paid for? It starts with a tax investment.” Investment — that reads tax increase.

We’ve seen this before from the NDP. You only need to look back to the last time that the NDP got elected. During the 1991 election campaign, the NDP promised to raise taxes by just $250 million. But what happened after they got elected? Well, in the first two years, they introduced more than $1.5 billion in tax increases. There wasn’t a tax increase that they didn’t like. They raised personal income tax. They raised income surtax. They applied the sales tax more widely. They upped business taxes. They increased jet fuel taxes. They even hiked education taxes.

In fact, the current member for Nanaimo, who was then an NDP backbencher, said that he’d never “seen anyone die of overtaxation in this province”. What the NDP
[ Page 13647 ]
doesn’t seem to understand is that when they dip into the pockets of British Columbians to pay for their schemes, they take money away from ordinary people. I know the NDP thinks that they can spend money better than the people themselves, but we in this party think people’s money is better off in their own pockets.

If they choose daycare, fine. That’s why we’ve been assisting with the capital costs of the physical infrastructure. If they choose a family member, that’s fine, too. As a matter of fact, there are many families that make the sacrifice to have one of the parents stay at home. So we have one income to that family. But here, this scheme will have the one-income family subsidizing two professional incomes.

Now that really is fair, because actually, what we have through the back door is what they say is tax cuts to the rich.

[1110]

L. Popham: I can’t tell you how disappointed I am after hearing that rant from the member from across the way. The facts are completely wrong. The reality check of most British Columbians…. Somehow, this member has missed what’s going on, on the ground.

Let’s talk about why this program is needed and why we can afford it. For one thing, it’s shown in studies — and the member didn’t get into these studies because it would have proven him wrong, for sure — that money invested in a child care program, such as this, sees returns in economic generation. So we know that to be true.

When we’re talking about families starting out and growing the economy, one of the main problems that our province is seeing is that there isn’t space in quality, affordable child care.

I’ll give an example — of myself. Before I was an MLA, I was a farmer, and I had a very young child. There was my husband. At the time, he worked off our farm and had a good income, but I wanted to get back into the workforce. I had my child at age 30. Up until that point, I had contributed to our family income. I had my child and decided that I would change the way I was working. So I stayed home and worked on our farm.

While working on the farm, I still needed access to some child care because in the spring, things ramp up in agriculture, and you’re not generating very much income. Under the circumstances, I couldn’t afford to put my son into child care and had to try and grapple with looking after him and running our farm at the same time.

We had a really great program on the Saanich Peninsula. I had a group of women farmers, who were all in their 30s. We each had our own farms, and we would do a weeding week, and we would change farms. When people came to my farm to do work and share the load of some of the bigger jobs we were trying to do, I had this crazy setup that I used. I had an extension cord of about 200 feet that I would put out in the middle of the field. I would plug in our old television and our VCR. I would have a lawn chair and a huge sun umbrella, and I would get my son to sit there and watch his favourite show, The Lion King, just so I could get one hour of weeding done in the field.

Was it an option for me to go and hire somebody for $20 an hour to look after my son? No, because I wasn’t making any money at that time. If I would have had access to a child care program that allowed me to go out and participate and add income into our family, that would have been fantastic.

One of the biggest barriers for women entering back into the workforce is affordable, quality child care. So when the member says that we can’t afford it, I don’t think he’s really looked at the economic generation that it can have.

It’s also a case of fairness in this province. Now, we know by statistics that 81 percent of single parents are women — 81 percent. In order for our single parents, women and men, to get back into the workforce — to get off, perhaps, social assistance — they need to be able to have access to child care.

What the member across the way is saying is that they don’t deserve an opportunity to participate in our economy. What he’s saying is that we should just stay with the status quo and watch women, in our society in British Columbia, struggle on social assistance or at minimum-wage jobs because we can’t afford this child care program.

I think that our leader on this side of the House has stated very clearly that we will work towards a $10-a-day child care plan, because it’s the right thing to do. Our families in British Columbia need it. We have around two million people in British Columbia right now that are struggling to make it day to day. They’re within $200 of not being able to pay their bills at the end of the month with their paycheques. Our economy needs it. Even the boards of trade and chambers of commerce have supported an idea like this. And our children deserve it.

We can do better in this province. With the attitude of the members opposite, we don’t deserve it as British Columbians.

[1115]

L. Larson: Child care is integral to any society. It provides opportunity for families to find balance between work and home life and have two incomes — something that has become a necessity for many. Our government recognizes the challenges that parents face, which is why we launched the B.C. early-years strategy. The early-years strategy is a program that is actively improving the access and quality of early-years programs such as child care.

In 2016, we committed $327 million to child care, a 55 percent increase since 2001, and $89 million of that is child care operating funding to help providers cover day-to-day operating costs, keep parents’ fees more affordable, provide fair salaries to caregivers and maintain quality services.

In 2016-17 to date in the Boundary-Similkameen, there are 26 licensed, funded child care facilities, with
[ Page 13648 ]
578 spaces. In 2016-17 to date in Osoyoos, there are six licensed, funded child care facilities, with 76 spaces, with a total expenditure of $41,000. In Oliver, there are seven licensed, funded child care facilities with 271 spaces, with a total expenditure of $111,000. In addition, seven organizations in the Boundary-Similkameen received more than $11,000 in child care minor capital funding.

The ministry has created 4,300 licensed child care spaces in B.C. since 2014, building on the 113,000 licensed spaces that are currently funded by our government, and part of our commitment to create 13,000 spaces by 2020. We’ve also invested a total of $2.13 million, in partnership with the Early Childhood Educators of B.C., in an early childhood education bursary that helps people pursue careers in the field.

We’ve also launched our single-parent employment initiative, which helps single parents on income and disability assistance with child care and transportation costs while they are enrolled in training programs and for up to a year after they re-enter the workforce. The program has provided over $1 million to approximately 580 parents to cover the cost of child care.

Our government also invests up to $119.9 million annually on the child care subsidy program, which currently supports approximately 20,000 B.C. children and their families with the cost of child care each month. The ministry introduced the new B.C. early childhood tax benefit in April 2015. The benefit provides $137 million annually to approximately 180,000 families with children under the age of six. It’s up to $55 a month per child, and 90 percent of families with young children are eligible.

We’re here today to debate a concept that has been tried and failed elsewhere — government-funded daycare, a plan that has been proposed and discarded across this country, with one exception, due to the cost. I have a granddaughter in daycare. While lowering the cost of daycare may result in an up front saving, the extra burden of tax to cover it, coming off the paycheque, will eliminate any benefit gained. The burden to pay will still be on the parent as a taxpayer and on all other taxpayers as well.

To create a universal $10-a-day child care plan could, conservatively, cost taxpayers up to $2 billion per year. The proposed scheme to pay for this program would require tax increases for British Columbian families, the very people they purport to help — tax increases that the Leader of the Opposition has already signed off on when he said: “It starts with a tax investment.”

What kind of a tax investment is he talking about? Does the Leader of the Opposition — having already said he will raise taxes on those who make over $150,000 a year and increase the carbon tax — now want to raise taxes on those who make under $150,000 a year? There isn’t a plan to pay for this, other than to burden British Columbians with a new tax increase. A program that could cost $2 billion annually, paid for by a tax increase on British Columbians, does not help British Columbians. It is a reckless program that leads to credit downgrades, deficit budgets and other hallmarks of an NDP government.

Our government has committed hundreds of millions to child care. We continue to effectively and meaningfully invest in child care supports.

[1120]

D. Eby: It is remarkable to hear this government, which has increased the daily costs for families across B.C. — ICBC, B.C. Hydro, MSP, even camping that this government has jacked the fees on, hidden tax increases — talk about concern, about affordability for British Columbians. That is really remarkable to hear. I’m glad they’re at the table, but it’s a little bit late, in an election year, to be concerned about affordability.

One of the earliest meetings that we had in my constituency, with my colleague the member for Vancouver-Fairview, was exactly about this child care issue. Let me tell you what real people — not members who clearly have no idea what’s happening in child care on the ground — told us at that meeting. They said they couldn’t afford to have children in Metro Vancouver. They talked about going into debt to pay for child care.

My wife and I were sitting in that meeting. She was six months pregnant. I’m going to tell the members about our experience — and we’re a success story — trying to find child care. So listen to this success story to hear about what’s actually happening with child care. The moment we had a positive pregnancy test, we put our unborn child on multiple waiting lists across the city of Vancouver, including waiting lists that were a half-hour drive from our home. We were ready to go anywhere. That was because our friends told us that if you are not on a wait-list for child care the moment you have a positive pregnancy test, you cannot get infant child care. You’re out of luck. If you don’t know that, I don’t know what you’re supposed to do.

UBC childcare is literally the only non-profit daycare provider in my entire constituency of 55,000 people to provide infant child care. Their wait-list…. I heard the member say with horror that in Quebec the wait-lists are almost three years long. The wait-list at UBC for infant child care is — guess how long — almost three years long. What a remarkable statistic. The member is not quite as horrified about B.C.’s statistic as he is about Quebec’s.

In addition to this non-profit care provider, there was one local for-profit care provider who was willing to take our unborn child’s name on their list. We applied there as well.

From about pregnancy week 4 until pregnancy week 40, when Ezra was born, we heard nothing from any of the daycare providers. “No problem,” we thought. “We’ve got a full year before Cailey has to go back to school.” When he turned six months old, we started getting a little nervous. We started calling the daycare providers that
[ Page 13649 ]
were providing infant care. Nothing. Our best chance, UBC — and our first choice, by the way, because they have an excellent program — was a program we actually had priority for, because my wife is a medical student at UBC and the program is intended for UBC students first.

When Ezra turned nine months old, we were told he was pretty close to the top of the UBC list. We hadn’t heard anything from anyone else. Three months before my wife was going back to school we still had no idea where our child would be staying. So under the pretence of going for a tour of the private care operator’s facility, we went so we could actually beg the provider — “Please, if there’s any space, think about us. Please consider our family” — to take them into their facility.

They called us back when Ezra was 11 months old, 30 days from when Cailey had to go back to school. We called UBC and said: “Is there any chance for us to get in?” “No, there are too many siblings taking the spaces.” So we cut a $600 deposit cheque for the private care provider.

Ten days before Cailey was supposed to go back to school, we got a call from UBC. We gave up our $600 cheque, and we were grateful — we are grateful — to pay $1,365 a month for child care. That is a deal, because UBC employees pay $1,545 a month, and if you’re not UBC-affiliated, in the same facility you pay $1,915 a month. That’s more than $22,000 a year per child.

Now, there is absolutely no reason why child care should be so difficult to get and so expensive in Vancouver and across B.C. Prenatal waiting lists, begging care providers to provide a space, decisions delayed until weeks before return to work, more than $16,000 per year per child — we had no other options. And I am worried about the decisions we could have been forced to make about where to put our child, because we did not have a choice about child care, in terms of the expenses for what was going on, to live in the city of Vancouver.

[1125]

We know other families who weren’t so lucky, who had to make really difficult choices about not returning to work because it literally would cost them money to return to work, making compromises about the quality of care for their children because there was nowhere else to put their child. Every parent, regardless of ability to pay, has a right to decent child care.

L. Reimer: It’s a great privilege to rise today and take part in this morning’s important debate on $10 a day daycare. One of the most important jobs that we have as a society is to prepare future generations for prosperity and success. One of the most important ways we can do that is to ensure that families have the supports they need to grow and prosper.

That’s why our government is making record investments and providing supports to parents and families. This year our government has committed $327 million for childcare, a 55 percent increase since 2001. This investment will include $89 million in childcare operating funding to help providers cover day-to-day operating costs, help keep parent fees more affordable and provide fair salaries and maintain quality services.

Our government has also introduced the B.C. early-years strategy: $26.5 million in funding to support the creation of 4,300 new licensed childcare spaces. This builds on the more than 113,000 licensed childcare spaces that currently receive funding throughout the province. In addition to providing more childcare spaces, the B.C. early-years strategy includes the creation of a network of B.C. early-years centres that provide one-stop access to a range of services for families, services that include childcare programs, public health clinics, medical advice and parent education workshops.

These investments in new centres and childcare spaces will create increased demand for early childhood educators. That’s why we’ve committed to investing a total of $2.13 million, in partnership with the Early Childhood Educators of B.C., to create an early childhood education bursary. This bursary will provide assistance to people who are looking to pursue careers in early childhood education.

These investments also come on top of our government’s B.C. early childhood tax benefit. This provides a tax-free monthly payment to families to help with the cost of raising young children under the age of six. It’s important to note that the early childhood tax benefit is designed to help families who need it the most. Benefits are based on the number of children in a family, and the tax benefit is reduced if the family’s net income exceeds $100,000 and is zero once the family’s net income exceeds $150,000.

In order to help single parents, our government created the single-parent employment initiative. This helps single parents on income assistance with childcare and transportation costs while they are enrolled in training programs and for up to a year after they re-enter the workforce.

These programs provide important assistance to the families that need it most in order to ensure that everyone in our society is given the opportunity to reach their full potential. By contrast, the opposition’s plan, an uncosted scheme, to provide $10 a day daycare is irresponsible and unaffordable.

Recent media reports show that in Quebec, where the government introduced a similar daycare scheme, families in the top 25 percent of annual earnings were nearly twice as likely to have a child in that province’s $7 a day program compared to families in the bottom quarter.

Our programs, by contrast, are designed to provide the most assistance to the families that need it most, not bureaucratic red tape that will end up subsidizing families in the top 1 percent — bureaucratic red tape that will end up meaning higher taxes for the very families the opposition professes to be helping.
[ Page 13650 ]

Last month the Leader of the Opposition revealed that his plan included massive tax hikes on middle-class families. In an interview on line, when asked how the NDP would pay for their plan, the opposition leader said: “How’s this going to be paid for? It starts with a tax investment.” That’s a tax increase. British Columbians know what this means. It means higher taxes and less money in the pockets of British Columbian families.

In conclusion, our government remains committed to giving children a head start by providing vital early childhood services that help those most in need and won’t add an extra tax burden on British Columbians.

S. Robinson: I’m really pleased to participate in this discussion and debate of a $10 a day childcare and early learning plan that supports families and actually builds the economy.

[1130]

I do remember, when I became a mom some 27 years ago, that we had, actually, just 16 weeks of maternity, and then you were back to work. I remember quite clearly the scramble back then for childcare. It was a challenge, but with the help of a neighbour, a flexible work schedule and a partner also with a flexible work schedule, we were able to juggle the child care in a way that didn’t break the bank.

When my daughter came along two years later, we still only had 16 weeks of maternity, and the scramble for child care was a different beast. It was next to impossible to find full-time care for two children that would make it worthwhile for me to work. I worked in the non-profit sector, and by the time I paid my taxes and my transportation costs getting to and from work, my entire paycheque would have gone into child care.

What would have been the point of working full-time to have no financial benefit at the end of the day? So I picked up evening and weekend work, working part-time so that we needed less child care. I was fortunate because I had a profession that provided me with the opportunity to work opposite to my husband’s schedule.

What saddens me is that in all these years, nothing much has changed for families. While there is now parental leave that actually gives parents a meaningful opportunity to be with their children for 11 months, it is next to impossible to find suitable, affordable child care. After housing, childcare is the second-highest cost facing British Columbian families and a key contributor to our affordability crisis, certainly in the Lower Mainland.

The experts do know that this is more than just a social issue and a feel-good. They know that it’s actually an economic issue. The Surrey Board of Trade and the B.C. Chamber of Commerce both come out in support of proper investments in child care, asking for affordable, accessible daycare in this province, because they know that our economy depends on it.

What do families do? We heard the member for Vancouver–Point Grey — waiting and waiting and waiting to see if their unborn child is possibly going to get child care.

Well, as the opposition spokesperson for seniors, I’ve been touring the province hearing from seniors about the issues that affect them most. From all corners of the province, I have heard from seniors who are spending their retirement years caring for their grandchildren. And let’s be clear: this is not babysitting for their grandchildren; they are providing daycare for their grandchildren.

There was one senior in Penticton who told me that her daughter is a single parent and needs her to care for her two grandchildren every day so that her daughter can go to work to pay the mortgage and put food on the table. The senior is starting to have some health concerns and is worried about how the deterioration in her own physical health will impact the financial health of her daughter’s family if she can’t continue to provide much-needed daycare, because there isn’t any available for her daughter that she can afford.

I have a neighbour in Coquitlam who drives out to Mission every Monday and comes home every Thursday to be with her husband, because grandma has to care for the three grandchildren. When I asked her if this is what she expected her retirement to look like, she just shook her head and answered that she wouldn’t mind going to care for her grandchildren once or twice a week, that four days was a bit much, but what choice did she have? Here was a grandmother feeling incredible pressure to help her daughter because her daughter had no real options for care.

Early this fall I was on a doorstep, talking to a constituent, and an older gentleman was trimming his hedge. I said: “What’s the most pressing issue for you?” He’s a senior — white hair, you know, up trimming his hedge. I’m thinking seniors care, healthcare. He said child care, that child care was most important to him. When I asked him why, he put down the hedge trimmer and said: “I have two daughters, and my daughters cannot find child care. My daughter who is expecting her second child is terrified that it will break the bank, that she will not be able to find care.”

This grandfather knows the importance and the value of affordable, accessible, quality child care for his family. It’s time for a proper system that makes a difference, a real difference, in the financial health and well-being of all British Columbians.

J. Yap: Raising young children is one of the most exciting eras of any family. Young children have an eagerness, a wonder, a curiosity that, I would argue, we lose somewhat as we grow older. Families cherish these times, for they are special and unique for every family and every child. Eventually, however, there often comes a time when parents must return to the workforce.

[1135]

What’s important for these families is that they have access to high-quality child care. Young children are
[ Page 13651 ]
in their most formative years, and nurturing and encouraging their learning capabilities is of utmost importance. That’s why our government launched a B.C. early-years strategy.

The early-years strategy is a program that improves the quality of and access to early-years programs, such as child care. This year we committed $327 million to child care. Of that, $89 million is for child care operating funding to help maintain quality services. The Ministry of Children and Family Development has also created 4,300 licensed child care spaces in B.C. in the past two years, which is, of course, in addition to the 113,000 licensed spaces that are currently funded by our government.

We have a commitment to create an additional 13,000 spaces by the year 2020. We’ve also invested a total of $2.13 million, in partnership with the Early Childhood Educators of B.C., in an early childhood education bursary that helps people pursue careers in this field. These initiatives ensure that the highest quality of child care is available in B.C. for families.

The cost of these programs is worth every penny of our investment. Our government has done a great job of increasing the spaces available, and we have an effective plan to continue to do so.

The motion in front of us runs the risk of diminishing returns. We have made strong investments already, but a completely subsidized program, which is what is being proposed, would adversely affect British Columbians financially. The program would cost, as we’ve heard, up to $2 billion a year and, according to the Leader of the Opposition, would require a tax increase. That means that the very families that are supposed to benefit from the program will be the ones who are being forced to fork over more money to pay for it, giving them less money to save for their children’s education, for their groceries, for their retirement, for their homes.

Where would this tax increase come from — where? They have already proposed a tax increase to pay for capital spending. They have already a plan to raise the carbon tax. Does the opposition propose raising the PST, perhaps, to pay for it? Income taxes on middle-class British Columbians, which are now the lowest of any province in Canada? Does the opposition want to levy a new fee on British Columbians?

The opposition won’t even really say how much it will cost. I suspect they don’t know either. We know it would cost up to $2 billion. The only real response that we’ve seen to that is the refrain that the program will pay for itself. Over and over, the opposition has said that they will increase taxes on British Columbians, and this is just one more example.

With a price tag of up to $2 billion, the program would require a massive investment. British Columbia families will pay for this. Their tax revenue will be siphoned from their pockets and directed to a pet project tried in one other place in Canada, as we’ve heard. Even they have struggled to pay for the cost in a jurisdiction that is the most heavily taxed in North America.

Our government has committed a great deal of time and effort in funding the challenges of child care. We are wholly dedicated to providing the highest quality of spaces as quickly as is feasible. We have created thousands of spaces and will create thousands more. We will provide funding and benefits for all families and continue to create prosperity for all British Columbians.

R. Fleming: Remarkable comments from the government side this morning. Let’s encourage them a little bit more to quote themselves in this debate, in the remaining time here.

Let’s not forget that these members, the Liberals across the way, this government, is the same government that in 2004 promised every British Columbian family that they would create a comprehensive K-to-3, K-to-4 education system in the province of British Columbia. They were going to spend who knows how much money expanding our elementary schools to include three- and four-year-olds.

Now, they ran that promise through two general elections. It’s the same kind of promise that they’ve told parents involved in the education system — whether it’s going to fix their seismic schools that are unsafe from collapse in an earthquake or whether it’s to build schools and get kids out of portables in Surrey. I direct that comment to the member for Surrey-Panorama.

[1140]

You can’t take their word for it, but, man, what hypocrisy. They promise a huge expansion in the education system, and now they attack this side of the House for promising a variation of what will support B.C. families, B.C. kids, our economy and our position as a province in Canada. Unbelievable.

Let’s look at what is actually being debated before the House in this motion and why we’re talking about it. The case for supporting B.C. families with affordable high-quality child care is supportable from a variety of perspectives. I don’t expect the members across the way to appreciate the social reasons why we would make an investment like this, because they don’t generally care about the risks of rising inequality and all the social ills that flow from that. In fact, they’ve done a pretty good job of driving up inequality during their 15 years in office in this province.

Poverty is expensive. It’s socially expensive, and it’s economically expensive. But there are economic benefits that the business community understands that this side of the House has utterly rejected. We’re on the side of chambers of commerce and boards of trade in British Columbia, who support what the New Democrats are saying in terms of reforms to the child care system and who oppose what this Liberal government’s rotten record on child care is.
[ Page 13652 ]

They’re the party of fewer spaces, longer wait times, a failure to have a comprehensive child care plan. And, as my colleague from Coquitlam–Burke Mountain reminded, they’re the party that has presided over a number of tragedies in an unlicensed care sector. That’s why we propose something that will make improvements on all of those fronts.

We’re talking about a government that has utterly failed to deal with or even acknowledge that we have a housing affordability crisis in British Columbia. I don’t know how they can do that. Read the Globe and Mail this Saturday — Lower Mainland, third most expensive jurisdiction in the world to live in. We have a government Housing Minister that has told this House time and time again over the last three years, “B.C. is affordable. Get over it. Stop complaining. Quit whining about housing prices,” while this government has done nothing about housing prices.

This side of the House is going to tackle housing costs and families. More importantly, we’re going to address the second-greatest cost in young families’ budgets in B.C. That is child care. It’s $10,000 a year per kid. It’s almost the cost of going to Harvard. It’s the cost of a university degree over four years of that child’s life.

That is a huge cost for B.C. families that takes money out of their pockets and prevents it from going to other parts of the economy. It is a huge impediment to labour force participation in our community. It is a huge burden, primarily on women in our economy; 80 percent of single-parent households are headed by women.

To hear these members attack the Quebec model — and presumably, every other North Atlantic country that has a model like this — is very curious indeed. They should look at the economic benefits very closely. They should look at the economic model that was recently provided for what a system like this would mean for British Columbia. They should tell the truth about what it has meant for Quebec, because they have over two decades’ experience in Quebec now with that system.

The analysis of Quebec’s comprehensive — what was $7 a day — child care system has shown that it has not only grown the province’s GDP by 1.7 percent and added $6 billion to the economy. It has also netted out, in terms of the budget…. Here’s the fact. This has been verified by the Auditor General and verified by the business community in Quebec. It costs $55 million a year.

But you know what it has also done? We hear this from them all the time. It has lowered the number of single-parent families on social assistance and got them back in to work and contributing to the economy. That’s what we’re for, and that’s what they’re against.

D. Ashton: I want to thank the hon. Speaker for allowing me to speak today. I just want to make it clear that our government recognizes the challenges facing families of British Columbia as we seek to raise our families and pursue our work and our education.

But I rise today to speak against the motion of this tax increase, which will be put….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Order in the House, please.

D. Ashton: I’m one of those people that always gives a person the opportunity to speak. I would just ask for the same to be done on this side the odd time. Thank you very much.

[1145]

I would just like to say that, despite the good intentions of the opposition members, we know full well that this is going to cause an increase in taxation. The nice young lady that appeared before us at the Finance Committee — she has appeared on several occasions — stated the fact that this is going to be a $1½-billion-to-$2-billion cost to implement and, over a period of up to five years, was going to decrease in costing all the way down to between $200 million and $300 million a year. Find it within the budget. It’s not there. It is going to be a tax increase.

I would like to remind the members opposite that they were once at a juncture in time where they themselves understood this. We’ve heard the quotes today from various members from the opposite side over the past year and previous to that. I suspect the opposition members still understand the cost to the taxpayers of what they’re proposing. But perhaps, otherwise, they’ve chosen — and I won’t presume at this — to kind of ignore that.

However, I do know that all members here, from all parties, recognize that British Columbia is a tremendous province, one that embraces pluralism and one that recognizes the tremendous diversity that exists amongst British Columbia families across this incredible province we all call home.

Now, one of those characteristics that unites these families is that virtually all of them would be affected by another tax increase that was coming and being proposed for this. And I’m not against subsidizing child support and child care. I’m not. But $10 is not the figure.

Quebec has been brought up on numerous occasions here. Quebec is one of the highest subsidized provinces in our entire country, and this is one thing that we’re going to have to look at.

Today we learned again that the opposition leader has spoken about a tax investment to start this off. I really think that it has to come forward that there is going to be an ongoing tax incurrence to have this transpire. The question for members opposite to ponder is: what is this investment going to entail? What is the cost to the taxpayers — and B.C. families, more importantly? Not to the taxpayers; to the families of this province?

One of the concerns I also have is: is it the path that raises the cost of debt, of servicing over time? Are these taxpayers going to pay interest, again on a continual basis
[ Page 13653 ]
of this going forward? And I’m really, really curious how we can address this.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

All the while, this is going to be, in turn, saddling future generations of this wonderful province with an accruing debt, which we ourselves have been trying to get out of on a continual basis by balancing a budget over the last four, and with a fifth balanced budget coming forward again a.s.a.p. — i.e., tomorrow. Either we have to look at raising taxes today and making life more difficult for all British Columbians…. Really, I think there is a better way to do this.

But I want to acknowledge, and I believe in the inherent motion that has been put forward. It is positive in seeking some form of direction to support child care in the early years here in British Columbia.

Supporting child care is a matter that this government does believe in. I want to remind everybody that today this government invests nearly $120 million each year in the child care subsidy program, which currently supports about 20,000 B.C. children and their families with the cost of child care each month.

As of last year, child supportive payments no longer influence the eligibility for parents already receiving or applying for monthly child care subsidies. Last year, the ministry committed $327 million for child care in 2016 and 2017, an increase of approximately 55 percent from 2000-2001.

Through the early-years strategy, this government has invested nearly $30 million to support creating 4,300 new licensed care spaces since 2014. These spaces are built on the more than 113,000 licensed child care spaces that are currently funded already.

In concluding, I’m proud to stand with the government in their support for B.C. families. I’m proud to stand with everybody in this House who realizes that we have to do something in the future to address the needs of the families of British Columbia.

With regard to the substance of the motion at hand….

Madame Speaker: Thank you, Member. Member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant.

M. Mark: It is my honour to participate in this discussion, to debate $10-per-day child care and an early learning plan that supports families and builds our economy.

As those members in the House might or might not be aware, I’m a working mom, an MLA who is responsible for two young children: one in high school, one in grade one. And it’s a real hustle out there, making sure that they get to school on time, that they’re well taken care of and that their best interests are met.

[1150]

For many of the constituents in Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, child care is like winning the lottery. For many, they’re not sure if they’re even going to be around by the time their children hit the number on the wait-list, as they wait to return to work, to participate in the economy and to make sure that their children’s best interests are met.

I’m honoured to be here speaking about the importance of child care, the importance of investing in a $10-a-day child care plan that is going make life more meaningful, the quality of life more impactful for families throughout this province.

Last year, when I knocked on doors of constituents in Mount Pleasant, they told me that they’re doing more with less. They’re like ships in the night, families that are passing off the baton, running from one place to the next to make sure that their children are taken care of, because they don’t actually have child care. They don’t have adequate child care.

Families are also telling me that they’re choosing not to have children because they can’t afford it. After housing, child care is the second-highest cost, along with all of these hidden fees that were mentioned in this House. There is a lot of talk and discussion by the members opposite that the NDP are all about raising taxes. However, there is no mention of all of the hidden fees of MSP, income tax, B.C. Hydro, MSP, income tax, B.C. Hydro….

I’m going to be a little bit of a broken record here, because the members opposite keep saying that we’re going to invest in this plan on the backs of rising taxes, without admitting that they put all of these hidden fees on the backs of working-class British Columbians, which makes child care unaffordable.

I want to acknowledge the Parent Support Services in British Columbia provincial advocacy group. Close to 11,000 children are being raised by their grandparents. Many of those families have fought with tireless effort to ensure that their kids don’t go into the foster care system. A $10-a-day child care plan would mitigate the hardship on their senior years, when they should really be looking at retirement and the sunset days. Instead, they’re running around trying to look after their grandchildren, because there isn’t adequate and affordable child care.

I want to take a minute to give mention to closures. I know that the members opposite like to boast about how great things are in this beautiful province of British Columbia, how the balanced budget and triple-A ratings have made the quality of life for British Columbians just awesome. I just want to read a letter from the Waterside community centre, saying: “It is with sincere regret that I must inform you of the impending closure of the Waterside Child Development Centre. As of May 31, the doors will close.”

I’ll move on to what this means for families. From a family member in Vancouver–Mount Pleasant: “I’m writing to express my dismay at the impending closing of
[ Page 13654 ]
Waterside, a licensed child care centre that has been operating in Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside for 20 years. This centre, which offers full-time child care to children aged 18 to 36 months, is set to close.”

Again, this government will tell us that everyone’s thriving in this province. Everyone’s doing great. Children are getting the best-quality care possible. Then why are child care centres in my constituency, especially in one of the poorest postal codes of the Downtown Eastside, being closed?

I’ll add that one family member mentioned: “Lastly, we understand that chronic child care underfunding is the underlying reason for this unfortunate decision. Please note that we intend to make this an election issue, because child care matters to our families.”

Another family member says: “B.C. families face a crisis in accessing quality, affordable child care.” I hate to sound like a broken record, but the bottom line is that families are begging for quality, affordable, universal child care. We are bringing forward a plan, not a whole bunch of fluff, not encouraging families to apply for subsidies. “They’re going to get their tax benefit. Apply for a bursary.”

This is a government that has offered nothing but a patchwork of services for children and families, if you’re lucky.

M. Mark moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Tabling Documents

Madame Speaker: Hon. Members, I have the honour to present a report of the Auditor General: Progress Audit: Integrated Case Management.

Hon. T. Stone moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Madame Speaker: This House, at its rising, stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.

The House adjourned at 11:55 a.m.

Access to on-line versions of the official report of debates (Hansard),
webcasts of proceedings and podcasts of Question Period is available on the Internet.
Chamber debates are broadcast on television.

Copyright © 2017: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada