Fourth Session, 41st Parliament (2019)
OFFICIAL REPORT
OF DEBATES
(HANSARD)
Thursday, March 7, 2019
Morning Sitting
Issue No. 217
ISSN 1499-2175
The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.
The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.
CONTENTS
| Routine Business | |
Office of the Ombudsperson, special report, Committed to Change: Protecting
the Rights of Involuntary Patients | |
| Orders of the Day | |
| Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room | |
THURSDAY, MARCH 7, 2019
The House met at 10:06 a.m.
[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]
Routine Business
Prayers.
Introductions by Members
Mr. Speaker: Minister of Health.
Hon. A. Dix: Thank you very much, hon. Speaker, or I should say, M. le Président. Aujourd’hui nous célébrons la Journée de la francophonie. B.C. Francophonie Day, we’re celebrating today. We have important guests in the gallery: Marie-Nicole Dubois, the vice-president of la Fédération des francophones de la Colombie-Britannique; Maurice Guibord, president of the Société historique francophone de la Colombie-Britannique; and Suzanne Jacob, president of the Société de développement économique de la Colombie-Britannique. They’ll be joining us today in celebrating B.C. Francophonie Day.
Our theme today is “Honouring B.C. francophone history.” It will happen today at noon in the Hall of Honour. Of course, everybody is welcome.
J’invite tous et toutes les députés à se joindre à moi pour souhaiter la bienvenue à tout le monde qui participe à ces événements aujourd’hui.
[I invite all the members to join me in welcoming everyone who is participating in these events today.]
[French text and translation provided by Hon. A. Dix.]
Hon. K. Chen: I’m so honoured to have the opportunity to introduce two very special guests who are in the gallery here today: Anne and Phillip Bailey, who are from the constituency of Burnaby-Lougheed. They’re in town for the B.C. Building Trades conference, because Phillip is a lifetime honorary member of the Building Trades.
This morning I had the great opportunity to show them around the Legislature. They were sharing stories of how they worked hard for the 1972 Dave Barrett campaign. Anne later on became the CA for Rosemary Brown, and she was also a Burnaby school trustee for two terms.
I’m so honoured to have them here, and I really want to thank them for always sharing the stories and their wisdom with me. I would like to ask all the members in this House to make them feel really welcome.
Mr. Speaker: Kelowna–Lake Country.
N. Letnick: Merci, M. le Président. Je veux aussi dire que c’est la Journée de la francophonie, donner mes félicitations au ministre de la santé pour son français et aussi dire merci à tous les gens qui sont venus pour faire partie de cette journée ici avec nous. Vous êtes très bienvenus, et j’ai hâte que tout le monde ici, tous les députés, vous souhaite la bienvenu à midi. Merci beaucoup.
[Thank you, hon. Speaker. I would also like to say that today is Francophonie Day, congratulate the Minister of Health on his French and also thank all the people who have come to take part in this day with us. You are very welcome, and I look forward to everyone here, all the members, welcoming you at noon. Thank you very much.]
Will everybody please help them feel very welcome.
[French text and translation provided by N. Letnick.]
R. Chouhan: We have four staff from the Legislative Library with us today in the gallery: Megan Laflin, Katey Stickle, Alieda Blandford and Wiebke Imsel. These and all of the staff are always so keen to help us. I want to say thank you for the wonderful support that they have provided to all members. Please join me to give them a warm welcome.
J. Thornthwaite: I have some very special guests today. I’ve got quite a few grade 9 students from Argyle Secondary, which is in my riding in North Vancouver. I would wish that the House would welcome the students and their teachers when they arrive.
Introduction and
First Reading of Bills
BILL M206 — RESIDENTIAL TENANCY
AMENDMENT ACT, 2019
A. Weaver presented a bill intituled Residential Tenancy Amendment Act, 2019.
A. Weaver: I move a bill intituled Residential Tenancy Amendment Act, 2019, of which notice has been given in my name on the order paper, be now read a first time.
This bill amends the Residential Tenancy Act to provide tenants with the ability to end their fixed-term lease if staying in their rental unit is a threat to their safety or security. It broadens the somewhat constraining family violence provisions introduced by the B.C. Liberal government in 2015 and gives, for example, a tenant exposed to sexualized violence by a roommate or a neighbour the right to break their lease so they can move to a safer home.
A new term “occupant violence” is defined in the bill and makes it explicit that the regulations listing which professionals and practitioners are authorized to provide a confirmation statement about family violence have the same powers in cases involving occupant violence.
The written third-party verification can be provided by police, listed medical practitioners, counsellors, First Nations support workers, victim support workers, among others. Having regulations that extend verification powers beyond law enforcement is vital, as not all survivors will be able or willing to involve the police.
In cases of domestic violence, risk of injury or death can actually increase if a violent partner learns their spouse has contacted police or is planning on leaving. Having a range of professionals able to vouch for victims will allow them to choose the safest option for their situations.
The previous B.C. Liberal government did a superb job with the development of these regulations. “Sexual abuse” is explicitly listed under occupant violence. “Sexual abuse” is used rather than “sexual assault” or “violence” because it aligns with and is already defined in existing laws, such as the Adult Guardianship Act and because it is a broader term that includes sexual assault and sexualized violence.
By using the word “including” before the list of crimes covered by occupant violence, the law is kept inclusive of a range of situations that could fit the broader intent, rather than explicitly specifying which situations would be covered.
No one should be forced to live in close proximity to their perpetrator. This bill supports survivors.
Mr. Speaker: The question is first reading of the bill.
Motion approved.
A. Weaver: I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
Bill M206, Residential Tenancy Amendment Act, 2019, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
BILL 15 — AGRICULTURAL LAND
COMMISSION AMENDMENT ACT,
2019
Hon. L. Popham presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Agricultural Land Commission Amendment Act, 2019.
Hon. L. Popham: I move that the bill be introduced and read for a first time now.
I’m pleased to introduce Bill 15, the Agricultural Land Commission Amendment Act, 2019. Bill 15 will strengthen the governance and independence of the Agricultural Land Commission. This bill is the second part of a two-phase legislative initiative to revitalize the agricultural land reserve and the Agricultural Land Commission, one of my mandate letter commitments.
This second suite of amendments we’ll introduce now focuses on the Agricultural Land Commission. This bill will strengthen the independence of the commission and improves the governance structure, enabling it to better advance its important mandate to preserve farmland and encourage farming and ranching in the agricultural land reserve.
The amendments in this bill will do this through five key changes. The first is to strengthen the independence of the commission by replacing the current ALC governance model of an executive committee and six regional panels with one commission, maintaining regional representation by requiring membership from all six administrative regions.
The second change will provide the chair of the commission with more flexibility to organize its members into a decision-making panel on applications by topic, technical expertise or administrative region.
Thirdly, this bill creates new decision-making criteria that prioritizes the protection and enhancement of the size, integrity and continuity of the land base when the commission is considering exercising any power or performing a duty under the Agricultural Land Commission Act.
Fourthly, we’re adding more compliance and enforcement capacity and tools, including a new offence for landowners who do not produce records when the Agricultural Land Commission orders.
Finally, the new bill will require that exclusion applications be submitted to the commission only by local governments, First Nations governments or the province to encourage these types of applications to be done as part of a thoughtful land use planning process in order to further limit speculation on farmland and to protect the ALR.
Together these five changes will strengthen the governance and independence of the Agricultural Land Commission.
Mr. Speaker: The question is first reading of the bill.
Motion approved.
Hon. L. Popham: I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
Bill 15, Agricultural Land Commission Amendment Act, 2019, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
Statements
(Standing Order 25B)
INTERNATIONAL WOMEN’S DAY
AND WOMEN’S
EMPOWERMENT
J. Isaacs: March 8 is International Women’s Day, and the theme for this year’s campaign, “Balance for better,” is one that certainly resonates with me.
As an entrepreneur, politician, wife and mother, I am constantly looking for the balance between these roles, and I know I’m not the only woman who is challenged with navigating multiple roles, wearing many different hats and attempting to find a healthy balance. It’s a challenge to thrive professionally and personally, especially when faced with daily trials and unexpected events that can sometimes make us feel like the deck might be stacked against us.
That’s why this year’s theme of “Balance for better” is so important. Women around the globe are making great strides to take their rightful place in society. While there is still work to do, women are empowering themselves to be the best that they can be, striving for that balance that betters their lives.
I’m proud to recognize the achievements from the women who came before us and their tireless campaign for equality — equal opportunity for women, equal pay, equal representation and gender equality. British Columbia was the fourth Canadian province to extend voting rights to women, and in January 1918, Mary Ellen Smith became the first British Columbian woman elected to the Legislative Assembly.
Today 34 of the 87 seats are occupied by women. These women are great role models for young women who may one day want to enter public office, and they have been an instrumental part in making the Legislature more inclusive.
Great progress has been made here in British Columbia, but it takes genuine collaboration between men and women for true balance to be achieved. I know my colleagues and the MLAs from both sides of the House look forward to finding more ways to create balance here in the Legislature and in everyday life.
FARMWORKER SAFETY AND MEMORIAL
R. Chouhan: Twelve years ago on March 7, three women farmworkers were killed in a preventable accident on Highway 1 near Chilliwack.
Sarabjit Sidhu, Sukhwinder Punia and Amarjit Bal, along with 14 other farmworkers, were driven to work in an over-packed van. This van had no proper seats, no seatbelts, and the tires were completely bald. The driver didn’t even have the proper driver’s licence. Following this terrible accident, the coroner’s inquest made 20 recommendations to improve transportation of farmworkers. Unfortunately, some of those key recommendations were ignored by the authorities.
The victims’ families, the B.C. Federation of Labour, the Progressive Intercultural Society and many other individuals raised funds to create the Golden Tree Monument in the memory of the three farmworkers. This beautiful 24-foot-high golden tree is installed at the Abbotsford Public Library. Last Saturday over 100 people held the annual candlelight vigil at this monument to remember these women and to raise awareness about workplace safety on our farms. While we remember these farmworkers, we hope all 20 recommendations are implemented to avoid any more catastrophic accidents in the future.
Next time you are in Abbotsford, please visit this memorial to pay your respects to these farmworkers and remember how hard these workers work to put food on our tables.
COWBOY HERITAGE WEEK
D. Barnett: Cowboys and ranchers have a storied and significant history in this province. I am honoured to rise in this House today to formally acknowledge their legacy of hard work and the important contributions they continue to make every day.
March 8 to 15 is B.C. Cowboy Heritage Week. This week marks an opportunity to promote the preservation of cowboy heritage in B.C. and recognize how cowboys and ranchers have adapted in the face of changing economic times.
The B.C. Cowboy Heritage Society was established in 1996. This non-profit society works tirelessly to provide young people in this province with scholarships and to plan events that celebrate what it means to be a cowboy in B.C.
On February 13, the 100 Mile House Cowboy Concert was held.
From March 14 to 17, Kamloops will be hosting its 23rd annual cowboy festival. The event is the biggest of its kind in Canada and one of the best in North America. Festival-goers enjoy live entertainment from musicians, poets, art, food and an incredible tradeshow, including exhibitors such as Cariboo Saddlery and the B.C. Rodeo Association.
The Kamloops Cowboy Festival will also feature three inductions to the B.C. Cowboy Hall of Fame, including Gun Granberg Ranch, who will receive the Century Ranch in 2019; Hilbert DeLeeuw and DeLeeuw Ranch; and the Charlie Moon family.
The B.C. Cowboy Hall of Fame was started by the B.C. Cowboy Heritage Society in 1998 with the intention of memorializing the stories of incredible cowboys and their families across British Columbia.
Although question period, at times, can feel like a rodeo, our work in the House pales in comparison to the demanding and challenging work of cowboys in British Columbia. Let’s all take a moment to thank the ranching community for producing food for British Columbia families and for taking care of the land we call home.
INTERNATIONAL WOMEN’S DAY
AND GENDER
EQUALITY
M. Dean: Tomorrow, on International Women’s Day, we celebrate all that women have accomplished, and we stand together in the continued fight for gender equality. Gender equality and representation are fundamental values across our province, and it’s our responsibility to work every day to advance gender equality in British Columbia.
In our province, we believe in lifting women up, because when people can reach their full potential, our communities and our economy are strengthened. Yet women in B.C. continue to face sexism and gender-based violence and discrimination every day. That’s why we all must take real, concrete steps to bring down the barriers that are preventing us from reaching gender equality. From supporting a child care system that gives parents the choice to return to school or work to taking action to end gender-based violence, we can all work to make sure everyone in our province is treated justly and has access to the same opportunities.
Around the globe and here at home, people are fighting to end gender inequality, and we must listen to their voices, including the voices of Indigenous peoples, immigrants, people of colour and people living with disabilities, who are much more likely to experience gender-based discrimination and violence.
International Women’s Day was started over 100 years ago, and clearly, we have more work to do. While we may not be able to do it all at once, we must keep moving forward. This International Women’s Day let’s commit to providing better support for women and to working together to build a stronger, fairer and more inclusive province. We can all celebrate women’s achievements, raise awareness against injustice and take action for equality.
WOMEN IN LEADERSHIP
S. Furstenau: It is great to hear all three parties in the House commemorate International Women’s Day, which we will celebrate tomorrow. But I think we also need to recognize the urgent need to continue to work together for a better world — a world where rape is not used as a weapon of war or power, a world where girls and young women are not excluded from educational opportunities because they are menstruating or have children of their own, a world where equal work receives equal pay.
We have made strides in seeing more women elected. Now it’s time for the next significant step, which is to see far more women in positions of leadership and to see a redefinition of leadership that fits the 21st century.
For many leaders, being in power to do things differently will mean embodying a style of leadership that is kinder, more inclusive and more empathetic. But make no mistake. Kinder is not weaker. Indeed, there is nothing more powerful.
I have seen the extraordinary strength of women who are rooted in kindness — the strength to face down the biggest issues of our time; the strength to stay at the table, focused on the task at hand; the strength to listen and truly learn from people who have different perspectives. The strength to persist through all of that, often while simultaneously nurturing children and caring for elders, knowing you probably won’t get the recognition or the pay that you deserve — that is true leadership.
That level of strength is something I see every day in women, and I’m deeply inspired and encouraged by it. As women, we must not accept that it is enough to succeed in a man’s world. It’s time for us to rewrite the rules. Our collective goal should be a transformation to a world where everyone can truly thrive and meet their full potential. Women can help take us there.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast.
JOURNÉE DE LA FRANCOPHONIE
N. Simons: Thank you, M. le Président. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m pleased to announce the proclamation of March 20 as Journée de la francophonie en Colombie-Britannique. The event will be celebrated at noon here today in the Hall of Honour.
La Journée de la francophonie en Colombie-Britannique est une occasion de célébrer les deux langues officielles du Canada. C’est ce qui contribue à l’unité canadienne et permet d’assurer la force de notre pays et de notre province.
[B.C. Francophonie Day is an opportunity to celebrate Canada’s two official languages. It’s what contributes to Canadian unity and guarantees the strength of our country and our province.]
Aujourd’hui la Colombie-Britannique honore la contribution des francophones lesquels renforcent le tissu social, économique et culturel de notre province. Les francophones de la Colombie-Britannique viennent de toutes les régions du monde, et aujourd’hui nous célébrons également la diversité de notre communauté francophone à travers la province.
[Today British Columbia honours the contributions francophones have made and are making to strengthen the social, economic and cultural fabric of the province. Francophones in B.C. come from all around the world, and today we also celebrate the diversity of our francophone community around the province.]
The theme of this year’s B.C. Francophonie Day is “Honouring our B.C. francophone history,” “célébrons notre patrimoine francophone en Colombie-Britannique.” Last spring British Columbians were invited to nominate francophone historic places in B.C. and share stories associated with them as part of the provincial heritage recognition program.
Several organizations play an active role in the research, preservation and promotion of B.C. francophone history. Today we celebrate the great contributions of francophones to the history and development of British Columbia.
Gisèle Sampson will also be honoured today. She will receive a commemorative plaque for her contribution to the preservation and promotion of the francophone history of Victoria and of the province.
Je vous invite donc à célébrer la Journée de la francophonie en Colombie-Britannique avec tous les francophones et francophiles de la province. Merci.
[I therefore invite you to celebrate B.C. Francophonie Day with all the francophones and francophiles of the province. Thank you.]
[French text and translation provided by N. Simons.]
M. Dean: I seek leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
Introductions by Members
M. Dean: I see that Greg Hind is in the gallery today. He works in a café just across from my constituency office. It has just opened and employs people with developmental disabilities. Would the House please make him very welcome.
Oral Questions
SURREY SCHOOL DISTRICT PORTABLE USE
S. Cadieux: Two years ago the Premier came for a campaign photo-op in Surrey and promised to eliminate portables. The Premier promised a total removal of portables over the next four years. “We need to start reducing them by half in the first two years.” He has not reduced them by half. He has done the opposite and increased them.
To the Minister of Education, can he explain why the Premier and he have broken their promises to families in Surrey?
Hon. R. Fleming: I appreciate the question, and I appreciate it coming from the member who was recently at a very well-attended ground-breaking on a brand-new school in her constituency.
Surrey has never had more construction projects simultaneously for schools in its history as under our new government. Today at this time, under construction or under development, there are 7,000 new seats for Surrey students. That’s the equivalent of 300 portables. Those schools are being completed now and in the near future. By 2021, there’ll be 7,000.
But you know what? We’re not content to stop there.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
Hon. R. Fleming: We have the largest school capital budget before the House today — $2.7 billion. That’s good news for Surrey families. That will help us accelerate construction even more and get rid of portables in Surrey and other fast-growing districts right around British Columbia.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Surrey South on a supplemental.
S. Cadieux: The Premier made the promise in 2017. Families in Surrey are getting the opposite of what he promised. The Premier’s word and this minister’s word mean absolutely nothing. The portables haven’t been cut; there are more. You would think that the Premier and this government would show a little humility or at least be a little bit embarrassed about blatantly breaking the promise they made to families.
Will the Minister of Education stand up today on behalf of the Premier and apologize to Surrey families for breaking their promise?
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
Hon. R. Fleming: Thank you to the member for the question. I think the other side should take some credit for the mess that they created in Surrey. In fact, they should take all of the credit. They should acknowledge their record in Surrey — that they only built one new school in five years.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
Hon. R. Fleming: One new school opened on their watch in five years, since 2014. When we became government, to our shock and surprise, there was nothing in the cupboard in terms of capital projects being planned and built in Surrey — nothing.
Where there have been new portables brought into Surrey in the last 18 months, they should take credit for that too. The reason there’ve been new portables added to the portfolio in Surrey…. Number one, they lost at the Supreme Court. Class sizes became smaller, and portables were added. That’s their record for 12 years of fighting teachers.
That government trashed and eliminated adult education programs. We brought it back. We needed classrooms to train young adults in Surrey to get a Dogwood certificate. That’s the other source requiring new portables.
So take the credit. You guys failed to build schools in Surrey. We’re getting on with it. And guess who thinks that we’re doing a good job. The Surrey Board of Trade, the school district of Surrey and the new mayor of Surrey.
Mr. Speaker: I’m sorry for allowing that little bit longer than usual answer, but I understand that we could only hear half of it over the noise. That’s why I allowed the longer answer.
The member for Surrey South on a second supplemental.
S. Cadieux: I’ll correct the facts for the record. In fact, there were 14 new and expanded schools alone in the ridings I held in the last….
Surrey is a fast-growing city.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
S. Cadieux: Surrey is fast growing. The people of Surrey know that. The reality is that the NDP excuses for a promise that they made in 2017 are just excuses, pathetic excuses.
During the election, the Premier came to Surrey and made an easy-to-understand promise to the voters, but he isn’t making good on that promise. He hasn’t kept his word to the people of Surrey. It’s just another on a long list of broken promises from this government.
Everybody knows that the Premier has failed. Will he or this Education Minister admit that he never intended to keep his promise?
Hon. R. Fleming: As I said earlier, what would have made it a lot easier to start getting rid of portables is if the previous government actually transitioned something to us in terms of having construction started. They didn’t even have planning. They had no funds attached to it. We had to start from square one. As much as I would like to pop up a school in 18 months, it can’t be done anywhere in the world.
What we are doing in Surrey is accelerating and making it go as fast as we possibly can. That’s why there are the projects under development that there are today. That’s why there are 7,000 new seats on their way by 2021, the equivalent of 300 portables.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
Hon. R. Fleming: I’m proud that our government is succeeding where they failed. That’s not the government’s opinion. That’s the opinion of Laurie Larsen, the school board chair, who says: “We’re finally on a roll with school construction, and it’s great to see.” February 7, 2019.
The Surrey Board of Trade applauds the B.C. government on the “continued Surrey school investment plan.”
Anita Huberman, chair of the Surrey Board of Trade….
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Thank you, Minister.
Hon. R. Fleming: Nobody in Surrey would listen to that side on how you build schools quicker.
Mr. Speaker: Minister.
Hon. R. Fleming: But the business community in Surrey is….
Mr. Speaker: Minister, you’re….
M. Hunt: If the Premier hadn’t broken his promise, half of the portables in Surrey would be gone today. Instead, this week the school board announced that more portables are coming, and the Premier continues to make excuses. This week his Education Minister was asked about the Premier’s broken promise and declared: “Portables are necessary.”
Why did the Premier break his promise to the parents of Surrey?
Mr. Speaker: Minister of Education, I will give you an A-plus if you can make it short.
Hon. R. Fleming: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I’ll make this short.
It’s great to see the member stand up and ask about Surrey schools because his attendance at new openings and ground-breakings on Surrey new schools has been 100 percent.
I feel for that member and other members, though there are fewer of them, from Surrey. Let’s be clear. I feel for those members. They’ve waited an awful long time to see it finally happening in Surrey. It is happening, and I look forward to seeing the member at future announcements as well.
M. Hunt: It’s not always possible to adjust one’s schedule when you get less than one day’s notice of an announcement that the minister is making.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.
M. Hunt: Two years ago the Premier came to Surrey for a campaign photo op and promised that he would eliminate portables in four years. In October of 2017, less than two years ago, this minister doubled down on this commitment. Now they say portables are necessary. The Premier can pretend that he didn’t make the promise, but the families in Surrey remember.
The question to the minister is: what is the new timeline to eliminate portables as he promised?
Hon. R. Fleming: You know what the difference is between a pre-election announcement and what happens after under our government and theirs?
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.
Hon. R. Fleming: We actually build the schools. That’s the difference.
I don’t even think that member would fondly recall the old days under his government when nothing got done. I know he’s happy with the record of our government, because he shows up every time we announce a new school in Surrey.
I hope he’ll come to the next event that could be in his constituency, and I hope he’ll vote for the largest school construction budget we’ve ever seen in the history of British Columbia. It’s on the floor of the House today.
The members opposite, if they want to accelerate school construction in Surrey even more than what has already been done, should vote for that budget.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
CHILD AND YOUTH POVERTY
AND ACCESS TO MENSTRUAL
PRODUCTS
A. Weaver: The 2018 child poverty report card found that one in five children in British Columbia are currently growing up in poverty. That’s over 172,000 children, many of whom are in deep poverty, up to $13,000 below the poverty line.
We also know that these children are very likely to be Indigenous, immigrants or racialized minorities. These children often go to school hungry. Their families are worried about basic necessities, such as shelter and groceries.
Now, consider the approximately 86,000 impoverished children and youth who require menstrual products on a monthly basis. Consider the fact that most families under the poverty line are single mothers and their children. For many individuals, managing menstruation can require additional products of birth control.
How will the upcoming poverty reduction strategy ensure that all children and youth have equal access to menstrual products?
Hon. S. Simpson: Thank you to the member for the question.
The cost and availability of menstrual products is a real issue, especially for poor women who often face the choice of purchasing those products or buying other essentials, including food. This should not be the case.
We all expect, when we enter a public washroom, that toilet paper is readily available and free. Why that isn’t the case for menstrual products is a very good question — one, I suspect, that if men had a menstrual cycle, we wouldn’t be asking today.
The member’s question is particularly timely today. The Parliamentary Secretary for Gender Equity has kicked off the Period Promise campaign here at the Legislature. People can support that campaign through donations of products or cash at the Finance Minister’s office until March 28, and those will go to a very good purpose.
More directly to the member’s inquiry, this is a societal question. It requires societal change, and as it impacts women, particularly poor women, it’s an affordability question. Affordability is a cornerstone of the poverty reduction work in front of our government, and we’re taking that work on.
Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Third Party on a supplemental.
A. Weaver: Thank you to the minister for the very thoughtful answer to the question. My supplemental is this.
Last week the New Westminster school board announced that they will be providing free menstrual products in all of their elementary, middle and high schools beginning this September. This will not only reduce costs faced by financially struggling families; it will improve access to education for girls and non-binary folk who menstruate.
We know that students, if they can’t manage their periods, will remove themselves from extracurricular activities and even miss school. Providing menstrual products gives all children equal access to education. But this program places a financial cost on school districts that are already strapped for funds and facing teacher shortages.
My question is to the Minister of Education. All children deserve equal access to education. What is his ministry doing to provide menstrual products for students in British Columbia?
Hon. R. Fleming: I would thank the member for the question. It’s obviously a very important issue for students across British Columbia. When students can’t access menstrual products, it can often impede their ability to participate in sports or extracurricular activities, or maybe they even have to miss learning time by having to miss classes.
We see this initiative that New Westminster has undertaken as an important part of promoting an overall student success agenda that the government has in working with our school district partners. I want to take this opportunity to commend the New West district for showing the lead here. It’s a great initiative; there’s no question about that.
It has also garnered some interest from school districts. I expect to be meeting with our education partners about this particular issue, the B.C. School Trustees Association among them. I would say in the meantime that we do have some existing funding streams that can be assessed to do what New Westminster has done, in other parts of the province. The CommunityLINK fund is one of those that may be an area where they can pay for menstrual products.
I want to say, too, on a personal note…. I thank the United Way and, in my community, the Victoria Labour Council for the Period Promise campaign. I was pleased to go out personally and make some donations last week when they were doing fundraising. Those activities are ongoing during this campaign. It’s very promising, and it has led to a very productive discussion in the school district.
I think this is an issue that fits with our government’s overall affordability agenda, and we’re happy to engage in that discussion with school districts.
POTENTIAL SCHOOL CLOSINGS
IN
VANCOUVER
M. Lee: The now Minister of Education has said: “School closures just rip the guts out of neighbourhoods in Vancouver.” As a parent with children who have benefited from attending local neighbourhood public schools in Vancouver, I understand the anxiety of families, with 28 schools currently on the chopping block. This includes Walter Moberly Elementary School, located just over the Fraser Street boundary that I share with the member for Vancouver-Fraserview.
My question is to the Minister of State for Trade. Moberly is in his riding. What has he done to stop this school closure?
Hon. R. Fleming: I thank the member for the question. I think it’s his obligation, and other members, to not present misinformation about school closures in Vancouver. For the first time in 16 years, there is no pressure to close schools in Vancouver.
We can all remember the herculean effort to shut down schools that was pursued relentlessly, doggedly, year after year by the old government on that side. The Vancouver school district stood up to that government. School districts around British Columbia stood up to that government on closures, for the reasons that our government supports keeping those schools open.
That’s the discussion we’re having with the Vancouver school board today. It’s entirely different. It’s how we can invest faster to build as many safe seats in Vancouver, which has been neglected for far too long under the previous government.
The old government put an audit from KPMG and demanded that the school district close 24 schools in order to balance the operating budget of the school district. We have record levels of funding in the Vancouver school district’s operating budget. We’ve invested nearly a quarter-billion dollars in seismic projects that we’ve accelerated. It is a sea change in the environment today than it was just a couple of short years ago in Vancouver.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Vancouver-Langara on a supplemental.
M. Lee: This is a list of 28 schools in Vancouver across the district that have been identified with the Vancouver school board. Parents across Vancouver are fretting and concerned about the future of their schools. This Minister of Education used to say: “These are decisions that communities actually shouldn’t have to be facing. They’re abandoning communities, abandoning neighbourhoods by taking schools right out of the heart of those communities.” These are the words of the Minister of Education.
Walter Moberly Elementary is just one of these Vancouver schools that are important…
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
Continue, Member.
M. Lee: …to our community. Moberly serves as the gateway in the Vancouver school district for South Asian, Filipino, Vietnamese and other immigrant children and has been integral to the Sunset community in South Vancouver.
Moberly is in the Vancouver-Fraserview riding of the Minister of State for Trade. Will he stand up and tell us what he has done to advocate to keep this school open?
Hon. R. Fleming: It’s really difficult to hear from that side of the House about school closures. They closed 240 of them in communities right around British Columbia. They did rip the guts out of communities in British Columbia. Our record is vastly different. We’ve reopened schools they closed. That’s what we’ve been doing.
Our agenda as a government has been to work as quickly as possible, addressing the seismic backlog that that government left us. That member knows that we’ve been working quickly to do it, because he was at Hamber Secondary to receive an $80 million investment in fixing that school. By the way, that’s the largest seismic project in B.C. history, in that member’s riding.
I would urge the remaining B.C. Liberal MLAs that are in Vancouver: stop scaring parents. Give them the facts. Listen to the Vancouver school board’s elected leaders — you know, the ones that they fired — who said that this isn’t about school closures. This is about having a productive relationship with the province to keep investment happening in Vancouver.
HOSPITAL DISCHARGE PRACTICES IN
FRASER HEALTH
AUTHORITY
J. Martin: Ken Popove, the mayor of Chilliwack, a great guy, has written to Fraser Health raising serious concerns about the discharging of significantly vulnerable patients. On multiple occasions over the last several weeks, patients with serious physical and mental health concerns were discharged from Surrey Memorial Hospital and sent by taxi to the Chilliwack Salvation Army, a homeless shelter almost 80 kilometres away.
You know, my mayor and my council, the social services, my non-profits and the great people of Chilliwack do more than their share of heavy lifting on the homeless front. In short, they punch above their weight. How can this possibly be an acceptable practice?
Hon. A. Dix: I’d be happy to meet with the mayor of Chilliwack and with the hon. member to discuss any particular case that he’d like to raise and to follow up on those circumstances. He knows that we have very significantly increased our investment in health care in the last number of years, but that doesn’t mean that in every case, things are perfect. So I’m happy to meet with the hon. member and discuss the issues that he raises.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Chilliwack on a supplemental.
J. Martin: I appreciate the offer. The mayor and myself will take the minister up on that. However, I would like the minister to go on the record in this House assuring me, my mayor, my council and everyone in Chilliwack that this will never, ever happen again.
Hon. A. Dix: As we’ve said, we don’t discuss individual cases in the House, although we do when permission is granted. We have those discussions, and we certainly will be in the future.
I think the work done by health care workers in British Columbia, by the people responsible for discharges, is some of the most important work that we do. Often, for example, hospitals are over capacity because of inadequate resources in the community — resources that we’re aggressively building out across both social services and the health care system.
I’m happy to meet with the mayor, happy to meet with the member. We’ll discuss the circumstances of the case and take it from there.
FUNDING FOR ENFORCEMENT OF
ANIMAL BREEDER
REGULATIONS
J. Thornthwaite: In 2017, my bill to stop puppy mills recommended an external regulatory agency to enforce standards of care for animal welfare, but this government has failed to provide the SPCA with the necessary funds it needs to adequately enforce these new regulations. Puppy mills, unregulated rescue centres and unethical breeders continue to operate throughout the province.
Why hasn’t this government funded the SPCA, and when will the Agriculture Minister provide them with the resources they need to have proper enforcement?
Hon. L. Popham: I appreciate the question from the member. This is something that I know she’s very passionate about. So am I. I’ve often said in this chamber that when I became an MLA, my son, who was ten at the time, said that the only thing he wanted me to do was to stop puppy mills. So we’re coming from the same passion there.
This has been a few years’ worth of work that is now coming to fruition. We have been having discussions with the BC SPCA. In fact, just last week I was speaking with them at an animal welfare conference. We wanted to make sure that we did the consultation. We are just landing on how this will be administered. So those discussions with the BC SPCA are happening currently.
I would be very happy to have the member come to my office. I can give her an update when I find out for myself where exactly those discussions are.
Mr. Speaker: The member for North Vancouver–Seymour on a supplemental.
J. Thornthwaite: The problem is that those consultations have actually stalled, as well as with the responsible breeders. So under the NDP, the creation of a regulatory enforcement team has been put on hold because of a lack of funding. Puppy mills and unscrupulous breeders continue to operate with impunity because the legislation is not being enforced.
Again to the Minister of Agriculture, when will the SPCA get the resources they need to protect these vulnerable animals?
Hon. L. Popham: I think that I have had conversations with the member before, and she is very well aware that these discussions with the BC SPCA are happening now. I can say that right now charges can be laid under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act against anyone who causes suffering or distress to an animal. That includes breeders.
I think the member and I can very much agree that a registration system is the best way to handle breeders that are causing suffering. We’re working on that right now. The consultation did not stall out. We have been consulting with every type of breeder that there is in British Columbia.
I can tell you that we’ve been receiving good feedback. People are appreciative that we’ve gone the extra step and taken a little bit more time to get this right. I expect that this will be wrapped up in the next little while. I think that the member and I will be able to celebrate that together.
FOREST INDUSTRY TENURES AND LICENCES
D. Barnett: It’s no secret that the NDP hates fish farms and wants to shut them down. Now this government is coming after forestry. The Premier’s comments are absurd. And nobody knows what he means by his promise to impose the same restrictions on forestry as on fish farms. Someone with a community woodlot licence or a forest tenure can’t just move their operation.
To the Minister of Forests, the Forests Minister had a chance yesterday to commit to protecting these licences and tenures. Why didn’t he?
Hon. D. Donaldson: I thank the member for giving me the opportunity to talk about an incredible achievement of this government in the Broughton Archipelago, with First Nations, with industry and with workers. What a key part of that amazing agreement that we were able to forge, unlike the last government…. A key feature of that was future opportunities for First Nations in aquaculture.
Likewise, I just don’t understand how the opposite side is against First Nations having opportunities in forestry in this province.
[End of question period.]
Tabling Documents
Mr. Speaker: Members, I have the honour to table a report from the Office of the Ombudsperson, Committed to Change: Protecting the Rights of Involuntary Patients Under the Mental Health Act.
Reports from Committees
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY
MANAGEMENT
COMMITTEE
Mr. Speaker: Secondly, I have the honour to table a report from the Legislative Assembly Management Committee, to the reports. This includes the report of the Speaker released on January 21, 2019; the written responses and legal submissions from the Clerk and Sergeant-at-Arms received on February 7, 2019; and the report on the written responses by the Speaker, released on February 21, 2019.
Hon. M. Farnworth: By leave, I move that the report of the Legislative Assembly Management Committee be adopted.
Leave granted.
Mr. Speaker: The question is that the report of the Legislative Assembly Management Committee be adopted.
Motion approved.
Motions Without Notice
APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL INVESTIGATOR
INTO MISCONDUCT
ALLEGATIONS
CONCERNING CLERK AND SERGEANT-AT-ARMS
Hon. M. Farnworth: By leave, I move:
[a) That the Right Honourable Beverley McLachlin, P.C., C.C. be appointed as Special Investigator to conduct a confidential, impartial and independent investigation into allegations concerning the Clerk, Craig James, and the Sergeant-at-Arms, Gary Lenz, that were raised by the Speaker in his Report to the Legislative Assembly Management Committee (“the Committee”) and made public by the Committee on January 21, 2019;
b) That the purpose of the investigation shall be a confidential fact finding to determine whether either or both Mr. James and Mr. Lenz, appointed to their office by resolution of the Legislative Assembly pursuant to the Constitution Act, engaged in misconduct in the course of their employment;
c) That the House Leaders, Hon. Mike Farnworth, MLA, Government House Leader; Mary Polak, MLA, Official Opposition House Leader; and Sonia Furstenau, MLA, Third Party House Leader (the “House Leaders”) establish terms of reference for the conduct of the investigation that provides for, among other things, a process that ensures procedural fairness and natural justice;
d) That in conducting the investigation, the Special Investigator shall review the following documents and any others the House Leaders deem relevant to the investigation:
i. the report of the Speaker released on January 21, 2019, and exhibits;
ii. the related addendum to the report of the Speaker distributed on February 4, 2019,
iii. the written responses from the Clerk and the Sergeant-at-Arms received on February 7, 2019,
iv. the legal submissions from the Clerk and the Sergeant-at-Arms received on February 7, 2019, and
v. the report on the written responses by the Speaker released on February 21, 2019, and exhibits;
e) That the Special Investigator be granted the powers to compel persons to meet with the Special Investigator and to compel documents and other evidence, except those protected by solicitor-client privilege, to be provided to the Special Investigator;
f) That the Special Investigator report on any findings and conclusions to the House Leaders at the earliest opportunity, making one or more interim reports as may be appropriate, and a final report no later than May 3, 2019, and that the Government House Leader report to the Legislative Assembly on the conclusions of the Special Investigator at the earliest opportunity;
g) For greater certainty, it is recognized that deliberations of the Legislative Assembly with respect to the appointments of the Clerk and Sergeant-at-Arms fall within a sphere of activity that is in the exclusive jurisdiction of the Legislative Assembly and that nothing in this order shall be interpreted as limiting in any way the powers, privileges, rights and immunities of the Legislative Assembly or its Members.]
Leave granted.
Motion approved.
Orders of the Day
Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call Committee of the Whole, Bill 12, the Supply Act. In Section A, in the Douglas Fir Room, I call continued debate on the estimates for the Ministry of Children and Family Development and, if they finish, then the Ministry of Advanced Education, Skills and Training.
Committee of the Whole House
BILL 12 — SUPPLY ACT (No. 1), 2019
The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 12; R. Chouhan in the chair.
The committee met at 11:11 a.m.
On section 1.
Hon. C. James: I’ll turn it over to the critic. This is, as people know, a very straightforward bill that is, as usual, brought forward at this time to be able to cover off supply while we continue the estimates that are going on for each of the ministries. It’s an important part of our system to be able to allow ministers to be able to talk about the dollars in their budgets and to allow the opposition to be able to ask their questions.
T. Redies: I must say it’s very nice to receive a bill that’s only two pages, once in a while. So thank you, Minister. Again, this is a straightforward bill. We just have a couple of questions just to clarify a few things.
In section 1, it indicates that the government is asking for about $11.8 billion for this next quarter. The total expenditures in the budget is around $58 billion. So can you speak to the difference in terms of the amounts? Because if this is one quarter, it would suggest expenditures of $48 billion.
Hon. C. James: The total that is included is the total operating votes, the dollars included in that, so it would not include anything outside the consolidated revenue fund. That would include Crown corporations, etc., which is probably the difference that the member is noticing.
Section 1 approved.
On section 2.
T. Redies: Again, a similar question. But before I actually ask about the numbers, I just want to clarify. In terms of the capital spending that’s being covered here, is it just for the taxpayer-supported capital spending, or does it also include the Crowns?
Hon. C. James: It only includes ministry capital funds.
T. Redies: The government is requesting $372 million. I don’t have it right in front of me, but I think the capital spending is about $6.3 billion. Is this a timing issue, or are there any projects that are delayed right now that we should be made aware of?
Hon. C. James: This also includes schedule D — I think that’s where the difference is for the member — which is the disbursement for loans, investments and other requirements. It’s schedule D, attached to that. So that’s included there.
This piece really has to do with when payments go out. That’s really the issue here — the timing of when payments go out. Again, capital spending depends on when…. You see things coming in when you put out a proposal, and you’re waiting for the dollars to come in. So really, this is a timing issue as well around when the payments are going to be due and ensuring we have the resources to be able to cover that.
T. Redies: Just to clarify, the minister is not aware of any projects that are unduly delayed at this point in time.
Hon. C. James: No.
Section 2 approved.
On section 3.
T. Redies: Maybe just a little bit of colour for still a newbie MLA about what this is particularly for. If the Finance Minister could just give us a bit more context.
Hon. C. James: One of the examples would be fuel tax for transit. That would be something that, again, is 100 percent that is collected and given to other entities, as we’ve talked about in the Budget Measures Implementation bill. That would be an example of this section and where it would apply.
Sections 3 and 4 approved.
Preamble approved.
Title approved.
Hon. C. James: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:17 a.m.
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.
Report and
Third Reading of Bills
BILL 12 — SUPPLY ACT (No. 1), 2019
Bill 12, Supply Act (No. 1), 2019, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.
Hon. D. Eby: I call Committee of the Whole, Bill 2, Protection of Public Participation Act.
Committee of the Whole House
BILL 2 — PROTECTION OF PUBLIC
PARTICIPATION ACT
(continued)
The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 2; R. Chouhan in the chair.
The committee met at 11:21 a.m.
On section 4 (continued).
Hon. D. Eby: Joining me are Russell Getz, legal counsel, and Darin Thompson, legal counsel, assisting me today.
I notice we have some guests in the gallery. Just so that they know what’s happening, we are in the Committee of the Whole stage of a bill that’s in front of the House about protecting speech and ensuring that journalists and activists and community members can speak out on issues of importance without facing improper defamation lawsuits that would cause them to stop speaking out. You’ll hear the member from the other side asking questions of me about the bill, and you’ll hear me responding, with the assistance of staff. I just want to welcome them all to the House, from wherever they come.
Sections 4 and 5 approved.
On section 6.
M. Lee: I just wanted to ask the Attorney General, in terms of the considerations for where a court may otherwise order possible amendments to the respondent’s pleadings, in what circumstances would the court contemplate permitting the respondent to amend their pleadings?
Hon. D. Eby: One of the features of these strategic lawsuits against public participation, as they’ve been described by various academics and others, is that they usually involve an imbalance of resources. One side has a lot of money and access to lawyers; the other side, not so much. So the other side gets taken to court around a defamation action, gets wrapped up in this action, and there’s no decision on it for many years. As a result, they end up apologizing or withdrawing a statement that they believe to be true, and there’s a general chill on their ability to speak out.
One of the functions of having access to those kinds of resources is, potentially, if you get a decision from a court that says, “No, this is one of these lawsuits.” The balance that we were talking about yesterday between protecting the free-expression rights and protecting the reputational rights of the two parties — it comes down in favour of protecting the expression rights.
The plaintiff, the person who’s suing the journalist or activist or community member, doesn’t get to amend their court documents to say: “Oh, what I really wanted to argue was this.” Then you’re back at the beginning of the application over and over again. That would frustrate the intent of this bill, which is to stop the process at a very early stage in order to assure people that if they speak out on a matter of public interest and they do it fairly and within the confines of this application and existing law, they’ll be able to stop an improper lawsuit or a lawsuit that has a disproportionate impact on free expression — stop it early.
If you don’t have this fail-safe clause in here that says that unless the court gives you permission, you’re not allowed to amend your pleadings, then you could be back into a cycle, again and again, of amended pleadings and not get out of this process. It would frustrate the intent of having a clear finish to the legal action at an early stage, where that’s appropriate.
M. Lee: I appreciate the response. I understand the nature of section 6 as the Attorney General just outlined. What I’m asking, though, is the lead-in language, which is: “Unless the court orders otherwise….”
Under what circumstances would the court otherwise order?
Hon. D. Eby: There’s certainly no significance intended by the order of the words — “orders otherwise” or “otherwise orders.” It’s meant to be a standard type of clause that gives a court the authority to order otherwise where fairness requires it.
M. Lee: That’s what I’m trying to get at. In what circumstances would fairness require the court to otherwise order this?
Hon. D. Eby: Difficult to speculate in terms of the wide array of possible reasons why the court might allow someone to amend their pleadings after making a decision that the lawsuit should not go ahead because it has this impact on free expression. One can imagine that, potentially, some new facts came to light or that there was some additional information that wasn’t previously available.
It’s hard to know exactly what it is. The court would essentially have to engage in that kind of balancing exercise again in determining whether the evidentiary burden required to convince the court that it was necessary to reopen the pleadings outweighed the intent of this bill and this process to have finality for the parties involved.
Section 6 approved.
On section 7.
M. Lee: Just in terms of section 7, there is the opportunity where the court may order costs. I’m reading at 7(2): “…the respondent is not entitled to costs on that application unless the court considers it appropriate in the circumstances.” Under what circumstances would a court consider it appropriate to order costs to the respondent?
Hon. D. Eby: The intent of the subsection is to say to the court…. The presumption is that the respondent, the person who is responding to the application that says that this is a lawsuit that infringes on free expression and that it should be truncated…. Even if the respondent is successful in fending that off, the presumption is that they’re not entitled to costs related to the application.
It’s a party-driven process. They came to court. They brought this other person to court. Also, there’s a recognition within this bill, and generally around these kinds of lawsuits, of an imbalance of resources most typically in these kinds of lawsuits. In fact, typically, one of the defining features of these lawsuits is that imbalance of resources between the plaintiff and the defendant. So this recognizes that. It gives the court the presumption, but it also gives the court the opportunity…. Where the conduct of the parties is problematic and the court wants to send a message, the court could still award costs in the circumstances.
Again, this is one of those difficult situations, to speculate about what level a court would find that they needed to send a message to the parties by awarding costs against the applicant in a vacuum. But it is something the courts do on a regular basis. What this section does is simply provide a presumption. If there is not some sort of flag that the courts have identified that they want to send a message about the behaviour of the parties, then the presumption is that the respondent is not entitled to costs.
M. Lee: I appreciate that in the absence of the actual, specific facts of a particular case…. These new legislative proceedings, as set out in this act, will be more fully tested, of course, against the facts of a particular case.
Just so we understand the intention of the drafters of this legislation here, if we go the other way, in terms of subsection 7(1), it says that the “costs on a full indemnity basis” would be provided to the applicant, in effect, “unless the court considers that assessment inappropriate in the circumstances.”
Again, what would be the understanding or the expectation where a court may find that that assessment of a full indemnity would be inappropriate in the circumstances?
Hon. D. Eby: What we wanted to do with both of these provisions, subsections 7(1) and 7(2), was to give the court a presumption. The presumption is that if someone is successful in this application, they get full costs on an indemnity basis. Their presumption is that even if they’re not successful, there’ll be no costs awarded against them.
But to give the court that discretion and as much leeway as the court needs to essentially recognize that one party or the other was particularly poorly behaved or didn’t conduct itself in a way that the court wanted to sanction with costs…. The court could then say: “You know what? I know that the presumption is this, but your conduct was such that I need to take some kind of action to send a message to you. That action is to refuse to give you full indemnity costs on your application, or that action is to actually award costs against you. Even though the presumption is in the law and the intent was that I not do that, I need to do that in order to send you a message.” The intent of both sections is the same.
We want to give that safety valve. We want to give that leeway to the court to send that message to parties as required.
Section 7 approved.
On section 8.
M. Lee: Just for the benefit of this committee review, I’d like to ask the Attorney General…. Recognizing that, as we were discussing in the last committee stage on this bill, Ontario has similar legislation in place and has been through the courts in various cases to work with that legislation, what have been the examples of the range of damages that might be awarded in those Ontario cases in terms of the application of similar pieces of legislation? What’s been the range or the quantum of damages that might have typically been awarded, if any at all?
Hon. D. Eby: The member will remember that B.C. used to have legislation like this. In it, the motive of the plaintiff in bringing the lawsuit was a significant component that you had to prove in order to get the case dismissed. That was always very challenging. Although it was quite leading edge at the time, it was later on understood that that wasn’t the best way to protect against these kinds of abuses of the court system.
In this bill, what’s been done is the bad faith or improper purpose has been separated out. You don’t have to prove that in order to get the action dismissed. But if you can prove it, if you can show that the plaintiff knew that they were bringing this for an improper reason or they were bringing it in some kind of bad faith, you can potentially ask the court to award you damages.
Now, there is not a restriction about the kinds of damages or the types of damages that a particular applicant might make in the event that they were successful in demonstrating bad faith or improper purpose, but what the bill intends is that the court could recognize and actually punish with damages awarded against the plaintiff if the action in the proceeding was brought in bad faith or for an improper purpose.
The member asked about jurisprudence that we’re aware of where bad faith or improper purpose was, in fact, recognized by a court in Ontario, because they’ve had some experience with this already. We’re not aware of a case yet that has considered this particular section. Likely it would be exceedingly rare, actually, that an applicant or a defendant would be able to demonstrate bad faith or improper purpose, because we’ve actually seen some history with these kinds of provisions, and it is difficult to prove.
Where it shows up, we wanted a venue for people to be able to show that they suffered some kind of damage or that the court could provide some sort of damage to recognize the improper nature and the abuse of the system that the plaintiff had engaged in by bringing an action in bad faith or for an improper purpose.
Section 8 approved.
On section 9.
M. Lee: Just one question on subsection 9(3): “An application for a dismissal order under section 4 must be heard as soon as practicable.” Appreciating that that doesn’t preclude an injunction application from being applied for under section 5(2), what’s the expectation or any consideration by the Attorney General of timing constraints? Obviously, we have a situation where the courts continue to be quite overloaded in many jurisdictions in this province. What would be his expectation as to the range of time period that these sorts of applications for dismissal orders would be heard under this act?
Hon. D. Eby: This is where we actually had an opportunity to learn from Ontario. I understand that in Ontario’s act, they have a 60-day timeline. One of the challenges that they’ve had is that they can’t hold to that. What we wanted to avoid was having our registry staff in the courts, or others, be deemed to be violating an act because they’re not ensuring that it comes within 60 days, or opening up the opportunity for someone to say: “This whole thing should be dismissed because it didn’t come forward within 60 days.” To avoid that, the phrase “as soon as practicable” was used, rather than a fixed timeline.
Now, some registries in the province with counsel that have available schedules will be able to hear, certainly, within the 60-day timeline of Ontario, but it’s a big province, and there are some registries that have very tight calendars. If you get a couple of busy counsel, it’s hard to say when a matter would be heard. This is simply a guideline where, if there is a dispute over setting something down or some kind of an issue like that, counsel can point to this and say: “Look, this needs to happen as soon as practicable.” That was the intent of the law, because there is a cost to allowing this to stretch out and out and out. That cost is in relation to free expression, and that is the exact reason why the act was brought forward.
We wanted to preserve the intent of the Ontario act in keeping the timelines tight, but we wanted to learn from the Ontario act, as well, and not put our registry staff in a situation where they may be scheduling something that’s essentially in breach of the act. So this is what we hope is the happy medium around communicating that we want it to come on quickly and providing the tools to ensure that it can come on quickly, but also recognizing that this is a big province with a lot of diverse registry capacities and also that counsel sometimes have difficulty linking up calendars to get things heard in a certain amount of time.
Sections 9 to 14 inclusive approved.
Title approved.
Hon. D. Eby: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:40 a.m.
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.
Report and
Third Reading of Bills
BILL 2 — PROTECTION OF PUBLIC
PARTICIPATION
ACT
Bill 2, Protection of Public Participation Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed unanimously on a division. [See Votes and Proceedings.]
Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. M. Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.
The House adjourned at 11:49 a.m.
PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM
Committee of Supply
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
CHILDREN AND
FAMILY DEVELOPMENT
(continued)
The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); N. Simons in the chair.
The committee met at 11:13 a.m.
On Vote 19: ministry operations, $2,064,727,000 (continued).
The Chair: Good morning, Members. We are here in Committee A to discuss the budget estimates for the Ministry of Children and Family Development. Currently we’re on the subject of child care, with the Minister of State for Child Care.
The member for Chilliwack-Kent has some questions.
L. Throness: Thanks again for coming, to all ministers and staff. I want to begin by asking about a few top-line numbers. The government budgeted $263 million to be spent on child care in this fiscal year, plus supplementary estimates of $20 million.
Can the minister tell me how close the government will come to its budget in this fiscal year? How much of the $283 million will be spent in this fiscal year?
Hon. K. Chen: We are forecasted to fully spend the budget.
L. Throness: I’m wondering if the government could share, so far, the average annual cost per child of child care under the system that began last year?
Hon. K. Chen: I’m not exactly sure what the member opposite is referring to. Is it the cost per space or the child care cost? If the member can clarify it. We don’t have that information, but we may be able to see what we have that’s related to the information that the member is looking for.
L. Throness: I’m just a bit vague in my question myself, because I’m not sure how the government would want to calculate that. I’ll leave that to another time. I’m sure that’ll be done.
The minister has to submit a report to cabinet on or before March 31 on all of the results of her labours over the past year. Would she commit to making that report public so that she can be accountable for results to all the parents, providers and taxpayers of B.C.?
Hon. K. Chen: I’ve already done my report to cabinet. In terms of the cabinet document, it is cabinet privilege. But I’m more than happy to share the reporting that I’ve done to cabinet and some of the content that we’ve achieved in terms of what Childcare B.C. has achieved during the past year for families in B.C.
As the member opposite would know, this is a historical investment that we are supporting and providing to not just families to help them with affordability but also to help with providers — to help them with their operating costs and to support their operation by finding every way possible to give them the tools that they need to maintain current spaces.
Also, we are making sure we are supporting early childhood educators. We do have over 34 initiatives. I think I can spend a whole day just talking about the 34 initiatives. I know we’ll be diving into a lot of details in terms of how our initiatives are working. Generally speaking, we do have a child care plan that is about building the foundation of a way better child care system that will be affordable, quality and accessible for all B.C. families.
When we talk about affordability, we have three major initiatives. The fee reduction initiative has helped to lower parent fees in B.C. across the board. Close to 90 percent of providers are joining this program. The fee reduction is up to $350 depending on the type and the age of the child.
It has been a very successful initiative that many families are benefiting from. Many families are sharing that they now, finally, have a little bit more room in their budget to be able to help them to pay for other high costs of living. It really helped them with their family stress. It’s also good that more families are able to use child care services when they need to.
We also have the affordable child care benefit. That is bringing less than $200-a-month, $10-a-day child care to many families, especially families between the income of $60,000 and $80,000. We hear amazing stories of how those families are…. More parents, especially mothers, are able to return to work. They have more choices to balance their professional career or educational needs with their child care needs. We are also providing…. Through that affordable child care benefit, many families are paying no cost or low cost for child care, if they’re under the income of $45,000.
The third one is the popular prototype sites that we are piloting and learning how we can, in the future, build universal child care and how to work with a variety of providers — private, non-profit, Indigenous, supported child development and family child care. It’s been a fantastic pilot for us, and we’re also hearing a lot of impact on families. The centres are really happy to work with us on those pilots.
On quality. I know it takes a long time for us to go through, but just overall — and that’s the content of my report, which the member asked about — we are rolling out over a dozen initiatives to support early childhood educators in the workforce, to look at ways for how we can support their education, training and fair compensation.
We just rolled out the first wage enhancement earlier in January. That has been a great success. A few million dollars have gone back to early childhood educators’ pockets. They are the ones who are working hard every single day, supporting young families. But they’ve been struggling for years with low pay and a lack of supports. I think it’s crucial and it’s time that we recognize their very important contribution and find the tools that they need.
Of course, we’re working with providers, through operating funds, through maintenance grants, to maintain current spaces. We are accelerating the creation of child care spaces. I’m proud to say that our new spaces fund has been going well.
We also have a lot of partnerships that we’re looking at with the public sector, local government, Indigenous communities and school districts to create child care spaces on public grounds that will become part of community assets. At the same time, we are working with a variety of different types of child care providers to continue to accelerate that creation of spaces.
That being said, the current system does have a lot of challenges. We are continuing to look for ways to learn from the sector, from providers, from parents and to make sure that we can work together to build a better system.
That was pretty much the content of my report in a short few minutes. I’m sure we’ll be able to dig into a lot of the items that we mentioned.
L. Throness: I would certainly expect that the minister will release a report, which is based on that cabinet document, that will give some numbers, some factual content, to her initiatives.
I want to talk about the new spaces fund for a moment. Last July 6, there was a press release that said: “The new spaces will be created through a $221 million investment in the childcare B.C. new spaces fund, which replaces the child care major capital funding program.” This program is the minister’s main vehicle to create new spaces, but announcements to date only total about 1,600 spaces.
What about the goal of 2,700 spaces that was announced?
Hon. K. Chen: Currently for our new spaces funding, we have approved 1,600 spaces. There are around 20 applications that are being processed actively, and that’s been under review. We still have other applications that are in the pool. We’re pretty confident with our target and that we can continue to look at those applications and see how we can fund more new spaces.
For the member’s information, we also have the start-up funding, with another 1,700 licensed spaces that have been approved through our support. We also have funding through UBCM. We have funding — new spaces that are being created by the Ministry of Education, Ministry of Housing. Currently, even just with our start-up funding and our new spaces fund, you will see that around 3,300 spaces have been created through our initiatives.
Let’s remember we only started in about June and July last year. It’s been a really significant achievement in a few months. We’re excited about that as we continue to process those applications.
L. Throness: I’m curious to know how much the government has spent on the new child care spaces fund, because she had $221 million over three years. That’s about $73 million per year. But through the press releases that the government has issued so far, they’ve only announced about $7½ million to create those 1,600 spaces. Could the minister explain that?
Hon. K. Chen: To clarify, the $73 million is for three years. Currently we’ve spent $11.7 million.
L. Throness: The minister said that she was going to spend her entire budget this fiscal year. How is that possible if they’re only spending $11 million in the new child care spaces fund in this year, when she has $221 million to spend?
The Chair: Does the minister want to provide clarification?
Hon. K. Chen: I have to say we had to spend some time to figure out the number that the member opposite was referring to and make sure we’re all on the same page, talking about the same numbers and same programs.
Just to kind of make it clarified, we’re only talking about the new spaces funding. For example, for this year, the budget is $27.6 million. As I mentioned, we spent $11.7 million. Because, for example, some of our other programs, like the start-up funding…. This is a great example that has actually been going really well and creating licensed child care spaces.
We’re able to make sure that we work with our budget envelope to support that need. For example, start-up funding was doubled. We were able to reallocate some of our funds to our new spaces to make sure we meet that demand. That’s why.
The goal is to create new spaces. We are happy to say that we are in progress and accelerating the creation of spaces for child care.
L. Throness: It mystifies me, because on July 6 of last year there was a press release that said: “The new spaces will be created through a $221 million investment in the childcare B.C. new spaces fund.” I don’t know how the $27.6 million figure came about, but I’ll leave that for another time.
I want to try and nail down the promise of the government. I want to quote from the government’s own child care budget from a year ago. The conclusion to the Child Care B.C.: Caring for Kids, Lifting Up Families document said this: “Families can look forward to funding for more than 24,000 new child care spaces over the next three years.” Yet in all of its public communications, the government uses the figure 22,000. Why is it retreating from its promise? Why is it lowering the bar?
Hon. K. Chen: I think the member opposite is pulling different numbers from different documents and kind of comparing them in different ways. Just to clarify specifically that question, the 24,000 includes 22,000, which the member sees, from our provincial government. Our provincial government is committed to our programs, that it will create up to 22,000 spaces in three years. Then we also have federal funding that will help to create more spaces, and that comes to the total of 24,000 spaces.
L. Throness: The opposition will hold the government to that 24,000 figure, for sure.
In this fiscal year, which ends in just a few weeks, in her service plan, the minister set a target of 115,000 licensed funded spaces. This would require 7,000 to 9,000 spaces in this fiscal year.
I want to ask about this because in the service plan, it uses the number 108,000 as the baseline. In the performance report of that same time period, it uses the figure of 106,000, which would suggest that instead of having a target of 7,000 spaces this year, it should have a target of 9,000 incremental spaces.
Could the minister confirm what the target is for this year: 7,000 or 9,000 spaces?
Hon. K. Chen: I know the member has the service plan, which says clearly that in 2018-19, we’re forecasting 115,000, and then in 2019-20, we’re targeting 121,000.
L. Throness: I will assume, then, that the target for this year is to create 7,000 to 9,000 spaces.
[The bells were rung.]
The Chair: We will report out and continue after we get back after lunch.
Hon. K. Conroy: I move that the committee rise and report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:42 a.m.
Copyright © 2019: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada