Orders of the Day

Hon. L. Beare: I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 5, Workers Compensation Act.

[1:05 p.m.]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 5 — WORKERS COMPENSATION
AMENDMENT ACT, 2022

The House in Committee of the Whole on Bill 5; R. Leonard in the chair.

The committee met at 1:07 p.m.

On clause 1.

Hon. H. Bains: We will be doing the committee. So I would welcome any questions on any sections.

The Chair: Thank you, Minister.

P. Milobar: Thank you to the minister.

I see our friend from Shuswap is on the link as well. So he may be popping in with the questions, if some come to mind for him as well. We’ll toggle back and forth, hopefully, through the day.

I don’t intend to spend…. I jokingly said to the minister: “I believe we’re supposed to go till Tuesday.” Obviously, this is a bill and a concept that started many years ago, and it’s around workers’ protections around asbestos. So we’re really just trying to get to figure out, through this committee stage, exactly what steps got us here today and what some of the ramifications on the regulation side will be moving forward.

I just have a couple of broad questions to start, with the minister’s indulgence, on no specific section but just the overarching piece of the bill based on some second reading comments. Then I’ll have questions as we get into each clause.

Just broadly, my understanding is that an all-party working committee…. In 2016, the federal government comes out with new rules. In 2017, the provincial government of the day starts a cross-ministry working group. In 2018, recommendations come forward. It’s been four, 4½ years since those recommendations would have come forward.

[1:10 p.m.]

I’m just curious. What was the complicating factor in the drafting of this legislation that would have taken that long on something so critical to workers’ safety in British Columbia?

The Chair: Recognizing the Minister of Labour. Earlier — I apologize — I didn’t give you an opportunity to introduce your staff.

Hon. H. Bains: Yeah, I’m just going to. Thank you. I appreciate it.

Thank you very much for the question.

I neglected to introduce the staff who are here with me. Trevor Hughes is my deputy minister. John Blakely and Michael Tanner are both from our policy branch. They are here to help us.

I also want to extend to the member for Shuswap my deepest condolences for the loss of his family member.

Our thoughts and prayers are with you, Member. We wish you well during these tough times. So good to see you there, even during these tough times. It just shows your commitment and dedication to the job that you are elected to. Please stay strong. That’s what we would like to say.

I do want to acknowledge that the previous minister, the member from Prince George who was the Minister of Labour for a number of years…. It was during the latter part of their government that they established the all-party working group to deal with this very, very serious issue. I believe that in 2017, the all-party group was confirmed, and they went to work.

Their report was released in December 2018, and the period for public comment — it was made public then — closed in February 2019. In the meantime, between 2019, a number of areas that were talked about in that report and the areas that were identified, that needed to be fixed…. Quite a bit of progress has been made on many of those report’s recommendations — those that do not require legislation.

Then COVID hit us, as we know, and WorkSafeBC was involved in a number of health and safety workplace initiatives to work with the provincial health officers. But that doesn’t mean that this area was neglected. I can give you some more timelines, if the members wish, too.

[1:15 p.m.]

In 2021, January, the all-party working group was re-established with a mandate to complete the development of the action plan, including options for licensing and training requirements. In spring 2021, the working group confirmed that they considered recent findings that non-legislative measures alone are not sufficient to improve safety in the sector. There continued to be need for legislation.

In summer and fall of 2021, the ministry worked on those proposed legislations, including stakeholder consultations and public engagement. And on February 16, Bill 5 was introduced.

I could give a bit more to the member. I think this issue isn’t new. This particular substance continues to be the number one killer, going back decades. I can assure the member that this issue was raised in this House for a long time. I remember standing up in this House, raising this issue with the previous Minister of Labour, and I can quote you some of the discussion that took place.

This was July 2013. As critic, I said:

“I want to move into a different area now. It is asbestos exposure and workers’ death resulting from this exposure.

“As we know, diseases from exposure to asbestos remain the single largest occupational killer in British Columbia. According to WorkSafeBC figures, asbestos-related disease was responsible for the death of 512 workers between 2002 and 2011.

“My question to the minister is: what extra measures are being put in place by WorkSafeBC to ensure that exposure to asbestos of workers and, actually, of neighbours is minimized or eliminated?”

There was a discussion going back and forth, and I was assured that WorkSafeBC was doing everything they could do. I again raised the issue that they needed some extra tools. These tools were not working — what they had. Then I cited some examples in there about a contractor. How many orders were issued? So 250 orders were issued. Because the tools were not available to WorkSafeBC, they continued to go away today and come back tomorrow under different names.

The issue is not new, Member. I appreciate the urgency that you are saying that we could have moved with. I can tell you the urgency was always there, and we’re doing the best we can.

One thing is clear. With the proposals that we have in this legislation, once they’re enacted, they will give tools to WorkSafeBC to enforce and to get rid of those bad actors in the industry.

P. Milobar: Thank you to the minister for the dates there.

I guess, really, what I’m trying to scope out is the complexity that is in this amendment. It’s amending legislation, essentially — the Workers Compensation Act. It’s not a brand-new piece of legislation from scratch. It’s identifying a workplace safety issue. It’s meant to bring in protections for workers, but it’s also bringing in a registry for the employers as well.

I recognize, based on the briefing that I had with ministry staff, that the registry piece for the employers is something new. It doesn’t really exist in Canada. I can appreciate that that would take some time. But it seems like many provinces were moving, post the change federally in 2016. We’ve heard February 2019. Both the working group had done their job as well as public consultation had been done. That’s still three years.

What part of the worker protection piece was so problematic that it would take three years to bring forward the amendments instead of bringing those forward immediately and still working on that employer registration piece for a future amendment to the Workers Compensation Act?

[1:20 p.m.]

Hon. H. Bains: Again, I think one thing is for sure, and I want to acknowledge the previous Minister of Labour at least taking this on, finally, and putting this group together, talking to the different stakeholders, did their own research. Where are the loopholes? What are the answers to deal with this very, very serious issue that has lingered on for years if not decades?

I think that group…. I think they took it so seriously. They want to make sure that they look at every area where there are some gaps and what possible solutions there are. Then they went back and forth and back and forth. “This may work. But what about the implications of that?” And: “This may not work.” Finally, they put a report together, and then, again, the consultation started with the stakeholders.

Their feedback was very, very important, both the employers and the workers — WorkSafeBC and others. I can tell you that there are very, very good operators out there. But there are really bad operators in this industry. They wanted to know: “How can we fix this?”

The other two jurisdictions have some training, but I think we will be leading all jurisdictions when this bill, with everyone’s support in the House, is enacted. Not only will there be mandatory training for anyone who handles asbestos but also licensing to deal with and curb those bad actors that I cited in 2013. Like those — 250 ordered. They still couldn’t do anything.

The only time I think that person only…. I think the sense of satisfaction came when that person was thrown in jail because of contempt of court. So the board had to go to the court in order to stop this bad actor. I think we can talk about all that during this time. In the meantime, the workers were dying with this exposure — 2007, 2008. These issues were raised in this House. I could go over the numbers: in 2007, three times; 2008, three times; 2009, one time; 2010, four times. Numerous times every year this issue was raised in this House.

I don’t want to go back and fault anybody, because I think everyone tried to do the best they could. I like to say that the previous Minister of Labour was sincere in her efforts to make sure that the workers’ health and safety was protected. That’s why she put together this all-party group. They came back with these recommendations, and we want to make sure that we do it right. We took our time.

[1:25 p.m.]

COVID also is a factor in the delaying a bit. But here we are, and I think these are the right things to do. WCB will be fully engaged in order to put together a training regime and details of the training. I think the sooner we do it, the better.

P. Milobar: My understanding is that a lot of this is based on, or similar to, both Ontario and Alberta in regard to what they have in place for similar asbestos, especially as…. Again, I recognize it’s only on the employee protection side, because they do not have the registry side.

In clause 1, there is a definition for “asbestos abatement contractor,” and I’m just trying to ascertain the similarities of this amendment with what is going on in Ontario and Alberta. Is the definition of “asbestos abatement contractor” in B.C. in line with what is in Ontario and Alberta, or is it something completely different?

Hon. H. Bains: I think it’s difficult to compare with Ontario and Alberta, because they don’t have a licensing regime in place. The only thing that they have is the training for the workers who handle asbestos.

I think this is a broad enough definition to cover every employer, contractor who would be doing the asbestos abatement work in British Columbia.

Once we are through and this bill is enacted, royal assent is received, then they are required to be licensed. They cannot be engaged in abatement work in B.C. without having to have that licence and go through a licensing application process.

Clause 1 approved.

On clause 2.

P. Milobar: Similar to the last question, around definitions again. Just trying to get a better sense of if this is significantly different legislation than Alberta and Ontario or if it’s more or less modelled after it.

Is the minister aware if “asbestos abatement work” is defined the same within Ontario and Alberta, or if that’s, indeed, different as well?

[1:30 p.m.]

Hon. H. Bains: This definition was put together based on the scope of work that exists here in this jurisdiction, in British Columbia.

This, if the member would look at it, is not only dealing with training alone. It talks about, again, the licensing part of this as well, if a contractor is engaged individually. So I think there is a definition of work which would cover, I think, broadly, the asbestos work. Anyone engaged in that work would now be required to have a licence if they are an employer, and those workers who are working to handle asbestos must be licensed.

I think — further down — the member will know that the training is mandatory and also requires that the contractors cannot employ anyone who has not gone through the training and has that certification. So I think the definition is broad. It wasn’t mirrored with other jurisdictions — or the same — but the definition we believe is what needs to be covered to deal with the issue that we had beforehand.

Clauses 2 and 3 approved.

On clause 4.

P. Milobar: Just on a couple of these housekeeping amendments, I’ll just have one quick question. That’s really that this clause seems to be just repealing a definition of “officer” and substituting with a new definition. Could the minister just provide what the purpose of the change of the definition is?

Hon. H. Bains: What had happened here was that the existing definition of “officer” was inadequate, it was felt, for the purposes of both the existing occupation health and safety provisions and the new asbestos abatement provisions. With the additional phrase, “unless a contrary intention appears,” it is made clear now that the definition of officer does not apply when the act refers to a director or officer of the corporation.

There was a bit of a mix-up there, which occurs in the asbestos abatement contractors’ licensing provisions of this bill. I hope that that’s clear.

Clause 4 approved.

On clause 5.

P. Milobar: Very similarly, I recognize that these are housekeeping amendments, but again, there’s repealing some language and substituting back in around issuing “certificates to occupational first aid attendants and instructors, and renew and amend those certificates; and….” Then it continues on.

I’m just wondering if the minister can provide what the purpose of this particular housekeeping amendment is, in clause 5.

[1:35 p.m.]

Hon. H. Bains: Yeah, the member is correct. It is a housekeeping amendment to paragraph 55(c) to reword the provisions to clarify the intent of the existing provisions. It makes no substantive changes to the provision.

Secondly, the amendment in paragraph 55(d) also makes it clearer that WorkSafeBC may enter into an arrangement with other persons to renew and amend first aid attendant certificates in addition to issuing certificates. Provisions already exist. It’s just to clarify further.

Clause 5 approved.

On clause 6.

P. Milobar: I’ll sound like a broken record, but this is the third clause in a row I’ll ask the same question. Again, housekeeping amendments, but I think it’s always valuable for people to understand what exactly the depth of the amendment really means to them, especially as they interpret this, moving forward.

If the minister could just provide, again, what the purpose of this housekeeping amendment is.

Hon. H. Bains: Yeah, it’s similar to the last one we talked about. That was to deal with the first aid attendant training.

This one is the certification and training of the blasters, and it’s the same type of approach here. The housekeeping amendment, again, in this particular case, paragraph 59(c) — to reword the provision to clarify the intent of the existing provisions. It makes, again, no substantive changes to the provision.

The second part is the amendment to paragraph 59(d). It makes clearer that WorkSafeBC may enter into an arrangement with other persons to renew and amend certificates for blasters and instructors in addition to issuing certificates. Same as the previous one, Member.

Clause 6 approved.

On clause 7.

P. Milobar: A few more questions on this section. As I read it, this section relates to the certification and training for people, for businesses, and the fees that will go with that. I guess I’m interested in (e) of clause 7, which would actually be 59.01in the act. In (e), it says: “establish fees for the purposes of this section.”

Has the minister already established fees for this particular clause?

Hon. H. Bains: This section actually enables WorkSafeBC to establish fees for the purpose of training and certification. WorkSafeBC will address any fees as part of its program design and implementation with input from stakeholders.

P. Milobar: Just checking, then, the process by which they will establish those fees. Will it be in consultation with the minister, or will it be in consultation with businesses and industry?

Hon. H. Bains: Not with me. It will be in consultation with stakeholders.

P. Milobar: Again, I know the minister may feel this next question may be one of a flippant nature, but it’s not. We have great concerns over here around previous legislation around fees, and I just want to get a very clear understanding, because it seemed if we didn’t ask the right, exact questions around fees, the background seemed to be much different than maybe what we imagined it would be.

We saw that play out with the FOI bill last fall. I guess, just to be perfectly clear, I’m expecting there hasn’t been one. But has there been any decision note presented to the minister, or has the minister signed off on any decision note as it relates to fees and any recommendations going to workers compensation?

[1:40 p.m.]

Hon. H. Bains: No.

P. Milobar: Thank you for that.

In terms of the overall fee structure, then, has there been any analysis done in terms of not just the fee in particular but the broad concept of this legislation, in terms of cost analysis to contractors, to employees trying to get certified? To what extent may that actually impact the industry as a whole, in terms of cost pressures or the…? Has there been a cost analysis done that shows that it will be minimal, at best, to make these changes?

Hon. H. Bains: Thanks to the member.

As I said earlier, this section enables WorkSafeBC to establish the details of the training and the fee structure, if there is going to be any, in consultation with their stakeholders. They do this all the time in all kinds of different training that they already have in place. First aid training is one — blasters, as we just talked about, another. Perhaps there are a number of others that I don’t, right now, have off the top of my head what they are.

There are systems in place that the WCB handles today, and this will be another one, giving them the ability to design the details of the training and also how it is delivered, who delivers and the fee structure. That’s what this language does — enables them to do that.

P. Milobar: In this section, where it deals with the fees around these particular areas, around the certification and training, I don’t see where there’s a specification that it would be a three-year fee or a one-year fee. Yet later on, it very clearly indicates that most certifications will likely be three years in nature and then expire, and you’d have to get recertified again.

Why is there not that certainty or clarity around the expectation of WCB, as they establish fees, to make sure they match up with certification periods?

Hon. H. Bains: The three-year period that the member mentioned is to deal with the licensing side. The training side…. WCB will decide how often they must come back for recertification. Is it one year, like a first-aid attendant? They have designed different levels, and they have different expiry dates for that. In this particular case, we’re leaving it up to them and giving them the enabling language to design the certification and training, working with the stakeholders.

[1:45 p.m.]

I think that’s important. They will be coming up with those details.

P. Milobar: We’ll get into timelines in a few other clauses here. It sounds like WCB, in spite of this taking three years post–February 2019 public input, still has a lot of work to do. It’s, I guess, a little disappointing that it wasn’t done simultaneously, with the expectation that this would pass.

Whether I like to admit it or not, the simple reality is that our side is outvoted 2-to-1 in this chamber, so one would think that WCB would have had a bit of confidence that this legislation would pass and the amendments would pass, and some of this work would be well underway and actually be ready to implement at the same time as this bill moves through this chamber.

This clause also defines that a “‘relevant person’ means an employer, worker, instructor.” Then it goes on.

To continue on, I guess I’ll just jump forward to clause 8, because it is intertwined with clause 7. So this is section 59.01 of the act. Then clause 8 in this bill says: “Section 59.01 (1) is repealed and the following substituted.” We literally are adding, in this section, a definition around a relevant person, and then in the very next clause, when we get to it after this, we’re going to be repealing.

Why the need to insert what a relevant person means and then immediately remove what a relevant person means within this?

[1:50 p.m.]

Hon. H. Bains: It is a bit confusing, but let me try to explain.

Section 7 — 59.01, the “relevant person” definition — will be in place after the royal assent. This definition is needed to start training for the WorkSafeBC. Then later, once that is in place, the second part that the member talked about, in clause 8, provides WorkSafeBC the authority to include independent asbestos abatement operators in the certified training program it will be developing for asbestos abatement work. This will ensure that such independent operators also receive appropriate training in carrying out asbestos abatement work safely.

Regarding asbestos abatement training and certification, independent asbestos abatement operators — which are part of the “relevant person” definition — will be added to the act at a future date by regulation, coinciding with when the licensing provisions for such independent operators are brought into force by regulations.

The first one is just to start training. Once that is in place, then in order to include the independent asbestos abatement operators, the regulations will include them.

P. Milobar: That was going to be part of my follow-up question, depending on the answer, because I noticed that in clause 17, it has that sections 4, 5, 6 and 7 are all royal assent, and everything else is: “By regulation of the Lieutenant Governor in Council.”

I guess, again, then I will go back to the fee question in this particular clause, which will come into effect on royal assent. But it sounds like we don’t know what the fees are. This is, again, starting to sound like a little bit of a rehash of what happened with FOI.

Is the minister saying that essentially, the bill will pass at royal assent? There will be no actual fee structure in place, so in the short term, while WCB is trying to figure out what fee would be appropriate, no fee will be charged at all as this clause is initiated? And then at some point, while training is starting to be planned out and getting started, the fee will then be known, if there’s a fee at all charged by WCB? Or is there an actual fee?

Frankly, again, I feel compelled to ask the question. I don’t think this minister operates this way, but is there a fee already established in the back with WCB that when royal assent happens, we’ll magically see it 15 minutes later? Or is this truly a 90-day…? Or 120 days from now, we’ll finally find out what the fee is because there will be true and meaningful input provided by industry?

Hon. H. Bains: Again, I would repeat. This will give…. Again, this enables WorkSafeBC to design training, all the details of training.

[1:55 p.m.]

Again, Member, they will be in a position to decide the length of training, for example, the depth of training. What does it include? And then if there is going to be a fee, and how much, that will happen after this bill is passed.

What the WCB is doing today…. I can’t imagine what they’re doing today, because the bill isn’t passed yet. They know that the bill is here, and I expect that they’ll start working very quickly, moving very quickly, because this bill needs to be implemented. The intent of the bill is implemented. Training starts as soon as they can. And if they come up with a fee structure, this will give them the ability to do that. The length of training, the depth of training — all of that will be decided by WorkSafeBC.

Clauses 7 and 8 approved.

On clause 9.

P. Milobar: I’m just wondering if the minister has any estimates on the scope of how many people are currently working in this field of asbestos removal — either independently or with larger companies — or if there is a good handle at all on just how far-reaching this may be in terms of how many people will be impacted by these changes.

Hon. H. Bains: Member, you would appreciate that as there are no asbestos abatement contractors who are licensed, it’s very, very difficult to know precisely how many potential licensees are out there.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

Also, it’s our understanding that there may be up to a few hundred contractors in B.C. who specialize in asbestos abatement work, but estimating the number of demolition and renovation contractors who also carry out asbestos abatement work is even harder. It could potentially be up to a few thousand. It’s just an estimate right now, because there is no way of knowing who is doing this work, because there’s no licensing requirement. But the numbers could be hundreds, could be thousands.

The Chair: Member.

P. Milobar: Thank you. Madam Chair, welcome to your first, I believe, committee. I’m looking forward to your member-minister tennis match to come.

I’m just wondering if the minister, under this clause 9, 59.03 in the act…. It’s about when the licence will be required. “An asbestos abatement contractor must not carry out or offer to carry out asbestos abatement work unless the asbestos abatement contractor (a) holds a valid licence, or” — that all seems pretty straightforward — “(b) is in a class of asbestos abatement contractors that is exempted by regulation of the Lieutenant Governor in Council from the requirement to hold a licence.”

Can the minister explain the difference of what will be a contractor that needs to have a valid licence versus one that would be given an exemption?

[2:00 p.m.]

Hon. H. Bains: Welcome, hon. Chair.

The expectation here is that every contractor who is in the business of asbestos abatement is to be required to be licensed. But there may be circumstances — may be — which we don’t know right now — for example, to avoid duplicate licensing if a class of contractors requires a licence related to asbestos work under another statute.

It’s just to protect ourselves in case there is a situation where you may consider this person is covered somewhere else and to avoid duplication if they meet the requirement to do the work that we are trying to cover here. There may be a situation, but I can’t think of any. I think my expectation will be that every asbestos abatement contractor is covered under these regulations.

P. Milobar: Well, the minister can have the expectation, but as we heard earlier, Labour ministers come and go. It’s just a fact of how governments work. It’s not a personal insult; it’s just the way things happen. Cabinet shuffles happen. Elections happen. I’ve said this, when I was the Environment critic, to the Environment Minister on other legislation as well.

What one minister’s best intentions or expectations are is not necessarily what’s written in law and what will be interpreted moving forward by either new ministers coming in, new deputy ministers, new staff, everything. That’s the one constant with government: there’s always change.

Is the minister aware…? It sounded like there are not any or there would already be protections for workers around asbestos abatement. But is the minister, in that last answer, saying that in case there’s something within British Columbia law that would require somebody to already have licensing to do asbestos abatement work that literally no one in the government is aware of exists? Or is this for out-of-province, out-of-jurisdiction contractors that may be coming to B.C. to do asbestos abatement work and might have licensing in a different area of the country — or North America, even?

[2:05 p.m.]

Hon. H. Bains: First of all, let me make this clear. In order to operate here in British Columbia to do the asbestos abatement work, they must be licensed here in B.C. So somebody licensed in other jurisdictions, other provinces or other countries is not allowed to operate here in British Columbia to do this work.

The second part is that this is enabling language. A situation may exist or may come forward at some time, whether I, the minister, am or the deputy minister is different.

Right now everyone is in. All contractors who wish to do the asbestos abatement work in British Columbia must be licensed. Circumstances may arise which no one anticipated today. It could be a different minister, a different government, and someone may have a justified reason. As long as they comply with the intent of this bill and there’s a reason for someone to be exempted, that will happen sometime, and then it will be judged on its own merit at that particular time.

P. Milobar: Well, I get what the minister is driving at and would like it to be, but when I read (b), it says it’s “in a class of asbestos abatement contractors that is exempted by regulation.” So what class is being considered by either the minister or WCB that would require an exemption? Is it under ten employees? Is it if you’re really, really large? Is it exempted if you’re part of a CBA but not if you aren’t?

The language would indicate that the intent is to create different classes of asbestos abatement contractors, and one or two or more of those classes may be exempt from needing to actually do what this act is trying to do. So why, on the front end, are we anticipating exemptions, let alone defining them as a particular class with no actual detail anywhere in this of what those classes may be, yet are just waiting to find out after WCB does what they would like to do with this?

[2:10 p.m.]

Hon. H. Bains: Look, again, I want to repeat that under this bill, every asbestos abatement contractor must be licensed in British Columbia in order to perform that work. We have left this thing. Again, it will not be the WCB doing this work. It will be through government actions, through regulations, OIC.

If someone comes up year to year, three years down the road, or it could be six months down the road…. Certain contractors are already covered under a different statute — they’re doing the same work — which we are not aware of right now. Otherwise, we would have put something in here.

That’s the intent here, and it’s not just going to be because somebody feels that we should give them an exemption because they happen to be a good contractor. No. They all are required to be licensed in order to do the asbestos abatement work in B.C. under this bill. There may be someone who is covered by, or a group of contractors covered by, a different statute that we’re not aware of right now. So we’re just leaving that part open in order to, if they come to government later on and say: “Look, we are already covered. Why do we have to go through duplication here…?” So that’s the whole intent.

P. Milobar: I’m sorry. That just doesn’t make a lot of sense.

We’ve had public engagement sessions with industry. We’ve been working on this with working groups since 2017, for five years, with a minister who is directly responsible for WCB, as he has direct oversight of them, with a bill with a section like this that will be left to order-in-council, not to WCB, and the answer is that there may be a statute somewhere in government’s arsenal of various laws and workplace requirements that the Minister of Labour, after five years of working on a bill, is unaware of, that would already be accomplishing what this bill is doing.

I find it hard to believe that we would have that type of a statute out there that we’ve all been oblivious to, on something that is causing one-third of workplace deaths every year. So I think it’s safe to say it doesn’t exist.

This bill is contemplating a class of asbestos abatement contractors for exemption — an actual class, not a one-off but a class — and that will be defined by order-in-council. We just heard the minister say it could be six months, could be six years, could be two years. If it’s the Minister of Citizens’ Services, it could be ten minutes, because that’s what we’ve seen happen. That’s how fast orders-in-council can actually move.

Again, what is the real reason that we would need, on enabling legislation, to bring in protections for workers, to regulate the contractors on a public workplace safety issue that is causing one-third of the deaths in British Columbia every year, to, out of the gate, put in an ability for an order-in-council to create a subclass of contractor undefined anywhere in this to get an exemption? What possible reason…?

Is the planning that the registration and the training will be so onerous that even if they did fall under a different statute right now, it would be deemed too punitive to make them just go and fill out the paperwork to get the other registration under this act?

[2:15 p.m.]

What is the possible reason, with a new piece of amending legislation, that the government needs the ability to create an exemption by order-in-council on something that is claiming one-third of workplace deaths every single year?

Hon. H. Bains: I draw the member’s attention…. I appreciate the line of questioning. When we were going through this, I had a number of those questions of the staff as well.

If you go back to section 2, I believe, where…

Interjections.

The Chair: Members, if you’re having a conversation, I’d ask you to step outside.

Hon. H. Bains: …you look at the definition of asbestos abatement work, in there, there are a number of areas from (a) to (h). Then there is one in here that says: “…any activity prescribed by regulation of the Lieutenant Governor in Council.” Again, it was to cover everything that you can today, and in case you miss out some activity which relates to asbestos abatement work, then you could add that, also, to the definition — by regulation, rather than coming to the House again.

I think it’s the same thing here. There is no one that will qualify for exemption today that we could look at. But again, there may be a situation we have missed. That situation may come our way, and if it’s legitimate, you take a look at it, and that’s when you take action. Otherwise, everyone in here is included in the licensing, and I don’t anticipate any exemptions under that that I could anticipate today.

P. Milobar: Well, again, the minister can’t think of any today — could think of it by the time we get to royal assent, could think of it a week after. Again, this will not be WCB — WorkSafe — that’s coming up with the exemption. Whether they like it or not, it will be a cabinet directive as an order-in-council that creates an exemption.

Is there anything preventing the minister from bringing back, if the situation arose that exemptions were needed because there was — after five years of consultation with ministry, with professionals, with people within the industry, with WorkSafe — some glaring, egregious exception that should have been thought of that didn’t actually happen and wasn’t contemplated…?

[2:20 p.m.]

Is there anything, if this was removed — if 59.03(b), just (b), was removed — that would prevent the minister from bringing that back to the Legislature to say: “We need to amend the act once more to create a class for exemption”? Then this House would be able to fully scrutinize why those exemptions of that class of contractor are needed.

That’s what this is for. This is for a class of asbestos abatement contractors. This is not for a one-off situation. Frankly, we have seen, with CBAs, that there is one class of contractor that’s allowed to bid on contracts and there’s one class that’s not allowed. If you’re one of the 19 favoured donators to the governing party, you’re allowed to bid on work that’s government work. If you’re not one of the 19, you don’t get to. If you’re one of the 85 percent of trades, you’re not allowed to.

Again, this is for a class of abatement contractor. We don’t know, based on the track record of this government — both on how they come up with a class of contractors but also how quickly they move with order-in-council after royal assent on some bills — what this really means.

If there is no current situation the minister can think of at all and he’s not expecting one over the next few years, there should be no harm in the minister agreeing to amend his bill to remove 59.03(b). It’s referenced a little bit later in the bill. I recognize we’d have to remove it there, as well, for consistency. But if the minister truly has no idea where this would ever actually have to be used any time over the next several years, there should be no harm, on a bill that we’ve already waited five years to get to this House, of removing it and having the minister agree to remove it and amend his bill.

Will the minister agree to amend his bill and remove 59.03(b) in clause 9 from this bill and in the subsequent clauses where it comes into play?

Hon. H. Bains: I will repeat what we said earlier on, the intention of this clause. Today any asbestos abatement contractor, if they wish to work after this bill is passed, must be licensed. There is no exemption.

There may be circumstances, may be, in the future that will be brought to the government’s attention. This will give them the ability to fix that. For that situation, for us to come back into the House, or whoever the minister is, the time it takes…. You know the process it takes. It is not, in my view, the right thing to do.

[2:25 p.m.]

I think this clause…. The way it is designed is to deal with a situation that we haven’t anticipated today. It could be before us, but through regulations, it can be fixed. I think that’s why this clause was put in place.

P. Milobar: Well, it’s not just a situation that can’t be thought of today. It’s a situation that hasn’t been thought of for the five years of the development of this bill.

Here we are with a clause that very clearly says, at best: “Well, we’re not totally confident we got it right, and it might actually be too impactful to a certain class of asbestos abatement contractors, even though it’s an industry that’s responsible for one-third of the workplace deaths in British Columbia. So we better build in a fail-safe in case we’ve stubbed our toe, in case we need to figure out that, actually, this is too onerous for a contractor to follow.”

It’s only a certain class of contractor, I’ll point out, though, and we don’t know what that class is, because it’s not defined.

That’s what this clause is saying. “After five years of consultation, we might not have gotten it right. We might have actually made it too onerous, but we don’t want to exempt everyone. It’s just, potentially, one particular class of contractor that we might decide sometime in the future gets to have an easier road to bid on work and an easier path to have their employees potentially exposed. They don’t have to be registered, and they can be exempted.”

Again, what harm is there, other than, potentially, that class of contractor would have to wait until the next sitting of the Legislature? Since we have fall and spring sittings, one would think this could even almost make it into a miscellaneous stats bill, which we have at every sitting as well. So what possible harm is there to remove it today if the minister can’t see any reason in the foreseeable future that this clause would actually have to be actioned?

Again, will the minister agree to amend his bill and remove 59.03(b) that’s listed in clause 9 in this act?

Hon. H. Bains: The answer is no. I think members should know that if I was to exempt anybody, they would have been listed today. That’s not the intent. Every asbestos abatement contractor that needs to or wants to or wishes to work in British Columbia to do the asbestos work must be licensed. End of the story. Period. Full stop.

This only leaves an opening in case there’s maybe a situation in the future that we haven’t anticipated today. Even then, if somebody comes to me six months later, or to another minister from this government….

Our intent is to have everyone licensed who wants to do the asbestos abatement work in British Columbia — and fully trained. We would have a bunch of exemptions here if that was the intent here. The intent is to cover everyone, to protect the workers who have been dying for decades in British Columbia. It’s not that only this government realized this. Previous governments realized that people were dying. But now the work is getting done.

We can nitpick here. We can sit here and spend time. The members talk about what took us so long. What is taking us so long today? This bill needs to be passed. This bill needs to be passed because the intent here is to cover everyone, Member. I’m not trying to be argumentative here. I’m just trying to say that everyone is covered. There’s nothing in here that will show that our intent is to exempt somebody. If we wanted to exempt somebody, we would have done that now, because there’s no exemption needed.

[2:30 p.m.]

Asbestos is a dangerous substance. The member knows that. Other members know this. People are dying, not only just the workers but others who have exposure to it. Very dangerous. That’s why it was banned in Canada and elsewhere, going back to 1979, when it was banned in Canada, except in non-friable situations. That, again, was banned in 1990.

I think everyone understands there is no exemption. If you want to do business to handle asbestos in British Columbia, you must be licensed, and you must be fully trained and certified.

P. Milobar: Well, the intent of this bill may be to have no exemptions, but the intent of 59.03(b) is exactly that — to create exemptions.

As for what’s taking so long today…. I apologize to the minister that we’ve been all of an hour and a half on this bill this afternoon. I was unaware that we missed the window for royal assent 15 minutes ago, that we could have passed this bill and made it law. Is there royal assent at three o’clock today that I’m unaware of or four o’clock today?

That’s the only thing that would hold this bill up — if we missed the window of when the Lieutenant-Governor was coming here to give it royal assent. And what would happen as soon as royal assent happens? Orders-in-council could start being signed, and classes of exemptions could suddenly be created out of nowhere.

Have there been any decision notes? Has there been any conversation, any discussion whatsoever with the minister and his staff or the contractors that do asbestos abatement work on what would actually potentially be a class of asbestos abatement contractor that would fall under this clause within this bill?

Hon. H. Bains: No. No decision note and no advice were given to me about any exemption that may be required today, because we don’t believe there’s any exemption needed today. This is just, as I explained, many times over, an ability to deal with an issue that we may have missed somewhere. This provision will allow us to do it.

P. Milobar: I recognize that clause 9 is actually fairly lengthy, and it’s got a wide range of topics in it around the licensing and to asbestos abatement.

I’ll move to a different part of clause 9 for the time being and likely loop back again and see if, over the next little while, the minister realizes there’s absolutely no need to have 59.03(b) in a bill that’s supposed to be to protect workers’ safety on a worksite. Perhaps by the end of clause 9 he’ll be more agreeable to actually remove it and actually give proper relief to workers and their employers.

I’m wondering. What type of discussion and decision-making came into the concept around the three-year term for a licence being the maximum? If it’s meant to be the maximum, why was it not just spelled out to be three-year terms? Why does it still have the potential to be a one-, two- or three-year term?

[2:35 p.m.]

Hon. H. Bains: Again, I think there are a number of areas of training or licensing that WorkSafeBC is engaged in. Three years is…. Again, it is left up to WorkSafeBC to decide whether they would use one year, two years, three years. Or it could be that they may say the first time a one-year licence is issued, and if you are showing a good record, that next time it could be two or three years. I think it is giving them the ability to give licences up to three years.

It’s the same thing that…. When we brought in the Temporary Foreign Worker Protection Act, it’s the recruiters of those workers…. This is the same language that was given — that they also are licensed up to three years. That’s the reasoning.

P. Milobar: It also says in 59.04 that “an asbestos abatement contractor or an independent asbestos abatement operator may apply for a licence by submitting to the board an application that (a) is in the form and manner, and contains the information, required by the board, and (b) is accompanied by any other information and records required by the Board.”

Now, I don’t believe the board has done this work, but could the minister confirm if they have indeed done it or not? And if they have not done it, why were they not instructed to get working on this bill before royal assent instead of waiting for what could be several months, by the sounds of what the minister had said in second reading comments, to actually take care of their regulatory side that they need to do once this bill is passed?

Hon. H. Bains: The authority for WorkSafeBC to work on these areas comes from the bill. I couldn’t instruct them before the bill was introduced, number one. Number two, my understanding is that once the bill was introduced, WorkSafeBC, in anticipation of the bill to be passed…. It’s my understanding that they are working on this already. My expectation is that once the bill is enacted, they will be in a very good position to start the work right away.

P. Milobar: Just looping back to the class of asbestos abatement contractor that is exempted by regulation of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council from the requirement to hold a licence.

[2:40 p.m.]

Now, I fully appreciate that there’s a difference in this between an independent asbestos abatement operator and a contractor. But why is there no potential exemption, then, for an independent asbestos abatement operator? It seems that they might be the ones that would fall under some mysterious governmental statutes that no one is aware of, more so than an actual contractor.

Hon. H. Bains: I think the difference between the independent operator and the independent asbestos abatement contractor is that the contractor is an employer. The operator is not. It’s an independent contractor. They don’t have employees. But they are also, under this bill, required to go through mandatory training.

P. Milobar: I guess the question, though, is: why would it be deemed appropriate to potentially give an exemption to a contractor, who has many employees working under them, and not to an independent contractor that is just solo — that works within a different organization, by the way I read it?

I’m just wondering. If an exemption possibly might be needed, for something that we’re not aware of in the future, for a contractor, I don’t understand how, for an independent asbestos abatement operator, that same situation may not arise where that independent operator says: “Actually, I need an exemption. I need an exemption for the very same reasons that the big contractor needs it, but I don’t get to apply for one.” Because under this act, under this change, it’s only the asbestos abatement contractor, a certain class of them, that would be allowed to be exempted.

[2:45 p.m.]

Why, again, was an independent asbestos abatement operator not afforded the same opportunity in this bill — for something that may or may not happen in the future — to seek an exemption?

Hon. H. Bains: Again, there’s a difference between the two. As I said, the independent operator is not required to be licensed, and therefore, there’s no need for any exemptions. The independent asbestos abatement contractor is an employer, and they employ workers. That’s why the two are treated differently.

P. Milobar: Well, it’s disappointing that the minister seems to have dug in his heels on this exemption. Again, no one, certainly, on our side is suggesting that workers should not be protected, that contractors should not be held to a standard. People should be certified, properly trained and go through the proper process with WorkSafe so that all of those processes are in play.

With the years of development that this bill has taken and the amount of consultation with industry and all the other stakeholders that the minister talked about, I still have not heard a valid reason, from this minister, why an exemption needs to be in this bill. You’re either saying that this bill is flawed and that it’s anticipating needing to exempt people…. That doesn’t help the worker who will have asbestos exposure. It doesn’t help the fact that one-third of our deaths are from this asbestos exposure. I think that we all agree that we need to take steps to crack down on that.

I fail to see how removing this would weaken the bill. It would in fact strengthen the bill. I guess the question to the minister is: does the minister feel that having a clause in this bill that would allow exemptions to happen on WorkSafe issues around a workplace toxin that actually is responsible for a third of workplace deaths…? Does the minister feel that having an exemption in the bill strengthens the bill or weakens the bill?

Hon. H. Bains: There are no exemptions, and I have made that perfectly clear. Every contractor employer who wishes to do asbestos abatement work in British Columbia must be licensed — clear. That is just the enabling language. I have gone over it. You know, we have gone over it, back and forth, probably a dozen times now.

In case circumstances arise — which haven’t been anticipated, which may make sense — number one, continue to protect workers. That would be the number one criterion. When you look at those types of applications, are they complying with the intent of this bill? Is there something that is of a duplication nature, maybe? Does this make sense, leaving workers protected and at the same time meeting the intent of this bill: to make sure that there is no exposure to the workers as a result of any consideration in the future?

Those will be, in my view, some of the criteria you would use. I can’t think of any right now, because for everyone in British Columbia who would be doing asbestos work — whether they’re an employer, an independent operator or workers — the employer must be licensed. The operator and the workers must be fully trained and certified by the WCB.

[2:50 p.m.]

I think those are the areas that will strengthen the health and the safety of those workers that have been neglected for decades. I’m not faulting anybody, but that’s the way it was. At one time, asbestos was promoted — you know, if you go back to the ’60s and ’70s. Then we realized the consequences, the serious consequences.

It pains me to say that when we were banning asbestos use here in Canada, we were still exporting to other countries. That’s the evolution we go through. Again, even in 1979, when it was banned, we continued to allow some form of asbestos to be used in our buildings — up until 1990. Workers continue to die as a result of that.

I want to appreciate the support that I’m getting from the other side. There’s no intent here to lessen the protection of health and safety for workers, regardless of where that application comes from. It is only some unanticipated area.

Again, it will be guided by our…. The decision will be in line with what the intent of this bill is. Are the workers protected from exposure? Is the public protected from exposure to asbestos? Those will be the only things that you would be considering. That’s why I’m saying that it is a strong bill. It provides the protection, and it will continue to provide the protection as long as we’re around here.

P. Milobar: Well, it certainly seems to potentially provide protection to a certain class of asbestos abatement contractor that may get an exemption in the future.

I guess the question around that, then, is: is that exemption in this clause, in 59.03(b), the section in the act, strictly for the contractor? In other words, all of the workers who work for the contractor would still have to go through all their training and be licensed and everything else? Is it just the company that gets the exemption, or is it everyone working for the company that gets the exemption from this?

Hon. H. Bains: It is only the contractors who are required to be licensed in here. But again, like I said earlier on, when it is to be considered, if there’s something that has been missed here, is that application, or whatever the request is, complying with the intent of this bill? How are the workers going to be protected from exposure? How is the public going to be protected from exposure?

With all of those considered, there may be a circumstance that we haven’t looked at today that, yes, makes sense. It provides workers protection, as is the intent of this bill. And it protects the public, and our environment is safe. I think those are the criteria. They will remain the criteria.

P. Milobar: Well, based on that answer, there’s obviously been thought given to this clause being put in. There was a very quick answer as to whether it would apply to the contractor as the company or whether it would apply to all of their employees for an exemption. So there was, obviously, already some thought given by the people that drafted this piece of legislation as to how an exemption would actually functionally work and who would actually functionally apply for it, based on the wording.

[2:55 p.m.]

Again, forgive us for being a little cynical on this side about process, about how far along discussions are for certain overrides. But this is a bill that’s supposed to be inserting in protections — and actually highlighted, in second reading debate, by government speakers about how, for the first time in Canada, contractors will be required to be registered. That was a big selling point — partly why, it was explained, this took so long.

With this exemption, that completely removes that whole selling point. So we’ve either sat around waiting for a bill to have workers go through training, which would just be replicating what’s happening across the country in other provinces, under the guise of making sure we have a proper system to get contractors and their companies properly registered, properly tracked….

That’s what a whole bunch of this section is about — making sure that those companies are acting appropriately, are part of a registry, a publicly searchable registry so you could tell whether they were operating properly or not, whether they’d had a permit revoked or not, a licence revoked or not. That’s what the rest of this whole section deals with. But at the very front end, we have a sentence that undoes all of that, and the minister refuses to remove it. The two simply don’t add up.

I guess I’ll ask the minister: is the intention of the exemptions that an exempted will not have to be part of the registry that’s further on in these sections, that the public won’t be able to easily find out if they’re a bad actor or not because they have an exemption? What is the point of the exemption? What exactly are they being exempted from? Any accountability whatsoever as a corporate entity?

That’s the whole purpose of this. It was for contractors to actually to be held accountable in a very open and transparent, public way. The minister has already confirmed that the employees will have to still go through the training, whether or not the contractor is exempted.

I don’t know how the minister can say that this is actually a strong bill, when there’s a clause in it that gives the power to the executive council, cabinet, to pass an order-in-council to create a class of contractor, at their discretion, that as far as I can tell, the only thing they will be exempted from is having anyone know how they like to operate, whether or not they’re operating in good faith, whether or not they’re following what they’re supposed to be following, whether or not they’ll actually be part of that registry.

Again, to the minister, what is the point of the exemption if all of the staff have to still go through all the training, all have to be certified, but the contractor doesn’t have to be held accountable for anything in the same fashion that every other contractor will? How does that provide any safety to the public, any peace of mind for people hiring contractors?

Why will the minister not remove this from this bill? It does not weaken the bill at all to remove it. In fact, it strengthens the bill to remove it, and it can always be inserted if this mythical situation the minister keeps referring to pops up. The wording is already right there. It would be very easy to bring forward an amendment in the future. You already know how to word it.

Why will the minister not remove something that very clearly weakens this legislation and just agree to remove it to make it a stronger piece of legislation so that the public hiring contractors know they are hiring a contractor of the highest standards when it comes to asbestos abatement, versus one that’s been given a special override by the minister and the cabinet?

Hon. H. Bains: First of all, it doesn’t weaken this bill at all. It doesn’t weaken the health and safety of workers, because every asbestos abatement contractor must be licensed.

[3:00 p.m.]

I’m sure we will talk about a registry. There will be a registry so that the public, or whoever is hiring someone to deal with the asbestos, knows who the licensed people and the contractors in good standing are. That’s what will determine who is in good standing. I’ve answered this question more than a dozen times already.

P. Milobar: Then can the minister clarify: to be a part of the registry, you do have to have a licence?

[R. Leonard in the chair.]

Hon. H. Bains: Clause 59.09(1) says: “The board must establish and maintain a registry that includes the following information about each person who is or was a licensee….” It means that those whose licence has been cancelled…. They will determine for how long they could keep that name on. So whoever is looking at that registry to hire a contractor will know who is licensed and who is not.

P. Milobar: Just for absolute certainty, the only way to be on the registry is if you’re licensed as a contractor.

Hon. H. Bains: Those who have been licensed, or in the event of anybody’s licence that has been cancelled.

P. Milobar: Well, it’s interesting, then, because the minister said, when I was asking about the removal of the clause that would provide an exemption, that people would know. But if you’re exempted from having a licence, how do you wind up on the registry, then?

[3:05 p.m.]

Hon. H. Bains: I think that’s the power of the registry. The names will be of those who are licensed and who were licensed sometime, but then they will determine how long that name remains on the list. It will give the public a reason to look at the registry and who is licensed. Is the person that they will choose to hire…?

P. Milobar: It won’t list who’s exempted, and that’s the whole point of this. In an industry where people sometimes stretch the truth a little to get a job, if you’re a bad actor in the industry…. “Oh, I don’t need it. I’m exempted. There are exemptions available. My company is exempt. Don’t worry about it.”

Again, it’s ridiculous to me that we need to be going back and forth about something that weakens a piece of legislation on worker safety with this minister, of all people. I don’t challenge his life’s work of championing safe workplaces and workers’ rights. I fully acknowledge it and recognize it. That’s why I find it so hard to understand.

I think if the minister thinks back…. He referenced himself when he was a critic for Labour, as well, earlier today. If the minister really thinks, if he was still the critic, that he would be happy about a clause that is undefined and left to cabinet, with no circumstance that can be referenced right now as to why it’s even needed and that refers to an actual class of asbestos abatement contractor…. That indicates there’s been thought to the fact that you’re going to have to figure out, either based on size or union affiliation or not, how exactly you get a class of one contractor that does the exact same work as a different contractor.

I would challenge the minister to put all those years of experience he has to listen to the answers he’s been giving to try to justify a clause that weakens the bill. When or if there truly becomes a problem for contractors, moving forward, a class of contractors, there’s a relatively quick way to get that addressed.

[3:10 p.m.]

You, literally, would take the wording in 59.03(b) and bring forward an amendment — either in the fall sitting or in the spring, like we are right now — likely as part of a miscellaneous stats bill, like we have in front of us now. It would say something to the effect of workers compensation amendment act.

All you would need to do is literally write in: “We are amending and adding something consequential to the bill.” That would be the description. It would be 59.03, with “adding (b),” with the same wording you have here today. Then you’d flip forward to clause 13, which is section 109(2)(h.1), and you would do the same thing. The amendment is done, in the space of about a week of legislative time.

Instead, we’re getting spin and, frankly, strange justifications to cling to something in a bill. I would think it would actually show more strength of the minister — the Minister of Labour, the minister who says his life’s work has been for the protection of workers — to say: “You know what? The opposition is right. It’s not fatal to the bill to remove it. It doesn’t weaken the bill. It strengthens the bill. It strengthens protections for workers. It strengthens protections for the public, who need to hire contractors. The more I think about how I’m trying to spin a reason to keep this in the bill, the more I realize, as this debate has gone on, that I should agree to remove it.”

To reinsert it is literally as simple as I just said. It would just be inserting it back into the existing bill. Nothing else is being removed out of this bill. The wording wouldn’t have to change. The subsections wouldn’t have to change.

We deal with housekeeping amendments in this place every sitting. The housekeeping amendment bill always has several different ministries’ worth of minor amendments that need to be done — some consequential but still only one or two clauses. So you don’t need the full bill. They get lumped together. That’s how easy it would be to reinsert this back in.

I guess I’ll ask one more time. To the minister, in light of everything we’ve discussed, in light of his own experience — admittedly, much more than mine on this realm — this stubborn refusal to agree to remove something that would actually strengthen a piece of legislation for workers’ protection and the public protection defies logic. We’re in agreement with the bill in general. We’re not in agreement with weakening the bill to allow exemptions for some unknown class of contractor.

By the minister’s own words, it’s not needed. He’s not planning on using it anytime soon. He doesn’t think that he’ll ever have to use it. So let’s just take out the guess. Let’s just get rid of it. That can be done very simply. The minister simply needs to stand up, say he’s willing to amend his bill and remove it in here and in clause 13 as it relates to 109. Done. Then we could get to that royal assent, get this bill passed and actually have a good, strong piece of legislation that protects workers and protects the public.

The clause we’re talking about removing directly relates to the contractor registry and the contractor’s need to actually be licensed. That’s the part of this bill that doesn’t exist in Canada. That’s the part of the bill that actually does make this ahead of other jurisdictions in Canada. So let’s not dilute it. Let’s not water it down. Let’s just agree to make a very simple amendment and move forward with the bill.

[3:15 p.m.]

Will the minister agree, in light of all of the questions that have been asked; in light of the fact that if you’re exempted, you wouldn’t be on the registry; in light of the fact that if you’re exempted, your workers still are not; in light of the fact that he can’t even think of a situation where, he says, we need to have an exemption, will the minister agree to remove 59.03(b) from this bill and the corresponding language in clause 13, 109 — whatever it was?

Hon. H. Bains: One thing I must acknowledge: that the opposition is right. The critic is right in supporting this bill. I acknowledge that, and I want to thank each and every one of the people that are in this House. And I want to assure the critic, the member, that there should never be a spin when it comes to workers’ health and safety.

It should not be politicized either, because these are our brothers, our sisters, our sons, our daughters, our parents, grandparents, grandkids, in many cases. So there shouldn’t be any politics played or spin. There’s no spin here today. I don’t accuse anyone on the other side whether they are spinning or politicizing it, because I know they’re not.

I know that you’re just trying to do your job. If this clause was to weaken this bill, I would not agree to put that in. It doesn’t. As the member mentioned — that if you’re exempted, you could be a bad actor…. First of all, bad actors will not be exempted. They will not be licensed, even. Their licence could be gone if they’re bad actors. And then even good actors: if they’re licensed and there’s no reason for exemption, they will not be exempted — the reason that we haven’t anticipated today or up until today.

I think I know what the member is trying to do here. But, Member, this bill in its entirety is the right thing to do. This is only enabling language. I don’t anticipate ever using it. I would say that this bill deals with the issue that has been here for decades. And I want to thank every member, including the member asking questions, for the sincerity behind the questioning to protect the workers, going forward.

Again, Members, the workers are exposed today, as they were five years ago, ten years ago. It’ll take some time to put these provisions in place so that the contractors, going forward, are not allowed to do any asbestos work without being licensed and not allowed to hire anyone who is not fully trained and certified.

That is one area…. We know that this is a changing society. We have new immigrants. We have students who are desperate to get work, who get exploited. I think the sooner we put this provision in place, we will be protecting them. That’s the reason we are doing it. Anything that weakened this bill, I would not agree to. And the clause the member continued to come back to — I thank him for identifying it, but it doesn’t, Member.

A. Olsen: This is a prolonged and interesting discussion that’s been going on. I have just maybe one or two questions for the minister.

With respect to 59.03, “(b) is in a class of asbestos abatement contractors,” what classes of asbestos abatement contractors currently exist? Like, what classes are already defined? Are there multiple classes of…? Is there a variety of classes of asbestos abatement contractors working in British Columbia today?

[3:20 p.m.]

Hon. H. Bains: I thank the member for the question.

I would draw the member’s attention to section 1, where the “asbestos abatement contractor” definition is. There are no classes of contractors, as we know today. So it’s just the normal language that is being used in 59.03 — that if there is an unanticipated area of contractors that are maybe licensed somewhere else, they could come to us at that particular time. We don’t anticipate that there are any, but it’s just enabling language in case that happens.

A. Olsen: Thank you to the minister for the response, the answer.

Where would a class of asbestos abatement contractor be created, then? If we’re working off a definition in section 1, and there are currently no classes of contractors that exist other than in the definition of 1, and we’re creating enabling legislation and providing the minister….

I should note that the current minister may not consider this, but this legislation needs to exist with the reality that perhaps one day there will be a future Minister of Labour that’s not this Minister of Labour, who will be given and granted the same powers as this minister has. So I think it’s important that…. In this line of questioning, what I’m finding interesting is the longevity of it.

If there are currently no classes of asbestos contractors that exist — we’re using section 1 — how does a “class” of contractor come into being?

Hon. H. Bains: I think that will be in the future, in case a number of contractors came to us to say: “We are already registered here. We’re already doing the work.” I can’t think of any right now. Again, the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council who will be deciding that.

As I’ve said earlier on, I don’t anticipate that there are going to be any, but you always want to be open to the future in case you miss something — just in case.

Then again, the criteria used would be what’s in the bill. The bill requires that those who wish to do any asbestos abatement work follow those two or three, basically, key areas. One is the licensing. Another one is training. The other one is the registry.

So I think it’ll be through the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, who at that time may create a class, may give an exemption based on something that hasn’t been anticipated today.

[3:25 p.m.]

A. Olsen: Does this, 59.03, or somewhere else in this bill give the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council the ability, through regulation, to create classes of asbestos contractors?

Hon. H. Bains: I draw the member’s attention to section 13. I think, going forward, each one…. It does, (h.1), talk about “exempting a class of asbestos abatement contractors from the requirement under section 59.03 (a) [licence required] to be licensed and prescribing any conditions of exemption.”

Clause 9 approved on division.

Clauses 10 to 17 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. H. Bains: I just want to thank the members who participated and asked really good questions.

I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendments.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 3:27 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

[3:30 p.m.]

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

BILL 5 — WORKERS COMPENSATION
AMENDMENT ACT, 2022

Bill 5, Workers Compensation Amendment Act, 2022, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. R. Fleming: I call continued debate on the Speech from the Throne.

[R. Leonard in the chair.]

Throne Speech Debate

(continued)

J. Brar: It is indeed an honour to rise in this House today and to talk about the throne speech 2022, delivered in this House on Tuesday, February 8. I will come back to the throne speech in a couple of minutes.

First of all, I would like to convey my sincere thanks to the people of Surrey for electing me five times as their representative. That is certainly a rare honour for me and for my family. My heartfelt thanks to the people of Surrey-Fleetwood for giving me the opportunity to serve them and for putting their faith in me. I exist in this House because of them.

My special thanks to my two staff members, Navneet Kahlon and Prab Sandhu at my Surrey-Fleetwood office, and Paige Falkins in my Victoria office. They are exceptional people doing an excellent job serving the people of British Columbia and helping me on a day-to-day basis.

Last, but not the least, thanks from the bottom of my heart to the love of my life, my friend, my adviser and my beautiful wife, Rajwant Brar, and to my daughter, Noor, my son, Fateh, for their love and unconditional support to me during my political journey in the service of the people of British Columbia.

Coming back to the throne speech, this throne speech highlights our government’s plan to support people, whether they’re rebuilding after the fires and floods, or simply getting through this difficult wave of COVID-19. Keeping people healthy and safe through the rest of the pandemic and building a people-centred recovery will continue to be top priorities for the government.

Thanks to the people of British Columbia, B.C. has one of the highest vaccination rates in North America and the strongest economic recovery in Canada, with more people working today than when the pandemic hit our province. That’s why our focus has been and will continue to be on investing to help make life better for people. In the year ahead, government will continue to improve health care, fight climate change and help communities prepare for extreme weather, make everyday life more affordable and train people for the jobs of the future.

More B.C. families will have access to affordable housing, child care — as we are doubling the number of $10-a-day spaces, cutting child care fees for many families in half and increasing the supply of homes for middle-class families.

[3:35 p.m.]

Regular and reliable increases to the minimum wage will build on actions to bring down the cost of living, like eliminating MSP premiums and bridge tolls and reducing the ICBC rates by an average of almost $500 a year. Our government knows we can’t cut our way to a better future.

Building a strong B.C. is not about pulling back; it’s about moving us forward together. We have been through a lot together, and no doubt, there will be more challenges ahead. But if we look out for each other, we have shown we can overcome anything that gets thrown our way, thanks to hard-working people for standing together to fight unprecedented challenges of our time, COVID-19, wildfire and floods. My special thanks to the people of Surrey-Fleetwood for their cooperation and hard work to make this province a better place for everyone.

Housing. Making housing more affordable remains a key priority in this throne speech. People who live and work in B.C. should be able to afford a safe and secure place to call home. The lack of affordable housing is hurting people in B.C. and holding our province back. Housing affordability is a serious and deep-rooted problem.

For 16 years, B.C. Liberals refused to build affordable housing, allowed massive rent increases and let dirty money and speculation drive up real estate costs. B.C. Liberals would double down on the bad choices that created these problems, if given the chance again.

The newly elected leader of the B.C. Liberals, Kevin Falcon, has frequently criticized our government policies designed to tackle speculation to cool the market. During the leadership race on September 20, 2021, he opposed the speculation and vacancy tax that has brought 18,000 rental units into the market in Metro Vancouver — 18,000 rental units into the Metro Vancouver market. Clearly, they haven’t learned any lesson from their past mistakes.

Our government is working hard to tackle the housing crisis by addressing speculation, closing loopholes and cracking down on fraud, making renting more secure and building more affordable homes for people across British Columbia. We put our Homes for B.C. plan in place in 2018 to work with partners to build 114,000 affordable homes for British Columbians, with investment of $7 billion over ten years. This is the largest investment in affordable housing in B.C.’s history, with 32,000 homes built or on the way already.

Similarly, our government is supporting seniors, families and low- and middle-income earners by funding new affordable rental units through the Building B.C. community housing fund, the first phase of 14,000 homes over ten years. We’re funding supportive housing units for people at risk of homelessness, helping women and children leaving violence by funding transition housing, the first major investment in transitional housing in more than two decades.

We also are making an historic investment in housing for Indigenous people by funding homes both on and off reserve.

The fact is: people are still struggling to buy or rent. Here in B.C, the biggest challenge is housing supply. With thousands of new people moving to our province every month, that challenge is only growing. Last year alone, 37,000 people moved from other provinces — not from other countries, from other provinces — to B.C.

[3:40 p.m.]

I know there were times under B.C. Liberals when people from B.C. were leaving the province and going to other provinces. But now it’s the other way around. People are moving to B.C. That is a good problem, but it is a problem, particularly when we talk about housing.

Madam Speaker, your government is committed to tackling it head-on. In the year ahead, the province will work with local governments to speed up approvals and seek new tools to curb speculation, moving more underutilized units into the market. I’m proud to say, on housing, that we have more housing completed or underway in three years than the B.C. Liberals built in 16 years.

On child care, providing affordable, accessible and quality child care to families across the province is a key priority of our government, and the throne speech speaks about it. We will continue to create thousands of child care spaces, reduce costs for parents and support the workforce our children rely on.

We are bringing more certainty and reliability to child care by moving responsibility to the Ministry of Education. We’re building a future where child care is a core service, available to every family that wants it at a price that they can afford.

Child care is part of a child’s learning journey. It delivers important early learning opportunities and supports future educational successes. This move will help better prepare children to transition to the K-to-12 system and support our work with school district partners to build a space creation strategy, based on regional and community needs, to help make life easier for parents. The transition will be happening this spring, and we will have more to say as we get closer.

When our government was elected, the shortage of child care was a crisis because of the choices that were made while Kevin Falcon was at the cabinet table. Families are already feeling the benefits of more affordable child care, with many parents saving more than $19,000 a year per child. By the end of this year, we will have reduced the average cost by 50 percent for parents of kids under six, in partnership with the federal government. We are making great progress, and of course, there is more to do, because nothing was done for 16 years.

Minimum wage. This throne speech also talks about tying minimum wage to ensure B.C. workers are not left behind. Now, as much as ever, B.C.’s lowest-paid workers need support. Many of these workers are the ones on the front lines right now — food service staff, grocery store workers, retail workers — and they deserve to make a fair wage in this province.

Four years ago we made a commitment to employers and working people that the minimum wage would follow a predictable path of regular increases. Now we are firm in that commitment. We must support both workers and employers during this difficult time. So beginning in June 2022, all future increases will be based on the rate of inflation. The exact amount will be announced in the coming weeks, to give employers some time to prepare for the increase.

We absolutely understand, recognize, the challenges businesses are facing right now, and we continue to support them in many ways as they keep their doors open and serve their community during the pandemic.

[3:45 p.m.]

Many businesses, including small businesses, are already paying above minimum wage, because we have a very strong economic recovery and the best economy in the country, so employers are willing to pay more.

This is a great throne speech. It highlights our government’s plan to support people, whether they are rebuilding after the fires and floods or simply getting through this difficult wave of COVID-19. Keeping people healthy and safe through the rest of the pandemic and building a people-centred recovery will continue to be top priorities for this government.

I fully support this throne speech, Madam Speaker. Thanks for the opportunity.

M. Elmore: I’m very pleased to stand and speak in favour of our throne speech from the government.

This year I’m honoured to be speaking from the traditional territories of the Lək̓ʷəŋin̓əŋ-speaking people, the Esquimalt and Songhees Nations.

Of course, it’s a big honour to be the MLA representing the folks of Vancouver-Kensington. It’s also a great honour to be appointed as the Parliamentary Secretary for Seniors Services and Long-Term Care.

I want to start my remarks today and recognize just the unprecedented events that are going on across the world in Europe, in the Ukraine. You know, the last two years have been incredible in terms of our province and the world tackling the challenges of the once-in-a-century disease of COVID-19. Additionally, B.C. has really faced incredible challenges on the climate front.

Certainly, with the events unfolding in the Ukraine, I think it’s difficult. It’s difficult to watch; it’s difficult to hear. Not only is there a lot of suffering — the result of the illegal war that Russia has unleashed on the people of Ukraine — but it’s suffering for the people in Ukraine and also for communities, the diaspora around the world, and just global citizens.

I add my sympathy, my support, my solidarity to the Ukrainian people, who are just really demonstrating incredible courage in the face of overwhelming military odds and, really now, an increasing onslaught against civilian targets. It’s clearly a violation of the Geneva conventions and, clearly, war crimes committed against the people of Ukraine by Putin and the Russian army.

People in Ukraine continue to stand strong. In our province, I’m proud to say, our Legislature, from all sides, really stands in unity and in solidarity, denouncing this atrocious, violent act against the people of the Ukraine. Our province — and everyone in government, on all sides, as well — stands in solidarity and has taken measures to support the people of the Ukraine. We also are continuing to work with the Canadian government, which has recently, today, announced that they will facilitate the support of Ukrainians coming into Canada, through various measures we have.

Canada and British Columbia have one of the largest Ukrainian diasporas in the world. We’ll continue that support, just recognizing the difficulty of the Ukrainian community and also of the armed forces who are being stationed in Europe. That’s the backdrop in terms of where we are today in discussing our throne speech, and the context. Certainly, we’re seeing that we don’t know where it will take us on the global stage — really changing and reordering the order that we’ve known since World War II.

[3:50 p.m.]

I’m very pleased to speak in support of our Budget 2022. It continues to lay down a foundation consistent with the values and commitments of our government to support people, to invest in services that people and communities rely on and also to ensure that, looking forward, we have an economy that addresses issues of sustainability, that is forward-looking and also ensures that British Columbians have opportunities to fulfil their potential and build a sustainable economy.

Certainly, in terms of COVID-19, we’re coming on two years. With the omicron wave, we’re still in the midst of that. We’re not sure what’s coming next, but I want to appreciate the leadership of Dr. Bonnie Henry, all the staff in our provincial health authorities, our Health Minister, Adrian Dix and all health care workers across British Columbia who’ve really been answering the call on the front lines and supporting British Columbians. It’s much appreciated. We have that continuing challenge.

In addition, we have the dual health care crises of the poisoned drug supply really bringing just terrible sorrow and death. You know, we’re seeing that across the province, and I know it impacted so many, so many families and friends that I know.

Those are challenges that our budget looks to address and to support British Columbians coming through.

We know, as well, in terms of the context of this throne speech, the priorities of our government laid out in our throne speech and really meeting the challenges of what British Columbians have seen firsthand in terms of the impact of climate and climate change and also climate disasters, with our unprecedented wildfire season. That really ravaged many communities across British Columbia, and the heat dome as well — a record-setting heat dome — and the flooding, most recently. So really making a case in terms of that it’s reflected in our throne speech, in terms of the need to ensure that we invest and support recovery for British Columbians who have been impacted.

We have significant commitments to support communities recovering from wildfire, recovering from the floods, building back better, more resilient. We’ve heard that from our Ministry of Transportation and the great work that’s going on to build, not just to replace, our infrastructure, and to ensure that it’s resilient and able to withstand challenges in the future. Certainly, going forward, that’s a prime commitment of our government. It’s going to be important, as well, right across the board, when we look at how we prioritize investments to address adaptation and to build in resilience.

This is the view. And it’s been my perspective…. Often we’re criticized that elected officials are caught in the electoral cycles, every four years, so there’s a tendency to take a short-term view. I think what’s laid out and what has really…. I think British Columbians clearly understand the challenge that climate change and environmental sustainability…. These are issues that require a long-term commitment.

They run parallel to and they’re interconnected with issues around reconciliation of our First Nations. Recently we’ve heard about the terrible, heartbreaking stories of the discovery of the unmarked graves at sites of former residential schools in British Columbia, in Kamloops, across our country. I know British Columbians and Canadians were just so sorrowful to hear about that, but it’s also a time of reckoning for us as Canadians in terms of — to understand the impact and, really, the meaning of colonization and to understand, I think in a deeper way, the impact of residential schools.

It is worse, I think, maybe that most Canadians hadn’t known. When I heard about that, when those stories came to light, I reached out and connected with my friends who are First Nations, Indigenous, with nations, just to connect with them.

[3:55 p.m.]

I grew up in northern Manitoba — The Pas, Manitoba. We have a Cree Nation there, and my best friend was also from the nation. She, coincidently, was also elected as the vice-Chief, first time, of her nation there. They’re quite sizeable.

I talked to her, and she said: “So were you surprised to hear these stories?” I said: “No, I’m not surprised.” I knew it would come out. I’d been working on these issues in the early 2000s to raise awareness about these unmarked graves. I had heard the stories from the Elders in communities across our province, and I believed them. So I knew that it was coming.

She informed me, as well, that in terms of…. I didn’t know in The Pas, Manitoba, as well, that there was a residential school. It’s a central area in terms of northern Manitoba. In addition to a residential school, there was also what’s called a sanitorium, where Indigenous and folks from the north, Inuit, would come to convalesce if they suffered from pneumonia, and there was a day school there. It was like a triple whammy.

She said, to this day, there are relatives from the north who come to The Pas looking for their lost relatives. This sanitorium had closed many years ago, but there are still families who are searching for their lost relatives who went, supposedly, to the hospital to recover and never returned.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

Madam Speaker, nice to see you in the chair.

Just in terms of the themes around what we’re facing: the unprecedented reality of climate change and needing to invest in not only rebuilding but ensuring that our communities are resilient — that we adapt to these changes, that we’re proactive and that we’re planning for the future — a future economy, a low-carbon economy and investing in a value-added economy and ensuring that British Columbians have skills.

It’s integrated with…. It’s a long-term view. That’s what I’m proud of in terms of this budget. It looks beyond, I would say, our four-year electoral cycle. It’s integrated with our commitment around fairness and equality; reconciliation, which runs deep and which is required; a commitment to equality; a commitment to opportunity for all; and a commitment to the majority of British Columbians. So I’m proud of that.

I want to talk about, in particular, my area of responsibility as Parliamentary Secretary for Seniors Services and Long-Term Care. I want to just share and reflect on my experiences over the last….

We know that seniors have been especially hard hit, particularly in the long-term-care, assisted-living sector, really bearing the brunt in terms of not only our elders around the world being impacted by COVID-19 — being so vulnerable, suffering many deaths — but also the impact of measures that we had to take. The lockdowns, the restrictions of visits had a terrible impact on the residents, on the families and, really, incredible pressure on the staff.

Recently I had the opportunity to attend an event, the first event in person, pre-COVID, here at this place. Often we’re accustomed to a lot of events and activities with different groups and organizations. So it was really an opportunity, earlier this week, to meet at an event put on by the B.C. Care Providers Association and to recognize the eighth annual care providers awards and to really appreciate the work of these unheralded workers on the front lines of our long-term-care, assisted-living sector — nearly 50,000 in British Columbia.

I met these very impressive individuals. Clearly, their dedication, their commitment, their passion, their love for their job, their career and their care for seniors really came through.

[4:00 p.m.]

They’re just terrific representatives in terms of really showcasing the dedication in that sector around supporting seniors. It’s so key. I so appreciate them, and they really brought out the best.

One of them, in their speech, characterized it and said that their perspective — shared by many, as well, at the event — was that they think that it’s important, too, for them, in their care homes, for owners and for everyone to centre seniors and to ensure that seniors have the highest quality of life. The priority should not be a profit and should not be any other reason. But the focus should be providing quality care for quality of life for seniors.

I think that that really sums up, certainly, the commitment. I know that all sides of the House won’t disagree with that — certainly in terms of the commitment of our government, reflected in the throne speech with respect to our investments towards seniors in the sector.

When we look at the front lines…. I also want to share what was very striking. We asked the staff: “What was your experience during COVID?” They said: “It was so difficult.” I have heard from families. We know it was so difficult to be separated. It was difficult for residents.

Often it was the staff that were the only point of contact for seniors, so really appreciating that and, in addition, really recognizing that they went above and beyond. You know, we have a lot of seniors that don’t have family. It is the staff who are their family — nearly 50 percent. That’s sobering.

When we look at recognizing the role and the importance of these workers — the staff in long-term care and assisted living — it’s recognizing that valuing and respecting these workers is so key and critical in terms of the provision of quality care. Our government took steps and continued to support and reflected in the throne speech the principle of respecting and valuing workers.

One of the examples, when we heard from the workers, was that the wage levelling was so deeply appreciated, and workers felt that they were respected, that they were valued and that they were supported. This was to address the challenges in this sector. I want to talk a little bit in terms of where this sector has been, where we are now and how the throne speech continues to build towards these critical principles of valuing seniors.

Twenty years ago, we know…. I do want to reference — I think it’s timely — 2001. This was before my time. But when the previous government was elected…. Coincidentally, it’s back to the future and back to the past. At the time, it was the now new leader of the B.C. Liberals, Kevin Falcon, when there was a record tax cut in 2001-2002 — a record cut tax touted. A huge tax cut to the top 1 percent, $4.4 billion. But needing to cut services and to cut costs in the public sector….

The seniors sector took a big brunt of those cuts to finance that top 1 percent. How did these workers in the long-term-care sector that today are providing that important work…? So nearly 20 years ago, they lost their jobs. They were contracted out. This work was privatized, and their wages were cut in half. They lost pensions. Needless to say, it was the largest layoff of women in Canadian history — really undermining that whole sector. So that’s what we came out of.

Recognizing the need for wage levelling…. We had very disproportionate wages across the sector. It had been deregulated because of the underfunding previously. Our government recognized the need to address that and needed to raise the hours per day offered per resident day for seniors.

[4:05 p.m.]

In addition, the wage levelling through the pandemic — to bring that in to really ensure…. There were problems. There were workers who would have a higher wage at one facility, if they were under the health authority. It was difficult to maintain staffing. The wage levelling, combined with the single-site order — and now it’s pairing, for paired sites — to support workers to have a livable wage, to have pensions, to not have to go between…. Some are going between three sites just to get enough hours, without benefits.

These measures were taken and continue to be supported. That’s what we heard clearly from the staff that we met and from the workers we met last week — that these issues are so key and crucial to ensuring that they can provide the quality support in the long-term-care and assisted-living sector, clearly providing…. Many of them provide that sense of family for seniors. So these are key foundations that we’re continuing.

As well, I’m very pleased and honoured to be in the role and to have the opportunity to visit sites now where we are repatriating these workers. They’re coming back. Dietary workers and housekeeping workers who had been contracted out in 2001-2002 to pay for the tax cuts for the top 1 percent are coming back in-house. It’s a great honour to be there to welcome them back for their first day.

There’s a lot of work behind the scenes — staff in the health authorities. There’s a lot to do to coordinate that integration. To have the opportunity to be there on their first day back, to welcome them back, to hear their stories and their experiences and also to convey and communicate that the government recognizes and values the work they do, the important work they do. To reunite them, that they’re reunited as part of the health care team….

This is work that has been several years in the making. It’s happening now. Vancouver Island is the first jurisdiction to see the repatriation. The reuniting of that health care team in Vancouver…. Also, now it will continue through this year across the Lower Mainland and also into the Interior.

This is a clear commitment and a really important principle around quality of care, providing quality of care and recognizing the importance of public services, valuing these workers and the important work they do. It’s really held up, particularly in terms of COVID, where we understand the importance to ensure that facilities are kept clean. We sometimes forget about those workers who are also on the front lines with those responsibilities to ensure that facilities are clean — housekeeping and, also, cleaning. That work is so critical.

These workers are being repatriated, coming back in under the health authority. They had been contracted out nearly 20 years ago. What are they seeing? One, they’re seeing their wages commensurate in terms of the health authority. Two, they’re seeing their pensions as a principle of deferred wages to support them in their retirement. We have a generation of workers who have worked on the front lines in assisted living, in long-term care, in home support, in our health care system, who have done this work on the front lines, working hard at decreased wages and retiring now, without the support of a pension.

It’s a long time coming, and I think it’s just, in terms of recognizing and supporting these workers in this sector. That continues to be a key commitment in terms of reuniting these health care teams under health authorities.

[4:10 p.m.]

We also know, in terms of the sector, the need to invest in infrastructure. Our government has made a commitment to end multi-bed rooms and to put a record capital investment in terms of infrastructure and building new beds and also renovating existing facilities.

It is interesting in terms of many of the buildings from the ’50s, ’60s and ’70s. They’re in need of renovation. It was a different time. It was a different approach and understanding in terms what long-term care meant, and that’s where we get a lot of the multi-bed rooms. There have just been so many…. There’s a need in terms of upgrading the design and renovating these facilities. So I am very pleased that we have made that commitment and continue to work on that. That is something that has to be built every day right across the province.

We know that there are increasing demands and challenges around support for seniors and people suffering from dementia, Alzheimer’s and other such ailments. So in terms of new designs, really looking at best practices around the world…. We’re also integrating that in terms of our approach.

In terms of our throne speech, continuing and recognizing the support for seniors in particular, we know that Canadians are aging faster than…. We’re getting older. It’s also no surprise that British Columbia is a destination area for seniors to retire, so we’re seeing a higher proportion as well in terms of seniors.

We know, of course, as a national trend — and international, of course — that seniors want to age in their homes, in their communities, in place. We’re seeing that. We’re seeing, also, that advance of our medical system. We’re living longer. So that’s great. But then that brings the challenges in terms of how we ensure that seniors are supported to live healthy and are supported in their communities. So I’m pleased with our continued commitments.

We know that 4 percent of seniors 65 and older live in assisted-living and long-term-care homes, so the majority of seniors are in community. We’ve undertaken and continue to implement programs to ensure that seniors are supported through the infrastructure in terms of access to medical services and the expansion of our urgent care centres. Our primary care centres are a component of that.

Part of one of the challenges as well and the role of government…. The view is not that the government does everything or can solve their problems. No. We need to look at how we build relationships, how we partner and, really, the role of the community. I think that that is something in terms of the opportunities that I’ve had to meet with seniors and to hear about initiatives happening in communities right across the province. The concern and, I think, the love, which I would say that all of us here in this House know, is there in terms of our communities across the province. So partnering with communities is key.

B.C., during the pandemic, in response to how we support seniors, the difficulty getting out and getting to appointments…. We launched a new program — safe seniors, stronger communities — to partner with and work with community partners, United Way, really tapping into volunteers. I think that it really reflects just the heart of British Columbians concerned for seniors in their communities. I know every community across our province is wanting to help and support, for a way to facilitate that.

The program, which was very successful…. It was volunteer. We had close to 15,000 volunteers, as of this year, provide over one million — either support or visit or dropped seniors off. One million to over 31,000 seniors, right? That was really…. I characterize it as….

[4:15 p.m.]

All of us know that, in terms of our communities wanting to come together and really build community, that’s what we’re facing in terms of when we look at what the realities are of supporting seniors, our aging population. We’re also seeing smaller families. There’s a change in the nature of our communities. There’s a change in neighbourhoods. Maybe not as integrated. You know, neighbours don’t know each other as much.

There’s a need also to address that. That’s one example where I’m really pleased in terms of the response, our continued support for that and the partnership that is so crucial and key that our budget continues to make.

I don’t know where the time has gone. I see it’s ticking down there for me. I’m going to wrap up my remarks. It’s just a great privilege to be here and to work with, right across all sides, all members of the House in facing and taking on the challenges in British Columbia.

It has been an unprecedented time. I think that is certainly reflected in our throne speech — prioritizing people, prioritizing communities, ensuring that there’s access to our public services, opportunities for young people, investing in an innovative economy. An economy that respects our environment and takes a long-term view, as well, is key.

Thank you very much for the opportunity.

R. Glumac: People call me a politician. For a long time, I struggled with that, because I actually never had a very high view of politicians myself. Most of my life I had that perspective. I grew up in a small town, Port Alberni, and I spent a lot of time in the forest with my dad. My dad worked in the forestry industry. We explored a lot of the back roads and lakes and fishing and all of that.

I look back and ask myself: how did I make this journey from someone who really didn’t think highly of politicians to now becoming a politician? I think I didn’t really know much about politics. I didn’t grow up in that kind of a lifestyle in any way. I think a lot of the people that become politicians are motivated by something that draws them in somehow.

For me, it was the rivers of British Columbia. I spent a lot of time on the rivers with my dad, fishing — countless hours doing that. I worked down in the States for a while, and when I came back to British Columbia, the government of B.C. was embarking on this program to build these run-of-river projects on rivers across the province.

I had an issue with that on two levels. One, it wasn’t really run of river. It was putting a pipe on a river and diverting most of it, in some rivers affecting the runs of the fish that were in the river. From an environmental standpoint, it seemed like something that was good environmentally, because it created energy, but it also had quite an irreversible effect on the rivers. Secondly, it was a concern for me because it was kind of like privatizing B.C. Hydro, giving very lucrative contracts to private companies to make money off our beautiful rivers in our province. That’s what motivated me to get involved in politics.

Now that I’ve been here for a few years, I understand. I think everyone comes here with good intentions. I think everyone here that represents their communities really cares about their communities. But I do think there is a stark difference in philosophy between parties here in British Columbia, and I wanted to spend some time trying to share what I’ve learned about that in my time here.

[4:20 p.m.]

I think that if I had to characterize that time, the 16 years of B.C. Liberal government in B.C., there’s quite a lot of evidence of what that philosophy is.

When we’re talking about what we’re doing here today as a government, a lot of what we’re doing is fixing some of the things that happened during that 16-year period. I wanted to just walk down memory lane and give a few examples of the kinds of things that happened during that time and what we’re doing differently here in B.C.

I don’t know if you remember. Back in 2013, as an example, there was a $234 million cut to health care. At the same time, there was a 4 percent increase to MSP premiums. In 2020, our government eliminated MSP premiums. This is the largest tax cut in B.C. history, and this is an example of this divide that we have between our party and the opposition.

The previous government, if you remember, cancelled the weekday ferry trips for seniors. This was restored by our government in 2018. In fact, when you’re looking at ferry routes, ten ferry routes were cut in 2014. They were restored by our government in 2019.

In 2002, the previous government dismantled the B.C. Human Rights Commission. Our government restored the B.C. Human Rights Commission in 2018.

In 2001, a new B.C. Liberal government cancelled the Buy B.C. program. This affected 1,200 companies and associations that used Buy B.C. and used the Buy B.C. logo in their advertising. The B.C. NDP brought this back in 2018.

The previous government cancelled tuition-free adult basic education. They cancelled tuition-free English language learning. Our government brought this back in 2017. In 2011, the B.C. Liberal government cut grants for post-secondary students, including grants targeting new nurses and residential care aides. Our government introduced the B.C. access grant to support 40,000 low- and middle-income students in 2020.

If you remember, a lot of school PACs were raising money for playgrounds for their kids in school. A lot of effort went into doing this to try to raise money for playgrounds. Our government launched the playground equipment program in 2018 to fund new playgrounds so that parents don’t have to spend all their time raising money for that.

As you’ve heard a few times mentioned in the House, the B.C. Liberal government only managed to build 130 beds of student housing in their entire 16 years in government. Our government has more than 5,800 new student housing beds open or underway currently.

There was no increase to the seniors supplement on income assistance under the previous government — no increase. Our government increased it by more than double in 2021.

[4:25 p.m.]

There was no increase to income and disability assistance for ten years. The B.C. Liberals froze it at $610 for a decade. Our government increased income and disability assistance three times since 2017, adding a total of $323 per month.

When we look back on the record on child care, they cancelled the $14-a-day child care plan that was in place in 2002, and eliminated or lowered subsidies for 10,500 families by raising the income threshold to $258 a month. Meanwhile, we’re working on delivering a $20-a-day child care plan by the end of 2022.

The list goes on. These are only a few examples. We could get into differences in cuts in legal aid: 40 percent cuts in legal aid, mostly poverty law and family law services, and mostly for low-income women. Our government made a $2 million investment to open eight new legal clinics in 2019.

There was no increase to supports for foster parents for eight years under the previous government. Our government gave foster parents and other caregivers a raise in 2019.

We’ve been spending a lot of effort here as an NDP government dealing with a lot of the cuts to services and health care and education that happened under the previous government. But why did that happen? Why did the previous government feel the need to make all these cuts? I mean, I’m sure there are lots of reasons. It’s interesting, though.

There was an incentive program in place for B.C. Liberal ministers to give raises to themselves to cut services. They needed to balance that budget, and they had to do it in any way they could. When they did it, they gave themselves a raise. That’s another thing that we changed.

Interjections.

R. Glumac: There’s a little bit of chatter going on right now.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

R. Glumac: You probably can’t hear what they’re saying, but they’re reacting to some of the things that are being said here. Maybe there’s a little bit of embarrassment for the way they behaved for 16 years. I’m not sure. I know we’re getting a little political here, obviously, but there are a lot of things that are said here in the House, and I think you have to take some time to talk about the reality of what’s being said.

I know that the opposition has many times said, “Oh, the B.C. NDP. They’ve got 40 new taxes,” or whatever the number is. They’re saying that, trying to, I think, paint a picture that these taxes are overburdening people and all of that. But if we take a little closer look at these taxes that they’re fighting against, well, they’re fighting against a luxury vehicle tax on vehicles over $125,000, and there are other examples.

These taxes are affecting the richest, most wealthy British Columbians. They seem to have trouble with taxing the top 1 percent, for some reason. The speculation and vacancy tax, for example, doesn’t even apply to 99 percent of British Columbians, and it has created over 18,000 rental units in the province. The school property tax on mansions over $3 million — they don’t like that one. It raises money for affordable housing. That’s why it’s important.

[4:30 p.m.]

The foreign buyers tax to curb speculation in the housing market — they don’t like that one. The tax break for the top income earners, people making more than $220,000 — we cancelled that tax break, and they’re calling that a new tax. They don’t like that we cancelled it. They opposed all of these changes that we’re making, but these changes are rooted in a difference in philosophy. They took money out of ICBC to balance the budget. They almost blew up ICBC on their way out. We fixed it. They took money out of B.C. Hydro.

We ended the bridge tolls. We eliminated the MSP premiums. There is a difference in philosophy here, and it’s important to understand that. What we’re trying to do is run a strong economy, a strong province, while also maintaining those services and improving those services in our province.

Now, it’s important to talk about the past, that 16 year-period, because the past has not left us. The past is coming back. The past is coming back with their new leader, Kevin Falcon, who drags all of that record with him. All of the decisions that were made during that time — he was there, and he wants to do it again. It’s important to understand that. It’s important to understand what their new leadership wants to do, in going backwards to that 16-year period.

You have to remember that in 2009, as Health Minister, Kevin Falcon cut funding for hospitals, and they had health authorities absorb $360 million in cuts. What effect did this have? This resulted in a reduction of thousands of MRIs, surgeries and cuts to programs designed to help people keep out of acute care. When there were questions around a two-tier health care system, that Health Minister said: “I don’t have any philosophical objection to it.” That’s where we’re going with their new leadership.

I mentioned earlier the things that they did to try to balance the budget so they could give themselves raises. It was as Finance Minister, in the 2012-2013 budget — to give you an example — he raided $213 million from B.C. Hydro. He forecast a raid of almost $500 million over three years from ICBC. He initiated a fire sale that eventually sold $1 billion of public land. Much of that land was sold for far less than assessed value, and if you take a look at who that land was sold to, you might find some connection to donors — rich donors.

Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond, Representative for Children and Youth in 2012, speaking about the budget, said, “This will hurt people who are poor or vulnerable” — the people that we’re caring for today.

[4:35 p.m.]

When he was in cabinet, the B.C. Liberals cut funding to schools and refused to build new schools in growing communities. At the same time, if you remember, they fought in court with teachers around class sizes.

When their new leader was in cabinet, they cut $187 million from child protection and Family Development. They cut $34.5 million from youth justice, youth services and youth and child mental health. They cut $15.6 million in childhood development and special needs services for kids. This is the philosophy that they’re carrying forward with their new leadership.

In 2001, Kevin Falcon and the B.C. Liberals…. Even though, during the election, they made a promise not to give a tax break to the top income earners, they did anyway. They left a $4.4 billion hole in the provincial budget. The only way you can fill that hole is to cut services for B.C. families. That’s what we’re going back to with their leadership.

In 2017, our government cancelled those tax cuts to the top 1 percent. We were able to reinvest in the services that were cut at that time.

Here we are today. You know, under 12 years when Kevin Falcon was in cabinet, wages increased an average of 50 cents a year. Under our government, wages have grown twice as fast. Since being elected in 2017, wages are up $6.05 per hour. This difference in philosophy we are capturing in our new economic plan.

If you look at where we are today, our province is leading the country economically. There are great projections for jobs coming to our province. Our economic plan is set in place to make sure that as our economy grows, it’s going to grow in a way that’s inclusive for all people of British Columbia. It’s going to grow in a way where we’re embracing a clean growth.

There are six main missions involved in our economic plan. One is advancing true, lasting and meaningful reconciliation with Indigenous peoples. One is meeting B.C.’s climate commitments. Another is leading on environmental and social responsibility, fostering innovation across our economy, building resilient communities and supporting people and families.

This is our philosophy. This is where we are putting our efforts. We don’t have to cut services. We don’t have to focus only on the top 1 percent. We need to focus on all British Columbians. We have to make sure that we take care of each other.

We just went through a generational challenge with COVID, and we got through it. We got through it together. We got through it, because we all looked out for each other. Our results here in this province, both economically and through all of the measures of how people fared through this — the hospitalizations, the people who recovered….

[4:40 p.m.]

If you look at our jurisdiction here in B.C., compared to many other places in North America and across the world, we did well by working together. That is, I think, the secret to having a strong economy and a strong province. It’s always remembering that we’re working together. That’s what we intend to do as we go forward, and I look forward to working with all my colleagues in the House in that endeavour.

With that, I say thank you, Madam Speaker.

N. Sharma: Last time I stood up I got a chance to thank all of the staff that help me out so much, not only in my constituency office but here in the Leg. and with my parliamentary secretary role, but I have yet to thank my family. I wanted to spend a minute or two just acknowledging what they do to support me in this role.

My husband, Franck, takes care of our two lovely kids while I’m away: packs their lunches, gets them ready to go out the door, picks them up, makes their dinner, puts them to bed, all while I’m here. I couldn’t be more grateful for the support that he gives me.

I just wanted to thank you, Franck, for everything that you’re doing — and doing right now, at home. I’m coming home tonight.

I’m very pleased to speak in favour of this throne speech. It rightly says at the beginning that British Columbians have endured a year like no other — from rebuilding from the fire to the floods, to getting through the pandemic and now building the strongest economy in Canada. It’s true that we face these many challenges, and the throne speech, very rightly, outlines how this government will continue to be on the side of people to meet these challenges of our time.

I want to say that I’m so proud of my community. When I was first elected, it was right in the middle of the pandemic — trying to figure out how to set up an office and do all the things we needed to do to connect with our community online. Throughout the pandemic, we have had amongst the highest vaccination rates in the province, in our area. The community has pulled together to support each other through all of the challenges that we faced over the year.

A good example of that is the local open-access fridge, which is a few blocks from my office. It’s a pantry and a fridge that are stocked by the community and open to the community. I have to say that every day I show up for my office, I see it’s always full. It’s teeming with produce, with baked goods, with frozen goods, and it’s open to everybody in the community. To me, that’s such a sign of how I am part of a community that looks out for each other.

I also want to talk about another example of that: a young student, Michael Chen, who’s in 11th grade and who, during the pandemic, realized that there were people in the community, particularly in one of our local schools, that didn’t have access to the type of equipment they needed to access things online. Being a very industrious and intelligent 11th grader, he started to build computers, with a group of other students, to give away to people that didn’t have access to computers.

Not only am I impressed with the ingenuity and intelligence of this young group of people but also with the generosity and compassion that they showed. I think these are examples of how my community has really stood up to the challenge, and I couldn’t be prouder to represent the people of Vancouver-Hastings.

The throne speech also, very rightly, acknowledges the role of the non-profit and social services sector. It said: “Throughout the pandemic, people in social services and the non-profit sector worked selflessly to support the most vulnerable.” There are so many examples that I know we all have we have in our communities, of this happening.

Over a year ago, I was sworn in as the first Parliamentary Secretary for Community Development and Non-Profits, and I was just so honoured to take on that role. What it did was signal a shift in the importance of non-profits and the government’s commitment to the sector. Non-profits are a key economic sector that is critical to B.C.’s well-being and recovery, comprising over 29,000 non-profit organizations and employing 86,00 British Columbians.

We have to also not forget all of the volunteers that put their efforts into making our communities better. If we think about the combined effort of all of the people that organize to solve problems in our communities, to be there for their neighbours, to help us with the challenges of creating community well-being, we are so lucky to have all those people in our province. The sector also contributes $6.7 billion to our province’s GDP. That covers everything from housing to mental health, food security, legal services, arts, recreation and so much more.

[4:45 p.m.]

I hear every day, when we’re here in this House, the very beginning statements where every member gets up and says for two minutes about what’s going on in their community. Quite often they’re talking about non-profits. It’s such a lovely time in this House where we get to reflect on all the good people that we represent in the province. We’ve all heard examples of how people have stood up for equality, for democracy, have helped to organize around the flooding, around the fires in Lytton. I’m just so proud to get a chance to meet these people every day with my role.

I also want to speak to the non-profit sector, knowing that this government understands and acknowledges their contribution. We see how the sector is contributing, but not only that; it is a partner with us in our communities.

You’ve been there for us, and we will be there for you as we continue to recover.

I’m so proud that our budget, along with the acknowledgment in the throne speech, includes a $30 million recovery and resiliency fund to provide support for those charitable organizations that have been disproportionately impacted by the COVID pandemic.

I got to hear about the challenges of non-profits throughout this pandemic. I heard that there were challenges with having events that we all used to go to, to support them, or getting volunteers out to do the things that they would do in their communities. This had real consequences, not only for their bottom lines but also for the way they were able to serve their communities.

They also needed to invest in things like technology to do things differently. That was challenging for a lot of non-profits that are so driven to put all of their resources towards their mandate. So this fund — more details will come out soon — will be in partnership with the Vancouver Foundation and the United Way, and it will be exactly to support those non-profits as we recover. I’m just so proud that our government sees the contributions of this sector and is going to be there to support them through the challenges of recovery.

I want to talk a little bit about child care. In the throne speech, it talked about our plans for child care. A few years ago we stepped into government to talk about building a new social program in B.C. It was inspiring, it was profound, and it was hugely impactful.

Since then, every year we’ve been investing lots of time and effort and money into building that system, and that’s had a huge impact on lots of families. I think we can all name families that are from our communities that have experienced either a decrease in their child care fees, which is huge for families, or they’ve seen spaces go up in their communities. That work is going to keep on continuing.

I think it’s really profound that we have a commitment, through our work, where the federal government came to the table because they saw our leadership. By the end of the year, full-time infant and toddler care will be reduced by an average of 50 percent, approximately, to $20 a day — by the end of 2022.

I can’t imagine the impact that that’s going to have on families across this province. I remember — we were there — when we launched one of our huge affordability measures for our $10-a-day sites at Frog Hollow, which is close to my community. I saw the tears in parents’ eyes, and I saw how grateful they were to know that they could start to do the things they wanted to do with the extra money that they had saved from the decrease in child care.

That means going to work if they hadn’t gone to work in a long time. That means having extra money to put toward their kids’ extracurricular activities or going on a vacation or investing in housing. These are all things where we know our child care plan is having impacts every day with community members.

I’m just so excited about not only our plans, as we build up our $10-a-day child care plan over the next few years, but also about how much more impact we’ll have every month, every year up to a universal child care program. It’s really exciting work. It’s not very often where you get to be part of a government building a social program, so I couldn’t be prouder to be part of that.

I wanted to talk a little bit about reconciliation. When I first graduated from law school, my first job was at a law firm that was practising with representing Indigenous people. This was in around 2002, and it was amongst the first cases that survivors of residential schools were coming forward in their lawsuits against the church and Canada for what happened to them.

[4:50 p.m.]

I have to tell you, as a new lawyer articling at that time, it was one of the most profound experiences of my life. I was able to do it for about ten years. I got to witness survivors, with their courage and bravery, coming forward to take on a system and to tell a story that was, for many Canadians, not known.

I remember sitting beside survivors in big rooms, being their only lawyer, where there were ten lawyers representing the Catholic church and ten lawyers representing Canada. There they were, telling their story of what happened to them. Witnessing that courage, that bravery and that humanity is just something so profound that I’ll carry with me for the rest of my life.

It’s been tough, this year, to hear about the bodies that were found in the unmarked graves. I know there is something so profoundly retraumatizing about finding that, those discoveries. This is trauma that survivors have lived with for a long time. I do believe that it’s our job now to figure out how to be there for them.

I’m just so proud of this government that not only has passed a Declaration Act…. I have the Minister of Indigenous Reconciliation beside me, who is carrying that work. Not only did we pass an act, but we have a Declaration Act secretariat that we’ve launched.

I know there’s lots of work to do. I just think it’s so profound to be part of a government that’s tackling those challenges, that’s no longer ignoring the past but trying to figure out: how do we reconcile the fact that we are on land that was not ours and we are representing the Crown? We work our way through that. I think that not only does this throne speech acknowledge that, but I know that the work that we will be doing over the next year with the Declaration Act secretariat, and continuing on, will just continue to show how we can make things better in this relationship that goes back to the beginning of the province and that needs a lot of work.

I want to talk a little bit about poverty reduction. I work under the Ministry of Social Development and Poverty Reduction. I see the minister here. A lot of the work that we do is about figuring out how to tackle poverty in the province.

There are some things that we’ve shown up for as a government that really show our commitment to tackling this issue: the highest increase, $175 a month, for people with disabilities on income assistance and supplements for seniors, the increase there, which hasn’t been done, the highest increase over a long time. We’re going to be focusing on food security and understanding how we can help support those organizations that are in communities that are helping us with that.

It’s really profound work. We have really strong leadership in government that wakes up every day to figure out how to tackle poverty in this province and also set goals that will help us mark how we’re doing. I just think that it really shows the values of a government — how they show up for the people that are the most vulnerable in the province. This throne speech and our budget and our economic plan, which talks about an inclusive economy, all show our commitment to doing that. I think that it’s something to be proud of.

There are lots of other things inside this throne speech that are worth highlighting and talking about. I want to talk a little bit about the tying of minimum wage to the rate of inflation, which is a measure that will help make sure that workers don’t get left behind when it comes to salary increases. Those people that receive the minimum wage in our province — so the most vulnerable — are kept up with the rising cost of inflation. We know that they’re taken care of. That’s something that’s going to have really long-term impacts on people and their lives.

It’s also part of our work to raise wages generally in the province, which is something that helps with affordability. We know that it’s also part of having a strong economy. We have the strongest economy in Canada right now. We have to be competitive with our labour market. We’re attracting workers. We’re attracting people to this province, because we’re creating conditions for that.

[4:55 p.m.]

I got to talk last time, when I did my budget speech, on affordable housing, which I know is a really important issue for my community.

I just wanted to end by talking a little bit about how the priorities of this throne speech are the priorities of my community. My community cares about the fight for climate change. I hear, almost every day, people in my office talking about how they want to help, how they want to figure out what they can do about this challenge. I tell them that their government is on their side, that we’re investing in not only mitigation but making sure our communities are ready to face the challenges. It sometimes seems unsurmountable, and I know that.

I got a chance to thank, but I will again, a group of citizens in my riding that have come together to start a climate action team with me. We’re going to be thinking about how we can help our community with the investments and energy of this province at a local level. I’m really looking forward to that work. So the community members who come to me can see, reflected in the throne speech and the budget, that we are also on their side when it comes to tackling that challenge.

Health care is also something that is very important to my community. I have to acknowledge the work of the urgent primary care centre that opened up on Hastings Street, very close to my office. It has been open now for, I think, a little under a year. It’s just been so needed.

This is an example of creating health care closer to home, where people need it. In that area, in my riding, it has been historically far away from health resources. Right where that centre has been opened, people can access it very close to their home. That’s helped them connect to a lot of other services. The people there are very willing to connect with community organizations to serve their community.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

I know with this throne speech and our budget, in the year ahead, the government will continue to improve health care, fight climate change, help communities prepare for extreme weather, make life more affordable and train people for the jobs of the future. We’ll make sure that more families have access to affordable housing and child care. We’re doubling the number of $10-a-day spaces, cutting child care fees for families in half and increasing the supply of homes for middle-class families.

We know that we can’t cut our way to a better future. Building a stronger B.C. isn’t about pulling back. It’s about moving us forward together. I know that my community and I have been through a lot together, and there are more challenges ahead. I also know that this is a government that’s on the side of people, and we can face those challenges together.

B. Anderson: I rise today in support of the throne speech. It was just a few weeks ago that we listened to the throne speech. How dramatically things have changed since then.

I think back to the early days of COVID. I was able to join a Zoom call with some of my alumni from around the world. We had experienced the pandemic for a few weeks at that point. We had Jin Chi from China telling us how he had just gotten out of eight weeks of quarantine. We had another person from Florida that was in day 1.

When we were all sharing our collective experiences, one person said to me…. I was sitting outside in the Kootenays. I really feel like the Kootenays are the best place on earth. They said: “It looks like you won the COVID lottery.” Honestly, in B.C., I feel like, in many ways, we have. It has been tremendously difficult for people, but we’ve seen people really come together.

Now, one of those people that was on that call was Olena. Olena is, right now, in Kyiv. She is in Ukraine.

I know a lot of people in British Columbia have family members, have friends and have community members that are deeply concerned about what is happening in Ukraine right now. It is an illegal occupation. I know, as Canadians and British Columbians, that we are going to be working…. Our government is already taking action, and we’re going to be here to support the efforts by the federal government to help the Ukrainian people as they go through what is completely unfathomable and nothing that….

In the throne speech, we didn’t even realize that this was going to be our reality. How quickly things can change.

[5:00 p.m.]

We’ve had speakers from all sides of the House speaking about how we are going to support the Ukrainian people. I just want to extend that support today, as I have the opportunity to speak.

My great-grandmother and my great-grandfather came over from Ukraine. They experienced what it was like to be in Canada during the Second World War as their family members were fighting. I think back about what a different life I would have, what my different experience would have been if my family wouldn’t have immigrated to Canada and how tremendously fortunate I feel that I get to call this place home.

Now, in this throne speech, I really think that we see British Columbia coming together. COVID has been tremendously challenging, but it is not one of the only challenges that we face.

Climate change. I’m hearing about climate change, not only from the activists and the scientists, but I’m hearing it from all of my community. Everyone is concerned about climate change. This summer, when our skies were filled with smoke and people were having breathing problems, one of our doctors actually diagnosed one of their patients with climate change, because they felt that this was actually the root cause of their medical problems. We know that it’s impacting people’s mental health as well.

I’m so grateful that our province is going to be doing work and is really taking climate change seriously as we implement CleanBC. We’re doing work now also in the forestry sector. Not only are we going to be managing the forests during the forest fire months, but we’re really taking a full-year approach. I’m absolutely delighted this is the direction that the minister and the Premier wanted to go in, because I know it’s going to mean a lot for all of the communities in the Kootenays.

We have a local group. It’s called Doctors and Nurses for Planetary Health, and they are doing exactly that. They’re mobilizing to see what they’re able to do in the fight against climate change.

Really, it’s funny when we say…. We talk about the fight against climate change, when in some ways it is actually the fight against ourselves. Of course, it is us and the GHG emissions that we as humans emit that are causing the biggest challenge that we have. It’s really important that in British Columbia we are leaders and that we’re able to bring other provinces with us and other countries. This is going to be critically important for the future of our children and our children’s children.

I feel tremendously grateful that the Premier asked me to be his special adviser on youth. It was just a few days ago that I was able to meet, for the very first time, with the StrongerBC Young Leaders Council. These are 18 young people from across the province. They’re incredibly diverse. They are absolutely amazing in their experiences and ideas and what they’re actually going to be able to bring to the table to help our government ensure that we are creating programs and policies not only for them today but really setting them up for a future of success.

We’re facing things like housing challenges. How are we going to tackle those? By really listening to the young people in our community. It’s not just the people that are at the council table that are going to be bringing ideas forward. These people also have tremendous networks. We’re going to be tapping into young people across the province to make sure that our government truly is representative of young people.

I know, certainly, I didn’t feel like the government at the time, which is now the opposition, was my government that really represented me. So I’m so grateful to the Premier for appointing me in this role. We are really going to be able to focus on: what are the challenges? What are, also, the brilliant ideas that young people have to shape this province today and into the future? This is really their province. This is the legacy that we are leaving them. We want them to all be able to really uplift each other and to prosper.

Now, as we’ve started to open up with COVID, I’ve been able to see some incredible experiences. I was able to go to meet with the Ktunaxa, with the Yaqan Nukiy and was invited to one of their holiday celebrations. It was outdoors. It was very clear that we wanted to be very careful with our COVID protocols. It was an absolutely beautiful gathering and the largest gathering that I had been at in probably two years.

[5:05 p.m.]

As we’re starting to re-enter that, when we’re able to come together, it’s great that we have the technology like Zoom. But it doesn’t enable us to have those side conversations, to get more personal, to really be able to connect with people.

I know myself…. I’m sure MLAs from all sides are also looking forward to this opportunity, because it’s building those relationships with our communities that are so important so that we are able to be your conduit to government and so that we’re able to be your voice for government.

Part of building those relationships, for me, which is so critical, is building relationships with the First Nations people in the area that I represent — which, of course, is the unceded traditional territory of the Ktunaxa, the Sinixt and the Syilx peoples — and getting to know people like Chief Louie and the work that he’s doing in his community.

There is also the Creston Valley art society. They’re helping to have the stories of the Ktunaxa and the language speakers…. This all being recorded so that it’s not only for the Ktunaxa — of course, it is for them, and that’s the most important — but it also is educating our community more broadly. I feel like those pieces…. We really need to be continuing to ask: what can I do as your representative? How can I best support you?

What has happened to the First Nations people, of course, in British Columbia, in Canada and abroad was genocide. It is our responsibility, as not only government leaders but as community members, to make sure that we are actively working on reconciliation. It’s not going to be an easy process. It’s going to be challenging. But building those relationships and working with First Nations from across British Columbia is going to be absolutely key.

When I was working on what I wanted to deliver on the throne speech, I was trying to go through it. There are just so many incredible organizations that are across the Kootenays, whether it is people up in Argenta that are working to save the Argenta Landing face or whether it’s people in Kaslo that have been trying to create a better communal space where people are able to gather.

We go down to Creston, and we have the food hub. The food hub is something that our government has funded that is going to help agricultural producers from the Creston Valley, but also across the region, really add value to their products. This is an economic development piece that is going to be so critical. The minister was able to visit at the grand opening of the food hub. It was incredible to see. Unfortunately, because of COVID, we only had limited numbers that were there. I know, with speaking…. Everyone there was incredibly excited and grateful.

This is something that the members of the community — like Tanya Wall, like Jen Comer — have been working on for almost a decade. When I get to be there with the minister to see all of the hard work — Elizabeth Quinn, Danny Turner, this entire incredible team…. I’m so grateful that we have this in our community in the Creston Valley.

When I look…. There’s also an incredible program called Young Agrarians. What they’re doing is helping to match people that want to farm with people that have land that could be farmable. So we’re seeing incredible stories across the region with this land-matching program, which is really enabling young people and helping to get them into the business of farming but also providing food for our community. I know, if anything, with COVID, right away people started to consider their food security. By having nutritious, local, healthful food for people, this is really a huge benefit.

I know there are incredible farmers markets that are going to be popping up here soon across our region. I really hope that people will take the time to support their farmers.

I know there’s also…. I’m seeing it on my social media and talking to some of my friends that are farmers. Right now they’re opening up their CSAs. So that’s community-supported agriculture. What that means is…. You pay up front, and then you basically have a subscription package throughout the growing season where you’re able to get local food and support those local farmers.

If this is something that you’re interested in, I urge you to reach out. There are incredible farmers from across my region that are providing this but also throughout the rest of the province. This is a really good way to support farmers and support overall food security in our communities.

[5:10 p.m.]

With COVID, we know that there is also…. It’s been incredibly challenging for our arts community. Just the other day, I was able to go out dancing for the first time, which I was very excited about. I know, through the Nelson District Arts Council, there are outdoor shows that are coming up. I think Shred Kelly, who is a Kootenay favourite, is going to be performing here soon. Really, being able to bring the community together in celebration — I think that is something that people have missed.

I have been so encouraged by what the arts community has been able to do, in terms of pivoting, doing things online, and these awesome organizations that are making sure artists continue to be paid so that they’re able to continue to do the work that they do that really inspires and brings joy to so many of our lives. So I’m really excited to see that.

I know we had fitness and dance studios that were facing closures because of COVID, and that has been extremely challenging for them, but I was able to meet with several of the dance and fitness studio providers. We have incredible diversity in Nelson and in the Kootenays. They were even talking about — and these are generally competitors — how they can collaborate.

With that, I just want to say that I love the Kootenays. I feel like I do represent the best region, with the most incredible people. That we really see people come together. I’m just so grateful to each and every one of you. I’m grateful that our government is supporting people and is taking strong action on climate change.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, pursuant to the standing order, the question must now be put, which is: “We, Her Majesty’s most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia in session assembled, beg leave to thank Your Honour for the gracious speech which Your Honour has addressed to us at the opening of the present session.”

Motion approved on division.

Hon. M. Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. on Monday, March 7.

The House adjourned at 5:12 p.m.