Second Session, 42nd Parliament (2021)
OFFICIAL REPORT
OF DEBATES
(HANSARD)
Thursday, October 7, 2021
Morning Sitting
Issue No. 104
ISSN 1499-2175
The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.
The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.
CONTENTS
Routine Business | |
Report pursuant to the COVID-19 Related Measures Act regarding Order-in-Council 552/2021, Attorney General | |
Orders of the Day | |
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 7, 2021
The House met at 10:03 a.m.
[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]
Routine Business
Prayers and reflections: H. Yao.
Introductions by Members
Hon. A. Kang: In the gallery today, I would like to introduce my administrative assistants, Tracy Amande and Ngaire Lord, as well as my executive assistant, Jocelyn Fan. Also joining us today is my senior ministerial adviser, Michael Snoddon. Today we are celebrating Michael’s last day in my ministerial office.
I think the word “celebrating” may be the wrong word to use, but he’s very excited to go on to bigger and better places. I would agree that “bigger” is the word to use, but “better” might not be, because we really enjoy having him in my office, and we are the better place for him to be. But I wish him all the best in his future endeavours.
Michael, thank you so much for being a great friend and a great senior adviser.
Would the House please welcome him.
P. Milobar: Today I would like to welcome to the House and, in fact, all week…. It means not only is she a sucker for punishment because she’s been married to me for 28 years, but she’s come to question period four days in a row — wilfully, yes. Would the House please make welcome my wife, Lianne, who is here visiting, whose birthday, actually — 29th birthday, we’ll say — is on Saturday. My wife and sister-in-law to the member for Shuswap, Lianne.
Hon. R. Kahlon: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I thought you were going to make me wait all the way to the end, so I appreciate that.
I would like to welcome today to the precinct Red FM. Everyone, I think, knows Red FM and the significant role they play in helping deliver important messages to the South Asian community. It’s quite significant, given the history of this place, to have Red FM broadcasting for the first time ever live here in these chambers. So can we all please welcome Kulwinder Sanghera, the owner; Harjinder Thind, the host; Pooja Sekhon, program director; Nick Chowlia, the technical director; and Kohinoor Kalia, the assistant producer.
Can the House please join me in welcoming them here today.
S. Furstenau: I have three introductions to make today. First, Jada Lynn Abdulrahim is a 17-year-old Esquimalt High School student who is committed to bettering education for herself and her peers with a focus on mental health and the need for schools to recognize the education of the whole person. Jada wants to be a youth worker and to turn the loss that she has already experienced in her young life into helping others. Jada has written a two-minute statement for better education, and I will be sharing that statement shortly with this House.
Secondly, Priyanka Singh is shadowing me today. Priyanka earned her master’s degree in global management at Royal Roads University. She is extraordinarily active in the community. She’s on the Community Social Planning Council of Greater Victoria. She’s a director on the board of Coastal Research, Education and Advocacy Network and the city of Victoria’s Accessibility Advisory Committee and also on the equity and diversity advisory committee on transportation, focusing on how to incentivize e-bike use. It’s evident Priyanka is an incredible advocate and solution-maker in the community.
Finally, I’d like to introduce Kaylea Kray-Domingo, who has worked in our caucus office for two years. Kaylea has brought a wealth of experience, knowledge, passion and wisdom to her work and her exceptional energy and care and her most amazing and wonderful laugh. Kaylea is moving on to her next big adventure, and we’re very excited for her and the path that lies ahead and incredibly grateful for her hard work, her dedication and her leadership as part of our caucus team.
Would the House make all three very welcome.
Hon. B. Ma: The Squamish Nation has just completed a historic general election, the first one under their new electoral and governance structure that was approved through a community-wide referendum in 2018.
Their new council now consists of North Shore councillor Shayla Jacobs; Squamish Valley councillor Joyce Williams; regional councillor Tiyáltelut, also known as Kristen Rivers; general councillor Sempulyan, also known as Stewart Gonzalez; general councillor Syexwaliya, also known as Ann Whonnock; general councillor Chief Dick Williams; general councillor Wilson Williams; band manager Bianca Cameron; and led under council chairperson Khelsilem, also known as Dustin Rivers.
Would the House please join me in welcoming them to their new roles.
K. Greene: Will members please join me in wishing Steveston resident Douglas Milton a 100th birthday. He’s watching from home.
Mr. Milton was born in Saskatchewan, enlisted in the RCAF for World War II, and during his service, he earned a Distinguished Flying Cross. Mr. Milton’s son Keith credits his dad’s long life to his love of dancing. Doug still dances when he has the opportunity.
Please join me in wishing Mr. Milton a happy 100th birthday and gratitude for his public service.
Hon. J. Horgan: I want to join the Opposition House Leader in praising Lianne for her years of dedicated service. Nothing quite says, “I love you,” as I said to my own spouse one time, as an early morning question period.
To Lianne, congratulations, and happy birthday on the weekend.
Tributes
DON CRAIG
Hon. J. Horgan: I also rise to pay tribute to a public servant who is leaving us at the end of the week, who will be known to many on the other side of the House who have been here for some time.
Don Craig, who is the government photographer, a transplant from California, joined the public service in 2006 after working for a little start-up called Adobe and also, as a Renaissance man, being trained as a Vidal Sassoon hair stylist, which was of no value to me. But I know those who came before me would have benefited from his ability. As Vidal Sassoon said: “If you don’t look good, we don’t look good.” Don did his best to work with what he had, in my case.
Don’s an incredible guy. To be a photographer, you have to be there for the moments. He has captured, over 15 years, the moments of British Columbia’s history from the government perspective. He’s to be applauded for that.
I first met Don…. I will always remember him, not just because he’s an extraordinarily nice guy and extremely talented, but he will always figure in my first day on this job. That was because we had been sworn in, and we were going to have an event in the rose garden. I came out of my office, and members will know, who have been in the west annex, that there is a big picture window that looks out on the rose garden.
I came bounding out of my office, I looked out the window, and I said: “Where is our photographer?” I thought there was going to be a photograph session with the constituent who was with me. I said: “That’s the government photographer.” The guard at the door said: “You are the government.” It was at that moment that I got to meet Don as not the government photographer but also just a really great guy.
He’s going to take his beloved paddleboard and go somewhere looking for people who have more hair than you and I, hon. Speaker, and maybe go back to Vidal Sassoon.
Would the House give a big, big clap for Don Craig. [Applause.]
Introductions by Members
R. Russell: Just briefly, I have been advised by colleagues not to say I forgot my father’s birthday, but I certainly forgot to rise and wish my father a very happy birthday. Without him, I would not be here. I am absolutely sure.
He turned 80 on Tuesday, so I really, really, with a ton of love, wish him a happy birthday.
Introduction and
First Reading of Bills
BILL 21 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT
(No. 2),
2021
Hon. D. Eby presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2021.
Hon. D. Eby: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.
I’m pleased to introduce the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2021.
This bill amends the following statutes: the Adoption Act; the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act; the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Amendment Act, 2019; the Child, Family and Community Service Act; the Civil Resolution Tribunal Act; the Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources Statutes Amendment Act, 2018; the Offence Act; the Oil and Gas Activities Act; the Passenger Transportation Act; the Representative for Children and Youth Act; the Safety Standards Act; the Treaty First Nation Taxation Act; and the Victims of Crime Act.
This bill also contains transitional provisions.
Mr. Speaker: The question is first reading of the bill.
Motion approved.
Hon. D. Eby: I move the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
Bill 21, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2021, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
Statements
(Standing Order 25B)
LYTTON FIRE AND RESPONSE
J. Tegart: It is with a heavy heart that I stand in the House today to share a short two-minute statement about an event that changed the lives of 100 people in my riding. On June 30, the village of Lytton burned to the ground. They lost their hospital, their village office, their RCMP station, their post office, their fire hall, their bank, their grocery store, their library. In fact, they lost their whole main street.
The fire moved so fast that many residents got out with only the clothes on their back. Two residents perished that day. Hundreds lost homes. Businesses were burned to the ground. Public services were incinerated, and the community looks like a war zone.
Neighbouring communities, family, friends and others opened their homes and arms to welcome victims of the fire. Residents were scattered to the far regions of the province due to a lack of capacity to house them close to Lytton. Within the first week, the Premier flew over by helicopter to view the village. He promised the people of Lytton that they would be made whole again.
But it has now been 99 days since the fire; 99 days in a hotel; 99 days and still not allowed full access to their homes; 99 days of restaurant food; 99 days of displacement; 99 days of frustration, anxiety, disappointment, no answers, no hope, limited assistance; 99 days with no timeline, no path forward; 99 days of people on the ground doing the best that they possibly can. But 99 days, and where is the support promised by government? Ninety-nine days, with winter on its way. Where is the plan after 99 days?
Lyttonites are resilient people who are anxious to move forward on the path to recovery, but everyone in the community has been traumatized. I ask government to step up, provide the support that was promised, and let’s get our people home.
NATIONAL FAMILY WEEK
K. Greene: This week is National Family Week, and it is a time to celebrate the diversity and importance of families across Canada and right here in B.C. Families can be the people that you were born to, or families can be the people that we choose. They can be big or small. They can be living nearby or across the ocean. It is the connection that we have with each other, the love and joy we find with one another that makes our families special.
The theme of this year’s National Family Week is “Connected families, connected communities.” Going through the last 18 months of the pandemic has shown us just how important our connection to family and community is for our well-being.
The first weeks of the pandemic were disorienting and heartbreaking for families who were suddenly not able to comfort each other in person. With our families vaccinated, we are now able to cautiously reconnect and support each other, and the time that we spend together is even more precious. Our families help us thrive and reach our potential, which is why this government supports policies that foster healthy, positive connections that help children, youth, parents and caregivers.
The Sesame Street book, What is Family on Sesame Street?, explores the idea of family and says: “It’s not just about who shares your last name or whether your nose, ears, eyes look the same. Family means more than just who you’re born to.”
So no matter what your family looks like, whether it’s a family of two or an extended family of 20, whether they live with us or across the globe, your family deserves to be celebrated this week and every week.
Finally, I’d like to acknowledge my family, who lift me up so that I can be here.
FIRE PREVENTION WEEK
B. Banman: This week is Fire Prevention Week. It’s an annual opportunity to educate British Columbians about the simple but important things that we can all do to keep ourselves, our loved ones and our communities safe from fire.
In the case of a fire, seconds can mean the difference between life and death, so taking measures to avoid preventable fires can and will save lives. It can also help prevent putting a further strain on our health care system right now, as doctors and nurses will be diverted to have to treat burn wounds and other fire-related injuries.
I am a proud father of a firefighter, but I have lost count of how many times he’s had to respond to a blaze that could have been easily prevented, had precautions been taken ahead of time. Fire safety education helps keep our firefighters safe by reducing the number of calls and situations where they have to put their lives on the line to help protect people and property throughout British Columbia. After a long summer which saw horrific wildfires and the entire town of Lytton destroyed, it has never been more important to take time to teach fire prevention and safety.
This year’s Fire Prevention Week theme is “Learn the sounds of fire safety.” It helps bring awareness to the different sounds that smoke and carbon monoxide alarms make, because knowing what to do when an alarm sounds will keep you and your family safe. To learn more, to help spread awareness, I encourage everyone to visit firepreventionweek.org.
Together we can all help reduce the number of fires in British Columbia and keep our communities, our loved ones and our firefighters safe.
PARKGATE SOCIETY
S. Chant: I rise today to bring to the attention of the House a group of people called the Parkgate Society. Led by the most able Adele Wilson, this group provides services to members of the Parkgate community, and beyond, that run literally from cradle to grave.
They have care programs for infants, toddlers, preschoolers — preschool, before school and after school. They have youth programs that, up until a certain time that we shall not talk about right now, had dances for preteens and had gatherings. They’ve also got a skateboard park that is right outside the back door so that you can go out and skate for five minutes and then come back and do whatever you were doing. They’ve got access to parks. They’ve got access to the gym.
Not only do they work with children, but they also work with families. They bring the families in to do a variety of activities, most of them fun. They do pottery sometimes. They do a whole variety of activities with those groups.
They also have the most amazing seniors program that stems from things for active seniors like walking programs and using the various options that are around them, to crafts and all those things — also singing. Then we also have what is called My Parkgate Break, which is for folks with early-onset dementia. It provides a place for them to be safe and have activities and be monitored while their caregivers get a much, much needed break.
Additionally — I said “cradle to grave” — when somebody passes, there’s always some kind of little something, whether it’s by Zoom or a small group of people or a memorial card put up.
This society has opened its community and offers so many things. I thank you for this opportunity, and I hope people have the time sometime to come and enjoy Parkgate.
YOUTH MENTAL HEALTH AND ADDICTION
AWARENESS AND
EDUCATION
S. Furstenau: Today I’m reading a statement written by Jayda Lynn Abdelrahim, who is a high school student at Esquimalt High.
“I am addressing the Legislature today with respect and honour in hopes of bringing Victoria’s youth and their voices together. There is a huge gap in our education between understanding and proper prevention skills targeting mental health crises and substance addictions.
“It is true we grow up to make our own decisions, but suicide and overdoses are never a choice to a youth that has yet to even learn the full potential of themselves. I want to be able to grow up with my best friends and watch their beautiful souls grow and evolve. I love where I am from, and I am proud to live on this Island. However, I am ashamed of how many of my friends I am losing to the failure of our education in context to the importance of our mental health and the toxic drug levels constantly rising on our streets.
“When our youth grow up in such a small community with the known effects of peer pressures and media influences, the only way to truly influence youth on drug prevention and mental health awareness is to bring education to them. How does one-time use turn into an addiction? Is there such a thing as healthy drug use? If someone I hang out with uses drugs, are they a bad person?
“Our youth deserve to learn and feel comfortable asking questions like these, and equally, they deserve the truth, as brutal, emotional or hard as it may be. This starts with daily conversations, not enforced by police or scared into them with school etiquette. This starts with our survivors being given the chance to share their experiences, share how they got involved with drugs in general, the life they lived, the decisions they had to make and what motivated them to find their recovery path.
“Daily education within our school system from trusted crisis survivors as well as proper engaging with the youth community where we learn will introduce a healthier perspective on saving our youth without racism, stigma or false assumption.”
WORK OF VANCOUVER–WEST END
CONSTITUENCY
ASSISTANTS
S. Chandra Herbert: I’m here today to speak about unsung heroes. I’m here today to speak about my constituency assistants, but I’m sure, Members, you could say likewise about yours.
I’ve been working with Murray Bilida since 2008. Murray, it’s been an honour and it is an honour to work with you each and every day. Thank you. I’ve been working with Christina Rzepa for a bit little less time. Christina, thank you for your creativity and your care. They both work so hard for our community in the West End and Coal Harbour. Thank you. You make a difference each and every day.
On the worst days, we’ve seen death threats. We’ve seen hate speech, spit, spray paint and even a violent assault. No one deserves this. But despite it — in fact, because of it — we work even harder for our community.
But on the best days, we’ve seen tears of joy, as couples who had battled bureaucratic error finally got the news that they could become a family — they could have children in their family. As homeless constituents finally got the news that they could come inside for a home. As renters who faced incredible stress finally learned that we had defeated the illegal tricks that tried to force them from their homes. Or a local business person learned that their business could be saved after a long fight for justice.
Through the worst days and the best days, our constituency assistants are helping. They’re listening. They’re acting to make a better world. In the last months, my constituency assistants have helped over 100 residents get the building owner that they were fighting to give them back the tens of thousands of dollars they were owed. They helped stop illegal rent increases and evictions that affected over 100 constituents. They helped 450 mostly senior constituents print and laminate their vaccine passports — and while the lineups continue out the door.
I haven’t even included answering the thousands of phone calls, emails, postage mails, tweets and, of course, my requests too. They will tell you it was all done by me, but I’m here to tell you, everyone, none of it would happen without them.
I want to thank our community helpers, our community heroes: our constituency assistants.
Oral Questions
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO HEATWAVE
S. Bond: Words matter. They carry even more weight when they come from the Premier of British Columbia. British Columbians today expect answers from a Premier that has managed to avoid answering for his failure to protect the most vulnerable British Columbians.
In July, the official opposition called for an independent review of the province’s response to the heatwave that killed almost 600 British Columbians. This week, Human Rights Watch also called on this government to “urgently investigate the full scope of the heat dome’s impact, particularly on those most at risk…. Without adequately understanding the scale of needs, the government will not be able to respond effectively to populations at risk.”
It was those very populations who were at risk that the Premier callously dismissed when he said: “Fatalities are a part of life” and “There is a level of personal responsibility.”
Will the Premier today finally acknowledge that his comments were completely unacceptable and commit to a full and independent review as called for just this week by Human Rights Watch?
Hon. J. Horgan: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for her question.
I also want to thank the member for Fraser-Nicola for her powerful statement, to start us off on question period today, to remind us of the human cost of climate change, of poverty, of inequality — issues that didn’t appear yesterday, didn’t appear a week ago, didn’t appear months ago but have been with us for a long, long time.
We have special moments, like those brought to us graphically by the member for Fraser-Nicola, very rarely — once in a thousand years, with respect to the heat dome. Once in a thousand years.
But we all — certainly, we as a government and me, personally, as the Premier — have a responsibility to make sure that we put in place processes, procedures, policies to ensure that we’re better prepared for events like this, because it will happen again. We have seen, in the short time that I’ve had the privilege of being Premier, three of the worst fire seasons in our history. We had a heat dome that had 50-degree temperatures in Lytton the moment…. In minutes, that town disappeared.
So I agree very much with the Leader of the Opposition that words do matter. If I offended anyone by talking, at that time when we were just learning about the magnitude of what this summer would be…. We were, at that very moment at that press conference, talking about lifting restrictions on people as result of a global pandemic. It wasn’t a good day. It was not a good day for Lytton — absolutely not — or the two lives lost or the hundreds of people who are still out of their homes. But we need to reflect on that, and we need to make sure we’re better prepared.
We have been taking steps. The Health Minister has been working with respect to better preparing our ambulance service, which again, did not lose its emphasis in four years or eight years or ten years but over a long period of time.
With respect to a review of events this past summer, the coroner and the public health officer are doing just that. I have full confidence in both of those individuals that they will be able to bring to this House and the people of British Columbia answers to what happened, how it happened and, best of all, recommendations for solutions going forward.
Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition, supplemental.
S. Bond: The Premier has described those moments as special moments in British Columbia, but those are the moments when Premiers of this province need to rise and show leadership.
The Premier was forced to admit that he was giddy about the ability to lift COVID restrictions — giddy. Five hundred and seventy British Columbians lost their lives. To suggest that it just happened — the Premier knows that is not true.
The Premier commissioned a report that provided him with specific information that said it was going to happen and even predicted that hundreds of British Columbians could lose their lives, and this government did nothing. They were not prepared. As a result, hundreds of families lost cherished loved ones.
We’ve shared some of the stories this past week of those British Columbians: Howard Calpas, who lost his three neighbours; 74-year-old Roberta “Bunny” Lalonde, who died alone in her condo; 69-year-old Ember, whose disability made her three times more likely to die from the heat; and assistant fire chief Brian Bertuzzi, who valiantly tried to save the life of a British Columbian who died in the driveway of a fire hall. In our British Columbia.
Five hundred and seventy British Columbians died, and they deserve accountability from this Premier, and a comprehensive independent review. I understand the role of the coroner in British Columbia. We want to ensure, as does Human Rights Watch, that all of the aspects of what happened are considered. British Columbians deserve that.
Will the Premier today finally acknowledge that his government had been warned, that they paid no attention and ultimately, British Columbians lost their lives as a result of the indifference?
Hon. J. Horgan: No words that any of us say today can replace the loved ones that were lost this past summer. No words that we say in this place can replace those who have lost their lives as a result of an opioid crisis that is in its sixth year. No words that we can say can bring people back and make families whole again, but actions that we do take can make sure that those lives weren’t lost in vain, and that is precisely what we intend to do.
We have, for the first time, a minister responsible for Climate Change; the root — the root — of the heat dome. We have a minister responsible for Poverty Reduction. The first time ever in British Columbia. The only part of the Health Ministry that went up more than mental health and addictions was the ambulance service, because it had been ignored for far too long.
I appreciate on a day — a solemn day, quite frankly — that these questions have to come. I respect the member for bringing them forward. I have full confidence in the coroner. I have full confidence in the public health office. Any resources they need to fulfill their job, they will have. Any access to anyone in this place, they will have. I believe that’s what the people of British Columbia expect, and that’s exactly what they’re going to get.
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO LYTTON FIRE
J. Tegart: When the Premier was being giddy and ignoring the heatwave, it wasn’t the only tragedy occurring. On June 30, fire swept through the village of Lytton, destroying the entire community.
The Premier said the right things at the time: “In terms of rebuilding throughout the system, that’s our job.” But as is the Premier’s practice, the follow-up has failed to match the rhetoric.
Denise O’Connor, a resident of the village of Lytton, has heard the words, but she wants action. She sent a petition 30 days after the fire. Today, 99 days later, she still is waiting for the Premier to explain the plan for interim housing.
Can the Premier explain to Denise why he’s failed on such a basic commitment as interim housing for our Lytton residents?
Hon. J. Horgan: I thank the member for her question, and also, to Denise and other residents who are still out of their community because it is a dangerous place to be. There are still toxins on the ground. The member is fully aware of that. She made reference to her and I flying over, days after the event. We have been working as collaboratively, I hope, as possible. I certainly stand ready to work more closely with the member, if that’s required.
With respect to actions that we have taken, we have been working with the private sector. We have been working with the Fraser Basin Management Council to assist in collaborating and bringing together the needs of Indigenous and non-Indigenous alike in the Lytton area. We established…. And again these are process pieces, but critically important to getting outcomes.
We created a working group of cabinet, which I chair, that has the appropriate ministers responsible for housing, the minister responsible for emergency preparedness, the minister responsible for forestry, as well as the Parliamentary Secretary for Emergency Preparedness and — most importantly, in my mind — the member for Boundary-Similkameen, who at the time of the flood in 2017-18 in Grand Forks was a local government representative. He, too, is on the committee to better help us understand the needs on the ground locally, coming from his perspectives and understandings and learnings from the tragedies that took place in Grand Forks.
We are doing our level best to bring together the right people to make sure we can get people back into the community as quickly as possible. And we will rebuild a storied community with a future, looking forward to deal with climate change, to make sure the buildings are adaptable for a future that will be very much like recent past.
Again, I appreciate the member from Kamloops needs to pop off as well, but I speak directly to the member for Fraser-Nicola.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.
Hon. J. Horgan: I stand ready to work with her in the community to make sure we can rebuild as quickly as possible. But the challenges faced in this area, she knows full well. We are at her side, at the side of the members in that community, to make sure we can get back as fast as possible. But it does take time to make sure the cleanup is done appropriately, to support the municipal leaders who are struggling as well. The work’s underway. I know the member knows that, and I’m certain the member from Kamloops south knows that as well.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Fraser-Nicola on a supplemental.
J. Tegart: One week in I was pleased to join the Premier on a flyover of the village of Lytton. I expected that he would actually follow his words and his promises to the people. I can tell you that if there are people on the ground doing the work, the residents aren’t aware. And that is a tragedy. If you’re doing your level best, my god we’re in trouble.
Ninety-nine days, four letters to the government, endless emails, endless requests and the people of Lytton have no idea what you’re doing in their community. I would suggest this is much more than a communication problem. I have asked for a team. I have said we need capacity in the community, and you have the expertise.
Mr. Speaker: Through the Chair, Member.
J. Tegart: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
But we’re in trouble. Can the Premier tell the people of Lytton when they’ll be given a detailed timeline and what is included in that timeline?
Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member, and I want to inform her that there is significant activity taking place on the ground in Lytton. In terms of capacity, which she has raised, I can inform her that the province has been funding the Fraser Basin Council, to work with the council in terms of the development.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members, a question was asked, and the minister is going to give us an answer. Please listen to him.
Hon. M. Farnworth: In terms of developing that recovery plan, that plan is due on the 15th of October. Once we receive it, I’m happy to share it with that member.
In the meantime, the Minister of Municipal Affairs has ensured that there is capacity within the city itself to help deal with the situation in terms of establishing services and re-establishing their capacity to function as a village. About nine members have been seconded there.
At the same time, we brought in a former CAO from Kelowna, again, to ensure that the village has the supports it needs to be able to function. We’ve met with the federal government to ensure that not just the village but the First Nation is in place and that they are able to have an interim housing plans site for interim housing in place. The Red Cross has got the supports in terms of ensuring on a case-by-case basis that people….
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Please, continue.
Hon. M. Farnworth: As I said, on a case-by-case basis to ensure that people have the accommodation and the supports that they need. As the member would know, emergency social service supports are normally there for three days. They have been extended until the end of November and, most likely, depending on how things go, will be extended further.
The people know that there is a short-term, a medium-term and a long-term requirement in terms of building back Lytton. That is going to take place.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
Hon. M. Farnworth: Thank you, hon. Speaker. You know, the members asked a serious question. They wanted to know what supports are available. I’ve been detailing the supports available, the activities they’re taking on the ground. They seem more interested in interrupting than they do in getting an answer to their question.
PROTESTS AT OLD-GROWTH FORESTS
AND RCMP
ACTIONS
A. Olsen: There have been over 1,100 arrests that have been made at the Fairy Creek old-growth logging blockades. It’s the largest act of civil disobedience in Canadian history, spurred by this government’s failed leadership to protect old-growth forests.
The videos of the conduct of the RCMP, our contracted provincial police force, are difficult to watch, as they cause physical and emotional trauma. As the tension grew and the violence increased, all we got was silence from this B.C. NDP government.
B.C. Supreme Court justice Douglas Thompson found the RCMP’s use of exclusion zones that limited media access to be illegal, calling the actions of the RCMP regrettable and damaging to our court’s reputation. He criticized the RCMP decision to remove their identification and the lack of enforcement of a directive to remove badges displaying the thin blue line. All summer the Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General, the minister responsible for policing in this province, has been silent.
My question is to the Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General. What specific action has the minister taken to protect the civil liberties of the protesters?
Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the member for the question. I’d remind the member that the issue he’s referring to is currently before the courts, under appeal. Therefore, I’ve got no further comment in that regard.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Saanich North and the Islands on a supplemental.
A. Olsen: What I’m asking about is police accountability. That’s not before the court. That’s the responsibility of every member in this chamber. Police accountability is our responsibility, and we bestow that responsibility on the Minister of Public Safety. It is completely unacceptable for him to stand in this House today and deflect that, saying that a matter of an injunction is before the court.
What I’m talking about is protecting the civil liberties of British Columbians. Justice Thompson refused to extend that injunction because of the unacceptable behaviour of the RCMP. That matter was decided. As Paul Willcocks summarized in the Tyee, Justice Thompson “found the RCMP’s enforcement trampled on civil rights, went far beyond the terms of the injunction, unreasonably hid the actions from journalists’ scrutiny and failed basic tests of accountability.”
The minister has failed to make clear to the public and the RCMP throughout the summer his expectations of this government. He failed to demand access for the media, failed to demand officers wear proper identification and failed to protect citizens in this province.
We live in a democratic society, not a police state. We must ensure that it never deteriorates to that by demanding accountability in this place. Not the House of Commons — here. As Willcocks wrote, and I agree, if the provincial government refuses to provide oversight, there is no meaningful accountability.
Our provincially contracted police service is the responsibility of the Minister of Public Safety. Will he stand in this chamber today and state publicly his expectation that all police services in this province uphold the law as outlined by Justice Thompson in both his decisions?
Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the member for the question. Again, as he refers to the decisions that are under appeal, I have no comment on that and cannot comment at this point.
But on a more general situation, what I would say is that the Solicitor General in this province does not direct the police. Nor do we ever want politicians telling police what they should and should not do.
If there are issues and there are complaints, there are processes that are well established by legislation where people are able to make complaints against the police and they are investigated by independent bodies. Those are in place.
I am aware that complaints were made. I am also aware that those complaints are being looked into and investigated, which is exactly what should happen.
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO COMMUNITIES
IMPACTED BY
WILDFIRES
T. Stone: When the White Rock Lake fire jumped Highway 97 and ripped through Monte Lake in Paxton Valley back in early August, these communities were absolutely devastated. Thirty-two families lost their homes. They lost everything. In the midst of this year’s fire season, the Premier said: “We’re prepared to do whatever we can.” But frustration is boiling over with these residents as they continue to wait and wait and wait for the supports that they were promised.
Adding insult to injury, the Premier refused to visit Monte Lake and Paxton Valley. All that these residents got from their Premier was a quick flyover. He was in nearby Vernon, but he couldn’t make the time to stop in Monte Lake and Paxton Valley. All the while, the Premier did have the time to take a vacation in the middle of the hardest part of the wildfire season in the southern Interior.
The Solicitor General hasn’t had the guts to go to these communities either. Instead, he’s lectured them, he’s insulted them, and he’s blamed them. These honest, hard-working, decent people need help from their government, not blame.
Monte Lake resident Jacqueline Gee said: “Our community was devastated by this fire. Homes have been lost. Livestock too. It’s been surreal. We feel like we’ve been left completely alone and, frankly, just shunned as a community. I’m frankly shocked and disappointed that there is zero help for those who have lost everything.”
Rob Bouchard and his young family lost everything in Paxton Valley. He too feels abandoned and angry that his community has been blamed rather than supported. He said: “It’s … insulting to be portrayed as the bad guys here. We’re all waiting for the Premier or the Solicitor General to come and talk to us in person.”
My question is this. What does the Premier have to say to Jacqueline Gee and Rob Bouchard and the many other impacted residents of Monte Lake and Paxton Valley who need this Premier to get on with providing the supports that he has promised them so that they can get on with rebuilding their homes and rebuilding their lives?
Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the question. In terms of the supports that are available, we are working very closely with the Thompson regional district to ensure that support services are in place, working to determine the number of properties that are insured and those that are uninsured. Recovery managers are in place to ensure that those supports are in fact in place. The community has not been abandoned.
In terms of disaster financial assistance, that’s already there. We work with the federal government to identify what infrastructure qualifies. That work is underway so that we are able to go back and to rebuild communities that have been devastated by the significant fires that occurred this summer. We have been working and we will continue to work to ensure that that takes place.
B. Stewart: Well, the fires that ravaged my constituency may be out, but the damage is still being felt today. The White Rock Lake fire caused the loss of numerous homes and businesses — a total of 84 structures — and one other home lost in the Mount Law fire. People had to scramble to safety carrying the few possessions, and they find themselves displaced across the Interior.
Neal Morgan and his sons lost two homes and a thriving business on Bouleau Lake Road. Neil is a pensioner who has had to use his entire life savings to buy a used mobile home and rebuild his workshop.
Hundreds of residents in Killiney Beach continue to be without potable water due to the speed that the wildfire ravaged their community, burning homes and not having proper shutoffs.
My constituents are frustrated by the lack of clear communication from government as to what services are available and how to access them. I’m sure the minister would agree that the government should not be adding stress to those dealing with such catastrophic losses.
Can the Premier tell Neal, his family, the Killiney Beach residents and my constituents what support is now available to constituents who lost their primary residence and do not have insurance or disaster financial assistance, to the people that are on the community water system at Killiney Beach?
Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the question. As I’ve outlined in terms of whenever a disaster occurs, as the member knows, fire is considered an insurable event. There are exceptions to that in terms of the supports that are available if there is a municipal or a rural fire department agency or fire insurance is not available or it’s too cost-prohibitive.
What I can tell you is that in terms of the supports that are available — the recovery individuals on the ground who are able to assist — we’re working closely with the Red Cross to ensure that if people have lost their primary residence, there are places for them to stay, the supports are there, and they will be there well into the future until they are needed. All of that is taking place, and we will continue to stand with the community.
Again, in terms of disaster financial assistance, we work closely with the federal government in terms of what is eligible. There are a number of programs depending on the kind of structure that was impacted, whether it’s an agricultural building, an agricultural structure, or whether it is a civic infrastructure such as water or such as a police station or such as a hospital — all of those things.
It really is fascinating that when you’re outlining the response to a question, you get the heckling from the other side. The reality is that there’s lots in place, and we are willing and ready to assist those people in accessing those supports.
ASSISTANCE FOR RANCHERS
IMPACTED BY
WILDFIRES
L. Doerkson: The Cunninghams have had a tough summer, to say the least, this year. Fires have ravaged their land and threatened cattle, and it has cost them hundreds of thousands of dollars in losses. To survive, they need to get their cattle back on the range but can’t do it without the replacement of Crown fencing through disaster financial assistance, which must be secured by the province.
Kevin Boon of the B.C. Cattlemen’s Association says: “The federal disaster assistance program, which covers Crown resources such as Crown fencing, has not yet been approved. That is really big — an important one — as it will determine our ability to get the cattle on the range.”
Winter is coming, and if the Premier doesn’t act immediately, ranchers like the Cunninghams will lose another full year of grazing.
When will the Premier fight for the ranchers of this province and families like the Cunninghams to ensure that they get the supports they need right now?
Hon. L. Popham: Thank you very much to the member for the question. This has been a really difficult summer for the ranching industry. We feel very grateful that we have had constant contact with Kevin Boon and the B.C. Cattlemen’s Association. We’ve had constant contact with ranchers, and we’re very aware of what’s needed. We have secured a $20 million AgriStability fund that they can access to try and help financially recover what they’ve lost. But we know that what they’ve lost is greater than financial loss.
The issue with the Crown fences is something that I believe my ministry spoke with Kevin about late yesterday afternoon, and those are conversations that will continue. But I can tell the member that my ministry and our government have been responsive to the cattleman and the ranchers of B.C. We had issues throughout the summer that we were constantly updated on, and we were able to respond as necessary. It’s a complicated situation, but we do understand that cattle need to stay in place, and the issue of putting fences up on Crown land is something that is a priority.
MEDIA APPEARANCE BY PREMIER
P. Milobar: Well, it has been an interesting week of dodging and avoiding personal responsibility on behalf of the Premier’s actions.
No accountability on questions around the opioid deaths and ever-increasing numbers of overdoses. Confusion around naloxone kits and direction from the CDC and the Solicitor General, both completely contradicting what the Premier had said about lack of naloxone supply.
Heat dome — zero accountability on that. Three days’ worth of questions — zero accountability on that about a report that the government commissioned themselves and ignored. And then they ignored the questions with any type of proper answer.
A patchwork approach to schools. Complete confusion and anxiety for teachers, support staff, parents and, most importantly, students. A lack of data transparency. A lack of timely information being shared within the school system, yet no accountability from this Premier. And then today, wildfires. Even more lack of accountability from this Premier.
Why is that concerning? I think it sums it up best with the media advisory for the Premier’s media availability today. The Premier yet again, to dodge accountability and talking to the media, says: “In line with the B.C. Centre for Disease Control’s physical distancing guidelines, media must call in rather than attend in person.”
The Premier doesn’t even want to meet with the media in person, yet Dr. Henry has done that in this building this week. The Education Minister has done that in this building this week. The Solicitor General sat across from a radio host this morning in this building. And the Premier has no problem sitting elbow to elbow to elbow.
To the Premier: once again, are you misspeaking and causing more confusion, or are you getting to operate under a completely different set of community guidelines for the Centre of Disease Control that the rest of the province doesn’t seem to operate or work under?
Hon. J. Horgan: Well, I now have even more heartfelt thanks to Lianne at the start of question period today.
I will say that I will be accountable for a media advisory that I was unaware of. Of all of the issues that we could talk about, I’m grateful that the member brought it to my attention, and I’ll take immediate action when I leave this place.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
[End of question period.]
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: All right. Question period is over. Members. It’s over.
Tabling Documents
Mr. Speaker: I have the honour of tabling a report under the COVID-19 Related Measures Act.
Reports from Committees
FINANCE AND GOVERNMENT
SERVICES
COMMITTEE
J. Routledge: I have the honour to present the first report of the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services for the second session of the 42nd Parliament titled Interim Report on Statutory Offices, a copy of which has been deposited with the Office of the Clerk.
I move that the report be taken as read and received.
Motion approved.
Mr. Speaker: Member, continue.
J. Routledge: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave of the House to move a motion to adopt the report.
Leave granted.
Mr. Speaker: Please proceed.
J. Routledge: I move that the report be adopted, and, in doing so, I would like to make some brief comments. This report summarizes the committee’s discussions with the province’s nine statutory offices at the spring update meetings. These meetings are part of the committee’s process for ongoing engagement with each office and provide an opportunity for committee members to receive financial and operational updates following consideration of budget submissions earlier this year.
The committee appreciates the comprehensive updates provided by all statutory officers and recognizes how the COVID-19 pandemic continues to impact the operations and work of each office. Committee members also appreciate how offices are using experiences from the pandemic to examine the workplace with a view to modernization.
On behalf of the committee and all members of the Legislative Assembly, I extend our continued gratitude to all statutory officers and their staff for their dedication and work in service of all British Columbians.
I would also like to acknowledge and extend our appreciation to staff in the Parliamentary Committees Office for their support during this process. Thank you to Jennifer Arril, Stephanie Raymond, Mary Newell, Karan Riarh, Natalie Beaton and Jenny Byford.
I would also like to express my appreciation to all committee members for their diligent work and particularly recognize the Deputy Chair, the member for Kelowna West, for his support and work on this committee.
B. Stewart: I want to thank you and the members of our committee. I echo the remarks of the member for Burnaby North, the Chair of the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services, and thank her for the important work that she does as the Chair of this committee.
I also want to say a sincere thank you to all of our committee members and the incredible legislative staff for their work, both on the regular functions and operations of this committee and the preparing of the report introduced today. This includes Karan Riarh, Mary Newell, Stephanie Raymond, Jenny Byford, Natalie Beaton and, of course, all the Hansard staff that are behind the scenes.
The report we are presenting today, the Interim Report on Statutory Offices, is the result of lots of productive discussion in committee, and we considered the budgets of the province’s nine statutory officers for the coming year. As this is the interim report, there’s more work to be done, and I look forward to meeting with the statutory officers with our committee in November, hearing their creative solutions as we will see in the updated report.
Motion approved.
Orders of the Day
Hon. M. Farnworth: I call second reading, Bill 19, Societies Amendment Act.
[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]
Second Reading of Bills
BILL 19 — SOCIETIES
AMENDMENT ACT,
2021
Hon. S. Robinson: I move that Bill 19 be read a second time now.
The Societies Amendment Act, 2021, amends the Societies Act to refine the act, which came into force back in 2016. The Societies Act provides the legislative framework for the creation and governance of British Columbia’s societies.
Societies are not-for-profit corporations and are prohibited from distributing profits to their members. They’re organized for a wide range of purposes, from charitable to educational and environmental to recreational. There are over 30,000 societies in our province. Societies vary significantly in size, ranging from small volunteer-run associations that we’re all very familiar with to large professional-run charities.
This pandemic has certainly highlighted for all of us the important role that these community-minded organizations play in keeping us connected, providing mental health supports and supporting those struggling with income or food insecurity. More than ever, they play a vital role in our communities, from health and housing services to sports, cultural and other community-based activities, to environmental and social advocacy.
Supporting B.C. societies with robust and modern legislation will further efforts to build communities with the resilience required by today’s challenges.
The Societies Act came into force on November 28, 2016. The act provides societies with a new, responsive legislative framework and allows for electronic filings with the corporate registry. As societies in British Columbia vary significantly in size and in purpose, the act helps to balance the sector’s desire for adaptability and relatively simple laws with the need to ensure transparency and accountability.
Over the past four years, the government has been monitoring the new act to ensure it is, indeed, working for societies, for their members and for the public. In that time, staff have identified areas for improvement. Additionally, feedback from societies themselves, as well as legal practitioners and the public, has helped to identify some inconsistencies, some omissions and clarifications needed about how certain provisions of the act should be applied.
The purpose of the proposed amendments is to ensure that the act remains responsive, while addressing various issues that have come to light since it came into force. The amendments will also streamline processes and remove unnecessary corporate registry filing requirements.
As the act is still relatively new, these amendments are not intended to implement any major policy changes. The intent is to refine the act, to provide certainty as well as clarity for societies and those who work with societies. These amendments have been developed in consultation with the public, the sector, the corporate registry, Indigenous partners and other government partners, as well as an advisory group of private bar lawyers.
In 2019, the Ministry of Finance invited the public to comment as well on proposed legislative changes to the act. The government carefully analyzed the feedback received from societies, from their members, the legal community and the public in this consultation. The feedback was considered in the development of these proposed amendments.
We have been mindful, as well, of the requirements of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act as we have developed this legislation. We have done an assessment of this legislation as it relates to aligning with the UN declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples.
We know that Indigenous peoples have specific interests in the organizations that provide services in their communities. As a result, we’ve consulted with Indigenous partners to seek their input and their perspectives. This has included notifying treaty First Nations of the proposed amendments and discussing amendments in detail with Nisg̱a’a Lisims Government.
The proposed amendments were also discussed with the First Nations Summit, the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs and Métis Nation B.C. Some proposed legislation was revised based on the feedback received from these discussions. We will continue to work with Indigenous peoples as we move forward with this work in the spirit of reconciliation.
Among other things, these proposed amendments will make changes to provisions related to society recordkeeping, the notice and conduct of society meetings, directors, corporate organizations — in other words, the dissolution, liquidation and restoration of a society — corporate registry filing requirements and the duties and powers of the registrar.
For example, amendments will clarify what information societies must keep in their registers of members and directors, as well as establish rules for recordkeeping after a society dissolves. References in the act to meetings will be amended to specify whether the provision applies to a general meeting or a meeting of directors.
Also, amendments will clarify what is required in a society’s notice of a general meeting, a member’s requisition of general meetings and a proposal. Provisions respecting directors will be amended to, for example, update their qualifications and will clarify rules for director conflict of interest obligations and consent resolution processes.
The amendments will also remove unnecessary corporate registry filing requirements and make other filings more consistent with the corporate governance acts. Processes will be more streamlined and user-friendly, including a new administrative procedure for an individual to have their name removed as a director of a society or a company without having to go to court.
This bill will also make some related amendments to the Business Corporations Act and the Cooperative Association Act, which govern companies and cooperative associations in British Columbia respectively. While these other corporate governance statutes are unique, they have many similarities with the Societies Act regarding the roles of directors, members and shareholders and corporate registry filing requirements. The proposed amendments will update and harmonize some provisions in these acts as well.
Societies serve a vital role in our communities throughout the province. Through this bill, the government is committed to providing them with a refined, user-friendly legislative framework. This will support societies in doing their important work that is key to our pandemic recovery and building resilience in communities all over British Columbia. [Applause.]
M. Bernier: I first want to acknowledge it’s an interesting day when we get applause for not only a misc stats bill that was presented in the House but now for an amazingly riveting speech on a housekeeping bill that the minister has brought forward.
But with that being said, I do want to just acknowledge some of the comments that the minister brought forward. It won’t be a lengthy speech by any means. I am impressed how the minister was able to talk so long on this. But I will say that maybe I’ll start from the fact of the importance of our societies. This act was brought in, as this package really, in about 2016, if I remember.
We have over 27,000 societies in the province. As the minister rightly highlighted, the majority of those are volunteer groups. These are people who sacrifice time out of their life, sometimes away from their families, to work in these societies, and a good portion, if not all, are to help British Columbia and British Columbians get through life in a better way when you look at what some of these societies do. We want to thank them and applaud them for their efforts that they do on our behalf as well.
As the minister has highlighted, this is mostly a housekeeping bill. I’ve gone through it in great detail, the 115 sections, and acknowledge that a lot of it is messaging that we’re hearing back of on-the-ground work that societies have mentioned that can clean up a few things around notifications, minute-taking, etc. I think it’s really important, from this House, regardless of who is in government, to always be looking at and listening to the different groups who make recommendations once we put an act in place, to make sure that we continue to be fluid in making decisions here to help them on the ground.
I look forward to committee stage. I thank the minister and her staff for listening to the societies and bringing this forward. Over the next week or two, before we get to debate it again in committee stage, if there are any societies, obviously, that have some concerns, I’m sure we will be hearing from them and can discuss that further in committee stage.
Again, thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, does the minister wish to close debate?
Hon. S. Robinson: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I want to express how impressed I am that the member for Peace River South spent last night going over this bill. It’s a significant bill, and I think it speaks to his diligence in reviewing this. I’m sure he’s grateful for the fact that we will be going through committee stage not next week but perhaps the week after and later on in this session.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of the bill.
Motion approved.
Hon. S. Robinson: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.
Bill 19, Societies Amendment Act, 2021, 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. Dean: I call continued Committee of the Whole, Bill 14.
Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Minister.
I will put the House into recess for a few short moments while we get the appropriate staff in and get this underway. Thanks, everyone.
The House recessed from 11:18 a.m. to 11:21 a.m.
Committee of the Whole House
BILL 14 — EARLY CHILDHOOD
EDUCATORS
ACT
(continued)
The House in Committee of the Whole on Bill 14; S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.
The committee met at 11:21 a.m.
On clause 10 (continued).
K. Kirkpatrick: To the minister and staff, welcome back. I will do my best to complete this at the end of the morning here.
Continuing on 10, I’d like to give an example and then ask a question in terms of how it might be dealt with. Mount Royal University in Calgary has a four-year early learning and child care bachelor’s degree — or a BA in early childhood studies at Ryerson University. What’s the process for approving an ECE program from outside of British Columbia?
Hon. K. Chen: For the member’s information, there are currently two institutions outside of B.C. offering recognized early childhood education programs. The plan is to transition those programs to be approved ECE education programs. However, because of interjurisdictional compliance and enforcement difficulties, it is not anticipated that out-of-province institutions will be given approval under this legislation.
With that being said, one of the key purposes of this legislation is to facilitate and streamline the process of credential recognition for out-of-province applicants who do not qualify for labour mobility. So we will see an improvement in terms of credential recognition in this process.
K. Kirkpatrick: Just so I understand this, then, and I’ll give a hypothetical example again. It’s not really hypothetical, I guess.
Somebody graduates from this BA in ECE program from Ryerson University. They then move to British Columbia. It’s not on the list of approved programs for the ECE registry. They make application, and you will, on a case-by-case basis, be determining if that school would meet the overall standards required by the registry.
Hon. K. Chen: For applicants who are certified from another province, they are actually qualified under the labour mobility, which is under the Canadian free trade agreement.
The Chair: Say that again, Minister.
Hon. K. Chen: We’ll recognize the credential if they are certified in another province. Just to clarify that.
K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.
It’s not being certified in another province. It’s actually having just graduated from a program in another province, having never been certified, moving to British Columbia, applying to the registrar to be certified as an ECE worker but not having that education from British Columbia, or that’s currently under the regulator’s purview.
Hon. K. Chen: In this type of scenario, they would fall out of the labour mobility agreement. But that is one of the reasons why we’re doing this legislation, to facilitate people who are outside of that agreement, to look at the scenarios case by case, to see if they may be temporarily registered to be able to work in the workforce while we fully recognize their credential.
That being said, we’re not predicting this scenario happening very often. Most students who are trained outside of the province would be registered in their province. Then what we would do to support the applicant is to walk them through their options, whether to support them to get registered in their province, to get recognized directly by B.C., or to do a temporary registration.
K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.
Many students will actually go away, particularly for these bachelor’s degree programs. They may live in British Columbia, and they go to Ontario or they go to Mount Royal in Calgary to get their bachelor’s degree, and then they come back. So they are not formally or have never actually been registered anywhere, but they are coming back with an education that is not registered and approved in British Columbia.
I’m feeling — and please correct me if I’m wrong in my understanding here — that there is a distinct advantage to those institutions outside of British Columbia, in terms of the amount of work that would be required by those institutions to be considered appropriate for regulation in British Columbia.
That was a long…. It was all the same topic, but a long question. Hopefully, it was understandable.
Hon. K. Chen: The main purpose of this legislation is to fix the challenges that the member is referring to. Basically, we do not recognize the individual institution that’s outside of our province. The reason for that is that there are so many across Canada, whereas we looked at the applicants’ individual situations and their training case by case. Then we know that, historically, there is a challenge of recognizing outside-of-province-trained ECEs, but there’s a shortage here. That is why this bill actually proposed that we have a temporary registration process to look at how we recognize that and transfer that credential.
That being said, in most scenarios we do understand that the student could, hopefully, easily be recognized in the province where they were trained. In case that doesn’t happen, this act helps to facilitate that process, to give them temporary registration, support them through this process and get them into the workforce as soon as possible. The main purpose for this is to really have them being able to work in the field as soon as possible — of course, while ensuring the health and safety of young children, but facilitate the process.
K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.
Would there be a consideration for some kind of cross-jurisdictional approval ability? If there is a similar registrar in a different province, rather than having to apply every time an applicant comes who has out-of-province experience, there could be a way to accept what other regulators in Canada would have already accepted.
Hon. K. Chen: Hon. Chair, for the member’s information, we do work really closely with other registrars across other provinces. That is why we know, in most cases, that a student trained in a province can be registered in the province where they’re trained and that then, through the labour mobility agreement, we can transfer and recognize their credential.
Also, for the member’s information, we do have an information-sharing agreement, which allows the registrar to obtain information from another jurisdiction about an applicant or a registrant’s suitability to be registered.
This also helps to prevent bad actors from moving from one jurisdiction in Canada to practise in another, by allowing regulators to share information. Also, of course, that supports the process to help to streamline the registration and being able to recognize credentials as fast as possible.
K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.
Currently if somebody is registered with the registrar as an ECE and, in this legislation, they’re demonstrating that they have gone through an approved program in British Columbia…. When that applicant refiled…. I don’t know if it’s every year that they would be sending new information in. If the program that was approved at the time they registered is no longer approved, because they’re in non-compliance with the act or something else has happened, would there be any concern from the registrar’s perspective in a program renewal?
Hon. K. Chen: As long as the registrant is…. Well, the training program is qualified at the time when they were trained and certified, then we always recognize their registration, and they do renew once in a while.
K. Kirkpatrick: What about an online program delivered by an institution outside of British Columbia? How would that be considered, or would that be considered in the same way that an in-person university program would be considered?
Hon. K. Chen: You’ll be considered in the same process.
K. Kirkpatrick: Just to dig a little bit deeper on that, if a person is taking a program here in British Columbia and it’s located outside of British Columbia, does that program need to be approved under this registrar?
Hon. K. Chen: If the program is outside of B.C., then the person is considered the same as an outside-of-province student. They would either go through the outside-of-province process to register in another province, even though they are personally in B.C., and transfer to become a registered and certified ECE. Or they could go through the temporary process to be recognized.
K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.
The issue that I’m struggling with here is that there appear to be more barriers for an institution to be operating in British Columbia, to be approved, and more reviews and program approvals than there would be outside of British Columbia. I feel like there’s a bit of an additional burden or additional administrative piece put onto British Columbia institutions.
For example, you have CDI offering an early education certificate program in British Columbia. CDI, or another organization school, may very well offer that same certificate in Alberta, yet the programs in British Columbia would have to be asking for approval to do curriculum changes. They would have to be doing filings, but the other program wouldn’t.
You’re saying, though, that a person could take that other program in Alberta, come here and still be registered. So that other institution would not have to go through….
Sorry, I said the word “you’re.” I caught myself. That other program with exactly the same course, perhaps, would not need to go through that same annual process.
Hon. K. Chen: From our understanding, different provinces have similar procedures. B.C. does not really provide or create extra barriers for this registration process.
That being said, every province has different competencies for their early childhood education programs, and that is why, because there are so many institutions and so many different competencies between different provinces, we focus on the applicant, not so much the institution. In fact, one of the main purposes of this act reduces that barrier, to make sure we can facilitate this process. To make sure there’s alignment, we do work with other provinces as well.
For the member’s information as well, actually, our current director, Darla here — very thankful for her support and her work, which is very equivalent to the new registrar’s position — currently chairs the committee that has registrars from across the province. They meet every six weeks, and she continues to learn and work with other provinces on creating alignments, streamlining process, discussing labour mobility to help to facilitate the future of our early childhood educators workforce, to help them to come into the workforce.
T. Shypitka: Thanks for the opportunity. I’m just sitting here, and I’m listening to the conversation. It’s an important one to where I live, as well as the rest of the province.
I live in Kootenay East, so really tight and really close to Alberta. We have a really big relationship with those and, of course, a labour shortage. We’re looking for ECEs all the time. And of course, the accreditation process is somewhat bureaucratic. It’s rigorous to get reaccredited to go from one jurisdiction to another. Hearing this conversation, it kind of piqued my interest a little bit.
I heard the minister say, in regards to a temporary licence, that those accredited from another university or institution outside of B.C. can come in through a temporary licence. I just wanted to know what that process looked like.
Is it somewhat of a mentorship program? Do they come in and mentor with another ECE that is fully accredited in British Columbia, and they check them out while they get their other licensing approved? Are there licensing fees that are associated with that to the ECE that comes in from outside of the jurisdiction? What does the timeline look like to get fully accredited with this piece of legislation?
Hon. K. Chen: There’s no fee for any of the process. I really appreciate the member’s question, because it also helps to clarify the process, as well.
Normally, if a person is trained, for example, in Alberta and registered there, of course the easiest way is to go through the labour mobility agreement, which is the fastest. But if not, then the temporary process would require the applicant to submit an application, and the registrar would be looking at the application and see how we transfer the credential. If everything looks great and no gaps or other extra courses are needed, they can be registered right away.
But if the registrar believes that there could be a few courses that are needed, in order to allow the applicant to complete those courses, we would give a temporary certificate for them to start working as soon as possible, while the applicant fills the gap of the full registration.
That being said, I think it’s important, because we do know the challenges of how some communities are facing shortages of early childhood educators but with outside-of-province applicants.
One of the purposes of this bill is to also allow the registrar to be able to delegate her or his work to other staff in the department. For example, currently the processing time is about five weeks in those scenarios. But that being said, because we know some employers cannot wait for five weeks to fill the shortage, once we’re able to allow the registrar to delegate her work and responsibilities to other staff, we may be able to make it faster, depending on the caseload and the demand.
So we’re hoping to look at less than five weeks, which is currently what we face. That’s what this legislation, hopefully, will do to really facilitate that process as fast as possible.
K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you for the answer to the question.
I just want to confirm. What I understood you to say is that there’s no fee. I want to confirm if it’s also no fee to the institution or if that was no fee just to the ECE worker.
Hon. K. Chen: No fee for both.
K. Kirkpatrick: Can I ask what the funding model is, then, for the work that is being done? My understanding from reading the legislation is that there is a lot going on with compliance program review. How is that being funded, if not through the institutions themselves?
Hon. K. Chen: You’ll be funded through our annualized budget.
Clause 10 approved.
On clause 11.
K. Kirkpatrick: Clause 11(2). I better make sure this time I’m referring to the exact, correct clause. Well, I’ll ask you the question, then I’ll make sure. It requires the institution to give at least 90 days notice of a change in curriculum related to a competency established under this act. I’d just like to understand what constitutes a change in curriculum that would require notification to the registrar.
Hon. K. Chen: So for example, if it’s a simple change of a basic English program, we would not require that notice. But if it’s something to do with the competency — for example, the learning outcome or the curriculum of the course, which may affect the competency — then we may require more information and a notice.
K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister for the answer.
That is relatively vague. So just in terms of a school being able to make sure that they are in compliance, a change to curriculum, a change to…. It could be a very minor change to something that focuses on a different part of a competency. Is there something that’s more specific in terms of how it would be determined to be substantive enough to trigger an actual requirement for notification?
One of the reasons, just for context, that I ask…. A lot of these programs are continuous intake. When things are happening externally…. There are changes in the sector. There are changes in an instructor, who has, maybe, a different area of expertise. Sometimes these things can happen very quickly, as opposed to being that it’s 90 days that you need to give this notice on.
So the question, to clarify — I said I was going to be short here today — what constitutes something that would be of a magnitude that would need to require that approval?
Hon. K. Chen: Currently we’d look at the change if it’s more than 10 percent of the curriculum or the competency. But that being said, with the passing of this act, if passed, when we’re working on our regulations, we’re going to be working very closely with post-secondary institutions to make sure their input and feedback is incorporated to co-develop this together.
K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister. I flagged this really because it just….
My feedback, should it be considered, is that it really needs to be defined in terms of if it’s a change to a program, a change to just a course or a change so that it doesn’t become an administrative burden and something that probably would be an oversight on behalf of some of these institutions, and actually not notifying where they should be and may be not in compliance.
I am not to be the one that asks with respect to time, but I wonder if I should be continuing. I was told yesterday I couldn’t be the one who asked.
The Chair: It’s quite appropriate if you want to note the hour.
K. Kirkpatrick: Noting the hour….
The Chair: You’ve noted the hour, but we will ask the minister to finish that off. I appreciate that, hon. critic.
K. Kirkpatrick: Wonderful. Thank you. I want to do it the right way.
Hon. K. Chen: Noting the hour, I ask the committee to rise, report progress and seek leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:56 a.m.
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.
The Committee of the Whole, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. M. Dean moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1 p.m. today.
The House adjourned at 11:57 a.m.