Orders of the Day

Private Members’ Statements

THE IMPORTANCE OF AFFORDABLE
FERRY TRAVEL FOR COASTAL COMMUNITIES

D. Routley: It gives me great pleasure to be able to rise in the House and make a statement about the importance of B.C. Ferries — car ferry transportation and passenger ferry transportation to coastal communities.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

It’s maybe important for us to examine the history of B.C. Ferries just a little bit. It’s formerly a Crown corporation. It was set up in 1960 to provide service to the coast when the Black Ball line, a ferry line at the time, and the Canadian Pacific Railway, which also provided ferry services, were affected by job action. So the government at the time took a very social democratic approach to strike-breaking, in a sense.

[10:05 a.m.]

B.C. Ferries has risen out of that beginning to become the largest passenger ferry line in North America and the second largest in the world. When British Columbians talk about their ferry service, they’re talking about one of the crown jewels in B.C.’s public assets. It has a fleet of 35 vessels, with a total passenger and crew capacity at any given time of 27,000 people serving 47 locations along our B.C. coast.

There are hundreds and hundreds of thousands of people who transport across the waters by B.C. Ferries. More than that, there is the entire economy of the coast being shuttled back and forth on the ferries in trucks and containers. This is a vital piece to the economy and society of our island communities.

A UBCM study on the socioeconomic impacts of B.C. Ferries that was done in 2014 showed that a series of ferry fare increases over a ten-year period had resulted in $2.3 billion in reduced GDP. This report also found that B.C. Ferries stimulated a total of about $1.8 billion in expenditures each year, which in turn produced $1.5 billion in value-added GDP to this province. This is not only a vital social and cultural link but also a vital piece of economic infrastructure to the coast.

The same report estimated that, had fare increases in that ten-year period from 2003 to 2013 been limited to the rate of inflation, passenger volumes would have grown by 19 percent, which would have added $2.3 billion to the provincial gross domestic product over that ten-year period. Instead, the ridership in that period fell by 11 percent. This lost economic activity delivered to B.C. an estimated total loss of $609 million in tax revenues from that economic activity.

In every way you view B.C. Ferries, it is a vital and crucial piece of infrastructure to the coast in every single way, and it is very efficient. Their farebox recovery rate is 92 percent. That compares very favourably, in fact above any other publicly supported transit system in this province. Despite frequent criticism, B.C. Ferries’ performances on every level operationally compares, also, very favourably with its competitors in other sectors of public transportation.

The AVICC president at the time, Larry Cross, said: “The findings of the study show that we already have an efficient system in terms of cost recovery. What is missing is recognition by the province that ferry service is an extension of the highway system and needs to be funded accordingly.”

Well, that has changed. The new government views this system as, in the words of the Premier, “our coastal highway.” That restores us or brings us back to the original mission and purpose of B.C. Ferries, which was to continue a service that had been provided by private services but was unreliable. It was delivered by the Socred Premier W.A.C. Bennett, and it has survived to this day because it’s a good idea, because it’s good for our communities and good for our economy when it’s achieving its goals and when it’s true to its mission.

It did stray away from that core purpose for some time and did not measure up to the expectations of public service when a number of measures were taken that were detrimental to its public service effectiveness. One of them was transparency.

At the time that the Crown corporation was made an independent publicly owned corporation, it was also excluded from freedom-of-information scope. In the darkness of that veil over the corporation’s business, the CEO’s salary skyrocketed from a few hundred thousand dollars to just over $1 million, with no one in the public knowing any better or any worse. Board compensation wasn’t reported, so that we found out after the freedom-of-information scope was restored, after a seven-year struggle to make that happen, that, in fact, very inefficient measures were being taken.

[10:10 a.m.]

The theme of cuts for the last 16 years to afford tax breaks to the wealthiest British Columbians at the expense of increased fees and decreased service levels was nowhere more true than with B.C. Ferries. The effects of that have been detrimental to First Nations who depend, along the coast, upon B.C. Ferries services and all of the rest of the communities.

The economy has suffered. Tourism, one of our most sustainable export industries on the coast, has suffered, as was described in a UBCM study. Business competitiveness along the coast has been drastically impacted, as businesses face much higher costs and a much higher escalation of costs and rate of escalation.

Medical costs to Vancouver Islanders and coastal British Columbians, as well as lost opportunity, can’t even be measured. It has impaired social mobility. Families are disconnected. Associations are discouraged by the costs. It has amplified labour force challenges and a skills shortage. A saying on the coast is that the most endangered species on the coast and the Gulf Islands is the working family.

We are taking steps to reduce those costs and to improve the likelihood of people making their home on the coast in a way that helps all of us culturally, socially, economically and environmentally.

J. Sturdy: I’m pleased to stand to speak to the issue of affordable ferries, both on the coast and, frankly, in the Interior.

I am a ferry-dependent guy. I represent Bowen Island, which is a ferry-dependent community. I have Horseshoe Bay in my riding and, certainly, long-established on the Sunshine Coast — not the least of which, as well, is my weekly commute to this place. So I’m very familiar with the ferry system. It’s been a critical part of our family for, essentially, forever.

I do want to point out that…. First, I should note this is really about connections. This is about how we connect communities. I had the pleasure and the privilege to lead the Vancouver Island transportation strategy consultation that was done a number of years ago, visiting dozens and dozens of communities up and down the coast of British Columbia.

The issues that came up, the issues that we talked about, reaffirmed to me in my mind that as important as ferries are, connecting communities and vitalization or strength and resiliency in coastal communities is about more, certainly, than simply ferries. Although I know that there’s a desire or a belief that we can distil it all down to that, it is about much more than that. It’s about the road system. It’s about the telecommunication system. It’s about Internet connectivity. It’s about connecting communities, and yes, it is also about ferries.

As we look at ferries, what are the important pieces here? What do we have to be considering? Goods and people movement are really what we’re talking about, but there are many ways of dealing with this, in terms of barge opportunities for goods, in terms of passenger-only aspects to a B.C. Ferries system, to fixed links, to connecting….

The member will be very familiar with the assessment done on Gabriola Island. One of the ones that’s really interesting to me is in the Queen Charlottes, where we have a ferry system that connects Graham and Moresby. It costs the taxpayer about $10 million a year to maintain that, yet you could literally throw a rock from one island to another. We have to look at a variety of different solutions here to create affordability for communities and create connections for those communities.

The member mentioned what B.C. Ferries is. Certainly, it’s the second-biggest ferry fleet in the world: 47 terminals, almost two million vehicles, almost five million passengers, 42,000 sailings, growing at a year-over-year rate of 5 percent. This is a good-news story. This is a system that is working. Dozens of routes, billions of dollars of investment over the last number of years — seismic upgrades, vehicle-passenger separation.

I think we all remember when we used to walk on in front of the cars, and now we’re separated from the cars. These are important improvements to the system. Fundamentally lowering the age of the fleet. The fleet was approaching 50 years old, and that has come down to about 30 years old because of the investments that have been made over the last 15 years or so.

What does the future look like? We have to look at transit connections, commuting and changes in utilization.

[10:15 a.m.]

Frankly, I think the member recognizes well that the system is very well respected by its ridership. Over 90 percent of the people are pleased with what that system looks like.

What is it going to look like in the future? How do we look at fuel systems, for example? Cable ferries — an innovative ferry was put in a number of years ago. All ferries now are going to be dual fuel or LNG, and the next step is battery ferries. I think Bowen Island is an excellent opportunity to lead in this respect. Where do passenger ferries only go? How do we create equity overall in the future?

It’s a big system. It’s a very expensive system. It costs a little over $860 million a year to operate that system, where, interestingly, the whole road network in the whole province of British Columbia, including in these ferry-dependent communities, is less than half of that cost.

I think it’s important to understand that this system needs to be sustainable, that we need a system that is affordable going forward. We need a system that is outside of government, that does not allow for arbitrary fare reductions — fiddling with schedules, fiddling with prices — because we’re going to, I think, see that we have a $60 million hole in the B.C. Ferries budget at this particular time.

In times of growing ridership, we’re going to see a delay in capital improvement and….

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.

D. Routley: Thank you to the member for West Vancouver–Sea to Sky. Most of what the member said I will agree with wholeheartedly in terms of the variety of services that are required on the coast and the variety of services that might evolve under the B.C. Ferries banner or under other banners.

The difference here, I think, is around the basic view of what the corporation is, what it should be doing, the purpose, and how that translates into choices that government makes with its budget and with its public policy planning.

The member said that he thought it was important that it remain outside of government. Well, when it was outside of government, it was veiled by a cloak of secrecy and excluded from the freedom-of-information scope for seven years, and the public paid a great price for that. At the same time that my constituents were being asked to surrender routes on their schedule and were suffering over 118 percent increases on the minor route that I represent, Gabriola to Nanaimo, the salary of the CEO had skyrocketed to over $1 million.

It’s important that there be public oversight and public scrutiny of what’s happening, as well as being open to public policy guidance. The member can say that it was excluded from political interference, but when the government was against the ropes in terms of popularity several years ago, we saw former Transportation Minister Kevin Falcon introduce reduced holiday season fares at the drop of a hat, without even consulting with the CEO of the corporation or anybody below that level — and then random and arbitrary service schedule requirements that have resulted in cuts directly. Yes, B.C. Ferries got to choose which routes were cancelled, but they were told exactly what they were going to do overall.

I think that speaks to the notional differences of what B.C. Ferries represents. Are highways profitable? I don’t think we ever even consider them as such, but it’s different when it comes to B.C. Ferries. If we consider that with B.C. Ferries, we have a marine highway, well then, the ferry is the bus. Why should the people who depend on that bus experience such a huge rate of increase — so many times greater than the increase in fares for other forms of public transportation?

I think we have to go back to considering the goals that were established when the corporation was born. Those were economic development on the coast, to bring the communities of the coast together, combine their economic potential and develop and evolve communities.

It was about sustainability, and it’s become even more about sustainability — beyond economic sustainability. It’s become about family and community connectedness. This is a very important service, and we’re happy to reduce its cost.

[10:20 a.m.]

IMPORTANCE OF NON-PROFIT SOCIETIES

S. Cadieux: I’d like to take this time this morning to talk to the House about the importance of our society’s not-for-profit organizations. Non-profits take all shapes and sizes in all spheres of interest or passion but always operate outside of the drive for profit. They support dynamic and diverse sectors of our province, from agricultural to art, education to environment, religion to science.

Many of the organizations that we consider intrinsically woven into our province’s narrative are in fact not-for-profits. For example, beneath this umbrella is the University of British Columbia, Fraser Health Authority, boards of education — all non-profits. Of course, when we think of this sector, we also use the word “charity.” We think of groups like the SPCA or the cancer society or the local food bank.

I don’t think that most people, including most of the members here, truly understand the scope of work and impact in our communities. According to the satellite account of a non-profit institutions volunteering report by StatsCan in 2007: “In 2006, the core non-private sector generated 20 percent more value-added than the entire accommodation and food services industry, more than 2.5 times that of agriculture, and generated nearly six times as much value-added as the motor vehicle manufacturing industry. The broader non-profit sector, which includes hospitals and universities and colleges, exceeded by more than one-third the value-added of the entire retail trade industry.”

Or take these statistics from 2004 from Imagine Canada. In B.C. alone, not including the big ones like universities and hospitals, the core not-for-profit community in British Columbia employed 114,000 people in 2004. In contrast, mining, forestry, fishing, oil and gas together employed 35,300. And 6 percent of non-profits have revenues over $1 million and employ 73 percent of those people.

Non-profits are a crucial part of this province, working tirelessly for the good of the work itself. It cannot really be stressed enough that the only commonality across non-profits is that the work they do is for the people that they serve and not for their own benefit. The needs of the population, as they shift and change with the times, create more citizens who are interested in advocacy and charity. And just as our needs are subject to changes over time, so too are those voices.

Some charities fall away. Some blossom out of new needs, like Mercy Canada’s work with trafficked women or the Wild Steelhead Coalition, dedicated to the return of the wild steelhead in our coastal waters, both just examples of non-profits in British Columbia. Additional work is done daily in enormous network of associations, charities in constant flux and innovation. They serve an important role in our communities.

I spoke last week about the community kitchen in Cloverdale that serves hundreds of meals every week to those in need. I know that every member of this House can speak to similar examples. I speak on behalf of this House, I know, when I say that most of the days, there is someone in this very room singing the praises of one of those local non-profits.

They’re often guests that we invite for introductions. Non-profits are a recurring theme across private members’ statements, in question period, and stakeholder and committee meetings. They’re as much a part of our communities as the for-profit sector and are represented in all constituencies. Non-profits challenge us to be better government with their advocacy.

Their presence is welcome, and their responsibility calls us to attention. That’s precisely why they’re invited and thanked here nearly every day: because non-profits are always interested in a better British Columbia for the worth of British Columbia alone, much the same as members here are.

I know that there are members here today who have a history with non-profit work or volunteerism, like myself with Spinal Cord Injury B. C. and Realwheels Theatre. Not only did I find my own passion in paid work with the not-for-profit SCIBC, but I’ve also volunteered my time with the Realwheels Theatre Society, with the YWCA, with Disability Alliance British Columbia, ICORD, the Rick Hansen Foundation, Minerva and many more in my community.

That’s one of the reasons, Mr. Speaker, that I’m here before you today as a Member of the Legislative Assembly. As a member of those organizations and the work that I did, I developed a passion for making things better, and it led me here. The work that non-profits do every day in our communities helps our communities grow, helps people get through the toughest of circumstances. I think it’s incredibly important that we recognize that here in this House.

[10:25 a.m.]

R. Singh: Thank you to the member for Surrey South for bringing such an important topic today: the importance of non-profit organizations in our society. I totally agree with my colleague on that.

I have had personal experience with non-profits as well. When I started my career in India, I started with the Indian Red Cross Society. When I first moved to Canada, my first job was with a non-profit. It was called Information Services Vancouver at that time. Now it is known as bc211.

At that time, I came face to face with the work that the non-profits do, as my colleague has mentioned, for the betterment of society. And bc211 still runs crisis lines for women who are fleeing violence, an alcohol and drug information line and a problem gambling help line. Those are the first resource for people who are the vulnerable populations, who are looking for resources.

Working in that organization, I also came to know about different, other non-profit organizations and all the work that they are doing for the betterment of society. I was so amazed by the passion of the workers who are working in those non-profit organizations.

One thing that I realized then is that non-profit organizations are essential to our quality of life not only because of the valuable programs that they provide to local citizens but because of the positive economic impacts within our communities. These are the organizations that hire very specialized workers, and for so many of these workers, they are a steady source of income as well.

In my community of Surrey, I have been in touch with so many non-profit organizations — like PICS, DIVERSEcity, Surrey Food Bank, Surrey Women’s Centre and Atira transition housing society. The list is endless and the range of work that they do — from helping seniors get housing to helping new immigrants find jobs, to helping women fleeing violence, to providing food to people who need it, every day. The vast range of work the non-profit organizations do and the contributions that they make in our community are immense.

The two major issues that come to us, two issues that people are always talking about: housing and child care. I was just going through the research, and I see that so many non-profit organizations are partners in such important sectors as well, like housing. When we talk about housing, it is not just the government that is contributing to housing, but we are looking at the housing supplies through the non-profit sector. The same goes for the child care sector, also, which is one of our most essential needs.

In closing, I would just say I would really like to thank you again, Member, and also would like to reiterate the fact of the immense contribution that these non-profits are doing to make our life better.

S. Cadieux: Thank you, Member, for your comments. It’s always interesting, I think, when we speak in this House and find our commonalities. The member referenced her time with the Red Cross. Indeed, while I have not volunteered specifically with the Red Cross, in fact, the program that I started with, the non-profit I worked for, received a Power of Humanity Award from the Red Cross, well, I guess, ten years ago now.

The reality is there are so many things that tie us together, and one of those things is undoubtedly our support and our reliance on the not-for-profit organizations in our communities. I think it’s so important to recognize the voices and work represented by those non-profits here in this House, because we speak a lot about our for-profit sector in session.

[10:30 a.m.]

So it’s with great joy that I’m given a chance today to speak about a topic that’s so close to my heart. The sector continues to represent some of the best things about our province and our society. They are the sectors that the sector itself serves. I know every single member here would agree they’re important. They ensure that those within this House listen and include every British Columbian, which we are always, of course, trying to do.

I would like to extend my profound gratitude for the thousands of British Columbians that make their living in the not-for-profit sector and for the thousands of those who give generously of their hard-earned dollars to support that sector.

I don’t think anyone will disagree the not-for-profit sector struggles financially. They scrimp, they find ways to stretch their dollars, and they have a huge impact. They do a great deal of fundraising. Many of us attend many of those functions on a regular basis.

Organizations that the member opposite referenced, like PICS, and others in my community, like Options and Sources, are huge organizations that have government contracts as well as raise charitable dollars. As the member from Green Timbers said, they’re essential to our quality of life. They have positive economic impacts.

That’s, I think, why it’s so important that when we do our work in this House and when we speak about the impacts of government policy, we have to recognize that those non-profits work very hard for the dollars that they have.

It’s my profound hope that all members of the House will not only join me in thanking the workers, donors and volunteers that make this sector hum but that we will also take time to understand the depth and importance of their missions to our economy and realize the impacts of government decisions on this vital sector.

THE IMPORTANCE OF SUPPORTING
FISHERIES FOR COMMUNITIES

J. Rice: In years past, Prince Rupert was a booming hive of commercial fishing activity. Today you can still see fishing boats tied at the docks, but many of them sit idle most of the year. Their hulls are heavily loaded with marine growth from inactivity.

Coastal communities in B.C. want to retain their connection to the ocean and the commercial fishing industry, not just for livelihoods but for culture, for food security, employment and stewardship. There is an inaccuracy in the words I regrettably hear too often that fishing is dead.

In fact, globally, fishing is increasingly providing more value to communities, even though we may be catching less fish. That is, if you’re fishing in the Atlantic provinces of Canada or in Alaska. While there may be limited awareness of the commercial fishery among the general public, it remains a mainstay of rural coastal economies, many of which are First Nations communities who have lived and fished the B.C. coast for millennia.

The commercial fishing industry employs approximately 6,000 harvesters and contributes over $370 million in landed value and nearly $800 million in wholesale value. However, despite surging global demand for seafood, B.C. is not seeing the industry growth that is evident in Alaska and in Atlantic Canada.

The B.C. fisheries workforce is aging, and incomes have stagnated. So the industry faces severe labour supply challenges. Pun intended, B.C. is missing the boat when it comes to realizing the full benefits of the commercial fishing industry.

One of the greatest challenges faced by fishing communities is the increasing privatization of resources. Non-fishing entities and multinational companies have bought and sold fishing quota like a stock market commodity. In the past, the landed value was retained by the fisherman who caught the fish. Now in many fisheries, up to 80 percent of the landed value is paid out to investors, many of whom are fish processors.

Even though the value of seafood products is increasing, B.C.’s fishermen’s fishing incomes are trending down. The privatization, consolidation and corporatization policies adopted by the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans have created unemployment in rural coastal communities, particularly in First Nations communities.

[10:35 a.m.]

The number of active fishermen has declined. Between 1985 and 2015, small-boat numbers dropped by 65 percent, and the number of big boats has dropped by 44 percent. Over 11,000 fish harvesting jobs have been lost. Due to federal policies, most north coast salmon fishermen are grossing less than $10,000 annually. Many fishermen are no longer insuring their vessels. Their boats need much capital investment, and most are indentured to the processing companies for seasonal loans or to lease quota.

Every year fewer rural fisherman are able to go commercial fishing. Older fishermen who want to retire from salmon fishing find they can’t sell their licences at a reasonable price. Younger fishermen can’t afford to buy salmon licences, as the return is too small. And they are unable to buy into the more lucrative fisheries because the cost to buy a licence or quota is in the hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars. Most young entrants just lease quota to try to pay for their newly bought boats.

Shoreworker employment and earnings are also trending down in our coastal communities. Twenty years ago there were seven large and six small companies operating on the north coast that employed around 2,200 shoreworkers. Through consolidation, the Canadian Fishing Company ended up with the large companies’ assets. Canadian Fish and five small companies remain.

Canadian Fish has all but closed its northern operation. The closure of Prince Rupert’s cannery meant that wage employment declined from around 1,000 workers in the Prince Rupert and Port Ed area in 2014-15 to around 250 currently. The workers at Canfisco’s plants have paid the biggest price, with not only fewer people employed but over a 50 percent cut in days worked and earnings. Rural shoreworkers are seeing processing move to the Lower Mainland or to Asia.

I’ll leave my remarks here for now, but I look forward to talking about the possible solutions in my closing remarks.

E. Ross: Salmon is an iconic fish that all British Columbians identify with. Today the salmon fishery still remains vital to the communities up and down the coast. The salmon fishery is divided up between three sectors, including the commercial fishery; the recreational fishery; and the First Nations, who have relied on salmon for food and ceremonial purposes for thousands of years.

Salmon are also an important indicator species. Their populations reflect the health of our ecosystems. They are a nutrient backbone to all of our coastal ecosystems and are sometimes the only source of nitrates in many microecosystems when they die.

As chief councillor of the Haisla Nation, I tried to look into improving on stock returns in my territory only to find out the problem of salmon returns goes way beyond what’s just in my territory. On the other side of the continent, the salmon fishery in the Atlantic Ocean is commercially extinct. There are concerns that wild stocks of Atlantic salmon could collapse altogether, just like cod stocks have — all due to overfishing and habitat loss.

In British Columbia, we are blessed with 9,000 salmon populations in our province, but not all are healthy. The population and health of steelhead are still very much a concern. This is why I worked with my Chief and council to see if we could improve on salmon runs returning to our communities for the benefit of our communities. The Cohen Commission definitely pointed me in the right direction, and I truly thought all parties would work to save the wild salmon based on science. Unfortunately, that is not always the case.

We as humans and communities have become experts at locating and catching salmon at all phases of their life cycle. When out at sea, at the mouth of rivers, mid-river and even spawning grounds, there are people there to harvest salmon. Yes, I’m including poaching. The technology and efficiencies to catch salmon just keep getting better. There are many players at this table too, and respect for international treaties is key to the future of wild salmon. In fact, communities all around the world love salmon.

The demand for wild salmon far outweighs anything else, including rational discussion, because people have a tendency to treat salmon in a proprietary way. When returns are low for any species in a given year, there’s often a fight over who deserves their share most, and the fights are within our communities. This is counterproductive, because the Cohen Commission reminds us we have to look at the entire species as a whole, and it’s all based on demand. Every person who exclusively catches or eats wild salmon is demanding to keep or add unsustainable pressure on wild salmon.

[10:40 a.m.]

The targeted species of salmon are of course most susceptible, but the bycatch is also a concern that not many people understand or care about. One of the issues that brought me to overfishing in the first place was the capture of a non-commercial fish that is at the core of my people’s existence — eulachon. The eulachon is a non-salmon species, but they are highly prized for their oil content. Finding out that the eulachon were being caught by accident out in the Pacific Ocean and then being discarded because of its non-commercial value added to my fight to bring back the eulachon and the salmon to my community.

Like all wild species of fish, we must do our best to protect the salmon from the greatest threat to our future survival — overfishing and habitat loss, not just for our communities but for our future generations.

J. Rice: If we believe the value of the commercial fishery to the province is the value retained in its communities by its residents, then there are opportunities to bring that wealth back to rural B.C. Working fishermen need to see the landed value accrue to them, not to speculators or processors. Shoreworkers need to have fish in their rural communities to work on.

We can promote fisheries policies that benefit communities, workers and active fishers, instead of quota investors, speculators and processors. The province and communities should be represented in DFO policy processes.

Presently federal Fisheries Minister Dominic LeBlanc is proposing protections written into the Fisheries Act for independent fishermen and their rural communities in Atlantic Canada. So far, those pro-people policies are not going to apply to B.C.’s fish harvesters and our rural coastal communities.

We should be pressuring the federal minister to extend those protections to B.C. fishermen. Provincially we can promote policies that support active fishers and their communities, such as fishermen’s organizations. DFO policies have created de facto private ownership of fish and consults with licence and quota owners, and active fish harvesters are increasingly excluded from policy in fisheries consultations. Fishermen need the resources to organize and represent the interests of active fishermen in these policy decisions.

Another idea is a fishermen’s loan board. A fishermen’s loan board, as structured in every province in Canada except Alberta and B.C., gives fishermen the ability to raise capital without having to indenture themselves to the processors. For example, in my constituency, Lax Kw’alaams has a good-sized fish plant. However, most Tsimshian salmon fishermen cannot deliver to the plant because they are indebted to the large processors for start-up loans. We can promote policies that support shoreworking employment in coastal communities.

Adjacency. I’ve spoken about this before. Besides direct adjacency provisions, rural community benefits can be achieved through offering fishermen or communities control over access to fish.

We can talk about Alaskan-style ocean ranching. The Heiltsuk are very successful in running a facility in Bella Bella. We can also talk about community- and fishermen-owned licence banks and quota. The Northern Native Fishing Corporation is an example in my region. This is an entity owned by three North Coast tribal councils. It’s an example of a community licence bank. Gillnet licences are leased to First Nations commercial fishers, and local fishermen tend to deliver to local communities.

The possibilities are endless, and I call upon this House to support me in urging the federal government to better support commercial fishermen in British Columbia.

RURAL TRANSPORTATION

T. Stone: It gives me a great deal of pride and honour today to stand and speak, briefly, about rural transportation, which is so critical to communities throughout this province of ours. The safe, reliable movement of people and goods is all about connecting communities. It’s all about ensuring that we can keep our economy moving forward but also ensure the highest quality of life possible in communities large and small.

Transportation plays a vital role in making all of that happen, and I certainly had an upfront seat to this issue for 4½ years as a former Minister of Transportation. I was fortunate to develop a ten-year transportation plan during that time, which really addressed the broad gamut of transportation issues across this huge province of ours.

[10:45 a.m.]

We heard, earlier this morning, a bit about the importance of our ferry system to coastal communities in British Columbia, many of which are rural, very small communities that really depend on the lifeblood that ferries represent for their communities.

We have talked in this chamber often about the critical importance of transit, not just in the Lower Mainland but in smaller communities around British Columbia. We know how important our ports are to this province — again, hugely important economically — for the tens of thousands of jobs that are provided in our ports, which facilitate the movement of goods in and out of this province of ours.

Airports are critically important as well. I was proud, as the former minister, to resurrect a program called the B.C. air access program, which oversees millions of dollars of investments, on an annual basis, in small community regional airports across the province, in places like Port Alberni and in places like my community in Kamloops and others around the province. I’m very pleased that the current government seems to be continuing with the investment in airports, which, again, I believe is very important to the economy and small communities as well as the quality of life that is enjoyed in communities across this province.

I wanted to talk mostly, in what’s left of my statement here this morning, about roads, about highways, about the importance of ensuring that we’re doing everything we can as a province to ensure that people can move safely on British Columbia’s roads — in particular, looking through the lens of rural British Columbia.

We have 47,000 kilometres of roads in this huge province of ours — 47,000 kilometres of provincial road, that is: highways, secondary highways, side roads and so forth. We have 2,700 structures, which are a lot of bridges that need to be regularly inspected around the province. Our road and bridge contractors employ about 2,000 people and provide important economic vitality in about 140 communities around the province.

The maintenance of our roads is critically important. We are experiencing a very challenging winter this year. There is no question about it, if you talk to any member from rural British Columbia — whether that’s on northern Vancouver Island, in the Interior or the north. If you talk to the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke or the member for Kootenay East, there are some very serious challenges out there on our roads, with very severe winter conditions, more so than we’ve seen in quite some time.

There are, rightfully so, lots of questions being raised by the public, by local governments, by law enforcement, by first responders and others, as to what more can be done to ensure that we’re doing the best job possible to keep our roads safe.

Now, prior to the last election, we had embarked down a path to renew these maintenance contracts. That is now a task that the new government is in the midst of. I was very insistent — we were very insistent as a government — in ensuring that as part of this road maintenance renewal contract opportunity, we were doing everything we could to actually enhance those road maintenance standards. In fact, we had worked hard, with the B.C. Road Builders and with the BCGEU, to achieve about 6 percent of savings over the entire term of the contract, the total dollar value of the contract. About 3 percent of that is on labour savings.

The intention was to plow that $180 million back into enhanced road maintenance. That would ensure that, for example, we would achieve bare pavement sooner after a weather event, when minus 9 degrees Celsius or warmer, on all class A, class B and class C highways. For example, on a class A highway, you’d go from a response time of two days down to 24 hours. We would also ensure that we would improve the management of compact snow below minus 9 degrees. Part of the savings would provide for a smaller size of winter abrasive. Cracked windshields are a fact of life in rural British Columbia.

[10:50 a.m.]

Lots of work had been done leading up to and through the last election. I know the current government is working on this as well. Folks in rural British Columbia are hopeful that as these road maintenance contracts come up for renewal later this year, they will see a commitment, from the government, to enhanced standards. That’s going to require ensuring that those savings that we achieved remain in those contracts and go towards improved road standards. Also, we’re hopeful. Rural British Columbians are hopeful that they’re going to see from this government an overall lift in the budget for better road maintenance.

The road maintenance contractors do as good a job as they can within the confines of their contracts. We need to make sure that they have as many resources as they possibly can, so that they can keep British Columbia’s roads as safe as absolutely possible. I’ll leave it there for now.

D. Routley: Thank you to the member for Kamloops–South Thompson for his comments about transportation in the rural communities of this province.

This is obviously a huge challenge. Transportation is an underpinning — a core, foundational piece — of economic infrastructure, no matter where you are in the province. Earlier I had the pleasure of being able to talk about B.C. Ferries and the challenges that the corporation faces and what the communities it serves inherit by way of those challenges.

The member is correct, obviously, that in rural B.C., particularly away from our coast, one could argue that highways are the most important infrastructure piece to those communities. So many communities are quite landlocked, not by water sometimes but with single routes in and out or very low-capacity highways. In that view, our government is proposing a number of projects.

The Malahat Highway right now — a project started by the previous government and being continued by our government to four-lane a five-kilometre stretch of Highway 1, which has been the location of several very, very serious crashes. In fact, I myself know someone who was lost in that stretch of highway. I knew someone.

Lillooet Highway — Highway 99. There is a long-term stabilization of a slide there. These are all very large projects, with that one costing $60 million. Chase — the Highway 1, Hoffman’s Bluff to Jade Mountain upgrade. That’s 11.9 kilometres of the highway being upgraded to a 100-kilometre per hour four-lane standard. This includes realignment of the highway and construction of interchanges. These were projects that were started by the previous government that will be continued. There is a long list of them.

The member’s comments focused on maintenance issues — the recovery of maintenance costs, the efficient negotiation of maintenance contracts and where government directs its resources. Without being partisan, I find that it’s difficult to entertain criticism yet from members of the other side before we have actually been able to implement plans. But we are continuing the good planning that was done, where it exists.

Maintenance contracts have been a huge problem throughout the province over the past 16 years. The inadequacy of maintenance standards…. For a very long time, it was very difficult for the government to pull the standards up with these contractors. Some of that has happened, and it will continue to be, obviously, a goal in negotiating maintenance contracts. The consultation with stakeholders, First Nations, and finding out exactly where maintenance priorities are, is an important consideration.

I know that the minister will be familiar that local department heads are frequently meeting with local MLAs to ask us and other stakeholders what their priorities are in maintenance. I have to say that in my experience as an MLA over the years — in opposition for 12 years and now, very new, in this government experience — of all the ministries that I dealt with, Highways, or Transportation, was probably the most effective and efficient and the most willing to respond to the needs of local politicians.

[10:55 a.m.]

I can’t say enough about the people who I’ve dealt with over the years. Like with other government ministries and services, there’s a fairly high rate of turnover, a lot of retirements, a lot of good people advancing through the ranks, so it’s notable they’ve managed to keep the quality of the performance of people up during such a period of rapid turnover. That’s my contribution and respect to the people who work in the Transportation Ministry.

As for the contractors, I think it will continue to be a situation where good management will require good diligence, strong oversight and accountability from the contractors, so that we don’t see renewals or we don’t see bonuses paid where there haven’t been standards met. That was a problem in the past, less so in the recent past. This is a trend that we need to continue. The standards we expect from contractors need to increase while we do everything we can to decrease costs. That is not necessarily a penalty to the contractor. It demands a new way of doing things.

Thank you to the member for his comments.

T. Stone: I do want to thank the member for Nanaimo–North Cowichan for his comments with respect to rural transportation generally and specifically with respect to road maintenance.

I concur with the member’s comments in so far as the exceptional professionalism that we have in the Ministry of Transportation. Hard-working men and women in every corner of this province work very, very hard to ensure that they understand the needs of their local communities and that they’re reaching out to all stakeholders — the local MLAs, also local officials, law enforcement, first responders and the public. There is no end to the need in rural British Columbia from a transportation perspective.

The member did comment about investments that are currently being made. Yes, increasing capacity on rural highways is very, very important, as is continuing to focus on safety enhancements. That’s why avalanche control systems through the Three Valley Gap are very, very important.

That’s why the variable speed zone technology, which our former government implemented and which I hope that the new government takes forward and expands across British Columbia, is so important, as is putting down more median barrier and more side-road barrier. We certainly made good progress on the Malahat, for example, with a median barrier. There’s more work to be done there, and the member has acknowledged that.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Adding more passing lanes around the province, doing more to enforce the chain-up requirements of commercial trucks, providing more opportunities for commercial truckers to be able to safely pull over and to put their chains on, like the Box Canyon project on the Coquihalla Highway, intersection safety enhancements, and so forth. On and on the list goes.

It even includes new high-visibility paint, which may seem very boring until you actually get into it and you realize we have a real challenge in this province about people being able to see the lines on the road because of new environmental standards which came out federally a number of years ago. The paint just doesn’t stick as long as it used to. There’s some good work underway on that front as well.

Last but not least, Highway 16. The safety enhancements have been made up there, with contiguous transit service now connecting every community from Terrace right through to Prince George, as well as the community van program that now exists, webcams, more shelters. All of which has resulted in much improved safety for folks who live along Highway 16 and depend on Highway 16 for their quality of life.

Hon. S. Robinson: I now call private member’s Motion 7: “Be it resolved that this House acknowledge the importance of supporting gender equity.”

Deputy Speaker: Hon. Members, unanimous consent of the House is required to proceed with Motion 7 without disturbing the priorities of the motions preceding it on the order paper.

Leave granted.

Private Members’ Motions

MOTION 7 — GENDER EQUITY

M. Dean: I’m so very grateful and proud to be nominated as the Parliamentary Secretary for Gender Equity and, today, to speak to the motion of supporting gender equity. I’ve been working in the area of social service and tackling social injustice for over 30 years….

Deputy Speaker: Hon. Member, forgive the interruption. Please move the motion. “I so move” will suffice.

M. Dean:  

[Be it resolved that this House acknowledge the importance of supporting gender equity.]

I so move.

[11:00 a.m.]

We know that inequality is a centuries-old issue. While we’re making progress, as the campaigns of Me Too and Time’s Up and Press for Progress illustrate, there’s so much more to be done. It’s timely that, in this week of International Women’s Day, we take our places here this morning to discuss the benefits of gender equity.

The impacts of individual, institutional and structural discrimination continue to put women and transgender people at a disadvantage, risk of exploitation and direct abuse and harm. There are a range of implications, including access to careers, equal and fair pay, self-determination, health, safety, quality of life, opportunities and status.

When we have equity, everyone benefits and succeeds. Equity underpins respect for the human rights of all British Columbians. Without achieving gender equity, women and trans people will not be able to fulfil their potential, and then we all miss out.

Gender equity is also vital for the economy of B.C. Our economy is not operating at its full capacity until everyone has the choice to enter the workforce and fulfil their productive and earning potential.

Programs, policies, measures and strategies are required to address social and historical disadvantages women and transgender people experience. For example, this includes evaluating policies for their impact, direct and indirect, on self-identifying women and trans individuals and whether they reinforce vulnerability or disadvantage, and includes programs that directly tackle discrimination.

Measures can be taken that promote gender equity and tackle the inequalities of opportunity and equal pay. So, for example, the plan arising from the Fair Wages Commission of increasing the minimum wage in B.C. to $15 an hour will build a fairer province. This will make an especially large difference for women, who disproportionately earn under $15 an hour.

Budget 2018 makes concrete steps to support gender equity. For example, tackling the housing crisis, which disproportionately affects women and transgender people. Budget 2018 increases housing supports, affordable housing choices and accessible shelters for vulnerable women.

A historic investment in Budget 2018 in child care makes life more affordable for families. It means tens of thousands of parents, especially women, will have the opportunity to both build a family and pursue their career.

Everyone has the right to live without violence, yet women and transgender people in B.C. continue to face violence and sexual assault simply based on their gender or gender expression. This gender-based violence and assault takes many forms and has a substantial harmful impact that is experienced differently by individuals. It may be made worse by discrimination such as racism, ableism, classism, homophobia, transphobia and biphobia. I’m proud to be part of a government that has tabled a budget that increases funding by $18 million for programs to assist women experiencing domestic violence and sexual assault.

Indigenous women and girls are disproportionally affected by all forms of violence and are five times more likely to die of violence than other women of the same age. It is imperative that we pursue a holistic and comprehensive strategy to help individuals, families and communities. We must tackle racism, colonialism, vulnerability, trauma and remoteness. Our government will be reporting on progress to date on this issue.

Only with a determined and thorough pursuit of gender equity will we eradicate these forms of violence. While I’m proud our government has created this position, it will take all of us working together every day to eliminate structural inequality. It’s up to all of us to do our part to shape a society where everyone fulfils their potential and contributes to the prosperity of the entire province. It is on a foundation of gender equity that we build a better B.C.

M. Stilwell: Gender equity has been an issue in society since the beginning of time. In recorded history, one can find many accounts where women faced issues of equity in relationships, in their career, in education and in athletic opportunities.

[11:05 a.m.]

I’m pleased to speak today in the House acknowledging the importance of supporting gender equity, especially, specifically, in sport, an area near and dear to my heart. The number of women and girls participating in regular activity, recreational sport and elite competition has increased rapidly in the last few decades. That’s significant when you think that no women participated in the first Olympic Games back in 1896.

Women and girls, however, who account for more than 50 percent of the population in Canada, continue to be underrepresented in sport and physical activity systems. Significant gender differences persist in participation and leadership in the Canadian sport system. Women and girls typically report more barriers to sport and physical activity participation across the life span than men and boys, which affects their involvement, as you can well imagine, as participants, athletes, coaches, officials and leaders.

Just think of our Island girl Cassie Sharpe in the halfpipe. She is leading the way in breaking gender biases in sport. In fact, the 2012 Olympic Games were the first Olympics where women competed in every single sport. The battle for equality between men’s and women’s sports continues, though. Women’s progress has been uphill. They first had to counter the common notion that women’s bodies were restricted and delicate and that vigorous physical activity was dangerous.

Still, when females are competing on national and international levels, their male counterparts are still seen as stronger, more daring, worth switching the channel for. This is evident when their skill and their countless hours of dedication and their blood, their sweat and their tears have landed them on the stage of prestigious competitions or events, and too much attention is paid to how they look rather than how they perform.

Genie Bouchard and Serena Williams were prime examples of that when they were asked to twirl in their outfits at the Australian Open. Men are never asked to do such things. The problem is that female athletes are expected to be equal parts supermodel and elite athlete. Should they sweat too much or repeat their outfits too many times, you can be sure that social media will take note.

Match that with the fact that millions of young women from all over the world play sports every day. However, the number of women playing sports does not correspond to the amount of media coverage that they get. In newspaper articles, coverage on men’s sports is a greater number of articles than women’s sports in a ratio of 23 to 1. The media strongly emphasize men’s sports as a demonstration of masculinity, suggesting that women seriously interested in sports are crossing gender lines.

All too often female athletes will be sexualized, bullied and patronized during their career. They must overcome all of this just to get to the top. Add that to other multiple barriers like lack of access, safety, transportation issues, social stigma and the lack of positive role models, and it’s amazing that we’ve come as far as we have. Since the early 1970s, the number of female athletes has grown by a whopping 560 percent in high school students and nearly 1,000 percent in college students.

Although there has been a rise in participation by women in sports, there is a large disparity that still remains. These disparities are prevalent globally and continue to hinder equality in sports. Many institutions and programs still remain conservative and do not contribute to gender equity in sports. Many sports still remain dominated by men, financially and globally, in terms of better pay and funding. Women often receive less funding and inadequate equipment. They’re either systematically excluded from participating alongside of men or denied the space to practise and compete on their own terms.

This goes the same for women who are reporting in sports. No matter how extensive their experience is in a given sport, they are all too often presumed to just be another pretty face on TV, hired to bring diversity to the commentator panel. They will be told they know a lot about their sport for a woman, despite dedicating years of their life to them. Their opinions are often belittled or ignored until they are repeated by a male colleague with praise and agreement. Women are not seen, nor will they be heard in sports, until there is a wide movement of advocacy for them. But rest assured, as everyone is still arriving to the game, we are already breaking records and becoming powerhouses in sport.

[11:10 a.m.]

R. Kahlon: I’d like to thank the member for Parksville-Qualicum and the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin for speaking so eloquently on this topic: “Be it resolved that this House acknowledge the importance of supporting gender equity.”

When I started playing field hockey — I played field hockey for my whole life, and I’ve been fortunate to compete at the Olympics and compete in many games — I started playing on an all-girls team. When I started playing, there were no boys playing. I did not have to twirl. I’m getting gestures from the other side. I played on an all-girls team. There were only a handful of boys playing at the time. I guess I learned to play like a girl early on, and that’s part of the reason why I’ve been so successful in sport. It was an amazing experience. Then, as more boys started playing, we started competing against the girls teams. More boys started playing, and we ended up having a more competitive league.

For 20 years, I’ve been coaching — coaching sport, coaching field hockey. It’s been almost 20 years of mostly coaching women. In that time of coaching, I’ve seen some of the barriers that these young athletes have faced. I would say that the majority of the girls that I coached when I started don’t play sport anymore. That’s a real challenge.

There’s a reason why women are dropping off in sport at a faster rate than men, and it’s a real, real concern — social pressures and so on. The studies are overwhelming. By the age of 14, girls are leaving sport at double the rate of boys. We have a real challenge, not only in this province and Canada — I’d say North America — where we’re seeing girls dropping off at high, alarming rates. There are so many reports around it.

Some of the reasons are lack of access. That means a lack of access to sports in high school, where there will be a team for the boys but there won’t be a team for the girls. It’s a major, major issue. It’s not only in the high schools. It’s in colleges. It’s in elementary schools. It’s in just clubs generally, overall.

I remember a few years back I was at the Delta Sports Hall of Fame where the first women’s soccer team from Delta ever was being inducted. I think it was 26 years ago, not that long ago. The main thing they were talking about was this very issue, and we still have that issue. Not to that extent, but we still have it. A lack of physical education in schools. Limited opportunities to participate in sports.

There’s a lack of access to adequate playing facilities. It’s a major issue. I’ll just speak about field hockey again. Too often a girl’s team would come there, and the boys would be playing on the better field, and then the girls would have to play on the grass field. That’s just one example of field hockey, but there are lots of examples across the way in many sports.

Costs. Costs are a major challenge, a major impediment to access to sport. I think it’s across the board, but it hits women, and it hits women of colour at a higher rate than most. Gender stereotypes. It’s a major, major issue. Rugby is for boys. Well, not anymore. We’re making progress there. But it’s a major concern.

I think that one of the pieces that’s a big concern for me is how we treat girls when they’re young. If a boy is climbing a tree, it’s a boy being a boy. When a girl is climbing a tree: “Get down. It’s not safe. Don’t play in mud. That’s not the right way to be playing.” This is something that is engraved in our society, and kids pick it up.

I’ll share with you. I think my wife and I are fairly progressive on this issue. My wife is a very strong feminist, advocate for gender equality, the strongest you’d probably find. My son was five years old. He came home — my wife was sitting there — and he said: “Girls don’t play sports. Only boys do.” First off, I was shocked. I said: “Well, why?” He said: “Well, two reasons. One, when we watch sports on TV, we only see boys playing.” I was like: “Okay.” Second, he said: “Only daddy takes me to sports. Mommy doesn’t take me to sports.”

[11:15 a.m.]

That’s when it hits you — that even if you are consciously aware of it and progressive-minded, you still can miss these opportunities.

I just started, hon. Speaker, but my red light is up. I could speak about this for hours. A lot more to do, but we are making progress, and we have good role models, like the member for Parksville-Qualicum. We need to continue to have more role models in sport.

G. Kyllo: It’s a pleasure to rise in the House today to speak on the motion: “Be it resolved that this House acknowledge the importance of supporting gender equity.” I’d like to thank the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin for moving this motion and congratulate her on her new role promoting gender equity and the advancement of women.

I’d like to begin my remarks by acknowledging my wonderful wife, Georgina, and our four fantastic daughters: Sarah, Brittany, Angela and Samantha — five amazing women who have provided me with no shortage of mostly positive female influence in my life. As well, my six amazing, beautiful granddaughters — Maya, Kylie, Siddhalee, Nova, Hannah and Journey — increase that female influence to 11.

Now, I must confess to having one grandson, Nolan Gregory, yet we remain happily outnumbered by these amazing women and girls. They’re a constant source of inspiration to me as a father, as a grandfather and as an MLA. As my daughters were growing up, my wife and I always tried to encourage them to pursue whatever passions they desired and to push past their obstacles in their path to success to find something that they were truly inspired about. I knew if they chose a career path, something that they were excited about, they’d work very hard. And if they worked very hard at it, by nature, they would be successful.

We never wanted our girls to feel that there were any limitations to what they could do. In addition to being a loving mother and caregiver, my wife was also heavily involved in our family business. She showed our girls, from a very early age, that she and I were both capable of running a successful company. We both had the smarts, the people skills and the drive that it takes to run a business, which I know every entrepreneur will tell you is no easy task. It comes with a lot of risk but also a lot of reward.

Our girls were exposed to all of it, helping us out wherever they could. And it was imperative that I, as Georgina’s husband and their father, also set the right example. My wife and I truly worked as a team both outside and inside the home, though, truthfully, maybe Georgina did a bit better job than I. I’m not sure. But in addition to the skills, the hard work, creativity and energy we encouraged our daughters to put towards any endeavour, it was important to us that our girls also knew that they had our full confidence and support to achieve their dreams.

Beyond what we as parents try to instil in our children and grandchildren, they sometimes face unfair roadblocks in a wider world. There are some folks out there who don’t provide that support to girls in our communities, who prefer to tear down a woman’s confidence instead of raising her up to achieving great things. I think it’s incumbent on all of us to draw attention to it when we see or hear it and work towards permanently changing that type of behaviour.

It’s important that we are visible and vocal in our support of women. As men, we are often unaware of certain systems that are stacked in our favour or that are inherently unfair to women. We need to try harder to recognize these occurrences and not simply accept them as the norm or the way things have always been done. We need to keep in mind that everyone should be provided with fair treatment, as well as a full range of opportunities and benefits — in essence, the same finish line.

As legislators, it’s important to show women and girls that we value their opinions, experiences and perspectives. In this House, we have 32 talented female MLAs, each of whom has had to overcome hurdles to get here and each of whom contributes so much to this province. I’ve had the good fortune to work with a number of amazing women in this Legislature: Premier Christy Clark, B.C.’s first elected female Premier, and the member for Prince George–Valemount, assisting her, in her role as Minister of Jobs, Tourism, Skills Training and Labour; and also B.C.’s first female Attorney General, and the member for Richmond South Centre, B.C.’s longest-serving female member of this Legislature.

It has been a privilege to work with each and every one of these great leaders. And as International Women’s Day approaches, let’s think of the ways we can better promote fairness and equity in this House and this province.

J. Routledge: Thank you to the previous speakers for their insightful contributions to this very important debate.

[11:20 a.m.]

I’m reminded of an old ad that urged us on: “You’ve come a long way, baby.” But we’re not there yet. In fact, recent poignant statements in this House make me wonder if we may even have regressed.

Goodwill, good intentions, alone will not achieve gender equity. As the previous speaker said, there are practices and policies embedded in the system that continue to disadvantage women. Systemic discrimination happens when men and women are treated the same but the results give men the advantage anyway. Now, that seems counterintuitive, so let me share an analogy that clarified it for me.

A man and a woman are in a car race for the good job. The man is driving a high-performance sports car. His road is straight. The road signs are clear and point him in the right direction. There’s no speed limit, and the cheering crowds are urging him on. The woman, on the other hand, is driving a station wagon. Maybe the tires are bald. Her road ahead is full of potholes. There are sharp curves, steep hills and there are no road signs. Her cheering crowd may be the kids in the backseat, and her starting line is half a mile further back. It’s even further back if she’s racialized or has a disability.

Now, we can move the woman up to the same starting line as the man to make the race fair. But until we straighten out her road, fill in the potholes and put her in a sports car, the man is still going to get to the finish line first. After all these decades of enlightenment and consciousness raising, women are still less likely than men to be in the workforce, to be in the race at all.

Women, when they get there, are a lot more likely to work part-time. Women tend to work fewer hours than men, and when they take involuntary time off, they’re more likely to cite child care as their reason. In fact, one study shows that women are twice as likely to be responsible for unpaid child care and elder care than are men. So while women’s hourly earnings have risen to 90 percent of what a man earns on average, our annual earnings are only 75 percent of what a man earns.

One of the deepest and widest potholes slowing women down in their race to income security is the lack of universally accessible, affordable, quality child care. In spite of changing attitudes, women’s experience of paid work continues to be shaped by our caregiving roles. It means our careers are being interrupted. Women are making detours, if you will, while our male counterparts are speeding straight ahead in the race for good jobs. It means we are making lower pension contributions, condemning many women to poverty in later life.

Our government is getting to work to fill that pothole. We are investing a record $1 billion over three years to lower the costs for parents, increase the number of child care spaces and make sure those spaces meet the highest standard of care.

Last week the member for Chilliwack-Kent made some shocking allegations about our commitment to bring this much-needed relief to working parents and parents who would work if they could afford the child care. Now, I couldn’t quite follow the logic of his argument. He seemed to be suggesting that mothers should stay home to look after their children. That’s what he meant when he said that in B.C., we now have one full-time, 24-hour-a-day child care space for every child in B.C.?

Tell that to the families who are struggling to provide for their infants on one income. Tell that to the families who put their names on multiple waiting lists before their child is even born. That’s what he meant when he said the NDP is ignoring the cries of infants leaving their parents who have to go to work? Did he just invoke parental guilt, one of the more insidious forms of sexism?

Let’s not live in the past. June Cleaver only exists in reruns, and Ward Cleaver’s salary isn’t enough to support a family in their big house today. In fact, in today’s economy, Ward is likely to have been replaced by a machine. Today there is a 40 percent chance that June and Ward would get a divorce and an 80 percent chance Wally and Beaver would end up living with June. How would she support them without child care?

[11:25 a.m.]

Our child care plan is modern. It’s made-in-B.C., it’s what the people want, and it’s essential to achieving gender equality.

J. Isaacs: I rise today to speak on the motion, which highlights the importance of gender equity. It’s one of the defining moments of our time to speak on this issue, as we are seeing a revolution in gender relations. And while this revolution has been quietly going on for some time, we are now seeing an accelerated pace and real progress for gender equality.

I started my career in 1974 in the investment industry, and at that time, nearly 90 percent of the industry was made up of men. Even though there was a small contingent of hard-working women, it was a male-dominated environment, and women were often completely excluded from business conversations.

There were few job opportunities outside of the traditional secretary or administrative role. There were few opportunities for additional skills training or upgrading, and even fewer opportunities for promotion to a managerial or executive position. In those rare cases where there was an opportunity for career advancement, the salary gap was often far below the mean paid to men.

As women entered the field of sales — such as real estate, investment banking and as business entrepreneurs — there was slowly a shift and recognition of how women were perceived in the business world. Women’s perspectives and work ethics were bringing new value to corporations. As a result, many corporations now seek out women leaders to help build diversity within their organizations.

Women are reaching new career plateaus — as air traffic controllers, pilots and even astronauts. In addition, we’re seeing more and more women entering the trades, a sector previously dominated by men. Women welcome the opportunity to compete equally in trades, such as welding and construction. It has taken a lot of hard work and determination by women who persevered despite the seclusion they faced, even when it was uncomfortable for them to do so.

We need to thank these women for their fight for gender equality. But there’s still more to do. We need to see more women serve on boards of directors, leading industry as CEOs, and developing new leaders as top executives. And we need to encourage more women to participate in government.

Our last government broke many barriers in this regard. We had Canada’s longest-serving female Premier. We had the only female Premier to be re-elected, and we had the province’s first female Attorney General, the member for Prince George–Valemount.

The Me Too movement has shown that women around the world are no longer willing to accept the unacceptable. We are an equal part of society, and we will not allow anyone to hold us down any longer.

As part of my community and not-for-profit work, I encountered many of our society’s most vulnerable citizens, and a disproportionate number of them were women. We as a society need to do more to ensure that women have the same opportunities as men, recognize that women’s needs may differ from men and to be more flexible to meet the different needs of women.

Throughout my over-40 years in the business sector and alongside other women who pioneered and mentored women of all ages and from different walks of life and different ethnic backgrounds, I have seen many positive changes that have advanced women and young girls in overcoming these obstacles.

I’m proud to support the motion that continues to champion in the ultimate quest for gender equality for women.

B. D’Eith: I was very honoured to have been asked to speak on behalf of this motion. I think it’s very important for men to speak up, especially for gender equality. I’m very proud of our government, in the fact that we have actually got complete gender equality in cabinet. It’s the first time in British Columbia history.

[11:30 a.m.]

I believe that actions speak louder than words. I hope that this leadership with our government, in regards to gender equality, will inspire other governments and other organizations around British Columbia to move towards gender equality in management, senior executive positions and boards.

The Me Too movement has certainly put the spotlight on the entertainment industry, with such notable cases as Harvey Weinstein. While these cases are often about men in positions of power using their positions to exploit women, I truly hope that this attention will also bring to light other systemic issues that exist in the workforce.

I’ve worked in the creative industries for 28 years, and it was always apparent that women were not being represented as having the same representation as men in senior positions in the music industry in particular, where I worked. In 2012, Women in Music Canada, a non-profit organization comprised of influential members in the Canadian music industry, was formed. The organization is dedicated to fostering gender equality in the music industry through the support of advancement of women.

They did a study in 2014. In the study, it showed that the annual salaries of women in the music industry in 2014 were 27 percent lower on average than the most recently available average salary for the sound recording segment in Canada, and that women employees of music companies earned approximately 10 percent less than their average music company employee. Of the companies surveyed, 48 percent had no women in their executive tiers, and among the women polled, only 10 percent held executive positions. So there’s clearly a long way to go in that sector, in the sector that I have worked in for so many years.

Other sectors within the creative industries…. Responding to the limited opportunities for women in leadership positions in the film and television industry, the Women In Film and Television Vancouver was formed in 1989 by a group of professional women working in the industry. This group is one of 35 worldwide chapters of Women In Film and Television.

There’s also another group called Please Adjust Your Set, another group of screen-based advocates. They partnered with the advocacy committee for the Vancouver Women In Film and Television to gather statistics on women’s participation in the film and television sector. They were actually able to show through statistics that only 4 percent of featured film directors, 11 percent of writers and 13 percent of editors were working in the film industry.

In a 2010 report prepared by Marilyn Burgess for Telefilm Canada, she noted that women professionals report that they are disadvantaged with respect to access to professional networks, opportunities for on-the-job experience and visibility at festivals — factors which are considered crucial to successful career development. The study also noted that the lack of family-friendly working environments impacted on their careers.

Also, the Women In Film and Television advocacy committee conducted a detailed analysis of Telefilm’s funding, and they found that within the funding, only 27 percent of directors, 22 percent of writers and 14.3 percent of editors and 8 percent in photography were female, which is very low. On the positive side, though, 48 percent of producers were female. But for the most part, it still showed that there was a lot of opportunity lost.

As far as other studies, there was a study done by Sundance, which is a U.S. festival. They found, in fact, that on average, only 29 percent of filmmakers that were represented at the Sundance festival were women. These are actually very similar to the statistics that are being shown now in Canada.

To change this situation, there were some recommendations made. One is that women need more mentoring and encouragement for early career development in the film industry. They need better access to finance. And there needs to be much more awareness being made. These recommendations are very similar — that were made by the Please Adjust Your Set people and other groups.

I’m really excited to say, though, that there has been some progress. In 2016, on Women’s Day, the National Film Board announced that 50 percent of all productions and 50 percent of spending had to be directed by women. And that’s very exciting.

Thank you very much, hon. Speaker. There’s a lot of work to be done in this regard.

[11:35 a.m.]

J. Thornthwaite: I rise today to speak to the motion about the importance of gender equity, but I believe that what I’m about to say could save a life. Last week MLAs recently attended a breakfast hosted by the Heart and Stroke Foundation, focusing on women’s heart health. Did you know that heart attacks are the leading cause of premature death for women in Canada, with a woman dying every 20 minutes of heart disease? Five times as many women die of heart disease as breast cancer. Early heart attack signs are missed in almost 80 percent of women.

This is because two-thirds of heart attack clinical research focuses on men, even though women who have a heart attack are more likely to die or suffer a second heart attack than their male counterparts. As Yves Savoie, the CEO of the Heart and Stroke Foundation said: “We are decades behind in our knowledge of the differences between men’s and women’s hearts.” This is gender inequity.

What we have found is just the tip of the massive iceberg. Women have more adverse reactions than men to certain heart medications, and these reactions are generally more severe. Women are at greater risk of drug-induced heart rhythm disorders, and they have twice the risk of bleeding complications from common treatments such as angioplasty. Dr. Karin Humphries of the B.C. Centre for Improved Cardiovascular Health said: “Sex and gender blinders have led to too many women dying unnecessarily.”

Nancy Bradley’s chest pain was so bad that she had trouble catching her breath. Given her family’s heart history of heart disease, she was sure she was having a heart attack. But when she went to the hospital, she was told that her symptoms were probably just a bad case of heartburn and sent home.

Two weeks later Nancy had a massive heart attack. “I’ve had heartburn before. This wasn’t heartburn. I tried to explain that when I was feeling different. When it happened the second time, the pain was actually the same.”

Women’s heart health is under-researched. Physicians themselves, in a study published in the American Journal of Cardiology, have noted that the lack of information…. Only 22 percent of primary care physicians and 42 percent of cardiologists felt well prepared to assess heart disease in women.

The cost of the research bias means that women admitted to hospitals for heart disease were less likely to receive beneficial medications or surgeries. Women are underdiagnosed because their symptoms are different. For instance, unexpected arterial tears are the cause of 25 percent of all heart attacks in women under 60.

Carolyn Thomas is a heart attack survivor. She said: “In the mind, the stereotypical heart attack was an old guy clutching his chest on a golf course. Women need to know that they can have a heart attack yet continue to walk, talk and work.”

Women generally recognize the Hollywood heart attack — the chest-clutching, crushing pain. If their pain is less severe or if they have non-pain signs such as nausea, sudden fatigue or shortness of breath — signs more often reported in women — they are more likely to delay getting to emergency care. Once there, they are less likely to get fast, aggressive treatment.

Let’s learn the signs of heart attack: chest discomfort, pressure, squeezing, fullness of pain, burning or heaviness, upper-body discomfort, neck, jaw, shoulder, arms, back, shortness of breath, sweating, nausea, light-headedness. If you feel any of those, call 911 right away. It’s time to break the glass ceiling on heart health.

A. Kang: Today’s private member’s statement is: “Be it resolved that this House acknowledge the importance of supporting gender equity.” I am proud to be standing here with my colleagues of all genders to speak on this statement. As a woman and as a woman of colour and ethnicity, this resolution is a very personal topic to me. It saddens me and frustrates me that even until today, in the 21st century, we still stand here in this chamber with a need for advocacy for gender equity.

Gender equity is part of human rights, including the right to be free from coercion, intimidation and violence at work and at home. One of the issues we, as a society, still struggle to adequately address is violence against women. Violence of any type against anyone should not be tolerated, but women are victims of violence at a disproportionate level.

[11:40 a.m.]

Gendered violence is rooted in gender inequalities and other systems of oppression. Intimate-partner and sexual violence are disproportionately perpetrated against women and violate their rights to live free from abuse and violence.

Let us ask ourselves as we talk about gender equality: “What are we doing as legislators, as a society and as individuals to support women?” Transwomen, Indigenous women and women of colour continue to live their lives in fear of violence.

Statistics Canada has no information about the rates of murder, violence, poverty or homelessness faced by trans-Canadians. It was only recently, since June 2017, that the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code were updated to include gender identity and gender expression.

For years, the previous B.C. Liberal government refused to even consider amending the B.C. human rights code to include transgender or gender-diverse people, as Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Nova Scotia, Northwest Territories, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland had already done.

I applaud the member for Vancouver–West End for his years of advocacy that ultimately led to the B.C. code’s amendment in 2016. And let me be clear: transwomen are women. Gender equity is not just a women’s issue; it’s a human issue.

Indigenous women and girls also face disproportionate levels of violence. Indigenous girls and women in Canada have been murdered or have gone missing at a rate four times higher than the rate of representation of Indigenous women in the Canadian population, which is 4.3 percent. Non-Indigenous women of colour also face higher rates of violence and can be wary of accessing services because of experiences of discrimination and racism by social and legal institutions.

Racialized women are also less likely to report incidents of sexual assault or seek help due to previous community experiences of racism from authorities. Studies show that when women of colour report violence, their experiences are often taken less seriously within the criminal justice system and their perpetrators routinely receive more lenient punishments. This has to stop.

For too long, supports for survivors have been inadequate in our province. I am glad to see that in this year’s budget, our New Democrat government is standing with survivors of gendered and sexual violence and taking a new approach, providing ongoing funding for the services that we need and depend on.

This budget invests $136 million over three years to support the construction of 1,500 housing units across the province for women and children fleeing abusive relationships. In the fall, we invested $5 million to help to expand counselling, outreach and crisis support services.

This budget continues that work, committing $18 million over three years to meet the demand for programs and services for women and children who experience sexual assault, domestic violence and other crimes. We’ve also committed $2 million to support the Moose Hide Campaign, emphasizing B.C.’s ongoing commitment to end violence against women and children.

Violence against women is not an issue that will get solved overnight, but additional funding is a first step. I dream of a day when women — our mothers, our daughters, our loved ones — no longer have to live in fear of violence. A wise woman, Vera Nazarian, has expressed: “A woman is human. She is not better, wiser, stronger, more intelligent, more creative or more responsible than a man. Likewise, she is never less.”

D. Clovechok: I’m honoured every time I am able to rise in this House and speak on behalf of my constituents in Columbia River–Revelstoke. Today is a very special day, as I have an opportunity to speak to something that is very important to me and to my family, and that’s gender equality.

I’ve always been honoured and privileged to work throughout my multiple different careers with incredible women. That applies to the women on both sides of this House who inspire me, teach me and challenge me to be a better politician and a better person.

As a fairly newcomer here, I am forever asking the member for Prince George–Valemount questions. To her credit, if I’m annoying her with the multitude of questions that I always ask her, she has not let on but shares with me her years of experience on so many of the files and issues that she’s worked on. Her mentorship for me is something that I have great value for.

[11:45 a.m.]

As a father, a son, a husband and an elected representative, I endeavour to be a big proponent of gender equality. My daughters were raised to know that there’s no such thing as imposed ceilings, just what they impose on themselves. I’m proud to say that my daughters have become very successful in all that they have chosen to do. My oldest daughter is the vice-president of Tourism Saskatoon, and my youngest daughter graduated with honours and distinction from the Haskayne School of Business.

I can remember my oldest daughter as a 5-year-old inside the cavity of an elk that I had just shot, helping field dress that animal while the other kids were running everywhere. She had her arms up to it, and she has become an incredibly talented and skilled bow hunter.

I’m also proud to say that my two granddaughters, ages 9 and 3, are becoming strong, fearless and independent human beings. In addition, I look to my wife every day for guidance and input. She’s my rock.

While we’ve seen women across our province and our country smash through glass ceilings one after another — and the previous Premier of the province of British Columbia, Christy Clark, was one of those — we do have to recognize that many women face obstacles that are invisible to men.

Gender equality should not just come at the call for women that we know. It must be called because women are whole and equal citizens. Gender equity is needed immediately, not just for our sisters and our wives and our friends and our mothers, but for every woman in this country.

There’s a great value in having more women in politics. Women look at issues differently than men and bring a completely different perspective to the table. They bring a whole different set of skills to the table, both because of their lived experiences and, if you’ll allow me the generalization, because they’re better listeners. This is where I believe that we, as men, need to do better — being willing to listen to and learn from our female counterparts, be they our constituents or our colleagues.

We need to advocate for women and recognize that policies we enact and the work that we do will inherently affect our constituents differently. We talk a lot in this House about different economic strata, but the gender question is of equal importance. We have a lot to gain by pushing our conversations further, recognizing that the women in our province have experiences, opinions and values as various as those of the women in this House.

Women of colour, Indigenous women, LGBTQ…. All women will face different challenges alongside of sexism, like burdens of racism and homophobia. Although not all gender discriminations and misogyny looks the same, gender equity requires us to understand that it is all connected. If we’ve had the privilege of being safe from these challenges, we must work that much harder to support those who are not.

As representatives of a great number of peoples, we stand to gain a lot by learning to empathize with a variety of diverse and unique backgrounds. We must all listen to the complaints and concerns, the needs and hopes, of all of our constituents and work together to create a more equal British Columbia.

Research has shown that if a woman is on a board, her opinion will be given less weight than that of a man until there are three women on that board. That’s just not acceptable.

It’s our responsibility to make sure women in politics are not only supported in their election bids but in all aspects of the work in this House. Together we can ensure that this House is a safe place for all peoples to work and thrive, free from all forms of discrimination. It’s too easy to say: “I support gender equity.” Our actions speak volumes, and we must demonstrate that every day — that this is the truth.

The bottom line. When women are at the table, everybody benefits.

G. Begg: I think it’s appropriate, as we begin to ramp up this discussion, to ensure that we all understand what we mean when we say gender equity. Gender equity means fairness of treatment for women and men according to their respective needs. Simply put, women and men, girls and boys, should enjoy the same rights, resources, opportunities and protection.

Most members of this House would have seen Maclean’s magazine this month and a full-banner headline that says, in black: “Pay equity: one magazine at a time. This month women pay $6.99 and men pay $8.81.” This reflects the shocking 26 percent pay gap between men and women that still exists in Canada. The date on the magazine: March, 2018.

[11:50 a.m.]

The feature story inside sets the stage perfectly for the discussion. “No more excuses. For too long, employers have gotten away with asinine justifications for paying women less.”

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

It’s worthwhile, I think, to take a look at just two of those excuses. We’ve all heard that there aren’t enough female candidates, which purely and simply is not true. In every developed nation in the world, this country and this province included, women are now better educated than men. According to OECD data, women on average still earn 15 percent less.

The other common excuse is that women don’t ask for more money. In fact, they do. But the sad fact is that they just don’t tend to get it. I’m proud to stand in this House today to say that in this province, under the leadership of this new government, we’re committed to being markedly in the forefront of closing the gap. In fact, Premier John Horgan set the tone for gender equality in B.C. by appointing 11 women to a 22-member cabinet and last Thursday appointed Esquimalt-Metchosin MLA Mitzi Dean as Parliamentary Secretary for Gender Equity.

Let’s look back for a moment to help us understand how we got there. What was the prior government’s response to the factors surrounding this issue?

Unfortunately, we’ve inherited a province where child care is still wildly expensive, costing Vancouver parents, on average, over $1,200 a month. In this province, 83 percent of lone-parent families are headed by women. One in two B.C. children in lone-parent households lives in poverty, yet the prior government refused for years to raise social assistance rates. Under the B.C. Liberals, minimum wage was well below the living wage in Metro Vancouver. And 60 percent of minimum-wage earners in this province are women.

Women also make up 70 percent of the teachers in B.C.​ However, between ripping up contracts, tying the teachers union up in legal battles, stripping the public school budgets and closing schools, the prior government’s treatment of teachers in this province has been nothing short of abysmal.

As we look to the future, there are some statistics that we must consider. With more than 900,000 job openings expected in B.C. by 2027, women will play an increasingly important role in keeping the province’s economy diverse, strong and growing. B.C. has more than one million women working — the most in B.C.’s history and nearly half of the current provincial labour force.

Approximately 38 percent of all business owners in B.C. are women — above the national average of 36 percent. Women comprise 38 percent of all self-employed people in B.C. in 2017, ranking B.C. third among all provinces and above the national average of 37 percent.

We have much to be thankful for in this province. We have accomplished much. But in the future, there is much more to be done.

American author Nicholas Kristof, in his book Half the Sky: Turning Oppression into Opportunity for Women Worldwide, has a great quote that I want to leave with you. “In the 19th century, the central moral challenge was slavery. In the 20th century, it was the battle against totalitarianism. We believe that in this century, the paramount moral challenge will be the struggle for gender equity around the world.” It is incumbent upon all members of this House to ensure that British Columbians are at the forefront of that battle.

G. Begg moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Now that that’s been done, I adjourn the House so we can go have lunch.

M. Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.

The House adjourned at 11:55 a.m.