Orders of the Day

Private Members’ Statements

INDIVIDUALIZED FUNDING FOR
CHILDREN WITH SUPPORT NEEDS

T. Halford: I welcome back all my colleagues. I hope everybody was able to get some rest over the two-week break.

[R. Leonard in the chair.]

I’m going to speak to an issue that is, I think, of utmost importance to every riding here, every MLA, no matter what side of the House they sit on, but also to every parent, every child care provider. This is something that is extremely personal to me. It’s to advocate for the importance of ensuring individualized funding for children with support needs.

[10:05 a.m.]

I know firsthand the struggles that parents face when they have a child that has extra needs. I will speak specifically to autism because it’s something that I am very, very familiar with, and I will say this. Parents know best. They know what’s best for their child, and they are the best advocates for their child.

I’ve told this story in the House before. I’ll tell it again. I know a little boy, and that little boy was diagnosed with autism at the age of seven. That little boy struggled to play on a soccer team because he had social anxiety. It was hard for him to make eye contact. It was hard for him to speak up. It was hard for him to establish relationships. It was hard for him to follow rules. It was hard for him to establish trust. So parents need to try and form those relationships. Those relationships can take months. In some cases they can take years.

Every time a child leaves the house to go to school, to go to an activity, to go to a friend’s house — specifically a child with special needs, specifically maybe a child with autism — that parent has a sense of anxiety. Will my child fit in? Will my child be treated right? Will my child have a chance? Individualized funding was meant for the parents to make those decisions. For a child such as this little boy that I’ve been describing to go to a hub to get a service from a provider the parent may not know, the child may not….

I see the minister shaking his head. I haven’t even finished yet, but obviously, he disagrees with parents being able to decide what’s best for their children. If so, I think he should stand up in the House and clarify why he thinks that. But I will say this: as a parent, I know what’s best for my child. I will say that I stand with the parents of children with extra needs that are advocating to be able to say where that individualized funding goes, not having to depend on a hub where we’ve seen in other provinces it’s failed. It has failed.

Now government is saying that they know best, but when we’re looking at individualized funding and what that means for a child, some may mean that this child, that this boy that I speak of, gets swimming lessons from somebody that they built a relationship up with and they trust. Maybe they get fitness lessons. A personal trainer. Maybe they get speech therapy. The list goes on and on and on. Maybe it’s a challenge for parents to actually try and get their child out of a car to go in somewhere to a new experience and be able to just trust us — trust the system.

I trust parents. I trust that the parents will make the right decision for their child, because I think that that parent knows that child better than a hub. I think that we are selling parents short. We are not hearing the cries from the communities. I know every single member in this House is getting those pleas from those parents — from those organizations — to say: please stop. Please listen.

The minister continues to shake his head, but obviously, he’s not listening.

Interjection.

T. Halford: I think that we owe it to British Columbians and to every parent, every child. If the minister wants to just stand up and speak on this, I’d be happy to cede my time.

Does the member want to do that? Obviously, he has an opinion.

Interjections.

[10:10 a.m.]

Deputy Speaker: This is not partisan time, Members. Let’s just keep….

T. Halford: Then I think you need to….

Well, obviously, the minister feels that it’s…. He’s heckling on an issue of individualized funding. We’ve seen it from this minister time and time again, where we talk on issues, and he finds the need to heckle….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members. Members.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Minister.

T. Halford: The minister is heckling. I expect better from this minister.

K. Paddon: In previous roles, I have had the privilege to work with children and youth with diverse needs, and their families, as they seek out or utilize services and supports. For those with an autism diagnosis, I witnessed a huge range of experiences as families navigated and found supports, as well as many who struggled with the demands of finding, contracting or coordinating a combination of supports that would work for their children.

I listened to the frustration of those who were either waiting for a diagnosis or for whom the diagnosis did not qualify for supports that were required to address the real needs of their children. I also heard the struggle for families as supports were significantly delayed, interrupted or came to an end, impacting the quality of life and access for those children and youth.

As the Representative for Children and Youth described in 2018, a lot of the system is dependent on parents gaining access or asking for services or asking for support and then navigating a complex system of care. Parents do know best, and it’s time we build a system that works for them and their children.

We have heard from families, advocates and service providers for years, as well as from multiple reports from the Representative for Children and Youth and the Select Standing Committee on Children and Youth, that the current system isn’t working for many children, that too many are being left behind and that we need to move to a needs-based system.

The Representative for Children and Youth, who independently consults extensively, also agreed, in November 2021, that the current approach is leaving too many children and youth behind. “The minister described the current CYSN system as ‘patchwork’ and said that it leaves too many children on the outside without services. I couldn’t agree more, and therefore, long-term improvements are absolutely necessary.”

In 2019, the Select Standing Committee on Children and Youth, an all-party committee of this Legislature, also consulted with families and completed a report detailing the stories they heard. They also stated the need to move “to a needs-based model that identifies, acknowledges and addresses the functional abilities of each child with neurodiverse needs regardless of clinical diagnosis.” That’s why we’re moving to a new service approach: so that every child and youth gets the services they need when they need them in every part of our province, including rural British Columbia.

We’re bringing services together through a coordinated network of centres run by community service providers called family connection centres. Family connection cen­tres will give families access to a range of professionals in a multidisciplinary team without the need for a referral or diagnosis. This means families can access supports before, during and after they receive a diagnosis for their child or youth. In our new approach, all children and youth with support needs will be able to access services, including children with autism.

I think we all agree that children who need support should have access to it. We are listening to families who receive individualized funding, and we hear the uncertainty about what the new system will look like. We are also hearing from families as they express their worries and anxiety about what change may mean for their children and listening to families for whom this new system represents hope that their children will finally be able to access services.

Anxiety and worry make sense given the system of scarcity that was developed when decisions were made to cut the MCFD budget by almost 25 percent, including $15 million in funding from childhood development and support services. We’re making different choices. To support children and families, we’ve increased the budget every year since 2017. We’re building a system that doesn’t leave any of our kids behind.

We’ve also heard concerns that this system will be similar to that in Ontario. Our model is fundamentally different than Ontario’s. The Ontario model is designed for children with an autism diagnosis through individualized funding. Our new made-in-B.C. model is about needs-based services for children with diverse needs, with or without a diagnosis.

[10:15 a.m.]

These kinds of real concerns and questions that we’re hearing are why it’s so important to be clear that nothing is changing for services right away. We are continuing to listen to families and service providers to ensure we get this right for children and families. That is why we have built in a substantial amount of time to engage in this transition as we build this new system together with families and service providers.

We’ll continue to listen to families as we move towards early implementation areas in 2023 and full provincial implementation. I look forward to continuing to hear and learn from families as we work towards this transition to a needs-based system and build something new and truly inclusive together that will support our kids to thrive and support their needs as they develop.

T. Halford: I thank my colleague for her comments.

I want to address one thing. If the Minister of Social Development wants to make hand gestures that I am crying about something….

Interjection.

T. Halford: This is on the topic, Member.

I will say this. I have cried about this topic because this topic is something that is personal to me, and I will not be mocked while I stand up for families of autistic children by the Minister of Social Development. This House expects better….

Deputy Speaker: Member, please.

Recognizing the minister.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Recognizing the minister.

Hon. N. Simons: Thank you, hon. Chair.

Thank you to my colleagues who know my passion for this subject as well. I would say that any….

Deputy Speaker: Is this a point of order?

Interjections.

Hon. N. Simons: If the member thinks that anything I’ve done impugns his credibility, I withdraw. However, I would point out that I have not done anything….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Minister.

Recognizing the member for Surrey–White Rock.

Please continue with your statement.

T. Halford: I will continue. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I have cried over this issue because this is an issue that touches my family. It touches many families on both sides of the House. It is something that I am passionate about, that I have lived. If that is up for mocking in this House, so be it.

Interjections.

T. Halford: I’ll speak for myself.

These are parents….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members. Members.

Recognizing the member, please.

T. Halford: Am I passionate about this? Yes, I am. I am passionate about it. Is it important to me? Yes. Is it important to every member of the House? Absolutely.

To come in here and stand up for kids and be mocked is something that I will not stand for. I wouldn’t let my kids stand for it. I will not stand for it, especially by a minister. No more. I will not be bullied. I will not let children be bullied. I expect better.

INTERNATIONAL DAY OF
TRANS VISIBILITY

B. D’Eith: Imagine feeling in your soul that the gender you were born into doesn’t reflect who you really are. Image the courage it would take to share this inner turmoil with your family and friends. Now imagine, after expressing your true self, to wake up every morning and not know how people are going to deal with you and to be afraid of how people may work with you. Imagine being denied the basic human rights that so many of us take for granted.

That is what transgender people have to contend with every day, and that’s why I’m so honoured to speak to the Transgender Day of Visibility happening this Thursday, March 31. We honour and celebrate people in the transgender community and their hard-fought journey to attain basic human rights and freedoms. In fact, the trans flag will be raised in the Legislature between 9 and 9:30 on Thursday. Everyone is welcome.

[10:20 a.m.]

On a personal level, as the father of a transgender adult child, I want to first acknowledge my Violet’s courage and resilience. As her father, I can tell you that I’m proud of her and her journey to her true self. Any tears that I have shed are not because of Violet’s expression of her inner being but because of my own fears of how she may be treated by her peers, her fellow workers and the public.

Violet’s journey is ongoing, and I know that it’s not going to be easy. What I can do as a father is to simply be there and show love and support.

I’m so very proud of my other children, their mothers, their aunts and uncles, their grandparents, for simply showing their love and support, with no judgment. I know in my heart that Violet feels that she’s not alone on this journey, and it takes bravery and courage for this kind of self-realization. So to my child, Violet: I stand humbled by your courage.

Now, this experience is being shared by individuals and their families across British Columbia, and these challenges are being faced by so many different families where they live and work and where they love.

I did want to say that I have read a number of articles on this, and Laura Track, who is a B.C. rights lawyer, has written very passionately on this. She says:

“Despite many gains, transgender people remain among the most marginalized in our society. B.C.’s Human Rights Tribunal has found that trans people face barriers to employment and housing, inequitable access to health care and other vital public services, and heightened risks of targeted harassment and violence. The results include social isolation, as well as higher rates of substance use, poor mental health, suicide and poverty.

“Trans women of colour face particularly high rates of discrimination and harm. For transgender children, anti-trans bullying leads to higher rates of absenteeism and poorer educational outcomes, which then has ripple effects for their health and future prospects.”

Her key point in this article is that trans rights are human rights. It’s so important that we continue this work to ensure that transgender people have equality, dignity and basic rights in our society.

Now, of course, these struggles are not new. They’ve been around for many years, and there have been many people who have fought very hard for these rights.

In fact, Rupert Raj, who’s a Canadian transgender man, is one of Canada’s earliest transgender activists. He transitioned in 1971, and he has worked very, very hard throughout his entire life as an advocate for trans rights. He started the Foundation for the Advancement of Canadian Transsexuals, FACT, and the newsletter Gender Review, a factual journal. He also, in 1982, founded the bimonthly magazine Metamorphosis. He’s a psychotherapist and gender specialist, and he retired in Vancouver in 2015.

Another advocate, Jamie Lee Hamilton, unfortunately passed away from cancer in 2019 but left a legacy of work in the transgender community. As a trans woman working in the Vancouver Downtown Eastside, she was an outspoken activist on behalf of sex workers and Indigenous women.

In 1970, at the age of 15, she was first youth in Canada to start a medical transition. She advocated for sex workers in Vancouver since the 1980s and in fact ran for the Vancouver board of education to oppose shutting down east side schools with significant Indigenous enrolment. Notably, in 1998, she dumped 67 pairs of stiletto heels on city hall steps, demanding attention to sex workers who were missing from the Downtown Eastside. In 2018, she spoke at UVic’s Moving Trans History Forward.

[10:25 a.m.]

Another important advocate is Aiyyana Maracle — who, unfortunately, also passed away from cancer in 2016. She was a two-spirit trans woman and performance artist and author from Six Nations in Ontario. She worked very hard in terms of her advocacy.

It’s important to actually recognize “two-spirit” as a term. This refers to people who have identified both a masculine and feminine spirit and is used by some Indigenous people to describe their sexual gender and spiritual identity.

The creation of this term “two-spirit” is attributed to Elder Myra Laramee, who proposed it during the third annual Intertribal Native American, First Nations, Gay and Lesbian American Conference, held in Winnipeg in 1990. She was going to speak for the Moving Trans History Forward in 2016, but unfortunately, as I mentioned, she passed away in 2016. She bequeathed all of her wealth to Transgender Archives at UVic.

As part of the extended 2SLGBTQIA+ community and these advocates, I would really like to extend my deep gratitude for all the work that’s been done on their behalf.

M. Lee: Thank you to the member for Maple Ridge–​Mission for sharing such a personal example of the challenge, certainly, that families face in supporting their children in making the transition, as you have with Violet.

Thank you for sharing that, because I think that’s an important example and helps us all understand the challenge that transgender people face in our province.

Last fall we recognized the Trans Day of Remembrance, observed each year on November 20 as a me­morial to those lost to transphobic violence. Trans­gender people continue to face a disproportionate amount of discrimination based on their sexual orientation and gender identity. This happens at school, in the workplace, in public spaces and, regrettably, sometimes results in physical and sexual violence. It is important that we recognize the discrimination and violence transgender and gender-fluid people face.

We should all recognize the incredible achievements and positive change, like Jamie Lee Hamilton has advocated for, that so many powerful voices for transgender rights bring to our province and the world. As the member stated, B.C. recognizes March 31 as a day to celebrate trans people and to raise awareness about the many barriers and challenges that they face in our communities and how we can improve the visibility and acceptance of transgender people.

Last November T’eVine reached out to every MLA office with packages containing resource documents, trans flags and an open letter asking our MLAs to meet with a transgender constituent and report back what they learned. I met with two incredible individuals and heard their stories and learned some ways in which we can better support them in their lives as trans people.

One of these individuals is someone I knew as a young girl who has since transitioned to a man. I was happy to see that this trans man is so much more comfortable and confident in his identity now. The uplifting confidence is remarkable, but it does come with a lot of pain and courage. The other individual was a trans woman, who also was extraordinary in her eloquence about her situation and how she transitioned.

Like many trans people, they prefer to keep to lower profiles to avoid being victims of potential harassment and violence. They explained to me that while they share similar challenges, the experiences of trans men are often very different from those of trans women. Regrettably, this is largely due to sexism and discrimination and the violence that is often perpetrated against women in general.

They also explained that a greater focus is placed on educating youth about the importance of acceptance and inclusivity of trans people but not enough information on steps you can take if you do feel you are, in fact, trans. Coming out to your peers and transitioning can also be unimaginably difficult for both the individual and their families. They both lamented that if there had been more information and resources and support groups to assist them and their families through their processes, their transitions would not have been nearly as difficult as they were.

[10:30 a.m.]

As illuminating as this experience was for me, I was disappointed to learn T’eVine had a very low level of engagement in this program with MLAs. These missed opportunities and lack of engagement through our trans community go against the message behind the day of trans. I hope the members of this House will take the time to accept these opportunities when they arise so we can all help improve our understanding and respect of trans people.

Change doesn’t come from within this Legislature alone. It comes from our classrooms, our workplaces, our public spaces and our homes. It happens by connecting and communicating with friends and family and learning from the trans community to hear and discuss how we can make our communities safer and more supportive spaces for trans and gender-fluid people. We also need to have open discussions about the barriers transgender people face and to work collaboratively to identify and eliminate all forms of gender discrimination.

Exploring one’s gender identity is never easy. Organizations and resources like B.C.’s transgender health program are there to offer gender-affirming care and mental health supports across B.C. Together let’s honour the International Transgender Day of Visibility by doing our part to eliminate discrimination and help all British Columbians feel supported and accepted, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity.

B. D’Eith: It’s so wonderful to hear words from all sides of this House in regards to this issue.

Once again, we are speaking today in regard to the Transgender Day of Visibility on March 31. This is so that no one who is trans should be targeted for violence and oppression. No one should, in fact, be targeted for violence and oppression for who they are, who they love, or who they really are inside. The reality is that trans people continue to face stigma and discrimination, which puts people at risk for high rates of violence, poverty, mental health issues and other complex challenges. For people of colour and Indigenous people, these issues are compounded.

It’s important to remember how far we’ve come, but it’s also important to know how far we have to go. I want to say that of course I am a strong ally of the trans community. It’s every person’s right to be with who they want to be without fear or stigma and to be who they want to be without fear and stigma.

We need to have a more inclusive society, and this means more quality of life for everyone. That’s why it’s so important that we flew the trans flag on the lawn of the British Columbia Legislature for the first time in history, and it’s going to fly again this week.

In March of 2021, approximately 600 instances of gen­der language across 15 ministries…. Regulations were changed to reflect the diversity of the people served by the B.C. government. These changes were made to ensure that all British Columbians have equal access to government services, no matter their sexual orientation, gender identity, race or cultural beliefs, and this work continues.

We re-established the B.C. Human Rights Commission, which was dismantled in 2002, leaving B.C. as the only province in Canada without one. We appointed Kasari Govender as B.C.’s first independent Human Rights Commissioner, marking a new era of human rights protections for all British Columbians.

We took action to ensure the spectrum of gender identity is included on B.C. identification cards. Now B.C.’ers can choose an X as a third option in the gender field on their government ID. We’re moving to ensure publicly funded affirming lower surgeries are available in B.C., making us the first province in western Canada to offer these essential procedures right here at home.

We’re ensuring that all 60 districts of schools and several First Nations and independent schools are part of B.C.’s SOGI Educator Network to help schools be more inclusive for students. I’m also proud that B.C.’s University of Victoria is home to the largest transgender archive in the world. These records go back more than 120 years from 23 countries and are available to everyone.

March 31 is Transgender Day of Visibility in British Columbia. Please post your support with #youbelonghere on that day.

Thank you very much.

DOCTOR SHORTAGES

C. Oakes: Today I would like to speak about an issue that affects all of us in British Columbia. Thousands of British Columbians are being left without health care support they need. This is due to the doctor shortage that we are currently facing in the province.

[10:35 a.m.]

This is something we’ve seen in the south Island area. We’re seeing three clinics in the capital region shut down this month alone. This is creating many worries for British Columbians, who are now scrambling to find a new family doctor.

Langford resident Camille Currie and her family are among those who are now looking for a new family doctor. Camille, her husband and two children have their own complex health care needs, and over the past several years, they’ve had continuous care from a doctor who has been there every step of the way. Unfortunately, their physician is closing her practice, and this leaves Camille and her family scrambling to find a new doctor to no avail.

Camille’s family is one of many in British Columbia who are left without a family doctor. Almost 900,000 individuals in British Columbia today do not have a family doctor or nurse practitioner. That’s 200,000 more people without doctors than in 2017, when the NDP took government.

With 18.2 percent of the population without a pri­mary health care provider under this government, this is putting additional strain on clinics and creating a backlog of treatment. Our province has already been grappling with the COVID-19 pandemic and the toxic drug supply, but we are seeing another health care crisis emerge with more and more British Columbians without access to primary health care.

Health care workers have done so much for us throughout this pandemic, and it’s time that we step up and have their backs. Doctors in this province have been experiencing a high level of burnout, particularly with long hours and unpaid evening work due to completing paperwork and forms. Just like everything else in the province, the cost of running practices is rising, and these costs are simply unsustainable.

The fee-for-service model means that physicians do not make a reasonable wage unless they see six to seven patients an hour. This means that doctors are facing a dilemma between taking the necessary time for complex care and ensuring that they see as many patients as they can. They are also stretched thin across responsibilities.

Dr. Renee Fernandez from B.C. Family Doctors says: “New-to-practice family physicians tell us that they want to focus on taking care of patients, but almost all family medicine clinics in the province are run as small businesses.” This means that highly skilled physicians are balancing their time with running the clinic, including tasks related to human resources, IT and privacy. With the aging population, more doctors, nurses and other health care workers are retiring, which leaves young professionals overworked and feeling burnt out after just a few years on the job.

This doctor shortage we are experiencing is deeply consequential and dangerous. Earlier this month Port McNeill Hospital had to close its doors for 3½ days because of a temporary physician shortage. This meant that anyone in the Port McNeill area in need of an emergency medical treatment that weekend had to go to Port Hardy, which is 42 kilometres away.

This is all too common in British Columbia. Our rural health care system is already fragile, but this is exacerbated by the doctor shortage. This challenge has been developing for some time, and it’s only going to get worse unless this government takes action.

There are many things that we can do to address the doctor shortage. We must train and recruit more doctors and create incentives. Every other province except British Columbia has a re-entry pathway for physicians. We need to look at recruitment options, such as, perhaps, a rural loan forgiveness program.

First, of course, we can start by investing and building the promised medical school at SFU’s Surrey campus. We haven’t seen any updates on this project, but I know many undergraduate students who would like to see more seats in British Columbia in medical schools. This is a step towards ensuring that bright and passionate students in our province can pursue their dreams of becoming a doctor.

[10:40 a.m.]

Beyond simply increasing the number of seats in medical schools, we also need to increase the funding for additional residency spots. This is an urgent and pressing need for today’s current graduates, not only the future SFU medical school students. We cannot simply increase the number of medical students. We need to ensure that they have a road to success.

Currently an average of 14 graduates do not receive a residency placement. For every unmatched graduate, 1,875 patients in the province lose out on stable health care, which makes out to be 26,250 patients each year. We cannot afford to leave these doctors behind. This is not only incredibly disheartening to the hard-working medical school graduates, but it is a loss to the entire province when we need more promising, practising doctors now.

This is a health care crisis we should all be paying attention to. Within this House, we must work together to support our aspiring doctors and provide universal primary health care for all British Columbians, because everyone deserves a family doctor in the province of British Columbia.

H. Sandhu: I want to thank the member for Cariboo North for sharing her thoughts on doctor shortages.

As we all know, this is a long-standing issue, which we have been facing over a decade now. I have experienced this myself when I lived in a rural part of northern B.C. from 2001 to 2012 not only as a British Columbian but also as a health care provider. Over the years, I have also seen devastating impacts on patients and families, including my own family. Therefore, I feel strongly about our continuous effort and need to work collaboratively to address this so that we can find creative ways and solutions to fill these gaps.

I have also seen and witnessed significant progress in hiring and the implementation of policies designed to address doctor shortages since the B.C. NDP formed government. Our government recognized that there are doctor shortages at both the emergency and the primary care levels, as well as rural communities, and we are addressing all aspects.

We are working to transform our health care system into a sustainable one that will provide high-quality care for generations to come. While the scale of this change cannot happen overnight, it will have a lasting impact. It takes seven to 12 years to train a doctor. My older daughter is pursuing this path with the goal of helping people in rural communities.

The Health Ministry provided $815,000 to Health Match B.C. to support a targeted surgical recruitment cam­paign under the surgical renewal process. According to the surgical workforce report, as of January 12, 2022, 98 anaesthesiologists and nine general practice anaesthesiologists have been hired along with 82 surgeons.

We are also increasing physician supply. A total of 362 entry-level medical residency positions are projected for 2022, whereas there were 134 seats in 2003. As a result of expansion, B.C. now has the single-largest family medicine training program in Canada. In 2021-22, almost $163 million was allocated to support physician residency training in B.C. In 2017…. This number previously was $135 million. These funds will continue to increase annually in 2022-23 and beyond.

B.C. has made 58 residency positions each year exclusively available to international medical graduates — candidates especially to address the designated specialties and the locations with the highest need. The 58 include six key specialty positions in psychiatry, internal medicine and pediatrics, with the remaining 52 allocated to family medicine. All areas determined to be a great need of British Columbians.

[10:45 a.m.]

The ministry is also working on a program called practice-ready assessment B.C. It provides the pathway to licensure for family physicians from jurisdictions outside of Canada, with the successful completion of the assessment resulting in a provincial licence and a three-year return of service in a community of need. Currently annual funding is provided for 32 PRA-BC candidates, and to date, 162 family physicians have been placed in 53 communities.

Across all our primary care initiatives, over 150 new full-time-equivalent family physicians, nurses, nurse practitioners and other allied health workers are also supporting team-based care and meeting patient needs, with close to 1,000 more on the way.

To date, our government launched 53 primary care networks across the province. This really speaks to the necessity of having several options instead of a one-size-fits-all approach.

My constituents are also benefiting from the urgent primary care centre in Vernon, and we have a dedicated team of health care professionals providing exceptional care. Recently we also got a nurse practitioner in Lumby.

Our government is also in the process of launching a health connect registry as a part of our strategy.

I understand that despite the ongoing work of our government, we still have more to do. The B.C. NDP government is the biggest supporter of well-supported public health care. Lots of work is underway, and we are willing to explore all the options to address this so we can fill the gaps and British Columbians can get the care that they need.

C. Oakes: I do want to thank the member for her comments today and the recognition that sometimes in government we need to review policies if things are getting worse. Is it an opportunity for us to reflect and look at that research again?

And 200,000 more people are without a family doctor since the NDP took office. So I think it’s critically important to re-evaluate. Are the programs working? Do we have the right mix of programs? Is there more that we can do? Of course, in government, there is always more that we can do.

I think it’s also important…. We need to recognize that action, of course, needs to occur now so that we can begin to see the shift in the number of doctors in this province. The longer we delay, the longer British Columbians have to wait to receive the urgent care that they need.

I want to see our province invest in our talented youth who are eagerly waiting to serve as physicians. Again, I look forward to the announcement that was made during the platform of the SFU medical school. I think that’s a very important program.

In the meantime, there are 13,000 internationally trained doctors in Canada who are not working in their field and available to serve. International medical school graduates have to undergo a number of steps in order to practise in Canada, including a series of national medical exams, completing a residency through a Canadian university, getting certified and then applying to be licensed provincially.

As I mentioned earlier, we are not funding enough residencies for our current graduates. This is even more challenging for international medical graduates, as less than 10 percent are set aside for these international students. We are wasting the talent and the potential of British Columbians. Instead of serving patients, respected physicians are underemployed at a time when we desperately need more doctors.

Over the course of the pandemic, we have been re­minded of the importance of having a strong, resilient health care system. This doctor shortage is an urgent health care crisis, and we must take action now to alleviate the pressure on our doctors.

We are very fortunate in the province of British Columbia to have so many dedicated and talented health care professionals in this province. Let’s all take a moment in this House to recognize and thank all of them for their many contributions to the people of British Columbia.

We also must do our part. We must reflect on policies and see if there are more things that we can do to ensure that we are supporting an enhancement of physicians, both training and supporting them through residency programs in the province of British Columbia. We must do more to support them so that they can continue to support British Columbians.

Again, thank you to all of the amazing health care professionals that we have in this glorious province of British Columbia.

[10:50 a.m.]

PAY TRANSPARENCY

J. Routledge: What are the chances that a woman earns less than the men in her life — her partner, her son, her co-worker? In fact, no matter where you live, where you work or how much experience and education you bring to the job, women workers tend to earn less than men.

I’m going to quote some numbers. You’ll probably hear different numbers today from the responding member. It’s not easy to pin down the exact size of the gender pay gap. That’s why we need pay transparency. According to Stats Canada, the gender pay gap in British Columbia today is 14 percent. Or to put it another way, on average, for every dollar a man earns, a woman earns 86 cents. The gap is even bigger if you are racialized or have a disability.

In 1997, the gap was 19 percent. So it’s taken us a quarter of a century to reduce it by a whopping five cents on the dollar. Compare that to Quebec, where women earn, on average, 92 cents for every dollar a man makes — maybe because they’ve had publicly funded child care for a generation already. More on that later.

We are doing better than women in the United States, where white women earn, on average, 79 percent of what white men earn — but only 63 percent if you’re a Black woman, 57 percent if you’re an Indigenous woman and 54 percent if you’re Hispanic. In Iceland, it’s 12.2 percent — Iceland, which is considered a beacon of equality.

The problem is global. Why do women tend to earn less than men? Well, the obvious answer is that women workers, or the work that we do, is considered less valuable. And yes, work does tend to be segregated along gender lines. The five Cs — caring, clerical, catering, cashiering and cleaning — are occupations dominated by women. And some have drawn the conclusion that these are jobs that replicate women’s work in the home. And because it’s unpaid in the home, it’s undervalued in the workplace.

I don’t disagree with that conclusion. But there’s so much more to it. Clerical and cashiering don’t replicate domestic work. How did they come to be defined as women’s work? Well, what I learned as an undergrad decades ago is that the systemic explanation for the gender pay gap is one of supply and demand. The five Cs are all located in the service sector and the newest of the three economic sectors.

When the service sector began to expand dramatically in the early 20th century, the male workforce was already fully engaged in the primary and manufacturing sectors. So where was this new sector going to find workers to fill a growing demand? Well, in 1920, only 23 percent of women worked outside of the home. And let’s be clear. Women have always worked.

First Nations women were active in their economies before colonization, and many settler women took in boarders, preserved food to sell and otherwise contributed to the household income. At the same time the service sector was expanding, these other sources of income were disappearing, so young, unmarried women, in particular, took jobs outside the home.

For most, it meant joining the mass migration to the cities. They joined typing pools, became telephone operators, teachers, nurses, sales clerks — all new occupations at the time. They mass-produced clothing or cornflakes or Wonder bread. Women became the reserve army of labour. And as long as the vast majority of women remained outside the paid workforce, they served to depress the wages in what was quickly coming to be seen as women’s work.

This is the story of our mothers, our grandmothers, our great-grandmothers, but it’s not the whole story. I’m reminding us about this history because it underscores just how complex and layered the causes of gender pay inequity are. So too must be the solution, and pay transparency is part of it.

But what about women who don’t even know they are paid less than their male co-workers? Keeping your salary secret is part of the culture in many non-union workplaces. According to a 2017 study, 41 percent of private companies in the United States actively discourage employees from disclosing how much they earn, and 25 percent explicitly prohibit employees from discussing pay information.

[10:55 a.m.]

I’m remembering one of my first summer jobs as a student. I worked in a department store and found out by accident that the sales clerks all made a different hourly rate. A fellow student who was male was being paid more per hour than the woman who trained him and had been working there for years, and she got fired for spilling the beans. Legislated pay transparency would have helped. But a union would’ve helped even more.

Some jurisdictions that already have pay transparency are reporting that in the absence of a union, employers have chosen to reduce the gap by lowering the wages of the higher-paid employees. So pay transparency must be part of a larger suite of measures to close the gap.

Here are some of the ones that we are already initiating. The big one is affordable child care. A recent Stats Canada study concludes that the gap is largest where child care is most expensive — in other words, where it costs too much for women to work outside of the home full time. Child care in Metro Vancouver has, for a long time, been identified as one of the most expensive in the country, and that would explain why the gap in British Columbia is amongst the largest in the country.

Raising the minimum wage and tying it to inflation also closes the gap, because 60 percent of minimum-wage earners are women. So did eliminating the lower liquor server wage, because 80 percent of liquor servers are women. Our community benefits agreements encourage women to apply for good-paying jobs in skilled trades. As a result, the average wage of women in B.C. has increased more than in any other province.

There’s so much more we can be talking about to close the gap, and I look forward to hearing ideas from the member opposite so that we can be working together on this.

S. Cadieux: I’ll just say it louder for those in the back. We have been talking about this for five years, and it’s great that the government side has decided to talk about it too.

Equal pay for work of equal value, though, is more what the member talked about in her remarks. I’m not going to argue that that’s important. But that’s not what pay transparency gets to. Pay transparency gets to equal work and equal pay for the same job, regardless of gender.

The member said that we’re better than the U.S. But you know what? I don’t even want to go there, because I’m just not happy with the fact that we’re amongst the worst in Canada. I don’t think we want to make excuses that say: “Oh, but we’re better than the U.S.”

The reality is that B.C. has one of the largest pay gaps in Canada. That is while pay discrimination on the basis of gender is illegal. But Stats Canada reported in 2018 that women aged 25 to 54 earned an average of 13.3 percent less than men. A report from the University of Ottawa found that amongst post-secondary graduates, men out-earned women by 12 percent one year into their career, and that gap widened to 25 percent five years on the job.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

Intersectionality, of course, impacts things further. Racialized women earn 59 cents for every dollar earned by white men. Women with disabilities earn an average of $8,853 less than women without disabilities.

It’s true that most people don’t like talking about how much they make. It’s socially taboo. But if we don’t talk about it, who wins? That’s why pay transparency is important. It provides knowledge about what was once unknown, and knowledge is power. If you know you aren’t being treated fairly, you can fight to do something about it.

I think that we can all agree that the efforts taken on behalf of government to work towards gender equity are laudable, but it’s only increasingly important that we take effective and meaningful action now. It’s time to bring pay transparency to all sectors and industries. If we don’t know about the extent of it, we can’t bridge the gap.

[11:00 a.m.]

Last year the government of Canada passed the Pay Equity Act, so federally regulated workplaces with more than 100 employees have to disclose their wage gaps. But if the pandemic has shown us anything, it’s that women continue to feel things harder. Over the past two years, women faced greater job losses; 1.5 million Canadian women lost their jobs in the first two months of the pandemic.

Wage transparency has been the law for public servants for some time, and we know that because of the Sunshine List, salary disclosures that happen. That data was used as part of a comprehensive study in 2021, looking at the wages of university professionals. It found that pay transparency eventually narrowed the wage gap between men and women significantly, between 30 percent and 40 percent. So obviously, we need to do more.

Public salary disclosures are becoming the law in more countries. Denmark, the U.K., Germany, France, Iceland, Peru, Australia, Belgium, Finland all have schemes in place. It’s an informational tool, and it needs to be paired with a focus on promoting equity-seeking groups into more senior positions within an organization. It’s only one of the tools, but it’s an important starting point.

In a 2021 compensation and culture report from beqom.com, it found that when employees perceive a pay gap, regardless of whether or not that gap exists, it results in a 16 percent decrease in their intent to stay with that employer. Fifty-eight percent of employees would consider switching jobs for more pay transparency, and for Gen Z, the number jumps to 70 percent. It’s a clear indicator of the greater need for transparency, especially for employers trying to attract the next generation of employees.

With the labour shortage we have and the million job openings in our future, we know that employers need to think about retaining employees too, not just what it takes to bring them in. The same survey suggests the ability to work remotely matters, more flexibility in working hours matters and more pay transparency matters, for 51 percent of employees.

The reality is that we’re not there yet. I’m glad we’re talking about it. More needs to be done urgently.

We need to take action. Call the bill.

J. Routledge: Thank you to the member opposite. We agree on so much, and let’s build on that.

I want to emphasize again that pay transparency is proactive, and here’s why that matters. In 1999, the Public Service Alliance of Canada won a groundbreaking pay equity settlement. Two hundred and thirty thousand federal employees in female-dominated jobs were awarded $3 billion worth of retro pay, interest and salary adjustments, but only because they filed a complaint under section 11 of the Canadian Human Rights Act 16 years earlier.

We spent the first four years having to prove to the employer, classification by classification, job by job, that employees in female-dominated jobs were being paid less than employees in male-dominated jobs of similar value. Hundreds of classification experts spent four years comparing jobs in minute detail.

And yes, it turns out, you can compare apples and oranges. You can compare vitamin content and calories, for example. That’s just how granular the job evaluators had to get in order to quantify the value of women’s work. They discovered, for example, that when someone in a female-dominated job uses a keyboard, it’s called typing. When someone in a male-dominated job uses a keyboard, it’s called keying, and keying is worth more than typing.

Well, when the employers saw where this was heading, they got cold feet. The union had to file yet another complaint and broaden the scope. The Human Rights Tribunal held 260 days of hearings over a period of yet another six years, and sadly, a significant share of that settlement wasn’t even awarded to the women directly. It went to their estates.

In 2021, a new federal pay equity act came into force. It requires federally regulated employers to proactively correct gender wage gaps within three years.

[11:05 a.m.]

Yes, federal employers are now required by law to make public their pay structures. But interestingly, it’s the federal Employment Equity Act, not the Pay Equity Act, that compels pay transparency.

Employment equity and pay equity work hand in hand to close the gender pay gap. Pay equity makes so-called women’s work more attractive to men, and employment equity proactively supports women to work in higher-paid jobs formerly reserved for men.

We can learn a lot from other jurisdictions about what works and mistakes to avoid when we develop our own made-in-B.C. plan to eliminate the gender pay gap. I can’t wait to get started.

Hon. N. Simons: I ask that the House consider proceeding with Motion 6 standing in the name of the member for Peace River South.

Deputy Speaker: Members, unanimous consent of the House is required to proceed to Motion 6 without disturbing the priorities of the motions preceding it on the order paper.

Leave granted.

Private Members’ Motions

MOTION 6 — SUPPORT FOR LNG INDUSTRY

M. Bernier: I move:

[Be it resolved that the House support British Columbia’s transitional, ethical LNG industry to meet the needs of British Columbians and the world.]

To that, I think what’s really important is that in the motion, we talk about transition. To state the obvious, we don’t have infinite supply, but we do have some of the largest natural gas reserves globally right here in British Columbia.

When we talk about an ethical resource, when we talk about ethically dealing with LNG and our natural gas industry, it’s because we have some of the strictest environmental regulations in the world. This is something we should be excited about, that this House should be supporting, that we should be working towards. We want to make sure that we have all of those opportunities not just here in British Columbia but that we have those opportunities to help other jurisdictions, other countries, other parts of the world.

When we talk about transitional opportunities, we look at places like China, which continue, right now, to build coal-fired power generation plants. If we’re talking about a climate emergency, we need to remember that this is a global issue. We have solutions here in British Columbia where we can help other countries around the world to transition off of high-intensity, carbon-emitting issues like coal burning in places like China.

To bring it back home for a moment, the problem that we have here in British Columbia is the mixed messages that this government continues to send not only to the investment world but to communities, to small businesses, to workers here in British Columbia. That’s why we’re seeing so many people who are afraid to invest now in this industry: because of the comments that come from this government.

We need to remember that right now, just in LNG alone on the coast, we have about 1,800 people that are working in the LNG industry. We need to also remember that that creates tens of thousands of jobs in the upstream. In places like Dawson Creek, Fort St. John, the Peace region, where we actually have these immense opportunities with natural gas development, there are tens of thousands of jobs at risk in this province because of comments that come from this government.

Again, that mixed message. Depending on the day, depending on the way the wind is blowing, the Premier will stand up and say how proud he is to have LNG in British Columbia, how important LNG is in this province. But then we’ll hear from other members completely contradicting that.

With all due respect, again, to the member for Boundary-Similkameen, for him to stand in this House…. You’ll correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe he’s the Parliamentary Secretary for Rural Development. Well, I can tell you right now, rural British Columbia has developed because of the resource sector.

[11:10 a.m.]

For the member for Boundary-Similkameen to stand in the House and basically say, “To meet their climate targets, there’s no future for natural gas anymore in British Columbia….” I think he forgets to mention and highlight that there is a parliamentary secretary role. What’s the plan? What’s the plan for rural British Columbia, if he’s going to be out there speaking against what’s helping communities, helping First Nations and helping people with family-supporting jobs?

Again, that mixed message to the investment world is something that is very concerning when we have the former Energy Minister, Michelle Mungall, saying LNG and natural gas isn’t good for anybody, yet the Premier can go out there and say how great this is right now in British Columbia, how important this is.

At the end of the day, I’m looking forward to hearing from some of the members from the NDP to talk about this, because we are losing, right now, billions and billions of dollars of investment in British Columbia. Almost every company I have spoken with in Calgary who invests right now has said that they’ve moved their money to Alberta or to Texas because they do not trust an NDP government because of the mixed messages they’re sending.

It’s important that they be clear as well, because we’ve got family-supporting jobs and communities at risk if we don’t support this industry.

M. Starchuk: I thank the member for Peace River South for his motion: “Be it resolved that this House support British Columbia’s transitional, ethical LNG industry to meet the needs of British Columbians and the world.” I’d be remiss right now if I did not speak as a Ukrainian to say what the world needs over there is food, medical supplies, doctors, practitioners, to get that part of the world in better shape.

When it comes to LNG, our approach has enabled the largest private sector investment in Canadian history and, at the same time, ensures LNG development fits within CleanBC, our internationally recognized climate plan. Any new LNG project will have to fit within B.C.’s climate change strategy and our emission reduction targets for 2030 and 2050.

Members opposite know development of this kind takes time. They’ve heard it from the Premier. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Low Carbon Innovation explained this during question period. Any new project needs a business plan and must fit inside of CleanBC’s climate plan.

We will not cut corners on the environmental assessments that protect our people, land and water, and recognize and honour reconciliation. We will not abandon our climate plan, which is globally recognized as an innovative solution to industry.

As I said at the beginning with regard to Europe, they should continue to prepare for the disruptions in the global supply, but it needs a plan that doesn’t break the global gas market or ignore the dire climate costs in doing so. We cannot support a plan to buy all the gas you can find at any cost.

The members opposite may want to fast-track or expedite LNG production with no business plan as to what the world needs and prices in the years to come. The members opposite may want to fast-track or expedite LNG production without following the province’s CleanBC Roadmap to 2030, where it sets out how we will achieve our legislated greenhouse gas targets and keep us on path to net zero by 2050.

The CleanBC roadmap is a comprehensive plan to guide the province towards a cleaner, stronger future to prepare for the impacts of climate change. People across British Columbia have seen the effects of climate change first­hand, from the recent unprecedented heatwave, record wildfires, flooding and droughts. We know that climate change is expected to make these types of extreme events more frequent and that we need a strong, coordinated global action to reduce emissions and build a cleaner economy for everyone.

More reductions from LNG’s climate impact will be achieved through investments in electrification of up­stream oil and gas production so extraction and processing are powered by electricity instead of burning fossil fuels. More innovation in the capture of gases needs to be considered in the future.

[11:15 a.m.]

I’m reminded of that movie from 1985 — and I’m sure there are people here that weren’t born in 1985 — Back to the Future, where Marty McFly watches Doc go through a trash can and grab organic waste to fuel his vehicle. How futuristic was that?

I see this happening on a daily basis with the biofuel plant in Surrey, where green waste is converted into re­newable natural gas and compost. The very vehicles that pick up your trash, recyclables and organic waste are powered by the organic waste that these trucks pick up at the curbside each week.

With regards to the motion, ni, dyakuyu. That’s Ukrainian for “no, thank you.” I don’t support it without the caveat that follows the CleanBC roadmap and must be consistent with all of our climate targets.

S. Bond: I am very pleased to have the opportunity to stand up and support the motion before the House.

With all due respect to the member who spoke before us, no one on this side of the House is suggesting there isn’t a business plan, careful thought and looking at how we move the LNG industry forward in British Columbia. In fact, the confusion has arisen because of comments made by members on the other side of the House — even the member’s comments today, talking about the fact that we need to have a plan. Of course we do, and no one is suggesting we expedite without thoughtful, careful process.

I was happy to hear the member, though, respond to the fact that he recognizes that developing LNG takes time, because we have certainly heard how they’re completely responsible for LNG development in British Columbia. Well, I would remind the member opposite that it took years of aggressive, careful, strategic work to actually deliver the LNG project that exists in British Columbia today. That was under the opposition’s — this government’s — watch, certainly not the members opposite.

We have a resource at our disposal here in British Columbia, an ethical transitional fuel source. Talking about transitional is important. All of us want to move to a cleaner, greener British Columbia. We know that it is a transitional fuel, but it is a power source that could actually help the province and countries around the world. Liquefied natural gas is a more sustainable alternative to traditional fuels like coal, and an added benefit is that LNG projects have the potential to employ thousands of people and grow the economy.

We have the opportunity in British Columbia to help address what is a growing and worldwide energy crisis. We can be a world leader, bridging this energy gap and helping our allies to be less dependent on other sources and exporters of energy. This is an issue that we have raised continuously, but it has certainly not been well received by the government members. It has been difficult and incredibly frustrating to watch this government continually miss and dismiss opportunities that would not just benefit our province but countries around the world.

We have access to a transitional resource that could support our allies, but the government has failed to act. It is clear that the government is content to just sit on the sidelines, while there are specific steps it could be taking to make a real difference. In fact, we know that members of this government have absolutely no intention or desire to invest further in LNG.

As a matter of fact, just a few weeks ago in this chamber, the Parliamentary Secretary for Rural Development, no less, said: “All indicators are that future LNG expansion isn’t the answer.” Very different from the comments that this member has just talked about — that we need a plan, that it needs to fit, that it needs to work with our plan. Well, that’s not what the Parliament Secretary for Rural Development said the last time he got up.

Now, I’m not sure if that member announced a new policy position or if, finally, someone on that side of the House was being transparent about this government’s intentions when it comes to the future of LNG in B.C. I’m not even sure that that member has any idea how people where I live felt about his comments. There are projects in the works, communities counting on the opportunity to grow the economy, and thousands of jobs dismissed with his words.

[11:20 a.m.]

He’s responsible for the rural development file, and to dismiss the future of the LNG industry the way that he did demonstrates, once again, this government’s complete lack of understanding and support for rural communities across our province.

The member for Skeena has spoken at length in this House about the positive impact that LNG has had in his community, about how LNG expansion is an opportunity to provide people with the tools to lift themselves out of poverty. It’s something that can improve quality of life, benefit an entire region, yet government members stood in this House and dismissed any future projects.

While much of the world continues to face an energy crisis that British Columbia could help solve, the government is dragging its feet on approving LNG projects. There are not just one or two but actually seven LNG projects waiting for permits right now, while so many countries are desperately looking for a secure source of clean, ethical LNG.

On one hand, the government says LNG is part of its plan, and then the Parliamentary Secretary for Rural De­velopment says there is no future. Our question today to the government: which is it?

J. Sims: It’s my pleasure to rise in the House today and speak on the motion, “Be it resolved that this House support British Columbia’s transitional, ethical LNG industry to meet the needs of British Columbians and the world.”

When we come to these meetings, we all come from a context. The whole day yesterday, I had the pleasure of spending it with my great-granddaughter, Alliya, and the rest of my family to celebrate my husband’s birthday. I told them that this was one of the issues that was going to be discussed today, and we had a very interesting discussion around the dinner table last night.

One of the things that I’m always reminded of is that every one of us, whichever side we sit on in this House — what we want are good-paying jobs for British Columbians. At the same time, what we also want is to protect our environment and make sure that the jobs we are developing are sustainable and that they fit within our plan to take us to net zero, because Mother Earth is calling on us and sending us signals that there is need for action.

That is why I am so very proud of the action plan that has been developed by the government, the CleanBC plan. It isn’t written in stone, as you know. It was started, and then it has been improved upon each session. And now the CleanBC moves forward.

Talking about LNG, I can say that the NDP government or the current government can absolutely say that their approach, or our approach, has secured the largest investment in LNG Canada while ensuring the project fits within CleanBC. That’s what is important. You know, when I talk to people in industry — I talk to lots of people in the business community — what is the number one thing they say that they need from government? They need predictability; they need clarity.

As I look at the CleanBC plan…. I’m really going to encourage my colleagues to go and read it, because I’m hearing a lot about mixed messages, scaring away investment. But when I look at the CleanBC plan, I see the criteria laid out very clearly, that actually sent a signal worldwide. We got the kind of project approvement that we did, and the investment came in, and with it came in jobs. And just so that the colleagues across the way on all sides know what that criteria is, I want to read it into the record.

One, projects must guarantee jobs and training opportunities for British Columbians. Seems pretty clear to me. Two, projects must provide a fair return for our resources.

[11:25 a.m.]

You know something? I know that colleagues on the other side may not appreciate that as much, but that is one of the reasons I ran: so that British Columbians got fair value and value-added for the resources that we are rich in, and that we grow those jobs right here in Canada and they benefit not only the current generation but generations to come.

Three, projects must respect and make partners of First Nations — very critical for us as we are talking about truth and reconciliation and what it means to have that in a meaningful way. The companies have concluded signed agreements with every elected band council along the project route. This project will provide significant training and employment opportunities for First Nations. They’ve already approved $175 million in contracts with local First Nation businesses. That is moving towards truth and reconciliation.

Last but not least, projects must fit within our climate commitments. My colleagues in cabinet have worked very hard to ensure that LNG Canada will fit within our CleanBC plan to meet our climate targets to reach net zero by 2050.

Madam Speaker, as you can see, there is clarity. It’s specified. It’s predictable. It’s known. It’s written down. There is no confusion.

P. Milobar: Well, what there is, is uncertainty and confusion within the industry and capital fleeing British Columbia, investment fleeing British Columbia because of the actions of this government and the lack of action by this government.

The reason for this motion today is borne out from a few things that have happened in this chamber over the last several weeks. One, as we’ve heard time and again this morning already, was the Parliamentary Secretary for Rural Development, who seems to think that LNG is an industry that has no growth potential in British Columbia — that, you know, First Nations, Indigenous communities should not be relying on economic good that could come from other LNG projects.

As we’ve seen, that very much can be a game-changer, especially in rural and remote communities that rely on natural resources to try to advance economic well-being for their citizens and to provide the services and supports that they need to help their community move forward in a positive and a good way. That’s critical, because not every part of this province is on major freeways where there is an abundance of tourism opportunities.

Certainly, things like tourism, Indigenous tourism, is a growing sector, but it’s a very small portion of people that have the ability, the means or the want to travel to far and remote areas to capitalize on that type of experience. That means that the revenue opportunities for those Indigenous communities are lessened compared to setting up something down in the southern part of the province.

That’s why things like LNG are so critical. Really, the purpose of this motion today is to highlight the fact that we actually do have very ethical LNG, that we have high environmental standards, that we should be proud as a province and as a country of how we go about with our resource development in this country and province.

The problem is the perpetual level of roadblocks and hurdles that industry faces when dealing with the government. It’s not with dealing with Indigenous communities. Businesses and industry have been doing that much longer and much more successfully than government has been doing, especially over the last five years. It’s actually government that’s creating the problems. It’s government that’s creating the roadblocks. It’s government that’s getting in the way.

That’s why, when we see what’s happening in Europe, why we see the rush to try to detach countries from Russia, from being reliant on Russian energy products moving forward, it’s critical for this part of the discussion. Where is the urgency for British Columbia to try to do their part with the world? You can’t have it both ways. You can’t say, “Well, all solutions are local that go to global,” about one side of the equation when it comes to emissions but don’t carry that forward to actual energy consumption.

[11:30 a.m.]

The simple reality is that B.C. is one-tenth of 1 percent of all global emissions. Those aren’t my words. Those are the words from the Environment Minister, who has said it at a conference. I believe, actually, the Minister of Lands was at that conference when she was still a mayor. I was in the crowd at that conference. The minister has confirmed in this chamber that he did indeed say these words.

We’re one-tenth of 1 percent of global emissions in British Columbia. How else can we do our part to drive down global emissions? We can try to find ways to get LNG into the global market, to reuse coal-fired plants. And yes, we likely will not be shipping to Europe, but we would certainly be shipping to Asia, which would then free up some of the other LNG — that is currently going to Asia — to go to Europe more easily.

That is the point. You can’t pick and choose when it’s okay to do something locally because it’s the right thing to do. The right thing to do on a global scale, to try to get European countries away from the reliance on Russian energy products, is to start working with companies to get their projects moving forward.

It’s simply not good enough for a minister to say: “No one has phoned me.” Well, of course they haven’t phoned him. They’re busy trying to move their capital and their investment out of British Columbia, because of the actions of this government to date.

They need very clear signals from this government that they truly are open for business, that they truly are trying to do what’s right and that they’re trying to do what’s right on a global scale as well. That is why B.C. needs to capitalize, and capitalize quickly, on the fact that we do have high standards, and high ethical standards, when it comes to our resource extraction, particularly with LNG. That is why it’s important to support a motion like this today.

D. Routley: I believe it will be a full year of Sundays before the word “consistency” is as undervalued as we knew it to be about two years ago. Through these times that have been so much closer to chaos than calm, British Columbians find themselves with a consistent government that is consistently focused on reconciliation, that is consistently focused on climate change, that is consistently focused on building a fair economy — not something that waves in the wind like a weathervane in a tempest, which seems to be how the B.C. Liberals, the opposition, are formulating their policy positions in the recent past.

I know — and British Columbians know, quite clearly, by what we’ve faced — that we’re all in this together. That is so apparent to everyone. Also apparent is that they have a government that doesn’t intend to leave people behind. As we address these crises, we will make a fairer and better economy for British Columbians and use these crises to the advantage of British Columbians, not leverage them in a naked political progression.

The member previous asked: “Where is the urgency?” Well, the urgency is in climate change. It’s in a pandemic. It’s in wildfires, flooding, droughts, heatwaves. The urgency is in the challenge to balance reconciliation and environmental protections in the forest industry with economic benefit and development for communities and bringing us to a better economy that is net zero by 2050.

Consistency is the reason that the one LNG project in B.C. that has been approved was approved. Those corporate investors looked at a government that mapped out the path, that included them within a plan to get us to net zero by 2050. That’s consistency and predictability, and those two things equal trust.

There’s so much more to come. There are more crises to come. There are more steps to be taken. Fighting climate change isn’t a banner item that we can wave as a flag. It’s many, many steps. Just as it accumulated as a problem, it will be addressed by many, many steps, but with a plan. That is exactly what this government has: a consistent plan that they have been consistently sticking to. That is why people feel safe investing. That is why British Columbians are encouraged. That is why elements of the road map were recognized by the UN as world-leading.

I understand that the opposition has got to oppose — it’s your job — but to make things better, not simply to misstate the facts. Everyone on that side knows that it would be eight to ten years before any project approved today would be online. So it’s disappointing, really, to see members who I really do respect resort to that tactic, because it doesn’t help anyone.

[11:35 a.m.]

As I said, we’re all in this together. We are all in this together globally, nationally, provincially, regionally, locally, in this place. We need something more than simple division. We need a nuanced understanding of the challenges that face us and a common understanding of the goals that we share. We don’t have the same road map, but we do agree with British Columbians on the goal.

I think it’s about time the opposition got better acquainted with the goals of British Columbians — how they recognize that it takes every person and every business in this province to reach these goals, how the commitment can’t be part-time, how it can’t be driven off course by the latest problem, the latest crisis. Yes, they have to feed urgency into this process, and they have. We see that with the road map that is accelerating our progress.

I do think that I can return to the beginning and say that consistency is a diminishing resource, a precious resource. We plan to continue providing it to British Columbians. I hope the opposition will find some consistency, and we can all, together, address these problems in the interests of the people we all represent.

T. Shypitka: To be quite honest, the only thing consistent about this government is their inconsistent approach to our natural resource sector. Liquefied natural gas produced right here in B.C. is not only right for right now, but also for generations to come, as a transitional and ethical fuel source. It has also been the answer for the past 51 years here in B.C.

FortisBC’s Tilbury LNG facility has been operating since 1971 right in Delta, B.C., supplying fuel trucks, buses and ferries. Fortis plans on expanding to a small-scale facility in Terrace if government is supportive. There are also several others, including Woodfibre LNG and Cedar LNG, looking for final investment decisions.

It is no wonder I was stunned when the member for Boundary-Similkameen, not too long ago, said in this Legislature: “If we want forward-looking and effective economic independence for First Nations, if we want good jobs for our children’s children in a world that is safe and secure, then all indicators are that future LNG expansion isn’t the answer.” This quote speaks directly to today’s motion and reeks of the total disconnect to what is actually happening in the world today.

Has he actually heard the member for Skeena’s comment — who is a former chief councillor for the Haisla First Nation? This member’s own NDP party brags on how they got LNG Canada over the goal line after many hard years of heavy lifting from the B.C. Liberals. Is this member saying his own party is not forward-thinking? And 16 First Nations along this pipeline, from northeast B.C. to Kitimat, will benefit for generations to come. I’m sure the member for Skeena will have some more to say on that later.

Second, the member for Boundary-Similkameen says: “If we want good jobs for our children’s children….” I can certainly tell you that the skills that the LNG industry represents are nothing short of highly skilled and exceptionally high paying. These high-paying jobs in remote communities keep Indigenous and non-Indigenous people in their own communities, keeping families strong.

This industry represents thousands of direct-paying jobs. I’m not even touching on the spin-off jobs this industry brings — everything from independent contractors, supply stores, parts, repair and, of course, expanding our fast-growing technology sector.

In regards to the concern that this industry will still be here for our children’s children, the House will be interested in knowing that LNG global demand will double to over 700 million metric tonnes by 2040, as compared to about 360 million metric tonnes last year. This demand will increase whether B.C. is a producer or not.

B.C.’s LNG industry is the cleanest and greenest in the world. It is produced with high labour and safety standards, outdoing all of its competitors. B.C. will produce LNG with the lowest emissions anywhere on the planet — 35 percent lower emissions than the second-best-performing LNG projects and up to 60 percent lower emissions than the overall global average.

Simply stated, if you shut down, dismiss or delay B.C. LNG, then you have just helped in adding more GHGs to the global environment due to carbon leakage to other jurisdictions. B.C. LNG will replace millions of homes in Asia that are currently on thermal coal sources, cutting carbon emissions in half.

[11:40 a.m.]

Finally, the member for Boundary-Similkameen de­clares that he is concerned about a world that is safe and secure. We, on this side of the House, join him in that concern. We continue to watch the horrors of war unfold in Ukraine. On this side of the House, we think B.C. should be helping to ensure that our global allies don’t rely on an authoritarian regime like Russia for their energy sources. Instead, B.C. should be ramping up its ability to export LNG and fill the gaps of Russian energy with this ethical, transitional fuel source.

When we questioned the government on this, the Premier got up and noted that our province doesn’t currently export any LNG abroad and that new pipelines and infrastructure are years away. The government needs to be reminded that it has been in power for half a decade. We need better leadership than that. It would be nice to see this Premier and this government show us some signs that they want to expand the export of our abundant LNG and be the world leaders that our industry represents and that the world depends on.

A. Mercier: It’s an honour to rise and speak to this motion in this House. British Columbians want to know that we have a plan for a clean environment and for LNG development. What British Columbians have seen, and I think is really exemplified in the debate we’ve seen here today, is that there are fundamentally two approaches in front of them: you can do it with a plan, or you can do it with the complete absence of a plan.

We heard my friend the member for Peace River South speak about, in his opening statement, how we have the strictest environmental regulations in the world, and he’s excited about it. Guess what. There’s a reason we have the strictest environmental regulations in the world. It’s because we have spent the past four years building them.

This wasn’t always the case. My predecessor — the former member for Langley, Mary Polak — was a minister for the environment that passed legislation allowing for exploratory drilling for oil and gas in public parks. The previous approach was the complete absence of a plan. It was “Drill, baby, drill,” and forget the consequences.

What we need is a balanced approach. What a balanced regulatory framework looks like is one that is reasonable and considerate. It’s not a rubber stamp, and at the same time, it’s not a roadblock. It evaluates projects as they come.

I’ve got to say that this planning creates certainty. It creates the context — on the business side, on the investment side — for final investment decisions. But it also creates certainty for the people of British Columbia, for workers, for our citizens, that they’re going to live in a clean environment, with clean water, and that we take these things into account as we balance the interests that we have economically, socially and environmentally within British Columbia.

That’s a very core part, an important part, about this. It’s led to the record investment at LNG Canada, which is a Canadian record for investment size. It was in consideration of our approach. I should mention, as well — because we heard Michelle Mungall’s name come up — that Michelle Mungall, as the former Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, was critical in working together with other members of this House, such as Andrew Weaver, to put together a plan that would allow for this type of investment, which is CleanBC.

Our plan has led to this investment, and it’s also protecting the environment. There are four key conditions there. One is a fair return for our resources. British Columbians don’t want to see us just giving our resources away. They don’t want to see us just shipping out raw resources without any return in terms of value and without any kind of royalty return.

What LNG Canada is going to do is provide over $23 billion in revenue to the government coffers over the course of its lifetime. That’s going to help pay for child care. That’s going to help pay for housing. It’s going to help pay for the construction of new schools and hospitals. That’s a fundamental social good and part of having a plan.

We also need to know that there are going to be jobs and training opportunities. That is critically important — that there’s an opportunity to build skills. As members will know, because we have heard they speak to the business community…. I’ve got to say that I speak to the business community frequently as well.

[11:45 a.m.]

What comes up when I speak to them are concerns around labour supply. This is global investment. What global investment looks for and looks to is whether or not there are enough skilled workers in a region to actually construct something. That’s critically important — making sure that we have a plan. It’s got to be holistic.

CleanBC is obviously a cornerstone and critically im­portant, but it extends beyond that. I think this is really important. We’re hearing a lot about ethical LNG. What is ethical LNG? What makes it ethical?

I would suggest that the elements here that members opposite have talked about, in terms of our stellar environmental record and the ethics, really come as a consequence of the decisions that this government has made that have allowed this to occur, which is CleanBC — making sure that it happens in a plan and making sure that any future projects fit in accordance with that plan. I think that’s important to everybody.

I just want to say as an aside that I’m disappointed and really disconcerted by the other side’s use of the profoundest humanitarian crisis in my lifetime — in any of our lifetimes, I think — to push their failed approach to LNG.

E. Ross: Listening to the debate today, I can’t help but marvel at the lack of understanding of the LNG industry in its totality. In fact, the level of ignorance here is quite astounding. The member for Langley talked about how the most strictest environmental standards are because of this NDP government. The certificate for LNG Canada was achieved long before this government came into power. In fact, those environmental standards were actually set by First Nations at the environmental assessment level, at the B.C. level and the federal level. We plugged the gaps.

I’ll tell you something else. It was First Nations in 2004 that lobbied to bring LNG to B.C. It took us seven years. We also actually lobbied the federal government to get on board. As soon as B.C. got on board, the federal government got on board.

The idea that somehow some government is responsible for this, apart from the B.C. Liberals in 2011 under Christy Clark, is wrong. You’re actually insulting First Nations who dedicated years of time and money and commitment to actually bring LNG Canada and KLNG to B.C. for the benefit of all British Columbians. It’s a nation builder project. It’s a nation building initiative.

I agree that the NDP got this over the finish line after the B.C. Liberals did all the heavy lifting. But that was with huge, massive tax breaks under the PST, under the tax, the taxation for LNG, as well as a break on the carbon tax at 30 bucks a tonne. Nobody else gets this break — not the citizens at the pump. But the largest private investment in Canadian history.

I’ve always been a supporter of LNG, forestry, mining — anything that actually helps build the province and actually goes more to uplift First Nations out of poverty — because in 2004, the case law, the Haida case law, enabled that. It wasn’t this NDP government. It was First Nations standing up for the principles of case law. That said, government has a duty to consult and accommodate in a meaningful manner. That’s what LNG Canada represents. That’s what Chevron’s KLNG represented.

In fact, there’s an important step being undertaken right now that was always on the table: equity, taking a formal position in the pipeline. Sixteen First Nations have taken the option for an equity stake in Coastal GasLink. It’s an important step. It demonstrates how First Nations have developed the road map for B.C. and have developed an economic plan for B.C. It wasn’t off the side of their desks. It was thought out. It included many Aboriginal leaders, lawyers, consultants, committees. It’s an insult to say otherwise.

There has always been the optimism that LNG was the answer. Long ago, back in 2004, we thought LNG was the answer to China’s emissions. There was a level of optimism. We could help the world. We could help India. That optimism is fading fast.

[11:50 a.m.]

I do agree that the NDP are actually saying the right words, but those are just words. I actually asked the Energy Minister in this chamber what actions he was going to do to drive other projects forward, because there are seven projects waiting. The Energy Minister basically said nothing — just shrugged his shoulders. That’s all it was. “There’s nothing we can do,” said the minister, “so don’t expect us to take any action or be proactive.”

As someone who was intimately involved from day one in getting LNG opportunities to B.C., I found this very dismissive and a major disappointment. It wasn’t, however, a surprise. The parliamentary secretary, for example, said: “If we want forward-looking and effective economic independence for First Nations, if we want good jobs for our children’s children, in a world that is safe and secure, then all indicators are that future LNG expansion isn’t the answer.”

I disagreed with that in 2004; I disagree with that today. But at least he was honest — I’ll give him that — in that this government does not support LNG expansion. It doesn’t matter if LNG expansion is going to help British Columbians. It doesn’t matter if it’s going to help Europe or all those other countries that want our clean, ethical LNG. It doesn’t matter, but at least he’s honest.

On the other side of that, this is why industry is actually leaving B.C. These kinds of comments actually create uncertainty in a time and age when we need certainty more than anything else.

R. Glumac: Climate change. I’ve listened to 25 min­utes of speeches from the B.C. Liberal opposition, and I don’t think anyone mentioned the words “climate change.” Why is that? It’s because they don’t care about climate change. How can they care about something they don’t even believe in?

The member for Skeena, who just spoke, in 2019 stated: “Even the scientists and the experts can’t agree on what’s really going on.” I’ll tell you what’s going on, Member. We’re facing a climate emergency, and this motion introduced today is irresponsible. You know what responsible government looks like?

Interjections.

R. Glumac: They’re laughing at climate change.

Responsible government acknowledges climate change is real. Responsible government has a plan and targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Responsible government means that by 2030, we will reduce methane emissions from the oil and gas sector by 75 percent.

By 2030, we’ll require 90 percent of all new-vehicle sales to be zero-emission vehicles, and 100 percent by 2035. By 2030, we will build 10,000 EV charging stations and require that all new buildings emit zero carbon. By 2030, we will accelerate the shift to active and public transportation to 30 percent of all trips, increase clean fuel requirements and double the target for renewable fuels. We will support innovation, green hydrogen and negative-emissions technologies.

That’s what a responsible government does. All of these commitments are part of the CleanBC Roadmap to 2030 to help B.C. achieve its Paris accord emission reduction targets. This plan makes greenhouse gas pollution more expensive — and the shift from fossil fuels to clean alternatives more affordable — while helping to power businesses and communities with clean, renewable electricity.

This opposition is the same party that introduced the carbon tax. Look how far they’ve drifted from those days. They, at one time, understood the importance of taking action on climate change, but they don’t anymore. They’ve lost their way. In fact, when they had the opportunity to put together a climate leadership panel that worked for months drafting recommendations, those recommendations were completely ignored, and a new plan was drafted with input from the oil industry in Alberta. That’s what we’re dealing with here.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Climate change is real. The most recent report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change warned us once again that if we fail to limit global warming to a 1.5-degree increase, the impact is going to be devastating. Climate disasters like the wildfires that destroyed the city of Lytton and the flooding that caused billions of dollars of damage in Abbotsford will be more and more frequent.

[11:55 a.m.]

If we reach that 1.5 degrees, then the fires that used to happen every 400 years will happen every 50 years. The impact to the forestry sector will be catastrophic. The agricultural sector will experience more and more water scarcity across the province. Ocean acidity will lead to a 50 percent decrease in shellfish production, and other fisheries will also be severely impacted.

We cannot ignore the reason we face these challenges. It’s because of greenhouse gas emissions from the fossil fuel sector. There has to be a limit. That’s why this motion today is irresponsible. It doesn’t consider the impact to any other industry in the future and imposes no limit on emissions. It doesn’t acknowledge our responsibility to take action to keep global temperatures below a 1.5-degree increase. It’s irresponsible, and we need to be responsible.

The approach we are taking, as a government, with CleanBC is the right approach. Through CleanBC, we can grow our economy the right way, in a sustainable way. There is so much economic opportunity in transitioning our economy to the future. Let’s continue working towards a future we can all be proud of.

S. Furstenau: I’ll keep my comments very brief. I wasn’t scheduled to speak, but I think it’s important that there be an additional voice to this. We’ve heard, from the official opposition, strong support for LNG.

We’ve heard, from the government, some kind of effort to square the circle of growing emissions in this province since they have become government, of increasing their subsidies to the LNG industry and getting us nowhere near to the targets that we are supposed to get, with no recognition that the plan they keep talking about does not account for LNG and cannot be achieved with LNG as a giant hole in the middle of it.

Clearly, members can stand and say almost anything in this debate, with no accountability, because we don’t vote on these motions. Let’s have that accountability.

I move that the question be put.

Mr. Speaker: Members, we are close to the lunch hour, and everybody else has spoken. I think we can….

Okay, member for Kelowna-Mission.

R. Merrifield: If there’s enough time.

Mr. Speaker: Brief, only a couple of minutes.

R. Merrifield: A couple of minutes. Okay, I’ll go fast. I’ll go as fast as I possibly can. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker: Member, I am advised that, because the motion is on the floor…. Let’s deal with that first, and then we will continue.

Members, considering Standing Order 46 and the practice of this House in the consideration of private members’ motions, I believe we can put this motion.

All those in favour to put this question?

J. Rustad: Some clarity, if I may. I thought all votes on Monday mornings were supposed to be held at 5 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: We’ll do that later. Yeah.

On this question that we are dealing with, all those in favour, the question to be put?

Division has been called, and according to the standing orders, we will have a division vote taken at six o’clock today.

R. Merrifield: Okay. I will try and make all of my comments very brief. I am happy to take my place and, actually, support this motion. Why? It’s because we need LNG. I disagree with what we’ve heard from the NDP this morning, because we need, also, a CleanBC plan that works, and we don’t have one right now.

LNG has been a staple industry of our province’s energy sector for decades, supporting thousands of jobs. Given that our population is projected to grow by more than a million people over the next decade, we have a problem. As more British Columbians transition to electric vehicles, electric heating systems and e-bikes, it’s going to put a strain on our power demand. This is going to continue to grow, but our power demand is not our only crisis.

We’re in the midst of an environmental crisis — one that needs to be acknowledged — but we do not have a climate plan. It is anything but consistent. The mismanagement that this government has over renewable energy projects like Site C…. The government is running the very real risk of missing our climate action targets and our power demands over the next decade.

[12:00 p.m.]

While this government likes to tout its CleanBC plan as the be-all, end-all solution to our greenhouse gas emission reduction targets, it does not clearly map the path forward and does not take into account the current state of our province’s energy sector.

I would challenge all of those that stood up this morning, like those for Surrey-Panorama or for Langley. They should read the CleanBC document and understand that they will still be 40 percent short by the end of its targets.

Hon. M. Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m.

The House adjourned at 12:01 p.m.