Orders of the Day

Private Members’ Statements

SUPPORT STAFF IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

R. Singh: Support staff in school districts play a vital role — not just in a child’s education but in maintaining a fine-tuned operation.

There are approximately 28,000 CUPE support staff in B.C. schools. The support staff fill a variety of positions, including education assistants, bus drivers, crossing guards, student supervisors, Indigenous support workers, custodians, maintenance workers and those completing clerical functions.

The moment the child enters the school grounds, the grounds are maintained by the maintenance workers so they have safe places to play.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Maintenance workers keep the grounds well-lit; the school well-lit; the emergency systems maintained; school doors, windows, flooring, walls, bathrooms, classrooms and the structural integrity of all the schools maintained and the appearance of the buildings as well.

The clerical are the front line of any school. They field all the calls from the parents and make sure all the students are registered and accounted for. The majority of the time, they’re also the first aid attendants. They receive all the injured students and give them the required help. They also align between the staff and the admin team.

[10:05 a.m.]

The information technologists keep the computers running in schools, and they field calls at the helpdesk.

The support staff workers in the inner-city schools help in preparing hot breakfasts and lunches for the students who would otherwise go without any food. Custodians keep our schools clean. The bus drivers ensure children make it to school safely. Payroll clerks make sure that all workers are paid. Youth care workers watch out for at-risk youth and keep them going on the right track. Aboriginal workers work with the Indigenous children.

We all know the great work that our education assistants do with the students with special and varied needs. We all know that children have the right to access education, and some are only able to do so with the help, patience and understanding of the well-trained, experienced and talented education assistants. Many children who wouldn’t have previously been able to access education find that they can with the help of specialized support from an expert. With assistants trained in supporting physical disability, speech and language issues, behavioral difficulties and a range of other conditions, children at a disadvantage have a serious chance at success.

Unfortunately, with all the great work that these support staff do, their work is often the first to get cut when the budgets gets squeezed. For instance, underfunding forced the Coquitlam school district to lay off 51 support staff in 2013 and New Westminster school district to lay off 37 in the same year. Also, the janitors and the trades and maintenance workers find that they don’t have enough time and manpower to keep schools clean and safe. A survey done by CUPE office members found that over half of the custodial staff don’t believe that they are able to maintain a clean and safe school.

In 2014, CUPE detailed the impact of the relentless budgetary pressures on clerical workers. A relentless push to direct maximum resources to the classroom has brought an ongoing effort to put more pressure on the school system administration. This has also increased clerical staff’s workload and stress levels and increased incidents of abusive and aggressive encounters with parents, community members and students.

Many of us often are not aware of the violence that education assistants also face at the hands of the students that they are taking care of — and all the important work that they do. We all know that they are a vital part of our school community, and these employees deserve to be acknowledged for their hard work and dedication to help students succeed.

M. Bernier: Thank you to the member opposite for bringing up this important issue. Of course, I’m honoured to stand here today on behalf of the member from Peace River North, who is an educator for most of his working life and was quite excited to speak to this.

One of the things that I think is really important to highlight that the member brought forward is the role of support staff in our school systems. We have almost 2,900, I believe, support staff in our education system in the province of British Columbia, ranging from IT support and janitorial to special education assistants. They all serve an important role to ensure that we have great educational outcomes for our students here in British Columbia.

I look at that important role of what they do, and in my time, while I was the Minister of Education, I want to thank them. I travelled around the province to almost every school district, and I saw, on the front lines, that great work that was taking place, the hard work every day to ensure that our students with special needs were getting the focus, the attention. The important work was taking place in the classroom to make sure that they were getting the best education possible.

In our time in government, between 2001 and 2017, we actually increased funding by 91 percent to help students with special needs. We increased that to almost $1 billion a year, because we recognized the importance. We recognized that that funding needed to take place.

[10:10 a.m.]

When you look at a student, for instance, and how things have changed with the autism spectrum…. We never used to know what that was. We never used to fund it. It was because of the great work in the classrooms by our educators, by our special needs instructors, who actually came forward and said, “We need to do more,” which is why now in the province of British Columbia if you’re designated on the autism spectrum, the school district receives almost $19,000 extra for every single student to have that support.

I know lots of families that I’ve met with said: “You know, we can do more.” Absolutely. When you look at what takes place in the classrooms — the challenges for our students with special needs — we want to make sure that that support is there. That’s why I’m watching closely what the new government is going to be doing around funding, because I think that if we’re going to be talking about it, then there has to be action like the last government did.

When you look at what we did also, we put in what was called the learning improvement fund. We put in $100 million a year to help school districts around the province ensure that they were hiring the proper instructors in the classroom to have the supports for students with special needs. What did we see with that? Our completion rates skyrocketed. That support was there for our students, and our completion rates almost doubled for students with special needs. Of course, we can say there is still more to do in that, but the recognition is the first place that you need to start and make sure that the supports for our support staff are there.

I want to thank the support staff around the province. They have an integral role in our education system in supporting the students, in supporting the teachers and in making sure that the students in our province, who are recognized globally for having some of the best educational outcomes, continue to do so.

I look forward to the new government actually following in the path of what we were doing, and having that financial support and making sure that students continue to receive a good education in B.C.

R. Singh: I would really like to thank my colleague, because we share the same sentiments in supporting of our support staff. We all know how vital they are to our school community and, especially, for our kids — the important work that they do every day, the hours that they put in so that our kids who require the assistance can succeed.

I’m really glad to be part of the government that is also committed to supporting these employees who work with the students with varied needs and, as well, the students who are vulnerable. The minister and the Ministry of Education are very aware that all students need inclusive education, and these support staff help us meet our goals of providing equitable access to learning opportunities. We all know that students deserve a quality education, and along with the teachers, the support staff play a vital role in helping us achieve that goal.

Also, the Minister of Education is very aware of the role that these support staff are playing, and he wants to look into how they can improve conditions for the children with special needs with a review. That is something that has not been done in decades, and I’m really glad that he’s taking that initiative to see what is required.

We know, as the member mentioned, that we have many more students on the autism spectrum. It is important to know that the needs of the students are changing and how those needs should be met within the school system. I’m very glad that our government is taking close action and taking really good care of the needs of the students as well as the people who are supporting them.

I would really like to thank all the support staff for all the great work that they do. I, personally, have had the experience of working with the support staff in my previous job. I know all the hard work that they put in — the training that they get and the passion that they come with to help these students. From the bottom of my heart, I really want to thank them and just reiterate the commitment of our government to support them and our school system and to make our kids get all the resources to succeed in the school system.

[10:15 a.m.]

A SUSTAINABLE FUTURE FOR SALMON

E. Ross: We have spoken many times in this House about the importance of salmon to the people of British Columbia — and with good reason. For thousands of years, salmon sustained First Nations up and down the coast and for hundreds of kilometres inland. Eventually, a commercial industry was established, and salmon became one of the three main pillars of the provincial economy in the late 19th and 20th centuries. Their abundance and being a natural, renewable resource meant that salmon would eventually evolve into a popular recreational fishery, beloved by local residents and attracting anglers from all over the world.

Salmon are indeed an impressive fish species. They spawn in fresh water and spend the first years of their lives in lakes and streams and then make their way to the ocean. In some cases, some species spend as little as six months in fresh water, while some chinook spend as much as two years before heading to sea.

Once salmon decide to leave fresh water, it can involve a journey of several hundred kilometres until they arrive in saltwater habitat. Salmon smolts then have to run a gamut of natural predators. Some remain in coastal waters; while others migrate northward along the coast, past the tip of Alaska, and then out to the Bering Sea and beyond.

Some species of salmon spend as little as 18 months in open ocean before returning, and others can remain in the ocean for as long as eight years. The true miracle, though, is the return of salmon to fresh water. We’re not quite certain how they do it, but salmon have the ability to navigate their way back to their stream of origin, where they spawn a new generation.

Shortly after spawning, the salmon die, and the remains provide important nutrients to the ecosystem. This has been the lifecycle of salmon for an eon. Throughout time, the habitat of salmon has been in a constant state of change in the natural environment. A landslide, for example, can reroute river systems and drastically change habitat.

Regardless, salmon are resilient and have always managed to adapt. But today there are many pressures on salmon stocks that threaten their future. A poor return in any given year will have implications for future generations.

Recently the Department of Fisheries and Oceans released their outlook for 2018. The outlook measures 91 different groupings of salmon. Twenty-eight are expected to be at or above the amount necessary for a healthy population, and 30 are expected to be near or below expectations. Then there are some populations of grave concern. The projected returns for sockeye and chinook to the Skeena watershed are so low that DFO is considering a total closure for all user groups. This includes commercial fisheries, the recreational sector and First Nations.

This situation could have a significant impact on communities up and down the coast. Unfortunately, when salmon returns fall well below projections, we have a tendency to point fingers and lay blame on the doorstep of one sector or the other. This does little to help the salmon and only fosters the tensions between people.

As chief councillor of the Haisla Nation, I tried to look into improving the stock returns in my territory, only to find out the problem of salmon returns goes way beyond what is just in my region. The situation is further complicated by the fact that we share the resource with our American neighbours. This includes the state of Alaska, to the north, and coastal states south of us, including Washington, Oregon and California.

Naturally, there is a great deal of competition for such a valuable resource. To address the situation, the U.S. and Canada signed the Pacific salmon treaty in 1985. The treaty embodies the commitment made by Canada and the United States to prevent overfishing and provide for optimum production and ensure that both countries receive benefits equal to the production of salmon originating in their waters.

Salmon fishery managers in Canada and the United States are challenged by the fact that some of the fish each country produces are caught by fishermen of the other country. This harvest of one country’s salmon by another fisherman is called interception. Interception exists because salmon cross international borders and beyond the jurisdiction of the government in whose waters they were spawned.

[10:20 a.m.]

Research by both countries revealed that Alaskan fishing fleets were catching salmon bound for British Columbia, Oregon and Washington. Canadian fishing fleets were capturing coho, chinook and other species bound for rivers of Washington and Oregon. Fleets in northern British Columbia were intercepting salmon returning to Alaska, and U.S. boats were catching salmon as they travelled through the Strait of Juan de Fuca and the San Juan Islands towards Canada’s Fraser River. Unless management policies and conservation concerns are jointly agreed, one nation may harvest too many of the other country’s stocks and frustrate the home country’s management plans.

Over the years, the treaty has been successful, but there have been challenges along the way. The relationship between Canada and the United States has been strained on a number of different fronts. While there seems to be light at the end of the tunnel with respect to NAFTA negotiations, the softwood lumber dispute continues to linger. Let’s hope for the sake of both countries that we can continue to manage a tremendous resource for generations to come.

J. Rice: I’d like to thank the member opposite for continuing the discussion on the importance of healthy, viable salmon fisheries — or fisheries, in general — to our province and, in particular, to the region that we live in, which is in the Skeena watershed.

The sustainability of our coastal industries is extremely close to not only my heart, but clearly his heart as well. It’s a vital part of our history, our economy and, certainly, the culture of the north coast. In fact, commercial fishing is a strong thread in the social fabric that has held B.C. communities together for generations. But the industry’s impact is typically evaluated in only dollars and cents, leaving the wider societal impacts poorly documented and largely underrepresented in fisheries policy and in marine planning. Yet these values are no less important to the people who make their livings on the sea or who live in coastal British Columbia.

In just one part of the province, the PNCIMA region, the Pacific north coast integrated management area, where I live and my constituents and many of the member’s constituents also live, are some of the most valuable fishing areas on Canada’s Pacific coast. In 2010, the PNCIMA region yielded $450 million in wholesale value, just over half of the wild-caught marine fishery’s wholesale value for the entire province.

There’s more to fishing than profit margins. There are economic ripple effects as fishermen spend their money on equipment and supplies. Fishing revenues spread throughout the local businesses and local communities. It also has a role in the gifting and trading of seafood, and commercial fishing vessels play a key role in this complex system. One fisherman may give or trade seafood to over 100 other people. This food community also contributes to food security in rural and remote communities where we live.

This is why our government, along with the federal government and industry, is currently planning for habitat restoration, habitat protection and wild salmon health. The Minister of Agriculture is representing the interests of our province on the Pacific Salmon Commission, negotiating with the United States in order to address things like bycatch and overfishing, in order to maintain these industries and keep fishing sustainable.

These days many fishermen are First Nations. Without the ability to commercially fish, they would not have the necessary vessels to exercise their food, social and ceremonial fishing rights, nor have the ability to feed their elders and others in the community.

Being a commercial fisherman is more than just a job. It’s a lifestyle that connects people to each other, to their communities and to the surrounding environment, which is why we are working on a consent-based process, working with First Nations in order to ensure sustainability in regards to the ten-year renewal process of fish farms.

Mostly, Canadian fisheries policy has been focused on two areas: economic, measured by landed value; and biological, measured by species abundance. But research from Ecotrust and the T. Buck Suzuki Environmental Foundation highlights an opportunity to reframe fisheries policy that benefits environmental conservatism, economic resilience and social equity alike.

The fishing industry is represented on the ceilings of the B.C. Legislature as a pillar of the B.C. economy. Independent fish harvesters need protections to rebuild the backbone of the rural middle class along our coast.

[10:25 a.m.]

In Atlantic Canada, the economic capacity and the strength of its rural middle class would not exist without the owner-operator and fleet separation policies enforced in all five Atlantic provinces. These policies are not only pillars of the fishing economy; they also support the social and cultural fabric of rural coastal communities in Atlantic Canada. Similar policies are in place in Alaska, where multiple processors compete for fish by providing good prices, multiple fleet services and processing jobs in rural coastal communities. In fact, Alaska fisheries are managed to ensure that their fish harvesters and fishing communities are the primary beneficiaries of their adjacent resource.

We need similar policies of adjacency in British Columbia. In B.C., a single processor controls multiple fisheries, from production through to export. Independent fishermen become price-takers, and the social and cultural fabric of our coastal communities is eroded. The economic viability of the next generation of fishermen and our coastal communities depends on improving these policies.

E. Ross: Thank you for the response from the hon. member. One of the biggest concerns of 2018 is the survival of the steelhead salmon. There has been quite a debate as to whether steelhead are in fact salmon or more closely related to trout. Steelhead are anadromous and migrate to the ocean, where they face the same pressures as other species of salmon, and just like Pacific salmon, steelhead return to the rivers, where they spawn. But unlike salmon, they don’t necessarily die after spawning, and they sometimes return back to the ocean.

This makes steelhead even more susceptible to fishing pressures — so much so that as few as 57 fish returned to the Chilcotin River in 2017, and only 177 to the Thompson River. This has prompted my fellow caucus members to form a B.C. Liberal steelhead caucus, co-chaired by the hon. members for Fraser-Nicola and West Vancouver–Capilano.

The situation is dire enough for the Tsilhqot’in National Government to announce that it will voluntarily cease its food fishery due to minimal returns. The Outdoor Recreation Council has identified B.C.’s critical steelhead rivers from Hope to Mission as the most endangered rivers in the province.

In response, the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, an independent federal advisory panel, has launched a seldom-used fast-track process to conclude that steelhead in the Chilcotin and Thompson River systems are at imminent risk of extinction. COSEWIC has concluded that the main threats to the steelhead include the inadvertent bycatch of adults by net fisheries targeting Pacific salmon, and poor ocean conditions.

To ensure their future survival, we must ensure that governments at all levels work in concert with First Nations, recreational anglers and commercial fisheries to help the steelhead rebound. There are some factors, such as ocean warming, that we cannot readily address, but there are other factors, such as commercial harvesting methods and habitat restoration, that we can control. We as members of this Legislature all have a responsibility for the future survival of steelhead. If we lose this battle, our chances of improving conditions for other threatened species of salmon will not be successful either.

PLAYGROUND FUNDING

J. Brar: I’m very pleased to rise in this House today to make an important private member’s statement regarding the school playground funding policy to support parent groups in ensuring playgrounds are suitable and safe for our school children.

As a former national basketball player, I understand that play is the key to the physical, mental, intellectual and social well-being of our children. Therefore, school playgrounds and school playtime are very important to children for their fun and relaxation, as well as for their good health and well-being. Numerous studies have shown that students who are physically active have improved academic performance, achieve higher test scores and demonstrate a better attitude towards the school system, so it’s very important that we properly fund playgrounds for our school students. Our government made the commitment to create an ongoing capital fund for school playgrounds.

[10:30 a.m.]

Budget 2018 provides an annual $5 million fund to support parent groups in ensuring playgrounds are suitable and safe. This fund will apply to older schools that need maintenance and replacements as well as overcrowded schools that need a second playground.

School districts will apply for the playground funding in the same way they do for capital funds. There’s no requirement in regard to the matching funds. That was the case under the previous administration. It will be up to the school board to choose their number one priorities for playgrounds in their district. That means the funding will not just go to the richest school who can fundraise better.

I would like to point out that this is a major policy shift we have under this administration, where schools that do not have the capacity to raise matching funds will be able to access the playground funding without raising matching funds. The new funding program alleviates the fund burden that had been shifted onto parents by the previous administration.

Parents shouldn’t have to spend their time fundraising for things like playground equipment, which can take almost years of their time sometimes. Our government has made sure that that’s not going to happen anymore. New parent advisory committees, PACs, can refocus their efforts on more pressing areas to help ensure students’ needs are met.

Students also deserve safe places to play and learn, a key to achieving their full potential. In addition to the $5 million annual funding to support parents groups for the maintenance and replacements of old playgrounds, our government is also offering the community grant program to all public and independent schools. PACs are eligible to save $20 per student annually. All DPACs are eligible to save $2,500 each year.

Eligible organizations can apply for gaming grant funding in one of the following six categories: arts and culture, sports, environment, public safety, human and social services, and parent advisory councils and district parent advisory councils. The community gaming grant program will start accepting applications from eligible PACs and DPACs effective April 1, 2018.

It should be noted that there hasn’t been a playground capital fund in British Columbia for the last five years. As a result, the need to replace the unsafe playgrounds is greater than ever. I have requests from three schools in the Surrey-Fleetwood constituency alone for funds to replace the old playgrounds.

Janice Churchill Elementary School is one of them. PAC president of the school, Ms. Campbell, and vice-president Mary Anne informed me that the representative of the Surrey school district has inspected the playground and subsequently told them that they have to replace the playground in June 2018 because it’s too old and unsafe for students.

The PAC of Janice Churchill School was told to raise around $70,000 for the replacement of the playground. If they are unable to raise funds, then there will be no playground in the school because the old playground will be removed in June 2018. That’s not the right thing to do.

We are listening to the parents and students of Janice Churchill School and others who have similar needs. That’s why we made the commitment to create an ongoing capital fund for school playgrounds.

Budget 2018 provides an annual $5 million fund to support parent groups in ensuring playgrounds are suitable and safe. This is really a good policy and good news for the children and parents in Surrey-Fleetwood and across the province.

[10:35 a.m.]

Our government is consulting parents groups on how to create a funding model that will make the need for parents to fundraise for playgrounds disappear. The policy idea is to relieve parents of the heavy burden of having to fundraise at their parent advisory committee — sometimes hundreds of thousands of dollars — to have what is pretty basic to a school playground: equipment.

Parents are tremendous advocates for their children. I commend the PACs for pursuing projects that improve children’s experience. Our government is proud to support these programs that promote the intellectual, social and physical well-being of our next generation and help set our children up for future success.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity.

T. Stone: I want to start by thanking the member for Surrey-Fleetwood for bringing forward this private member’s statement on the importance of playgrounds in communities across British Columbia.

Play and exercise is an integral part of a child’s life. But it’s not just fun and games. Free play helps children learn essential skills that will set them up for a life of success. This can mean anything from organized games to running around with their peers or, yes, playing on a playground.

Free play helps kids learn how to communicate with other children. It’s a chance to practise their vocabulary, have conversations, follow rules, share and take turns. Practising this from a young age will also help kids learn how to pick up on social cues like tone of voice and body language. Playing on a playground also leads to developing motor coordination, problem-solving and critical thinking.

As a parent who still has two kids in an elementary school, as many folks in this chamber…. Many members are parents who have sat on the sidelines and watched their children play on playgrounds. You know the smiles and the laughter that warm your hearts as parents and the need to occasionally step up and separate children who might be engaged in a bit of a skirmish — although that is part of the experience that is afforded by safe playgrounds as well.

In 2011, our former B.C. Liberal government announced $8 million for 44 new playgrounds and playground upgrades for schools across British Columbia to help provide safe play spaces for kids to be happy, healthy and to develop their skills.

In 2012, an additional $3.3 million was provided for 80 schools across 60 school districts for the repair, improvement and replacement of playgrounds, and 227 schools benefitted from the two-year program provincewide.

In 2016, 45 programs were awarded a total of $11.3 million to build facilities, buy land and put up new playgrounds.

I’m very proud of the many investments that our former government made in playgrounds for children across British Columbia. However, I also believe that more needs to be done in the area of play and our children’s health.

Although technology brings a world of benefit to our province, the sad reality is that we are currently behind some other jurisdictions in the fight against inactivity and obesity in our young people. That means also providing time every single day for our children to unplug and be free from technology and get active. Meaningful high-quality health and physical education is one of the best strategies available to reverse this trend.

Yes, parents have a critical role in the education and the physical activity of their children as well. Parental encouragement and support for learning and play at home combined with parental involvement in the school are critical to children’s education and development. I’ve been in awe, over the years — again, first and foremost as a parent — watching the effort and the time that parents put into fundraising for causes of importance to their schools, such as playgrounds.

The current chair of the PAC, Tracy Meldrum, up at Juniper Ridge Elementary, my daughters’ school, highlighted for me the other day just how difficult it was to raise $80,000 over 2½ years to provide for an enhanced playground at our kids’ school. It’s very, very difficult. She indicated that it took more than five years for the parents at our school to raise the money needed. And this is one of the larger elementary schools in a part of Kamloops, frankly, where household income is perhaps a bit above the average, where there might be a bit more wherewithal for parents to dig a little deeper into their pockets and support the fundraising for a new playground.

[10:40 a.m.]

The lessons of giving back to one’s community are…. While it’s incredibly important for children, at the same time, schools shouldn’t have to rely on parental fundraising for essential elements of the school experience like playgrounds. High-quality health and physical education increases the chances our young people will live healthier, more productive life spans, and it pays off in the classroom as well. Playtime outside on a playground is one way to accomplish this. So let’s all support continued and reliable investment in building and upgrading playgrounds across British Columbia.

J. Brar: Thanks to the member for Kamloops–South Thompson for his thoughtful response to my private member’s statement regarding the school playground policy.

The member listed a number of things done by the previous government, but the facts I have are a bit different than what I heard just a few seconds ago. I just want to list some of the things which took place under the previous administration.

During the 2008-09 financial crisis, the previous government made the decision to cut capital project funding from the list of categories allowed by the B.C. gaming branch. The grant helped non-profit organizations build things like playgrounds and sports facilities, but it was eliminated as part of the austerity measures introduced in response to the global recession. The government cut $17 million from the gaming grant at that time.

The recession ended later on, but I just want to highlight that there was a recession under the previous government, which many people don’t believe on the other side. The recession ended, but the previous government did not reinstate the grant. Now we have done that.

As I mentioned in my statement, prior to the funding being cut, the previous government had some pretty onerous requirements for playground funding. As of 2007, the funding was distributed by the B.C. Confederation of Parent Advisory Councils, and the previous government gave occasional and inconsistent funding for playgrounds. Schools and parent groups had to apply and had to come up with matching funding, and that was a big issue, as mentioned by the member on the other side as well.

That’s a huge change we have made in the policy. It’s very important that we have to change that policy. Under the previous policy, it became like a lottery system, where the most organized and well-resourced groups could get the funding, and the less-organized and less well-off communities were not able to access the funding.

Our government is changing that. Our government made the commitment to create ongoing capital funding for school playgrounds. Budget 2018 provides annual $5 million funds to support parent groups in ensuring playgrounds are suitable and safe. This fund applies to older schools that need maintenance and replacements as well as overcrowded schools that need a second playground. And school districts will apply for the playground funding in the same way they do for capital funding. There is no requirement for the matching funding from the parents, PAC committees.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity.

ACCESS TO LIBRARIES

S. Cadieux: I love to read, and that’s good, given how much we read for our job here. But I also love to read for pleasure. I remember fondly storytime as a child and the sense of accomplishment when I learned to read and could read for myself. I loved going to the library to pick out books, and in fact, I still do. I can access almost anything I want at my local library.

But what if you don’t have access? What if you have dyslexia and can’t read traditional print? What would it be like if you were blind and relied on audio materials or Braille or e-text? And how would you read if a stroke left you unable to hold and turn the pages of a book?

Numbers from Statistics Canada suggest that about 10 percent of Canadians have a print disability which limits their ability to read in traditional print format. Many people who don’t currently have a print disability will have one in the future. Only 7 percent of published materials are accessible to people with print disabilities, even in a developed country like ours.

[10:45 a.m.]

A print disability is a learning, physical or visual disability that prevents a person from reading conventional print. This can be for any number of different reasons, and the format for reading technology is a personal choice. One size doesn’t fit all or even one. The same person might choose different ways to read, depending on the situation. It might vary based on the degree of vision loss, whether you’re able to read or whether you are reading for fun or for work, or whether you’re comfortable with the newest technology or prefer a paper book, while someone else an e-reader. For people with print disabilities who prefer audio books, the choice of a human or synthetic voice might really matter.

But without access to reading material in alternative formats, people with print disabilities are less likely to complete high school, less likely to pursue higher education, less likely to participate in the workforce and experience incomes well below the national average.

The Marrakesh treaty was heralded as an important step towards equality, as it clarifies and simplifies the export of works produced in Canada and for Canada to import works produced from other countries.

Let’s step back for a bit of history. The Canadian National Institute for the Blind, or the CNIB, has provided library services for its members since 1919. Their digital library provided Canadians with access to about 500,000 titles through a mix of Braille, voice, digitized voice and downloads for computer readers. The CNIB is a charity and, as times changed, so did the success of their fundraising. Like many charities, fundraising got more and more difficult, and difficult choices then also have to be made about what services come first.

During that same time, people with disabilities have realized a more rightful place in our society. As contributing citizens, we work and recreate alongside our non-disabled family and friends. As people with disabilities were more and more able to participate, so grew the expectation from within the CNIB community that they should be able to go to their local library — and rightly so. A few years ago the federal government tasked the CNIB to develop a model that would work to shift library services away from the CNIB to public libraries.

CELA, the Centre for Equitable Library Access, was established in April of 2014 as a new publicly funded non-profit organization with the goal of supporting and assisting public libraries and delivering accessible library materials to Canadians with print disabilities in equal measure to that which is enjoyed by other members of the community.

Launched under the auspices of public libraries, CELA is governed by a board of directors which is comprised of a broad range of representatives from public libraries. They assumed the service responsibilities from the former CNIB library and inherited some of its knowledgeable and dedicated staff, who have helped CELA grow to be Canada’s leading accessible library service.

They provide an access to a growing collection of books, magazines, newspapers and described videos for every age and interest. There are choices in formats from audio, Braille, described movies and accessible e-books. The digital collection can be delivered by download to a computer, handheld devices or DAISY Players, while CD and Braille titles are delivered by mail. In addition, services are provided in both official languages.

CELA is funded in part by the federal government and by most provincial governments, except for Manitoba, Nunavut and B.C. Those provincial governments in other jurisdictions cover the subscription fees for their libraries. CELA is now the national digital hub for libraries across Canada, covering approximately 90 percent of the population.

In B.C., large libraries are finding the money for the subscription to ensure their members have access, and about 83 percent of our province does have access to CELA services. But if you’re a resident in one of the many rural communities in British Columbia, like Dawson Creek, Fort St. John, Kimberley or even some large centres like Port Moody, you don’t have access to the CELA library services through your local library.

Interestingly, when the federal government moved to create CELA and relieve the CNIB from delivering services, B.C. chose to establish its own service, which now also has a national scope. The National Network for Equitable Library Service, NNELS, is a source of content owned and maintained by Canadian public libraries working to make copies of books available in accessible formats. NNELS is fully funded by the provincial government of British Columbia, as well as Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Nova Scotia, Northwest Territories, Nunavut and the Yukon.

Yet while these two organizations exist, people with print disabilities are still not assured to be able to access them. While the population without a print disability has access to millions of titles of book, newspapers and magazines through our library system, citizens with print disabilities in rural B.C. and some urban centres still only have access to a limited service. I think we’re going to need to see some change in that regard.

[10:50 a.m.]

A. Kang: I want to thank the member opposite for her comments on access to libraries. The topic got me thinking about a few other things, but I just want to touch on the issue she raised before I get to my other comments.

I absolutely agree with the member for Surrey South how vital it is for all British Columbians, including people with visual or perceptual impairments, to have access to reading materials through public libraries around B.C. That’s why, I understand, the provincial government contributes over $115,000 annually to the National Network for Equitable Library Services.

They produce books in accessible formats and make them available to readers in Canada who have print disabilities. These services are available in every public library in B.C. that receives provincial funding — services that I know are so important for people with visual or perceptual impairments. So again, thank you to the member opposite for raising such an important issue.

I love libraries. In fact, I was a Burnaby library trustee for six years, and I was part of the design and creation of the beautiful and award-winning Tommy Douglas Library in Burnaby, the Edmonds Town Centre. I know firsthand the efforts that library boards and librarians put in to create libraries that are accessible and as barrier-free as possible as we move forward with a population of greater diversity and multiculturalism.

We may or may not have noticed, but libraries have accompanied us through almost all stages of our lives. My children began their first library visits while they were mere babies. Colourful picture books and sensory-rich pages accompanied their development into their toddlerhood years. Libraries are a popular hangout for studying, researching and job searching for youth and young adults.

As the Parliamentary Secretary for Seniors, I work closely with mature adults. In fact, since the opening of my constituency office, my office has been transformed into a community hub where seniors come and hang out for a cup of coffee or tea, exercise tai chi, teach and learn English to each other and teach each other how to use iPads. But most of all, it is a place where people come and have conversations.

As my office is located within walking distance of the Bob Prittie Library, I hear from seniors all the time how much they love libraries and their services. Many of them utilize materials in other languages besides English. For others, as they advance through various stages of their lives, libraries have something that can support their needs moving forward. Our public library provides services to everyone and offers many specialized and inclusive services. The best part is, it’s all free.

Five minutes is such a short time to talk about how proud I am of the public libraries and how accessible they are. Libraries are not simply a building stocked with shelves and shelves of books and lots and lots of tables for quiet study. That was in the past. That was a few decades ago. Nowadays, libraries have materials in many formats for British Columbians with perceptual disabilities, including audiobooks, CDs, DVDs and MP3s as well as audiobooks formatted specially for people with print disabilities.

Not only do libraries help us polish our literacy and communication skills, they also provide the space and forum for us to utilize these skills. Libraries share and allow easy access to a space with a community, and they often host community forums and provide unique support programs for newcomers.

Wanting to gain a better understanding of libraries and their accessibility, I approached one of my favourite chief librarians, Beth Davies. She proudly tells me that Burnaby Public Library provides a friendly, people-centred delivery service to individuals at home and to those who live in group living arrangement settings who can’t visit the library for health reasons. As well, many libraries partner with provincial deaf and hard-of-hearing services at the Ministry of Children and Family Development to offer family story time in sign language and English. Families and children join a deaf storyteller and a children’s librarian for stories, rhymes and songs.

Library access is free to all British Columbians. We have 71 public libraries in our system. We have 247 library branch locations serving more than 360 B.C. communities. The emphasis for libraries to be accessible and welcoming is always part of the conversation as libraries continue to diversify their services and collections to support changing user and community needs.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Through a character in the story, the author of A Song of Ice and Fire, George R.R. Martin, says: “A reader lives a thousand lives before he dies. The man who never reads lives only one.” A strong and accessible library system is a cornerstone of a strong community.

[10:55 a.m.]

S. Cadieux: Thank you to the member for Burnaby–Deer Lake. Clearly, she has as much a love for libraries as I do and the same appreciation for the across-the-lifespan services that they do provide. But access to alternative-format materials has been a long-standing barrier for Canadians with print disabilities.

We know that approximately 80 percent of British Columbians with a print disability who reside in large urban areas have access to a collection of more than 500,000 titles through their public library’s agreement with CELA. That would include newspapers; magazines; and described videos and books in accessible formats including audio, Braille and e-text. But the approximately 20 percent of British Columbians in rural centres only have access to a collection of 14,000 titles through NNELS, the service that the provincial government subscribes to.

These NNELS services are almost exclusively digital. They do not offer home or wireless delivery, which in rural areas, you can imagine, becomes increasingly more important for people who are also struggling with a disability. Why is that discrepancy there? It’s because CELA’s services are subscription-based and libraries have to pay a fee, whereas the provincial government ensures that NNELS’ services are provided free to libraries in British Columbia.

One would think that the two services, NNELS and CELA, would coordinate. But in fact, they don’t. In fact, if a client contacts NNELS to get a book that isn’t available under the NNELS service, they will make that person wait until they produce the book, even if that title is already available through CELA. Given the fact that both are publicly funded services, and one would think that we are looking to maximize the availability of materials, this seems a bit wasteful and silly. It’s not to say that British Columbia residents with print disabilities don’t have access to books and reading materials at all. They do have some access. But it’s far from equitable, and it’s an issue that should be resolved.

In most parts of Canada, CELA services are funded by provincial or territorial governments. However in B.C., the CNIB has been subsidizing these library services since CELA was established. B.C. residents are now at risk of losing access to the CELA services that they rely on because the government has not come to the table with a funding agreement and instead leaves the decision to already struggling libraries to prioritize.

Recently a constituent of mine raised this issue with me. She’s a member of the Fraser Valley Library group. Thankfully, as of April 1, the Fraser Valley has joined CELA, so she has access. But many others are still at risk of losing access to that service that they rely on.

Certainly, my hope is that by bringing the issue to the House’s attention today, we can collectively ensure that this inequity is addressed.

Hon. B. Ralston: Debate on Motion 16.

Deputy Speaker: Hon. Members, unanimous consent of the House is required to proceed with Motion 16 without disturbing the priorities of the motions preceding it on the order paper.

Leave granted.

Private Members’ Motions

MOTION 16 — LABOUR RIGHTS
AND PROTECTIONS

D. Routley:

[Be it resolved that this House recognize the importance of labour rights and protections.]

The issue of labour rights and the issue of protections of workers is something that can stir a lot of debate that strays us far away from the topic and off into the relations between employers and employees. That is obviously an important part of this debate, but it’s not singularly important to the debate.

The debate around labour standards, I think, reflects the debate around other regulated functions in our society, like, for instance, my stepfather, who was a construction contractor. Now, if he followed the regulations, as he did, and disposed of construction waste properly and with a safe process — didn’t expose workers to asbestos, didn’t expose the environment to things like gypsum board drywall, instead paid the cost to take care of those properly — he was at a distinct competitive disadvantage to any employer who didn’t do that.

[11:00 a.m.]

The debate around labour rights and protection of workers brings a lot more into the conversation than simply workplace conditions. In fact, it’s a big public policy debate that really goes to the heart of issues such as professional reliance and the issues of whether or not we have adequate inspection in workplaces.

This government, the B.C. NDP government, has committed to reviewing the labour code to improve protections to workers. We will be updating employment standards. We are increasing safety compliance in workplaces, and we’re taking steps to protect temporary foreign workers. We’ve already taken steps to raise the minimum wage, which will create better conditions for workers.

When we look back, in British Columbia, to the history of worker safety and activism around protecting workers, a lot of it began in the riding that I represent. In the 1930s, the IWA established itself in the Cowichan Valley and Lake Cowichan areas and, in that decade between the ’30s and ’40s, fought the first battles for pay equity in this province. In the turn of the century, in the early 1900s in the Ladysmith area, there were very famous strikes of coal miners that led to violence, the introduction of Pinkerton security guards and the entire community, women and children, standing between the Pinkerton security guards and the striking workers.

So this early history of labour activism and the protection of workers and the protection of workers’ rights really began in the ridings that I have represented in my career in this House. And I’ve watched as the protection of workers extends throughout our society and our economy.

In the ’90s, computer monitors were unshielded and were found, after health and safety committee interventions in a workplace in Ontario, to be causing breast cancer. That led to the shielding in computer monitors, so it protected all Canadians and all people around the world. And that started in a workplace. In workplaces, we have seen the struggle to control the use of pesticides and the struggle to control and stop the use of toxins such as asbestos.

That’s a bit of the history of the importance of labour activism and how it has developed. But often we are presented with the argument that perhaps enough has been achieved. We only have to look to recent years to see that that is not the case. We still have a fight that, Madame Speaker, you’ve been closely involved in, and that is equity for women in the workplace. Pay equity is an important battle in protecting workers’ rights that has yet to be successfully completed, as is the freedom from harassment in workplaces.

When I look at the history of workers while I’ve been an MLA, and the tragedies that have happened around this province, the first one I think of is Ted Gramlich. He was a faller who died on November 19, 2005, about six months after I had been elected. I didn’t know him or his wife, Debbie Geddes, but I met her through the inquest into Ted’s death. The inquest revealed that he had died primarily because he bled to death on the side of a hill, with no safety plan in place. The coroner identified deregulation in the workplace as a contributory cause to his death.

It’s so important for all of us that we respect and protect workers’ safety.

D. Barnett: I am pleased to address this morning’s motion respecting the importance of labour rights and protections. Without question, we want to make sure that all workers are provided with premium safety standards. We must also ensure that labour rights are respected.

It has been our experience in this province that labour disruptions can be very costly to everyone. We know that a stable labour environment leads to greater investment over the long term. A safe work environment also contributes to greater productivity.

[11:05 a.m.]

Beginning in 2001, the B.C. Liberal government strengthened the role of the B.C. Labour Relations Board and gave them a new mandate with a stated goal of fostering employment and recognizing the rights of employees, trade unions and employers. In terms of safety, we took bold steps, between 2000 and 2014, that yielded positive results. Traumatic work-related death rates decreased by 32 percent, serious injury rates decreased by 24 percent, and injury rates decreased by 41 percent.

As you might be well aware, Madame Speaker, workers in my riding of the Cariboo-Chilcotin are closely tied to our resource and agriculture industries. As a matter of fact, many occupations carry the greatest safety risks associated with the ranching industry, the forest industry and the mining industry.

Workers are also subject to many external threats that are sometimes beyond their control. Last season’s wildfires are a prime example. The immediate threat was the advance of wildfires, but the consequences are having more lasting effects on workers in our industries.

In 100 Mile House, for example, a major wood manufacturer is telling its employees, its community, that it will be forced to temporarily suspend production at its local facility due to a lack of fibre. Damage from the wildfires, shutdowns in the forest and long time frames to obtain cutting permits have made it difficult to acquire enough lumber in stock for oriented strand board processing. The mill will, therefore, possibly suspend production for about a month in May. This will have a devastating effect on workers, their families, businesses, industries and communities.

If we are to better protect workers, we, as legislators, have a responsibility to ensure that companies depending on our forests have ready access to a long-term timber supply. There are lots of things we can do. This includes providing immediate access to timber damaged by pine beetle and wildfires. This wood has a shelf life and has to be harvested soon before it is no longer commercially viable. Jobs in my riding depend on it. I have informed the Forests Minister that I will sit down and provide whatever cooperation it takes to make this happen, but we have to act immediately. Workers in 100 Mile are depending on this. If we fail to act, other operations throughout the province may suffer a similar fate.

The key to all this is to ensure a stable and long-term fibre supply. We run into problems when operations have to rely on staggered supplies. We need to get forestry permits faster and with longer tenure. This is a difficult situation, and that’s why we need to act immediately.

Therefore, I call upon all members of this House to recognize the situation and better protect workers by acting immediately. How? Ensure that permitting processes for all industries and business in this province, especially in resource communities and resource industries, become time-effective, cost-effective and less cumbersome.

M. Elmore: I’m very pleased to rise and speak in favour of the motion from the member for Nanaimo–North Cowichan: “Be it resolved that this House recognize the importance of labour rights and protections” of workers here in B.C.

When we think about what is involved in terms of labour rights and protections, generally it’s laws and regulations in our labour code and in employment standards; WorkSafe B.C., which deals with workers’ safety and the ability to be covered in the event of a workplace injury; concerns around temporary foreign workers; and also the minimum wage. These are some of the areas where, provincially, we have jurisdiction. That’s an important role for our government and the Legislature to play — to ensure that workers in our province are treated fairly, that their rights are protected and, also, that a balanced view is taken.

I want to start off by looking at the context that we’re coming into over the last 16 years of the previous government. In terms of the labour code and collective bargaining rights…. The previous Liberal government passed labour laws that were struck down in the courts as violations of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That’s the record. In 2002…. This is when I first got involved around workers’ rights issues, supporting workers who had lost their jobs and the tearing up of the contracts of Hospital Employees Union workers.

[11:10 a.m.]

It was the infamous Bill 29 that tore up contracts. It was the largest firing of predominantly immigrant women in the country — a firing of unionized hospital workers in 2002, which contributed, also, to worsening patient care. It was declared…. In 2007, the Supreme Court struck down that law, saying that it violated Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That tearing up of contracts of the HEU was struck down by the Supreme Court.

Also, tearing up contracts for teachers was struck down by the Supreme Court, finding, as well, that the previous government had illegally tried to instigate a strike to force the hand and to gain support in terms of bringing in even more draconian legislation. That’s the record in terms of the labour code.

Our government has pledged that British Columbians should have the same rights and protections enjoyed by other Canadians, and we are committed to reviewing the labour code to ensure that workplaces support a growing, sustainable economy with fair laws for workers and businesses.

In February, our government appointed a three-person panel to review the labour code, the labour relations code, and consult with British Columbians. Written submissions have come in, and the review panel is now holding regional meetings across the province. That’s in terms of the labour code, then and now.

In terms of employment standards, our government is committed to updating employment standards to reflect the changing nature of workplaces and ensure that they’re applied openly and evenly and that they’re enforced. We know that the record of the previous government leaves something to be desired in terms of their record on employment standards. The Employment Standards Act, in 2002, slashed protections for non-unionized workers, and that disproportionately impacted 80 percent of workers who are not in unions.

We, as well, saw that it was more difficult for folks who had complaints to get those complaints resolved. They moved to a complaint-driven process and a self-help kit. As well, the previous government fired one-third of the staff of the employment standards branch and closed half of the branch offices. That’s the previous record in terms of employment standards. Our government is now committed to looking at how we update our employment standards to ensure that they meet the needs and concerns that are being faced today.

Worker safety and WorkSafe. Our government has made the commitment to ensure that WorkSafe increases compliance with employment laws and standards and that standards are put in place to protect the lives and safety of workers. We have also increased the annual funding for the workers adviser office and employers adviser office to help workers and employers navigate the workers compensation process.

G. Kyllo: Outside Itasca State Park in Minnesota, there is a sign that reads: “In life, as in baseball, it is the number of times you reach home safely that counts.”

Members on this side of the House have backed up that sentiment over the past decade and a half by bolstering worker protection regulations and supporting industries that are exposed to particular risks and hazards. We have spent a lot of time developing a proud history of working hard to ensure that no matter what industry you work in, your workplace is safe, and that more British Columbians are able to get home safely.

Now, while some may label labour laws and protections as regulatory and bureaucratic irritations, they serve an incredibly important purpose. They ensure that businesses in our province are held to a high standard and are providing workplace environments that are fair and secure for all.

Beginning in 2001, members on this side of the House strengthened the role of the B.C. Labour Relations Board. From there, we went on to make education an essential service. Secret ballots were re-established to prevent potential bullying of the unionization process. Sadly, the current NDP government is considering stripping this fundamental right from B.C. workers — truly a draconian consideration.

[11:15 a.m.]

Now, your B.C. Liberal government set time standards in 2008 on the Labour Relations Board so that they would have to issue decisions on applications and complaints within a reasonable time frame. Last year, we banned mandatory high heels in all B.C. workplaces, ensuring that we as a province are continually moving towards safety and true equality for women in the workplace.

Our long record of safety improvements has paid dividends in the health and well-being of countless British Columbians. Between 2000 and 2014, traumatic work-related death rates decreased by 32 percent, serious injury rates decreased by 24 percent, and injury rates decreased by 41 percent. Now, while statistics are nice and good policy helps to drive worker protections, more can always be done.

I had the privilege of speaking on behalf of the province of B.C. at the National Day of Mourning at Jack Poole Plaza in Vancouver over the last few years. It was a very humbling and sombre occasion. The event is to honour those whose lives were tragically cut short or changed forever by injury in the workplace. Those that have lost their lives in workplace accidents are our mothers, fathers, our wives, our husbands, daughters and sons — those who we’ll always hold very dear to our heart. This year’s event is set for April 28 with ceremonies all across B.C. and Canada.

We must all work together in our workplace and our communities to build a culture of safety that makes workplace tragedies a thing of the past. Friday’s deadly bus crash has sent shock and grief through the community of Humboldt, the hockey world and our country and is a tragic reminder to all of just how our lives can be changed in an instant.

Now, we know that safety begins long before anyone leaves for work. Safety starts in the training field and in the classroom. To that end, members on this side of the House made record investments in skills training, ensuring that the graduates not only had a competitive advantage but also were prepared for whatever potential safety challenges the workplace may throw upon them.

In March of 2017, the government of the day helped to provide 16 weeks of paid training in the forest sector and ten weeks of on-the-job work experience with local forest operators to prepare them for full-time employment. This opportunity not only helped a brand-new set of forest workers take their first steps into the industry but ensured that they had the knowledge to stay safe on the job, giving them the tools they need for a lengthy career.

Since 2013, our province has been at a labour peace in both the private and public sectors, and that has been no small feat. As we press forward as a province, I hope that members on both sides of the House will continue to strive to make B.C. a safe place for all to work.

B. D’Eith: We all know the famous quote by George Santayana: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” I think it’s really important for us to first look at the history of this issue and many of the things we actually take for granted in regards to labour rights and protections.

We go back to 1872 where the Toronto printers pushed for a nine-hour workday. They were working over ten hours a day, and union actions were illegal. From this, it led to John A. Macdonald creating the Trade Unions Act, and we actually celebrate this today with Labour Day throughout Canada. Now we take for granted that an eight-hour workday and a 40-hour workweek are normal.

During the depression, the government set up camps, and Vancouver workers actually abandoned the camps because they were so substandard, and they couldn’t make ends meet. They took it to Ottawa. This led to unemployment insurance in 1940, and now EI has become a vital economic stabilizer in the past three recessions.

In the ’60s, the push for safety in the work…. In 1960 there were five Italian workers who died in Toronto in extremely unsafe working environments in a tunnel. This was the catalyst that led to the Industrial Safety Act in Ontario and, of course, later to our Employment Standards Act.

In ’65, unions pushed for public service to receive decent pay, benefits and pensions, but they had to fight long and hard for those gains. It’s hard to believe that it was only in 1971 that paid maternity leave was brought in, and that has actually put more women into the workforce than many other things in the past.

Looking at this past, what did the B.C. Liberals do over the 16 years when they were in power? Well, as far as the labour code and the collective bargaining, they actually made it harder for workers to organize, and it actually led to the biggest falloff in unionization in the country. Labour laws were struck down in the courts as violations of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We have the HEU workers and the B.C. teachers. In fact, we had one of the longest strikes in B.C. history that was precipitated by the B.C. Liberals. Both of those actions were struck down by the Supreme Court of Canada.

[11:20 a.m.]

Employment standards. When the B.C. Liberals made changes to the Employment Standards Act in 2002, they slashed protections to non-unionized workers whose employment standards are set by the act — representing more than 80 percent of workers who are not in unions. The B.C. Liberal government cut resources to employment standards and left workers to fend for themselves while they faced unscrupulous employers.

As far as worker safety and WorkSafe B.C., the B.C. Liberal government created a system that’s designed to deny benefits to injured workers. The B.C. Liberal government neglect, actually weakening workplace safety enforcement, resulted in the deaths of four workers in the Babine and the Lakeland sawmill explosions and, in fact, set it up so that there was an inability to hold anyone accountable for that.

Temporary foreign workers. The B.C. Liberal government failed to monitor compliance with the requirements of the temporary foreign workers program, leading to abuse of foreign workers — and the abuse of the program by employers — who came to use it.

The minimum wage. The B.C. Liberal government left the province with the highest level of worker poverty in the country. Even for people who had jobs, many of them weren’t able to even live above the poverty line. The previous government left more people living paycheque to paycheque and relying on payday loans and food banks.

As Canadians and B.C.’ers, we’ve benefited from labour rights and protections. From the number of working hours to EI to worker safety to maternity leave to fair wages, benefits and pensions and so much more, our government respects the labour rights and protections that so many people fought for — and so many people actually died for — and rejects the previous government’s continued attempts to erode workers’ rights, to rip up collectively bargained agreements, to reduce safety compliance and to keep people working below the poverty line.

I’m very excited that the Minister of Labour is being tasked with strengthening the labour code, updating employment standards, increasing safety compliance, making conditions better for foreign workers and increasing the minimum wage to bring many people out of poverty. It’s time that we had a government that not only respects labour rights and protections, but actually makes life better for working people in this province.

B. Stewart: It’s a pleasure and an honour to be here to speak in support of the labour rights and protections in British Columbia in this motion. This subject has been on my mind lately because I had an opportunity to participate in the labour code review in Kelowna recently. We had some great discussions, and it made me think about how far we’d come.

Back when I was young, working with my father and the workers on our farm, we didn’t have the same protections as we do today. Today we have a full human resource department, and that’s something that is unimaginable by many farmers back in my father’s era and even in my own.

But the rights and protections that labourers and employees have today don’t just benefit workers. They also benefit the employers and the business as a whole. When a company invests in its employees, providing skills training, vehicle certification and benefits, you have a better environment for everyone and higher worker retention and loyalty.

Employees are more valued by employers, I’d say, today than they’ve been in a long time. But ten or 30 or 40 years ago, it was something that maybe these remarks that are coming from the members opposite are relating to, the fact that employees were maybe taken advantage of. We’ve worked really hard to make certain that the playing field is level for everyone.

This strengthening of the employer and employee relationship is a major factor in the historically low unemployment rates we now have in British Columbia. Over a decade and a half ago, our B.C. Liberal government strengthened the role of the B.C. Labour Relations Board in setting their new goal of fostering employment of workers in economically viable businesses and to recognize the rights of employees, trade unions and employers.

When I was a kid, farmworkers laboured away on open tractors and may have even been working hands-on with potentially toxic and deadly chemicals. Don’t forget that the use of DDT was only suspended in Canada in 1995, and existing stocks were permitted until the end of 1990.

Recently my farm invested in a new tractor. Mr. Speaker, are you aware of the quality standards of what these new tractors bring for our workers? They’re closed cabins with NIOSH filtration, heating and air conditioning, and rollover protection systems for added safety. We believe it is important to make sure that all workers — every mom, dad, sibling, spouse, friend — make it home each and every night.

[11:25 a.m.]

Our former government’s commitment to work with unions, employers, workers and WorkSafe B.C. to keep workers safe was exemplary, and we continue to advocate for worker safety. I do so from a position of principle and from experience in British Columbia’s agricultural industry, where safety is our top priority.

We know that safety starts before workers ever step onto a site. The previous B.C. Liberal government invested record amounts in skills training to provide the experience and the abilities necessary to maintain a safe workplace, and WorkSafe B.C. doubled the number of officers dedicated to the agricultural sector to enforce the protection of farmworkers in B.C. The B.C. Liberal government made great strides in increasing farm safety. We created an interagency agricultural compliance committee to support an integrated approach to farmworker safety and to ensure that the rights and safety of workers in the agricultural sector are protected.

We amended the Motor Vehicle Act to allow the government to act swiftly and strongly against those designated inspection facilities that do not perform inspection to standards. We changed the Employment Standards Act to hold farm labour contractors accountable for safe transportation of their employees. We’ve changed the Employment Standards Act and the Motor Vehicle Act to make seatbelts mandatory for all passenger vehicles and 15-passenger vans and to require a notice in each vehicle stating driver, seating and seatbelt requirements.

The injury rate in agriculture alone decreased from 5 percent in 2000 to 2.6 percent in 2013. And between 2000 and 2014, traumatic work death rates decreased by 32 percent, serious injury rates decreased by 24 percent, and injury rates decreased by 41 percent. In fact, all work-related deaths in B.C. decreased by 42 percent from 1990 till 2014. We have a proud record of standing up for workers and ensuring that everyone is treated fairly and equitably in British Columbia, which….

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.

R. Leonard: I appreciate the opportunity to address the motion, by the member for Nanaimo–North Cowichan, on recognizing the importance of worker rights and protections.

Now 107 years ago on March 25, the Triangle Shirtwaist factory fire in New York City killed 145 workers, mostly young immigrant girls. These young girls were unorganized, isolated by language, exploited by their vulnerable economic circumstances and working at great risk. Despite full awareness of the dangerous conditions and the threat of fire, nothing was done until tragedy struck.

The public outrage that ensued brought 80,000 people onto the streets demanding change. It was a defining moment in history for worker safety. It drove legislative change, systemic change instituting protections like fire prevention laws, improved labour codes so that unsafe working conditions could be addressed and workers’ rights enforced, and of course, it galvanized workers to unite to put power behind their demands for their safety and well-being on the job.

We know that this one catastrophe was only the beginning. Over a century has rolled by, and workers’ rights and protections have felt the changing fortunes of time.

Let’s look at today’s circumstances. I refer to points raised in an article written by Jock Finlayson for the Business Council of B.C. in 2015. Along with globalization, he highlighted today’s changing demographics, technological innovation, changing business practices and the structure of employment as contributing to a less organized labour force — in other words, compromising the ability of workers to assert their rights and protections.

Four out of five private sector workers in B.C. must rely on the minimum standards and protections afforded in the Employment Standards Act. Who are these workers that are now more vulnerable to being treated unfairly or having their health and safety compromised? They can be full-time employees, but often they work part-time or in temporary positions, or they work on contract as freelancers or in self-employed positions. They are likely to work in the service sector, especially small operations, or for high-tech start-ups.

[11:30 a.m.]

How does the Employment Standards Act stand up against the 1911 watershed moment in workers’ rights and protections? It would be nice if we could say we’ve come a long way. But have we?

It didn’t take long before the previous B.C. Liberal government began its slash-and-burn program against workers’ rights and protections, in 2002. As stated earlier, they reduced the number of offices across the province and staffing, despite the number of workers in B.C. increasing by 23 percent and the number of employers by 25 percent.

Where every complaint was investigated before the B.C. Liberals took office in 2001, they swiftly brought in legislation that watered down the process. Workers must use a self-help kit, which has resulted in a great reduction of complaints. Rather, with the complicated process, there are improper supports which intimidate people and have become a barrier to justice for the most vulnerable workers.

Proactive enforcement and unannounced inspections have been abandoned. The act is now rife with exemptions of occupations and exclusions to rules.

Despite the challenges for workers in today’s marketplace, the previous government stated that they had no intention of changing employment standards in the foreseeable future. With workers losing out on wages and minimum benefits afforded to only some, and other violations of worker rights and protections, life is far from affordable and is lacking in the services they need to ensure fairness and safety in the workplace.

It is no wonder the mandate letter of the new Minister of Labour calls for an increase to compliance with the employment laws and to put in place standards to protect the lives and safety of workers. Our government has begun this work, already increasing the funding for assistance to both workers and employers to navigate the workers compensation process.

The mandate also calls for an update to employment standards to reflect the changing nature of workplaces and ensure they are evenly applied and enforced. We can make B.C. a workplace of choice in the world.

R. Sultan: I want to thank the member for Nanaimo–North Cowichan for bringing forward this very important motion today. I’m no stranger to workplace accidents, some of them catastrophically fatal. My father-in-law was killed trying to control a runaway logging truck at Brown’s Bay. At Jervis Inlet, I carried my brother-in-law, a seriously injured faller, out of the woods on a stretcher.

What was our government’s safety record when we ran the show not so long ago? On our watch between 2000 and 2014, traumatic work-related death rates decreased by 32 percent. Serious injury rates decreased by 24 percent, and injury rates, overall, decreased by 41 percent. Under the mandates from both sides of this House measuring from 1990 to 2014, B.C.’s work-related deaths decreased by 42 percent. I think that’s an extraordinarily wonderful accomplishment.

How did our government help achieve this goal? Well, we strengthened the Workers Compensation Act, enhancing workplace safety with new enforcement tools. We implemented Grant’s Law, requiring a prepayment at gas stations to protect worker safety. This led to regulations for working alone and in isolation, giving retail workers added protection when working late at night.

With the BCNU, we spent $4 million for violence prevention in ten priority hospitals, since hospitals had become among our most dangerous workplaces. We expanded presumptive health coverage for firefighters. WorkSafe B.C. doubled the number of officers dedicated to the protection of farm workers. The injury rate in agriculture was cut in half. We changed the Employment Standards Act to hold the farm labour contractors accountable for safe transportation of employees. So it goes, a commendable and necessary commitment to worker safety.

[11:35 a.m.]

Turning to worker rights, there have been no strikes since 2013 — neither public nor private sectors. That speaks for itself, in my view. We shall see how this new government performs. Beginning in 2001, the government strengthened the role of the B.C. Labour Relations Board with a new mandate to foster the employment of workers in economically viable businesses and better defining the rights of employees, trade unions and employers. The secret ballot in the unionization process was re-established to prevent bullying and intimidation in the workplace.

Surely this government does not plan to turn back the clock in a retrograde fashion. Our new leader’s platform emphasized safety and true equality for all women. No person should ever have to endure harassment or assault. All persons should be unquestionably safe in their workplaces, schools and communities. Yet as the vast outpouring of #MeToo survivors demonstrated, we all have a lot of unfinished business here.

If this side were government, I believe that we would extend the Sexual Violence and Misconduct Policy Act to the entire public sector. As British Columbia’s largest employer, government has the largest responsibility to ensure automatic termination when allegations of sexual harassment are proven to be true. We must also ensure equal representation of women in all of the senior positions in government.

I have not looked at the stats in detail, but let me give you some impressions. It would not surprise me to find significant backsliding in this regard. If true, it would be truly regrettable, given the present government’s posturing on this issue.

R. Kahlon: I would like to thank the member for Nanaimo–North Cowichan for bringing forth this important motion: “Be it resolved that this House recognize the importance of labour rights and protections.”

When I was thinking about this topic, I thought of the old quote that many folks in labour use: “We want for others what we want for ourselves.” We look back at the history of the labour movement and working people across this province, and many of the things that we maybe take for granted now, that we’ve gotten through hard, hard work and the commitment of workers…. Obviously, minimum wage is one of those pieces. I’m proud of our government’s commitment to bring the minimum wage up to $15.20 by 2021.

Overtime pay. I know that some members of this House wish that there was some overtime pay for the long hours they put in here. But overtime pay was an important thing that was brought in by workers, pushing governments to bring it into place.

Workplace safety and standards. I’ll touch on that a little bit later. Maternity and parental leave. I think we’re fortunate to have the levels we do. I think there are some improvements that certainly need to be made on that side, and I’m looking forward to that as well. Vacation pay. And something that is really important is protection from discrimination and harassment.

I just want to touch on one of the important things that’s happened in the last 16 years. I know the members opposite share one side of that story, and I’d like to share another side of the story. That was when the government passed Bill 29. This law excluded health and community social workers from labour laws and the same protections that workers had in this province. It’s something that I know the members didn’t mention, but I want to make sure I highlight it.

It was the biggest mass layoff — as someone mentioned, of mostly immigrant workers — the largest in Canadian history. Over 8,000 workers were laid off. That’s significant for me because my mom was one of those people. Often people talk about legislation and talk about numbers and stats, but these are real people that have families.

[11:40 a.m.]

Often when we talk about Bill 29, we talk about it as a bill. We talk about it as legislation. But real families are affected by it. Our family was affected by it. My mom lost her job. It was a very tough time for my family. I was lucky that I was at the age where I could work and help, and my sister could work and help. But it was hard for my mom. Going out and finding jobs that were paying 30 percent, 40 percent less than what she had was a big setback, and not only for her and for her peers.

It’s a big reason why I’m here. It’s a big reason why I’m on this side of the House. Members on this side of the House stood in this chamber, speaking all night and raising the issues of workers throughout this province. I thank them all for that.

The other piece I want to talk about…. Members have talked about the amazing record that they claim to have on worker safety. Well, we had two major mill explosions in this province where workers died. When I started working here at the Legislature, one of the first things that I actually worked on was this file. It sticks with me to this day. I was asked to travel to Burns Lake and meet with the families — in particular, Maureen Luggi — and some of the folks who were injured, and Ken Michell, who I think is watching today. I travelled up there.

It was one of the hardest things, to that point, that I had done, sitting down with Maureen Luggi as she cried on my shoulder, talking about her last conversation with her husband. He basically said to her, “Pray for me. There’s something wrong” — and then the phone hanging up, and then her mad panic to get to the mill, only to find out that there was an explosion. It was followed by another explosion in Prince George, where more workers were injured, and then I travelled up to Prince George to talk to the workers that survived that.

Hon. Speaker, we have a lot more to do. The red light is on. I thank you for your time.

J. Martin: I’m very pleased to rise in the House and speak to this motion regarding labour rights and protections. I acknowledge my colleague across the table for raising this topic.

As Labour critic for the official opposition, I join him and others in recognizing the importance of labour rights and protections in the workplace. A strong workforce is vital for the province’s economic success. After all, it’s the hard work of each and every British Columbian that ensures that government can invest in our province and the social services that we all rely on.

Because I recognize the importance of hard-working British Columbians, I do have concerns with some of the government’s plans around labour reform. In Canada, workers have the right to organize. It’s protected under our constitution, and this will never be in question. However, this government has indicated it wants to change the way worker organization happens. Currently, unions are certified by secret ballot. The secret ballot is an enduring regularity, and it is a staple of every democratic country and institution. Unions have long followed certification by way of a secret ballot. Workers weigh the pros and cons of joining a union, and they cast their individual ballot accordingly in privacy, as is the norm in a democratic institution.

However, the Premier has said he favours a card-check system, telling the Vancouver Sun and Province editorial board: “I believe that the right to join a union is a fundamental right in Canada, and I believe card check is an appropriate way for that to happen.”

Well, under a card-check system, a majority of workers simply have to sign union cards in order to certify a union. The system theoretically makes it easier for workers to organize, but there are significant problems with this. We’ve heard from groups such as the Independent Contractors and Business Association that this will diminish workers rights and democracy in the workplace and could also lead to bullying and intimidation.

Under the card-check system, employees’ decisions about whether or not to organize are public, and as such, employees may be subject to pressure.

[11:45 a.m.]

A total of 13 business organizations, including the B.C. Chamber of Commerce, the Independent Contractors and Businesses Association, the Greater Vancouver Board of Trade and the Urban Development Institute, among others, have expressed grave concerns about the government’s potential changes to the labour code — pointing to a long period of labour peace and stability our province has recently seen as evidence that the current system is quite functional.

To add to the potential for concern, we’ve seen how the card-check system has been playing out next door in Alberta. In September of last year, the new Alberta government changed the way unions are certified, carrying out the same kind of changes that our own government is looking to in British Columbia. We’ve already seen the fallout of that.

Workers from ICON West Construction in Calgary, who are believed to be the first workers in Alberta to certify a union under the new system, have reported being tricked into signing union certification cards. One worker, a recent immigrant to Canada, told the Calgary Herald that a union official approached him, saying that he owes in the neighbourhood of $250 in past dues, but that his debt could be forgotten if he paid $2. While he was told the signature he provided would be used for a receipt, he says it was actually used to sign him up for the union. The worker spoke anonymously for fear of repercussions.

There are dangers in the card-check system. It is the early days in Alberta, and so far, we have great areas for concern.

Clearly, the government must walk back from the desire to disband the secret ballot. Bullying, intimidation, coercion and thuggery have no place in Canadian society, and the worksite must never, ever become the exception.

J. Routledge: I’m very pleased to have this opportunity to speak to this motion.

I thank the mover of the motion for, in his opening comments, making the specific connection between gender equality and labour rights and protections. It’s in that context that I’d like to make my comments.

A few years ago, I found myself in Iceland. The very first day there I ended up having a lovely meal in one of the best restaurants in Reykjavik. When the bill came, we realized that we hadn’t taken the time to find out what the local tipping policy was, so we asked our server. I remember she laughed, and she said: “Well, you know, here in Iceland, we make pretty good wages, so we don’t actually tip. But we know that tourists do. So if you feel a need to tip, we’re just going to put it in a pool and have a big party every so often.”

Well, I’m really glad that I asked, because I’ve since learned that tipping in Iceland is an insult, as it is in many other parts of the world. In fact, nowhere in the world is tipping embedded in the pay structure to the same degree that it is in North America.

Like many women, I did my stint as a server when I was young. Like many women, I had, when I was in high school, worked in retail part time, but it just didn’t pay enough to get me through university. With tips, I could earn almost enough to pay for tuition and my share of room and board. It was not lost on me, at 19 years of age, that while I was scraping by on tips, the boys in my class were making better money working in construction. Some of them could even go out to the oil fields in the summer.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

I remember one summer. I was working down east at a nightclub that had a floor show. It was a pretty popular place to celebrate big events like birthdays and retirements. You could make good money on a large party, but you needed to, because a large party could occupy your entire section for the whole night. I can’t tell you how many times, at the end of a long, hard shift, the guy paying the bill for maybe 20 customers would leave the same tip he would’ve left had he come in by himself for a quick drink and thought he was being very generous.

Another summer, I was working in another part of the country. One night a drunk tried to follow me home. I don’t know what would have happened had a couple of Good Samaritans not intervened.

I put up with it. Why? I believed it was temporary, and it was a means to an end, and because it was my only option if I was going to make it through university.

[11:50 a.m.]

Recently I met a woman in her mid to late 40s who had been a cocktail waitress for more than 20 years. She’d always made good money. She’d always had control over her life. But now, all of a sudden, she couldn’t find work in her field. She no longer fit the image. She doesn’t qualify for EI because she did what she’d been doing for 20 years. She quit her job confident she’d find another one. More than 80 percent of food and beverage servers in B.C. are women, and most are paid a minimum wage and expected to achieve a living wage by topping up their paycheques with tips.

Now, many of the previous speakers across the aisle have been commending themselves for standing up for workers’ rights. But I would like to remind us that that government institutionalized the practice of customers becoming responsible for a percentage of servers’ wages when they instituted the lower minimum wage for liquor servers, thus, by doing so, making the economic security of many women even more dependent on tips, more dependent on the way they look and more dependent on the way they dress and even the way they entertain their customers.

It makes women more vulnerable to sexual harassment. It sexualizes their workplaces. It’s not uncommon for women servers to be told by customers to “play nice,” because if they don’t play nice, they don’t get paid.

To conclude, I did a bit of research about the history of tipping. It is believed to have started in Tudor England when overnight guests in private homes would leave token amounts for their hosts’ servants — that’s right, their servants. We live in a proudly egalitarian society in Canada today. We believe we have eliminated the class system. The women who serve us our food and beverages in restaurants and bars throughout this province are not our servants. They are our equals, and they deserve to be treated that way.

J. Routledge moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. B. Ralston moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 11:52 a.m.