Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call continued debate on Bill 14.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 14 — EARLY CHILDHOOD
EDUCATORS ACT

(continued)

Mr. Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the minister to close the debate.

Hon. M. Dean: Hon. Speaker, I want to say thank you to all of the MLAs who spoke on this really important bill. I want to thank them, especially, for recognizing the work of the Minister of State for Child Care and all of her staff, as well, and to thank them for recognizing the value of our early childhood educators and supporting our progress and our work moving forward.

We’re recognizing that profession and those workers and really trying to build a system that does support more early childhood educators being able to enter into the profession, obviously providing that really vital service of early learning for our children, who of course are so important to us now and for our future as well.

I really appreciated how people recognized that so many people working in this sector are women and the importance of lifting women and recognizing the value of the work that all of these, mostly women, are doing. They are taking care of our precious young children while the parents are able to get into the workforce to help rebuild the economy and to help continue driving the province forward as well. As we’ve said so many times, these early childhood educators are the workforce behind the workforce.

[1:35 p.m.]

I myself was an employer of early childhood educators. I ran a child care that happened to be on school grounds and supported a range of parents, especially young parents. So I know firsthand, as I would hear from the manager that one of the workers had called up and said they couldn’t make it in. They’d have to really scramble and make sure that they had enough staff coverage, themselves quite often having to get emergency arrangements for their own family to be able to come in to operate a licensed, quality, inclusive child care.

We know that by putting these measures in place, we’re really supporting the sector and lifting the sector so that we don’t end up with those precarious kinds of situations that actually threaten the stability of child care and really create a lot of stress and strain for families, who rely on it as well. You know, I worked with our team, and I would go to the daycare often. They were absolutely dedicated, committed, highly skilled and very compassionate people who were providing that early learning and child care for those youngsters.

[N. Letnick in the chair.]

I’m really happy to see the bill moving forward and thank everybody for their contribution as we move forward.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. Dean: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting after today.

Bill 14, Early Childhood Educators Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call committee stage, Bill 15.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 15 — EARLY LEARNING AND
CHILD CARE ACT

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 15; N. Letnick in the chair.

The committee met at 1:39 p.m.

The Chair: The committee will stand in recess for a couple of minutes while staff are making their way to their seats.

The committee recessed from 1:39 p.m. to 1:42 p.m.

[N. Letnick in the chair.]

On clause 1.

The Chair: Would the minister like to introduce her staff?

Hon. K. Chen: Sure. I am here with our ADM, Kevena Hall, for the child care division from MCFD; Teresa Butler, director of child care policy; and also Renae Snell, manager for legislation and legal support.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister and her staff. I know that you’ve all put quite a bit of work into this bill. Child care is, I think, foundational to families and to British Columbia. I think that you have wonderful jobs, and you do great work.

My role here, as I see it, is to support making this the best bill possible. I look forward to learning more about it and expressing my questions as we go through this.

Now, this is my first committee experience. So, Mr. Chair, I ask for your patience with me. I will strive to follow the process as clearly as possible here.

On section 1, although I don’t have a question specific to it…. I would ask the Chair if I might ask two general questions to start with. Okay.

Does the minister believe that this government has met its obligations, related to the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, with respect to this bill? Who did that consultative work, and who was consulted with, specifically?

[1:45 p.m.]

The Chair: Just for the benefit of our new members, we are now referring to the different parts of the bill as clauses, not sections.

All you need to do is stand up and ask your questions, and I will recognize you. That would be great.

Hon. K. Chen: Thanks to the critic for the questions. This is my first committee as well, so I guess we have so much to learn together. I really appreciate your time spent on the two legislations in front of us.

To answer the question, we have done extensive engagement with our Indigenous partners, including the First Nations Leadership Council, Métis Commission, Métis Nation B.C. and also B.C. Aboriginal Child Care Society, which have always been partners along this journey to build a universal, inclusive, early learning and child care system.

We have been incorporating the Declaration Act into our proposal and the work that we do, of course, in consultation with our Indigenous partners as well. The proposed legislation is consistent with the following articles of UNDRIP, including articles 3, 5, 20(1), 21, 22 and 23.

K. Kirkpatrick: My second question….

I’m sorry. You have to recognize me, don’t you?

The Chair: Yes, that’s okay. You stand up, and then I recognize you. The Chair will either say “Member” or will actually say your riding. In either case, you then start. Then when you’re done, you put your mask back on.

All right. Member.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you, Chair.

Who were the other groups that were consulted with, and what is the makeup of those groups — for example, child care providers, ECE workers? What was the geographic representation? Was there a combination of non-profit, for-profit, public, Montessori? It’s just to get a flavour of who’s had input into this.

[1:50 p.m.]

Hon. K. Chen: We have been consulting with the sector and many diverse stakeholders since we started the Childcare B.C. plan in 2017-2018. Of course, we rely mostly on our Provincial Child Care Council, which has diverse members coming from the child care sector: family providers, multi-age providers, licensed group care providers, non-profit, for-profit, providers that have experience with children who require extra support — providers and stakeholders from, for example, the education community — academics and community groups.

Then they also are from different geographic regions, such as Vancouver Island, Vancouver Coastal, Fraser, Interior, Northern. We do consult with them, with their diverse experience and expertise on child care. As part of our Childcare B.C. plan, of course, we have always been conducting other public engagement opportunities, engaging with families and our local child care resource referral centres.

I’ll give an example. Earlier this year we also had a reference group and a workforce group of child care sector, education and labour professionals to advise on some early questions regarding the future of child care.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you, Minister. You explained a little bit about how some of that consultation information was gathered, but can you give more detail, more specifically, in terms of how those groups were engaged with? How was that input considered with respect to the content of the act?

The Chair: Just continuing with our advanced education in parliamentary procedure, it’s important to go through the Chair. So don’t pose questions directly to the minister. Come through the Chair. Thank you.

Hon. K. Chen: Through our engagement process, we find every way possible to learn from, of course, the diverse sector professionals and also from families across the province about their experiences with child care. For example, we’ve done town halls. We’ve had in-person meetings — before COVID, of course. Now we tend to do a lot of Zoom meetings.

[1:55 p.m.]

We’ve had emails coming in. People provide feedback about child care, our team and our ministry. I cannot thank our child care team enough for their dedication and their tons of work into child care. We take that correspondence very seriously. We make sure that the appropriate department gets the feedback and the response. I personally approve a lot of the correspondence, as well, and I learn from those providers, educators and professionals in the sector. We’ve had technical briefings and, especially prior to COVID, done a lot of in-person meetings. Those engagements really helped us to inform our child care plan.

K. Kirkpatrick: Bill 14 creates a regulator for the ECE sector. What connection or authority, if any, does that regulator have with respect to this bill?

The Chair: Just for clarification, you meant Bill 15, correct?

K. Kirkpatrick: No, I meant Bill 14.

The Chair: If the minister chooses to answer the question on her other bill….

Hon. K. Chen: The answer is no, because that’s related to Bill 14.

The Chair: That’s what we thought. If you would like to ask a different question….

Just, by the way, for education for all of us, the reason why we go through the Chair is that it can get pretty heated in here. If we start talking directly across the aisle, it gets even more heated. That’s why. This is to calm things down.

Clause 1 approved.

On clause 2.

K. Kirkpatrick: To the minister, the transition section later in the act refers to grants and subsidies. I wasn’t clear, on that transition, as to the impact of the grants referenced in this section. Are they going to be replacing CCOF, CCFRI, the ECE top-ups, the new spaces fund? Is this something different than those existing programs?

Hon. K. Chen: I think that’s referring to clause 3, but we’re in clause 2. So maybe I’ll wait for the next clause. Is that correct?

The Chair: You may if you wish, or you may answer. It’s up to you. I take your answer as you want to wait. That’s fine.

K. Kirkpatrick: I need to ask for clarification, just on what we’re referencing, each of these sections. I haven’t done this before. When we’re talking about clause 2 — I know you did give an explanation earlier — are we talking about part 1, clause 2 being the application of the act? Or are we moving to…? Just a clarification. I was getting myself a little turned around there.

The Chair: Right. Clause 2 says: “Application of Act.” The number 2 is there. Then there’s (a) and (b). If you need to go back to clause 1….

K. Kirkpatrick: No.

The Chair: Okay. On clause 2, do you have another question?

K. Kirkpatrick: I do not.

Clause 2 approved.

The Chair: Now, I will say: “On clause 3.” When I say, “On clause 3,” that’s when you get up, if you have a question.

On clause 3.

The Chair: Shall clause 3 pass? You’re not getting up. You are getting up.

Interjection.

The Chair: Thank you for that, Member.

K. Kirkpatrick: Mr. Chair, I do appreciate your patience with me here.

On clause 3, child care grants…. I am in the right place, so I’ll repeat. The grants are referenced in this section. Later on, there’s a transition section that talks about transition, but it wasn’t clear to me if the CCOF, CCFRI, ECE top-ups, new spaces fund and those things are being replaced and will be called something different under this section of the act.

[2:00 p.m.]

Hon. K. Chen: The act gives us the legislative foundations to be able to administer all the grants that the critic has mentioned. But just to clarify, for the clause, for the purpose of this clause, that’s all the grants except for the affordable child care benefit.

Then at the same time, it’s important to note that we’re not renaming the program as a result. We are actually broadening it. We are, through this clause, allowing the ministry to continue with all the funding and the support for families and expanding the grants to allow the ministry to do more for families.

Even though it’s not under this clause, I just want to explain the transition clauses that you were mentioning. It’s actually to support existing programs and support for families to be able to continue when this act becomes enforced, and it’s really to provide stability to the families and the providers who were receiving those grants at the time.

K. Kirkpatrick: As you can imagine, Mr. Speaker, there’s a lot of concern in this sector, as referenced by the member for Saanich North and the Islands earlier, as to who’s going to be eligible for these grants under the new act. It’s yet to be explained. As I understand, it will be contained in the regulations.

Could the minister confirm that these grants won’t be limited in any way based on whether a daycare is a non-profit, public or private organization?

[2:05 p.m.]

Hon. K. Chen: Just to clarify for the clause and what we are discussing here, it’s to give the ministry the legal authority to be able to issue and broaden the scope of grants and supports for providers and families. But in terms of eligibility, that is really being established in policies. So eligibility funding is established through policies.

K. Kirkpatrick: I understand that that will be done through policy, but I would like to understand what the act envisions in terms of that policy — what the intent will be and whether there is going to be a change in who will be eligible for the existing programs such as the ECE wage enhancements and CCOF and those.

Hon. K. Chen: I think, again, it’s important to note that this legislation really gives us authority to broaden our work and ability to support providers and families. But of course, a lot of the eligibility for funding and all that is established in policies.

As I’ve always said publicly, through our Childcare B.C. plan, we will continue, and we have been continuing, to work with the very diverse sector and providers. There is a place for all providers in our child care system right here in B.C.

The intent of this legislation is really to make sure we support the work that we’ve done since 2017 to invest in child care: supporting the principle of an inclusive, universal early learning and care system, including equitable access; supporting parent affordability, inclusivity of child care; and also supporting the delivery of high-quality early learning and care systems through social, cultural, educational, emotional, physical development of children.

[2:10 p.m.]

It’s supporting the relationship between child care and kindergarten-to-grade-12 education and also the transition between child care and K to 12; and of course, very importantly, also working, collaborating with Indigenous communities and peoples, including in relation to child care matters, and also putting the UN declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples into consideration. So we’ll continue to work with our very diverse sector, Indigenous communities, along this journey.

K. Kirkpatrick: My final question on this section. The minister, in the introduction of this bill, talked about its ability to build the sector, to increase spaces and to make it a better quality, more inclusive system. I would just like to ask the minister: with the changes in these grants that are going to be supporting child care providers, how will it be different? How will this act support growth and increase the number of spaces available in the province of B.C.?

Hon. K. Chen: Again, the intent of this legislation is to broaden the support that we have for families and providers. It will also help to improve access, for example, by expanding the purpose for which a child care grant may be paid to include establishing a child care facility or improving inclusivity in child care.

I know the member cares a lot about inclusion, which is a key part of this legislation — for example, to provide more access for children who require extra support and also facilitating the design or delivery of Indigenous child care programs.

E. Ross: To follow up on one of the answers, we’re talking in general about working with First Nations communities. It’s become such a politicized, vague topic nowadays, given the UNDRIP bill.

When you talk about consultation…. In the framework of rights and title case law, for example, it has a very different meaning when you’re talking about consultation, especially when we’re talking about the bill that was passed here just recently in the Legislature, the United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples. But consultation, in a legal sense, is very prescriptive and has been defined over the last 15 years, at least since 2004 on the Haida court case and the duty to consult and accommodate, especially when we’re talking about the duty to the Crown. And that’s where I take my definition of consultation.

In response to one of the answers that was given here, can I ask for the minister to elaborate: how did the Crown consult with 203 First Nations regarding this bill?

[2:15 p.m.]

Hon. K. Chen: I really appreciate the member’s question. We all know our government’s commitment to continue this journey through reconciliation.

We have directly provided opportunities for the 203 First Nations to provide feedback throughout this legislation. As I mentioned earlier, we have been engaging with the Métis Nation, the First Nations Leadership Council and the Aboriginal Child Care Society of B.C. during this process.

It’s important to note that this act requires regulations to be drafted to come into force, so ministry staff and our government are very committed to continue to work with Indigenous communities and the First Nations Leadership Council to co-develop those regulations.

In the meantime, we have entered a letter of commitment with the First Nations Leadership Council, for example, to confirm the principles, process, roles and responsibilities of MCFD when it comes to this legislation and working with Indigenous governments and the First Nations Leadership Council.

We do appreciate this question, and we’ll continue to do the work. I also want to end by noting that this legislation is really the first step, as we have incorporated language to ensure that we support, for example, the creation of Indigenous-led child care and being able to create more culturally inclusive early learning and care services with Indigenous communities.

E. Ross: Thank you for that answer.

The organizations you spoke of do not represent Aboriginal communities in B.C. According to the UNDRIP document that was actually approved of in this House…. It made no mention of the organizations that were just listed. The UNDRIP document actually talks about First Nations communities and leaders and talks about consultation. The framework of that was already set long before UNDRIP was established in New York or wherever it came from, before it got enacted by this Legislature.

Just to go back to the commitment made under the UNDRIP document, it said that there would be full consultation from this government to the communities and, more importantly, the rights and title holders of these communities. It didn’t define that in the document, of course, but the commitment was made to talk with and consult with communities.

[2:20 p.m.]

So a two-part question. Could the minister detail which communities in question were consulted with? Not the advocacy organizations that don’t represent communities. And if the communities were not consulted as per the UNDRIP bill, did the Crown delegate its duty to consult to the organizations that were just listed by the minister?

The Chair: Just a reminder to avoid talking directly to the minister by saying “you.”

While we’re waiting for the minister to review the question and answer, just for those of you in the gallery, thank you very much for being here this week, our first week back in full session. We’re dealing with Bill 15, Early Learning and Child Care Act. We’re going through the bill clause by clause. It’s 31 clauses plus the title. It’s also a learning opportunity for yours truly, obviously. So bear with us. We go back and forth, and there are some breaks as the minister discusses answers with the staff.

Hon. K. Chen: It is our belief that this draft piece of legislation supports the province’s commitment under section 3 of the Declaration Act. It is also consistent with the following articles of UNDRIP, including articles 5, 14, 20, 21(2) and 22. We have engaged and provided the opportunity to hear from and receive feedback from 203 First Nations.

Again, through the letter of commitment that we’ve made with the First Nations Leadership Council and as this act will require regulations — as the critic has mentioned about how a lot of the details are indeed in the regulations — it will be drafted and co-developed with the First Nations Leadership Council and also Indigenous communities throughout this process.

E. Ross: To the member for West Vancouver–Capilano, I make mistakes too, but this is the only way to learn. That’s exactly the way I learned, being corrected by the Chair many, many times. I used “you” twice, which was actually pointed out by the Chair. That was a mistake. I apologize.

To the minister, really what we’re talking about is consultation. It seems to me we’re talking specifically within the confines of UNDRIP, the bill, but there were hundreds of court cases before UNDRIP came to be that actually defined “consultation” in the courts of B.C. and Canada. That seems to be forgotten. The definition of “consultation” is well laid out.

[2:25 p.m.]

When we’re talking about this, we’re talking about the further commitment under the UNDRIP document that said this government would consult on every piece of legislation existing as well as proposed in terms of consultation with 203 bands in B.C. I thought at the time that was unrealistic.

I have yet to hear whether or not any piece of legislation has actually reached 203 bands under the legal definition of “consultation,” because consultation is pretty exhaustive in terms of what the duty of the Crown has to uphold. It’s got to be meaningful. It can’t be just a notice of intention of the Crown to do something and expect feedback from a First Nation that’s probably got 20 different things on their to-do list.

When we were talking about consultation, I was really talking about the commitments under UNDRIP to consult with 203 bands, as promised as per UNDRIP, as well as upholding the duty of the Crown, not to organizations like the leadership council. The leadership council does not represent communities. They’re an advocacy organization. In some cases, they represent organizations that you can join by just paying your dues. The representation of communities actually boils down to who is representing that community in question.

We haven’t heard a list of any communities that were consulted, so I just want to be clear. Is it my understanding that there were no communities actually consulted other than just notice of intention by the Crown?

Hon. K. Chen: I really appreciate, again, the member for your feedback and sharing your thoughts, and I totally understand the feedback that you’re sharing here.

I think it’s important, again, to mention that universal, inclusive early learning and child care has never existed in this province before. This legislation is the first step to pull that work together to ensure that, through our work investing in early learning and child care, that investment is going to be inclusive and that when we work with Indigenous communities, there will be Indigenous-led child care, and there has been. There are some really good examples across the province through the learnings that we’ve had and work that we’ve done with and learning from Indigenous communities.

It is the first key step to be able to continue that journey, and we will continue to learn and develop and improve along the way.

Again, this act does require regulations to be drafted to come into force. Ministry staff, myself, our whole team, our government will be co-developing those regulations and working hand in hand with Indigenous communities and partners and stakeholders across the province, including engagement, consultation. Opportunities for legislative co-development will also take place if amendments to the act are required for the future.

We’re really committed to this journey. We want to do this first step to see how Indigenous-led child care can be done in this province and will be done in this province, and it is our commitment to inclusion and to reconciliation.

The Chair: Thank you, Minister. Let’s avoid the “your” references and talk about “his.” Again, through the Chair — this is a reminder to both sides.

Before I recognize the member for Skeena, I’m about to be replaced at 2:30. So before I go, I just want to say thank you for the privilege of being here for your first estimates, both of you. You did a great job. Wonderful. Much better than I ever did when I had my first estimates.

E. Ross: Well, thank you, Chair.

With all due respect, Minister — through the Chair, of course — that wasn’t the question. We’re talking about inclusivity across the board in terms of everything we try to do in this Legislature, including child care.

[2:30 p.m.]

The question was consultation, not only as the commitments made under UNDRIP but also the legal requirements made under case law that was established long before UNDRIP was ever implemented. The question was: how many communities did you actually consult? There are 203 communities, complete with their own leadership structure. They all want some form of child care, right? We all know that. But that’s not the question that I’m trying to ask here.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

I’m trying to follow up on the commitments made under the UNDRIP bill that actually has a foundation of rights and title case law, including the full definition of “consultation.” That’s what I’m asking. I’m going to presume, based on the non-answer I’m hearing, that there was no consultation with one band, let alone 203, in B.C. and that this government actually reneged on their commitment to consult with these bands by delegating the consultation duty to advocacy groups like the leadership council, which doesn’t represent communities. They’re an advocacy organization.

Given that we haven’t heard one mention of one community, let alone 50 percent of the 203 communities in B.C., am I to presume that this will be the standard going forward, given what we’ve heard in this Legislature in terms of how this government refuses to consult with 203 bands in B.C., as previously committed under UNDRIP, and that this is just another example of how this government will actually bypass the consultation with 203 communities and actually just go to groups like the leadership council to fulfil that duty?

Hon. K. Chen: I want to reiterate again that the Ministry of Children and Family Development is committed to support and uphold Indigenous inherent and human rights and to implement and meet the objectives of the UN declaration on the rights of Indigenous people. It is our understanding that the draft piece of legislation supports the province’s commitment under section 3 of the declaration act.

Again, this is the first time that B.C. is introducing universal, inclusive early learning and care. It opens the first step and the door to ensure that we can work in partnership with Indigenous communities hand in hand on Indigenous-led child care. It is a historic move, and we’ll continue that journey and co-develop the regulations with Indigenous partners and communities.

[2:35 p.m.]

E. Ross: Well, we’re not going to get anywhere with this. We’re not going to get any mention of a yes or a no, whether or not this government actually consulted with 203 bands in B.C. as per their commitment under the UNDRIP bill.

Can the minister name either one community, just one, or one representative of a community that actually responded as per the consultation this Crown promised to deliver in the first place? Just name one person from one community or name one community that actually fulfilled the back-and-forth process that follows the definition of “consultation” that had actually been decided upon through the courts of B.C. and Canada.

Hon. K. Chen: We have reached out and connected with 203 First Nations, and we will continue to do this engagement again, like I mentioned. We’ll continue to work hand in hand with First Nations and Indigenous communities to co-develop their regulations.

Clause 3 approved.

On clause 4.

K. Kirkpatrick: Will the benefits under this legislation, under this clause, replace the affordable child care benefit and other supports that families are currently receiving?

Hon. K. Chen: This clause will enable us to continue with the affordable child care benefit. It will not change the affordable child care benefit. But it is also important to note that we are aligning our public communication with the legislation to make sure that the “child care subsidy” term is now replaced with “child care benefit.”

K. Kirkpatrick: Does the minister anticipate there will be any means-testing for these benefits?

[2:40 p.m.]

Hon. K. Chen: This actually allows us to continue to deliver the income-tested affordable child care benefit. In terms of the details, it will be done through policies and regulations.

K. Kirkpatrick: How do the benefits under this section relate to the commitment to universal accessibility and the promise of the $10-a-day daycare?

Hon. K. Chen: This clause supports the work we do to ensure that while we deliver inclusive, universal early learning and care services to families, the most vulnerable families and children are getting the extra support that they need, including families who are now receiving $10-a-day or no-cost or low-cost child care at this moment and in the future as well.

The other parts of this legislation — for example, through the child care grants — will cover on our commitment and our work to implement universal, affordable, high-quality early learning and care services.

K. Kirkpatrick: Frequently, the reference to inclusive, universal accessibility, universal child care is used. I would like to ask if the minister can define for me in the spirit of what the ministry refers to with inclusive and universal child care.

Hon. K. Chen: The policy intent behind the word “inclusive” can be understood through, for example, our Childcare B.C. plan. At the most basic level, inclusive means that all children deserve to be respected and fully included by those who are caring for them and teaching them and nurturing them. It also recognizes and addresses the needs of children who may be experiencing vulnerability and those children with extra support needs or diverse learning needs.

Clause 4 approved.

On clause 5.

K. Kirkpatrick: If the Chair will indulge, I have a general question on division 2, “Child Care Strategy,” before I address 5.

This division is called the child care strategy. It entails the Provincial Child Care Council and the annual report only. Does this child care strategy replace the Childcare B.C. plan?

Hon. K. Chen: The answer is no. This clause actually supports our Childcare B.C. plan. On this particular clause, it actually continues the Provincial Child Care Council from the Child Care B.C. Act under the Early Learning and Child Care Act.

[2:45 p.m.]

It also expands the matters that the Provincial Child Care Council can make recommendations on to align with current practices and also with government’s direction to implement inclusive universal child care.

K. Kirkpatrick: This might sound like I’m digging too much into the meaning of a word, but when we use the word “strategy….” I have heard this minister refer many times to multiple strategies, so the Childcare B.C. plan I understood to be the child care strategy. What is the meaning of using the word “strategy” then, again, within this act?

Hon. K. Chen: Just to explain, I am personally ESL. So this is good learning for me on the word “strategy” as well.

This actually talks about the strategic vision — for example, our child care plan. So I will raise an example on this clause that talks about how the recommendations are made to the government to go towards that vision through our strategic plan. On clause 6, it is also on how we can achieve our strategic objectives through, for example, reporting and the commitment that we’re making through this legislation.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

I will now address clause 5, “Provincial Child Care Council.” How will the Provincial Child Care Council be constituted, and is it different than how the current one is constituted?

Hon. K. Chen: First of all, there is no change to the current process. At this moment, the practice is that a member of the Provincial Child Care Council is identified through an application process, which is administered by the Crown agency and board resourcing office, which is responsible for public sector organization governance support, including recruiting and recommendation for candidates for appointments to agencies and boards.

[2:50 p.m.]

Vacancies on the Provincial Child Care Council are posted for the public to access and for all interested parties that are welcome to apply, which is a standard practice for appointments for B.C. agencies, boards and commissions. At the same time, we do have a very diverse group of Provincial Child Care Council members that bring a lot of expertise from different sectors and experience and knowledge to our Provincial Child Care Council.

K. Kirkpatrick: What remuneration is expected to be paid to council members?

Hon. K. Chen: This legislation does not address the remuneration of the Provincial Child Care Council. It is addressed through the CABRO, the Crown agencies and board resourcing office.

K. Kirkpatrick: I’m looking at how we’re going to determine that we have appropriate, adequate breadth of experience on this provincial council. Questions I’ve got are very specific to all of the different requirements and things that this Provincial Child Care Council is going to have the ability to make recommendations to the minister on.

I’m wondering if there is a competency grid that’s being used to ensure that appropriateness of breadth of representation on the council. I look forward to hearing about that. Then if I may, I may go back and ask specific questions about certain areas of expertise.

Hon. K. Chen: The Crown agencies and board resourcing office establishes the criteria to follow in compiling a pool of prospective eligible members for the Provincial Child Care Council. This currently includes child care providers with experience in various types of care; people with experience with various community groups, such as advocacy groups, business, local government, labour, post-secondary, education; and also those who represent different regions of the province and the diversity of our province.

The ministry is currently looking into amending the existing terms of reference to building greater Indigenous competency, based on the feedback from our Indigenous partners and the First Nations Leadership Council on this legislation. This legislation does not include regulation-making authorities relating to our Provincial Child Care Council members.

[2:55 p.m.]

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister for that.

I’m going to ask a few more questions in this particular area, because my understanding from reading this act is that the majority of input into regulation and input into how this act will be administered is the responsibility of the Provincial Child Care Council. They play a significantly central and important role to this. There have been additions in terms of the types of responsibilities that they have.

I’m concerned. I’m not totally sure about the process, but the board resourcing office developing a competency framework…. The minister may have alluded to this a bit in the last answer, but do they meet with you and go through the requirements of this legislation to make sure that they’ve got people on that provincial council that have experience, for example, with the social, cultural, educational, emotional, cognitive…? There’s that behavioural component as well.

What I heard you mention were various geographic areas and different professional groups, but the question is: how does the resourcing office or that competency framework…? How do you ensure it aligns with the depth of expertise required to undertake all of these responsibilities?

Hon. K. Chen: Just to make sure it is more clear and clarified, we consult with a wide range of professionals, families and stakeholders from the sector and outside of the sector. We do need a lot of expertise into building an inclusive, affordable, high-quality early learning and child care system. It is a huge undertaking, and we have been learning along the way since 2017.

Of course, the Provincial Child Care Council is an important group of leaders and professionals and, really, people with so much expertise in the child care sector and also from other sectors as well. We also have people from education sectors, our Indigenous representatives and people who understand the needs of young children or children who require extra support.

I do really appreciate the work of our Provincial Child Care Council members. They are volunteers who do so much to provide a lot of technical advice and support for our child care plan.

Again, it is important to know that we do engage with many other providers through different ways of engagement that we’ve touched on earlier. Actually, in the coming weeks, we’re going to do more engagement. I would definitely love to share that opportunity with all members from this House to encourage more diverse voices and more experience coming in to shape the plan for our future child care system.

The Provincial Child Care Council is critical to provide, for example, technical support. If there is an area that we need to look into on how this would impact specific providers, for example, then we would have a provider or a professional who has that experience or knowledge and maybe also have someone who is a stakeholder that could be impacted by a certain decision to be able to get some quick and also important and technical feedback.

[3:00 p.m.]

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

There is a part here…. One of the responsibilities that this group has is recommendations with respect to the role of — there’s a whole number of things in this one clause, which I started to say: “…social, cultural, educational, emotional, cognitive and physical development of children.”

If I could ask, what are the requirements that you’re looking for? What background do the people that have that level of expertise have? Do you already have those people? Is that part of the competency framework?

Hon. K. Chen: I appreciate the member’s question.

For example, currently our Provincial Child Care Council does have that diverse and wide range of backgrounds and expertise in a lot of areas. We will continue to evaluate, when vacancies or opportunities come up, to make sure we fill a certain gap or we’re looking at diverse experiences that can help to shape our Childcare B.C. plan.

Currently, for example, we have representatives from the following sectors and geographic regions across the province. That’s including family providers, multi-age providers, licensed group child care providers, including not-for-profit and for-profit providers. We have providers serving children from birth to school age; child care providers offering inclusive programming for children with additional support needs; and also Indigenous providers, on and off reserve, with different expertise as well.

We also have Child Care Council members and professionals from different advocacy groups, including labour and even the business community, to look at the economic impacts and the benefits of investing in child care. We have local governments, such as municipal and school district experience, post-secondary experience. We also have providers from Vancouver Island, Vancouver Coastal, Fraser, Interior, Kamloops, Kelowna, Kootenays, Northern. We do our best to recruit members with very diverse experience and expertise.

K. Kirkpatrick: That’s good. What I’m looking for, with respect to these things in particular, would actually be child psychologists, people that work with behavioural issues, child kinesiology — all of those things that are directly related to what is specifically laid out here.

Hon. K. Chen: I really appreciate the member’s input and recommendation. I think, as our child care plan continues to evolve, that is definitely an area where we are looking forward to recruit more diverse expertise and talents into our Provincial Child Care Council.

[3:05 p.m.]

K. Kirkpatrick: To the minister, can I have it on record, then, that there will be positions on that council that will be dedicated to professionals who are professionals with respect to child development, physical development and the things noted in their responsibilities?

Hon. K. Chen: I want to share and clarify that currently we do have Provincial Child Care Council members who are early childhood educators, who are professionally trained and who are experts and also leaders in the sector, who have the experience and who know how to support young children, their emotional, social and psychological needs and development.

We do have some expertise on council, but of course, I really appreciate the member’s feedback. We’ll continue to look for a wider range of expertise, opinions and advice as we continue to evolve our child care plan and as we have openings coming up on council. I really appreciate that feedback.

K. Kirkpatrick: I just want to differentiate that the work of an ECE worker and someone who has expertise in ECE can be very different than what is required and the level of responsibility in making recommendations related to young people’s cognitive development. There are people with master’s degrees who are very well versed in working specifically with young people on these types of things. I just want to differentiate those.

Is there an understanding of that difference and a willingness to look specifically at those professions that work with young people in that way?

Hon. K. Chen: I think it is important to note that we do consult with a lot of stakeholders and professionals, as the member mentioned, other than our Provincial Child Care Council. Our Provincial Child Care Council members are definitely critical to our child care plan, but when we do engagement, when we consult, we are more than happy to learn from other professionals — including the professions that the member opposite mentioned — to be able to help to work and give us great advice on child care plans that are focused on a child’s well-being.

On the Provincial Child Care Council, a lot of the stakeholders that we engage with…. There are many professionals that are, for example, from the supported child development program and that actually do have a lot of expertise, including psychologists and child and youth counsellors who know and have involvement and have the experience of working with children with diverse needs.

K. Kirkpatrick: My understanding, what I heard the minister just say, is that there are other stakeholders and people that are consulted with outside of the Provincial Child Care Council. But it is in the mandate of the Provincial Child Care Council to have the expertise in these areas themselves.

[3:10 p.m.]

It might help me to understand this better if I might ask the minister if she could give an example of “social, cultural, educational….” What are the kinds of recommendations that you would envision the Child Care Council making with respect to these areas?

Hon. K. Chen: We do have, for example, Provincial Child Care Council members from Indigenous communities who have the experience of working with Indigenous children and families and, for example, would help us to support the work that we do on quality and inclusive early learning and care services and would give us the advice on what the member has asked about — the social, cultural, emotional or educational support to address the diverse needs of families.

We also have council members who are experts and leaders in providing quality child care or to support other peers in the sector. For example, we have a pedagogy program that we funded to support a lot of early childhood educators, professionals and providers who may be working in silos — family providers that want to connect with their peers to get some support and to learn how to provide better quality, inclusive, early learning and care services.

The council members who have the expertise in those areas, along with other stakeholders that we do engage and learn from, can come together often, to make sure we develop those programs with important front-line experience, feedback and experts from the field.

The Chair: If I might step in for a quick moment just to remind folks, the COVID protocols are that we’re to keep our own seats and not move between seats. Also, of course, make sure your mask is over your nose and your mouth. Thank you.

K. Kirkpatrick: I’m going to try to use the actual section numbers here. I keep just using the terms and not telling you where they are.

Clause 5(6)(e), “any other matter related to child care,” seems a very broad responsibility to have. Could I ask the minister to give examples, perhaps, of what’s anticipated there and why that is left open-ended like that?

Hon. K. Chen: I think that the important part of this is that, because the previous legislation was very limited on what the Provincial Child Care Council members could do and advise on, we want to make sure that we expand the scope of their advice and their recommendations so that we don’t have to come back and make amendments to our legislation every time that we want to expand their scope.

[3:15 p.m.]

Other resources that are referenced here may include, for example, physical facilities or items such as toys, crafting supplies, safety equipment, child-appropriate furniture, which could be necessary to support a child’s learning and development to ensure that safety is maintained in the learning environment. That would be some examples of what we could do to expand the scope of the recommendations.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

I’ll just express a concern I have with any kind of open-ended miscellaneous responsibilities and legislation, because it’s very unclear to people, in terms of what that could actually mean. It could be something that at some point is…. I’ll just move on from that, but that is a concern that I have on that one.

A question I have: what is the process for making recommendations to the minister? Will it be these recommendations that will then form regulations?

Hon. K. Chen: The Provincial Child Care Council meet about, currently, three times a year. They also have some ad hoc discussions and also subcommittees that focus on different topics and sharing different expertise on different issues.

Our ministry staff are a very dedicated team. They do attend all those meetings, taking notes and bringing them back, sharing with me. I also personally do my best to attend their meetings, and also engage with the chair on a regular basis to learn from them — to hear their feedback, their reaction or response to issues that we bring forward to them.

To the member’s second part of the question, they do not form regulations, but their advice does inform us — the work that we do and the regulations, which is also part of the broader stakeholders and communities from child care that we consult with. Again, Provincial Child Care Council does inform government’s directions and visions on child care, but we do consult with a wider group of stakeholders, partners, providers, professionals from the sector and families as well. B.C. families’ experience is definitely key to our child care plan.

K. Kirkpatrick: Because making recommendations by this Child Care Council is so central to the entire act, I’m wondering about the formality of those recommendations. If I can just clarify, what I’ve heard is that recommendations come out of discussions where staff are in the room, as opposed to actually having an official recommendation, a written recommendation from the chair or the council.

Did I articulate that, Mr. Chair, so it could be understandable? I believe I did.

The formality of those recommendations…. Is there something somewhere, a paper, that says to the minister: “These are recommendations” or “This is a recommendation to the minister from the Provincial Child Care Council”?

[3:20 p.m.]

Hon. K. Chen: The Provincial Child Care Council often has discussions with staff as part of the meetings to take minutes of their discussions and notes, feedback and thoughts on different issues. There is no requirement, under our terms of reference, for the Provincial Child Care Council to produce a report to the Minister Responsible for Child Care. Of course, we do communicate and connect very actively, as we have been busy with our child care plan.

I personally attend their meetings. I engage with the chair most of the time to make sure I’m on top of their feedback, issues, concerns and thoughts about our child care plan. I also engage with members. A lot of the Provincial Child Care Council members are professionals and leaders in the sector, and they’re across the province. When I have an opportunity to engage with different communities or on different topics about child care, I also do my best to engage with Provincial Child Care Council members directly to hear from them.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

Are there subcommittees of the Provincial Child Care Council that deal with certain areas of specialization?

Hon. K. Chen: Historically and currently, there are subgroups from the Provincial Child Care Council members that could…. For example, currently we have focus on the affordability pillar, quality and accessibility. Inclusion is also under “quality” as well, so they do focus on different areas, depending on a member’s expertise. Of course, that could evolve and change, depending on the priorities of the day and the issues that arise.

K. Kirkpatrick: Are these meetings minuted, and are those available to the public?

[3:25 p.m.]

Hon. K. Chen: Historically, we don’t proactively release the minutes. They are confidential advice to the minister.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you for that, Minister.

A question, again, for clarity on responsibilities. I am focusing on this because my understanding here is that there’s the child care strategy section. This Child Care Council is basically 50 percent of what the two key elements are. There’s accountability, and there’s the Child Care Council. Then the number one obligation of the Child Care Council is recommendations.

Not having a more kind of formal process for actually providing recommendations — not having recommendations that are transparent to the public, to child care providers — is a concern. Is there something that the minister can tell me that will make me more comfortable in that there is some public transparency with respect to the recommendations — maybe not providing the minutes publicly but the recommendations that are coming out of those meetings?

Hon. K. Chen: First of all, the member’s question is really outside the scope of this legislation, but I’m happy to provide some clarity.

I can see how the member is really focused on the word “strategy.” So I just really want to reaffirm that when we talk about our child care strategy, our consultation, our engagement, the Provincial Child Care Council is a part of it but not all of it. There is so much work that we do, for example, through our surveys, engagement, correspondence and either in-person or virtual consultation that we do.

In the coming weeks, I’m more than happy to share with the critic the work that we will be doing when it comes to engagement and the opportunities to engage with the diverse sector. That actually happens all the time outside of the Provincial Child Care Council. When the Provincial Child Care Council does provide advice on an issue — for example, when we announce a decision on moving forward on a program or a project — we often will release and inform the public, in a transparent way, that this decision is informed, supported by the Provincial Child Care Council and, potentially, other stakeholders, especially including Indigenous communities.

K. Kirkpatrick: I don’t believe it’s outside the scope of the bill. I’ll stop using references to the word “strategy.” But looking at recommendations, which are key to the work of what the Provincial Child Care Council is doing, is certainly within the scope of this legislation.

What is the minister’s obligation, if any, to accept recommendations of the council?

[3:30 p.m.]

[N. Letnick in the chair.]

Hon. K. Chen: There is no legal obligation for the minister responsible for child care to receive the recommendation or to implement a recommendation, but personally, I value our Provincial Child Care Council and other stakeholders’ expertise when it comes to building inclusive, affordable, high-quality early learning and care services because, again, this is the first time our province is doing that, and we do need to count on a lot of expertise and feedback from the stakeholders.

The Chair: West Vancouver–Capilano.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Welcome back to the chair.

Thank you to the minister. I appreciate that there is no legal requirement for the minister to take a recommendation from the Provincial Child Care Council. My concern is that the recommendations are foundational to this entire legislation. I’m hearing that there is not a formal way to document recommendations coming out of the council and that there is no obligation or process for the minister to consider those recommendations, yet it’s a huge component of what this legislation is.

In my experience with most advisory committees and bodies, things are minuted, and the minutes would contain something that would say that the board or the council recommends to the minister that, you know, A, B, C happens. That would actually be formalized, and that would go to the minister.

If I’m understanding correctly — again, I’m coming back to it — it sounds like there are discussions that happen. Staff are in the room, and notes are taken, and then somehow, in some format, the minister becomes aware of that. But there is no process for going through that, putting an actual recommendation in front of the minister and the minister reviewing that recommendation and perhaps having a conversation with the council to get clarity on it.

Am I correct that there is not a process like that in place?

[3:35 p.m.]

Hon. K. Chen: I think it is important to maybe make a correction to the member’s statement about the bulk part of the legislation. Actually, it is part of the legislation that will support our work to build inclusive, affordable, high-quality early learning and care for all British Columbians.

This legislation is actually focused on providing a strong legislative foundation to do that work. This clause and this section and the work of the Provincial Child Care Council of course supports that, but it’s not the big part of the intent of this legislation. I think it’s important to kind of verify that.

The purpose of the legislation, of course, is really focused on how we build a strong foundation and legislative framework for the universal early learning and care system, which we are working hard on, that’s going to be inclusive, affordable and high quality.

In the meantime, to also answer the member’s second part of the question, there is no requirement — and historically, there’s no requirement — for the council to produce a report or submit their recommendation.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

I find it somewhat puzzling that the minister is maybe downplaying the importance of the wording in here and the structure of the act. The minister is referencing that the purpose of this is for inclusive, affordable, universal child care. It’s difficult for me as a critic and for the public to know what that means because the majority of the work is being deferred or pushed over into regulation, but the bulk of the conversations and content, based on how this legislation is written, is really contained in that Provincial Child Care Council. So that’s why I’m continuing to ask about that.

Now, I see that the minister has shaken her head to disagree with that, so I am going to go back to her and ask. I am perhaps not articulating this clearly enough. But to the minister, why is this Provincial Child Care Council piece such a prominent part of the legislation if I’m told here that it’s not as critical to the act as I am suggesting it is?

Hon. K. Chen: I think it is important to inform the critic that this section on the Provincial Child Care Council is actually a carryover from the previous legislation. So for this new Early Learning and Child Care Act, it is combining the previous Child Care B.C. Act and also the Child Care Subsidy Act together. This part is actually a carryover.

Of course, we have to carry on a lot of the work that we’ve been doing. We need to update this, so we’ve updated the section on the Provincial Child Care Council to make sure they can expand their scope of recommendations. But that being said, this whole legislation…. I’m not trying to downplay at all, because the Provincial Child Care Council’s work is critical to our vision because of their recommendations and the work they do, along with all the other stakeholders and partners that we have through our journey to build an inclusive early learning and care system.

[3:40 p.m.]

The intent and the major purpose of this legislation, and also pulling the two legislations together into one, is to really fix the current broken, I would say…. Not the current — it’s been there for a long, long time.

We’re trying to address a child care system. We’re pulling things together to start this legislative journey and also to enshrine the work that we’ve done, the investment that we’ve done through child care grants and lowering parent fees, accelerating the creation of spaces, supporting early childhood educators. We need to pull all that together into one piece of legislation that can enshrine the principles and the vision for inclusive, early learning, affordable, quality services for all British Columbians.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister. I appreciate the answer and the clarification on that.

I think that we just go back to the challenge being…. The minister is saying…. I understand. I’m excited about potential. If this is what is happening — creating inclusive, affordable child care — it’s very hard with what is the content in this bill for me to understand what that looks like and how it’s actually happening. This is very much just a very sketched-out framework with not a lot of detail. But I trust and believe that the minister’s intent is certainly what we want to have here, which is to create a better child care program in British Columbia.

You’ll be happy to know that I have one more question on this section — based, of course, upon the answer from the minister. But I do believe it is just one more question.

To the minister, when will these roles with the Provincial Child Care Council be posted on — I’m old-fashioned; I keep calling it BRDO, as I’m not sure what it’s called anymore — the board resourcing office website?

Hon. K. Chen: Is it possible to have the member reiterate her question? We’re making sure that we get the right answers to her as clear as possible.

The Chair: Would the member like to repeat her question, please?

K. Kirkpatrick: That was the shortest question I asked all day. My question for the minister was: when will these available roles on the Provincial Child Care Council be posted publicly to the board resourcing or CABRO or whatever it’s called?

Hon. K. Chen: Thank you to the member for clarifying her question. I apologize that we had a little bit of confusion about the question here.

Whenever there is a vacancy, the vacancy is posted on CABRO. CABRO also has a list of provincial council members.

For the member’s information, each member of the Provincial Child Care Council is normally initially appointed to council for a one-year term. They may be reappointed for a second two- to three-year term and a third two- to three-year term. So generally, the maximum years on council will not exceed six years. Extensions are at the discretion of the minister.

Clause 5 approved.

The Chair: Before we start with clause 6, just for the enlightenment of our new critic and our new minister, there are breaks allowed. You’ve been going almost as long as a James Bond movie. So why don’t we just take a five-minute health break right now.

We’ll be in recess for five minutes.

The committee recessed from 3:45 p.m. to 3:56 p.m.

[N. Letnick in the chair.]

On clause 6.

The Chair: Shall clause 6 pass?

Member, did you have a question on clause 6?

K. Kirkpatrick: No. I’m sorry.

The Chair: Okay. So ordered; clause 6 passes.

Shall clause 7 pass?

K. Kirkpatrick: Mr. Chair, I made a mistake. I’m still learning this. I don’t know what I ask. May we have leave to go back to No. 6? I do have questions on No. 6. I apologize.

The Chair: Oh, you do have a question on 6. No problem. Go ahead and ask the question. I’m sure the minister will accommodate you.

Yes, she will.

K. Kirkpatrick: I was doing so well while you were away.

To the minister, this section is about accountability. Accountability is great. Transparency is great. I think that’s very important.

When I was a kid and I would get a report card from the teacher, the teacher would say all those great things like: “Gee, she really tried hard.” Unless there was actually a grade or some kind of quantitative measure attached to that, really my parents had no idea how I was doing in school. I’m going to take that same analogy, and I’m going to apply it to the annual reporting under this act.

In this section, government is committing to report out on actions rather than outcomes, and we know there can be a big chasm between actions and outcomes. Additionally, governments make commitments outside of this act in terms of the number of child care spaces it’s going to be providing, talking about how many ECE workers are coming into the sector.

I’m just asking: why are there no quantitative measures in annual reporting? How will we know if government has accomplished the things that they’re setting out to accomplish?

[4:00 p.m.]

Hon. K. Chen: Just to respond to the member’s question about the report cards, I have to say, our education system has been evolving, and now there are no grades for report cards. I actually love it this way because you’re no longer labelling our kids with A, B, C, Ds. Instead, you’re measuring the outcomes. As a parent, I totally value that change.

I want to say on the reporting, of course, that it is a new commitment. This is part of a new commitment through this legislation that we’re really proud of — to make sure we can hold the government accountable on making the progress on investing in child care and to track the outcomes and track the progress.

Possible metrics that could be reported on could include, for example, reductions in the average price of licensed child care, which could be broken down in different various ways, such as by age group, geography or, for example, new child care spaces being created within a fiscal year or new $10-a-day sites that are opened within the specific year. There are different ways that we could potentially do the metrics.

K. Kirkpatrick: I’m still not sure how kids are applying to university if they’re not getting grades in school, but that is outside of the scope of this legislation.

A question. I’m still finding the idea of accountability a bit of a struggle with respect to this, because you can do as many things as you want, and you can spend as much money as you want on things, but unless you’re able to actually measure something, it’s very difficult.

The minister has said that there are things that are measurable that they could be looking at. But if we’re looking at accountability, should those not be actually enshrined within the legislation itself, having the government make a commitment to setting targets for new spaces and reporting out specifically on how they’ve done with respect to those targets?

Hon. K. Chen: This act does not provide the regulation-making authority related to the annual reporting requirement because it would provide some flexibility as the key metrics may likely shift as the provincial government advances on inclusive, universal child care.

For example, how do we fund spaces, or how do we make child care more affordable? What type of child care? That could all evolve as we develop this new social program. This clause actually sets an obligation that the government must adhere to, which holds the government accountable for making measurable progress on the creation of an inclusive, universal child care system that also supports Indigenous-led child care in B.C.

That’s the reason why this is not in the legislation, because the system will continue to evolve, and we may have to change the metrics along the way. It provides greater flexibility to allow more evolving as we continue to invest in child care.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

Can I just confirm that the minister is saying there will be quantitative measures included in the, I guess, performance metrics — what we want to call it — under the annual report? There will be qualitative measures that we can hold government to account for.

It’s just simply that they’re not contained within the legislation now, because they want some flexibility as the programs roll out to know what exactly those metrics are that they should be measuring.

[4:05 p.m.]

Hon. K. Chen: We will be using data and also metrics to report on the progress we’re making on building an inclusive early learning and care system.

The Chair: Member.

K. Kirkpatrick: Actually, I’m satisfied with the spirit of the answers on this section. I am fine until clause 10 at this point.

Clauses 6 to 9 inclusive approved.

On clause 10.

K. Kirkpatrick: I have a simple question on this. I believe it’s simple.

Under overpayments, and generally under recovery of financial supports, I’ve heard from a number of child care providers that they have alerted the ministry to some challenges with some providers, where they understand that there have been overpayments made. Two and three years have gone by before these have been investigated.

My question is: how will these overpayments and false reporting be monitored? How are they investigated? Will there be additional staff? There are two or three questions there, but they’re all really about how they are going to manage overpayments and reporting.

[4:10 p.m.]

Hon. K. Chen: I would say that I think the question may interact with a few clauses here. We’re flipping back and forth a little bit between clause 8 as well.

I would say this clause and then the related clause actually broaden the requirement that…. Now child care providers are also required to report overpayment, not just on the parent’s part.

Then, on the other question about staff resources, that’s through our annual resource planning, where we manage and look into staff resources that are required to do this.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

Can I just clarify? I’m just not as familiar as I could be with the actual structure of staffing there. Are there actual investigators where that’s their primary responsibility — doing investigations? I’ll give you an example. For CCOF, where a provider has 100 children and is reporting 120 children, is there a way under this for there to be some kind of physical investigation of sites to ensure that these benefits are being administered appropriately?

[4:15 p.m.]

Hon. K. Chen: What MCFD currently does and also how…. This legislation would include a new audit authority applicable for child care providers in relation to the administration of the affordable child care benefit, for example. It would introduce new provisions to allow for the collection and verification of information from child care providers related to the child care grant. Under the MCFD, there is an audit branch that carries out this work at this moment.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

Chair, I’m satisfied here until clause 13.

Clauses 10 to 12 inclusive approved.

On clause 13.

K. Kirkpatrick: The heading of this section applies only to benefits, not to grants. Under clause 13, (2) refers to a child care provider, and this is with respect to reconsiderations.

What is the process for reconsideration for a child care provider? Am I understanding that this should be referencing grants as well as benefits?

Hon. K. Chen: This legislation will continue the reconsideration provisions for parents receiving a child care benefit, which is the affordable child care benefit. Further, this legislation extends similar reconsideration provisions to child care providers that are liable to repay a child care benefit due to an error or omission on the child care provider’s part. So it protects the parent as well.

There are currently no reconsideration provisions for child care providers in receipt of a child care grant. This legislation does not introduce new rights in this regard. It is intentional, because child care grant funding for child care providers is not an entitlement for child care providers, unlike the child care benefits, which are intended as an entitlement for eligible lower- and middle-income families.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister. I understand what you’re saying here. It’s related to whether a child care provider files something incorrectly, which then allows a parent to get a benefit. They would have an ability to appeal that. Okay, I understand that.

[4:20 p.m.]

I have no more questions for the minister and her staff. I accept the rest of the bill as is.

Clauses 13 to 31 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. K. Chen: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 4:23 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

BILL 15 — EARLY LEARNING AND
CHILD CARE ACT

Bill 15, Early Learning and Child Care Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. M. Mark: Hon. Speaker, may I request a 15-minute recess?

Mr. Speaker: This House will be recessed for ten minutes.

The House recessed from 4:24 p.m. to 4:45 p.m.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

Hon. M. Mark: Good afternoon, everyone. I call continued debate for the Speech from the Throne.

Throne Speech Debate

(continued)

Hon. M. Mark: It’s my honour to rise here as the Minister for Tourism, Arts, Culture and Sport and MLA for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant.

I’m on the traditional territory the precinct stands on to do our important business — that of the Lək̓ʷəŋin̓əŋ-​speaking people, members of the Songhees and Esquimalt First Nations.

First, I just want to pause for the record. We will look back at this historic time when we think about our Speech from the Throne in the middle of a global pandemic — how it has crushed us, how it has turned our lives around. As the great Dr. Bonnie Henry has told us, we have been in this storm together but not all in the same canoe. So it is indeed my honour to stand here and speak to the Speech from the Throne and how it is about making sure that we come back stronger than ever, that we build back better and that we continue investing in people.

Speaking of people, I wouldn’t be here without my constituents. I want to thank all of my constituents for believing in me and having a voice for them in these chambers; my staff, who are representatives and ambassadors of my constituency office; and, of course, my ministry staff.

You know, as the Minister for Tourism, Arts, Culture and Sport, it used to be the fun ministry. Everybody got to have fun and go to music festivals and art shows and travel the province and fill their tank and get their mental health in check because they had a chance to get off the grid and restore. We haven’t been able to do that because of this global pandemic.

Today I am standing here while over 80 percent of British Columbians, eligible British Columbians, have been vaccinated. We are in a historic moment in time where people are getting their proofs of vaccination. They’re getting out there. They’re showing one another that, again, we are in this together.

But it’s been a while. When we first encountered this pandemic, understanding what we didn’t know…. What would the future look like? Remember what it was like in the early days. Again, it’s my honour to be here as things have been moving forward.

When I think about tourism, on July 1, we were able to start travelling across this beautiful province again. Instead of hearing complaints in my office that we couldn’t travel, the complaint was: “Everything’s full. Everything’s booked.”

When it came to arts, we were able to get out there and fill our tanks and start to go to exhibits. I remember going down to the convention centre and looking at the Van Gogh exhibit and how important that was and how I could have stayed there all day, because it was a lot better than the screen time that we’ve had. All of my colleagues here can appreciate how that screen time has been…. You know, it’s a means to an end. It’s helped us through this pandemic.

Ultimately, what I’m most proud about, as minister, is that there are more investments than ever for the B.C. Arts Council. We know that those performers had to pivot. They had to take their shows online. They had to learn all about PPE and going on screens and finding audiences through Zoom to fill their tank. They found a way, because British Columbians are resilient. I mean, I’m from East Vancouver, so I know all about resiliency. But the artists were resilient.

The tourism operators did everything they could to open up our doors so that travellers could go across the province. It was great to be back in Haida Gwaii with my family. I hope that members opposite and people across British Columbia enjoyed travelling across B.C. because we all stuck together, because we all were disciplined. We went out…. I don’t know how many of us got our selfies with our vaccination cards and our ID that we had been vax’d. All of those collective efforts have made an impact on people and jobs.

Because behind tourism…. People don’t understand tourism. When I see people running around at the harbour here in Victoria, when I see a tourist, I see jobs. When I see jobs, I see an economy. That is something that is really, really important to us, because we know how many of these tourism operators run small and medium, family-owned, mom-and-pop businesses that they’re entirely passionate about.

[4:50 p.m.]

Our government has done our best to be there to support them with small and medium business grants to stay open and a major anchor attractions announcement so that we have the PNEs and the Butchart Gardens and anchor attractions for generations to come.

It was awesome to be at the PNE over the summer. The only downplay of the PNE was that they had to maintain the rollercoaster, and I wasn’t able to be there to enjoy the historic rollercoaster that it is. The historic rollercoaster that it’s been as minister of this file. But it’s been great to see that people are returning to a sense of norm.

All I want to leave you with is that our government believes in investing in people. People are our economy, as the Minister of Jobs is always saying.

I know folks in my tourism file and the arts file may have been overlooked. We didn’t see the value before COVID about how important it is to invest in artists and how tourism operators have essentially been taking care of themselves.

I’m proud of the work our government has been doing together — the ministry staff who have been working around the clock through this pandemic for the last 20 months to get grants out the door. I’m so proud. Most of our programs have been grants, not loans, so that people can get on their feet again.

I would be remiss to not talk about the importance of culture and how important it is, the work that our government is committed to doing, and our throne speech to have the Chinese-Canadian museum and the Royal B.C. Museum — both very, very important projects identified in my mandate letter from the Premier.

Finally, sport. I hope that some of my colleagues here had a chance to enjoy the Rugby Sevens that was hosted at B.C. Place. To enjoy the B.C. Lions game on September 24. There was a historic moment where Phyllis Webstad, the B.C. Lions, B.C. Hydro, Fortis, Corrine Hunt came together to bring a partnership, which was reconciliation in action.

Phyllis Webstad’s dream was to see fans in the stands, people honouring residential schools survivors. That was a very, very proud moment as the Minister of Sport, but I will also say, for the record, as, still, the first and only First Nations woman to serve in these chambers.

How awesome it was to have that moment with these allies to support Phyllis’ dreams and to embrace and invite that call to action for British Columbians to roar and stand with and fight for Indian residential school survivors, especially after what we’ve seen and witnessed and learned over the last few months, which were truths to Indigenous residential school survivors for years.

I have so much to say about the throne speech. Mostly, I’m proud that our government is continuing to lift as we climb, to paddle together, to work with experts in their industry. We can learn a lot from this pandemic, and that is to not leave people behind and to invest in those that need our advocacy the most.

With that, I will conclude my remarks.

A. Wilkinson: It’s been quite a year. Here we are in early October. If we took this past 12 months, with or without the election, and compared it to any other in our lifetime, it’s our equivalent of World War II. It’s the changing scenario that we couldn’t possibly have contemplated. It’s the grand unknown that landed in our laps and that we’re having to manage.

The question is, for every level of government: how are we managing? We have seen the federal government respond with massive infusions of cash — to individuals, to businesses — to keep our economy afloat through this COVID contraction. We mustn’t be naive. This has been a huge contraction of activity in this province, whether we see it in airline schedules, in tourism activity, in theatres and movies, in restaurants…. It has been a dramatic setback for our people and our province.

[4:55 p.m.]

We have to think how we as legislators, jointly, no matter what party we’re in, have addressed that. Have we done a good job? Notably, has the government done a good job? Has it implemented a throne speech and a policy program that suggests it actually has a plan?

I will be suggesting in the next 28 minutes that the answer is a clear no. That this government is adrift. This government is lurching from crisis to crisis with no clear plan of what happens to British Columbia and to British Columbians in the next decade. We need guidance now, and there isn’t any.

I’ll begin by congratulating the members opposite on the election result. I think we all know what happened. My dreams may have suffered a setback, but the NDP were fortunate in taking another batch of seats. We now miss some of our colleagues on this side and welcome a new round of colleagues for the NDP and a handful of B.C. Liberals who are new to this chamber. They’re to be congratulated for winning their seats. They’re to be thanked for putting their name forward for public service, and they are to be charged with the task of making British Columbia a better place.

This is not easy for any government anywhere in the western world or anywhere in the world. But it’s a task that we have collectively taken on, and we better perform. The public are counting on it.

The federal government acts largely independently from the province, as I’ve said, and pumped a lot of cash liquidity into the economy to keep things moving and floating along. That has kept Canada in a reasonably prosperous state for the last year, but it cannot go on forever. This province needs to prepare for the future when that federal cash flow winds down. It could be as early as October 23. We don’t know. But it’s going to stop, and we better get ready for that.

That raises the concern of: what is this government doing? What we canvass here day to day, the issues that come up in question period, what occupies the news, is one crisis after another. I’m about to go into an unfortunate inventory of what this government has failed to do. One crisis after another.

Let’s start with the opioid crisis, as was canvassed yesterday in question period. These numbers are horrifying. They are the worst in North America. Rather than claiming some special status that leads us to say that that’s okay because of a toxic drug supply, we need to do something about it to stop these tragedies.

I can name three young men who have died in the last two years, alone, from taking oral narcotics that killed them. What has happened in our society that people that we can name, people we know, people we thought we understood, are found cold dead in their beds at home?

We have a whole range of issues that need to be addressed, and this government is cherry picking one and saying they’re doing all that they can. It’s not good enough. We have a duty to the people of British Columbia to make sure that that young man in Williams Lake or that young woman in New Westminster is not so desperate that they’re buying dirty little pills off the street and taking them home and thinking: “I hope this makes me feel better. I hope this lets me sleep. Maybe this will help my problems go away.”

This is a structural tragedy in our society. We’re not unique in the world, but we’re doing the worst job of managing the result of anywhere in North America. We have to focus, as a Legislature and as a society, on addressing this right now. Talking about toxic drug supply and that’s the way we’re going to handle it and the coroner says this and that…. We’ve got to address it substantively. Why are these people in such desperate straits that they’re looking for relief through street meds? Why is it that people are overdosing? And what can we do to prevent, to treat and to get these people back into a meaningful life?

We all remember 15 years ago when the late Philip Owen pioneered the four pillars program. Everybody bought into it. Treatment, prevention, enforcement — which has been completely forgotten — being the pillars that we need to focus on. Yet we’re not doing a good enough job.

[5:00 p.m.]

I’m not going to go into the fact that we have a sham ministry, now known as the ministry of error, with a tiny little budget that’s pretending to address this issue, when we know it’s all being done through the Ministry of Health. It’s not going very well.

Perhaps it’s time for this government, under the NDP, to completely reboot the approach to drug addiction, to completely reboot what they’re doing with overdose deaths and say that this little experiment of having a nominal ministry, with almost no budget…. Saying that addresses the problem is a farce. It’s simply saying that here’s a piece of paper and a ministerial office, and if 7,000 people have died in the last four years: “Don’t worry. It’ll get better.” It’s not working. We have to do better as a society.

Let’s talk for a moment about another tragedy that’s being addressed these days in this chamber and was, strikingly, the subject of a Human Rights Watch report that came out this morning. I heard it on the radio. Human Rights Watch is an international agency that does studies on things like genocide in Rwanda, like mass slaughters in the Yugoslav civil war. They found the issue to focus on in Canada was the almost 600 people who suffocated in a heat wave.

Let’s make no mistake. These people are our most disadvantaged citizens. They are the poor people of British Columbia, the disabled people of British Columbia, the elderly people of British Columbia.

The Premier of this province has the gall to stand up and say they should take responsibility for themselves? I heard that, and I thought: did he really say that people should take responsibility for being elderly, that they should take responsibility for being poor, that they should take responsibility, above all, for being disabled? That’s not just tone deaf; that’s crass. That’s cold. That’s not becoming for a social democrat official of any level, let alone the leader of their party and the Premier of this province.

There’s a huge amount of work to do. As soon as I heard about that heat wave, I thought St. Louis, Chicago, France. There are abundant precedents for this of what needs to be done. There needs to be a community-wide alert. If you know anybody who doesn’t have a cooling system for where they live, who is disabled or elderly and doesn’t have the option of getting out to a cooling centre or buying ice water, you’ve got to go and find them and help them, because they are going to die of heat stroke. That’s exactly what happened, and this government did nothing.

There’s a 48-hour window. Those of us who live in Vancouver and the Fraser Valley were baking and thinking: “Thank goodness I can go and sit in the basement.” No air conditioning, but it’s about 22 degrees down there. My dog and I spent two days in the basement because it was the only cool place we could find. Even overnight it was 35 degrees.

What did this government do? Any community alerts? Any emergency distributions of ice and ice water on the streets of downtown Vancouver? Nothing. That’s what was learned in St. Louis. That’s what was learned in Chicago. That’s what was learned in France, at the cost of tens of thousands of lives, and this government did nothing — possibly the most shameful aspect of governance in this province in the last year.

We look at the wildfire situation. We hear this constant story of how great the management is. Let’s make it very clear: we are enormously thankful to those people who are slugging it out in the bush of British Columbia, in staggering heat on the edge of a wildfire, putting their lives at risk for us. We have to be enormously thankful that we have those dedicated, skilled crews. They couldn’t prevent every bit of damage.

What’s happened in the 2017, 2018, 2021 fire seasons is that it’s clear that the response is structurally insufficient. Whether it’s climate change, whether it’s accumulated fuel burden, whether it’s carelessness by people of British Columbia — whatever it is, it has to be dealt with, because it’s coming to a town near yours to burn it to the ground. That’s exactly what happened in Lytton and shortly thereafter in Monte Lake.

[5:05 p.m.]

I know Lytton from my mountaineering days. I grew up in Kamloops. We used to stop in Lytton for breakfast on our way to go up into the mountain ranges up in behind and up the Stein River valley. It was a very compact railway town. It had a real kind of spirit to it that you couldn’t really put your finger on, but you knew that this was a town that was cohesive and had an identity, that knew who it was. And it was burned to the ground.

Whether that could have been prevented under the circumstances will be the subject, I hope, of some kind of judicial inquiry, if this government ever finds the wherewithal to ask itself difficult questions. But what we’ve got now are the citizens who used to live in Lytton left in indefinite limbo. There’s a fence around the wreckage. They aren’t allowed in. What’s the plan? Yet again, we turn to this government on almost every issue and say: “So what’s the plan? What are you going to do about it to get some results?” The answer to the people of Lytton is: “Don’t call us. We’ll call you.”

That is not good enough. This is not just their house, which the insurer may replace. This is their whole way of life, their whole community that vaporized in front of them in a wildfire, and we have seen this government completely avoid the issue of what happens next. Compensation, restructuring the community. Does the community have to move? Will it cease to exist? These people are desperate for answers. It’s been 97 days now where they have been sitting in motels and the living rooms of their relatives, wondering what’s going to happen to their lives.

Give them the guidance and the hope that they need. That’s why we have governments: to take care of people in extremes like that, to make sure that they’re not stressed and worried and uncertain and facing a doom-filled future. Give them the hope they need by saying: “There is a plan. We’re working with you. We’ll show up. We’ll be there. We’ll come to you and listen to you and understand your needs.” That has got to be the core of any social democrat movement, any NDP government, any person who sits on that side of the House, yet they have dropped the ball with callous indifference on all of these topics.

Something that’s less dramatic but related is the issue of child care. We hear endless technical arguments from the other side about how wonderful things are going to be, and what we hear on this side is one daycare after another closing because the rules are so complex and arcane that they just can’t make it work.

We hear stories like from the Cariboo, where one community, Quesnel, is talking about seven spaces, yet it just can’t get off the ground. It can’t function, because the rules are so complicated and the system is so bureaucratic that those parents are just left adrift.

Once again, if this social democrat NDP government is not going to take care of people who can’t find child care, whose home has burned to the ground in Lytton, whose parents or relatives have died in a heat wave, whose brothers and sisters are at risk of dying of opioid overdoses, what are they doing? What’s the purpose of being elected as a social democrat if you’re going to neglect the poor, the disabled, the elderly dying in a heat stroke?

Why are you here? Surely, this has to arise in NDP caucus meetings, where the members are entitled to ask their leadership: “What on earth are we doing?” Because I find this indefensible. It’s appalling how this province has been managed on these issues in 2021.

COVID, we know, is the overwhelming issue in our society these days, yet it does not provide an excuse for failing to address these issues. This government still has a budget in the $60 billion range. That’s about $7 million an hour that is being spent by this government. Some of it’s on COVID, and that’s a good thing. That’s necessary. But all the rest of it is designed to address these issues that I’ve raised. Yet we see all of these issues falling through the cracks, being ignored, neglected in a way that is absolutely shameful.

[5:10 p.m.]

Coming back to things that affect a broader section of our population: housing. I remember, completely clearly, in the spring of 2017, being on a radio interview with the now Minister of Housing, who also serves as Attorney General. We sat a metre apart in a little radio station, and he told me that the NDP were going to build 114,000 housing units, all new, all paid for by government, within ten years — guaranteed.

Well, we’re four years into it, and we have about 4,000 modular housing units. This, apparently, is the NDP’s 114-year plan for housing. It’s a joke. In that radio interview, I turned to the now Attorney General and Minister for Housing and said: “Well, how are you going to pay for these 114,000 housing units in Vancouver? That’s about…. Be generous. Call it a quarter of a million dollars a pop. That’s $35 billion you’re talking about. Where’s that coming from?” His answer will stick with me for years to come. It was: “We’ll have lots of money after we cancel Site C.”

Well, fast-forward four years, and look where we are. The Minister of Housing certainly doesn’t have the $7 billion he claimed to have found in cancelling Site C. In fact, he’s got a further $7 billion liability to pay for a dam that has doubled in price since the NDP took office.

We delivered a project in 2017 that was on time, on budget, according to the Utilities Commission and the Auditor General. What has happened since then? The social democrats arrived, doubled the price, prolonged the delivery time, created vast amounts of uncertainty. What are we left with? We sure as shootin’ didn’t get 114,000 housing units. We didn’t get a dam either, and we’re $16 billion into this. What has been accomplished with this colossal investment of taxpayers’ money is delay, cost overruns and no housing.

I would be delighted to go back into that little East Vancouver radio station with the Attorney General and the Minister of Housing again and say: “It’s audit time. What happened with that housing plan and your Site C cancellation program?” I’m sure what I would get from the social democrat government committed to helping the people of British Columbia, looking out for the little people, is an arrogant, dismissive, sneering response that has come to characterize this government — obfuscation, evasion, promises of money to come. All we get from this government are promises, promises — and no delivery.

It’s rather distressing to find ourselves talking about a throne speech that is supposed to lay out a positive plan for the future of British Columbia, that’s supposed to generate excitement, that’s supposed to guide people into where this government is going with $60 billion a year, with the $170 million it will spend in the next 24 hours.

Where is this government going? Technology — a pretty exciting sector. We have AbCellera, which reached a valuation of $7 billion last December. We have Clio. We have Copperleaf. We have a whole set of leading companies that are taking on the world and becoming technology unicorns — that is, at a $1 billion valuation.

Do we hear one peep from the NDP to say what a phenomenal success this is and how proud we are? We hear nothing, because the NDP don’t like successful businesses. They say: “Oh, dear. That’s not good. These are profitable companies. How can that be a desirable thing? We’d better try and find a way to tax them.”

We should be accelerating these prospects and making sure that we celebrate the success. Instead, there’s nary a peep from this government, when every other government on this continent would be delighted to have them there. As I have found out in the past, as a minister and a deputy minister, those companies are all being solicited today by economic development officers from half a dozen states in the United States, offering them tax-free status, offering them zero personal income tax, in states like Washington and Florida.

[5:15 p.m.]

It’s pretty attractive for those companies to just say: “This government doesn’t care. They give us no support, no interest, nothing. Maybe we should just talk about Oregon.” This government should be out there lionizing these companies and saying: “We’re so glad that you’re here.” Instead, what do we hear from this government? We hear this government say how great it is that American multinationals are coming here to hire people for much cheaper wages than they would get paid in the U.S.A. That’s why they’re coming here.

A great personal example that came up during COVID. A relative of mine, a couple of levels removed, got her job in Silicon Valley with a major American company — $92,000 U.S. a year. She was prepared to move there. COVID came along, and they said: “Oh well. We’re moving that job to Vancouver where we have a branch plant, but we’re paying you in Vancouver, at the going rate.” Not $92,000 U.S. but $56,000 Canadian. That’s what this government is so keen to get: multinationals hiring people here at below-market rates. Is that something to be proud of?

Why isn’t this government saying: “Clio, AbCellera, Copperleaf, Stemcell, we’re so excited that you’re here. What can we do to keep you here? You’re the leading edge of technology in the world, and you can make us all proud, because home office is in British Columbia.” We hear nothing from this government.

We actually hear from this government that they are so lost, so disillusioned, so lacking in insight and have so few contacts in the technology community that they’ve decided to hire a professor from the U.K., called Mariana Mazzucato, to come and tell them how to put together their economic strategy and technology. Professor Mazzucato is well known. She’s of the belief that things like pharmaceutical companies should have part of their equity owned by the state — a classic kind of social democrat thinking that might have worked in Germany in 1970.

Tell me which companies you’re going to take over in British Columbia to force workers onto the board and take their equity. Which ones are they? If it’s any of these start-ups, they’re gone. They’ll be in Oregon or California next week if you try that trick on them.

Apparently, this government is so bereft of ideas, so lacking in vision and so completely hopeless in terms of what the future holds that they’ve hired an English social democrat professor to come and tell them what should have been in the 2018 throne speech. They’ve finally figured out, after four years, that they haven’t got any ideas at all, so they’re going to hire someone to make ideas for them.

This is a sad comment on the state of the NDP, yet they’ve had cover with COVID. They’ve had cover for things like the very able and formidable Sen. Lisa Murkowski, from Alaska, putting out a bill in the U.S. Senate saying that they’re going to have a temporary bypass of British Columbia for the cruise ship industry. Blown off by this government: “It will never happen. These people are lightweights.”

Well, guess what, folks. The United States Senate couldn’t care less what the NDP have to say about anything. The bill went through in record time with unanimous votes. Now the Alaskan state delegation — two senators and one congressperson — are regrouping to make it permanent. This time the NDP are kind of waking up and saying: “What do you mean, the Victoria cruise port could cease to exist, the Vancouver cruise ship terminal could have two or three ships a year instead of two or three ships a day? You’re not serious, are you?”

You’re absolutely right that they’re serious. This is American protectionism at its finest. They’re going to modify the Jones Act from 1922, and if they have their way, our cruise ship industry could be history. And the whole time the NDP was asleep at the switch: “Don’t worry. It’ll never happen. It’s just posturing.” Well, guess what. It’s not posturing. It’s real, and it’s coming to us.

This government had better get its act together with the government of Canada to do whatever it can in Washington, D.C. We’ve built up goodwill with them, getting the two Michaels out. Now is the time to make sure that we don’t lose our cruise ship industry because the NDP were asleep at the switch.

[5:20 p.m.]

Endless further examples. What happened here yesterday was a passionate protest about old-growth forestry, notably about Fairy Creek. What has this government done? Fretted, moaned, made false promises, put out reports that were ignored and commissioned further reports. This is a government that has proven itself to be completely, utterly duplicitous and spineless when it comes to dealing with the forest industry.

This government tells anybody whatever they want to hear and then figures out: “Let’s try to reconcile it later.” Well, guess what, folks. Those folks on the front lawn yesterday think that you have failed to reconcile it. So do those people in the forest industry, so do the people that operate the forest company, and so do the Indigenous groups who are so furious.

Now you have everyone mad at the NDP. So the chickens are coming home to roost because this government, in its complete lack of planning, its complete absence of a plan, is finally becoming accountable for its promises.

Speaking of promises, we sat in this chamber, the vast majority of us, in November 2019, and in an act of history-making goodwill and good faith, we accepted the NDP’s legislation on UNDRIP. What has the NDP done with it since then? At every possible turn, it has broken the trust of Indigenous people in this province by ignoring the precepts of UNDRIP and acting in a high-handed, unilateral way. It is shameful what this government has done.

We have great hopes for our experienced, thoughtful, diligent new Minister of Indigenous Relations who comes to us from Ottawa with his impeccable pedigree. He has been handed a very difficult task. We wish him well with that, because all of us have a vested interest in successful reconciliation. But the file he has been handed has become a poisoned chalice of broken promises and indifference from his predecessors.

Minister, we wish you well and every success, but you’ve got a big task on your hands.

More recently we saw this summer that the British Columbia Supreme Court decided in the Yahey Blueberry decision that the cumulative effects of exploration and development in the Peace country were a violation of treaty 8. For better or worse, this government decided not to appeal. It’s the law now. Colossal uncertainty. Will there be a gas industry in British Columbia? Will there be any more forestry or other activity on the land in the Peace country? These are now completely unknown.

The follow-on litigation is happening now, where the other First Nations are starting to say: “Well, it worked for the Blueberry. I guess that’s where we’ll go.” They’ll move beyond treaty First Nations. It will come out of the Peace country into the rest of the province.

Once again, we give our very best respect and thanks to the minister who has taken on the role of Indigenous Relations, because this is a colossal task, which may have become almost insoluble, given the neglect of this government prior to his installation.

We should talk about climate change. Again, streams of false promises from this government, hopes developed, but it has all proven to be an illusion. Targets missed. Lost opportunities. No real plan and British Columbians left wondering: “What’s coming to me? Are we going to have a gas supply from the Peace country, or am I going to be shut down?”

Perhaps the Speaker will take the liberty now of shutting me down, as the time is up.

I think the concern is we all know we’re on this roller-coaster of COVID. It doesn’t have to get worse because of government ineptitude and government neglect. It’s time for this Legislature to pull itself together and do something really productive to map out the future of British Columbia beyond this vacuous throne speech and talk about how to solve problems for British Columbians.

[5:25 p.m.]

B. Anderson: I am so absolutely grateful to be able to speak in this House and speak to this budget. There is a tremendous amount of work that has gone into this budget, and I am hearing from so many people in my communities that I represent how grateful they are to have an NDP government.

You know, the opposition likes to speak about the ’90s. Well, I was a child in the ’90s. I have fantastic memories of growing up in the Kootenays in the ’90s. What I do remember is when the opposition got into power, and they decided to cut jobs in my community. We had a lineup at the student phone — this was, of course, before everyone carried a cell phone in their pocket — and there were students waiting in line to call home to find out if their parent had lost their job. There were unprecedented cuts that were happening by the opposition when they, of course, were in government at that time.

I remember my friends. I was in that lineup. I was wondering if my dad was going to be able to have his job. I would have friends that…. You would turn around, and for some of them, their parents didn’t know yet. Others were saying: “We don’t know what we’re going to do. My family now has to maybe move to Kamloops.” These are students that are going to be graduating either that year or in a few years, and because the government cut so many people off, laid off so many jobs, it was devastating. It was terrifying for those students.

I know that there are so many people, so many British Columbians, who are so grateful to have a government that they can trust, a government that is investing in people. We know that we’re bringing health care workers back into the government system so they can be paid properly. They can get proper benefits. That means that they’re also going to be providing better service. You know, if you’re not paid properly, it’s really hard to want to stay in that job. But when you’re valued, you want to do a good job. You want to do a good job as you’re taking care of these people at their most vulnerable moments in their lives.

I am so grateful that we have had this government through the crisis of the pandemic. Has it been challenging? I would expect most people in British Columbia have had an extremely challenging year. We know that people have lost their loved ones. Things were changed. Businesses had to find innovative ways. But we have seen so much incredible resilience. When we were faced with a crisis, our government was ready. They were ready to step up and take care of people.

There was a taxi driver. We have one taxi company in my whole riding. I was able to get hold of his daughter and let him know that there was government funding available for him and his workers so that they were able to continue. They didn’t have to close down a service that’s really important to our community. We have excellent public transit that’s integrated in the region and that we’ve been really working hard on. But we know also that a taxi service helps augment other types of public infrastructure, so it’s really important to keep those people employed so that people are able to move around.

I’ve seen restaurant owners with incredible amounts of courage working with their workers and trying to find ways to continue their service delivery while keeping the public safe.

I would like to do a huge shout-out to our health care workers. They have been working incredibly hard and have faced many challenges. Particularly in my community, those challenges regarding COVID are happening more now than they were previously in the pandemic, because really, COVID has started to hit the Kootenays. We’ve had at least two doctors write their own columns. We’ve had other doctors that were interviewed by one of our local reporters just explaining the situation.

[5:30 p.m.]

Then we’re also seeing the community step up to support our health care workers. These are all of our health care workers, from the people doing the laundry, the people that are cleaning, the people that are cooking food, nutritious food. Now we’re actually getting B.C. products into hospitals. When you’re ill, when you’re sick, when you’ve had surgery, you need nutritious food to heal. We are doing that in British Columbia with the Buy B.C. program so people have nutritious food in hospitals again.

There are the radiologists and the cardiologists, the doctors, the specialists, the family doctors. They’ve all been working incredibly hard to keep our community members safe.

I heard the member talking about the toxic drug supply. I have a very good friend who is a registered nurse that is now able to prescribe Suboxone for people that need it. She is literally saving lives every single day because of decisions our government made.

Are the opiate crisis and the poisoned drug supply impacting our communities? Absolutely. I spoke about it in the Legislature yesterday. I mentioned an 18-year-old woman that passed away due to the poisoned drug supply. Then I received a letter from her mother after my speech. Someone had sent it to her. She is absolutely heartbroken.

There are also community services — ANKORS in Nelson and the Hub, run through Nelson CARES. They are doing incredible work. We have a spectrometer. We’re a town of 10,000 people, and we have a spectrometer so people are able to anonymously bring substances. They can get tested so that people know if this is something that is going to potentially harm them or kill them.

[N. Letnick in the chair.]

I went to a local restaurant one afternoon. She had just done a call-out on social media and said: “I’m going to do some naloxone training, if anyone wants to come.” There were about a dozen community members that wanted to come to see how they could learn how to use naloxone so that they can save peoples’ lives in our community. You’re really seeing people step up, and they want to be there. They want to take care of each other.

That’s also what our government represents. Our government is taking care of people through this budget. We are supporting small businesses. We’re supporting the tourism sector. I don’t know if you’ve ever been to the Kootenays, but it is an absolutely spectacular place to live and to come and visit. I think we’re the cat-skiing hub of either North America or the world. You can go and do wine tasting down in the stunning Creston Valley. You can go hiking in the mountains. You can get up into the alpine.

We have a lake, Kootenay Lake, that really connects and is the heart of all of our communities. We have the Friends of Kootenay Lake Society that is working hard to make sure that the ecosystem is protected, and they’ve been working with various community groups. They do things like beach cleanups. We’re seeing all different people in our communities stepping up.

During the beginning of the pandemic, when we were all faced with this question of what our future is going to look like, immediately this group popped up on Facebook called Nelson Helps. It was just simply neighbours helping neighbours. Then we were able to see our government turn around and support people incredibly quickly. They were able to make sure that businesses were able to stay open.

I have spoken with the chamber of commerce, Tom Thomson, and he has been incredibly happy with how our government has been able to support our local businesses. We know those businesses employ people, and we know those businesses provide critical services to our community.

I mean, Nelson would not be Nelson if it weren’t for Baker Street, if it weren’t for all of the amazing shops and restaurants that are open there that not only tourists enjoy but locals. We have, I think, some of the best shopping, and we’re in a tiny little town. That’s because we have business people that work really hard and care about their communities.

[5:35 p.m.]

Another thing that I am extraordinarily excited about is Kalesnikoff’s new mass timber plant, their mass timber facility. What they’re able to do is create beams and walls and floors and ceilings, all out of mass timber. What that looks like is you’re actually gluing pieces of timber together, and then it is heated up. It’s a strong material. It’s a fire-resistant material, and it has a lower carbon footprint than things like concrete.

We’re seeing this innovation happening. We’re seeing job creation. What these pieces are doing is also working hard to protect the environment.

I feel incredibly fortunate that our Premier asked me to be his special adviser on youth. One of the reasons I got into this job was because I wanted to see younger people’s voices heard in government, because I felt like that wasn’t always happening.

I was watching senate debates about cannabis, really concerned with the fear-based policy that was happening. I thought: “If there aren’t younger people….” You want younger people. You want diversity of voices at that table. What I’m going to be able to do is be that conduit between young people, who are extremely passionate, and bring their energy and their ideas to our government so that we can be the government that really supports them not only today but into the future.

As I’ve been speaking with young people in this role, they’re concerned about things like climate change. We had a fire season. Summer used to be my very favourite season, growing up. You have Kootenay Lake there. It’s beautiful. It’s pristine. You go down there. Your whole community is there. You see children and grandparents and friends, and people are in the water.

This year it was different. It was scary. We had forest fires all around us. I had constituents that were on evacuation alert. Thank goodness they didn’t actually end up having to go on evacuation order. The firefighters, the fire crews worked extremely hard to protect our communities, not only in my region, but across the province.

We know there are things like the tragedies of Lytton that we hope we never see again. But that’s why, when the Premier announced that we’re not only going to be thinking of the forestry and the forest fighting season being just the summer, the spring and the fall, the summer months…. This is a 12-month effort. Every single year, 12 months of the year, we’re going to be working on protecting communities. That is really important, I believe, not only to my constituents, the youth, but people across British Columbia.

I’m also hearing from young people about concerns about housing. Our government is building housing for people. In my region, we’ve gotten housing built in Creston, and there are three new developments. We haven’t had housing developments in our region for so long, and it’s tight. You know what it’s like at a zero percent vacancy rate to actually try to find a place? I’ve seen people from all walks of life scrambling, trying to find housing. Well, our government is working hard to deliver that housing for people, because everyone deserves a home.

When you fail to invest in housing and fail to invest in people like we saw the previous government do, you’re really making a bad situation and turning it worse. Our government has changed laws to make sure that people aren’t able to commodify housing. We are working on making sure that there’s housing for people.

I was a former city councillor, and speaking with the mayors particularly. I’ve been connecting with them frequently, but of course, we all came together at UBCM. We were virtual. We’re all excited to get back together, to get back in the same room. I was hearing from mayors from across my region about how supported they have felt with this government. They have had regular contact with the minister. They do not think they would have had that if the opposition was in power.

Our government is listening to the people. We’re listening every single day, because we want to be here for the people and we want to deliver the services that the people count on. We’re changing paramedics. We’re making sure that this is a job and a career that people are able to stay in and support their families with. That is going to impact my rural community in a really, really positive way.

[5:40 p.m.]

I talk to parents. I mean, if we didn’t think that child care didn’t seem important to the previous government…. Now our government is making it a priority. I was absolutely thrilled to be able to see my friends and colleagues put bills on this Legislature that are going to, in law, support families through better child care delivery.

This is absolutely critical. We saw this with the pandemic. When people don’t have child care, women — it tends to be women; sometimes it’s not just women — tend to leave the workplace to care for their children. With the investments that we’re making in child care, we’re able to give women the option — we’re able to give families the option — to go to work, to be able to participate in the workforce.

If there is no child care, you don’t have an option, as a family. I know there have been lots of parents in my riding — but also, I believe, across British Columbia — that have struggled with child care for too long. So when I see the $10-a-day child care plan being rolled out and implemented, I know that my constituents and also families across the province are absolutely grateful and thrilled.

We, our government, are leading Canada. If it weren’t for our government’s commitment and the people that were working on the $10-a-day child care, do you think the federal government would be jumping on board? I don’t think so. It’s because they see us as leaders.

We are delivering for people and are delivering for families every single day we sit in this House but also every day that we’re in our communities and in our constituencies. I have to tell you that for me, personally, it is a tremendous honour and privilege to be able to be the MLA for Nelson-Creston. I love my riding so much. It’s where I grew up. It’s in my heart, and I feel so grateful that I’m able to stand up here today and represent you and your needs.

When I look at this budget, what I really see is a plan for resilience, moving forward. COVID has been tremendously challenging. But we know that with this budget, people know that we’ve got their backs. We’re going to take care of them, and we’re working every single day to clean up the mess that was left behind.

Are things perfect now? No. It takes a lot of work, and we are ready to do that work.

I agree with the member that was saying that reconciliation is a big task. Of course it is. The First Nations, Indigenous people, of Canada faced a genocide through colonialism. And our government…. I appreciate that it was the government on all sides. This was a unanimous vote. We are working, through DRIPA, to do meaningful reconciliation.

We just had the first federal truth and reconciliation day last week. I was able to go down to the Lower Kootenay Band, spend time with the Ktunaxa and get to develop my relationship with them — just talking with them. How incredibly resilient they have been.

I read a book from one of their Elders, and he talks about having to go to the residential school in Cranbrook. Pulling children away from their families, from their communities, from their parents for generations — that is the truth of what happened. And it wasn’t a school; it was an institution. These children were abused. When I was living in Whitehorse, I got to sit down and listen when they were doing the Truth and Reconciliation, and it was absolutely heartbreaking.

So do we have a big task ahead of us through reconciliation? We absolutely do. We have a minister that is working every single day on real and meaningful reconciliation, and I’m grateful for that. But it’s not just the minister. It’s throughout every single ministry that we are working to support reconciliation. That is incredibly important work, moving forward.

[5:45 p.m.]

When we look around Canada, when we look across Canada, we see what other governments have done. To be quite honest with you, when I look at Alberta, that scares me. I would not want that government leading the province that I lived in. When I look at British Columbia and the work they’ve done to get us through the pandemic, I feel incredibly grateful that people have been supported.

When we look at this budget, it’s all about making sure that we are creating conditions for a strong economic recovery.

We’re also working very hard on issues that are really important to my constituents, like mitigating and adapting to climate change. This summer…. We had felt the impacts of the fires and climate change before. This summer was different. We had the heat dome across the Kootenays. The farmers in the Creston Valley lost 80 percent of their Lapins cherries. When I was driving around meeting the farmers and hearing their stories…. I had one farmer that I was driving with. He called a real estate agent and wanted to start selling off some of his land, because it was so challenging.

The Ministry of Agriculture is stepping up, and they are stepping up to support our farmers. I don’t think you could get a more passionate Agriculture Minister than the one that we have.

We just had an incredible conference that I found to be truly inspiring. It was all about regenerative agriculture. For people that don’t know what regenerative agriculture is, it is really taking care of the soil. It’s how people used to grow agricultural products. We’ve forgotten that with the agricultural revolution. We need to get back to that. We need to be taking care of our soil. We need to be doing things that take care of our pollinators.

This was the first conference, and I was tremendously excited. I had friends that were tremendously excited that we are starting that conversation. I just want to thank the minister for her incredible vision on how we’re going to revolutionize agriculture and take care of the soil, take care of the environment, while feeding British Columbians.

We want more people to become farmers. We have the Young Agrarians program, which is funded by our government. They are doing great work to match landowners — people that have land, people that have farmland — with young farmers that can’t afford to purchase their own farmland. But they are helping them and having them work together. I have friends that are now able to live their dream of farming and landowners that are able to continue to see their land farmed because of this incredible work that the young agrarians are doing.

We’re seeing more young people. When you go to the farmers market, there is a great diversity of ages. We have people who I’ve seen at the farmers market since I was a child. Now we have new people that are coming in every single year wanting to farm, wanting to provide food for their communities. I think that is a really beautiful thing and something that we need to be incredibly proud of.

During COVID, all of a sudden, where we get our food from…. That became, in some cases, I believe, the first time that some people really thought about it. You’re so used to…. You have your routine, you go to the grocery store, you pick up what you need and you cook dinner that night. It’s a rhythm that you get into. But when, all of sudden, we’re talking about shipping being delayed. We saw people running out to buy vast amounts of toilet paper, but we also saw people taking a keen interest in making sure that our local food systems are there to support us.

What we see with our Agriculture Minister is that she is focusing on how we’re able to, through the Buy B.C. program, make sure that our institutions are able to serve British Columbian products. Our farmers have an excellent market for these products. Also, then, the people that are consuming that food have high-quality healthy food to consume, which is a great thing that we should be incredibly excited about.

I think I’m ready to close. I just wanted to say, again, thank you to all of my constituents that had the trust in me to be your representative. I love my community so much. It’s in my heart. When I go to the Creston Valley, people are surprised with how well I know the Creston Valley, because I’m from Nelson. It’s because I lived there. I got to spend one summer as the Water Smart ambassador. I was the very first Water Smart ambassador that they had.

[5:50 p.m.]

I got to ride around on my bike. I was probably the fittest I ever was, which was excellent. I spent an entire summer riding throughout the Creston Valley, talking to people about water conservation. That was an incredible way to meet the community. I got to meet a lot of the farmers. I did a little side project and learned about their irrigation practices. I feel tremendously grateful that I’m able to be their representative here today.

If you haven’t been to my riding, as things are opening up, you should come and visit the Kootenays. You’re going to fall in love with the place. It’s absolutely stunning. The people are fantastic. Are some of us a little quirky? Yes, but that’s what makes our community so beautiful, so diverse.

I just am so grateful to all of my colleagues who have been doing such incredible work as we go through the pandemic.

D. Davies: It gives me pleasure to be standing here today talking about something that I almost forgot about, the 2021 throne speech by this government. Maybe it was okay that I almost forgot about it, because when I was looking through my notes that I had to dig through on my laptop, I didn’t find a lot there anyways, not a lot to talk about. But I will raise a few things that are of interest and of a highlight.

I do want to, first of all, start by thanking, on behalf of myself, my constituents of Peace River North. It’s certainly an honour to stand in this place representing all of the constituents in my riding, my very large riding of nearly 170,000 square kilometres. I used to have this memorized. I could compare this to a couple…. I think the size of Austria, Vancouver Island and Ireland is roughly the size of my riding.

It’s a great place. I’ve been to every corner of it. I’ve been into the back country. I’ve travelled the Alaska Highway probably more times than I’d like to admit. Of course, we did have snow today, so I’m looking forward to again heading up the highway — first of all, switching to winter tires, which we should all be thinking of doing right now — visiting communities in my riding, from Taylor to Hudson’s Hope; Fort Nelson; of course, Fort St. John, where I live; the many hamlets that are located throughout the riding; and a number of First Nation communities as well.

I certainly also want to thank my staff in my constituency offices. Everybody in this room can attest to the hard work that our staff do back in our offices — Kim, Tamara, Natasha and Julie, as well as my legislative staff here, which we all rely so much on: Wendy, David and Sam.

Obviously, I’d like to finally thank my family for allowing me to come down here and to do what I enjoy and, again, to do what I consider very important work on behalf of the residents of the Peace country. Again, thank you to my wife, Erin, and my daughter, Hana, and my son, Noel, who I’m sure are not watching this right now as they’re probably getting ready for supper.

Before I move on, I do have one final thanks that I do want to make. We are now approaching 20 months that we have been in this pandemic, and I’d be remiss if I did not take just a moment to thank all of our health care workers that I know are still working back-to-back shifts. I talked to one of our nurses. They had worked 40 days consecutive without a day off. So my hat’s off to all of our health care professionals, our front-line people that are working across this province. It’s a big thank-you. [Applause.]

Yes, absolutely.

As I stated a moment ago, I was going through, looking at the throne speech. It was actually neat to look through the throne speech and read it and almost take that little walk looking through a different lens of memory lane and some of the things that we were talking about just this past April, which seemed like a lifetime ago, and seeing where we are today. Sadly, we’re not very far down that road.

[5:55 p.m.]

I’ve been kind of searching for a word to describe this throne speech. Just like the speech itself, it spent a great deal of time trying to find a new idea to inspire all of us. I would say, if I had to choose a word to describe this throne speech, it would be “empty.” If I could elaborate a little more, it would be vague, void, lacking substance. For the average British Columbian, certainly for rural British Columbians, it showed little regard, and I can speak to colleagues in this room that represent rural ridings. There’s very little in there for rural British Columbians. But I will use the word “empty,” if I so will.

Unfortunately, this throne speech sounded more like an apology, really, than anything else. What British Columbians have been given is nothing more than a laundry list of promises that were regurgitated from 2017, passed on into this last snap election that the Premier and the government called, because they needed a clear mandate. We have yet to see this clear mandate by this government.

In fact, what I think we are witnessing is truly a rudderless government, a government that has no direction. I’m not even sure what the heck is going on sometimes when I wake up and see what’s happening across our province. I know we can use the pandemic as a bit of an excuse, but people rely on the government to make decisions, to make life better for British Columbians.

We all know, in this room, anyways, that the throne speech is the cornerstone for this place, for any government. It’s a chance for government to put down in black and white the direction, the vision, the purpose, to instill confidence in people, to lay down that road map that takes us from where we were to somewhere better. But it is truly lacking.

That day, I remember sitting in here. Actually, I think I was on Zoom that day, like many of us were. It’s great to all be back. I think it’s great to have all of us back here in this room. But that day, we were listening to the throne speech, many in this room, most on Zoom. We listened to what seemed like a lot of back-patting, self-congratulations, which sounded, really, no different than last year’s throne speech, the throne speech before that and, I think, probably the throne speech before that. It actually reminded me of Bill Murray’s Groundhog Day. It just kept coming back again, back again and back again.

Interjection.

D. Davies: The seventh one. Is that where we’re at now? We’re at the seventh throne speech. It seems like an eternity.

At the time, of course, when we looked at the screen, there were all of our little Zoom faces up there. There were a lot of blank faces. There was no enthusiasm. There was no excitement, which is what a throne speech is about. But it was missing. It was lacking. It was void of that. Where was this truly inspiring speech? We have not seen one, actually, since 2017.

I’ve said this before when I’ve spoken about other throne speeches. It was concerning then and still concerning now, the lack of…. No vision, really, for stimulating British Columbia’s economy, no real talk of job creation. If you think about our economy, certainly over this pandemic, it has been brought to its knees in many aspects — so many challenges. People, again, are looking to government for support. They’re looking to government for help, and they’re not getting it. They’re not seeing it.

[6:00 p.m.]

In fact, we’ve seen businesses close over this past year and a half. We’ve seen companies move from our province, and a lot of that is around — I’ve heard other people talk about it on different pieces — competitiveness. British Columbia does not have any competitiveness anymore. In fact, I would rate us near dead last, probably, on the continent around competitiveness.

In a riding like Peace River North that is full of resources — predominantly natural gas, a little bit of oil, a fair amount of forestry, agriculture…. Even agriculture, and I’ll talk a little bit about agriculture here in a little bit, is facing challenges that this government has put before our farmers. There’s no plan for mining. We haven’t seen a mine start, I don’t think, since this government took over in 2017. There have been no mines approved. That is scary.

When I walk out of this incredible building and I go out to the rotunda here and look up to the ceiling, and I see those founding industries — mining, forestry, agriculture, fishing…. When I look at those founding industries that have built our province, I see every one of those pictures up there in jeopardy right now. In jeopardy. Pick one of them. Blocked by red tape. No supports. The list goes on. Quite shocking, considering we are a resource province.

We’re very lucky. British Columbians do it better than any other jurisdiction, I would dare say, in the world. It doesn’t matter if it’s forest practices. It doesn’t matter if it’s oil and gas. There’s nobody else that does it better than British Columbians.

We’ve seen nothing, and again, this isn’t new. This has been since 2017. Taxes. Increased layers of red tape. Limited foresight. No real ideas about growing these different sectors that I just spoke about. Generate these opportunities for all British Columbians so that we can participate in our economy.

Mr. Speaker, I wish I could be more positive, but I find it really hard when I look at what’s been going on. Listening to that throne speech and, shortly after, the budget, it is hard to find positive things to say. We want to see a vision. We want to see opportunities. We want to see the government create opportunities for British Columbians, and we didn’t see it in this past throne speech in April. We didn’t see it in the previous ones.

The actions that we’re seeing today by this government are not demonstrating that there are opportunities for my son and daughter that I spoke about just a moment ago. I want nothing more than to have my kids stay in British Columbia — Fort St. John, maybe. I want them to stay in British Columbia and contribute to the economy and know that they have a future here. But at the present course, I don’t think that is going to happen unless things change.

I jumped ahead to competitiveness, so I don’t have to repeat that again.

Forestry. I’ll talk just briefly about forestry. Forestry is a huge part of British Columbia and also an important part in my…. I’m happy to say that our LP OSB mill has recently opened up, which is great news, after being shut down for the last year and a half, or two years, almost. But where is this government in regards to working out a softwood lumber agreement, which we have mentioned a number of times in this House in the past? Unfortunately, our Premier seems very hands-off when it comes to the forest sector, which is a shame when you consider the benefits that that sector has to our province.

[6:05 p.m.]

A couple other points that we heard earlier on. I heard the member for Nelson-Creston talk about affordability on housing. Well, unfortunately, I don’t share her enthusiasm when it comes time to be talking about affordability. In fact, there has probably never been a less affordable time than right now on housing. You know, after four years, the NDP has only built 3,246 units out of their promised 114,000 that were promised over ten years. It is another broken promise.

We’ve certainly seen a theme of broken promises by this government over the past four and a little bit years. In fact, shockingly, the number of promises that have not been followed through…. This was a stat a few months ago — I don’t believe it’s changed much — but 53 percent of British Columbians are now $200 or less away from insolvency, which is very scary.

Promises: $400 renters rebate. Sounds really catchy in an election promise. Never amounted to anything. Twice. It’s little wonder that British Columbians are losing faith in this government in all four corners, when they continually are seeing these promises not being met. The days of blaming the past government — well, I’m sorry, you can’t. You are the past government. You’re a second-term government. You’re a second-term government now. It is time to own up to a lot of the things. I hear some laughing across the other side. But it is time to make things better for British Columbians.

This throne speech offered little help or hope for people that are struggling in businesses, unemployment challenges, the worsening opioid crisis, which I’ll talk a little bit about here in a minute. Small businesses in this province are worried. The ones that haven’t closed are worried sick about how they are going to make their next pay run. Many of them are already well into their lines of credit or dipping into a second mortgage onto their home to make sure that they can pay their employees. It’s not right.

The Premier called that snap election, and one of his quotes was: so we could “put politics behind us.” We could have a clear path forward. Well, where is this clear path forward? Many people are asking that exact question. Continually failing to get COVID relief to families, supports for businesses, and we’re still hearing it even today — businesses that are still trying to get COVID supports so that they can hopefully still remain when this pandemic is behind us.

We can’t tax our way out of many of these issues, and unfortunately, we see that by this government. When you start attacking our resource sector, and we see companies moving out of town, the only other option is tax. Well I, for one, can’t be taxed anymore. I’m at my limit. I hear that from people every single day in my constituency. There is no more room. But tax is what this government does — 23 new and increased taxes by this government.

[6:10 p.m.]

I’ll bring back the really interesting ones. Of course, the Netflix tax, as we called it, the streaming devices tax, at a time when…. What were we all doing in the last 20 months? Binge watching whatever your favourite show might be.

Soda tax, soft drinks.

Interjection.

D. Davies: Yeah, it should be fizzy drinks. You know, I buy club soda. It’s water with bubbles. Let’s tax that, an air tax.

Another one that…. Talk about struggling businesses. Well, let’s tax the void air above their businesses. Businesses have closed because of these additional costs.

Let’s talk a little bit about the community benefits agreement. We’ve talked to a number of people that…. Let’s look at some of the projects, first of all, that are now falling under this. Talk about less for more. That’s where a lot of these projects are coming now — less project for more money, continual cost overruns, additional red tape. We’ve seen projects scaled back.

I should stick to my notes. I keep saying stuff, and then I come across…. I was supposed to say this now.

Interjection.

D. Davies: Yes, throw my notes away and just keep talking.

One of the points that I’m going to bring up here — we’ve heard lots about it, and my friend from Vancouver-Quilchena talked about it — is the tourism sector. Here is a sector to talk about that has faced incredible challenges over the past 20 months where people stopped moving, travelling around. People stopped visiting. As things start to come back to life, there are no supports. Oh, and let’s throw an election in the middle of that, just as things are starting to come by. Put everything on hold. In fact, the Tourism Task Force was put on hold from the work that they were doing because of the snap election.

“The cruise ship industry. We don’t really care about that. It’s not a big deal.” That’s certainly the message that British Columbians got when they looked at what the state of Alaska has done in introducing their own legislation to ensure that the ships don’t need to stop in British Columbia anymore. And we’re now getting very close to seeing that become permanent legislation. People might say: “Oh, they’re going to stop here anyway.” They don’t have to, and that is the concerning piece.

The city of Victoria relies heavily…. You walk down Government Street. All of those shops down there rely heavily on the cruise ship industry. These cruise ship places can now offer a passport-free cruise that takes you right from Washington state to Alaska. “You don’t have to stop in here. We’ll just keep sailing right by” — along with the billions of dollars that our economy relies on. Again, vision — these pieces of vision. There’s no comfort in this government that people are getting or seeing or feeling.

We just look at the jobs. Some talk about job creation. Well, where are those jobs being created? Is it private sector jobs? Well no, it isn’t. In fact, there are 42,900 fewer jobs in the private sector right now than there used to be. There are 51,400 additional jobs in the public sector compared to pre-pandemic levels — so compared to 19½ months ago. Now, not to say that we don’t need additional public sector jobs. We’re not saying that. But when you look at the private sector, which contributes and pays a significant piece to our economy, it’s very concerning.

We talk about child care. I know we’ve been…. My colleague from…. I’m horrible at this game.

Interjection.

[6:15 p.m.]

D. Davies: West Vancouver–Capilano has been talking lots here about child care, certainly recently. Another promise: “Let’s promise $10-a-day daycare for everybody.” A free car for you; a free car for you; a free car for you. Have we seen that? We have not — very little. In fact, this government has promised 24,000 new spaces. How many have they created? Six thousand.

We can talk about another promise. I used to be the Education critic back in 2017. The Premier, who was running at the time, promised the removal of all the portables in Surrey. There are more portables in Surrey now than there were in 2017. But the promise sure sounded good.

I’m not sure if you’re seeing a theme here of promises being broken — promises being broken over and over and over.

We look at the opioid epidemic, which is equally as devastating on our communities as COVID is — worse, in some cases. Six people a day are dying here in British Columbia. We are well on the way to smashing last year’s record, and it’s not a record that I think we want to be trying to beat in regard to overdose deaths.

It is devastating for families. I’ve said this before in this House. I lost a brother to an overdose. I have another family member that is in active addiction right now, struggling to find the supports that she needs — a system that is failing her right now, today.

We need to do better. We hear this over and over again. We hear words, but we don’t see action. I was actually happy when I heard that there was a ministry being created. But a ministry of what? A Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions does what? The Premier’s office has a significantly larger budget than that ministry. Six people a day — six British Columbians a day — are dying.

People want a positive vision. They want a road map. They want to know that it will be better tomorrow. They want to know it’ll be better in a month from now. They want to know it’ll be better for their children, for their grandchildren. We’re not seeing that from this government.

As I conclude my remarks, it is unfortunate but it is very clear that this government has no vision, no direction, is rudderless in so many aspects — a government that’s addicted to taxation, no idea how to deliver a positive vision for every British Columbian. It’s not just winners and losers. Every British Columbian needs to have opportunity to make life better, to help families and individuals get ahead — to make sure that we, as a province, are ready, that we’re prepared to move forward beyond this pandemic, move forward together and provide opportunity for every single British Columbian.

[6:20 p.m.]

Hon. N. Simons: Thank you to the parliamentary secretary and my friends on both sides of the House. I just want to point out that my critic managed to rag the puck long enough for me to make a few comments before we adjourn for the evening, and I know that makes everyone happy.

It’s very, very good to be here. It’s good to see colleagues on both sides of the House. It’s sometimes good to hear what they have to say, and I appreciate their commitment to their ridings and to the people in their communities. We all have a role to play, and I understand the role of opposition. I have been in that role many, many years. I’m pleased to in be in this position now where I can try, in a different way, to make positive contributions to the policies of this government.

I am so delighted to have new friends and colleagues that I see — that I’ve met now, after a long time of just seeing each other on the screen. It certainly makes us all feel more part of the process when we can see each other, when we can talk to each other, and we can exchange looks of acknowledgment or what have you in this House, during question period and at other times.

I just want to say how honoured I am to continue to represent the beautiful riding of Powell River–Sunshine Coast. It’s a spectacular part of the province. It’s a place that has continued to put their trust in me to bring their concerns to this House and to the various committees and to the backrooms of this place, where we can try to make positive influence on the lives of people in our ridings.

I want to take this opportunity to acknowledge the leadership in my constituency, Hegus John Hackett from the Tla’amin Nation, Hegus Warren Paull of the shíshálh Nation, Mayor Beamish, Mayor Darnelda Siegers, Mayor Dave Formosa, all of the representatives of the school district and the representatives of the Islands Trust. We have a lot of people who are working to make our province better. It’s not only up to us. We have an important role to play, but we really rely on the cooperation and the good nature of those who we work with.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

I just want to thank all elected officials and representatives who are doing their part in difficult circumstances to help British Columbia become stronger and more resilient every day.

I note the time, Mr. Speaker, and I note your approving nod. I recognize that it’s time to call for an adjournment of the debate. I’d like to maybe have an opportunity to speak some more and get into substance a little bit later.

With that, I move adjournment of debate.

Hon. N. Simons moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. S. Malcolmson moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: We stand adjourned until 1:30 p.m. tomorrow.

The House adjourned at 6:23 p.m.