Fourth Session, 42nd Parliament (2023)
OFFICIAL REPORT
OF DEBATES
(HANSARD)
Tuesday, March 28, 2023
Afternoon Sitting
Issue No. 292
ISSN 1499-2175
The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.
The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.
TUESDAY, MARCH 28, 2023
The House met at 1:33 p.m.
[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]
Orders of the Day
Hon. R. Kahlon: In the main chamber, I call the second reading of Bill 13, Pay Transparency Act.
In Committee A, we have continued Committee of Supply on the Ministry of Education and Child Care.
In Committee C, continued debate on the Ministry of Children and Family Development. If the Ministry of Children and Family Development finishes, next up will be Committee of Supply, the Ministry of Emergency Management and Climate Readiness, in Section C.
[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]
Second Reading of Bills
BILL 13 — PAY TRANSPARENCY ACT
Hon. K. Conroy: I move that Bill 13 be read a second time now.
The prosperity of all people in British Columbia is a top priority. By introducing new legislation on pay transparency, we are taking steps towards reducing poverty and improving our quality of life in British Columbia, while also building an inclusive workforce and meeting labour market demands. The mechanisms in this legislation are vital tools to expose the most egregious pay discrimination and to empower applicants and current employees in their job search and pay negotiation processes.
With this bill, B.C. stands to be the first province to implement pay transparency reporting. Over the next four years, through a phased approach, B.C. employers will be required to report on their hourly wage, bonus and overtime pay gaps. Our government will develop an online reporting tool to assist employers in performing their pay gap calculations and producing their reports.
Pay gap calculations will rely on information gathered using the province’s new gender and sex data standard, developed by the Ministry of Citizens’ Services. This data standard provides consistency and guidance for the collection of gender and sex data and was developed with careful input from organizations that represent gender-diverse British Columbians.
In future years, a data standard that is currently being developed under the Anti-Racism Data Act will be included in the reporting requirements to shed light on the gender pay gap from a broader intersectional lens. The work under the Anti-Racism Data Act is cutting edge and will position B.C. as a leader on pay transparency in comparison to other provinces and territories.
To provide employers with sufficient notice to meet these requirements, the reporting requirement will be rolled out over four years. Government will lead the way, with the B.C. Public Service and B.C.’s six largest Crown corporations up first to report on their gender pay gaps this November. Next year all public, private and non-profit sector employers with more than 1,000 employees will be required to produce a pay transparency report.
In 2025, all employers with more than 300 employees will be required to report, followed by employers with more than 50 employees in 2026. Approximately 65 percent of B.C.’s workforce will be included in these reports by 2026.
In the coming months, we will consult closely with the B.C. Public Service and our largest Crown corporations on their November 2023 reporting requirements. When these year 1 reporting requirements have been posted publicly, my ministry will reach out to employers reporting in year 2 to seek their feedback and to ensure that what we have developed will work for them when their turn comes in the fall of 2024. We will repeat this process year by year to ensure we are always working closely with employers to build the best pay transparency reporting system to serve British Columbians.
This legislation contains three additional measures that have been found to reduce the gender pay gap in other jurisdictions. Starting November 1 of this year, all B.C. employers will be required to post pay or pay range information on publicly advertised job postings. This is another progressive step that is effective in reducing the pay gap and will protect job seekers.
As soon as the legislation is brought into force, all British Columbian employers will also be prohibited from asking job applicants about their pay history when negotiating salaries. This will ensure that discrimination in pay is not perpetuated and continued into future positions.
Employers will also be prohibited from dismissing or punishing employees who ask about their pay or who share information about their pay with co-workers or other job applicants. The protection will also extend to employees who ask about the employer’s obligations under this act or report non-compliance to the director of pay transparency.
Many jurisdictions across the United States have already implemented these three additional measures, and researchers have found that these measures reduce pay inequity. B.C. will become one of only three provinces in Canada to introduce all three measures, after P.E.I. and Newfoundland, who did so last year.
Our obligations under the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act to develop legislation in consultation and cooperation with Indigenous peoples have been top of mind as we work on this legislation. We have collaborated with First Nations and Indigenous partners and Métis Nation B.C. right from the start.
Indigenous partners were consulted last year in the development of the legislation during several engagement sessions. The province invited all 203 First Nations and Métis Nation B.C. to consult on the proposed legislation, along with several Indigenous organizations. Ministry staff met with the First Nations Leadership Council, who provided comments and feedback on the draft requests for legislation.
The ministry provided the FNLC, Métis Nation B.C. and the Alliance of Modern Treaty Nations with consultation drafts of the legislation in January of 2023. Métis Nation B.C. and two of the modern treaty nations provided feedback that resulted in amendments to the draft.
Before completing an annual report or a report on the review of the act, the act requires that government provide written notice to any Indigenous entity that is authorized to act on behalf of Indigenous peoples whose members could be affected by the publication of the report. We will continue to work in collaboration and partnership with Indigenous peoples as we implement the act.
Enhancing the transparency of employer pay practices will expose wage discrimination. In turn, this will empower employees with the information they need to advocate for fair pay. The requirements will also incentivize B.C. employers to ensure their pay practices are free of discrimination and allow them to retain their status as leading-edge employers in our competitive global economy. This bill will support a strong, sustainable economy that works for everyone.
R. Merrifield: I am very, very pleased to take my place in the second reading debate and provide some initial remarks on Bill 13, the Pay Transparency Act.
I will say it: the seventh time is the charm. We are certainly glad that after five long years of advocacy, the NDP has finally adopted pay transparency legislation in B.C., but I will say that my story and my advocacy is much longer than that. I’ve been fighting for equal pay for a very long time, almost two decades now. Yes, this legislation is so, so needed. Rather than go through my entire story and history of advocacy, I decided just to tell one small story of how these pay transparency measures are necessary.
The company that I founded and grew in Kelowna and across western Canada was advertising for the role of an engineer. It came down to the final three, and I was given a report from our HR director on the final three. They were all highly qualified, all had great referrals and definitely were all very qualified for the role. When I asked about pay expectations, the first wanted about $105,000. The second was about $98,000, and the third was about $78,000.
The report was given. I said: “Well, are there any differences that I should be aware of in these three?” They said: “Well, the first two are men, and the third is a woman.” They put forward the recommendation that the female should be hired, and I agreed the female should be hired. But I said: “Let’s give her the pay that the first one wanted, over $105,000. She shouldn’t be disqualified or penalized just because she didn’t understand or didn’t know what was being offered, or what was being asked by the others.”
This legislation, while long overdue, is such a step in the right direction as we pursue a more equitable and just livelihood for all. Pay transparency is desperately needed in our province, as B.C. has one of the worst gender pay gaps in Canada, at 17 percent. It really should concern us deeply that last year alone, according to Statistics Canada, women in B.C. earned an average hourly wage of $29.53, while their male counterparts earned $35.50.
Studies show that transparency about pay — or “naming and shaming,” as it used to be called among the female advocates that I would work with — is one of the least intrusive but most effective ways to promote equity. Bill 13 proposes that all employers publicly post reports on their gender pay gap as well as post expected salary ranges in all advertisements.
Bill 13 also prohibits employers from seeking pay history information by any means about an applicant for employment and prohibits employers from any sort of punishment against employees that share pay or salary information with others.
Based on a proven approach that has been implemented in the United Kingdom, this bill would actually enable employees and the general public to know when there is a pay gap at their workplace and ultimately act on it while also applying public pressure on organizations to ensure that they are compensating their employees equitably.
This bill also outlines a timeline for how this pay transparency legislation will be implemented over time. I’m really appreciative that we’re going to see leadership, starting on November 1 of this year, through the B.C. Public Service Agency and Crown corporations with more than 1,000 employees, such as ICBC, B.C. Hydro, WorkSafeBC, B.C. Housing, B.C. Lottery Corp. and B.C. Transit. They’ll be leading the charge and be subject to this regulation.
Following this, on November 1 of 2024, all employers with more than 1,000 employees will be subject to this legislation. Employers with more than 300 will follow the next year, on November 1, 2025; and then employers with 50 or more, beginning on November 1, 2026.
It doesn’t feel fast enough for me, but I can really appreciate this phased approach and the consideration of small businesses and the time required to implement such changes and to develop the necessary staffing that is required in order to actually do this amount of reporting out.
The bill also notes that regulations contemplate additional data collection related to the B.C. gender and sex standard and race-based data. As a province, we made a bold commitment to the principles of the United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples. I’m aware that this bill includes considerations related to this.
Bill 13 specifies that Indigenous governing entities that could be impacted by their publication must be notified before the publication of reports. This bill also notes that Indigenous communities must respond within 30 days stating whether they wish to be consulted and are entitled to receive a draft pay transparency report and make comments on it. Ensuring that Indigenous voices and perspectives are heard and acted on is key to successful legislation that is aware of our commitment to reconciliation.
As noted previously, this is a great step in the right direction. It’s also quite unfortunate that it took so many years of delays and politicization to get to where we are today. Let’s not forget that the former Premier called pay transparency legislation “a political stunt.” We need to stop politicizing issues, especially one such as this, which works to benefit a marginalized group in B.C.
Today we continue to push for even broader pay transparency legislation. Women, particularly racialized women, across B.C. know that this is far from a political stunt. It’s clear that a significant gender pay gap still exists in B.C., and it’s positive to see steps finally being taken to ensure that women are fairly compensated. We cannot forget that, to this day, many women are still paid less than their male counterparts for doing the same work.
With a four-year phase-in, it will take time to see the results of this legislation. While we are rolling this in, many will have their contributions undervalued and their experience questioned, be overlooked for raises, paid less from the start simply because they do not approach salary negotiations in the same way as their male-applicant or employee counterparts.
Introducing greater transparency around pay will put the onus on a business to ensure that they are paying employees well, or at least in a way that doesn’t reflect badly on their organization, and helping to close the gender pay gap without heavy-handed government intervention.
Additionally, these changes will empower women to recognize their value and take their own steps to fight for equality in the workplace as well as reveal to their male colleagues the barriers that women still face. Hopefully, this new level of transparency will encourage men to do more themselves to work for equality for the women around them.
At the end of the day, while this bill includes needed changes, with action that’s long overdue, there is still a lot of work ahead. One opportunity to strengthen this legislation would be to have a centralized registry. It wouldn’t just be posted on websites, where women would have to go and search to try and find those roles or similar positions.
A centralized registry was incredibly effective to the model that was employed in the U.K. Their database allows for public advocacy tools like the Gender Pay Gap Bot to function. In B.C., under this legislation that we see before us today, this is not possible.
When we look at the bill as it stands today…. It’s encouraging to know that academic studies have shown that this type of legislation can reduce the pay gap by up to 40 percent. However, it’s outcomes that count, and we will be paying close attention to ensure B.C. women are properly compensated for their skills, talents and contributions to the workplace.
We look forward to examining this legislation in greater detail to make sure that this act does, in fact, begin to close the gender pay gap in our province.
Deputy Speaker: House Leader of the Third Party.
A. Olsen: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Nice to see you today.
I rise to speak to Bill 13, the Pay Transparency Act.
Efforts to address the gender pay gap in British Columbia have been a long time in the making and are desperately needed. B.C. is one of the last provinces in Canada without pay equity or pay transparency legislation. We are tied with Alberta for having the worst gender pay gap in our country. Women and people who are marginalized because of their gender are being systematically underpaid for work of equal value.
Despite the fact that the B.C. human rights code prohibits pay discrimination on the basis of sex, gender identity and gender expression, many women and gender-diverse people in British Columbia earn, on average, 17 percent less than their cis male colleagues for doing similar work. Indigenous, Black and racialized people and those who have a disability or are otherwise marginalized expect to make even less.
Bill 13 offers an attempt to remedy this pay disparity. However, it does not go far enough. It is, frankly, an unfortunate missed opportunity. It may not achieve what is suggested is being achieved, which is narrowing the pay gap.
Absent from Bill 13 are critical aspects to ensure robust and effective pay transparency, including oversight and accountability mechanisms like fines or other penalties for non-compliance. Disclosing wage gaps cannot be voluntary. Employers who do not comply should be named publicly and should face fines of a significant size to change the behaviour.
Transparency in all aspects of compensation is missing from Bill 13. The way it is being applied may not help policy-makers understand the gender wage gap in British Columbia in the way that they need to.
In B.C. human rights commissioner Kasari Govender’s words: “Why pay transparency matters is because it allows us to understand what’s happening across sectors and systems. This bill doesn’t allow for that kind of comparison. It doesn’t create a data set that will allow for that kind of comparison.”
I’m concerned that the proposed legislation could place the onus on the worker to advocate for themselves if they are not being paid equally for similar work.
Absent from Bill 13 is any mention of pay equity, despite the calls from experts, stakeholders and researchers. Pay transparency requires employers to disclose information and data about pay gaps. We don’t need more data to know that women get paid less. What we need is action to be taken to close the gaps, and Bill 13 doesn’t do that.
If this government actually wanted women to be paid fairly across the economy, they would advance pay equity policies, as was done in many other provinces in the 1980s and 1990s. Beginning in 1986, six Canadian provinces — Manitoba, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, Ontario and Quebec — enacted pay equity legislation which imposes proactive obligations on employers to take steps to identify and eliminate wage discrimination.
Recognizing the importance of pay equity legislation, in 2001, the B.C. NDP government introduced an amendment to the human rights code to enshrine the right of all British Columbians to receive equal pay for work of equal value.
At that time, the government acknowledged that pay equity is fundamentally a question of human rights and concluded: “Pay equity for women will not be achieved without legislation…. Our friends at the federal level have introduced pay equity legislation. Ontario has introduced pay equity legislation. Quebec has introduced pay equity legislation which covers both the public and the private sectors. So what is the excuse not to act? There is no excuse. It’s time to act.”
I went through Hansard from those days in 2001, a spring sitting not dissimilar to the spring sitting that we’re having right now. March 22, 2001, was when a bill was brought forward by the former, former B.C. NDP government. Graeme Bowbrick brought this legislation in. There are pages and pages of comments from the then B.C. NDP members of government talking about pay equity as the basis for what needs to be done.
Let’s take a look at what the member from Comox Valley, Evelyn Gillespie, raised: “I would submit to you that pay equity is not a new idea. It is not a new idea at all. We have been working in a very proactive manner in British Columbia over the last ten years to achieve pay equity in the public service, and there are many businesses and unions across this province and across this country that have bargained for pay equity. Pay equity is not something new. As a matter of fact, in 1977…”
One year after I was born. That’s getting to be a long time ago now. Sorry. That’s me adding into that.
Getting back to what former member Gillespie said: “…good heavens, almost 25 years ago — Canada enshrined the principle of pay equity in our Human Rights Code. Can you believe that, hon. Speaker?”
I’m going to continue: “We’ve been working for ten years now on stopping violence against women, on preventing violence from beginning in the first place, on improving access for women to appropriate health care and on working to improve the economic status of women in British Columbia. Over those ten years several things have become clear. What we found is that pay equity for women will not be achieved without legislation.”
That is precisely what this version of the B.C. NDP government is trying to achieve. We have in front of us pay transparency legislation. The members of the B.C. NDP government another 22 years ago knew that this attempt, 22 years in the future, would fail because the very basis of the legislation that they moved was on pay equity.
Today this NDP government somehow has found its way to take a giant step backwards and introduce a bill that is far less than what their predecessors were prepared to and passed, the legislation that was torn up just a few weeks after it was passed.
Continuing with the quote from Evelyn Gillespie:
“I would submit that voluntary pay equity is not the road to pay equity for women in British Columbia. Again, I would say that since 1977, when Canada enshrined the principle in our Human Rights Code, we have not seen a whole lot of progress. As a matter of fact, I believe my colleague said…. Was it half a cent a year toward pay equity? Friends, colleagues, that’s not good enough.
“Undervaluing and underpaying work traditionally done by women is too firmly entrenched in our society. It’s too entrenched to have it dismantled only by consensus building, negotiation and ongoing discussion. It is time to end the talking and to get something done, and I would submit that it’s long past the time. This is not the time to talk about pay equity. This is the time to do it, to achieve it….
“Today, in this very wealthy province — British Columbia — women represent a disproportionate number of the families living in poverty. The simple truth is that women cannot participate equally in British Columbia if they are discriminated against on their paycheque. Pay equity legislation will end that.”
Let’s go to what Sue Hammell had to say, another distinguished member of the B.C. NDP — the former, former government. Sue Hammell said this. “What absolutely floors me about this opposition” — talking about the previous version of the current opposition — “is that the previous administration, prior to this government in the 1990s, was working on pay equity.” They began working on pay equity in the late 1980s. It was a Socred government.
Continuing: “And here we are, past the year 2000, and we have an opposition that isn’t even prepared to stand up with women and fight for the government for pay for work of equal value. It’s astonishing.” Thankfully, the opposition is prepared to work with the government on this. I think that is one of the aspects of evolution that’s happened in this House.
Unfortunately, what we are discussing, and what we are debating today, is far less than what was being proposed back in those early days of 2000. Let’s take a look at what Joan Smallwood had to say — a very substantive speech. Joan Smallwood said: “The amendment that this House has in front of it simply acknowledges that the issue of equal pay for equal value is a fundamental human right — nothing more complicated than that, simply the recognition of a fundamental human right.”
Where does that stand? Where does that position currently lie in this version of the B.C. NDP government? Why is it that in 2001, Joan Smallwood stood up in this House, in this very room, and said that the amendment that this House has in front of it simply acknowledges that the issue of equal pay for equal value is a fundamental human right? How is it that 22 years later, we have taken steps backwards from that position?
I will say this. When this legislation, which, quite rightly…. The five, six times a version of it was advanced by our former colleague from Surrey, the government let us know that something was going to happen. Something was going to happen over the past six years that I’ve been in here. Something was going to happen.
This is what we have in front of us. It’s pay transparency, a version that the former B.C. NDP government would not have stood for. But when this was rolled out, it was to great fanfare and to great celebration that this government — that had been dragged into this, frankly — was now offering something far less than what their predecessors were offering. How is it that we can celebrate that?
Okay. I accept. Let’s celebrate a modest step forward. It’s better than what is there, but it is far less than what this government promised back in 2001. They should be ashamed of themselves for offering something far less than what is acceptable in 2023.
Here we are, 22 years later. After all of these dozens and dozens and dozens of pages of transcripts from Hansard of the B.C. NDP on the record, standing and saying that nothing less than pay equity legislation is acceptable, British Columbia remains one of the few jurisdictions in Canada without proactive pay equity legislation. We are there because this legislation that the former B.C. NDP members were talking about was scrapped, was reversed almost immediately after the new B.C. Liberal government came to power.
Last month over 125 activists called on this government to introduce pay equity legislation. They warned: “If your government’s efforts end at pay transparency, this will be seen for what it is — a failure to meet even the bar set over two decades ago by another NDP government.” That’s exactly what’s happened. That’s what the legacy this government is leaving is — half-steps and back-pedalling.
In August 2022, the Battered Women’s Support Services recommended that pay transparency legislation be subject to strong enforcement mechanisms and independent oversight. They recommended that pay transparency legislation be followed by the development and introduction of pay equity legislation. These recommendations from experts, advocates and those with lived experience of discrimination went unheeded by this government in the creation of Bill 13.
We still hold out hope that maybe sometime in the next few days or the next few weeks of this session, pay equity legislation will soon follow. But from the celebrations, from the fanfare that brought this bill in, it doesn’t appear that that is something that we should be holding our breath for.
Half-measures have consequences. While this government delayed and took their time to introduce pay transparency, women and gender-diverse people have been the ones paying the price. We are currently experiencing an affordability crisis. Inflation has increased. The housing crisis has worsened. The cost of groceries and child care has risen, yet women are still paid less than they deserve, still paid less than those working right alongside them.
As the B.C. NDP noted in 2001, “pay equity puts more money into the pockets of female workers, reduces dependence on social programs, increases overall spending and results in increased tax revenue.” “Everyone in the province should share in its prosperity. Economic advancement should not come at the expense of women.”
And actually, if I had my papers here a little bit better organized, there are some phenomenal quotes from previous NDP women, NDP members of this House, talking about exactly this point — exactly this point. The burden is being carried by women in our province, by gender-diverse people, by marginalized people. That’s who this government is putting the burden on, not on the businesses. They’re putting the burden on the women who are working in those businesses. And if they find that acceptable, then they’ll have to answer to that, because it’s not acceptable.
As we all know, financial dependence is a significant contributor to gender-based violence. I’ve said it before. I’ll say it again. This situation does not impact everyone the same way. In Canada, white women make 89 cents for every dollar a man makes. Racialized women earn 67 cents on that dollar. Disabled women earn 54 cents for every dollar. Racialized migrant women earn 79 cents for every dollar earned by their white counterpart. The reality of the gender pay gap means that racialized women are most likely to be minimum-wage earners in the province and are most likely to retire with smaller pensions in older age.
Unpaid caregiving responsibilities disproportionately fall on women, which further impacts economic insecurity. The cost of not addressing pay equity is borne by women. They continue to bear the burden of this government’s inaction. They will continue to carry the burden of this government’s decision to move pay transparency legislation that has no enforcement. There’s no way to hold accountability. It’s just, basically, we’ll throw it out there and hope that everyone will be reading the report and then voluntarily holding themselves accountable to that.
It took six years for this B.C. NDP government to deliver that? This government had a choice — a choice to do the right thing, the best thing, for the public. They could have chosen to bring in pay equity legislation and robust pay transparency legislation.
They could have chosen to act on the systemic sexism and racism built systemically in our province. Instead, they chose half-measures.
In Bill 13, for the half that’s there…. Good, finally. It took long enough. It took too long. But the half that’s not there? Shame. Every day this province delays, even if we’re saying the right things, there are women and gender-diverse people, especially racialized women, navigating this world with fewer resources and bigger challenges. That’s on this government.
We had an opportunity in this session. We were promised something much bigger than what we have been delivered. Now, I’m certain we are going to hear from the current version of the B.C. NDP how what they’re doing is taking a monumental step forward. As those words are being uttered in this House, they need to be held up against the words that were said in here previously, 22 years ago. If it is not matching what has already, previously been done in this House, then it is far less than acceptable.
Thank you for this opportunity to speak. HÍSW̱ḴE SIÁM.
K. Paddon: I am very happy to stand and to celebrate the work that has been done on this bill and what this will mean as a next step for people in British Columbia. I want to start just by thanking some people, because this kind of work doesn’t happen without so many people who are involved.
I would like to start…. I would like to thank the Minister of Children and Family Development. I would like to thank the Minister of State for Child Care, the Minister of Post-Secondary Education and Future Skills, the entire gender equity office, advocates who continue to engage with us and who continue to send us feedback and information and everyone who participated in the consultations.
This work came thanks to the efforts and the advocacy and the ideas of so many people. That includes labour unions, private sector employers, non-profit employers and advocates, First Nations leaders, industry associations, universities and other groups, Métis Nation, Chartered Professional Accountants of B.C., small business roundtables, B.C. Business Council. It took a lot of people to get to a place where we can take this next step together. Although I can’t name everybody, I wish I could.
I will say I’m going to be the designated speaker, but even two hours, maybe, to discuss how everyone came together….
The advocacy and the collaboration and the sharing of ideas that came long before I was privileged enough to stand in this role were invaluable in the formation of the work that we see in front of us today.
I will be replying to some of the comments made by previous speakers, but I want to take a minute, first, to talk about what pay transparency and pay equity are. Part of how I’d like to start that conversation — because it is a conversation; this is one step in the work to be done — is on what the gender pay gap is to begin with.
The gender pay gap is the difference in average earnings of workers based on their gender. There are two ways of presenting this, whether unadjusted or adjusted, both of which are based on the gender pay ratio, which is a woman’s earnings expressed as a proportion of a man’s earnings.
The gender pay ratio is calculated by dividing the women’s earnings by the men’s earnings. The unadjusted gender pay gap is calculated using an aggregate of all incomes, regardless of experience or skills, role or education, whereas the adjusted pay gap is calculated using these incomes but taking into consideration compensable factors.
The reason that I use this definition is because right from the onset of this conversation, I want to stress…. I don’t think it’s done enough. I don’t think, maybe, we’re all aware. In this House, as we all come together, as we all will stand up, and we’ll all speak in favour of women and non-binary people deserving to be paid the same amount as men…. I’m making an assumption. I am happy to stand corrected — or not happy; it would be horrible if I was corrected — but I think we’re all in the same place.
We don’t exist in a vacuum, although sometimes session can get long, and it can feel that way. We don’t, in fact, exist in a vacuum, and we’re not universally having the same conversation. This was made incredibly apparent to me, actually, the day before International Women’s Day, when an article was published by the Canadian Press. The title of it said that men are almost twice as likely as women to think gender inequality is overblown. Yikes. Okay. That’s a lot.
I went on to read it. It was the Canadian Press. I thought: “Maybe it’s just the title.” We all know. It was online. You want people to click it. I get it. But it goes on to say that a survey suggests that Canadian men are almost twice as likely to think it’s blown way out of proportion. It found that most people believe the issue of gender inequality is important, but a significant amount believe it’s overblown.
Let’s think about what that means in a minute. But I’m just going to give some of the numbers that they shared: “More than 30 percent of men and 17 percent of women who answered the survey believe the response to gender inequality is blown out of proportion.” The survey suggests that men between 30 and 34 are the most likely age group to believe gender inequality is overhyped, at 34.6 percent.
So men, women, people, 30 to 34…. Let’s think about where, what life stage…. We’re talking about entrepreneurs. We’re talking about employees, in many cases, but we’re also talking about employers. We’re talking about people who may or may not be making the choice, at that point, to have their own family. Maybe they are in the process of raising their own family, their sons and daughters. And 34.6 percent think that inequality based on gender is overhyped.
The reason that I wanted to draw the attention here is — as we speak to British Columbians about the importance of this bill at this time, and the way it’s presented — it’s very important to understand that we cannot make assumptions of where we’re meeting people, of what their life experiences have brought them to and their understanding of things like inequality and inequity between gender, especially in the area of pay. Although some may suggest that pay transparency isn’t a very big step, if there are 34.6 percent of male employers, employees, developing professionals, who don’t think this is a problem, that’s where we need to start this conversation. That’s where we need to shine the light.
We cannot have the other conversations without first being very transparent about where the question is, because when that happens, you have people voting out pay equity legislation in a second. It happened right here. But we’ll get to that in a little bit.
I also think that it’s very important to just reiterate that we do know that this is a problem. According to Stats Canada, women in B.C. earn a median hourly wage that is 17 percent less than the wage paid to men, and that was in 2022. The gap is significantly wider for Indigenous women, 35 percent; other racialized women, 33 percent; and newcomer women, 29 percent. It’s understood that the gap affects non-binary people as well, although the data is limited there for now.
So the question of what is pay equity…. It’s that we get paid the same, regardless of our gender. I know that some of the comments, when we made this great announcement about the work we were going to be doing here on this bill…. Some of the comments were that it’s not a thing. We know, because we saw the survey done in the Canadian Press.
Also: “Oh well, it’s probably because — you know what? — women are busy having kids, so they’re not….” I’m going to give a list here. You can pick your favourite too. Women are not as educated because they were having kids. Women took time away from the workforce. They don’t have the skills. Women just haven’t been going into the fields that pay more, so that’s why there’s inequity.
Maybe it is that women just depended on their husband — or partner, but when I hear it, it’s usually husband — to take care of them. Women stayed home, so they don’t have any marketable skills. Well, they raised their children, and that took a long time out of the workforce. How about the ones we know are illegal too? But they still happen. They still get mentioned. “Well, I can’t hire that younger woman. What if she gets pregnant?”
Okay. So these are the reasons that women might get paid less, supposedly, but we know they’re not the reasons, unless maybe you were talking to one of the 34 percent who think that it’s overblown.
How about the other side of it, where the work that women traditionally do, the work that is stereotypically…. We know stereotypes are based on…. I don’t want to get into the semantics of that, but we know stereotypes exist. The caring fields, the teaching fields — sorry, some levels of the teaching fields — we know it’s women who do that work. We know they do it in the home, traditionally. We know they do it in the workforce, traditionally. We know it’s undervalued, and we know they get underpaid. We know their contracts aren’t respected. We know the work is precarious.
By precarious, I mean it depends on the good actions of somebody else in order to maintain the safety in that position. So perhaps that means they’re working in the home, and it’s precarious because it depends on a healthy relationship. It depends on a breadwinner who leaves the home. Perhaps it’s precarious because it’s a form of employment where there are split shifts, where you have to work in multiple places where you’re not actually an employee. Maybe you’re a contractor. Maybe you were privatized because it was too expensive to actually treat you properly.
That’s the work that women traditionally do that’s undervalued. That all goes into this conversation of equity. The next part, the part we’re working on now, is that transparency. We have to see it. We have to name it. There can be no debate about whether it exists, whether it has an impact and where we can find it. So that’s the setting where this work starts to happen.
I know that the previous member, from Saanich North and the Islands, talked about the great work that was done by…. I think they characterized it as the previous, previous B.C. NDP government. We recognize how important pay equity is. It’s critical, and quite frankly, it’s not a conversation that anywhere around the planet, let alone anywhere around Canada and definitely not in British Columbia, we should still be having to have.
We’re not having this conversation by choice. That work was done. Those conversations were had. That understanding, that work — it was achieved. In 2001, the B.C. Liberal government of the time repealed pay equity legislation. The opposition leader voted in favour of repealing it, and the member for Prince George–Valemount voted in favour of repealing it. So to now hear in this House….
I mean, I’m new in comparison and comfortable in that newness. But to now hear how this is not enough because it should be pay equity legislation…. It was pay equity legislation. There was pay equity legislation. We very obviously are not having the same conversation, if anyone in good conscience could have repealed it.
So let’s show people. Let’s start the conversation again for those on the left, right. I don’t know. It depends where you’re standing in the room, I suppose. Let’s start again, not at the beginning, but let’s not stand in this House and pretend like we couldn’t have been farther.
I am incredibly privileged to stand here. I do so only because of the support I have around me in my private life and some trauma and drama that might have triggered me to get here anyway. But I am privileged. Based on these numbers and the statistics, although it’s overblown, it’s not. I am more privileged than some of my colleagues and some of my brothers and sisters who are in this House. If we were out in our jobs that we had previous, doing the things that we do when we’re not here, that difference would be stark. My privilege would be stark. But my privilege would not be as much as my brothers.
So we repeal work that was done. What did the former member say? I think he categorized it — 22 years ago. I didn’t do the math. I’m not going to lie. In 2001, it was repealed. It is 2023. So that’s 22 years. Yeah, we’re good. Okay.
Where could we have been right now? Now, I’m not actually going to have a full conversation and dig in too deeply to that, because the business of moving the work forward requires attention forward. But I don’t…. I’m probably going to make a face, a polite, parliamentary, appropriate face any time someone says: “Well, this is not enough.” Well, think what we could be doing right now.
Anyhow, we’re going to start the conversation in a place where everyone can follow along, and it’s going to start with shining a light on where we are and meeting people where they are so that we can all move forward together.
This legislation is one step. It is this next step to building up a system where what happened in 2001 wouldn’t be allowed to happen again, and not because of any parliamentary or legislative process but because people in British Columbia will know what it will cost. They will see the evidence.
[J. Tegart in the chair.]
People deserve equal pay for equal work. Pay discrimination is prohibited. It is not legal. It is prohibited by the human rights code. Our communities are stronger when everyone is treated equally, and we know this. We know that the pay gap affects unevenly — we just went over that — and we’re committed to introducing legislation that brings us to a place of pay equity.
But I do want to be clear as I move through the sections of the bill or the elements of the bill that are critical. This is not the last step. This is the next step in the conversation, in the work.
Pay transparency holds employers accountable and shines a light on pay discrimination in the workplace. We know that there are other places where gender-based discrimination exists. We also know that there are other places where the pay inequity plays out in other ways that disadvantage women and people who are marginalized.
When the member for Kelowna-Mission, the critic, spoke, she stood up, and one of the first things she said was: “The seventh time is the charm.” Okay. I’m so glad that it would appear that everyone will be in support of this bill, that everyone will be in support of this next step. I am genuinely and sincerely so glad that advocates and other members are pushing already for those next steps. They’re already hungry for it. To my mind, what that means is, in the future, they’ll continue to support the progress, rather than repeal it.
I think one very important piece that I don’t want to overlook, because I know it’s important to so many people…. I know it was important during consultation. I know that it’s important for people that I’ve heard from since — that this legislation goes beyond a gender binary. I know I mentioned that the data was limited on what we know about how pay inequity impacts people across the gender spectrum.
I can stand here with my lived experience, but I know that the consultations included so many people who can speak to a range of experiences and how pay inequity, pay disparity, hurts not only their opportunities and development but how, perhaps, it can feel like it’s invisible when we’re talking only about men and women. As I speak, there’ll be some times where I use “men and women.” I will endeavour to be inclusive in my language, but please know that as I’m learning and growing as well, my intention in my language is to include a range, however, often citing research that was based on a binary.
I had just mentioned that it was difficult to hear the member opposite stand up and say, “The seventh time is the charm,” because there are significant, substantial, very impactful differences between what the member opposite suggested was the impetus for us doing the bill that we’re debating now and what was presented by a former member and then by the critic as well. I’d like to start by talking about what this bill does, so that people can have a picture in their mind as we move through.
Once we debate and it moves through the process, assuming the bill receives royal assent…. Once that happens, all employers in British Columbia will be prohibited from engaging in certain behaviours that we know contribute to the gender pay gap.
This will include things like seeking pay history information from prospective employees while negotiating their salaries. It will include punishing employees who disclose their pay to co-workers or potential job applicants.
Now, my partner works in human resources. They put up job postings. There are a few ways that these first two elements are going to have a real impact for women, for non-binary folks, and I’d like to just go into them a little bit before I move into the other pieces.
The first one, behaviour No. 1 would come into effect with royal assent — which means right away, assuming this moves through the process. Prospective employers won’t be able to ask prospective employees for pay information, salary information. Why does this matter? I’ve had that question. It makes sense. Why would it matter? Why would it matter what you got paid at your last job when you’re talking about your new job? You’ve got your new briefcase, and you’re going to take over the world. You’re ready. This is new — clean slate, right? No.
The reason this matters is because we know that women, non-binary folk have two things that may happen. First of all, your last job…. Based on the stats that we know, if we’re not assuming it’s been — what was the word? — overblown…. Based on what we know from actual data is that at their last job, they were probably underpaid/undervalued. So to then move into negotiations from a point where you had already been behind will only serve to continue to perpetuate that gap. You might shrink it in relation to where you used to be, but you will never catch up to where a male colleague is. That is how it gets perpetuated. That is why it’s important.
I do not go into a job interview…. I mean, I love my job. Hypothetically, I do not go into a job interview and say: “Hello. My left knee is a little weak. It hurts sometimes, so I probably can’t walk as fast as some other people if this is work for outside.” I don’t go in and advertise an old injury. That is a ridiculous example. If I can do the work, if I can do it well, if I can give the value, if I can accomplish the tasks but, excuse me, if I bring a perspective that maybe that work culture is not used to, that can expand and actually adds value, well, then don’t I deserve the same pay as my brother who sits next to me? I absolutely do. Maybe a little bit more.
If they’re really needing to expand, I’m not going to lie. I might have some skills. Maybe I’ve been at home with teenagers, so my conflict resolution skills are on point. But I digress.
When we go into negotiations, when employers go into negotiations with prospective employees, they cannot ask for the historical information about pay because we know that historically, there is a gender-based reason that some prospective employees may have been underpaid or undervalued previously, and we’re not going to perpetuate that. Okay, check.
You also don’t ask them if they are about to start a family or if they’re pregnant now. There are a lot of things that create inequality and inequity that you can’t ask in a job interview or negotiations.
The second is punishing employees who disclose their pay to co-workers or to potential job applicants. This one I got some questions about too. Why? How is that going to make any difference? Well, intentionally or not…. Perhaps it happened accidentally. Perhaps an organization was unaware. I’m sure that that does happen. But it is so much easier to get a good deal if no one is allowed to talk about how much they make.
It is so much easier to undervalue the work of one employee, based not on performance or skill or credentials, if there is no way for them to find out, in a way that is described as ethical or allowed, what the person next to them doing the same job makes.
This is also an issue, because you never know. It feeds into another element. So I’m going to take, still, with this element of the bill…. It’s just a tiny, little…. When it comes to pay equity and pay transparency, we also have to talk about the jobs that women and non-binary folk apply for.
I read an article. It was a while ago. It talked about the way that men and women specifically look at job postings. Right from the job-posting place, if there are ten requirements, ten things that are being sought, this article suggested that if a man was reading it and they could check off six or seven, they were definitely applying. Whereas if a woman couldn’t check off one, it was in a statistically relevant way that she just…. “Okay, I’m not qualified. I won’t be applying.” From an equity perspective, when that man applies for that job, they might get it, and they’ll get to build all those other skills. That work will be valued, and they can take that with them, whereas the woman who hit nine out of ten did not apply.
I’m going to admit that when I first got involved in this world, and I was approached, and there was a conversation about putting my name forward for a community that I desperately love, my first reaction was: “Well, I’m not a politician. I have no experience in that.” Decades of advocacy, teaching, speaking, sitting with people and listening — well, of course, we all have those experiences. That is what makes us qualified. What makes us qualified is our neighbours, our friends, our constituents and our communities saying yes. That’s what makes us qualified. Until then, nobody is qualified.
When we’re talking about punishing employees for disclosing their pay to coworkers…. If, as a woman — according to the article I’m discussing, the research I’m discussing — I’m less likely to apply for the job…. Let’s say I was feeling brave, and I have nine out of ten. The other person who’s interviewing, the gentleman who’s interviewing, has six out of ten. He’s feeling…. He’s got this in the bag. I’m not sure that I should even be in the building, is basically what was being described there.
How do I know how valuable that work is? After the process of this bill, assuming royal assent, I can ask. People can tell me, and they won’t get fired. I’ve worked places, as well, where you are not allowed to discuss what you get paid. Now, I’ve had the privilege of coming up in a lot of not-for-profits in stereotypical female, caring jobs. I was able to learn a lot in some roles as a union member and a lot in some roles as a non-unionized employee.
In one environment, what I made was literally posted. Anybody knew what it was because there’s a book. They give it to you on your first day. “Here you go. Here’s the graph.” Whereas at the other one, I could not talk about what I made.
Depending on how badly they needed somebody in the moment, I was hired. That’s what impacted it. I couldn’t check with people who already worked there about what they made. When we had potential employees, prospective employees, I couldn’t discuss what I made to give them a starting point for their negotiation.
Going back to the first element of this bill, it was absolutely permissible…. It is, today, I guess, absolutely permissible for the first question to be: “Well, what did you make in your last role?” That’s going to set the bar. Maybe they offer me a dollar more an hour. That would be generous, based on some of my experiences in looking for new work.
It’s very difficult when you start to talk about the other kinds of compensation. But you can’t talk about the other kinds of compensation. That is the point. Well, that’s the second part of that.
Assuming royal assent, after processes and such…. Should the bill receive royal assent, employers are immediately prohibited from engaging in seeking pay history information from prospective employees and immediately prohibited from punishing employees who disclose their pay to co-workers or potential job applicants.
Now, what does punishing mean? For some people, the word is very heavy. For other people, not so much. We’re talking about any action to disadvantage or reprimand, right up to and including termination. You can’t do that to someone for disclosing their pay information.
At the same time, further down the road, what this bill is proposing is…. Starting on November 1, which is a handful of months after this process will have been resolved, all employers in British Columbia will be required to include wage or salary ranges on publicly advertised job opportunities. This is a big one. It was a big one for me earlier in my career.
I honestly don’t think…. If I was out in the market right now, it wouldn’t be a really impactful one, for some of the reasons I’ve already discussed. Not everyone is having the same conversation. There are all these sexist tropes about women in the workforce or why they’re not in the workforce or what skills they do or do not have that are just wrong and that impact how much somebody might be offered.
We will have taken care of the not being able to get the information. There’s an employee who will give you that information, what they make. They can discuss their salaries. We’ve already talked about not being restricted by that question. How much did you make in your last job? We know that sets the bar for the beginning of the negotiation for the next one, whether or not a male applicant would have been offered $5,000, $10,000 or $50,000 more to start that negotiation. Now right in the job posting.
I know it’s a difficult labour market right now. I hear from business owners, small businesses as well as the bigger businesses, not-for-profits. It’s across the board. It’s hard to get people right now. I spoke with some business owners or employers and managers, like I mentioned. I see it at home, with my partner, who does human resources.
It’s hard to get people, even if you’re willing to train, even if you’re willing to pay a little bit more — even, even, even. It is hard to get people right now. The struggle is real. I’m grateful for the ways that we’re working on that, but in the meantime, it’s not always that way.
When you’re going to make a change with your employment…. If you’re re-entering the labour market or if you are finishing up some education…. You’ve made a change. The time it takes to go through a hiring process….
Now, I used to be a server in a restaurant, and I loved that job. I got to talk to people all day long. I think maybe one of…. Where I am now…. One of the really awesome parts of it, other than the 20 percent off anything, was that when I left that building, that work stayed there. Nobody was coming home and asking me to refill their drink.
When I applied for those kinds of jobs, and when I’ve seen my teenagers apply for those kinds of jobs, that hiring process seems to still be pretty simple, fairly simple. You apply. You do the application. You have the résumé. You do the interview. Maybe there’s a reference check. Bob’s your uncle. You’ve got the job.
But every traditional job that I’ve applied for — this is not a traditional job — has been a slog. I’m sorry, but if you’re already working in another job, the time investment it takes…. If you’re not working, if you are seeking employment because you’re currently not employed, and your personal and family finances depend on that, it’s even worse. It can take a really long time, and there’s a lot of time invested in applying for jobs. That’s assuming there’s not even any training up front that you’re going to have to do before you can fully apply.
I cannot be the only one in the room. I wonder how many other people have had the experience of applying for a job. You know what it’s worth. Maybe you’re working a specific job now. This would be a step up. Expanded responsibilities, or it’s a bigger job. Then you get there. What they’re offering, where they’re willing to open their negotiations, or their salary range, which was not posted, which was not part of any….
They’re not discussing it until the end, until you’ve already done those two interviews and then met the board, and you’ve bought the fancy briefcase. You’re really excited about getting to work with these people, and they tell you: “Yeah, you’re going to get paid $20,000 less, and that’s if we top out.” Well, as a mom, I can’t take that job. I can’t. My family can’t afford it. That was in the non-profit…. If I worked more overtime…. I’ve actually had this conversation, because I had fallen so in love with a job during the process.
I had the conversation in my head: “Well, if I work X number of hours of overtime every single week, then I can afford to take this job.” I would have known that the hours and hours and hours spread over weeks to apply for that job was not something I could afford in advance if the salary range had been posted. I also would have known the range. On the flip side of this, if you know the range, that is the employer telling you, in black and white on a page — unless it’s colour ink — how much they value that work and that role.
That conversation about how you value and how they value…. Well, now you’re both having the same conversation. You both have an equal understanding going into that conversation. At that point, the question in the negotiation is not subject to as much volatility around issues of gender and the things that confound the equity and equality around pay and gender.
Your conversation then is: why wouldn’t I be at this place in that range? What does the top of your range look like as far as what an applicant is bringing? For an employee who gets paid at the top of your salary range, what output are you seeing? Are there skills, is there training, that would allow me to be a benefit to the organization in such a way as to move up in that salary range?
Then you’re having that conversation. You’re not having a conversation about: “Well, what did you get paid at your last job? We’re going to add $1 an hour.” That is the third piece. Starting November 1, which would be a handful of months after royal assent, all employers in B.C. will be required to include wage or salary range on publicly advertised job opportunities. I think that’s going to be fantastic.
I think it’s also going to be fantastic for another reason that is kind of a little bit offside. We know that in the labour market, we need all hands on deck. We know that persons with disabilities, people across the gender spectrum, people with varied perspectives and life experiences, people who are coming from different places, different countries, different provinces — we need them all.
Businesses will be able to see what is being paid across the board, as well, for publicly advertised jobs. Newcomers, people who are looking at costs and budget and making a change, maybe even making a change into areas that are in high need, will be able to see what it pays. It won’t be just: “I don’t know what the webpage is.” Glass ceiling, floor — I’m not sure. Anyway, sometimes if an employee feels brave enough to share what they make…. Remember that before royal assent, you can still get in trouble for talking about what you make in some places.
You don’t have to go on the webpage anymore. You pull up the last job posting. You see if there’s a difference between the job posting you’re on. Are they valuing it more or less? What’s the difference? As of November 1, that’s absolutely possible, so job seekers have a lot of tools that will interfere dramatically with the perpetuation of pay disparity based on gender across the spectrum.
This, Madam Speaker, moves me into the part of this legislation that it’s named for — Bill 13, Pay Transparency Act. This is the meat of it.
Now, I think it’s really important just to acknowledge for a quick second that the three other pieces are substantial in interfering in the perpetuation of what we’re going to be exploring in this next section. Because of the pay transparency, we’ll be able to watch that effect, I think. I hope.
This final piece of the legislation, the big part that it’s named for, is what all the fuss is about, even though I think the other three parts — we should be fussy about them, too. They’re pretty great.
What’s going to happen is that this bill says that employers above certain size thresholds will gradually be required to publicly post reports on their gender pay gaps. The way this is coming in is, as of November 1 this year, the B.C. Public Service Agency and Crown corporations with more than 1,000 people will be reporting. I mean, the great news here is that we’re expecting 100 percent compliance.
What the other pieces of this mean is that these are significant employers, where we can make sure that the way of reporting, the information collected, the report that comes out from that, which I’ll talk about in just a few minutes — all of that works.
The next year — so November 1, 2024 — all employers with 1,000 or more employees will have to report. Now you can see you can see the phases, especially with the next one. November 1, 2025, all employers with 300 employees or more will be reporting. Finally, in November of 2026, all employers with 50 employees or more will be reporting.
So why are we doing this? Why are we — who said it — dragging it out? I’m not sure. It was something like that. Well, here’s why. We understand what’s happening with the labour market. We understand what’s happening for employers. We understand that an organization that employs over 1,000 people…. Most likely, among them is an HR professional. Most likely, among their systems are systems for taking care and keeping track of those 1,000 or more employees. Then we move to the smaller ones.
With each reporting, we will learn from the businesses who are reporting about, obviously, their pay gap but also about what kind of burden it was. We will be able to refine. We will be able to educate. We will be able to have conversations. We will be able to incorporate things like the gender and sex standard, potentially the anti-racism data standard. We will be able to make it better so that by the time we are reaching an employer with 50 people, this tool is strong.
Now, I said it a bunch in the first few minutes I was talking. This is a step. This is the next step that we’re taking. If we need to do more, if we need to go smaller, there’s room in this.
I’m going to be speaking to one of the other sections of the legislation around the director and how that oversight will work.
One of the things I like so much about this act, about this piece of legislation, is that it doesn’t claim to solve everything. It doesn’t claim to not need input and learning and adjustment.
Here is why it’s so important. I spoke about — it might have been right at the beginning — the fact that we’re not all having the same conversation, that 34.6 percent of men between 30 and 34 believe gender inequality is overhyped. As we’re doing the work and bringing the conversation along, as we’re building a system that somebody can’t just get rid of, can’t just banish, as we’re teaching and learning with and from British Columbians about this issue and equity, it’s the transparency of….
It’s shining a light on what’s happening that is the key. That includes with our businesses, bringing our champion employers along, bringing along the people who understand how important this is, who want to be an employer of choice, who embrace the work.
We don’t want to make it this huge burden. However, it has to be transparent. It has to be accurate. If there are little ways of asking or looking or reporting that can be improved on…. Well, that’s why it’s gradual. We can’t just put this burden on all of these employers all at once. We heard it loud and clear when we consulted with employers.
I can’t wait to see which businesses come out or how many businesses come out and use this as a tool to attract employees. I know that there are champion employers out there who will be able to put this all over the place. For every job posting they put out there, they will be able to put a link to their gender pay information. They will know that they’re an equitable employer. They will only be seeking out opportunities to share that great information. I’m looking forward to that.
What will employers be required to do with regard to the pay transparency piece of this legislation? We already talked about what they’d be prohibited from doing. We already talked about the job posting information that would have to be included. But what will they be required to do in regard to the pay transparency?
The pay transparency seeks to address discrimination in the workplace by shedding light on the situation where two or more people work at a similar job and where one person is paid less than the other based on their gender. Like I said, we talked about those little myths around gender.
If the legislation is passed, employers will have those reporting obligations. Once a year they will report. And then what? What are they going to be reporting?
I had questions from some people who are not employers but employees. They were asking: “How do we know if our employer is doing it? What information do we have to share? This is our information.”
The regulations will provide…. First of all, it’s voluntary on the part of the employee, which is really important.
We’re taking a full gender spectrum approach, not a binary approach. We know that there may also be groups or groupings within employee groups where…. If it’s less than ten people, it won’t be reported out in that same public way to protect the employee and their sensitive information.
In the next few months, we will be working, as I mentioned, on that first phase. So November 2023 will be the first report-out. We will be working closely with the B.C. public service and the largest Crown corporations on those reporting requirements. When those year 1 reporting requirements are publicly posted, the Ministry of Finance will reach out to the employers reporting in year 2 to seek their feedback and to ensure that what has been developed will work for them. I was talking about being careful about the burden we put on people.
Information is also going to be posted on the Ministry of Finance website, and the team in the ministry’s gender equity office will be able to help out.
I’m going to just change for a minute. I know that one of the concerns that was expressed by advocates, the Human Rights Commissioner as well, some of the members in this House, the member for Saanich North and the Islands, was: then what? There’s no central place for this. I understand that concern.
One of the really key pieces of this is…. This legislation calls for a director of pay transparency working in the gender equity office.
Yes, this legislation is taking an information and education support approach. We want to bring everyone along in this transparency conversation. That article that I keep going back to, when I keep saying we’re not all having the conversation…. That’s the key piece here. We have to bring people along so we build a system. Just because we all know it’s the right thing doesn’t mean that things like repealing pay equity legislation in 2001 won’t happen. We are building a system, and this is the next rung.
What if employers don’t comply? What if they don’t report? B.C.’s proposed legislation, this act, ensures that employers have an obligation to collect and report data about the gender pay gap. A designated work unit within the Ministry of Finance’s gender equity office will have a monitoring role in receiving reports of non-compliance and reporting on trends.
Like I said, to start, we’re taking an educational approach.
I mean, I’m a pretty positive person, unless you ask my kids. When we expect more of people, when we expect better, people try to live up to that.
I know that for employers and businesses, that’s their baby. That’s their life. That feeds their families. That’s incredibly important to our communities, to their individual lives. When people know better, they do better. So let’s take this educational approach to start. Let’s help people along. Let’s bring people along, because we are so much stronger together. Let’s teach, and let’s foster that.
One of the other fears is what happens with the information afterwards. Who is responsible for doing something with it? Will employees be left to have to figure out and navigate? Will it still be left to the employee to try to figure it out?
Now, there will be more information in hiring and job applications because of the initial changes that I mentioned. There will be more information available on webpages. Where webpages aren’t available, because an organization doesn’t have one…. I don’t know how many of those we’re going to get in these phases. If you have more than 50 employees, definitely if you have more than 1,000, you’ve probably got a webpage. But they have to be available to employees.
That information…. Each year, the Ministry of Finance will be putting out a report in June. I believe it’s June. So there’ll be lots of information available, but one of the concerns that I’ve heard loud and clear is: “Then what? Aren’t you still leaving it to the employee to advocate for themselves, to do something with that information?” The answer is twofold.
One, yes, the employee will now have access to the information they may want or they may need in order to make an informed decision about either where they work or where they’d like to work. We’ve already talked about the labour market and how competitive that is.
Also, this is public. If I can go on to an employer’s website — whether I’m a job seeker, whether I’m another employer, whether I’m competing with or trying to compete within — I’ll be able to fully understand the pay equity situation, based on that information. That’s in addition to the work that the province will continue to be doing with regard to pay equity and to see what is necessary there.
I know there was a quote earlier from the member for Saanich North and the Islands, actually quoting the previous, previous B.C. NDP government — I think that was how he described it — and saying that pay equity…. This was a quote from…. I hope that tracked. Hansard got it. “Pay equity will not be achieved without legislation.”
Okay, here’s a piece of pay transparency legislation, which is one step towards the pay equity that we are committed to. Disclosures will be happening by employers. Employers will be required to collect gender information from employees and report out on that information, along with information around pay. Any information provided by the employee will be voluntary.
In developing the reporting guidelines, the reporting regulations, we’re going to be looking at ways that demographic data can be safely collected from employees. I know I had mentioned the new gender and sex data standard, as well as the important Anti-Racism Data Act being developed.
We need to really understand how race, indigeneity and other intersectional factors interact with gender. I know it might be a surprise: I’m a feminist, which I think can’t happen without intersectionality. It’s one spoke on the really messy wheel. Let’s be honest. It’s a messy wheel, but it’s a wheel.
We have the systems that we prop up with those folks, and without an intersectional lens, I don’t think we can solve any problem, because all we’d be doing is shuffling it off to the side, and there are people there. If I shuffle my problem off over here, I’m just putting it onto other people.
I am so encouraged by the fact that this already discusses how we’re going to incorporate the anti-racism data and the gender and sex data standard, as well as being the first to take a non-binary approach with regard to transparency and equity legislation when it comes to gender. Employees, like I said, are not obligated to provide information, but being able to better understand the gender pay gap will help the government help our province to make it a safer, more fair place for everyone.
We talked about the different phases, the four that are outlined in the legislation. In very small companies, where only one or two employees are women and the rest are men, that would be a little bit more difficult. But like I mentioned, if there are less than ten employees in a group that is being reported on, that information can be masked or hidden to ensure privacy. We don’t want anyone being unsafe, feeling unsafe or feeling like they’re exposed.
The other side of gender-based discrimination — probably any discrimination, but I’m going to speak specifically in this case — is that if you say it in the environment where you’re being discriminated against, there may be a lot of fear and discomfort there. There may be a fear of retaliation. There may be a fear of continued othering. So it’s important not only that the information and the data is treated properly but that this is a voluntary thing for employees.
I got a question as well, wondering if this is only for private companies or only public companies. I just want to be really clear that pay transparency in British Columbia means “in British Columbia,” whether it’s a non-profit or otherwise.
Okay. That’s the bill — the highlights. There’s more. It’s not super long. Everybody can access it and read it online, for all of the two, three viewers at home watching.
What I think is the biggest takeaway is that we know there’s evidence that pay transparency legislation has been effective in reducing gender pay gaps. We know that it has an effect. We’re not suggesting that it is going to solve everything. We know that unless you know what you’re talking about, unless you’ve identified the problem, you can’t talk about feasible solutions. So transparency and shining a light are very important.
Like I’ve mentioned, I think a lot of employers will take the opportunity to tighten things up if they happen to discover something that maybe they weren’t aware of. We all have blind spots, right? I hope people take opportunities. I hope people see areas of opportunity for improvement.
We know that narrowing the pay gap involves a lot more than just transparency. It also involves more than just “pay equity,” as defined. We know that there are a lot of things that contribute to it and a lot of other actions that need to be taken.
We know that we’re investing in this with increasing training, education, child care, increases to minimum wage, removal of limitation or lower wages for people for work that we know is predominantly for women or young people. We’re committed to full pay equity. This pay transparency legislation is one step that gets us there.
As I mentioned as well, when I was kind of outlining…. I don’t know where I was going.
There was a mention originally from the critic around seventh time’s a charm. I really do appreciate that they are very passionate about this as well. I want us all to get this right in this House, all of us. But I’ve had questions from some people about what the differences are. Why not just…? Why not the other bill, seven times?
I’m going to be careful in how I work my way through it, but I want to talk about this bill and some of the things in it that might otherwise not have been available for our debate if we hadn’t gone forward with the bill that we have here in Bill 13.
When the critic was talking about the private member’s bill that has been introduced and the importance of pay transparency and pay equity, it can’t be overstated as far as I’m concerned. But one of the differences is that the Pay Transparency Act, Bill 13, as compared to the private member’s bill, includes more comprehensive definitions of very, very important terms when we’re talking about pay transparency legislation, more comprehensive definitions of salary, wage, commission, incentive and — this one I like — money paid at discretion of the employer, and money that’s not related to hours of work, production or efficiency.
The bill, rather than only referring to regular wage and bonus pay, indicates that exemptions to definitions may be prescribed by regulation. As things change — as businesses changes, or as the employer, employee, contractor, these different relationships change — it can be looked at. It can be considered, and I know it would be done in a way that is as thoughtful and collaborative as the conversations with businesses were in the formation of the bill.
Another difference is around who reports, which employers report. In Bill 13, it specifically indicates which employers will be required to report in order to give employers more certainty. Whereas in the private member’s bill, it stated: “relevant employers, to be prescribed by legislation.”
On February 8, to further expand on this, the member did state that this bill would require any employer in B.C. with 50 or more employees to publicly post an annual breakdown of wages in their business. Bill 13, which we’re debating today, phases that in. To very suddenly require employers with 50 or more to be reporting….
What we heard, because there was consultation, from employers and business owners, is that a phased approach was needed in order for it not to become an overwhelming burden. So in 2023, like I said, it will be the PSA and six Crown agencies; 2024, employers with more than 1,000; 2025, employers with more than 300; 2026, employers with more than 50. Lower numbers can be prescribed by regulation after 2026.
So Bill 13 really opens up…. Well, not opens up. Bill 13 really responds to the input and the consultation and the advice and just the realities that were shared with us by employers and business owners.
Around the reporting requirement, again, there’s another difference. Subject to regulation, the private member’s bill would require employers to differentiate between male and female mean. which is average. wage of the full-time employees; the difference between male and female median, which is middle, for full-pay employees; the difference in mean bonus pay between male and female; the difference in median bonus pay between male and female; proportions of male and female employees who received bonus pay, which sometimes can indicate where you fall in the hierarchy of an organization — I had someone ask me that question the other day, why; ratio of male and female full-pay employees in lower, lower-middle, upper-middle and upper quartiles of regular wage.
Okay, that was…. It asked very specific questions, not only the average, the mean, but also the middle point, which is an important statistical indicator. For those who aren’t sure, google it. It’s wonderful.
The critic said on February 8 that this information will include wage and bonus pay for male and female employees and will be available on a company website or by any other easily accessible means. Although I have heard some criticism in media, when I’ve watched social media or heard media, from the opposition around the way that we’re reporting out with websites…. I mean, it sounds like that was fairly similar.
In a similar way, this bill asks employers to track the difference between mean and median pay, difference in bonus and pay quartiles. But in order for the conversation to be accurate, we need to allow further engagement with employers and the flexibility on emerging best practices, and the reporting requirements could change a little bit, including the plans to use the gender and sex data standard — because, you know, man, woman, non-binary — in initial reporting requirements and to expand and include the anti-racism data standard once it’s been finalized. This will enable us to understand the gender pay gap from an intersectional lens, which I talked about before.
The manner of publication. The private member’s bill requires the employers to post a report on the employer’s website or in a place accessible to employees. It requires reports to be published for at least five years and requires reports to be published on an official website designated for the purpose by the registrar. Like I had mentioned, on February 8, the critic said that it would be published on the company website.
Bill 13 similarly requires employers to post reports on their own website or on a publicly accessible place. It does not require employers to post each report for five years. It gives them some flexibility to remove the previous reports once a new one is available, which I think is fantastic, because that means that if there are a lot of areas for opportunity for improvement, they can, once they’ve reported the new data, not only show that they’re an effective employer in addressing the pay disparity or pay gaps; they can show their own improvement if they want.
But let’s say they had a pretty big blind spot, and the first report wasn’t great. Well, they can improve and post a better report. I like that. I think that a lot of the employers liked that, as well, in the consultation. It does not require the employers to post on a government website, Bill 13.
I think one of the things I’ll reiterate that I know is thematic here is: the pay transparency legislation is one step. Within the legislation, we have the opportunity to refine and improve. As things become available, or as work is done to find systems that are searchable, accessible and not burdensome to the businesses and that are useful, there’s opportunity for improvement there. I’m appreciating that there’s flexibility built in so that we really can build the system that will move us forward.
To continue the comparison, just so that people can see some of the differences, I don’t think that we’re comparing similar things when the critic stands up and says, you know: “Seventh time’s the charm.” Well, what we’re presenting here in this bill is not the private member’s bill.
There are quite a few more differences, but one of the ones that I think is the most glaring is that in the private member’s bill, there are no additional measures beyond reporting, whereas when we talk about Bill 13…. I mean, I spent a lot of time talking about those other three elements that can be used.
[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]
Welcome back to the chair, Mr. Speaker. It has been a long time.
There are those other three elements of this bill, beyond just reporting, that will interrupt and interfere with the perpetuation of that inequitable practice. In accordance with emerging best practices, Bill 13 creates additional transparency around job posting requirements. You have to have that salary, remember?
Pay history ban — not allowed to ask. Just for people at home, there are a lot of things that you’re not allowed to be asked during an interview. You can’t ask: “When are you planning on starting a family?” That is not an okay question. I heard someone got asked that the other day, and I just couldn’t even believe it.
Assuming royal assent as we move through the process, the pay history ban applies as of royal assent — and the anti-reprisal protection for revealing pay to others. So be on notice that these are rules that are going to change once we’ve moved through this process. If this bill receives royal assent, those change right away. They’re pretty good changes; they protect people. We immediately start working on those things that perpetuate this inequity — pieces of it. It’s going to be a bumpy road, but we’re going to see those changes right away.
Another difference between the private member’s bill and the Pay Transparency Act is around this annual reporting. I know that there were a lot of advocates. In case you’re just joining in this hour versus the last one, I’ve already said how critical it is that we’re hearing so much from advocates, from the Human Rights Commissioner, from the letter, from all of the people, because it helps us to cement that this is a step and to listen to all of the voices who are coming to push us towards the next.
One of the concerns that I’ve heard is around annual reporting — like the need for centralization. In the private member’s bill, it makes no mention of government leadership in reporting back to the public. I think that’s pretty key, because Bill 13 commits the minister to publishing annual reports, starting June 1, 2024, on pay gap trends and employer compliance.
The minister will be publishing a report, starting June next year — because the first reports from the employers are coming in November of this year — on pay gap trends and compliance. Again, it’s another opportunity for employers really to be champion employers, employers of choice, really lead their peers and show: this is what it looks like. People vote with their feet. That’s the expression, right? They vote with their feet. I’m looking forward to seeing that first report, June 2024, as well.
Another area that I want to illustrate that’s different between the private member’s bill and Bill 13, the Pay Transparency Act, is that Bill 13 commits the minister to complete a written review of the effectiveness of the act within five years, whereas in the private member’s bill, there’s no mention of review to ensure that the bill continues to meet the needs of British Columbians.
That’s really important, because we’re going to be hearing over time, as we phase in the transparency reporting, from businesses. We’re going to be hearing from employees, from employers. We’re going to be hearing from advocates who are active and committed and passionate to this issue. We’re going to be hearing directly from people about, “this is working,” “this is not,” or maybe “this part doesn’t work anymore,” or “that’s fantastic.”
It commits the minister to a review of the effectiveness. I think that’s fantastic. It has to be within five years so that, even if it went the whole time, it’s still fairly narrow as we phase in employers of up to 50 employees.
Compliance and enforcement was something that people were really worried about. I absolutely can understand why. The kind of inequity we’re talking about — here we’re talking about pay transparency and pay inequity — is just one piece of so many ways, so many places that things are inequitable. To have this Pay Transparency Act, which will do what pay transparency does….
There was a real concern that we heard back from advocates around enforcement. Neither this act nor the private member’s bill have proposed any formal compliance and enforcement, but Bill 13 commits that the director of pay transparency will support employers to comply. Now, I already spoke about how this was going to be done through education, training, follow-up, and that the director will monitor and report on complaints.
I talked about how important it was already that we really bring people along. We make sure that everyone is having the same conversation. We teach employers. As I discussed right at the beginning, not everybody understands the depth of this problem. Not everybody even agrees that there is one. I saw a comment to that effect on social media — it’s a gold mine, right? Okay, some places; I’ll paraphrase — that said: “Pay gaps don’t exist. If that were true, businesses would only hire women to pay them less.”
I was thinking about it: “Yeah, except for some businesses, especially those that would intentionally pay them less — which I’m not even saying is the rule — are going to want a lot of male employees because, obviously, they don’t value the work of women.” I had a little trouble with the logic, but I could see where they were going. It just illustrates that we’re not all at the same place in this conversation.
Starting with enforcement or a more punitive approach…. I can understand the elegance in this act of approaching it from a place of education, of understanding, because the entire act, the entire idea of the transparency, is to make sure that everybody can see the problem.
We want to bring as many people along as possible because when we don’t bring people along, we leave ourselves vulnerable. We’re not, then, building a system. This isn’t another step in the journey, unless we’re bringing people along with us on that journey.
Although we understand that it is pay equity that is the goal, by taking an educational approach…. I almost picked up a paper, but it would have been a prop. We’re not going to end up in a situation like 2001, where the current opposition leader, the current member for Prince George–Valemount, repealed pay equity legislation.
To the advocates and to the people who have questions about…. Why pay transparency? Why not enforcement? Why not a bigger stick? I understand the compulsion, but we’ve seen work be wiped completely off the map.
We’re going to build something that is so ingrained in our culture and that is such an expectation. It is a right when you go in for an interview. It is a right when you look at a job posting. It is information that you have a right to and that you can access when you’re looking at your organization or another organization and trying to make training decisions, family decisions.
We’re going to build a system where you know what you’re entitled to, you know what your right is, and you know what you’re worth. If there is any difference between what you are worth and what somebody else, standing next to you, is worth because of their gender, you’re going to know, unequivocally, that that is against the law in British Columbia. It has been the whole time, but you weren’t allowed to ask how much the person next to you is making. It’s coming. It’s almost here.
Okay. The next difference between the two is around support for employers. This is really key because of what I just talked about — that educational approach and making sure that we’re bringing people along and building a system where all of us are moving together to build an equitable and stronger B.C.
The private member’s bill didn’t have any supports for employers, but this bill has support for employers. It falls directly under the responsibility of the director of pay transparency. It assigns that responsibility. Somebody is accountable for that.
A very big difference, which I think is very important, between the private member’s bill that was introduced seven times without success and the Pay Transparency Act that we’re looking at is around consultation and cooperation with Indigenous peoples. There was no requirement for this in the private member’s bill, but the Pay Transparency Act commits to consultation and makes it required before the publication of annual or other reports.
One of the things that really highlights is how the continuation of consultation, the continuation of improving…. This issue didn’t happen all of a sudden, overnight, and get so entrenched.
I wish we were having this conversation on a Wednesday. I’d be wearing my “On Wednesday, we smash the patriarchy” under my blazer. But it’s Tuesday. I’ll take it.
What it’s saying…. These systems of inequity are not going to be dismantled or handled or resolved because of one piece of legislation that, quite frankly, can be cancelled if there’s any change. The iterative nature of it, bringing people along, the Indigenous consultation, making sure that, as a community and as a province, we’re moving forward together…. I think that’s going to be the key to the success of this transparency legislation.
Okay. We’ve canvassed a lot. Bill 13 is very exciting. It brings in three mechanisms that are not named in the title because the title would have been too long. Then it brings in the reporting around the pay transparency.
At the end of the day, not only will we have an understanding of what employers in British Columbia are paying employees and the gender relation to that and, like I said, in those different phases…. The first one is PSA and Crown corporations over 1,000, then all employers over 1,000, then all employers over 300 and then all employers over 50.
Not only are we going to have a broader understanding of pay and gender across the province across employer types — non-profits, private, public, the whole thing — we’re also going to be the first to do it across the gender spectrum, so not only limiting to the binary. Right now, a lot of the data that I’ve been referencing is binary, because that’s what’s available, but we know the impact is so much broader than that. We’re going to be able to incorporate the gender data standard act, the anti-racism data. That’s how the businesses are going to report.
On this whole other side, we’re also going to have the ability for employees and job seekers to have different things. Right away, we’re going to be seeing where we’ll be able to ask and share about pay information.
Right away you’re not going to be able to be asked about your pay history and negotiations, and then there’ll be the job posting information. That’s it in a nutshell. The act really isn’t very long. If you’re interested, you really should read it, just if anybody’s listening.
Despite all of the progress that we’ve made on gender equity, we know that women in British Columbia — not only in British Columbia, but in British Columbia — are still paid less than men, 17 percent, actually. We know that for Indigenous women, visible minority women and immigrant women, that gap is even larger, shockingly large. We also believe that the pay gap affects people all along the gender continuum, including non-binary, transgender and two-spirit British Columbians. We’ve been taking action to close the pay gap, and the pay transparency legislation is one of the ways we’re doing this.
Although it is…. Disappointing is maybe not a strong enough word. Although I cannot help sometimes but think about where we could be right now if the B.C. Liberals had not repealed the pay equity legislation that the former, former B.C. NDP government enacted….
If we could imagine where we would be if that had continued, especially given the other pieces of work and the other steps we’ve been able to do, like around expanding access to affordable, accessible child care; going from having the lowest minimum wage to the highest, because we know that women are disproportionately represented in the lowest groups; eliminating an incredibly unfair liquor serving wage, which allowed liquor servers, mostly women, to be paid less than their colleagues.
We’re bringing thousands of health care workers back into the public health care system with higher wages and better benefits after the B.C. Liberals contracted them out, resulting in slashed wages and the largest layoff of women in Canada’s history.
I am very excited about this legislation, and I believe I have touched on all the points except for one. The critic for gender equity said that we don’t need more data to know women get paid less.
She may have said “day-ta”; I’m never sure which way to say it.
We do. We do need more data to make sure everybody understands how real and how serious and how impactful this is. A woman or a non-binary person who cannot increase or make an equitable wage does not have equitable choices.
We know women…. The data shows that women are getting paid less than men. We also know that there are articles and comments and posts and memes about how it’s just sexist tropes. We’re having babies, or we don’t do the same kind of work. It’s not as hard. We can’t get as much done. We’re emotional. That one. I forgot that one. Hormonal. Forgot that one. There’s all these reasons why we don’t pay women the same as men if you can get somebody to actually agree that women are not paid as much as men.
If we’re not even going to admit that there is a problem, then it’s very difficult to discuss the fact that pay equity and pay transparency legislation will show us that we are disadvantaging people based on their gender, and how that intersects with their ethnicity, with their indigeneity, with maybe their place of origin, the colour of their skin, all of these intersecting pieces — racism and gender and ability and ableism and how that all makes a really gross soup, because it disadvantages people.
If you are not getting paid in a way that values the work you’re doing, if you’re not getting paid as much as the person next to you because of your gender, your race, you do not have the same choices in life. You deserve to not only know it, but to have the information that shows it. Because these conversations, like in this article that I mentioned, in these social media comments that I’ve mentioned….
How do 34.6 percent of grown men think that this is not an issue, that it’s overhyped? Well, now I’m just getting emotional. It’s not an issue. If they don’t even believe this is a thing — 34.6 percent. These people are hiring managers, they’re entrepreneurs, maybe they’re employees. I hope it’s going well. These 34.6 percent — I don’t think that’s the representation of the members in this chamber. I don’t. I think that this was random.
That’s maybe scarier, because there’s — what?— a 30 percent chance plus that my daughter is looking for a job, and the hiring manager is one of these, so she gets paid less. That’s not okay. That means she has less chances, less opportunities. As I’ve mentioned before, even just to stand in this place, I recognize the privilege that I do it with. So when I’m speaking of my daughter, I’m talking about our daughters.
She has less opportunity. If she is in a dangerous relationship, she has less power to leave. If she would like skills, training to advance her opportunity, her position…. Now, fortunately, our government has been working on that. But if she has less money to be able to save or to be able to pay for expenses…. I’m so grateful that I know our daughters right now do have access to all of these programs. At the end of the day, their equal work deserves equal pay.
To tie them into a relationship or into a situation that is unhealthy or dangerous or limiting or makes them feel small or makes them feel like they need to check all ten boxes off before they can even try or makes them feel like they only deserve what they’ve been getting the whole time because somebody, when they were 15, set a wage randomly because they’re just a girl, and now every job they go to after is going to be based on what they made in the previous job….
If they have no way to talk about something other than to say, “You know what? I feel like this is unfair….” Because they said “feel,” and because they’re a woman: dismissed.
Now they have the numbers. The first report of the phased-in reporting comes out this year. They will have they numbers. They will be able to show it. When one of these 34.6 percent pops their heads up, they can take it off with facts, speaking metaphorically. Yes, huge paper cuts.
No longer…. Just like when the rules changed, and you could not ask women: “You know what? Definitely qualified. Are you planning on starting a family anytime soon? You look young. What does your husband think of you applying?” You can’t ask those kinds of questions.
Once this this passes, you can’t ask: “What did you make at your last job — dot, dot, dot? I’m going to base any offer in negotiations on that, hoping that you just feel grateful it was more, even though I was prepared to pay this.”
Now, don’t get me wrong. I understand negotiations. I understand the purpose of negotiations, especially in a business setting. If I pay you more, I have less, especially when you’re talking about…. For-profit, you have shareholders. If I pay you more, there is less. I understand the motivation, but that motivation should not come on the backs of people based on their gender. So by all means, start your negotiation.
That’s another thing. Once you have valued that work, and you have published that salary range, now you negotiate within that salary range. At least the starting point is not gender-based, unless you’re only…. I don’t even know where there would be a gendered place to post. If anybody can access the public job posting, and anybody can see the salary range, then everybody can see that this is what the value of this work is to this employer, and that is not gendered information.
When you are talking about hiring a professional, or hiring a female professional, and you entirely plan on paying them differently, that’s a problem. This will eliminate even the question. Of course, that’s not what you’re doing. No responsible employer would. This will completely make everything transparent. Hence the Pay Transparency Act.
Hon. Speaker, I have shared a lot about why I support this bill. I am very excited. I think there have been…. There are differences contained within Bill 13 that make it the strongest pay transparency act possible in order to bring everyone together, moving forward towards a common goal of pay equity. The consultation that’s happened and that will continue to happen and the learning that has happened and will continue to happen have built partnerships and have built a commonality in the journey towards pay equity.
I think I am most excited about the fact that this is one step in our journey to pay equity so that never again will a government, a B.C. NDP government, enact pay equity legislation only to have it wiped off the board. We are changing all the expectations.
The expectations we are changing are British Columbians’ expectations, because now they will expect the information that they are entitled to, based on this act. Employers will be able to use that information to attract amazing talent. British Columbia will be stronger for it as we continue to do all of the pieces of work that will close the gender pay gap across the gender spectrum.
This one piece of legislation…. A previous speaker said that there was lots of celebration. Yeah, there’s a lot to celebrate. This is an important step. This is a critical step so that a year from now, five years from now…. Five years from now when the review happens about whether this is still useful to British Columbians and whether anything needs to change, because that’s a commitment in this act.
When we’re having this conversation, there will be, no doubt, only evidence of what the situation and the reality are in British Columbia where the gender pay gap is concerned. The other levers that are mandatory in this act will immediately start having a positive impact on it as well.
Thank you so much for my time, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate being able to share so thoroughly about an act that I am very excited about.
With that, I’ll take my seat.
Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, Minister of Finance.
Hon. K. Conroy: I move second reading of Bill 13.
Motion approved.
Hon. K. Conroy: I move that the bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.
Bill 13, Pay Transparency Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.
Hon. K. Conroy: I move that the Election Amendment Act be called now for second reading.
BILL 11 — ELECTION
AMENDMENT ACT,
2023
(continued)
M. de Jong: First of all, I should say…. I apologize. The Attorney made her remarks on this bill yesterday, when other matters in other chambers at this place required my attendance. I appreciate the opportunity to inject myself into the debate now, as it relates to this piece of legislation.
I’ll begin where I think the Attorney left off. I think the last line in her comments to the assembly was about the importance of preserving the integrity of our electoral process. I think that’s an important place to start whenever we are considering changes and certainly, changes of the sort that are before the House in Bill 11.
What do we mean when we talk about the integrity of the electoral system? I’ll just take a moment to speak, maybe a little bit philosophically or conceptually, about what I think that means. It’s something we tend to take for granted. I suppose we’re lucky to be able to take it for granted in our country, in our province and in our communities.
That is this notion…. As part of that democratic process, when a citizen goes to a polling place or, as we’ll see, engages in other available processes for casting their vote and exercising their franchise, they have absolute and can have absolute confidence in the notion that, having made that choice, it will be received and it will be counted fairly along with all of the other votes that are cast as part of that electoral process.
As I say, I think, fortunately, to this point, that is an assumption that is still widely held in our society, although we have seen, in some quarters, particularly south of the border, an increasing public dialogue that seeks to challenge that notion, and it’s troubling. I think it’s troubling for any of us, not just in the Canadian context but in the North American context, to see and hear allegations that go to the heart of the integrity of our electoral process.
It’s not the time or place to comment further upon that kind of commentary and the challenges that may exist elsewhere, except to say…. One of the ways to ensure that a similar phenomenon does not reveal itself or present itself here is to ensure that our electoral system operates in a way that is beyond reproach and that is well equipped to withstand any of those criticisms, if and when they were to materialize, from people either involved in the electoral contests or others who may not be happy with the result and then seek to challenge the integrity of the system itself.
I was reflecting, as I was thinking about some of the changes being proposed in this bill, Bill 11, about the first time I cast my vote in a provincial election several centuries ago. I was actually involved in a summer job in the Yukon, in a place called Watson Lake, just on the Yukon side of the border.
In order to vote in I think it was the ’82 or ’83…. I should know this. It was the ’82 or ’83 provincial election. The closest polling station was in Dease Lake, and it was a four-hour drive away. By God, I had reached the age of majority, and I was going to cast my ballot. I got in the truck and drove down the highway, the Stewart-Cassiar Highway, actually, to Dease Lake to cast my ballot. Of course, I didn’t live there full-time. So the whole notion of a write-in ballot and what you put on that ballot, writing in the name of the candidate, was all very much relevant for me.
Here we are 40-plus years later. Some of those same questions emerged, which the Chief Electoral Officer was obliged to turn his mind to in making recommendations in the two reports that I think formed the basis for much of the legislation before us.
We’re going to have some questions, and I know the Attorney is here. That notion…. Well, I’ll back up and say….
The mechanics, ultimately, of what goes into running an election, and that is facilitating each citizen’s right to cast their ballot, on the one hand, haven’t really changed very much. It’s still one person, one vote. We verify that the person is entitled to vote, and then we take their vote and ensure there’s a system by which it is counted and counted fairly. Technology has changed some of the ways we can go about doing that.
Then there is another trend that most of us find very worrisome. That is the declining rate at which citizens take advantage of that right to participate, as voter participation rates continue to drop, in some cases, to embarrassingly low levels.
I won’t talk today about why that is so troubling in light of all of the sacrifices that have been made to secure those rights. We do that in other contexts in this House. Suffice to say, I think, it is something that weighs heavily upon all of us and I think something that continues to influence the Chief Electoral Officer in terms of many of the recommendations he has made.
There’s this, in a sense, tension between how we facilitate having more people participate and reverse that trend we are seeing, that very troubling trend around declining participation rates in that fundamentally important aspect of our democratic institutions, selecting those who are going to occupy them and the need to ensure that we have a system that is robust enough to ensure that participation occurs fairly.
Finding that balance is important. The Chief Electoral Officer has provided recommendations that I think he believes finds that balance, and the government and the Attorney have tabled legislation drawing on much of that — not all. I’ll talk about that in a few moments as well.
In facilitating that participation, we must also, I believe, not lose sight of the fact that people are exercising a really important, hard-earned right. There is a certain responsibility that comes with that, too. I don’t think the threshold is that high, but as we heard from another member of the House yesterday, following the Attorney General, there’s the question of how one identifies their preference on a ballot.
On a traditional ballot, the candidates are listed, an X is marked, and it should be very straightforward. With the advent of more mail-in ballots, the phenomenon, which I encountered the first time I voted — of writing in to identify who one supports — is becoming more prevalent. This legislation seeks to provide not just guidance but some specific rules around how voter intention can be determined by, for example, writing in the name of a party leader.
I think it’s worth…. We will want to explore with the Attorney whether or not asking a person to know who they’re actually voting for is an unfair burden to put on them — that is, the candidate in the constituency to which their vote would count. The provisions of the bill would no longer require that and would authorize the counting of a vote that does not identify a specific candidate but identifies the leader of the party.
I’m not suggesting there is some kind of an insidious plot here, but I think it is a point worth canvassing with the Attorney General to determine whether or not it’s appropriate to ask of an individual who is voting that they know to whom that vote is going to be credited, at some point in that exercise.
There are, in the legislation, a series of amendments that speak to the phenomenon of mail-in ballots. There’s some language: “enclosures” versus “envelopes.” I’m not entirely sure…. I’m sure the Attorney will, with the assistance of staff, be able to explain the significance of some of those linguistic changes and again, ensuring that there are mechanisms in place within the act.
I suppose much of this is predicated on the government accepting what I believe the Chief Electoral Officer has accepted, which is that promoting mail-in ballots is (a) an appropriate way to canvass the population for their choice and (b) an effective way to try and reverse the trend against declining participation in the electoral process. Again, ensuring that there are safeguards in place to guarantee that that is done fairly, and not manipulated improperly, is legitimate.
We all say, I’m sure, in the course of campaigns that we have participated in: “Every vote counts.” We say that, I think, as a motivator to supporters, but if you think about it, it also represents an underlying vote of confidence in our system. Every vote counts, because it is counted.
It was a long time ago, but as someone who secured a seat in this place on the strength of a 40-vote victory, one is easily persuaded that every vote counts. Ensuring that we can say that and continue to say that to people and instil in them the ongoing belief that the system is equipped to preserve the integrity of their vote is important.
The legislation addresses some issues around third-party advertising — what is deemed acceptable under the act, who can advertise on behalf of candidates, and how they are defined, depending on their relationship with the candidate. We’ll have a few questions about the technical aspects of that when we get to the committee stage.
There are some initial attempts — again, I think, drawn from observations and recommendations made by the Chief Electoral Officer — about preventing advertising that is made to appear as if it is from a political party, from Elections B.C. or from the government, but isn’t. I suppose, again, that is part and parcel of the evolving technology, which allows for messaging to be manipulated in various ways that perhaps wasn’t possible even 20 years ago. We’ll explore that with the Attorney at the committee stage.
I can also alert the Attorney to one of the things I posed when, happily, her officials provided us with a briefing, several weeks ago now. I think all of us in this chamber have been confronted by situations where Elections B.C. will publish a circular that lays out where polling stations are or where polling places are.
Again, with the technology, we’ll simply repost that information as a way of providing information to citizens and voters. I’ll want to verify whether or not the rules in any way restrict or inhibit the ability to simply pass along information that may come to a candidate by Elections B.C. and that would be helpful to citizens in exercising their franchise.
There are provisions in the legislation that deal with an attempt to prevent the dissemination of misinformation. I’m not going to try and dissect that here in second reading remarks. I think few would argue with the proposition that, where possible, we are as a society better served when people are provided with accurate facts, as opposed to false information. So no argument there. The workability, the practicality, of what is being proposed here…. By the way, I will say at the outset, I recognize that the pertinent sections are restricted to certain kinds of information as it relates to citizenship, for example.
I anticipate I’ll ask the Attorney General, at the end of the day, besides the recommendations from the Chief Electoral Officer, what prompted her and the government to select those criteria or restrict it to those criteria.
In the course of a 28- or 30-day campaign, I’d like to explore with the Attorney General how this is going to work practically in what is, obviously, a competitive landscape where political parties and political candidates may suddenly now inundate the office of the Chief Electoral Officer with allegations of misinformation by their opponents and to what extent that office is going to be equipped to (a) make determinations, (b) issue orders and then (3) have those orders enforced in a timely way. So all to alert the Attorney of the practical implications of what is being proposed.
I recognize that these are the provisions that were drawn largely from, again, recommendations from the Chief Electoral Officer, but it strikes me that in pursuit of a laudable objective, the Chief Electoral Officer and that office are going to become far more active participants in the campaign exercise than was heretofore the case. What are the implications of that for the resources required by that office, moving forward?
This is interesting. The two reports, the 2020 and 2022 reports from the Chief Electoral Officer, include, obviously, a whole series of recommendations, many of which are referenced and acted upon in Bill 11. There are a few and, I would suggest, a couple of significant ones that are not here. Dare I say that I might be able to draw the Attorney General into a conversation about that as it relates to some of the other provisions? It’s always a little more challenging at committee stage to talk about something that’s not in a piece of legislation.
I’m hoping, at the conclusion of my remarks and what I have to say in the next few minutes, that the Attorney General will take advantage of her opportunity when this debate on Bill 11, the second reading debate, closes, to perhaps try and provide some initial response.
I’ll say to the House that the two recommendations that I thought were notable for not having been dealt with in this legislation are recommendation 2 from the 2020 report, which is titled “Discourage foreign and out-of-province interference.” Now, as a country, we, all of us in this chamber, know that this has become fairly topical, perhaps not exactly in the way that the Chief Electoral Officer considered it. Obviously, concerns around foreign and out-of-province interference, particularly foreign interference, have captured the attention of Canadians and British Columbians.
I wouldn’t normally do this, but I’ll take a moment to read the summary that the Chief Electoral Officer offered about this. Now, this is three years ago, in his 2020 report. This is a quote from page 12 of that report.
“The Election Act does not currently prohibit foreign entities from registering as third-party advertisers, and the sources of funding used to sponsor election advertising are not fully transparent under current legislation. This increases the risk of foreign and out-of-province third parties influencing B.C. elections.
“Third-party advertisers that sponsor election advertising with a total value of more than $500 are required to file a disclosure report with Elections B.C. but are only required to open a separate sponsorship account if they receive more than $10,000 in contributions. To register with Elections B.C., they must only provide a British Columbia mailing address, which can be a P.O. box. These requirements may allow foreign and out-of-province entities to indirectly or anonymously fund third-party advertising.
“Requiring third-party advertisers to be registered organizations within B.C., with one or more directors residing in the province, would address this concern. Requiring all third-party sponsors to purchase advertising, only using Canadian funds from a sponsorship account at a Canadian bank, would also increase transparency and prevent foreign funding. Further, advertising platforms could be restricted from accepting ads placed by foreign and out-of-province entities.”
There’s a little bit more in that section, but what it all leads to is the Chief Electoral Officer making the following recommendations:
“Require all individuals and organizations that sponsor third-party advertising to (1) be a resident of B.C., if they are an individual, or be a registered organization within B.C. that has one or more directors who reside in B.C., if they are an organization; (2) open a separate sponsorship account for all transactions if they sponsor election advertising with a total value of more than $500; and (3) purchase advertising in Canadian funds from a Canadian bank account.”
He then goes on to recommend:
“Prohibit advertising platforms from accepting election advertising from foreign or out-of-province entities.”
Finally, he recommends:
“Limit the amount of self-funding for third-party advertising sponsors to a reasonable amount.”
I wanted to put that on the record, although it’s in the report, because it’s an area the government chose not to address in this legislation.
Either at the conclusion of second reading or in the course of the committee stage debate, I think it is appropriate for the government, via the Attorney General, to offer its explanation for why — in the context of legislation that draws almost exclusively on these two Chief Electoral Officer reports — the government chose not to address that recommendation pertaining specifically to foreign and out-of-province interference, particularly at a time when that is very much attracting the attention of Canadians and British Columbians.
The other recommendation that the Chief Electoral Officer made and that attracted my attention but not the government’s — at least, insofar as including it or addressing it in Bill 11 — was recommendation 3 from the 2020 report. Now, I address this one with some trepidation, because I’ll be the first to admit my familiarity with the lingo probably lags sadly behind most members of the assembly. But this speaks to the Chief Electoral Officer’s concern. Well, he titles recommendation 3: “Increase transparency around the use of social media bots.”
Mr. Speaker, I’ll designate myself as the speaker. It doesn’t mean I’m going to be a whole lot longer, but I’m going to need a little bit more time.
Under recommendation 3, the Chief Electoral Officer had this to say: “Election advertising is increasingly taking place online, which provides advertisers with new ways of communicating with voters. Social media bots and botnets….” I first thought that might be a female bot, but it’s not. It’s a botnet, which, I guess, is many bots brought together. “…are two examples.”
“Bots are automated programs that interact with social media users. They can be used to amplify content; i.e., make it more visible and distribute it to a wider audience. Botnets are a group of devices running automated programs that work together in a coordinated manner.
“Social media bots can be used for legitimate purposes…. But they can also be used by malicious actors to artificially elevate content and influence voter behaviour.”
He goes on later in that summary to say:
“Social media bots are prolific and can interact — e.g., like share and message” at what he describes as “an inhuman rate. Bots can produce over 600 messages a day, which equates to posting a new message every minute for ten hours.”
He goes on to summarize the concern around, again, foreign influence and the use of bots and concedes, in the final paragraph:
“Though it may be technically challenging, regulating automated activity online is possible. To address the challenges posed by bot and botnet activity, California passed a blade runner law…in 2018, which made it illegal to communicate with individuals online via bots to sell products or influence a vote in an election, unless the person behind the bot makes it clear that the account is automated.”
Then, interestingly, he makes this point:
“Similarly, British Columbia recently passed Bill 27, in 2019, the Ticket Sales Act, which prohibits the use of automated software to secure tickets for resale. Similar intervention is needed to address the risks bots pose to fairness and transparency in B.C. elections.
“Currently the Election Act does not require an election ad to state that it was published by a bot. To ensure that voters know they are communicating with an automated program, election advertisements that use bots should be required to disclose their automated nature.
“This would help voters make informed decisions.”
Then his two recommendations:
“Require social media bots that publish election advertising, as defined by the Election Act, to disclose their automated nature.”
Secondly:
“Require the disclosure of a bot’s automated nature to be clear and unambiguous so that any reasonable person would know they are communicating with a bot.”
Look, I don’t claim to occupy the leading edge when it comes to the use of this technology. I get it, and I see it. This has become a very prevalent practice. Other jurisdictions are addressing it. The Chief Electoral Officer, at least, is satisfied that the potential to make use of, or misuse, this technology to improperly influence the outcome of an election is very real.
Again, conspicuously, the government and the Attorney have chosen not to move forward with this additional recommendation. I am somewhat critical of that but will reserve my criticism further in the hopes that the Attorney General will, on behalf of the government, offer some manner of explanation for why, both in the case of the foreign influence recommendation and on the misuse of technology via these bots and botnets, the government has determined not to act on the recommendations from the Chief Electoral Officer.
It’s all to say that the opposition is intent on facilitating the passage of this bill into committee stage, so that we can explore some of these issues further, and fully embraces the proposition that as technology evolves and as social behaviour involves, so, too, must the legal framework that is designed to preserve the integrity of our democratic institutions and the means by which we select people to occupy these posts.
Also, hopefully I have signalled to the Attorney, in as fair a way as I can, some of the areas that we intend to canvass during the course of the committee stage to follow. I thank you for the time today.
M. Lee: I’m pleased to join my colleague the member for Abbotsford West and appreciate his efforts as the designated speaker on behalf of the official opposition with the points that he’s made.
I also am speaking to support this bill to move forward to the committee stage, for many of the reasons that the member for Abbotsford West just outlined. I do think it’s important to understand the context that we’ve been in, in this House, since before the 2017 election. For the reasons that the member for Abbotsford West noted, we do need to continue to modernize and strengthen our Election Act laws in this province to ensure the integrity of our democratic process is well grounded.
For much of that — not only with the use of bots for misinformation and other ways of foreign interference in our electoral process — we have seen the advent of more use of social media but also higher-profile instances and cases of foreign interference in politics — the mechanisms in which third-party involvement’s transparency, in terms of sponsorship, is important.
We see some of those elements, of course, here in this bill itself. If we look at what happened in the U.S. presidential election in November 2016 and the Brexit referendum in the U.K. in June of 2016, those were events that led up to the May 2017 election.
What followed the May 2017 election, of course, was one of the commitments that the former Premier made in that confidence and supply agreement with the Third Party: to bring forward a referendum on electoral reform — on which I, certainly, and other members of our team, our caucus, spoke, in the course of that referendum, to ensure that we kept our first-past-the-post voting system. Of course, 60 percent of British Columbians agreed with us on that.
There’s lots of debate, Mr. Speaker, as you would recall in this chamber, about the nature of that election and how that process, that referendum, was run. I won’t repeat that here, but I will say this. The focus of this government during this time — certainly between, let’s say, May of 2017 or July of 2017 to December 2018 — was at a pretty important time, in the aftermath of what happened in 2016. As I mentioned, in the U.S. presidential election, the Brexit referendum, we saw more of the considerations around what we are, as a globalized and digital world.
The report that the member for Abbotsford West cited is entitled Digital Communications, Disinformation and Democracy: Recommendations for Legislative Change, made in May of 2020. I think it’s important, though, to reflect on where we’ve been. I know, as some of the members may recall, that certainly I myself, the member for Abbotsford West, other colleagues of ours, the member for Skeena and others have worked with our former Leader of the Official Opposition, Andrew Wilkinson, as the member for Vancouver-Quilchena.
I must say I wasn’t here in the chamber. As I was in MCFD estimates, and then Education estimates, I missed the front part of the member for Abbotsford West’s speech. I’m not sure whether he covered this at length. He’ll just nod or not.
Interjection.
M. Lee: No. Okay. Well, I won’t want to retread old ground here, but I’ll just say this. At the time, there was a private member’s bill brought forward onto the floor of this assembly, introduced back in…. Let’s get the exact date.
It was back in, I think, May of 2019, five months after the referendum was concluded. Of course, we were still digesting the results and all of that, but Andrew Wilkinson certainly recognized the concerns around foreign interference — the events that I mentioned in 2016 — but the need to ensure. We needed to ensure that we had control and that political power remained in the hands of British Columbians.
The private member’s bill that Mr. Wilkinson put forward sought to prohibit individuals from accepting contributions from a foreign person, government or political organization for any purpose related to an election. We saw many of the examples internationally, but there were some local examples through the course of our provincial politics here in British Columbia. We’ve seen a great deal of foreign influence. I’m speaking about events that occurred before the private member’s bill was introduced into this House in May of 2019.
We saw well-funded campaigns backed by foreign dollars launched and coordinated as a deliberate assault on the Canadian energy sector from the environmental side. We see campaigns that continue. We’ve seen prominent players in the U.S. steadily funnelling money into organizations, determined to lock Canada out of the global resource market. Of course, we’ve seen the damage that that’s caused, at least to our energy security in this province and our country, with the events of Ukraine and how Canada and British Columbia are not in a position to supply clean, ethical LNG, for example, to the world that is needed.
We’ve seen how foreign money had hired employees to run campaigns, launch petitions, make phone calls for elections and use social media to turn public opinion. As you look at the source of those funds, you start to find that companies who stand to benefit financially from less market competition in Canada are behind this.
That bill sought to ensure that foreign-funded individuals and organizations would be prohibited from making false or misleading communications for any election-related purpose in our province. This recognition of fake news and misinformation is partly addressed in this bill in the measures that are utilized to streamline the election process and ensure that Elections B.C. has the resources and authorities it needs to continue to ensure that we have successful and fair elections in our province.
We’ve seen, in this bill, that it contains a number of housekeeping measures, ones that ensure that we can meet the increasingly digital world, the use of technology and what we saw in that 2020 snap election in the midst of the pandemic — the process around mail-in ballots. They ensure that we have proper definitions around the procedures, the guidance given and the guardrails to the Chief Electoral Officer.
We also have, in this bill being addressed, as I just mentioned, measures to prevent misinformation and the parameters around that. I’m sure these, as the member for Abbotsford West indicated, will be explored more fully at the committee stage with the Attorney General, including the rules around who can advertise on behalf of a candidate and what those advertisements can contain.
But as the member for Abbotsford West pointed out and as I’ve tried to also share with this House, there is a concern as to where this government has been in the course of all of these changes that are happening in the world around us, undermining our democratic process in the way that the private member’s bill by Mr. Wilkinson had attempted to address. This government has had that opportunity amongst all the other private members’ bills that have been introduced in this House over the last six years under this government’s reign. It was a well-considered bill that I know Mr. Wilkinson had said in the media was an issue beyond partisan politics.
He was hopeful that all parties in the Legislature would support what was a very important measure to secure our democracy and keep our politics local. These are the words that Mr. Wilkinson utilized.
Because we know what we’ve seen, at least since 2016, in other parts of this world and in our country and here in this province — the politics of fear and division. The politics of fear and division are fuelled by false and misleading news and information. Again, I recognize that this bill attempts to deal with some of that.
But the area of the bill, which is an important area to consider, is what is not in the bill given all that has happened around the world in the United States, in the U.K., the influences of other foreign governments in those countries and now in our country of Canada and in British Columbia.
We’ve seen the need. That was certainly identified back in 2019 in the midst of that tabling of that very important bill — the opportunity for this government to consider how it would incorporate elements of that bill as it continues to consider Election Act amendments. That is something, certainly, that we will pursue at the time that we have the opportunity in committee.
I agree with my colleague the member for Abbotsford West that that is an important area to consider. The member for Abbotsford West cited both recommendation 2 and recommendation 3 of this report of Elections B.C., tabled in May of 2020, as one of the two reports on which the amendments proposed under this bill are being formulated, as we understand. I know the member for Abbotsford West read out in detail elements of those two recommendations. I would just wish to reiterate two passages from these recommendations.
One is the assessment, which leads into the recommendations. As a direct quote under issue summary, under recommendation 2: “discouraging foreign and out-of-province interference.” This recommendation in this report addresses that. The concern from Elections B.C. is this: “The Election Act does not currently prohibit foreign entities from registering as third-party advertisers, and the sources of funding used to sponsor election advertising are not fully transparent under current legislation. This increases the risk of foreign and out-of-province third parties influencing B.C. elections.”
The companion passage of the assessment, under recommendation 3, which the member for Abbotsford West cited — and I’ll just read this into the record just for the context in which I’m delivering my remarks — is that “foreign influence is also a concern. Twitter accounts linked to Russia, Iran and Venezuela have attempted to influence conversations on contentious issues, such as pipelines and immigration, during and between federal election campaign periods in Canada. Some of these accounts were automated.”
I note that in the report, in footnote 42, it refers to the automation, the bots, that the member for Abbotsford West articulated so well. That article refers to nine million troll tweets, 9.6 million in fact, that were reviewed — all communicating and all found to be evidence of foreign influence in campaigns targeting Canadians’ views, including Canadians in British Columbia, about pipelines and immigration policy.
Now we know what has happened since that review, which was back in February of 2019, three months before Mr. Wilkinson tabled this bill in this House recognizing this concern. That was four years ago now. What has been happening and undermining our election process is what we’re seeing in this country by concerns that have been raised more recently or even after the last federal election. There are questions that have been raised, with various CSIS reports that have been reported in the media, relating to the last two federal elections and even the last municipal election in Vancouver.
I only mention that to say this. I know all members of this House know that what’s integral to our role is that our ability to be elected and to represent the ridings and the constituencies in this province has to be without question. We have to ensure the integrity of our democratic process. I know all members recognize that.
When the government has the opportunity to consider what is fundamental to our democratic system and all of the things that the member for Abbotsford West and myself have described and reminded this House of, we are of the view that this government needs to address these concerns.
They’re real, and they’re, quite frankly, ripping apart communities in the sense that when I was door-knocking in my riding on the weekend, on Saturday, I came to a house and a person who had their views, a husband and wife. Without any invitation, in terms of the issue, for some reason, the female constituent decided to tell me that she had no question about the election of the mayor of Vancouver.
This was my reaction: “Really? That’s a question? That’s a question you feel you need to address with your MLA?” That is what’s happened in the public discourse. When we don’t address the concerns, it eats away at our own trust and confidence in our system. We can’t have that.
I know that the government is doing its best, in its view, to modernize the election laws of our province. But this is an opportunity to address, again, what our former leader, Andrew Wilkinson, tried to address, with the support of our opposition team. I believe the Attorney General has our points on that, and for the reasons that I described. I know that the Attorney General recognizes this, given her comments in the public realm on other issues relating to racism, and that she appreciates what happens when you mix areas of foreign interference with race. That’s what’s happening in our country today.
I think the appropriate response has to be to support our democratic institutions. We are having a provincial bill coming across in our chamber at a very important time. It’s not needed to be playing politics, as they say, with this issue. It’s fundamental. So I hope the views that we have tried to express in our second reading speeches are taken into account and that we can have further consideration during the committee stage.
I will say that the Premier himself has said recently, if I can find the quote somewhere in my notes here as I shift papers…. I found the second part of the quote. Well, it’s really, based on what I can see here in the quote, the last part — the Premier himself recognizes that he has said his government is “looking for ways to make sure our elections are free and fair.” That last part is a direct quote.
So if, in his view and this government’s view, this bill is meant to accomplish that, I would say, from the opposition’s perspective, it’s important that we accomplish that and that we take into account the significant concerns around foreign interference and the ways and the measures which Mr. Wilkinson had tabled in this House before, four years ago, and of course, what was reported by Elections B.C. in the recommendations three years ago. There’s been plenty of opportunity for this government to consider those changes. One can wonder why they haven’t been addressed, but I’m sure we’ll learn more about that at the committee stage.
I’d like to just turn to one other point here as a demonstration of other considerations that this government should consider. I’ll just say it, because we’re in that juncture now, about this bill.
As the Speaker would recognize, particularly over the last number of sessions, the opposition has had the opportunity further to talk about the nature of community benefit agreements. As we know, what’s been indicated with respect to the Cowichan District Hospital replacement project…. For example, under the community benefit agreement itself, in the addendum, there was a specific deletion amendment to that agreement to take out the ability for permits to be issued under the community benefits agreement. That was a specific decision that was made with the AIRCC and the BCIB.
You know, I will say that the reason why I mention that is because my good friends — the member for Shuswap and critic for Labour, the member for Surrey–White Rock and shadow minister for Transportation and the member for Skeena — look at these provisions and wonder why it is that the government would allow this provision to be amended and taken out.
Mr. Speaker would recognize the comments that I’ve made in this House, amongst others, about the discriminatory nature of community benefits agreements and how they favour 19 specific building trade unions….
Deputy Speaker: Could the member help me understand the connection to Bill 11? Thank you.
M. Lee: I am coming to the point, and the point is: why is it that the government would stand for this level of discrimination and this level of amendment that discriminates against Indigenous people who are working on community benefit–related projects, public infrastructure projects on their own territories?
Well, we know that another element, of course, in these community benefits agreements is the significant dues for those 19 building trade unions that are NDP-approved unions that receive dues. So 32 cents per hour go to the unions themselves, including 25 cents per hour for union administration. This is under the arrangements for unions that represent less than 15 percent of the construction workers in B.C.
Under this Election Act that is being proposed for amendment, when we’re talking about integrity of our voting system…. We just canvassed directly the lack and the concerns that this bill has not addressed foreign interference. But I’m addressing now one other area that this government ought to address — and I’m giving them the opportunity to respond, as they do, in committee and elsewhere — which is another gap in the Election Act itself, which is this.
We know that under the 2018 Election Act amendments, unions can no longer be financial supporters. And of course, the government will say: “Well, that’s the same for corporations, of course.” But unions can be political supporters both in third-party advertising efforts and the organization of volunteers. That’s the case under the current Election Act. Under the Election Act, third-party sponsors must be registered, so there is some transparency. And as we know, even with this bill, there are some continued amendments to third-party sponsors and the way they need to communicate.
The fact remains that under these community benefits agreements, these 19 construction unions are receiving union dues that are being utilized by those unions to support this current government in elections. That is unfair. That’s an unlevel playing field. That is something that should be addressed in the Election Act. And that is something that I believe, as we talk about foreign influence on elections and the integrity of our voting system and our democratic process, ought to be addressed as well.
As we see opportunities to address the Election Act and the integrity of our democratic process, that’s just another example of how this current government under those CB agreements are undermining our democratic process by creating an unlevel playing field to favour themselves in the election activities and support by those 19 building trade unions.
N. Letnick: I thank my colleagues for their speeches. I’m not going to go on for a very long.
It’s just that in the last election, because of the pandemic, a lot of the ballots came in via mail. That being my 13th election, I believe, in my life between municipal and provincial elections, one thing that I really value, and I imagine most politicians really value, is to know where their voters are living and voting from. In particular, what polls they reside in, because that helps to channel efforts in elections.
You can tell that in a particular neighbourhood, from one election to another, maybe you’re losing some support or you’re gaining support. Maybe the message isn’t getting out. It gives you an opportunity in election time — and even in between elections, probably even more importantly — to focus your resources on those areas that you think would be in the best interest of yourself, of your team, and also to increase the voter turnout by making sure that in those areas that maybe are not showing up to vote, you can concentrate more effort there.
I was very disappointed, and I’ve talked to some of my colleagues who are also disappointed — and I’m sure, perhaps, people on the other side as well. It’s because of the huge number of mail-in ballots. There was no way of knowing how the polls were doing because the mail-in ballots weren’t assigned to polls.
I would hope that with this change in legislation, the government would consider bringing in an amendment to their own legislation, through committee stage, which would direct Elections B.C. to allocate the mail-in ballots to their particular polls. Otherwise, if we have another situation where half the ballots are done through mail-in, again, we won’t have a clue as to where those people are residing. I think it would be quite an easy fix to give people who are running in elections the tools that they would have under normal circumstances, which is knowing what poll someone belongs to. With the pandemic, we saw clearly that we didn’t know anymore.
That’s my only comment on the bill. It’s an opportunity to look at this particular issue so that next time we have an issue…. If we are encouraging more and more people to send in their ballots via mail, then we should really encourage Elections B.C., through legislation, to make sure that they take those mail-in ballots and assign them to the polls that they belong to.
Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, Attorney General to close the debate.
Hon. N. Sharma: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I just want to make a few comments before I move second reading.
First of all, we as a government have been updating the Election Act since 2017, with the first amendments to remove big money from politics in 2019 and quite extensive changes to the Election Act to make it easier to vote and to expand opportunities to vote. This is another one of those updates.
I thank the members from Abbotsford West and Langara for their comments. I just would like to assure them that we are always looking at ways to update our legislation, and these ones in particular. We’re focused on very, very particular improvements that need to be made before the next provincial election to do with mail-in ballots and the disinformation that was coming from the other election.
The other point that I’ll make is that with the improvements in this piece of legislation that are about disinformation, those apply to everybody, every person or organization that would interfere with our elections or seek to interfere in our elections by spreading disinformation about the particular categories that are set out in the legislation. That applies to anybody, including people that are operating outside of the country.
So it does beef up our ability to respond to those types of impacts on our electoral system, and we’ll continue to do those changes. We take the reports of the Chief Electoral Officer very seriously, including the ones that were brought up in the debate and discussion today. It’s an ongoing piece of work, our Election Act, that we will continue to update.
With those final comments, I move second reading.
Motion approved.
Hon. N. Sharma: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting after today.
Bill 11, Election Amendment Act, 2023, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.
Hon. S. Robinson: I call second reading of Bill 12, Intimate Images Protection Act, 2023.
BILL 12 — INTIMATE IMAGES
PROTECTION
ACT
Hon. N. Sharma: I move that the bill now be read a second time.
The distribution of intimate images without consent can have immediate, devastating and long-lasting impacts for survivors of this relatively new but increasingly common form of harm. Professional reputations can be destroyed. Employment prospects can be damaged. Feelings of safety and trust in existing and future relationships can be impaired, and survivors can become targets of additional harassment and ongoing trauma.
Although the non-consensual distribution of intimate images can affect anyone, it disproportionately impacts women, girls and gender-diverse people, making it a form of gender-based violence. A person who distributes a nude, nearly nude or sexual photo of another person without their permission violates the privacy and the autonomy of the person depicted in the image. This resulting harm spreads with the speed and the reach of the Internet. The law has not kept pace with this growing problem.
The Intimate Images Protection Act will respond to the problem of the non-consensual distribution of intimate images by creating new rights and remedies for survivors. Firstly, it will create an expedited process, allowing people whose images have been distributed without consent, or who have received threats of distribution, to quickly seek orders designed to stop and prevent the spread of images. These expedited orders will be coupled with powerful enforcement mechanisms including injunctions and monetary penalties.
[J. Tegart in the chair.]
Secondly, the legislation will provide a clear statutory basis for survivors to sue wrongdoers for compensation. People who have suffered harms of non-consensual distribution and threats of distribution will be able to rely on the statute to make their claims for damages under a statute designed specifically for this type of harm.
This legislation will help survivors by reinforcing individual rights of privacy and the importance of consent. It will reduce evidentiary burdens on survivors and identify appropriate defences for these proceedings.
The combination of these measures will serve to minimize retraumatization of survivors. Special procedures will be available for minors, to help them access the remedies provided by this legislation. The statute will also ensure that these legal remedies are available to surviving family members of deceased individuals, to stop the distribution of intimate images after a person has died. To protect privacy and avoid further harm, the legislation will mandate publication bans without preventing survivors from telling their stories and sharing their experiences if they choose to do so.
The legislation will apply to threats and distribution of intimate images without consent that occur on or after the date this bill received first reading in this chamber. People who are engaging in this wrongful conduct should be on notice that it must stop immediately and that new legal consequences are on the way.
This Intimate Images Protection Act will create civil remedies to give control over the process to survivors and provide complementary alternatives to existing criminal prohibitions and other forms of civil redress. The courts have affirmed that privacy is an essential part of well-being for an individual. Intimate images engage with highly sensitive privacy interests that are fundamental to individuals’ dignity, autonomy and sexuality.
The Intimate Images Protection Act will reinforce those privacy rights and an individual’s right to control who sees the images of their body. It will provide new forms of redress where this privacy is violated and serve as a vital part of our broader efforts to end this devastating form of harm.
M. de Jong: I was thinking, obviously, about the legislation and like most members, I think, very much alive to the fact that we are considering this new law against the backdrop of some very tragic circumstances: the death of a young lady whose mother took up the mantle of her incredibly tragic passing to call attention to a circumstance and a situation and a type of harm that has evolved with technology.
Here we are again talking about the evolution of technology. It’s worth reminding ourselves that in addition to the challenges and the problems that arise with technology, there are many benefits.
I was chatting about this legislation with a friend of mine who is experiencing their own challenges right now but was reminding me that the technology and the ability to connect with people — a person who life has dealt some very difficult blows to but is able now to connect with people not just in their neighbourhood but around the province and around the world, to secure the support they need to reclaim their life.
One has to be cautious about not laying all of the world’s sins at the feet of technology, which is a tool, properly used, that benefits all of us. But, of course, it can be misused and abused, and that is the phenomenon that the bill is seeking to address. Of course, the opposition is supportive of that in every way possible.
We are a visual species, and I say that not meaning to, in any way, disrespect those who have lost their sight. That’s not what I mean. When you think about the power that images have for us — and again, in a positive way and a negative way — we can all think of those images that we have been confronted by that have shaped our thoughts around international events.
The example I frequently use is closer to home, the image of Robert Dziekanski at YVR. But for that image, but for the fact that we saw what happened, one wonders whether steps would have been taken to get to the bottom. So imagery is very powerful, and for the same reason, can be very devastating.
In recognition of that, the government and the Attorney are taking these steps to try and address the abuse and misuse of technology around the dissemination of images. I think the Attorney would agree. Attempts to threaten, bully people in a schoolyard or a workplace with an image is not, in and of itself, a new thing, regrettably. It has happened for as long as there have been images.
The difference today is that with the push of a button, that image can be disseminated to literally millions of people, and the impact is far more permanent and far more widespread. I and the opposition understand that this legislation represents an attempt to provide, on the one hand, an expedited, speedy tool to limit, to the greatest extent possible, the damage a victim feels when a personal and private image is misused and distributed without their consent in a way that is either intended to inflict harm or, most obviously, any reasonable person would assume, is going to inflict harm on them.
There is a mechanism for doing that. I think the Attorney will agree, and we’ll canvass this during the course of the debate, that there will always be a period of delay. To the extent that the procedures called for in this bill reduce that period to the greatest extent possible is relevant to reducing the harm. But there will undoubtedly, in that case, still be some harm.
Then the other mechanism that is created is, in effect, the creation of a new statutory right of action for damages.
We’ll have a conversation in committee stage about how this will operate side by side with existing tort law and side by side with existing defamation law and how it’s intended to fill what may be a void there and provide a very specific cause of action in that regard.
I think that is important. We’ll want to explore with the Attorney the routes that can be taken — the burdens of proof, as she has alluded to — and the reverse burdens of proof that are being created in that regard in the case of quantifying damages, and how the Attorney believes that will also act as an impediment or a disincentive to those who might be tempted to inflict harm on others by misusing the technology and violating people’s privacy with that technology. Those, too, will be areas that we’ll want to explore.
There is the practical issue, as well, around the question of how orders of British Columbia tribunals and British Columbia courts will be received and respected by some of the large international platforms that are, most logically, going to be involved. I won’t mention them here. I think most of us know who they are. But the degree to which these platforms that are hosting the posting of millions of images a day are equipped to speedily address an order of a tribunal or a court that this legislation facilitates securing….
These are questions that we’ll have for the Attorney when we get to the relevant provisions of the legislation. Suffice to say, it is my sense that the House is fairly united in acceptance of the proposition that there is a gap in the law that is a result of rapidly evolving technology and the unfortunate misuse of that technology, coupled with, I guess, the long-standing tendency that a very few have of abusing people’s privacy and seeking to do so in a way that inflicts harm on them. As the Attorney says, particularly grievous in the case of young people, young women and other vulnerable peoples in our society.
I’m not going to extend the discussion needlessly. The bill certainly enjoys the conceptual and spiritual support of the opposition, and we will canvass some of the more technical aspects of its practicality and workability and enforceability when we enter the committee debate soon.
A. Olsen: I’m pleased to rise today and speak to Bill 12, the Intimate Images Protection Act. This important legislation addresses a pervasive type of sexualized violence in our society that has far-reaching impacts. Sharing an intimate image without the consent of the person in the image is sexualized violence. It can have widespread impacts affecting the mental health and livelihood of the person affected. The outcomes, as we’ve seen in this province, can be tragic.
This issue has been on the rise. In 2020, Statistics Canada reported an 80 percent increase in the incidents reported to police of non-consensual sharing of intimate images, compared to the previous five years. Considering that sexualized violence and violent crimes are chronically, systematically under-reported, it’s likely that the issue is even more widespread than the statistics will tell.
As elected representatives, we have a duty to the public. Historically, this duty has reinforced existing lines of marginalization. Historically, chambers like this have reinforced misogynistic and patriarchal norms that feed the same toxic system that contributes to sexualized violence.
There has been a marked shift over the last decade or so. Advocates have spoken up and spoken out, often at great personal risk, to call for legal protections such as the one that the Attorney General has presented for us today.
As I speak to this bill, I want to acknowledge every person harmed by this type of sexualized violence. I want to thank you for your strength and advocacy and for speaking up. I know that advocacy is not easy, but by advocating for change such as this, you’re helping to shape a better world and a better future.
The legislation on the table today covers intimate images, near-nude images, videos, live streams, altered images and deepfakes. I’m glad to see the breadth of this list.
It’s encouraging that this legislation will also create a new fast-track process for legal decisions. I’m especially glad to see that this enables legal orders against individuals and Internet intermediaries so that images can be deindexed and deleted. It is excellent to see that threatening to distribute intimate images without consent is also unlawful under this bill, as threats of image distribution can and have been used as tools of abuse.
Finally, this bill also provides specific legal tools for minors whose images have been shared without their consent and establishes that survivors are able to seek monetary damages for the circulation of their images. This is excellent.
We still have a long way to go. Sexualized violence is a deep-rooted problem and requires further examination by our society and legal landscape. Our goal is to build a society in which every member is valued, safe and cared for. This legislation is a step in that direction, and I’m pleased to support it.
HÍSW̱ḴE SIÁM.
Hon. G. Lore: I’m thrilled to get a chance to speak to this legislation. I’ll be brief in my remarks, as I’m pulled to another House shortly.
I did want to rise and speak to the importance of this legislation and to say, unequivocally, that the non-consensual disclosure of intimate images is violence. It’s violence that impacts people’s emotional well-being, opportunities for education, for employment, feelings of hope and the ability to feel safe in their homes, in their communities. We have lost people in our community due to this violence.
There was so much to do with this legislation. The previous member mentioned the role of threats and making the threat to share images without consent illegal. This is huge. It is a tool of abuse. It is often used in family violence situations and domestic violence situations, intimate partner violence.
The point that I truly want to leave, in my brief comments on this legislation, is how much was done through the Attorney General’s ministry to really put survivors at the centre of designing the tools for addressing this challenge. The Internet moves fast, and coming up with tools to address this form of violence, which can happen quickly and can get out of control and is so harmful to people’s lives, is a real challenge. Doing that in a way that reflects the needs of survivors for their autonomy, for their control over their own lives, for their feelings of safety is extremely challenging.
I believe that this piece of legislation is the start to building a system that is truly accessible to survivors and truly accessible to those who have had their images shared without their consent.
As a province, we were, I suppose you could say, behind on having legislation to this effect. What has happened here is an effort to build a system that is actually usable, not just having something on the books but something that is available to survivors who need support, who need action, who need support in taking action to address the violence that has occurred against them.
I truly believe that what has been captured in this legislation is something functional, usable. It’s putting us on a path to equipping survivors with the tools and supports they need to take action. This challenge, this form of violence, is not new, but it has absolutely exploded and increased over the pandemic. It impacts young women and girls. We’ve seen an increase in the use of this form of violence for extortion against young boys.
I lastly want to close by expressing my gratitude. I had the absolute privilege to work in some of the consultations that led to this piece of legislation. We talked to so many different people, people who are directly impacted, who have family members impacted, who lost family members after they experienced this form of violence.
We also talked to sex workers. We talked to educators. We talked to post-secondary students about the different ways that the non-consensual disclosure of intimate images impacts different communities and what people need to feel supported in taking steps to have their images deindexed, removed and destroyed when they are being used without their consent.
The folks who participated in that consultation informed this work so thoroughly with their own lived experience. People are experts in their own experience, in their own lives, in their own experience of violence., and they lent those courageously to this work.
I want to express my gratitude to the Attorney General and the former Attorney General, the Premier, and all of their staff in the Attorney General’s ministry, who truly took to heart what we heard in those consultations, in a way as to make something that is not just on the books but is going to support and empower survivors.
With that, I express my significant support and appreciation for this bill. I know it’s going to help us move forward in addressing gender-based and other forms of violence.
K. Paddon: Before I start talking, I just want to acknowledge — I guess a trigger warning — that the content of what we’re talking about here can be really triggering for not only victims and survivors but their families as well. I want to acknowledge that this is a difficult conversation, when we go beyond just the act itself. I want to touch on a few things that are a little bit sensitive, because it really crystallizes why this is so important.
I know I had some questions, which I shared, about the introduction of this act. The day we announced it we had Mrs. Todd here with us, and I had some questions from people in my constituency. “Yes, we understand that there’s online bullying. Yes, we understand. But why is this different? Why is it a big deal?”
It’s a big deal. I can’t express enough my gratitude to the Minister of State for Child Care for the work that she did on this as the Parliamentary Secretary for Gender Equity and to the Attorney General. This is hard to look at. There have been so many times throughout history where, when things are hard to look at…. Maybe we look away, or maybe we do it halfway. I’m so grateful that, in this case, what we’ve done all the way is about access to justice.
I had one question from a constituent, before I even really get into the rest of it…. I realized they didn’t really understand what we were talking about when we were talking about sextortion. So I think that it’s really important to define it.
One of the definitions I found…. There were a few. This one is not as traumatic as some of the others, so I will use it here. It’s a practice of extorting money or sexual favours from someone by threatening to reveal evidence of their sexual activity. Often what we’re talking about, especially online, is pictures, images, recordings, screenshots, things like that.
When we start a conversation like this, I think we need to be really clear. It needs to be said out loud, most definitely, that the victims of sextortion….
This crime relies on shame. Regardless of age, although that may complicate and further add to the criminality of what’s happening, regardless of gender, regardless of sexual identity, regardless of who you are, regardless of any form of your identity…. This can happen to anyone. The shame that perpetrators rely on…. You don’t have to feel ashamed. Don’t let that be what keeps you alone. That is such a necessary part of these crimes — the shame that is attached.
Now, that’s easier said than done. How people feel is their own decision. But we know in a lot of violent crimes, which this is…. In a lot of sexualized crimes, which this is…. In a lot of violence that can be based on gender, which this is…. Where it’s about control, which this is…. These kinds of crimes rely very strongly on the victim or the survivor feeling alone, worrying about not being believed, worrying about the perception that their action contributed to this. This is part of the trigger, maybe, potentially.
There is no one that I know who would be happy to have their personal actions — things that have actually happened and that they’ve actually done — their personal relationships, their personal relations, their intimate moments, whether it’s getting changed or being with their partner or even when they’re by themselves…. I know nobody who wouldn’t be able to have a moment captured that could then make them feel shame if public, yet we all have those moments. So the shame is only in the secrecy.
This can happen to anyone at any age. It can happen, maybe, because of some naivety. It can happen, maybe, because of learning new boundaries and relationships and new aspects. It can happen even when you are, as one person described to me, way old enough to know better.
We know that it’s targeted at younger people, but younger people are not the only victims of this. Again, I had somebody share an experience with me after this came out. They have been a senior for a long time, and they didn’t think that this was a vulnerability.
When it comes to the Intimate Images Protection Act…. I just want to be really, really clear. Circulating or threatening to circulate and to distribute intimate images without consent is wrong. Being in an intimate image, being the subject of an intimate image, does not give anybody the consent to use that image in a way that you’ve not consented to.
It is a form of sexualized violence, and it has devastating impacts. The shame that can be attached to this makes people feel like they are forced to suffer in silence.
If this has happened to you, you don’t need to suffer in silence.
This act, however, is a tool that can be used because within this act is a mechanism to getting help in a way that’s accessible. When we’re talking about the sharing of intimate images online, that can happen so quickly, and control is lost immediately. The act will allow for an accessible way for youth and others to be able to stop what’s happening and seek damages if that’s what they choose to do.
That being said, for anyone I’ve known who has either experienced this or knows somebody who has experienced this, stopping it from happening feels life or death. We know, with sextortion and online bullying, that sometimes the threat of distributing one image actually creates a scenario where now there are additional images. There are even more now to try to stop. You can’t…. I am a grown adult, and I don’t know what I would do if I thought that was happening. I have no concept of how I would feel if I was 13, 14, 15, 16. What if my parents find out?
There are mechanisms within this act that make it accessible, that can tell you what you can do.
This legislation will provide new ways to stop or prevent the distribution of intimate images without consent. It will improve access to justice, and it will give victims a clear way to seek damages.
So how do we protect people from this happening? There’s work going on. There has been work going on. Education — talking about it openly, making sure that people understand sextortion. We also know that there are people who take advantage of others — whether it’s previous partners, whether the image has been found a different way. We want to be clear to would-be perpetrators that this behaviour is wrong. It has serious consequences. People have lost their lives, their livelihoods.
We’re going to make it easier. This act is going to make it easier for people to seek justice. I think that’s one of the keys we have to be really clear about — the difficulty in getting justice if justice was first to make it stop. How many violent crimes do we ask the victim to try to solve while they’re still being hurt? How many crimes require a survivor to try to seek justice just to make it stop? This is one of those situations, and that’s why this legislation is so important.
It’s also very important because of the mechanisms it has to allow youth to access it. It’s important because, if passed, the legislation will create a quicker process for getting a legal decision that an intimate image was recorded or distributed without consent and ordering those people to stop the distribution or the threat. We know. We’ve read the stories. We’ve heard…. The threat is powerful. It can do just as much damage to the life.
So it will stop distributing or threatening to distribute the intimate image, and it will provide recourse for minors to independently pursue legal action to stop the distribution of their private images and will offer a clearer legal avenue for lawsuits to seek monetary damage for harms that have been suffered. That’s very important. You’ll be able to stop it.
I don’t have any personal experience in this. I only have the experience of the stories that have been shared with me. I have no doubt that what’s being described to me is violence. I have no doubt that the fallout from it is real harm, that there are real damages, but in the moment when it’s happening, when the threats are being made or when the images are being distributed, nobody is thinking about damages. They’re thinking about “stop.”
Consent brought into this conversation around intimate images, consent around distribution, the conversations that consent can be revoked — these are important things for us to note and take notice of. When we are teaching our children and each other and maybe reminding about what consent means, it has to be current, it has to be continuous, and it can be revoked at any time. The same applies with intimate images.
If I have a relationship that ends, and during the course of that relationship, there were images produced, what happens to those images is my choice. If I do not consent to those images being shared or to somebody having those images, then that would be happening against my consent. That is, let’s be honest, very tame compared to some of the situations that this this law will actually be helping with.
Let’s think of how controllable a person may be if they don’t know their rights and the recourse that’s available to them, the recourse that this bill makes possible. This will change lives; this will save lives. I hope that every member of this House spends time with their school boards or their school districts, with young people in their lives, teaching them, “This is something available to you,” because this can happen to anyone.
It can happen to the person who is the most perfect person on paper. It can happen to the A student. It can happen to a senior. It can happen to someone that you think is way too young to be thinking or doing anything like this. It can be happening to somebody who has been in a marriage that they think is safe and secure for a very long time. It can happen to someone who is newly dating. It can happen to somebody who is just dancing at the club.
In none of those situations is it okay for those intimate images to be shared or used — or to be threatened to be shared or used — without their consent.
I talked to my kids about this. I have two teenagers, and it’s scary. I told them when we were talking about sexual assault, and we were talking about the reasons. If there is not a rapist in the room, it doesn’t matter what you’re wearing. It doesn’t matter what you’re doing. It doesn’t matter how much you’ve had to drink. If there’s not a rapist in the room, it will not happen. If there is not a perpetrator somehow finding or possessing these images, they will not be misused.
I understand. I get that my kids think I’m old, and that’s okay. Some of you don’t. I understand that it might seem like a foreign idea that a person might take a picture of themselves, share an intimate image. I understand the way of thinking that would have us think: “Oh, well, just don’t do it. Who does that?”
A lot of people do it. With distance and with COVID and with virtual and with remoteness and with the need for human connection and with the need to build relationships, it’s going to keep happening. It is a way that people relate to each other.
The judgment about, “Should it be…? How should it happen?” doesn’t matter. Once there’s an image, if they do not have your consent, they can’t share it. If they share it, they’re breaking the law. Just like if you’re in a room doing all of the things that supposedly contribute to danger of being violently or sexually assaulted, if there is not a perpetrator in the room, you will not be hurt. I need to say that, because there’s so much conversation in the background — not here, just in general — about: “Well, then don’t do that.”
We share our secrets with the people that we’re close to. We share our secrets with the people we think we can trust. We share our secrets if we’re naive and we get talked into them. We share so much information about ourselves when we’re looking for connection, love or relationships, or when we feel like we already have it.
The reason I’m talking so long about this particular piece is because this is just a secret, just a new kind of secret — just like there’s no shame if I tell one of my colleagues a different secret. We need to first provide access, but at the same time, we need to try to strip away the shame, because shame is the only thing that makes this work.
I understand why a 15-year-old would not want to tell their parents that there are intimate images of them. Now there’s a way for them to stop it. I understand why the parent would want to know, because they love and care for their child, but you need to stop the hurt first.
The legal options that will be available to people will add to the ones already available. The access, though, is the key, in my mind. Non-consensual disclosure of intimate images is already a crime. That isn’t different. How we’re able to act, who is able to access and what it requires of them are the tools that we’re giving with this bill.
This will make a very big difference for young people but not only for young people. One of the differences it will make is that people have been put on notice. There’s no excuse; we all know now. Consent applies; consent can be revoked. Everybody is on notice that this violent, sexualized behaviour is not acceptable in British Columbia, and our government will do everything we can to protect people.
A. Singh: I rise in support of this. I’m going to try and be as articulate as my colleagues have been. I already know I’m going to fail, but I’ll be speaking to this. Again, I rise in support of this, the Intimate Images Protection Act. It’s really vital.
My colleague spoke so eloquently about the personal impacts, especially on youth. That really is where — I’ll say crime — the majority of this crime happens. To get recourse, we already have existing systems, right? We have the tort where you can go and get resolution in the civil system.
We have the criminal justice system; this is already illegal. But having worked within that system for over two decades, that system, especially the criminal justice system, necessarily has its checks and balances and is necessarily slow.
We have an incredible justice system in Canada, probably one of the best in the world. One of the reasons it’s so good is because it has all these checks and balances. One of the unfortunate side issues, though, with that, in regards to intimate images, is that justice, because of those necessary checks and balances, because of the concept of presumption of innocence, can necessarily be very, very slow. As my colleague eloquently spoke and said: what happens when justice is slow is that the victim gets victimized again and again. Every time that image is shown, for as long as that image is out there, the victim is revictimized. That’s exactly what the Intimate Images Protection Act does.
We saw a gap in the structure, and that’s what this fix is. It allows a new way to stop and prevent distribution of intimate images without consent. It improves British Columbians’ access to justice. It gives…. There are already ways for victims to get damages. But this clarifies that situation. It gives them a more efficient way to seek those damages.
Again, we’ve seen how the sharing of non-consensual intimate images — how harmful it is. It’s a life-and-death issue. We’ve seen how it can push someone over the edge — especially a young person, so vulnerable — where they’ll take their own life. Incredibly tragic. This situation has been around for some time. I have some familiarity with this.
There’s nothing new here. This has always been wrong. We just haven’t had a method of dealing with this gap in our criminal justice system and in our civil system. Again, as I said, the criminal justice system is necessarily slow because of those checks and balances. What this does is it steps in, and it takes care of that situation.
What I’ve seen in my practice before this is that it’s not the large corporations or large websites where this…. They may be shared there, but generally, intimate images are shared by bad actors. As my colleague said, the rapist in the room. So once it’s out there, and if it’s on their device, they can keep putting it out there. What this does is, again, address that gap. Now you’re able to get an order that encompasses everything out there, and you’re able to get judicial action to be able to take that image down right away, without having to go through a criminal trial or without having to go through a civil trial.
It’s really aimed, sharply aimed and focused at cyberbullying, and aimed at sextortion. What the Intimate Images Protection Act does is create a new fast-track process for getting a legal decision that the intimate image was recorded or distributed without consent and ordering people to stop distributing or threatening to distribute intimate images. So what it does is provide a recourse, a fast-tracked recourse, for people, including minors, to pursue legal action to stop the distribution of their private images.
It also offers a clearer legal avenue for lawsuits to seek monetary damages for harm suffered. Often we’ll see that that is really the most effective way of dealing with societal harms: by hitting people in their pockets.
I’m excited that we have unanimous support in this House for this. This a no-brainer. This act should be brought into force by regulation. After it’s brought into force by regulation, the Supreme Court will be able to implement these new expedited process, resulting in quicker legal decisions and orders that are designed specifically to stop the distribution of these intimate images without consent.
Again, as I said, we had a system that did exist before to deal with it, but that system, because of the necessary checks and balances, took a really long time to come to a resolution, whether it was a criminal trial or whether it was a civil trial. Civil trials can take up to four years. A criminal trial, from being charged to the actual trial and to sentencing, can be eight months, a year or two years easily.
What this does is it provides for a fast-track process to be able to get that decision to take off that intimate image immediately, much faster than had been done before. What that does is that it stops the violence that’s occurring at that point, right? That’s what we really saw. The knowledge that your image is out there and that you’re not able to do anything about it for months and months, I can’t even conceive of the constant mental stress that that must put on someone.
Again, as I said, we’ve seen the result of that cyberbullying. It’s a life and death result is what we see. Once this is passed, we anticipate that the civil resolution tribunal portal to deal with this will be available in 2024, so fairly quickly.
This was really a response to a gap that we had in the system. What we had in the system before, as I said, was the criminal justice system, where an illegal image had been posted and someone was charged with a crime, or the civil system, where a victim had to by themselves go forward, not only at great mental expense but also at great monetary expense to deal with these situations. What this legislation does is create a complementary process that exists. We’re not getting rid of those processes that existed before. It creates a complementary process that will exist alongside the existing criminal processes.
This legislation doesn’t just apply from the date that it’s passed onwards. It applies retroactively to the date that the act receives first reading in the Legislative Assembly, which means that from that point forward, people will be able to sue for damages and apply for a decision to have their images taken offline once the corresponding regulations and the system has been put in place. We currently have some private services that sort of offer the same thing, but what this does is that this goes a lot further. Again, it provides a judicial process for being able to take this down.
It’s really necessary, because as I said earlier and my colleagues have alluded to earlier: who really are the victims of this type of crime? Essentially, it can affect everyone, but research has shown that it’s majority young people who experience having their intimate images shared without their consent. Again, our government saw a gap in the system, and what this act does is it reacts to that, and it fills that gap.
I’m really, really pleased that we’re here speaking about this. I fully support the Intimate Images Protection Act.
Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, does the minister wish to close debate?
Hon. N. Sharma: I just want to close debate by thanking all of the members for offering their comments and their very powerful words about this important piece of legislation and to thank all the advocates, particularly Carol Todd, for the tireless work that she has done to change systems across the country.
With that, I move second reading.
Motion approved.
Hon. N. Sharma: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting after today.
Bill 12, Intimate Images Protection Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.
Hon. S. Robinson: I call Committee of the Whole, Bill 14, Miscellaneous Statutes (Modernization) Amendment Act, 2023.
Deputy Speaker: We’ll do a two-minute recess as we prepare.
The House recessed at 6 p.m.
Committee of the Whole House
BILL 14 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
(MODERNIZATION)
AMENDMENT ACT, 2023
The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 14; J. Tegart in the chair.
The committee met at 6:03 p.m.
The Chair: I’ll call the committee to order. We are dealing with Bill 14, Miscellaneous Statutes (Modernization) Amendment Act, 2023.
I’ll ask the Minister of Jobs, Economic Development and Innovation if she wishes to open and maybe introduce her staff.
Hon. B. Bailey: I will open by saying a couple of remarks in regards to this bill, which is the Miscellaneous Statutes (Modernization) Amendment Act, 2023. The primary focus of this bill is to modernize language used in British Columbia’s legislative framework by amending instances of outdated gender and binary language across more than 200 provincial statutes.
I want to recognize people who’ve worked on this bill, if I may: John Whitworth, Faiyaz Talukdar, Melissa Meyer, Curtis Whittla, Megan Shepherd and Alexa Carranza-Jones. I think we’re ready to go ahead with the clause-by-clause analysis.
On clause 1.
R. Merrifield: I’m just trying to catch my breath. Running in a million different directions here.
My first question. Obviously, in clause 1, we replace “he or she” and we substitute “the executive chair” in the Administrative Tribunals Act to remove the gendered language. Could the minister confirm that this bill is exhaustive for all gendered language in B.C. statutes, or is the work ongoing?
Hon. B. Bailey: I would also just like to introduce my staff with me. Angelo Cocco is an acting ADM in our ministry and has advised me that there remain 1,600 instances of languages that we’re still correcting.
R. Merrifield: Perhaps the minister could go through what the process will be for the future, considering that 1,600 instances of gendered language is quite significant.
Hon. B. Bailey: There were about 4,000 instances, in fact. So we’re about 60 percent of the way through our efforts in this regard.
The first efforts began in 2020, and there have been three iterations. The ones that remain are fairly complex, and there’s ongoing work on them. So we’re delivering this in a couple of tranches, essentially.
R. Merrifield: Perhaps the minister could just state what that process looks like for those future changes.
Hon. B. Bailey: This work is done in cooperation with a number of different ministries who identify binary language that exists in legislation. It’s brought forward and then discussed with our legislative counsel to ensure that we’re doing this work correctly.
Just to give a sense to the member, there were 600 regulations that were looked at, then 700. Then this last tranche was…. We’re down to 50. So we’re working our way through them, and we’ll continue that work.
R. Merrifield: Thank you to the minister for the answer to the question.
My understanding is that it’s going through a ministerial process, but there is no formalized process in terms of consultation outside or to outside agencies, outside organizations or outside Indigenous groups, on an ongoing basis, for this work.
Hon. B. Bailey: It was actually quite an extensive consultative process. I’ll share with you.
One of the important organizations we’ve consulted with is Trans Care B.C. We also worked closely with MIRR on this. Each of the ministries also led consultations themselves as well as completing an analysis of whether any conflicts existed with UNDRIP.
To share an example of some of the consultations that occurred…. For the Ministry of Children and Family Development, we looked at the Adoption Act, the Child, Family and Community Service Act, the Employment and Assistance Act, the Human Resource Facility Act, the Youth Justice Act and the Social Workers Act.
We consulted with First Nations in B.C. through the First Nations Leadership Council. I might make a mistake in the pronunciation; please forgive me: the Maa-nulth First Nations — the Huu-ay-aht First Nations, the Ka:’yu:’k’t’h’/Che:k:tles7et’h’ First Nations, the Toquaht Nation, the Uchucklesaht Nation and the Yuułuʔiłʔatḥ First Nation government.
R. Merrifield: Thank you to the minister, especially for the attempt at pronunciation. I’m sure you did a much better job than I could have done.
My questions. I’m going to claim some…. I mean, we always complain about Bill 36 and how many clauses it had. Well, this one has almost double. I will try and speed through as much of it as possible. I’m going to ask a generalized question about the whole of the document, to try and expedite that through, so I don’t ask the same repeated questions for each section.
This question does apply to the bulk of the document. How will the removal of gendered language from statutes impact the ability of marginalized groups to access justice in British Columbia?
Hon. B. Bailey: I would say that this is more a general sense of feeling included than it is a specific access to justice, particularly.
I will share with the member an experience that I had, when I was the CEO of a tech company, being in a room with many hundreds of leaders who were gentlemen, and the language of constantly referring to CEOs — he does this; he does that — and my experience of feeling completely excluded from that group, like I wasn’t in the room, even though, physically, there I was.
I think that small experience does reflect what it’s like when the language doesn’t include you. It feels like you don’t belong and you don’t have a right to be there. I think that is so much more pronounced for people who are trans, who are non-binary people, to see language that explicitly doesn’t represent them. My concern is that they would feel a sense of not belonging and not having the same rights and protections that they might were they explicitly included or, at least, explicitly not excluded.
I think it’s about a sense of belonging and inclusion that we want to make available to every British Columbian.
R. Merrifield: Thank you to the minister.
Yes, having been a female CEO for the last 25 years in a very male-dominated industry…. There are actually two more of me, one in Toronto, Ontario, and one in Saskatchewan, in Regina. Definitely, there are three of us female CEOs in the development world. We’re coming out in force. Just jokes.
I am sensitive to that. In fact, I’m a champion of that. In an attempt to make sure that we include all…. I want to also make sure that we haven’t inadvertently or indirectly taken away a right that already exists within legislation for another. It’s that attempt to make sure that we’ve done that due diligence in making sure that all of those rights apply to all and that the removal of the gendered language doesn’t actually take away any of the ability of those marginalized groups to access justice within British Columbia or access the other aspects of these laws that that’s within.
Again, understanding that it’s about inclusion, could I just get the minister to give that reassurance? Nothing in here actually reduces the ability for marginalized groups to access justice in B.C.
Hon. B. Bailey: I would just say…. It’s important to note that removing gendered language from B.C.’s provincial legislation does not erase or infringe on any person’s right to identify as a specific gender or sex. It merely replaces gendered and binary terms with more neutral language, resulting in more inclusive legislation which reflects all of British Columbia.
R. Merrifield: Okay. I’ll try one last time. The minister will give her full assurance that the removal of gendered language does not take away and will not impact the ability of marginalized groups to access justice in B.C.
Hon. B. Bailey: Chair, I’m not attempting to be elusive with my colleague across the way. I’m simply not understanding the question fully. I’ve answered it, I think, to the best of my ability. I wonder if, perhaps, she might provide an example so I can see where she’s going.
R. Merrifield: Okay, yeah. Certainly.
As we were going through the bill and looking through each of the different acts that this refers to and each of the different situations…. Are there any situations, in the changing of the gendered language, that might preclude the specificity that a gendered language includes? Are there other ways to….? Rather than, you know, substituting “he” or “she” and saying “person” or even more so, where it’s a role like director…. Well, then, which director? Are there aspects of this where the specificity is actually diminished without the inclusion of…?
I’m not advocating for having gendered language. I’m asking: are there any cases or situations where that might have been missed?
Hon. B. Bailey: I didn’t end up clearer on that, unfortunately. What I would say is the intention of this legislation is to ensure that people are included. For example, if legislation referred to “mother” and we replaced that with “parent,” by no means does that diminish the role of mother. So it would be my view that this language is, in fact, more inclusive and does not leave people behind.
R. Merrifield: I’ll try in a little bit of a different way here as well. If we look at, let’s say, legal aid funding but there’s not gender-neutral language in some of the access to those aspects, or if we look at…. You know, it’s great to have inclusive language in our law, but then how do we actually include those services and take that next step to have those services included for people? Do they have the same access when the law has changed but the actual regulations and services and grants and all of those other aspects have not yet changed? Does it still give them the same ability to access that they would have with gendered language?
Hon. B. Bailey: First, I’ll very quickly answer that last question, and then I’ll note the hour, if I may.
It’s my view that in fact the opposite would occur — that we’re not going from inclusive language to specific language. We’re going the opposite direction, so the result should be more inclusion and more opportunity and not the opposite.
Noting the hour, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 6:24 p.m.
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.
The Committee of the Whole (Section B), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Committee of Supply (Section C), having reported resolution and progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. S. Robinson moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. tomorrow.
The House adjourned at 6:25 p.m.
PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM
Committee of Supply
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
EDUCATION AND
CHILD CARE
(continued)
The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); A. Walker in the chair.
The committee met at 1:33 p.m.
The Chair: Good afternoon, everyone. I call Committee of Supply, Section A, to order. We are meeting today to continue the consideration of the estimates of the Ministry of Education and Child Care.
On Vote 20: ministry operations, $8,835,152,000 (continued).
E. Sturko: Continuing with the discussion we were having this morning, some questions. We were discussing screening for dyslexia in B.C. schools. If I am remembering correctly, the minister stated that there really isn’t any screening program right now in B.C. schools and that individuals do not need a diagnosis in order for them to get help.
My question is: without any diagnosis, how do you know what the appropriate interventions are?
Hon. R. Singh: Just responding to the member, I want to say that the students in the B.C. public school system do not require a medical diagnosis or designation in one of the 12 special needs categories to access non-categorical supports and services, including learning assistance, speech-language pathology services, counselling, occupational therapy and assessment services. That would be the K to 12 of our public system. The K-to-12 education system uses a variety of approaches, such as universal design and differentiated instruction, to address the different needs of all students in the classrooms.
Also, I want to mention, Mr. Chair, that the B.C. curriculum also supports inclusion by providing flexibility and personalized learning and addressing the diverse needs and interests of our students.
E. Sturko: It’s great to hear that we’re looking at students’ individual learning needs. I just have some concerns, and I would like some clarification though. If this government is moving away from diagnosis, and there is no diagnosis for things like dyslexia taking place in the school system, how is it being determined what the appropriate interventions are to be used?
I understand that there are a variety of tools. But specifically dealing with dyslexia, and understanding that early detection and interventions — appropriate interventions — would be key to success with dyslexia, what specifically is being done in terms of ensuring that the right supports are in place for children with those specific needs?
Hon. R. Singh: On the member’s question, I just want to reiterate again that for every student coming to the school system, I think the school communities are working towards bringing out their best potential. That’s where the focus is.
Diagnosis is not the only tool. I won’t say that the diagnosis does not happen. But I think the school community is a really good judge in understanding what the needs are of the students with diverse abilities — to recognize those needs and to continue on the learning process.
I would say the diagnosis does happen. When those needs, those issues, are recognized, a diagnosis does happen. But that is not the only way that we can support the students. There are a number of tools, a number of resources, that the school communities employ every day to help those students.
I really want to focus on one thing, that the learning needs to continue. Just because you’re waiting for a diagnosis, learning should not stop.
E. Sturko: I absolutely agree that learning should never stop. We want to make sure that students, of course, are supported in their entire learning journey. But it feels like this government is moving away from diagnosis.
In terms of making sure that the right supports are in place for individuals, is it not important…? Does the minister not believe it would be important to have accurate diagnosis to ensure that the right supports that suit the specific, individual needs of learners in British Columbia would be diagnosed so that they can receive those supports?
Hon. R. Singh: To the member’s question, I just want to reiterate that the diagnosis still happens in schools, but diagnosis is just one piece of the puzzle. It is one tool that the school communities use. We know the students with their diverse abilities, and every child is different. The focus of the school communities and of all the great work that they do in our schools is to recognize the diverse abilities those students have, how to work with those abilities, how to bring out the best potential in each student and provide them with the best learning outcomes. That’s where we are going.
Diagnoses always have happened. They will keep on happening, but they should not be a blockade. They should never block students’ learning, or they should not just be one indicator of how students will learn and how much instruction they will get from the school.
E. Sturko: What I’m hearing, what I’m understanding is that there is no screening being done for dyslexia. There’s no program for screening for dyslexia in British Columbia. The minister is stating, if I’m understanding correctly, that students are receiving their diagnosis.
But to ensure that kids aren’t falling through the cracks and that we’re catching everyone as early as possible, to ensure the best possible outcomes, and with billions of dollars in surplus being scooped out the door currently, I’m just wondering. Why isn’t there fully funded support for screening for students with learning disabilities in the province?
Hon. R. Singh: I just want to reiterate what I said before: we want every student, whatever their needs or what kind of ability they come with, to reach their full potential. That’s why we fund the school districts for students with diverse abilities or disabilities. That funding has increased this year by 9.4 percent for levels 1, 2 and 3.
I just want to say again that it is important for us in the ministry that every child, irrespective of their ability or their level of learning, should get full supports. That’s where we are. That’s what we are committed for, and that’s what we are focused on.
E. Sturko: Is there any funding in the budget specifically related to students designated Q? To clarify what I’m asking: are students with dyslexia receiving additional funding to support their unique learning needs?
Hon. R. Singh: As I mentioned before, the autism spectrum disorder funding has gone up by 9.4 percent, but the member is asking about the designation Q, which is part of the basic funding that is provided to the school districts. It has also gone up, along with the autism spectrum disorder funding. The basic funding, which also includes designation Q, has also gone up by 9.4 percent.
E. Sturko: Just for clarification, is the individual funding for all students what has gone up by just over 9 percent? Or is there something specifically related to dyslexia that has gone up?
Hon. R. Singh: I just want to clarify that both supplemental funding and the basic allocations have gone up by 9.4 percent. As I mentioned before, the designation Q falls under the basic allocations that all the school districts get.
E. Sturko: To clarify, students with learning disabilities, such as dyslexia, are funded the same way as other learners that are not diagnosed with dyslexia. Therefore, there is no additional funding to support those students with special needs, such as dyslexia. This is what I understand to be correct.
Hon. R. Singh: I just want to clarify, again, that the ministry provides the funding to the school districts, whether it is the basic funding or the supplemental funding. Both basic funding and the supplemental funding have gone up by 9.4 percent. But it is up to the school districts, the school communities, to determine the needs of their students. They are the best judge, because they are working with those students on an everyday basis, the school communities. Then they decide how much funding each individual student will get out of the increased funding that has been provided.
E. Sturko: How many students in the schools are diagnosed either Q or G, using the DSM-5? The DSM is the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fifth edition.
Hon. R. Singh: I want to tell that for the autism spectrum disorder, which is designation G, the number of students we have is 21,438. Those are combined in public and independent schools. The designation Q — in that category, we have 24,993 students, both in public and independent schools.
E. Sturko: Thank you to the minister for that.
Can she clarify? Is the DSM-5 being used to diagnose kids with dyslexia?
Hon. R. Singh: Any kind of medical diagnosis or assessments are done by professionals like psychologists and psychotherapists. We, as a ministry, do not tell them which manual to use. They are the experts in their field. Whatever is according to the standards, they would be using. But it’s not up to the ministry to tell them.
E. Sturko: In 2021, B.C. passed the Accessible British Columbia Act, saying that it was modeled after the federal act. But we know that it wasn’t, as the federal act contained learning and communication in the definition of the impairment. MLA Stephanie Cadieux at the time introduced an amendment to include the federal definition. But the minister stated, “I will not be supporting this amendment,” and voted it down.
We know that literacy is decreasing. The impacts of that decrease on society can be detrimental. Yet learning disabilities are not supported in this province. Students suffer because of this lack of support. What we now know is that under this government that was tasked to implement the Supreme Court of Canada decision on classroom size and composition, they chose to argue for 1995 special needs designations to be reimplemented by this province.
By reimplementing the 1995 designations, we know that there will be a reduction of special needs students who are receiving supports who will now be abandoned because they’re not severe enough to qualify for support. This is the same eligibility approach that the Minister of Children and Family Development has used to limit services with the hub pilot model sites.
Can the minister confirm how many Q designation students were affected when the special education category moved from a more expansive definition to a less expansive definition so that fewer students will meet the designated criteria and that the number for establishing classroom composition will be lowered?
Hon. R. Singh: I think the member opposite is referring to the language in the collective agreement negotiations. But I just want to reiterate again that the basic funding…. The ministry is responsible to provide the basic funding and the supplemental funding to the school districts. The school districts and the communities, because they are providing those direct instructions to the students and the learning, are the best judge to determine what each student’s needs are. They use that allocated funding accordingly.
E. Sturko: How many of the over 80,000 students with disabilities right now are receiving funding in schools? From what I understand the minister to be saying, and I want to clarify because I don’t want to misunderstand what’s happening, the per-capita student funding…. Students are getting, each student equally, an amount, other than those in G, which are getting an additional amount. But then it’s up to the school districts.
For example, in school district 36, it would be up to them to rob from Peter to pay Paul in order for a student with a special learning disability to get their needs met in school. Is that correct?
Hon. R. Singh: All the school districts receive a base student allocation that provides districts the flexibility. I really want to reiterate this. This is a part of funding that is allocated to all the school districts. We believe that the school districts and the school communities are the best judge to determine the needs of their school, of the children. That’s why there is flexibility to allocate resources and supports.
In addition, as I have mentioned before, students in level 1, 2 and 3 — the districts also receive the supplemental funding to support students with more complex needs.
But one thing that I really want to emphasize here is that we, as a ministry, are committed to giving the funding to the school district so that every child, whatever their level is, whatever their ability is, gets the resources and gets the supports. But it is up to the school district and the school communities to allocate that funding according to the needs of their student community.
E. Sturko: I do thank the minister for confirming that money is given, and through the flexibility of the school districts, they do take money away that has been designated for one child to give to another child whose needs aren’t being met by targeted funding in this budget.
I have another question. Would the minister agree, or confirm, that changing the definition of special education category Q learning disabilities saved the province money?
Hon. R. Singh: How I understand it is that the member is referring to the collective agreement negotiations, and there’s some confusion there. I just want to reiterate again that the basic and supplemental funding have gone up. School communities and districts continue to have flexibility to allocate that funding according to student needs.
E. Sturko: I’ll clarify, and then I’ll ask a question. The designation, the broad definition, of students with disabilities in category Q changed. The scope of that was narrowed, meaning that less children would have qualified for specific funding related to their disability.
What I’m asking, and I’m asking the minister to confirm, is that the change in this definition of special education category Q…. Did this save the province money because less kids would have qualified for funding?
Hon. R. Singh: As I mentioned before, our focus is providing the services so that every child should reach their full potential and that they should get the quality education that they deserve.
If the member is referencing a particular timeline, which I’m not very sure about…. We can take that back and give her that information. At this time, I can say that funding, whether it is the basic funding or the supplemental funding…. Both have gone up. We are providing the resources to students, and that’s where our focus is.
E. Sturko: Do you agree and support the sectorwide implementation of the May 14, 2019, arbitration order across the province of B.C.?
Hon. R. Singh: We would need more information about that. We can take it back, but we will need more specifics about it.
E. Sturko: B.C. shifted to a new way to grade students this year because the new curriculum focused on literacy and numeracy. Yet we know that literacy and numeracy are decreasing in B.C.
We know that students who used to be eligible for supports are no longer supported in literacy and numeracy in schools across the province, yet this province has moved to a new reporting proficiency or marking system that no parent understands. How does or doesn’t the new proficiency scale correlate to the former grading and marking system?
Hon. R. Singh: It gives me a lot of pride…. In British Columbia, we have a world-class education system. We are very, very proud of that.
As part of the enhancements made to the curriculum, we have also worked with the education sector partners on reporting student progress. The aim of the new policy was to create more consistency in classroom reporting across the province and to align reporting practices with the B.C. redesigned curriculum.
I also want to say here that for grades 10, 11 and 12, we will still be using the letter grades. That will keep on, continue.
We have worked very closely with our educational partners to bring out this policy.
E. Sturko: The move away from academic grades, which provided clarity to parents, to the new system is, to parents, vague. I have heard many, many items of feedback from parents. You know, we used to have a system where, for example, 90 out of 200 would be 40 percent. Easy for a parent to understand.
Can we have some clarification, please, on…? What is the difference between “proficient” and “exceeding”? Additionally, how is it determined…? I guess, how do we make sure that one teacher’s interpretation of “emerging” or “proficient” or “exceeding” is going to be the same interpretation that another teacher is using, even in the same grade?
Hon. R. Singh: I just want to say to the member that before this policy came into effect, an extensive consultation happened.
The teachers had a big role to play in the levels that we are going with, whether it is proficiency, extending or exceeding. The teachers were key partners on that during that consultation. Also, a teachers guide did come out in December of 2012 to make all the teachers very well versed with this new policy. A lot of work has been done, and this work has been happening for the last many years.
What I can say about this new policy is that this approach is more personalized. The teachers are talking more about how a student is doing, where they are doing well and where the areas of improvement are. They are looking at all the aspects of the students’ learning and getting all that information.
As I mentioned before, the letter grades for grades 10, 11 and 12 will continue. Also, the information that the member opposite was talking about for the parents — that extensive information for the parents would be also going out very soon.
E. Sturko: Has the move away from the academic grades also included a move away from behavioural evaluations?
Hon. R. Singh: I just want to mention again the descriptive nature of this new policy. I think the focus between the teacher and the parent or the caregiver is having that communication and talking about what are the opportunities and where are the areas that the student would need extra support. I think that’s where this policy would be focusing.
The descriptive nature of that policy would be giving an opportunity for having that communication between home and teacher, the school community and the home community, to discuss and to understand what the challenge is, what the opportunities are and just work towards the students’ learning. That’s what this policy is trying to achieve.
E. Sturko: You mentioned that information will be provided to the parents. Can you give me a timeline for when the information for parents on the new grading system will be available?
Hon. R. Singh: This work, we are planning to send it out in the next few weeks. I’ll be more than happy to share it with the member opposite once we do that.
E. Sturko: Thank you for that answer. And how are students who are moved from a proficiency scale in grade 9 and then to the academic scale for grades 10, 11 and 12 going to be prepared for this change?
Hon. R. Singh: I just want to confirm that the descriptive information that the students would be getting in their report cards continues in grades 10, 11 and 12 too. It continues throughout. But along with that, in grade 10, they will also be getting letter grades.
We know that with the students transitioning into the graduation program, the graduation transition happens in grade 10. This will be a transition for students.
But having an understanding of proficiency will help them identify what success looks like for them with letter grades and percentages. It also aligns with the post-secondary requirements. So our focus is that students should be successful. They should be meeting their grad requirements. That grad transition in grade 10 and having the letter grades there is how we are trying to achieve it.
E. Sturko: Just to clarify. I understand what you’re saying is that in grades 10, 11 and 12, they will still receive either emerging, proficient, excelling or exceeding, in addition to their letter grades, their percentage grade point.
But how are we preparing students from…? You know, if you’ve been emerging from grade 3 until grade 9, and all of a sudden you receive a report card. The report card has, like, 40 percent. How are we preparing people to get used to changing over from one model of evaluation now suddenly to the next?
Hon. R. Singh: I just want to just clarify one thing: the descriptive model continues for grade 10. The whole purpose of the description is to identify what the student needs are, like, where the challenges are, where the opportunities are and having that communication between the school community and the home community to support the students in the best possible way. It is when they are transitioning to grade 10, which are the grad requirement years, that it starts. It won’t come as a surprise what the challenges are or what the opportunities are.
Students would be very much aware, as well as the parents, caregivers and teachers. Everybody, I think, would be very comfortable with what the level is.
The whole purpose of this description is how best to support the students and how to best support their learning so that they are equipped for success. That’s what we want for every student: to be successful within the school community.
E. Sturko: Would the minister please break down the capital budget 2023-24 by regions? So North, Central, Lower Mainland, Island, Okanagan and Kootenays.
[R. Leonard in the chair.]
Hon. R. Singh: I would really like to thank the member opposite for the question. I just want to tell how proud we are, since 2017, of the investments that we have made in the schools capital budget. Since 2017, we have invested $3.2 billion into capital projects. We can talk more about that, but this year’s budget is also addressing the capital needs. It has $3.4 billion for the next three years.
I just want to tell the member opposite that the capital budget is not divided according to the regions. My ministry works very closely with the school districts, and I’m really proud of the work that goes on in the background, all the conversations that happen. The school districts are responsible for giving priorities for their capital projects, and on those priorities, a lot of effort is done by the ministry staff. What are the high needs according to the region, according to the area? According to that, the budget is allocated.
E. Sturko: How much of the budget is allocated to the 17 districts with less than 50 percent of seismic mitigation complete? How many will be above 50 percent complete with this year’s budget?
Hon. R. Singh: As a government, our focus has been to provide our students learning environments that are modern and safe. Since September 2017, 59 seismic mitigation projects have been approved, which created more than 32,551 safe seats with a total value of $1.284 billion. Budget 2023 also commits $763 million for seismic mitigation projects over the next three years.
To date, the government has spent $2 billion to seismically upgrade or replace seismically high-risk schools.
E. Sturko: How many schools are left to be seismically upgraded?
Hon. R. Singh: As of December 2022, there are 496 schools in the seismic mitigation projects. Of these, 213 schools were complete, 16 were under construction, five were proceeding to construction, 12 were in business case development and 250 were identified as future priorities. Fifty percent of the program has been advanced since 2014, which equates to approximately 15 projects per year or 3 percent of the schools in the program annually.
To the member’s previous question, we don’t have the distribution according to regions, but we are more than happy to get back to her on that.
E. Sturko: When will all the schools be complete? What’s the target to have all the schools complete?
Hon. R. Singh: The safety of our students is our key priority. That’s what we have been working on since 2017. As I mentioned, a number of projects have been completed. A number of projects will be going for construction. We will keep on working with the school districts, understanding what their safety needs are.
With a lot of the school projects, they are being replaced completely. Rather than even seismic upgrades, they are being replaced. A lot of work is happening. I just want to reiterate that the safety of our students, of our student communities, is of topmost priority for this government.
E. Sturko: I know that the minister is new to this portfolio, but in 2017, her predecessor actually said that the seismic mitigation to meet the new standards would be done by 2022. I want to know: will all the schools be done by 2025?
Hon. R. Singh: In 2017, when we formed the government, we were doing a lot of…. Since then, we started with a lot of catch-up. That’s what our capital budgets for the Education Ministry have reflected, whether building new schools….
I can say, although I’m a new minister, in 2017, when we took it on, the neglect that we could see in our different districts…. I can mention my own home district, Surrey, as well.
But for the seismic, I can say one thing. It is an evolving science, right? The building codes get changed. Like how that is to…. It’s an evolving process, so we cannot have a definitive number at one time. The number that we have today might change in six months.
As I said before, the safety of our students is our top priority, and we will keep on working towards that.
E. Sturko: The reason why I asked if we would be done our seismic upgrades by 2025 is that the previous government had a plan that was approved by the Treasury Board to have all the seismic upgrades completed by 2025.
This was an election promise. This was a promise by this government to make sure that these were done. In fact, they doubled down and said that the seismic upgrades would be done by 2022. And now we see that that’s not the case.
Now the minister has stood up and said that it’s because of evolving science and seismic technology. To the minister: can you please give me an example of where the change in technology regarding seismic upgrades has delayed a school in getting its upgrades complete?
Hon. R. Singh: I just want to tell the member opposite that it is not about the delaying. It is about the evolving list. When we took on in 2017…. I just want to mention to the member opposite that the previous government had not put the investments that were needed in our schools. We made it a commitment to invest in our schools and in the future of our children.
What I was talking about before when we were talking about the science and the evolving numbers, when we did the reassessment of the seismic safety of the identified schools in the school districts, the number has increased. That number came up. The reassessment identified 151 more schools that might have some seismic upgrade needs.
So it is not a delay. It is just that the number is evolving, and it is a changing number. But it is our priority to keep our students learning in safe, modern settings, and that’s what our priority would remain.
E. Sturko: The promise was made in 2022 that the seismic upgrades would be done, expedited, and that work would be complete for the safety of students.
We’re hearing again today from the minister that obviously safety is a priority. I couldn’t agree more that safety in schools is a priority. So can this minister say why the government has failed to keep its promise to get the seismic upgrades completed by 2022? Will they commit to having it done by the previous government’s timeline of 2025?
Hon. R. Singh: I’m extremely proud of the record investments that we have made in the education sector since 2017. I have already said that we have invested $3.2 billion in capital projects, which is much needed, which has added more new schools, expansions in schools and in the seismic upgrades.
Budget 2023 is no different. I’m so proud to say that Budget 2023 is the biggest in the Ministry of Education’s history. That also includes the seismic upgrades. We will continue to work with our school communities, school districts, looking at the projects that are a priority. As I mentioned before, and I’ll repeat it again, the safety of our students is our top priority, and we’ll keep on investing in them.
E. Sturko: Again, it’s disappointing, because I don’t feel that the minister has answered the question, hasn’t committed to assuring parents that the projects will be complete by at least what the previous government had set out as a timeline. For all the talk of student safety, I think that it’s another example of all talk and no action when they’re not able to commit to an actual timeline to get those seismic upgrades complete.
We’ll move on to another question. In 2022, $776 million is what was needed to address deferred maintenance issues in 60 school districts within one year. What is the deferred maintenance in the 2023 budget? And will it be addressed, or will the provincial average FCI go up even further?
Hon. R. Singh: Just to the member. She talked about the FCI, which is the facility condition index. I just want to mention that that is a floating number that changes month by month and is an indicator. But I just want to let the member opposite know that Budget 2023 provides funding of $261.1 million. We know that the school districts have the minor capital projects, and this funding will be going towards that.
Out of this funding, it includes $147.1 million from the annual facilities grant, which is an increase of $26.6 million compared to last year. Madam Chair, $23 million out of this funding is going into the carbon neutral capital funding to support energy and electrical upgrades at 86 schools, $65 million in school enhancement program funding to support projects across all 60 school districts.
Five million in the playground equipment program funding to support the universally accessible playgrounds, $30 million will go towards the purchase of at least 67 new school buses and $8 million in building envelope program funding to support building remediation projects.
E. Sturko: We know that portables are in the fastest-growing districts here in B.C. Would the minister please break down how many portables are in each of the ten or so fastest-growing school districts? How many of them are being paid for by the province? How many of them are paid for out of the school district operating fund?
Hon. R. Singh: I just want to reiterate again the record investments that we have made in our education capital. We know that B.C. is a great province. A number of people are making British Columbia their home. Especially in the last few years, we have seen a record number of people coming to British Columbia. We are very, very cognizant of the fact that that has put pressure on the school districts. We are very aware of that. The ministry, myself included, is having the conversations with the districts that are facing the pressure.
But I want to talk about the record investments in the capital projects. We have been able to add more than 20,000 seats all across the province. That has avoided the need of more than 800 portables. But we know that it is a growing province, and some districts are facing the pressure more than others.
E. Sturko: Just a short trip down memory lane. In 2020, these portables were supposed to be gone. This was an election promise actually made by the former Premier when they formed government. In 2017, the former Minister of Education actually doubled down and assured Surrey residents that portables would be gone.
I’m looking at a population chart that’s part of my notes. It actually shows a 71 percent increase in the population of our hometown, Surrey, since 2001. It’s not just a couple of years where communities have grown and the schools should be growing. Of course, sometimes portables have to come in to meet those excesses. But a promise was made that they’d be gone by 2020. Can the minister please explain why the government has failed to keep its promise to the residents of Surrey to fully eliminate portables by 2020?
Hon. R. Singh: I’ve talked about our record investments. It is our commitment to accelerate expansion projects in high-density areas — I would say in places like Surrey. But I just want to mention to the member opposite that under the previous government, under her government, the expansion projects were not keeping pace with the enrolment growth, which has led to an increase in use of portables to accommodate students.
At the same time, we are very, very cognizant of the enrolment pressures. If I talk about Surrey school district, we have invested half a billion dollars into capital projects. We have a Surrey capital projects office to accelerate the projects we need. We know how high the need is there. Surrey is the largest school district. We know the need there. We are very cognizant. We are very proud of the work that we as the government have done, but also proud of the work that the ministry is doing, the communication that they do with the school district, the work that they do, the meetings.
I recently had the Surrey summit meeting. The conversations that we have had with our partners…. I want to say that it’s not just Surrey; it is all across the province that we are committed to investing in our capital projects. We will keep on doing that.
E. Sturko: How many portables were there in Surrey in 2016? How many are there now?
Hon. R. Singh: Since 2017, we have made historic investments in the capital projects in Surrey, which will add more than 12,000 seats till 2025. I was just recently, just two weeks ago, at Kwantlen Park Secondary, which has added more than 600 seats.
In January, I was at Sunnyside Elementary, which also has added more than 400 seats, which has reduced the need for about 20 portables in that school.
I want to also talk about the school projects in Surrey that are in the business case. There are six schools: Tamanawis Secondary, Guildford Secondary, Fleetwood Park Secondary, Clayton Heights Secondary and Forsyth Road Elementary School. These are all in the business case.
As I mentioned before, we are seeing a record amount of enrolment in districts like Surrey. In the last few years, the number for portables had gone down. But with all the amount of construction that is happening and with the increase in the enrolment growth, the number has gone up for this year.
E. Sturko: My understanding is that’s incorrect. They did not go down. In fact, more than 100 portables have been added to Surrey since 2017. It’s well over 300 portables, in fact.
Again we have another failed promise from this government: an assurance to Surrey voters that there would be an elimination of portables in Surrey by 2020. Yet here we go; we’re up more than 100 portables.
It’s also my understanding some of the new schools…. In fact, a school in my very own riding, actually, the Grandview Heights Secondary School, is already bursting at the seams, and it’s going to be getting a bunch of portables. So a brand-new school completed under the NDP, and — bam! — it’s going to be loaded with portables any day now.
I want some clarification about how much it costs to acquire a portable and how much it is to move a portable. Are these types of capital costs reimbursed to school districts?
Hon. R. Singh: I want to mention that portables are used for a variety of reasons, not just for general instruction, by the school districts. That is my understanding.
I don’t have a clear number. A portable costs about $200,000, and it’s about $100,000 to move and set up a portable.
I want to reiterate again the record investments that we have made in our school capital projects since 2017. We were playing catch-up when we formed the government in 2017. We will keep on investing in new schools, expanded schools, modern schools that are safe and where our children can get a quality education. That’s what Budget 2023 is about. It has record funding of $3.4 billion, for the next three years, for capital projects.
E. Sturko: To summarize, at approximately $200,000 for the portable and approximately $100,000 to move a portable and have it located, it would be approximately $300,000 per new portable that’s being brought in.
Is this coming from the capital budget, or is this coming from the school’s operating budget?
Hon. R. Singh: My understanding is that because portables are not permanent fixtures…. It’s a long-standing policy. We don’t know when it was developed. But the cost of the portables historically has been coming from the operating budgets.
E. Sturko: Well, with broken promises like getting rid of all the portables in Surrey by 2020, they do seem like permanent fixtures in Surrey to me.
To clarify, the cost of portables, both the acquisition and the placement of portables, comes out of the operating budget. What implications does that have on operations in the school districts?
Hon. R. Singh: When the member opposite said the portables are permanent fixtures…. It’s like their government wanted to make them seem like permanent fixtures, because they were not investing in new schools as we are doing.
As I mentioned, we are making record investments in our capital projects. We will keep on doing that. I am so proud of the investments that we have made since 2017. But as I have said before, since we formed the government, we have been playing catch-up. The neglect that the previous government did, not investing in our children, in our future and in the new schools — that’s what we had to face. But we are making record investments, and we’ll continue to do that.
M. Lee: I appreciate the time from the member for Surrey South to join her in this further discussion.
Obviously, in spite of the minister’s reiteration of what’s occurred over the last six years, we continue to see the portables in Surrey. We continue to see the fastest-growing community in the province not being supported in building out that necessary educational infrastructure.
I want to, though, turn to the area of the province I represent, Vancouver-Langara and Vancouver. I know the minister appreciates the significant housing developments that are occurring with the Sen̓áḵw development and the Squamish Nation; the Oakridge centre as a second town centre for Vancouver in the heart of my riding of Vancouver-Langara; the Heather Lands with MST Corp.; Jericho lands, as well with the nations; and the Broadway plan with the extension of the Broadway subway as a community benefit agreement–type project.
I know, as well, the increase in population in False Creek South, which I’ll come to in a moment. First of all, let me ask: can the minister confirm that the Vancouver school board currently projects 5,000 fewer students in the Vancouver school district by 2031, when the B.C. Ministry of Education and Child Care, on the other hand, projects 10,000 more students by 2031 in the VSB area, which is a difference of 15,000 students?
First of all, can the minister confirm that there is a discrepancy and a difference in view between this ministry and the Vancouver school board — again, a 5,000 decrease by the Vancouver school board in their projections, a 10,000 increase by the Ministry of Education — in light of many of the developments that I just referred to in the Vancouver area, including my riding of Vancouver-Langara?
Hon. R. Singh: As we invest in our capital projects, we work very, very closely with our school districts. We have 60 school districts all across the province. I’m really proud of the work that the ministry staff does and the collaboration that they have been able to develop with all the school districts, including the Vancouver school board.
With the increase in enrolment, especially in the last few years, we really want the school districts to be equipped and to be prepared for that enrolment. We are working very closely to help them, to assist them, and are working towards our children’s future.
M. Lee: What is the ministry’s estimate as to the number of students that will be in the Vancouver school board district in 2031? Is it an increase of 10,000 students?
Hon. R. Singh: The ministry staff, as I mentioned before, works very closely with the school districts and, as was mentioned by the member opposite, with the Vancouver school board, or school district, as well.
With our data sources within the ministry, we want to know what the numbers would be so that the school districts are fully prepared. The numbers that have been shared with the Vancouver school board are growing. They are in positives, but they are less than 10,000.
M. Lee: I do think that just reveals the discrepancy, the difference and the gap between this ministry and the Vancouver school board. The ministry has just confirmed that the ministry is projecting an increase of students by 2031 and can’t quantify whether that’s 10,000 or some number slightly less than 10,000, but the Vancouver school board is projecting a 5,000 decrease.
That’s the reason why the parents have taken the Vancouver school board to court in relation to the closure of the Queen Elizabeth Annex. We see that action being taken.
Certainly, on behalf of my colleague the Leader of the Official Opposition and the member for Vancouver-Quilchena where the Queen Elizabeth Annex is located, next to my riding of Vancouver-Langara, we know that when we talk to parents and families, they’re very concerned about the lack of integrated community planning to recognize the growth across the city of Vancouver, including on Jericho lands and housing at UBC, Wesbrook village, where the Premier lives, as I understand.
We understand the local initiatives in terms of what’s necessary to build community infrastructure for not only the Premier’s family but for families in Vancouver across the school district.
Is the minister concerned about the message that this has sent in terms of the lack of and the short-term facility planning of the Vancouver school board, which is nine years as opposed to what others in good education planning across North America see, which is a 50-year timetable? The Vancouver school board continues to plan for short term and a decrease in school population, all the while when parents are sending their children outside of the public school system, which is at 25 percent now in the Vancouver school district. And they’re at capacity.
Can the minister please comment on the closure of the Queen Elizabeth Annex and the lack of long-term planning by the Vancouver school board to recognize that once you close a school in that capacity and not repurpose it for what is important for the community, that leads to a decline in supporting the necessary social infrastructure for our children and families in Vancouver?
Hon. R. Singh: I just want to let the member opposite know that it is districts…. There are a lot of factors that determine when a school is being closed. It is a decision that is not taken lightly. A lot of research goes into it. I’m sure the Vancouver school district did their work diligently when they made the decision to close the particular school that the member opposite is mentioning.
But I just want to reiterate one thing here. The ministry staff work very, very closely with the school districts. As I mentioned before, we are cognizant of the increased enrolment all across the province, and we know where the pressure points are, and we want to be proactive in that approach rather than reactive. That’s why those discussions start happening with the school districts way in advance so that we are prepared for that increased enrolment and, in fact, are able to invest in our students’ future.
M. Lee: Just with the limited time that I have…. Thank you again to the member for Surrey South for her patience on this. I know, as we talked about earlier, there is a difference in view between the ministry seeing increased student population enrolment versus the VSB’s own estimates, which show a decrease of 5,000 by 2031.
That’s the reason why the VSB, in their decision-making, is closing down the QE Annex. It’s underlying this view that the VSB has that the student population is actually decreasing in Vancouver, when you have all of those housing developments that are being built, including in partnership with First Nations, including at Oakridge, in my riding.
So I’m very concerned, with my colleague the member for Vancouver-Quilchena, the Leader of the Official Opposition, as to the nature in which this ministry…. There’s a real disconnect. The minister says there’s a close working relationship, yet they’re going in different directions.
But let me say this. There clearly is a need for more integrated planning, including with the new mayor of Vancouver and the newly elected Vancouver school board, because of the investment that this province makes in transportation, education and health care. Just like our leader has done with the Canada Line and building up the infrastructure when he was the Minister of Transportation, we need to continue to see the necessary community infrastructure, social infrastructure, built around the Canada Line.
Now, let me just say this, then. In terms of the election promise that was made back in October 2020 in the lead-up to that snap election in the middle of the pandemic…. The current member for Vancouver–False Creek, the Minister of Jobs, made a campaign promise that the new Olympic Village elementary school would be built. This has been a long time in the making.
I’d ask: where is the capital funding in this budget that relates to that commitment? Secondly, what is the status of the timeline for that school to be built?
Hon. R. Singh: We know that the Olympic Village is a top priority for the Vancouver school board. I also want to mention that my colleague the member for Vancouver–False Creek, the Minister of Jobs, has been a strong, strong advocate for that school.
I just want to let the member know that we are supportive of that project. The ministry is supportive of the project. The school board was asked to do the concept plan for Olympic Village, and now it is awaiting the government approval — the concept plan.
But in the meantime, the ministry staff is working very closely with the Vancouver school board to speed up the business plan as well so that there shouldn’t be a delay in this project. It is our commitment. It is a commitment that our government has made. And I also want to reiterate that it is one of our top priorities.
On that note, Madam Chair, I would like a five-minute break.
The Chair: I’ll call a recess for 7½ minutes.
The committee recessed from 4:22 p.m. to 4:31 p.m.
[R. Leonard in the chair.]
The Chair: We’ll call the committee back to order.
E. Sturko: I just wanted to acknowledge the minister’s last answer. I understand that they’ve made a commitment about the Olympic Village school. However, the budget has zero allocated for the Olympic Village school. Again, from my understanding, this is another failed election promise. A commitment isn’t the same as following through on your promise, especially when there’s no money in the budget to indicate that you plan on moving forward with that school.
On February 28 on CBC, Ravi Parmar said:
“One of the things that we have to do in the absence of new school builds is to add portables.”
He goes on to say:
“And it’s important for your listeners to know that the cost of building these portables comes from the Education budget. It comes from our operating budget. So we’re essentially taking money away, which could be used in the classroom, to purchase portables and to get them set up and to ensure that we have the permits in place. That can cost, on average, about $400,000 and maybe a little bit more because of the supply chain issues these days.
“So when the province is not able to fund at the pace of growth that we’re seeing in the Sooke school district, we’re hopeful that they’ll come through and support us with the cost of portables as well, because at the contribution we’re providing, in the absence of them, we’re not going to be able to provide funding at the pace that we need to put in portables.”
He also goes on to say:
“We’re doing our best. We’ll just use Happy Valley as an example, because those are the parents that you had on your show yesterday. The challenge that we have there in Happy Valley is that it’s jam-packed, and we’ve added as many portables as we can. We’ve used a partnership where there was an emergency operation centre, if there was ever an earthquake, and we had to evict those good folks because we needed the extra classroom space.
“Our schools are packed. They’re full. So what we need to do, unfortunately, is ensure that our other schools may have room to be used as feeder schools.”
My question to the minister is: how many portables does school district 62 have in 2023 compared with 2018?
Hon. R. Singh: I just want to clarify, on the previous question, a comment that the member did. I just want to clarify the process on how budgets are allocated for capital projects. Once an agreed-upon business case has been approved, that is when the budget and the timelines are confirmed. I just wanted to let the member opposite know.
On Sooke, the member opposite was quoting the board chair. In that interview…. One thing that the member opposite missed that the board chair said was that “the B.C. NDP is responsible for the largest expansion of public education in Sooke school district.” That was also part of that interview. Since 2017, over 2,200 seats have been created for the Sooke school district.
As I have said before, our province is seeing a record amount of immigration and people moving to British Columbia. That is resulting in increased enrolment in school districts. Some school districts are feeling the pressure.
We know that the Sooke school district is one of them. We are committed to working with the school district, as we are doing with other school districts. The ministry staff is constantly in talks with the school district to address the needs, to understand their priorities, to have our students in safe, modern schools where they can get the best learning environment.
E. Sturko: So another thing, actually, that board chair Ravi Parmar said on March 13 was: “But as you know, inflationary pressures as well as underfunding from the provincial government made us very reliant on our reserves.” Can you please tell me how many school sites in SD 36 have the maximum allowable portables on school grounds?
Hon. R. Singh: We don’t have the list of the number of portables that the school district has at different locations. We don’t have that. But what I can tell you is that it is our government’s commitment for all the students, and also for the students from Surrey, to receive positive, engaging and inspiring classrooms, and it remains a top priority for us.
I also want to remind the member opposite that when their government was in power, they opened zero new schools between 2014 and 2017 in Surrey, and there was only one addition. Since we have formed the government, we are doing things differently. We know how important education is. They are the foundation for our children’s future, and since 2017, we have invested more than half a billion dollars into the capital investments in Surrey.
E. Sturko: I mean, it is unfortunate that you don’t know the number of portables. You don’t know the number of portables in school district 62. So of course, you wouldn’t know the maximum amount of portables.
The Chair: Member, just remember to address the Chair.
E. Sturko: She wouldn’t know the maximum amount of portables, hon. Chair. I apologize.
Maybe I’ll just add a question that she could answer. Will the province step in and fund a turf field for the new school in South Langford to benefit both students and the community?
Hon. R. Singh: Just for clarification, I want to ask the member opposite…. In her last question, she mentioned school district 36. That’s why we were talking about the Surrey school district. She asked the number of portables in each school, not the total number of portables. I just want to clarify: was she asking about the total number of portables in SD 62? I would really like to clarify, because that’s what the question sounded like to me.
On the question of the turf, we will have more information about that in the future. I would be more than happy to share that in the future.
E. Sturko: To clarify, yes. I would like to know how many portables. So there were two questions. One was how many portables does SD 62 have in 2023 compared to 2018? That was about two questions ago.
Then one question ago was how many of the sites in SD 62 have the maximum allowable portables on their school grounds?
Hon. R. Singh: Thank you to the member opposite for the clarification.
At this time, we don’t have this. We will take it back, and we’ll get back to you on it. We’ll follow up with you on that one.
E. Sturko: Thank you for the answer. Just to make a clarification of my own before asking my final question. Actually, two schools were approved by the previous government in Surrey. One was Clayton Heights Secondary School and Grandview Heights Secondary. Is there a timeline for getting the information on those portables?
Hon. R. Singh: We are hoping to get this information to you within this week.
A. Olsen: I think it’s just important to acknowledge that the reason why school district 63 has seen such a large expansion in the number of schools that have been approved is not because of any one brand of government or another. It’s because there’s been a massive population growth with a large number of families out there that if the provincial government, whichever brand of provincial government was in power at the time, wasn’t building schools, that would be a big, big problem for the communities on the West Shore.
When the board chair suggests that it’s the B.C. NDP that are responsible for the expansion, it was the B.C. NDP that was in government at the time when that happened. I think it just needs to be said.
We’re now coming up to budget time. I’ve just been invited to deal with the budgets or to see the budget presentations from each of the two school districts in my riding.
One of the things that I’ve been hearing about from both 63 and 64, and I think it’s the same the member from Surrey mentioned: the unfunded inflationary pressures. The provincial government, year over year, since 2017, has talked about increasing the funding for the education system. Unfortunately, the unfunded inflationary pressures continue to be a problem for school districts, specifically school districts that have stable enrolments — like school district 63, as an example — because the funding has largely been around the per-student.
The increase of population has brought more funding into the schools. But the schools have not been seeing increased funding per student, and they have continued to have a challenge.
We are going to see school districts in the next few weeks be publicly talking about the cuts that they’re going to have to make to our children’s education system. Arts are going to be on the chopping block.
We’re going to be hearing about school districts that are going to have to make a decision about which of the designated students get support staff with them. We’re going to continue to hear about administrators who are making the terrible decision that this student gets support and that student doesn’t, yet both of them have a designation.
Why isn’t it that this government increase the funding for schools to deal with the inflationary pressures that they’re facing today, this year, and specifically this year with the inflation rate as it is right now?
Hon. R. Singh: I just want them to know that the government is providing operating grants to school districts for the 2022-23 school year that total an estimated $5.876 billion. In addition, more than $679 million is provided in special purposes grants such as classroom enhancement funding and CommunityLINK.
We also know, the ministry is aware, that 89 percent of the school budgets are wages. And we are funding…. We know that we just had a collective agreement negotiation just a few months ago, so this budget is also providing funding for that.
Along with that, the member made a very important point about inflation. We know how global inflation is impacting everybody and the families and the students who go to schools. And we know how food is so important in students’ learning. That’s why this year’s budget also includes an investment of $212 million that will be going to the school food program.
I’m really, really happy to say that it is a three-year program. We want to provide some kind of consistency to that program, so it is going to be a three-year program that would be providing school meals to all the school districts across the province.
A. Olsen: Thank you to the minister. You know, I was too eager to point out the nuance.
I should have started, Minister, by congratulating you on your appointment. I know we’ve spent quite a bit of time in this room, actually, in committee together, so when I saw your appointment, I was very happy.
Now I have to go back to asking questions. I think one of the challenges with the response, frankly, is that we recognize that education is one of the larger budgets within the provincial budget, one of the larger line items. And it should be. A cornerstone of modern society is how we educate our children. So I don’t think anybody in this province will look at the number and say that’s too much.
In fact, I think people mostly look at it and see that the investments that are going in are for the increased wages. Previously to that new collective bargaining agreement, they were to make up for the returned language that the courts required.
What we’re not seeing is an increase…. We’re not seeing the increases because education is that priority that it should be. We’re seeing them because we’ve got a new collective bargaining agreement for teachers, so that looks like there’s a much larger increase than actually is going in. It’s going to the same people that are already there, right?
The returned language is going to the same people that are already there. It’s not going to increase the technology accessibility for our students, upgrading computers, making sure that our students have good-quality technology in their schools, making sure that they’ve got good-quality materials to learn from, updated materials so that they’re not learning from the outdated materials that I learned from. It didn’t do me any good.
I think that the challenge that we’re facing here in the coming weeks is pressure on school boards. It will be parents looking at school boards that are trying to get the same out of funds that are not increasing. It looks like the budget went up because we’re giving more money to the same people that are already there, but it hasn’t improved the position of education overall to the level that I think British Columbians expect for our public education system.
When it comes to the response with respect to food, absolutely. My daughter — the school that she goes to has a food program, and that has lifted a lot of kids into a better place for learning. But it does not address the fuel for the buses, the cost of heating and the ability for schools to maintain high-level filters in their HVAC systems. They’ve now all gone back to, basically, the old filters that were there prior to COVID, even though COVID still is in the environment.
I think it’s just important to note that when our school districts are going to be having these very difficult conversations about what’s being cut, it’s because this government hasn’t prioritized public education to the level that it should. What does the minister say to all of those school board trustees that are going to have to be facing the public, the parents in their schools, and saying: “We just don’t have the resources. The province has not provided the resources to deal with not only a better and improved school system but also the increased inflationary pressures that have hit us very, very hard in the last 18 months”?
Hon. R. Singh: To the member opposite, I just want to let him know that it’s the locally elected boards of education. They go through their local processes and their related budgets, as they are, we know, in the best position to understand the local needs and how to address the needs of their school communities.
I also want to talk about that there has been…. We are providing funding of $261.1 million that is being provided to the school minor capital projects for this year’s budget. That is $147.1 million from the annual facilities grant, which is an increase of $26.6 million compared to the last year. The member was talking about that.
Also, out of that $261 million, $23 million is going into the carbon-neutral capital funding to support energy and electrical upgrades at 86 schools; $65 million in school enhancement program funding to support projects across all the 60 school districts; $5 million into the playground equipment program; $13 million will also go towards the purchase of at least 67 new school buses, which is also very important; and also $8 million in building envelope program funding to support building remediation projects.
I also want to just reiterate again that the majority of the budget is going to the wages for the school budgets, and we are providing that in our funding.
A. Olsen: I appreciate the challenge that the school trustees have in front of them. They had it last year, and they have it in front of them again this year. Of course, they do understand the needs of the community.
What’s frustrating, what I continue to hear about year over year, is that it’s almost more challenging knowing what the needs are, because they don’t have the funds to be able to achieve what the community’s priorities are. So they’re going back to the school population, to their parents, to the kids and to the staff and saying: “We don’t have what we need.”
It’s not a business. There’s nothing to sell. There’s nothing to market. The money comes from the provincial government. If there’s not enough to achieve even the basic needs that need to be achieved, if there’s not enough to make up for the inflationary pressures that have hit schools, then they’re in the position where they have the unfortunate knowledge of what’s needed and also being forced to make a decision to cut. That’s the situation that these school districts are facing and that we’re going to be hearing about.
It’s important to raise this issue here and now, because British Columbians need to know that when those decisions about those local priorities are being made, the magnifying glass will be on our school trustees. But they can only make decisions with the money that they have, and they’ve been saying, consistently: “The unfunded inflationary pressures are going to put us in an unfortunate situation.”
I think we need to understand where that responsibility lies. Yes, it lies at their feet to make the decision, but it doesn’t lie at their feet to generate more money. They simply can’t do that, other than maybe bring in more international students. But for schools that are full, that’s not an option.
One question to the minister around school boats. This is a question that I’ve raised several times with the ministry over the past number of years, because I represent the Gulf Islands. School district 64 has a very, very costly school boat program. They hire water taxis to bring students, move them around in the morning, and to bring, actually, and move teachers and administrators around the Gulf Islands as well.
This program has never been funded to the level that it’s required. It is constantly taxing school district 64. I recognize that in the past, school district 64 might have had some financial challenges that needed to be resolved. Those have been resolved. Can we count on the ministry to step up and support the school boat program, recognizing that it is a unique program?
There are only a couple of districts in the province that have school boats. My riding happens to have one of them. Can school district 64 expect to see better support from the provincial government in this budget?
Hon. R. Singh: Thank you, Member, for that issue that you have raised with SD 64. The ministry staff is aware of this issue, and we know it’s a unique situation that they’re facing. The staff is in talks with them and looking for and having those conversations with the district.
A. Olsen: Thank you, and I appreciate the response.
I don’t want to leave an impression that the provincial government doesn’t already recognize that it’s a unique situation. There is funding that recognizes that it’s a unique situation. What I think I need to do on behalf of my constituents is recognize that that is not funded enough, and it continues to add pressure on other school programming. It also, I think, adds a significant amount of pressure on the families, the parents and the students, because they’re getting on boats in the middle of wintertime. It’s been a very successful program, but it’s also something that causes stress.
I’m going to finish here with Education. Thank you for the opportunity to ask a few questions. I’ll hand it over to my colleague from Prince George–Valemount and return for Child Care tomorrow.
S. Bond: Good afternoon. This is a topic that should be well on the radar screen of the minister. I have three very specific questions. I want to thank my colleague for allowing me to ask questions on behalf of my colleague from Prince George–Mackenzie as well.
As the minister would well know, we have a school district where parents are deeply concerned about ensuring that their children get the quality education that they deserve. Teachers every day are working as hard as they possibly can in classrooms. But we have certainly heard from parents who are concerned about the state of the situation in Prince George and the gigantic school district that we represent.
My questions are this. The minister was, at least in a media report, referenced as saying that the ministry is supporting the school board. So we would like to know what exactly those supports look like. We are two trustees down. We have had seven superintendents in seven years. So could the minister be very specific about what is being done to support our school board?
Secondly, could the minister confirm whether Rod Allen and Kory Wilson are completing their time as special advisers to the district? This would be the second group of special advisers. The ministerial order was put in place, and it is to end on July 28. As I understand it, they are to report to the minister at least every two months.
Can the minister confirm that the special advisers remain in place, and could she describe for us what happens to those reports? Do school trustees see those reports? Does the minister read them? Are they made public? It’s so that we have a sense of what is happening related to the second group of special advisers.
Lastly, when will the district be in a position to announce a by-election date?
Hon. R. Singh: To the member opposite’s question, our ministry’s focus is supporting the Prince George board of education, SD 57, to ensure all students and staff in the district have a safe and supportive and stable learning environment. We are monitoring the situation in the district.
The boards of education are elected local bodies and accountable to their communities and their constituents, including parents and students. But we are also working very, very closely with the BCSTA, which supports locally elected school boards. The ministry is supporting the superintendent and district team at SD 57.
On the question of the special advisers, as the member opposite mentioned, they are required to submit reports every two months. They have been submitting their reports to me. The advisers also work very closely with the board and the district team, and they stay in place for the length of their term. For the vacancies that have come up at SD 57, the board is required to appoint a chief electoral officer within 30 days, and the election will happen within 80 days.
S. Bond: Thank you for that.
The response the minister gave is exactly the quote that was in the news release, so what I would hope for is actually some very specific details. I’m not going to ask for them today because, obviously, my colleagues are lined up here. But that was the wording used in a press release, and that really gives very little comfort to the people of Prince George: supporting to make sure that we have a safe and — you know, whatever the quote was.
Of course we want to make sure the ministry is monitoring that. Parents expect that their children have the opportunity to have a top-notch education. Teachers are doing their very best.
I will leave it at that in terms of that, but I’m hopeful that at some point, the minister could provide my colleague and I with exactly what is being done to support the school district rather than simply the words that were already uttered in a press release.
Secondly, if the reports are being received by the minister…. The minister spent a lot of time today talking about local governance and all of those things. Do the school trustees in school district 57 receive those reports?
Hon. R. Singh: The reports that are submitted are confidential in nature because they sometimes include some confidential information about the personnel.
As I mentioned before, the special advisers are working very, very closely with the school boards and the superintendent as well. So the information that they have…. A lot of information that they provide me in the report is also shared with the school district and their team.
J. Sturdy: The minister will likely be familiar with my comments previously around population growth in the Sea to Sky.
We’ve seen dramatic increases in population over this last census period, with Pemberton growing 32 percent; Whistler, 18 percent; Squamish, 22 percent. There’s no reason to expect that we’ll see a decrease in that growth. If anything, I think we’re going to see an acceleration of growth in the Sea to Sky, as there are units being built and many people moving there and out of the city.
The demographic is about 37 years old right up and down the corridor. I think the minister probably appreciates what that means to the school system. We’re seeing evidence of that, certainly, at Squamish General in terms of obstetrics, which is going through the roof.
The Sea to Sky school district, district 48, has had a number one priority in the region of an upgrade of Howe Sound Secondary School since at least 2018. The objective is a seismic upgrade. The school is built on alluvial soils on a floodplain subject to liquefaction, so I think the seismic upgrade of that school is a critical intervention, potentially, for the region.
And we’re seeing that growth. The schools in Squamish, in particular, are quite full. The double goal for Howe Sound Secondary is to also put in place some middle-school grades at the same time as a seismic upgrade, which makes a lot of sense. This will alleviate the need to build a whole separate school in another location.
The capital costs we’ve seen grow from, I think, $37 million in 2018 to now $44 million as of last summer. I think we can expect to see it will probably be even more than that, and it doesn’t look like it’s slowing down.
The question I have for the minister is: will the ministry see fit to action that number one priority for the Sea to Sky school district and commit to completing a seismic upgrade and expansion of Howe Sound Secondary, hopefully this year?
Hon. R. Singh: The member has already talked about the enrolment pressures. Today we have talked a lot about it and what the school districts are facing. The school district that the member is talking about is obviously facing the pressure.
Every year, all the school districts — we have 60 school districts — let the ministry staff know what their priorities are. The ministry is aware of the priority in the school district, and the ministry staff will be working closely to understand the lead of the school district.
I just wanted to let the member opposite know that we are aware of the priority that you have talked about, and the ministry staff will be working with the school district.
K. Kirkpatrick: I was hoping to move the conversation and the questions to child care. I’m wondering if I can suggest, perhaps, a break while the minister and staff are able to change over, if that is okay?
The Chair: We will take a two-minute recess since the minister of state is just down the road here.
The committee recessed from 5:33 p.m. to 5:37 p.m.
[R. Leonard in the chair.]
The Chair: I’ll call the committee back to order, and I recognize the Minister of State for Child Care.
Would you like to make some remarks?
Hon. G. Lore: I would appreciate the chance to make a few introductory remarks. I know our ministry is obviously not just starting for the day, but as I am, I appreciate the opportunity. I’m grateful to be starting this process my first time as a minister.
I want to acknowledge that we’re on the territory of the Lək̓ʷəŋin̓əŋ peoples of the Songhees and Esquimalt Nations. This is the territory not only that the Legislature is on but also the territory I represent and raise my family on.
I have a few acknowledgments to make. I want to start those by expressing my gratitude to child care providers and educators. There’s a lot of work underway in child care, but fundamentally we do this work with and alongside providers and early childhood educators. We don’t do any of this on our own.
I want to thank them for the work that they do alongside us but, more importantly, the work that they do every single day for our littlests and their families.
There are, as you can tell, so many folks in our ministry who work incredibly hard to prepare for things like estimates but to deliver for B.C. families and providers. I want to thank them for being here and for supporting me in this work.
I want to introduce a few of the teams, and maybe I’ll introduce the folks who are new here for child care.
Patricia Boyle is ADM in our child care division. Anne Wetherill is ED in child care benefit and operating funding. Teresa Butler, acting executive director in child care policy. Kate Cotie, director in child care policy as well.
Roseanne Sovka, director of analytics. Erica Meldrum, ED strategic initiatives in the ADM office. Helen Guo, financial planning. Chris Brown is still here as ADM for the resource management division. Jonathan Barry, ED in child care for capital.
And of course, we still have Christina, our deputy minister, who’s spending a long afternoon here with us.
Investments in child care are changing lives for B.C. families. Whether it’s making life more affordable or creating additional spaces, child care is fundamentally transformative for families. It’s good for communities. We know it’s good for the economy as a whole and local economies around our province. Three-quarters of last year’s job growth was driven by women’s employment. That’s over 58,000 more women in the workforce in 2022 over 2021. We know child care is a huge factor in this.
Affordability remains one of our key pillars, and it’s helping bring costs down and helping families respond to rising global inflation. Thousands of B.C. families are benefiting from lower child care fees, through $10-a-day child care, through the fee reduction initiative and the affordable child care benefit program.
Last December we cut fees again, and families with children kindergarten age and younger accessing licensed care are now saving up to $900 per month per child. This includes over 76,000 spaces.
This September we’re expanding fee reduction initiatives to include preschool and before-and-after school care because we know that a family’s child care costs don’t end at five. This is a made-in-B.C. solution, one that we’re really proud of. It goes beyond our work with our federal partners, because fundamentally, we recognize the needs of families beyond five.
We are working in close partnership with our federal partners. Through that partnership, we’ve expanded the $10-a-day ChildCareBC program to 12,700 spaces.
I have heard from so many families who are accessing those spaces how life changing it is, whether it’s a parent going back to school, increased security and housing, paying off student loans. I’ve talked to a parent who says how fundamental that access to that care was for being able to keep her kid with her.
We know also that increasing access is incredibly important, and we’ve been working to increase space creation — more than 30,000 spaces.
Of course, child care on school grounds is a really important piece of this work, and having child care on school grounds makes life easier for parents. I have a six- and an eight-year-old. I’m just out of that child care phase but thinking about what that means for juggling life and drop-off and before-and-after school care, for example. That’s why we’re prioritizing space for child care as we build and rebuild schools. We’re working with school districts, with local communities, Indigenous governance and not-for-profits to respond to that community need through child care on school grounds.
To continue to create more child care spaces on school grounds, we added the funding stream for ChildCareBC new spaces fund dedicated to school districts and on school grounds.
I’m sure we’ll have quite a few questions as we go through this process around spaces. But fundamentally, when we’re talking about spaces, we’re really talking about people. We can’t do any of this without the skilled professionals who provide early childhood education. I thanked ECEs at the beginning, but truly, spaces is not child care; people are.
To recognize that and to support the sector, we have taken action to train, recruit and support ECEs, both those that are in the sector and those that are coming up into it. There are a number of ways we’re doing that, including access to training, streamlining pathways for international ECEs, working with 30 school districts for dual credit programs. That allows grades 11 and 12 to start their ECE post-secondary training.
Of course, we’re lifting up the ECEs that are in the sector through wage enhancements and professional development programs because we need to support and keep those we have.
ECEs as well as providers are such a key part of the work that we do. It is them on the ground providing the support. So we need to and we are continuing to ensure that providers are providing quality care by investing in operating funding, increasing provider payments and more. The wage enhancements for ECEs also support their providers by supporting their staff.
Of course, we can’t have high-quality child care in the province without ensuring that we have inclusive care. Our priority is to make sure that all children in B.C. have equitable access to regulated, quality child care spaces and are supported in their learning through play and with and alongside other kids in child care programs.
Already in funding the creation of new spaces, we’re prioritizing projects that support inclusive care. We’ve recently announced an additional $31.8 million to help more children with support needs access care and fully participate in child care through supported child development and Aboriginal supported child development programs.
In addition to this funding, we’ve been working to develop capacity in the sector so that all providers feel confident in providing inclusive care. We’re doing this through information and resources and training opportunities to increase the knowledge and skills of child care providers.
I know a number of my colleagues were there last night at the UVic reception, a chance to see some of the things that are happening out of UVic. My colleagues in the room may have come across some of the folks at CanAssist, who are working with us to develop and have developed foundations of inclusive child care, which is online training, and are working on developing positive approaches to behaviour. It was great to talk to them last night about the appetite and the interest in these programs for existing ECEs.
We also know how important it is to work with Indigenous leaders and rights holders and to actualize distinctions-based child care for First Nations, for Métis and for Inuit families. We’re supporting 1,500 Aboriginal Head Start spaces, which are culturally relevant, culturally based care at no cost that provide wraparound family supports for Indigenous families.
Over the past five years, as we hit this halfway mark in ChildCareBC, we have made significant progress on our ChildCareBC plan to build affordable, accessible, quality and inclusive child care, one that is available to B.C. families when we need it.
We’re continuing to make child care a priority. That’s why we’re investing nearly $2.6 billion in early learning and child care over the next three years. Through Budget 2023, we’re looking to support and lift up hard-working B.C. families who access and benefit this truly life-changing child care.
With that, I’ll take my seat. I really look forward to the conversation today.
The Chair: Recognizing the member for West Vancouver–Capilano, if you’d like to make some remarks.
K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you, Madam Chair. Yes, I would.
I would like to welcome the minister and congratulate her on her new role. The minister and I had an opportunity to work on a tri-party committee that was quite significant for a couple of years, and I really did enjoy that work. It’ll be interesting now to interact with the new minister in a different role.
If I might just say a few things about child care in B.C. Child care, I agree with the minister, is foundational. It’s fundamental. It is such a priority. We need to give our children a healthy head start, early learning. And it does lift women up. It does allow women to participate more fully in the workforce. These are important things.
As the minister has said and the previous minister of state have often told stories about people speaking to them about that life-changing opportunity with affordable child care.
An example on the other side. I was just speaking to my colleague here, who was talking about nurses in Terrace who may actually be leaving Terrace because they can’t find child care.
There are good things happening, but it is day after day that I’m hearing from the people who are not able to find child care, who are struggling, who are providers of child care who are struggling. My role here is to represent those people today, and British Columbians, to ask those questions as to why some of these things are happening.
I thank you for that time. If I might just go into my questions….
Interjection.
K. Kirkpatrick: Okay, thank you very much.
I’ll just make these ones short and quick, to start with. Can the minister tell us how many licensed spaces are open with children receiving child care today?
Hon. G. Lore: Thanks for the starting question here. There are 138,000 licensed child care spaces that are receiving funding through the operating funding, and that number is to December 31.
K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister, and I was remiss in thanking all her staff as well. I just want to make sure I say that.
Did the government actually have 12,500 spaces at $10-a-day open by the end of February?
Hon. G. Lore: At the end of February, 12,700.
K. Kirkpatrick: How many child care spaces have ceased operation in each of the last four years? How many have we actually lost?
Hon. G. Lore: We do not have numbers on who closes and why. There are a whole number of reasons why a child care facility may cease to operate — retirement, for example, or moving a business.
What we do know is that there’s been a net increase year over year in each of those four years in the number of licensed child care spaces accessing our funding.
K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.
Child care spaces. I probably didn’t ask the question specifically enough. How many licensed spaces, not child care facilities, were lost? Notwithstanding that the minister is saying that there’s a net increase, how many of those closed or were lost?
Hon. G. Lore: The answer is the same. There are any number of reasons why the number of licensed spaces may fluctuate from month to month or year to year. We don’t have data on the number of closures, as the member put it.
We do know the number of spaces that exist. That continues to increase, and it has increased year over year over the last four years.
K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister. How many before- and after-school care spaces have been created each year in the last three years? Will those before- and after-school spaces also be included as $10-a-day spaces?
Hon. G. Lore: There were a couple factors to that question, so I’ll start with the number of before-and after-school spaces over the last three years. It has increased, over the last three years, by 4,042 spaces — on average, 1,347, but that differs a bit year to year.
Those are school-age children. We also know that there are school-aged kids being supported before and after school in multifamily and family-based child care. All of those numbers are going up as well. That number of 4,042 is not the entirety of those spaces, inasmuch as we know that they’re in some of those other types of care.
Regarding the member’s question about $10-a-day, there are a couple of things I want to share.
Before- and after-school care was eligible to apply for $10-a-day for provincially funded sites. That is because we know that child care doesn’t end at five, doesn’t end for families. For kids, for that interaction, it doesn’t end at five.
With federal dollars, we needed to prioritize zero to five, but we negotiated with our federal partners to be able to also support before-and after-school care at $10-a-day. In those sites that are $10-a-day that have before-and after-school care, those spaces are also $10-a-day.
K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister for that.
I want to go back to one of the first questions here, on how many licensed spaces there are. Now, off the top of my head, when I was speaking to the minister of state last year, my understanding was that there were — I’ll check my notes here this evening — approximately 136,000 or 137,000 licensed child care spaces.
Can the minister just confirm with me how many net new licensed spaces have there been since last year?
Hon. G. Lore: On the number for last year, what we have now is the full fiscal. What the member most likely would have got last year at this time is to December. The number we have is higher, and that’s 131,997.
What we’ve seen is an increase of 6,302. That’s to December, so it isn’t capturing anything from January to now. We’ve seen an increase from the start of this fiscal to end of December of 6,302.
K. Kirkpatrick: Those numbers are, again, a little confusing to me. Can I just clarify that we’re not talking about funded licensed child care? We’re talking about actually open and operating child care spaces.
Hon. G. Lore: Yes, these are open, children-in-them spaces.
I do want to clarify that they are not all licensed child care spaces. That’s a question for Health, because the licensing still happens in Health. These are the spaces that are funded through us, with operating funding and a host of other things.
That number I gave the member of the change, year over year, are open, with kids in them.
K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister. Oh my gosh, now so many questions from that answer.
On the numbers that we were speaking about last year with the minister of state, we were focused on the licensed child care spaces. I just want to clarify my understanding of the answer.
We understood…. Again, I’ve got to double-check this number. Let’s say, for the sake of the conversation, there were 131,997 spaces, as you have said. Those were licensed child care spaces.
If we’re going to compare apples to apples, I want to make sure, with the 6,302 increase, that we are also talking about licensed. I heard the minister say some were not licensed. Some were perhaps registered, unlicensed or licence-required. So are those actual licensed spaces that we’re talking about.
Hon. G. Lore: Yes, those are apples-to-apples, licensed spaces, operating with kids in them, that are receiving our operating funding. The 131,997 and the increase of 6,302 are apples to apples.
K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you for that clarification.
How many accessible spaces have been created in each of the last three years, and of those, how many of those accessible spaces are $10-a-day?
Hon. G. Lore: Thanks to the member opposite for the question.
We don’t categorize our spaces as inclusive or not. We’re working to build a whole system that is accessible and inclusive of children with support needs.
What we do know from surveys with our providers is that 82 percent of them have some or full capacity to support children with support needs.
The Chair: Last question, Member.
K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.
How many of the net new spaces were approved and built at a build cost of more than $40,000 per space in this last year?
Hon. G. Lore: I’ve got a clarifying question and recognize that might pose some challenges to the time frame here.
I’m looking to hear from the member whether she’s asking about the 6,302 new spaces, of that. Or is she referring specifically to those funded with new spaces funding?
K. Kirkpatrick: That was a very good question from the minister that I’ll clarify. It is with the new spaces funding.
Hon. G. Lore: I suspect we’re going to return to this question tomorrow. Maybe as a preliminary answer to the question today, and we can come back to the details if the member wants more, in terms of new spaces funding, up to March 17, there were 2,437 spaces funded through the new spaces funding.
Noting the hour, I move that the committee rise and report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 6:18 p.m.
PROCEEDINGS IN THE
BIRCH ROOM
Committee of Supply
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
CHILDREN AND
FAMILY DEVELOPMENT
(continued)
The House in Committee of Supply (Section C); J. Routledge in the chair.
The committee met at 1:35 p.m.
The Chair: Good afternoon, everyone. I call Committee of Supply, Section C, to order. We’re meeting this afternoon to continue consideration of the estimates of the Ministry of Children and Family Development.
On Vote 18: ministry operations, $1,912,095,000 (continued).
N. Letnick: We do have three hours, minus the 45 minutes that we’ve already expended, so we’ll be here till about four o’clock. The last half hour will be the Green Party. Between myself and the Green Party, we have two of my colleagues that will be getting up.
We’ll move on to group homes. The Premier, in December of 2022, said: “The long-term plan is absolutely to put an end to group homes.”
My first question to the minister is: has the minister begun work on this commitment made by the Premier, and if so, what specific actions have been taken so far in the transition away from group homes?
Hon. M. Dean: The Premier, when he spoke about this matter, also said that we’re transitioning Indigenous jurisdiction over child welfare to First Nations. That is where we’re going as a province. Our work in supporting nations in exercising their inherent jurisdiction over child welfare and child and family services is a real priority for us because we know that there’s been an overrepresentation of Indigenous children and youth in the child welfare system for far too long.
As nations exercise jurisdiction, they will be making those decisions about how and when children need services and what those services will look like. Nations will actually be designing their own services and their own methods of supporting children, youth and families as well.
Even within the in-care system, the ministry has actually already been doing some work on shifting the in-care system so that if a child or youth does need to come into the system, the home that they will be provided with is designed to meet their needs.
N. Letnick: Thank you to the minister for that.
So of the 884, approximately, children that are in care, a number of them will be transferred over to First Nations responsibility, and they will decide whether they keep them in a group home environment or not. For the other ones that aren’t First Nations, does the Premier’s commitment still stand, which is, sooner or later — to paraphrase the Premier, if I may — we’ll be doing away with group homes? And if the answer is yes, does the minister have any timeline to offer to the public as to when that might happen?
Hon. M. Dean: When nations are exercising jurisdiction, they’re applying their own laws, and they’re making choices about what services they want their children, their members, their families, their community to receive. So for Indigenous nations, they will be making those decisions about what those services look like, reflecting their values and their culture and the needs of their children.
With regard to the in-care system delivered and contracted by the ministry, this year, in 2023, we’re going to be implementing the new network of contracted specialized homes and support services. We’ve already started doing this work, doing engagement and looking at how the services need to be redesigned and how they need to be able to network together as well.
We are moving towards more specialized therapeutic homes. The four service areas are respite, stabilization, specialized care and emergency care. The services are being designed in order to meet needs for children, if they do need to come into the care system. It is moving towards a model of therapeutic care if children and youth need to come into the system.
We’re actually introducing new contracts that will reflect this model, this new system. There will be a network of, as I said, these four service areas throughout the province.
N. Letnick: Thank you to the minister.
If I understand it correctly, then, we’re going to be moving away from group homes to these specialized areas of care. Would it be fair to say we’re not going to take the children — non-Indigenous, because Indigenous will be a separate area — out of the group homes over a specified amount of time, whatever time that is, and put them all into foster care? Would that be correct?
Hon. M. Dean: The main intention always, if the ministry needs to get involved, is to try and keep children and families together. That’s the first choice, the first option, as far as possible. If that isn’t possible, then we want to keep children and youth connected to their family and to their community as well. It might be possible for a family member to step in, or a friend of the family, and keep those kids connected.
If that isn’t possible, then a foster home will be looked for that would suit the needs of the child and youth, depending on why they’re coming in. If that isn’t possible, or depending on the needs — the needs might be complex and might be very demanding — then a specialized facility, specialized home, might be what’s required for that child or youth.
We’re really trying to avoid disruption. We know that moving placement has a really significant effect on children and youth. We really are making sure that we’re not disrupting children, and we’re not disrupting the lives of children and youth unnecessarily.
We’re always trying to make sure that children and youth are in the best place for them. So wherever possible, even if they have come into care, if we can actually reunite them and have them return home or another option that’s actually better for them — move them into another opportunity, a different home, but which is actually better for them — then we would do that.
In whatever situation or whatever home a child needs to be in, they also need to have that continued connection with their family, with their community, with their culture. The ministry would need to continue working with the community, with the nation as well, if it’s an Indigenous child, for example.
We’ve been working with the contractors. We want to really have the least disruptive transition from the old contracts with existing service providers and partners and move into the new contracts which meet the needs of children and youth through these four service areas.
N. Letnick: Thank you to the minister. I think this will be the last question on this, and I’ll pass the baton over.
If I understand correctly, we’re not getting rid of group homes per se. There’ll still be some cases where the specialized home is a group home setting. But we are looking wherever possible to make sure that the child is in the best possible care — starting at staying with their family. If they can’t stay with their family, then, you know, as the list went on with the minister. But at the end of the day, there will be opportunities where the ministry believes that the best place for a child is in a group setting.
I don’t want to put words in the Premier’s mouth. So I want to make sure that whatever is the objective, it’s always in the best interest of the child. And whether I misread the Premier’s comment, that’s fine. That’s neither here nor there. The most important piece here is what’s in the best interests of the child, even if that means there will be still places and times when it’s better to have a child in a group setting.
If the minister would like to comment on that, and then I’ll pass the baton.
Hon. M. Dean: What the Premier was talking about was the transition to Indigenous jurisdiction. So he actually said, when he made the comment about group homes: “We’re transitioning Indigenous jurisdiction over child welfare to First Nations. That is where we’re going as a province.” Okay? So just to put that in context. And then that goes back to what I’ve said before about jurisdiction and nations determining services.
What we’re doing in the ministry through the specialized homes and support services is making sure that if children and youth do have to come into care, they get services in a home that meets their needs.
I guess the language around group homes…. I think when people think about a group home, they think about a home, a place where there are multiple children — more than three children — who might be of different ages and have lots of different needs as well. And they’re put together, because they, for some reason, needed to come into the care of the ministry.
That won’t happen any more. Children will be placed in a home based on their needs and get services that meet their needs. That could be in a home where there’s more than one child, and the services will be being delivered to those children to meet their needs.
K. Kirkpatrick: Most of the questions that I’m going to have today are going to revolve around children and youth with support needs, the new funding models and expansion of those services. I’m sure you’re not surprised.
In the November 25, 2022, statement, the Premier committed to “the maintenance of individualized funding for those with an autism diagnosis, even after 2025, including those who are diagnosed in the future.”
Budget 2023 has no mention of autism spectrum. Can the minister tell the House what the funding level is for the individualized funding for those with autism in 2023?
Hon. M. Dean: It’s in the CYSN, children and youth with support needs, part of the budget. That’s where the money is in the budget for the ministry. As I’m sure the member is aware, if your child has a diagnosis under the age of six, then the family receives $22,000 per year; $6,000 once they turn six. We honour that as soon as a family presents with a diagnosis. Then that’s an entitlement, that’s automatic, and the funding for that grows by about 10 percent a year.
K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.
On March 14, 2023, Down Syndrome B.C. wrote to MCFD, requesting extension of the individualized funding program to children and youth with Down syndrome. Additionally, January 4, 2023, Dyslexia B.C. wrote to Premier Eby requesting inclusion in initiatives like the family connection centres pilots.
Will the minister and MCFD approve their requests?
Hon. M. Dean: What we’ve committed to is deeper and broader engagement. We need to make sure that we’re engaging and consulting with Indigenous rights and title holders to the standards of the Declaration Act and continue engaging with families, stakeholders, advocates, people with lived experience.
We’re doing evaluation of the four pilot family connection centres. In the meantime, we are investing extra funding in order to make sure services are available to those who are underserved.
For example, we’ve doubled the cap on school-age extended therapy, because we heard from families that that was a real barrier, and we know that children and youth can benefit from those therapies. So now we’re expecting that more children and youth will benefit from that. All of that work will inform what our next steps will be.
K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister. I have to pause and think about this for a moment. It was a very clear request for Down Syndrome B.C. and for Dyslexia B.C., I think, and I know they’re watching and listening to this right now. Deeper and broader engagement and evaluation — I’m concerned that is not a specific enough expectation.
If I can just ask it a different way. Is there a willingness? Is this something that is an expectation, and I know you’re going into a consultation, that that will be happening in the future, and how long will this consultation take? These folks have been waiting for quite a long time for support for their children.
Hon. M. Dean: We are having those ongoing consultations and engagements and will continue to listen to lots of different advocates and groups. Indeed, there are lots of suggestions and proposals that we want to be able to evaluate and bring into all of this process.
I did attend the disability collaborative. There were 17 different organizations represented there. That included Down Syndrome B.C., for example. As I say, we’re continuing the engagement and happy to listen.
K. Kirkpatrick: In February 2023, the Representative for Children and Youth tabled a report. This was called Key Components of Effective Service Delivery for Children and Youth with Support Needs and Their Families. What are the threshold scores MCFD has established for children and youth eligibility to receive support services through these pilot sites?
Hon. M. Dean: For families receiving services from the pilot family connection centres, the services are being delivered on a needs-based system. That is accessed through assessments. So there’ll be an assessment of the child. What are the functional needs of the child? What are the holistic needs of the child? Also, an assessment of the family. What does the family need, and how can the family be supported?
Our assessments were developed through a contract with CanChild. Of course, because we’re doing pilots, we’ll be evaluating. We’ll be able to learn from that as well.
I can definitely say that we’ve all read the report from the RCY. We definitely welcome learning that’s being offered through that, and we’ll have a rich source of information for taking our next steps.
K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.
I’ll spare you my reading the quotes here, as I know that you have actually read this, but I’ll just try and paraphrase, again, from the report. I believe there’s a concern that based on how that needs assessment is going to be undertaken…. I believe DSM-5 is going to be the tool that is used. There is a concern that she is expressing here that some children with moderate or less obvious limitations are going to be left out of this.
How will a determination be made? Are all children going to go through this needs-based assessment, and what is the cutoff? How do we know that those young kiddos that may not express those challenges as overtly as others might don’t get missed and left out of services?
Hon. M. Dean: We’re not using the DSM-5. That’s actually a diagnostic tool, and we are delivering services on a needs-based basis. So we’re using functional assessments, not diagnosis. A functional assessment would be able to pick up, for example, if children are not meeting their milestones. So it doesn’t necessarily need children to be able to share their concerns.
Obviously, they’re at the centre of the assessment and the planning, but a functional assessment — again, including the family as well — provides, then, the information needed about what services are needed for the unique needs of this child at this time and how we bring those to the family.
We are, of course, working with the RCY on the report and making sure that we do pull from it the learning that is going to be helpful to us.
K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.
The RCY has given some specific examples of concerns in terms of diagnoses, or not diagnoses but needs that may not be met through the needs assessment process. They are, for example, undiagnosed fetal alcohol spectrum disorder, more able children, youth on the autism spectrum and those with disabilities that might have a less than moderate impact on their daily activities, mobility, etc. — those such as dyslexia, attention hyperactivity disorder, and mild intellectual disability. So the concern is that these things are maybe not as obvious.
Is the minister confident that the process for this needs assessment, conversation with parents and whatever other tools are used — that those children are not going to get left behind and not be able to access services?
Hon. M. Dean: We’ve developed the assessments with very reputable partners, with CanChild, with learnings over many decades and recommendations from the RCY as well. We are piloting the approach of a functional needs assessment, and we’ll be gathering information and evaluating that. That will help us in evaluating the population of children who are served, how well they’re served and how well they meet their goals and their milestones as well.
For example, in the pilot family connection centres, children, where there is suspected FASD, will be able to receive services. It won’t be limited to children and youth who have a diagnosis of FASD. And in the meantime, we are also investing $95 million over three years in providing services for those children and youth who are underserved. That will provide for an additional 90 foundational program therapists. They will be providing programs such as infant development, early intervention school-age therapies.
We’re doubling the budget for the fetal alcohol spectrum disorder key worker program. That will serve many, many more families where there are children and youth with FASD. There’s a 60 percent budget increase to agency-coordinated respite as well.
As I spoke to earlier on, the school-aged extended therapy reimbursement rates are doubling from $80 an hour to $160 an hour. We also increased the annual maximum reimbursements to $5,760 a year.
K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister. I appreciate that answer.
I would just like to get a better understanding of capacity of the system and how many young people are expected to be accessing the system. Provincially, based on numbers I have from MCFD, there are 88,000 children and youth in British Columbia between zero and 18 with support needs. Of that, 37,000 of those children are actually participating or receiving some type of support from MCFD.
Now, in the rollout of the hub model, we were given the number of 8,300 as the expected increase in the number of children and youth who will be accessing or eligible to receive services. My math says, though, that between the 88,000 and the 37,000 that are already receiving MCFD services, there are 51,000 young people who are deemed by MCFD to have support needs. Where is the number of 8,300 coming from as the expected increase in the number of children accessing the system?
Hon. M. Dean: Those numbers that the member was talking about were under the previous framework. Of course, now what we’ve said is that we’re doing four pilots at the family connections centres, and we’re going to evaluate them. Then we’ll see how the new system needs to be delivered and operated. So those numbers are from the previous framework proposal, and we’re now on a different pathway.
K. Kirkpatrick: I’m confused by that answer. I understood that the FCC, the hub model, is remaining the same with the exception that individualized funding has remained for those children who are currently receiving that — those children and youth with autism.
Now, I know it’s modified as we’re doing the pilot project, but I did not know that the expectation of the number of youth who, once this is, if it is, rolled out — that that number would have changed. If I can just have more of an explanation in terms of how the actual framework has changed.
Sorry if I’m not articulating this clearly enough. Those pilots were planned as part of that original framework, so how has the framework changed now?
Hon. M. Dean: The number could very well be the same. Where we’re at, at the moment, is…. We need to test and analyze what’s happening in the pilot family connection centres and bear in mind that, at the same time, individualized funding is continuing. So we need to actually have a look at what’s happening.
What we know is that because access to services through the family connection centre do not require a diagnosis, children and youth can actually access those services either before a diagnosis or without a diagnosis. So we are expecting that more children will receive services, and as children are able to access services earlier in their developmental pathway, then hopefully what that means is that their developmental trajectory is much improved and they’re meeting their milestones as expected.
What has been working with the family and with the child and youth is the circle of care around that child and their family, and the child and family themselves will set goals and be supported to achieve those goals.
K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister. The minister has just supported the concerns that I have in that answer.
It might not be 8,300 when the whole system rolls out. My previous number, however, was 51,000. The more I understand this and this needs-based system…. Any child between zero and 18 — whether a parent has a concern, a teacher has a concern, a doctor has a concern — can come to an FCC for an assessment, and based on the needs assessment, they may well be deemed to be able to access services.
So 51,000 who have already been deemed by MCFD that, in some way, require support needs…. How on earth is this system going to support that capacity? I just can’t comprehend why the original number of 8,300 was so low when MCFD’s numbers are already telling us that there are 51,000 kids that are not receiving services, not receiving individualized funding, not receiving any MCFD services, but make up that group of young people who actually need support services.
Hon. M. Dean: The larger population is very, very diverse, so the range of needs in that population is very diverse and, of course, changes over the course of a child’s development as well.
Some families might only need some information to help them. They have a strong support network or circle and don’t need to access therapies or services that are being delivered through family connections centres. Then there’s a very small subset of that population that have very complex needs and a high level of medical need, as well, who need disability services and who are receiving disability services from MCFD, for example.
Not everybody is going to be in-service all the time. They’re going to be accessing services when they need them, and setting goals and achieving goals, and might not always need to be in-service.
At the moment, MCFD currently serves nearly 40,000 children and youth with support needs and their families. You can imagine how diverse the population is and how many of them, at any given point in time, would need to access those services.
What we’re doing through the pilots of the family connections centres is creating this open door for all children, youth and families to be able to access services. We’ll be evaluating that. We’ll be able to actually see how families are able to access services and be able to have a look at the broader population and the families who access services through family connections centres.
We do have the expectation that family connections centres and agencies will be delivering services through a variety of mechanisms to make sure that those services are very accessible.
K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister. The answer has, I think, left me more confused than prior to my asking the question.
I had asked last year…. I’ll say something, and then I’ll move on to the next thing, because we can get stuck on this for quite a while. My question last year was: how was that 8,300 determined? There wasn’t, really, a clear answer on how that 8,300 was determined.
To me, there’s still…. When I hear it’s going to be an open door…. Now I’m going back to the fact that 51,000 young people now come to that open door and receive services.
I understand what the minister is saying. Not everybody needs it at the same time. They’re going to…. I don’t know if people are going to graduate from services or if they move on to CLBC or other things at some point. But there’s still a big difference between what was stated in that 8,300 and the 51,000 that I’m seeing, between that 88 and the 37,000.
I’ll move on. This is related. This is a concern that we all have about wait-lists. I’ll use a specific example. If we can’t have a conversation about that specific example, a generality, in response, is fine.
I am going to ask a question about Starbright in Kelowna. The question is not about the contract or anything there. It’s about the 2,000 young people who have been receiving services at Starbright. That would be my understanding of the number of children who were receiving the CYSN-funded programs at Starbright who are now moving to ARC.
How long does it take to do a needs assessment? And how can the minister guarantee that there will not be an interruption of services while those 2,000 young people have to now be reassessed — if that is, in fact, the way it works — to go into the new program at ARC, into the pilot?
Hon. M. Dean: We have been working very closely with all of the proponents. It’s really important to make sure that the transition is smooth, especially for children and families who are currently receiving services. We want to make sure there’s no gap and there’s no disruption as far as possible.
All of the families have already been notified. There are processes for families to be able to have an assessment so that services will be ready once the family connections centres are operational.
It’s very important to make sure this transition is seamless and as smooth as possible. Of course, for many families, it will actually be new access to services. There will be a transition from not having services to actually being able to get some supports.
K. Kirkpatrick: One clarifying question on that is: how long does it take to do an assessment?
I’m trying to understand, if there are 2,000…. And 2,000 is a number I was given by someone. I believe it was at Starbright or a family there. You can correct me if that number is not correct.
How long does it actually take for one young person to have a needs assessment done?
Hon. M. Dean: To return to the number of the 8,300, we take the total population of children in British Columbia. We apply a percentage to that, of children that we know from research and stats, etc., have complex needs, have medical needs and are eligible for disability services. So that number is 21,600. The current number of children and youth who actually receive disability services — this isn’t CYSN broadly; this is disability services — is 13,300. The difference there between what you would project and expect to see receiving services is where that 8,300 comes from.
A functional assessment for a child or a young person takes about 20 minutes. Of course, on top of that, there would be a family needs assessment as well, and that would take more time. The assessment would go at the pace of the child and of the family and of course could also depend on needing a more detailed assessment if there are particularly complex needs.
K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister for that.
The favour is if I can, perhaps in writing, follow up on some of those numbers. I’m still a little fuzzy on those, and I know the deputy minister knows them quite well and can maybe just clarify a few of the questions I have. And then I’ll move on to the next.
I appreciate the 20 minutes for a functional assessment. There are additions on there.
Last question on the assessment piece is: how many people — at ARC, for example — would you have actually undertaking and doing those assessments on the new children coming in?
Hon. M. Dean: I just do want to clarify for the member that not all children are going to need an assessment. So that really does facilitate that seamless transition. Any of the therapists delivering services through a family connection centre will be able to do the functional needs assessment. Any of the therapists there would be able to do it.
K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister. That is quite helpful. There was some confusion around who would be able to do those. I still have more questions, but I can follow up at a different time.
How will families whose primary language is not English receive those assessments?
Hon. M. Dean: Can we get back to the member later on with an answer on that question?
K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.
How will Indigenous and other cultural expectations be accommodated when determining eligibility, given the eligibility approach is antithetical to both Jordan’s principle and MCFD’s Aboriginal policy and practice framework?
Hon. M. Dean: We’re taking a needs-based approach. It’s not a diagnostic approach. There isn’t that barrier of eligibility. It’s needs-based. So there needs to be an assessment in order to match up services with the needs.
In the contracts it was very clear that proponents needed to demonstrate how they were going to have cultural safety embedded in service delivery and service design and also trauma-informed practice as well.
K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister. Okay, I’m going to leave that, because we’re not going to get through a lot of these.
With the rollout of the pilot hubs, current providers of MCFD-funded child development programs have lost long-term contracts and will likely…. In the case of Starbright, we know we’ve had the conversation about whether they’re going to need to close or not. They’ve been providing services for 51 years in the community, primarily funded as a CDC through MCFD programs. Those programs are now moving to the pilot site of the FCC.
Has government anticipated the impact to these other service providers? What will it do to ensure that these long-service child development providers are not negatively impacted should the pilot hub program be extended across B.C.?
Hon. M. Dean: We want to work with the sector. What we need to happen, at the end of the day, is for children and youth to get the services that they need, so we want to work with the sector for that to be delivered in the best way for children and youth.
We’ve been having ongoing conversations with the sector. We’re going to do the evaluation of the pilot family connection centres. We really want to identify: are children getting what they need? Children from zero to 19 — are they getting the services to meet their unique needs?
We have an advisory committee from the sector as well. We’ve been working with CDCs. I recently met with a number of executive directors of CDCs, and we’ll continue those conversations.
We also, in the previous fiscal year, provided some funding to Inclusion B.C., who are working with other provincial organizations, as well, to build capacity in the sector. We know that it’s important work that we need to be doing together.
K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister. With respect, that was not a very clear answer, and I didn’t actually hear the answer to the question.
What we saw with Starbright — and I’m concerned that this is going to be representative of what’s going to happen in other communities as well — is that they were told they were not getting any more funding. They were in the process of laying off staff. They were letting parents know.
All along the road of the FCC implementation, there has been a lot of stress, whether it’s parent service providers…. This was just one more very difficult circumstance that an organization that is doing good work in the community should not have been subjected to.
My concern is that with organizations like Starbright, do they still have a future? What obligation does government feel to them after having had them serving these communities for over half a decade?
Hon. M. Dean: The community social services sector is really, really important to us as a ministry. It’s vital that we are able to partner with a range of agencies that have been serving communities for a long time.
It’s not our intention to disrupt the sector or to cause harm to the sector. In fact, it’s our intention to increase services and to increase capacity in the sector, and we need to be doing that together so that it’s successful.
And we have time. We have time to continue our conversations with the sector and to learn. Pilot family connection centres…. Processes from the very start. We can learn from everybody who was involved in those processes to inform what next steps we might take.
I know the member herself has worked in the sector. I come from the sector. I spent 30 years in the sector. I ran an agency here for over ten years. I know how important those partnerships are between community-based agencies and the ministry and provincial ministries who contract with partner agencies as well.
We know that we need to be working together. We continue working with CDCs and with the sector and with provincial bodies and stakeholders from the sector. I know, when we all sit together at a table, we’re all thinking about the children and youth who are being served and the children and youth who need service and who might not be receiving services. So we’re all coming together to make sure that we see those beneficial outcomes for children and youth. We’re going to continue doing that work together.
K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you for that. I know, absolutely, that the minister is committed to this and the intention has never been to damage or disrupt. But there is a difference, unfortunately, between best of intentions and the reality of what is actually happening. So that is a concern.
I’ll move on to the budget and wait-lists. There is $95 million in the budget identified for children and youth with support needs. The minister referenced how some of that was intended to be used previously. We’ve got reports from the RCY and others who are flagging that we’ve got extreme issues currently today outside of the FCCs with wait-lists — 335 days for speech language therapy in northern B.C., 180 days for occupational therapy in the Vancouver coastal region. I won’t read the entire list, but it’s very difficult, as we know that early intervention has a significant benefit.
How much, if any, of the budget for 2023 is there to address wait-lists for diagnostic and early intervention supports?
[F. Donnelly in the chair.]
Hon. M. Dean: An answer to an earlier question for the member, if that’s okay. The contractor will ensure that their materials intended for intake and guidance are reflective of the languages commonly used in the community being served, reflective of the diversity of the communities served and are developed and reviewed with local communities and First Nations.
The overall capacity in the sector has seen significant investments. For example, the budget in 2016-2017 was $303.6 million. Our budget, Budget ’23, is $528.9 million. That’s a significant investment and increase of capacity in the sector just in those years. The $95 million over three years in Budget ’23 is new investment to increase access to services for underserved children and youth who have needs.
That provides funding for an additional 90 foundational program therapists. That’s across the province for programs like infant development, early intervention, school-age therapists. There’s a doubling of the budget for the fetal alcohol spectrum disorder key worker program, and that will increase support for many, many families, and a 60 percent budget increase to agency coordinated respite, so that program will actually now expand to all regions of the province.
There’s a doubling of the hourly reimbursement rates for school-aged extended therapy from $80 an hour to $160 an hour, and increasing the annual maximum reimbursement to $5,760 per year.
K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.
With the $95 million, the budget document references a deeper consultation as part of that. It’s going to be funding a deeper consultation. Is it expected to take three years? It sounded like it was, the way that it was written in the document. Will Inclusion B.C. be conducting all the consultation and provide a report?
Hon. M. Dean: Yes, there is funding in Budget ’23 for that deeper and broader engagement and consultation.
We know that we need to do engagement with Indigenous rights and title holders and make sure that that engagement is to the standards of the Declaration Act. That also does include many, many groups. So not just Inclusion B.C., but consultation and work with a whole range of different groups, many of which will be provincial.
The work with Inclusion B.C. has already started, and we’ll continue working with Inclusion B.C., but also with a whole number of other groups as well. The process that we’re looking at is this engagement and consultation, plus the evaluation of the pilot family connection centres.
We’re looking at a two-year time frame for those pieces of work to be completed.
K. Kirkpatrick: To the minister: thank you for that.
As the minister knows, there was a lot of upset in the community, community of parents with autistic children, Down Syndrome B.C. — a whole number of groups which really didn’t feel that they had truly being engaged in a consultation process.
When the Premier made the changes in the individualized funding and reversed that and promised a full robust consultation process…. Can the minister confirm that will indeed include parents and that broader community of neurodiverse children, families and adults?
Hon. M. Dean: It was a joint commitment that the Premier and I made for broader and deeper consultation and engagement, and that will include parents and families and people with lived experience.
K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister. I like that answer.
There was a focus in the RFP on Indigenous-focused policies, procedures, staff training and hiring practices. However, there was no evidence of provision for Two-Eyed Seeing or for meaningfully embedding Indigenous culture, values and practices in the delivery of services.
Is this something that is going to be included in the provision of services? This is something from the RCY’s report that was a concern.
Hon. M. Dean: We’ve already started the work, and what we’re doing is much deeper consultation with Indigenous rights and title holders. So that will inform next steps.
K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.
So there is still consultation going on in how to address Indigenous-focused policies, procedures, staff training, hiring practices. Can the minister explain why that is happening now as opposed to prior to the RFPs and selection of the proponents to provide the services?
Hon. M. Dean: In 2019, we did do a lot of consultation. That did include rights and title holders in Indigenous communities, and Indigenous leadership as well. Indeed, there’s a report, which we can provide, that’s just on the Indigenous consultation, for example. Then we had a global pandemic. COVID hit in 2020, and everybody’s lives changed. The landscape changed. We also have the Declaration Act standards, which need to be met as well.
We did do consultation. We do have high standards and expectations for cultural safety and trauma-informed practice. We do now have time to do deeper and broader engagement.
K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.
Yes, there was a pandemic. The ministry was able to get the FCCs designed and the RFPs out and all of that. I am surprised that this very important component was not included.
I would ask for the indulgence of repeating the answer to a previous question. When the minister was explaining to me about the primary language, in English…. There was a lot of noise going on in the room at that point, and I didn’t actually hear the answer. So are you able to…?
The Chair: Minister, if you’d like to.
Hon. M. Dean: Yeah, sure. Thanks, Chair.
The contractor will ensure that their materials intended for intake and guidance are reflective of the languages commonly used in the community being served, reflective of the diversity of the communities served, and developed and reviewed with local communities and First Nations.
The Chair: Just to remind the minister, electronic devices are not to be used for reading off. Thank you.
K. Kirkpatrick: I didn’t mean to get the minister in trouble there. I appreciate that.
A more specific question, then. I understand the requirements. That was quite broad. The original question was: in the screening and in the assessment process…? That, then, can be conducted in languages other than English.
Hon. M. Dean: Yes.
K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister. We like those answers to questions.
If a child is receiving services through the FCCs, is there a point when a child is reassessed? If they’re already receiving services, are they reassessed? Is there potential for them to no longer receive services, for it to be determined that they no longer should receive services?
I’ll ask them both at the same time. Or if a young person has accessed the assessment and was deemed not to qualify for services through the FCC, are they able to, in future, access that again and be reassessed?
Hon. M. Dean: Yes. Children and youth can be assessed and reassessed, and that could lead to a change in services.
If you think about working with a child and their family, they’ll be setting goals. The supports…. We’ll work with that family to achieve those goals. So then you would do a reassessment of what goals would be the next priority. It might be that a child or youth at a certain stage of development needs more services because their needs have changed. Or it could be that they’re meeting their goals and that a different type of service is required.
The family connections centres will have multidisciplinary teams. The therapists will have different areas of specialty and specialism. So a different type of service would be accessed, depending on those assessments, as the child and youth is developing and is progressing through having received services.
K. Kirkpatrick: I would just like to thank the minister and her staff for answering these questions.
I am going to turn it back to my colleague. I would just like to, on the record, confirm and say how I appreciate that I may follow up with confirmation on the numbers and the delta between 88,000 and 51,000 and all of those. Thank you very much for your time today.
N. Letnick: We discussed, a little earlier, the injuries and deaths. Could the minister tell us a little bit about what the major causes are of injuries and deaths of children in care?
Hon. M. Dean: The reportable type of fatality is actually determined by the coroner. They are accidental, homicide, natural, suicide or undetermined. The highest number is 38 for natural — this is April to December of 2022 — 38 natural, 21 undetermined, 16 accidental, three homicide and three suicide. The critical injuries are determined by MCFD policy. The types there are accidental, attempted suicide, emotional trauma, victim of violence.
N. Letnick: Thank you to the minister. Where would overdoses fit into those categories?
Hon. M. Dean: Overdoses can fall into a number of different categories. It’s the coroner’s decision.
M. Lee: I appreciate the opportunity from the member for Kelowna–Lake Country to follow on, with the minister, the significant discussion we were having as we reflected upon, in some days of debate, committee review on Bill 38.
Obviously, we see the historic recent announcement by government with the Splatsin First Nation in terms of the next steps forward under the coordination agreements. I’d appreciate if I can get a sense from the minister, just in terms of that announcement, historic as it is….
I note that in the public disclosure around the announcement, the $136.2 million is first being funded by the federal government, so if the minister can confirm that.
Secondly, in terms of the intention of the funding over ten years, can the minister walk us through, in this instance, as we look to support that particular nation, which has a long history — 43 years in the making, since 1980 when they passed their initial bylaw to take care of their own children? What is the intention behind that funding? How did that number come about, and what’s the expectation in terms of ensuring that there’s sustainable funding for that very important program for that nation, going forward?
Hon. M. Dean: That was a really important event — the ceremony of signing the first-ever coordination agreement in British Columbia. A lot of work had gone on before actually reaching the event of all three parties signing the coordination agreement. The $136 million is from the federal government, and that was over ten years. The provincial contribution in this agreement over the ten years is $4.38 million. That is consistent with the funding that we’re providing the nation today.
That’s just there in place for now until we reach a point where we have a fiscal framework that we have agreed with the federal government that we can then apply to coordination agreements around the province. So that provincial contribution might change, and Splatsin are aware of that.
M. Lee: I appreciate the minister confirming the provincial commitment as well. I do recognize the minister’s efforts in this and appearing — after this bill was approved in this House in November, I believe — with her deputy at the special Assembly of First Nations meetings. I was there to witness the significant discussion there.
I know that certainly in terms of Chief Thomas with Splatsin Nation…. I had the opportunity to visit with that nation and the council members, and some of the council members I see in the photo, historic as it is, in the press with our local MLA for Shuswap. We had a good opportunity to talk about the generational challenge there and what it meant when many families were broken up — the children being sent away to residential school and what the parents had to do on weekends without the children in the community.
And what it meant for a daughter who was on council and in charge of many of these services there, talking about how her mother, when she picked her up from school…. She asked the question: “Why aren’t you like the other mothers, hugging me, when I see other mothers hugging their own daughters?” That was the only time, she says, that her mother took the 40 seconds to relive the trauma of residential schools, and there was a good understanding.
I only mention those stories because I appreciate the significance of the Splatsin Nation and the work they do. I look to this government in terms of its further work that it’s doing with the fiscal framework, the support and the DRIPA action plan.
With that in mind, the minister in our committee process on Bill 38 made reference to the progress that was being made. I’ll just cite from the transcript there. At the time, the minister indicated that there were four Indigenous governing bodies who were close to signing off on coordination agreements and who have been crafting laws, and that we have over 20 other nations or IGBs, Indigenous governing bodies, who are working on writing down their laws. We know that, of course, for the recognition on these coordination agreements under federal legislation, the Indigenous laws need to be written down. That’s what the minister had indicated as well.
I’d ask to the minister, what is the current status of the further work amongst those Indigenous governing bodies that she referred to there? I’m just trying to get a sense, of course, as to the forward progress with the fiscal supports, both federally and provincially, for this important work.
Hon. M. Dean: We’re very actively engaged with three nations. Two of them are pretty close. We think they’re pretty imminent to signing a coordination agreement, and we have two others who we think will be stepping forward soon and be able in the next few months to work together at a tripartite table.
M. Lee: Just with the time I have left, I know when the member for Kamloops–North Thompson invited me to join him with meeting with chief and council for the Simpcw Nation in Barriere that we had a good discussion.
This was in the lead-up to the Bill 38 debate and review regarding their work and them being recognized as the third nation in the country, federally, for when a child of their nation is found anywhere in the country, that they’re the first call. I believe that the Splatsin Nation would be No. 5, if that’s correct.
Can the minister confirm, to date, how many nations in British Columbia have received the appropriate designation and the coordination agreements? She’s given us the update in terms of further work to be done.
My second question will be relating to…. I know that we’re relating to the overall funding mechanism between the federal government, the province and the nations themselves. There was a discussion last time. We had it in a different way, as the minister was indicating the importance of the coordination tables with the federal government in place.
Where does the opportunity come in terms of the other nations? Not just the ones that are progressing through in the near term, but the other nations that are looking for the supports in order to get to where they can have the coordination agreement in place. That, presumably, is support, as well, for the development in terms of the writing down of their Indigenous laws.
Is there any capacity funding available for the province for that as well?
Hon. M. Dean: An Indigenous governing body, for the purposes of the coordination agreement, is determined by Canada, and it’s under their legislation. An IGB for the purposes of notice of significant measures is different.
We have IGBs where we work and we provide information and notice of significant measures. Capacity funding for coordination agreement development and work related to coordination agreements is the responsibility of Canada.
M. Lee: My last question, with the 90 seconds I have left, is relating to Métis Nation B.C.
I know the minister will recollect that we had a significant level of discussion around recognition of Métis children in the definition. I’m not going to ask about that because we had the full canvass on that.
I will just invite the minister, though, to update this committee about the further discussions that the ministry is having with the Métis Nation in respect of recognizing the joint agreement of recognition with Métis Nation B.C. in supporting the legislation relating to their authority over their children.
If the minister can provide an update as to where this ministry is at with the further discussions with Métis Nation B.C., and what the next steps are in terms of ensuring that they are given the opportunity to have jurisdiction and responsibility on their own children as well.
Hon. M. Dean: The status of Métis Nation B.C. as an Indigenous governing body is still unresolved. That’s something that MNBC needs to work through with Canada. Our conversations with them have been very much around services.
A. Olsen: I’m actually going to just dovetail a little bit on what my colleague from Vancouver-Langara was asking about with respect to the Indigenous jurisdiction of child welfare, since this has kind of been the tone here.
The member mentioned fiscal supports. I don’t think that the minister answered the question. I think I’d just like to add this context to it.
We have a situation in this province where those that are engaged in the process, those who have the resources to engage in the process, will be the ones that show up and be working with the federal and the provincial governments in order to do it.
Those that don’t will be lamenting the fact that they don’t have the resources to do it. It won’t be an indication that they don’t want to engage in this process. It should not be seen as: “These are the nations that want to do it, and the remainder don’t.”
Unless there’s a fiscal framework that allows for the resources to be put in place in order to do the incredible bureaucratic processes, administrative processes, that are required in order to do it, we’re going to have a situation where those that have, have. Those that don’t are going to fall further behind and will lament the fact that their children are still in care. The provincial government will continue to celebrate the fact that X number of nations are involved.
What is the fiscal relationship with Indigenous nations — all of them, more than 175 Indigenous nations in this province — so that then they can also be able to engage in this process and gain jurisdiction over their child welfare programs?
Hon. M. Dean: Canada has funding for capacity-building that is available for any nation in British Columbia that wants to start building capacity in order to start this pathway towards jurisdiction. They have made available funding for any nation for work on capacity-building for five years.
A. Olsen: I appreciate the response.
I want just a quick language check with respect to capacity-building. The capacity for Indigenous people to look after their children has always been there. It’s the perspective of the government that has been that we don’t have the capacity to look after our own children.
The capacity to be able to maintain the kind of relationship with a huge bureaucracy and with a huge administration is the thing. When the public hears “capacity,” I want to be very clear that what they’re hearing is that we don’t have the capacity to meet…. Just the number of staff that the minister has here today is likely twice or three times the amount of staff that any Indigenous community in this province will have on this file.
That’s the capacity that we’re talking about: to meet the governments at their administrative and bureaucratic.... All of that bill that we went through last fall…. Being able to maintain a staff to be able to deal with going through that and understanding what it means and being able to have it apply in their community — that’s the capacity we’re talking about, not the capacity for Indigenous people to look after their own children.
I’m going to switch gears here a little bit — well, quite a bit, actually — to adult eating disorders, which is a question that I’ve been asking this ministry in a variety of different ways over the last couple of years. The South Island eating disorder program — and the minister knows I’ve sent a number of letters in this regard — had their services cut during the pandemic and no new funding announced since 2021.
Eating disorders are not mentioned in the 2023 budget for this ministry. I think it’s important to acknowledge, here on the record again, that the way that adult eating disorders are handled or are addressed, the programming, in Island Health is different than it is across the province. This is the only region in the province where programs for adult eating disorders are administered by the Ministry of Children and Family Development.
Since MCFD traditionally and historically focused on youth, the people who receive services from MCFD feel — and we’ve heard these stories — that the ministry is neglecting the needs for adults looking for support.
There’s a new study. The Journal of the American Medical Association in Canada estimates that because of the pandemic, eating disorders have risen approximately 60 percent, with another study showing a similar rise in hospitalizations. There are issues around stigmatization of eating disorders, which has only made it worse — the lack of funding for specific treatment facilities on south Vancouver Island.
The stories that I’ve heard — I’ve sat with people experiencing this very challenging health issue — are horrific and very, very sad.
We have been told by MCFD that there is now full staffing, but we have also been told by people who are trying to access those services that they remain insufficient.
In Budget 2021, $6.6 million was announced. It went to the health authorities. It was already insufficient. I’m wondering if there has been any new funding.
My question is: what was the budget for the South Island eating disorder program for 2021 and, as well, for 2022 and 2023? Of those budgets, what portion was specifically designated for adults?
Hon. M. Dean: The budget wasn’t cut. The challenge for the service was that there weren’t enough people. There wasn’t enough staffing, so they had to prioritize the services being delivered. There hasn’t been a change in funding. It is now fully staffed, so the wait-list has been reduced. There is an opportunity now and there’s work going on to align this particular clinic with other models in other health authorities. We’re working with the Mental Health and Addictions Ministry, Health and with Island Health to have a look at the future for the clinic.
A. Olsen: Does that mean that there’s a potential that this program is moved out of MCFD and into alignment with the other programs — the adult eating disorder programs that are delivered around the province?
Hon. M. Dean: Well, alignment could mean any number of things. The discussions are just starting. They need to do their work and have a look at what some good options would be.
A. Olsen: Is there any commitment from this ministry that in the meantime, between now and whatever happens in the future, the advocates who are here on the lawns of the Legislature and their family members can be assured that they’re going to receive the level of services that the ministry has suggested in the letters that they are delivering to my constituents and our constituents here in southern Vancouver Island and the southern Gulf Islands, I’d say? Suggesting that levels of services that are being delivered are just not there, is there any level of assurance that that is the case until we find out what the future of this program is going to be?
Hon. M. Dean: The clinic is fully staffed now, and the wait-list is going down. We’ll continue to monitor that, as we do with all of our services.
A. Olsen: I think I’ll just bookend this part of my question just with the frustration that we’ve experienced hearing the stories and the lived experiences from people and then advocating on their behalf and getting responses back from the ministry that suggest that something else completely is happening — that the levels of services that these individuals are experiencing and their experiences are just incongruent. They don’t match up.
That is incredibly frustrating as an MLA, someone who needs to advocate on behalf of my constituents, to have such misalignment between what I’m hearing, the experience from people, and then what the ministry is telling me is being delivered. I would suggest that despite the fact that there is full staffing, which has been the case now for some time, those stories continue to be shared with me. The level of services are far beyond what the promise is and what is needed.
Yesterday another group was on the lawns of the Legislature here, the doulas — Indigenous doulas and First Nations doulas. The doulas for Aboriginal families grant program from the B.C. Association of Aboriginal Friendship Centres helps thousands of Indigenous families across the province have healthy, cost-effective birth outcomes. The program allows birth doulas to be centred in communities across the province and supports families within and beyond their traditional territory.
Many Indigenous families are required to leave their communities due to limited rural and remote health care options. They’ve got to pick up and move their family to a centre that has a birthing capacity. The Ministry of Health and the First Nations Health Authority jointly fund this work, but there’s also funding that comes from the Ministry of Children and Family Development, according to the advocates that were on the front lawns yesterday.
There’s a budget of $6 million to help people with a living wage and to help increase the availability of birth doulas across the province. There’s also some concern that the work ends once the child is born, yet with postpartum issues, it would be I think recognized that having that support go further than just at the birth would be very helpful.
I think the reason why I’m standing asking this question in Ministry of Children and Family Development is because, specifically with Indigenous families, this ministry has spent an inordinate amount of money over the years separating — we’ve talked about this, in the bill last fall and in previous times — Indigenous parents from their babies. Indigenous families have been divided by this ministry.
I’m wondering: will the ministry step up to support the doulas for Aboriginal families grant program in addition to the partners at the Ministry of Health? Can I be assured that this ministry is going to lead this important program that helps keep Indigenous mothers and their babies and their families together?
Hon. M. Dean: I agree with the member. Keeping families together is absolutely vital. We know that if we can support families to stay safely together, then that’s where we’ll see the best outcomes for children and youth and for their families and their communities as well.
With regard to the particular program, I’ll take that away and speak to my staff and my colleagues.
A. Olsen: I am finished here for these estimates.
I just want to thank the minister for the responses and will also be having conversations with other ministers in and around this doula program, because I think that it’s very much something that we should be supporting. I hope that MCFD has a role in the positive story that these individuals are helping families with. I hope that the ministry can find a way to be a part of funding this and supporting this program.
N. Letnick: I thank the minister and her staff for a quick estimates today. We’re done, and the next estimates is at four o’clock, so it will give you a chance to rotate ministers.
The Chair: Seeing no further questions, I ask the minister if they would like to make any closing remarks.
Hon. M. Dean: Yeah. We started off…. We had a conversation earlier on today about the gender-based violence office, and I just wanted to clarify, for the member opposite, that all of the anti-violence programs were actually consolidated. They were put together in the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General. I just wanted to make sure that that was clear after the brief conversation we had about that earlier on.
It’s a great opportunity for me to say thank you again to all of my staff who have been supporting me here and to all of the staff from the ministry who are delivering services every day out and around the province, and Indigenous family service agencies and our partner agencies out in community as well.
It’s a really important time for children, youth and families in the province of British Columbia, as we’re making investments in supporting Indigenous communities exercising jurisdiction; supporting children and youth with support needs, many of whom who’ve never had services before; supporting young people leaving government care, who used to be on the superhighway to homelessness and who now have a suite of supports to be able to access; and supporting families to stay safely together. As we know, that will lead to the best outcomes for children, youth and families.
I’m very honoured to be doing this work. I thank everybody who came in here today with questions, and I appreciate the robust conversations that we’ve had.
Vote 18: ministry operations, $1,912,095,000 — approved.
The Chair: We’ll just take a brief recess, and we’ll be right back.
The committee recessed from 3:57 p.m. to 4:02 p.m.
[F. Donnelly in the chair.]
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
AND
CLIMATE READINESS
The Chair: Welcome back, everyone. I’ll call the Committee of Supply, Section C, back to order.
We’re meeting today to consider the budget estimates of the Ministry of Emergency Management and Climate Readiness.
On Vote 21: ministry operations, $64,363,000.
The Chair: Minister, do you have opening remarks?
Hon. B. Ma: Thank you so much to everyone here.
We’re really grateful to be gathered today, of course, on the Lək̓ʷəŋin̓əŋ-speaking territories and the Songhees, Esquimalt First Nations.
I’m here with ministry staff from Emergency Management and Climate Readiness — very, very hard-working ministry staff.
I’m with Deputy Minister Tara Richards; associate deputy minister and chief operating officer, Mary Sue Maloughney; assistant deputy minister and chief financial officer, Alex Chandler; Assistant Deputy Minister Kathryn Forge; Assistant Deputy Minister Jennifer McGuire; acting Assistant Deputy Minister Pader Brach; executive lead Julia Iwama; executive lead Monica Cox; and executive lead Grant Holly.
I really want to express my deepest gratitude to the entire team for all of their work. They have really been running at a sprint ever since our ministry was created on December 7. They really have not stopped, and I know how hard they work every single day. Well, even before the ministry was created, but especially since the ministry was created, I know that they’ve been working at an incredible pace.
As members will know, the Ministry of Emergency Management and Climate Readiness was created in recognition of the realities of climate change, that because of climate change, extreme weather events like floods, wildfires, extreme heat, extreme cold, storms and more would increase in frequency and intensity, and the impacts to our communities are very, very real as a result of it. And of course, British Columbia continues to be at risk for seismic hazards, as well, including earthquakes and tsunamis.
Over the last year, we’ve made significant progress to keep people and communities safe from emergencies, from expanding our ability to issue public alerts through Alert Ready to modernizing emergency support services so that people are better supported during an emergency, to making historic investment in the Community Emergency Preparedness Fund. I am proud of this progress, but also recognize that there is a lot more to do.
Budget 2023 includes $567 million in operating and capital funding over three years for climate resiliency, including funding to support CleanBC initiatives and active transportation and for emergency management programs. This includes building capacity across British Columbia to support disaster risk assessment, preparedness and mitigation and working collaboratively with local governments and First Nations to make communities more resilient.
Budget 2023 is the first for our new ministry, and it demonstrates our government’s commitment to increasing support for climate readiness in all aspects of emergency management. Budget 2023 also includes an additional $85 million to the ministry’s base budget to increase emergency management capacity in the province and provide new investments in disaster risk assessment preparedness and mitigation.
As previously committed in Budget 2022, the province will provide $750 million in operating funding over the next two years for ongoing disaster response and recovery activities such as debris removal and cleanup and disaster financial assistance. Budget 2023 also provides $100 million in capital funding each year of the fiscal plan to support repair or replacement of provincial public sector infrastructure damage from climate emergencies.
I’ve had the privilege of visiting a number of these communities over many months, meeting with mayors and Chiefs and hearing firsthand how we can support communities in all four phases of emergency management. I also want to thank members opposite today for the dialogue that I’ve received in the months since I’ve become Minister of Emergency Management and Climate Readiness. I know that we have a lot of work to do as a government and as a province as a whole. Emergency management and certainly, supporting communities in times of crisis is one of those areas where oftentimes both sides of the House can come together in finding ways to better support communities.
I want to acknowledge my critic for meeting me early on in our day so we could talk about this, and also the member for Fraser-Nicola for her ongoing advocacy for her communities that have been impacted by disasters.
With that, I’m happy to take my place and look forward to the questions.
The Chair: Thank you, Minister.
I now recognize the member for Abbotsford South, opposition critic, if you would like to have any opening remarks.
B. Banman: Absolutely. I would like to thank the minister and congratulate, actually, a new ministry, I guess. Although it was attached in different ways to other ministries, it’s now a stand-alone ministry.
I look forward to the dialogue. As the minister has said, she did come out. We have had more than one opportunity to sit down and talk about some of the issues that we see moving forward. As someone that…. My own backyard was flooded. I know firsthand how difficult it is when a tragedy does strike.
I also know, and I think I expressed this to the minister, that I watched the people of my community. You’ll see this happen whenever there’s a disaster. The people within the community and the surrounding areas…. Actually, the outpouring of support from literally around the world was there. But it was the people that were immediately affected that got to work and helped one another.
As I expressed to the minister, if there was a weak link, it was provincial and federal governments when our response to them, our lack of warning them, our inability to help them during the crisis and after the crisis…. I don’t say that to be critical. I say that because in every single disaster, we learn from what we do right, and we learn from our mistakes. Our mistakes we try to acknowledge and rectify and improve, moving forward. We try to build it better and stronger as a result.
I’m going to yield the floor to my colleague, who has other House duties, so I want to be respectful of her time. But as you mentioned, also, probably one of the most severe tragedies in the province was in her own backyard.
I’m going to yield the floor to her to ask some questions. I look forward, as the minister says, to the dialogue, so that we can make our province stronger and better as a result.
The Chair: Thank you, Member.
I now recognize the member for Fraser-Nicola.
J. Tegart: Thank you so much, Chair. I’m going to ask a few questions about Lytton to start with. I would ask the indulgence of the Chair to set some context, perhaps, as I ask the questions. I think it’s important for people to understand where we’ve been, where we are today and where we hope to go.
I also would like to, along with my colleague, say how pleased I was to have the open door of the minister and that the minister came into the riding to actually see what had happened.
I’m exploring. As a new ministry, how many dollars are included in your budget this year to assist in the recovery of the village of Lytton?
Hon. B. Ma: Thank you so much to the member for that question and grateful for the time to sort out our response here. A lot of the support that is provided to Lytton comes from multiple sources, which is why we needed a little bit of time to make sure that we have it right here.
A significant amount of support that is provided to Lytton is actually provided through our staff complement, so staff support in order to help guide mayor and council and their CAO through the process. It can be very challenging, especially for a small town like Lytton.
In terms of direct financial support, the province has so far committed $56.418 million, of which — as of my last number where I checked, which was February 23 of this year — $36.218 million has been transferred to the village of Lytton. As of today, the financial commitment of what we would provide to the village of Lytton for their recovery work is $56.418 million.
That being said, our staff continue to work very closely with the village of Lytton. They meet very regularly to assess the needs of the village. Certainly, we continue to support them to make sure recovery milestones are met, and so forth. Those are the financial commitments so far. We have not closed the door on providing more support if required.
J. Tegart: Thank you, Minister, for that response. With basic math, we have about $20 million left. Who has access to those funds?
I guess I’ll give you some context. Heritage branch is doing work. The Ministry of Transportation has a black fence up on the highway. It pays for security. Security costs last year were two-point-something million and continues this year. I don’t know what they’re guarding.
Who has access to that $20 million, and does the ministry believe that $20 million is going to have the people come home and be able to live in their community?
Hon. B. Ma: I should note that these are my first estimates, so if I take a little bit longer, I hope that’s all right. I also neglected to really acknowledge the challenges that the village of Lytton has had over the last few years. I mean, what happened to the people of the village of Lytton and the surrounding area was really extraordinary. I want to acknowledge the work that not only the people of the village of Lytton, the mayor and council, but also you, as member, do in supporting them through these difficult times.
To your question, as I had said in my earlier response, there is a substantial amount of supports that are provided to the recovery of the village of Lytton that come from various ministries. As an example, when it comes to the fencing that the Ministry of Transportation has provided, that is actually covered out of a different vote that’s provided by the Ministry of Transportation. That is not provided out of these funds that we’re referring to.
The figures that I provided earlier are the financial dollars provided directly to the village of Lytton for their recovery work. So if we’re talking about fencing, as an example, the black fence up along the highway is put up for, paid for and maintained by the Ministry of Transportation, but the blue fencing that is on site down in the village of Lytton is put up by the village of Lytton.
All of the contracts that the member has mentioned — AEW, Colliers — are contracts directly with the village of Lytton. It is from these funds that we provide to the village of Lytton, and they use that to pay for those contracts. Of the remaining funds, of the figures that I’ve provided, that is accessible by the village of Lytton itself.
J. Tegart: Thank you to the minister. I think just in the conversation, you can see how difficult it is for people to get a sense of where we’re at financially, from the commitment that was announced when Lytton burned to the ground versus where we are today, and people’s perception of a lack of progress.
Just from the comments from the minister, I get a sense that…. The $20 million that is left — am I right in assuming that the minister is the person responsible for that $20 million, who makes the decision that say, “Yes, it can be transferred” or “No, we don’t agree with that”? Who in government…? Where does the buck stop?
Hon. B. Ma: I think that generally speaking, in anything to do with the Ministry of Emergency Management and Climate Readiness, the buck does stop with the minister, and I take responsibility for that, overall.
I wanted to, perhaps, provide some more information about the $56.418 million — what it has been funding so far and what is remaining to be transferred. My sense is that maybe that information is of interest to the member.
Of the funding that has been transferred so far, it has gone…. I’m just going to read off this list. It has gone into providing….
After the fire, $2.6 million in response efforts were approved for the Lytton area. We then provided emergency support services to those identifying as being from the village of Lytton. There was a grant for operational and economic development activities so that the village of Lytton could continue to pay staff leading the wildfire recovery in the community. There was funding to support ongoing core village operations and municipal recovery, so that the municipality could continue to function and operate.
There was funding to cover the costs of debris removal, archaeological monitoring, soil remediation for municipal and all uninsured and underinsured properties in the village. That work is being undergone right now. There was an amount provided out through disaster financial assistance for wildfire, atmospheric river events.
The piece that has yet to be dispersed, the $21 million that the member was asking about, is primarily to cover the cost of critical services, to enable the rebuild, municipal infrastructure repairs, recovery staffing, planning and engagement work. Of that envelope, about $3.4 million has been, I guess, extracted by the village of Lytton so far.
J. Tegart: So we have $20 million left. We have a community that has not put a shovel in the ground for a house or a business. And my people are wondering, after very encouraging announcements from government about support, about “I’ve got your back,” about “We’re going to rebuild better.”
We know that a number of people in Lytton were not insured. But the unrealistic expectations of the community were set very early in this process. And if we learn nothing else, we need to think that through. But the expectation is that people are….
That $20 million, from what I’m understanding from the minister, is to do infrastructure within the village. I wonder about the clarity of what residents think the dollars are for, because I’ve had business people in my office. I’ve had residents in tears. “Where is the government that promised that they had our back?”
As I look at the money and I hear the answers from the minister, my question is: where does that leave those people who have those high expectations based on the early response that, I think, is often very enthusiastic but perhaps out of touch with reality as we get two years into this process?
Hon. B. Ma: The village of Lytton has been through a lot. We’re talking about a municipality of well over 200 people who had to completely evacuate from their community at a moment’s notice.
The province has been there for the people of the village of Lytton since the beginning, providing emergency support services and supporting them through some of the most difficult times that the community has really ever faced.
In addition, I would like to provide some clarity around the envelope of funding that is being provided to the village of Lytton. It is not only to support infrastructure. It is also to cover the cost of critical services that enable the rebuild, repairs, absolutely, to the infrastructure. It also covers recovery staffing so that they can, as the village of Lytton, be able to lead this work well resourced.
It includes planning, engagement. The funding has gone to provide debris removal, archaeological monitoring, soil remediation for municipal and private properties, so not only for the municipal sites but also all underinsured and uninsured properties in the village. Those do include the private properties as well.
The province has been…. And our partners continue to be at the table as well. We’ve been working with the Canadian Red Cross. They have been working with us on donation matching and providing continued services to the people of Lytton. The province has been clear in our priority to ensure the safe rebuild of the village site, to support the municipality and to ensure that the municipality and the site is safe and ready for rebuild. That is the funding that we are providing to the village of Lytton, to the municipality, to help them prepare that site for the rebuild.
J. Tegart: I’m wondering if it’s possible for me to actually get a copy of the dollars spent to date. You seem to have a list, and that would be extremely helpful for me to have a sense of that.
The second thing is that as you look at the work that needs to be done to meet the provincial expectation of a safe site for people to rebuild on, is the $21 million enough, and if not, where will the dollars come from? Is it through this ministry or some other ministry?
Hon. B. Ma: To answer the member’s first question, yes, absolutely. We will get you a copy of those numbers. I would also like to offer maybe a follow-up briefing to discuss some of the details of those numbers. If the member would like, we can follow up with you after this process.
In terms of the member’s question on the return to a safe site for rebuild, we continue to work very, very closely with the village of Lytton on their remediation and the archaeological work. There is substantial archaeological work underway. We’re very actively working with them, very closely, to understand the needs that may come as the village of Lytton gains more understanding of what the archaeological work reveals.
If that work…. If more provincial funding is required, it would come out of the line item in the…. As you can see in our fiscal plan, it would come out of the line item titled “Climate and Emergency Response Contingencies.”
I would also like to note that there is substantial federal funding that has been committed as well. The federal government has committed $77 million to support the rebuild of the village of Lytton as well, most of which, about $60 million, is out of Infrastructure Canada.
I understand the federal government is currently working with the village of Lytton, and we’re in those conversations as well, to understand and define the parameters of that funding. I will also note that the Canadian Red Cross supports continue throughout all of this time, and we’ll continue to work with them as our partners in delivering supports to the people of village of Lytton.
J. Tegart: Thank you to the minister for those responses. I’ll look forward to seeing the list, and I also will take advantage of the briefing.
I’m going to move on, but I want just to make a statement in regard to the support of government towards Lytton. I said right from day one that it wasn’t just about money. It’s about capacity. It’s about a village of less than 200 who ran for their lives. I said right from day one that it’s not just money and cheques being sent to the village. People want to go home. I get people in my office talking about their Elder passing away, and their last wish was to go home.
We still don’t have the ability to start the rebuild. And the question to me every day is: when will that happen? How can this be happening?
So as much as writing cheques feels good, capacity, expertise, recovery manager after recovery manager, people going through the village who have never been there getting paid as consultants, $32 million spent to date and not a shovel in the ground — people can’t believe it when you tell them. Then to drive by with a black fence on the highway just makes your heart break.
I know you’re a new ministry, and I know that many people on the ground are working hard. But I’m telling you that for my people, it’s not enough. They want to go home.
Next question is in regards to…. I’d like to talk a little bit about the flooding that happened. I mean, we have Merritt, we have Hope, we have Highway 8.
Are there any dollars available for any of those sites in your budget this year to assist with mitigation around the situation in Merritt, the situation in Hope? There we’ve got a couple of houses that we think are in jeopardy because of the wash away from the river.
Are there dollars available in your budget this year, and how do people access them?
The Chair: I’ll just remind the member to direct the questions through the Chair, which I’m sure she meant.
J. Tegart: Sorry.
Hon. B. Ma: I wanted to begin by thanking the member for reminding us why this work is so incredibly important.
During this budget debate, during the estimates process…. It’s about the budget, so we tend to kind of focus in on the dollars. But it’s not really the dollars that matter as much as it is what it is that the dollars are able to support and what other supports might be provided.
We have to remember the people in the communities that are impacted and their real-life, day-to-day experience. It is easy to sometimes distil the conversation down to numbers in a process like this, but it’s a poor representation of what it really means to people and communities.
With respect to the village of Lytton, it is led by the communities. The work is led by the village of Lytton, the municipality. The funding that we provide includes funding to support their capacity-building. In addition to the funding that we provide to support their capacity, the payment of recovery managers that they hire, and so forth…. We also provide a substantial amount of staffing support directly from EMCR to help guide their staff, their teams, their mayor and council through the process.
We are available at a pin drop’s notice for any questions that the village of Lytton has. We also have the Parliamentary Secretary for Rural Development, who works very, very closely with the village of Lytton. He is also available, at a moment’s notice, to answer any calls and to answer any questions. We provide as much guidance as possible.
Again, I want to thank the member for really bringing it back to why this work matters and why the kinds of outcomes and the progress that we make matter.
To the member’s next question about flood recovery. We know that many, many communities were impacted by not just the atmospheric river events of 2021 but by multiple flood events over the many years. We often refer to the atmospheric river events because that was so catastrophic right across the province, but many communities face flooding on a near annual basis because of freshets and storms and otherwise.
Going back to the work around recovery from the atmospheric river events. We know that many communities are currently transitioning into the medium and long-term planning phase of the recovery. That also includes flood mitigation planning. So that’s part of that transition.
We continue to work closely with all communities around flood recovery. EMCR receives community recovery plans from each community that lay out their individual needs, and we work with them on how we can provide funding for them.
There are a number of different mechanisms. There is, of course, the DFA program. There are also different funding streams through the community emergency preparedness fund, which we just recently topped up with another $180 million, for a total of $369 million. There is also the contingency line — it’s called the climate emergency response contingencies line — that we can draw from to support communities. Depending on what the project is, we will work with them to determine the most appropriate avenue for that funding.
I did want to also speak to some of the specific communities that the member has raised. For instance, Merritt also had really substantial changes to the community as a result of the atmospheric river of 2021. Merritt does have a flood plan in place. Staff are actively in conversations with Merritt about their plan and how we can carry that out. With Hope…. I’m aware of the impacts to Gardner.
Oh, pardon me. Before I go on to the next piece, maybe I’ll read into the record, for the member, some of the funding that has already been provided to Merritt.
Over $38 million has been committed to the city and residents of Merritt through provincial recovery programs and one-time funding. This includes $9.9 million in direct financial support to homeowners, tenants, small businesses, charitable organizations and farms through the DFA program. There’s $3.9 million to support 15 approved infrastructure projects, also through the DFA program.
We’ve provided $329,000 for their flood mitigation study. That’s how Merritt was able to produce their flood mitigation plan.
There’s also $24.25 million. This was provided through the Ministry of Municipal Affairs to provide interim flood support funding, inclusive of $11.75 million for interim housing for flood-impacted residents. There is more to come.
When it comes to the community of Hope, we’re aware of the impacts to Gardner Drive. Individual properties have been assessed through DFA. There are also the impacts around hospital corner. That’s another location where EMCR staff are working directly with the municipality to address flood impacts there.
I think the member mentioned Highway 8. I want to thank the member for recommending that I meet with some of the impacted ranchers along that way. I was really glad to be able to go on site to their farms and to their ranches and to understand the impacts there. Unfortunately, there had been a fresh snowfall. We weren’t able to fully see the debris, but it was illustrated very well as well. We continue to seek support mechanisms for those ranchers.
I apologize to the member. We had actually hoped to be able to provide an update to the member a few weeks ago, and we haven’t quite landed it. The member can rest assured that we haven’t given up on finding a way to support the ranchers along Highway 8 as well.
The Chair: Member, a very short comment.
J. Tegart: I’m just going to say thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to the minister.
I have responsibilities elsewhere. I really appreciate the information. You know that I will be diligently following up.
The Chair: Thank you, Member. Thank you for your passion on this subject.
We’ll take a few minutes of recess. We’ll come back at 5:05 while we change up Chairs.
The committee recessed from 5:02 p.m. to 5:05 p.m.
[H. Yao in the chair.]
The Chair: I call Committee of Supply, Section C, back to order. We’re currently considering the budget estimates of the Ministry of Emergency Management and Climate Readiness.
L. Doerkson: I have a few questions, just sort of understanding where a few things have landed in the ministry.
I just want to echo some of the comments that I think I heard from Fraser-Nicola and certainly, from the minister as well. I think this is obviously very personal on the landscape to a lot of people. There has been a lot of loss, and I think people are genuinely concerned about the systems and the apparatus that we have to help. I want to try to understand a little better where some of that is today.
I guess the first question I have is: what is the relationship between B.C. Wildfire and disaster financial assistance of this ministry?
Hon. B. Ma: B.C. Wildfire is a response and preparedness partner. They exist within the Ministry of Forests, but EMCR does work hand in hand with B.C. Wildfire Service on the ground and corporately as well. We do seasonal preparedness jointly. We do outreach to communities together. We also share resources. For instance, B.C. Wildfire Service will sometimes provide resources to us in terms of responding to floods outside of the wildfire season.
The DFA, the disaster financial assistance program, is a financial recovery program that exists solely in EMCR. It consists of two parts. There is the private sector coverage that assists private residents, tenants, businesses, charitable organizations. The second part is the public sector support that provides infrastructure recovery funding. It’s important to note that the disaster financial assistance program is intended to provide support for uninsurable losses, which doesn’t include wildfire damage for the private sector, so for private properties.
EMCR also has responsibilities around preparedness and disaster risk reduction, supporting communities in reducing the potential impact of hazards before they happen. That can include fire as well.
L. Doerkson: Thanks for that explanation, Minister.
I do want, though, to get an understanding of what the relationship is with DFA. I understand what the program is. I’m just not sure where it …. Will it sit with this ministry or will it…? It will sit. Did the DFA not sit with the Public Safety Ministry before? Has it come over here?
The Chair: Minister.
Hon. B. Ma: Thank you so much, Chair, and welcome to the chair as well. I didn’t expect the change, which is why I was a little bit startled earlier.
The DFA program used to be administered through EMBC, emergency management B.C. EMBC used to exist under PSSG, Public Safety and Solicitor General. With the creation of the new ministry, EMBC and the DFA program have all been moved to Emergency Management and Climate Readiness.
L. Doerkson: Thank you for that. I just wanted to kind of understand where all of that settled.
There’s no question that people on the landscape are facing some incredible challenges when it comes to their exposure. We’ve talked a couple of times about funding for different types of things for Lytton. But I just wonder, in general terms, in the case of wildfire or flooding, what funding might be available to the public for private loss through this ministry.
Hon. B. Ma: Based on the question that the member has asked, I believe that we’re really talking about the DFA program, the disaster financial assistance program. The disaster financial assistance program has a regulation that lays out eligible losses with detailed requirements for what an eligible application looks like. Eligibility for disaster financial assistance is triggered when there is a DFA-eligible event declared — as an example, the atmospheric river event. To be clear, it’s intended to cover uninsurable losses.
L. Doerkson: I guess that’s what I want to canvass a little bit more and understand. There are a number of reasons that there may be loss, of course. Some of that might be…. In the case of folks living on the landscape, a simple cigarette butt thrown from a window may end in the loss of things that are uninsurable. I’m not referring specifically to a house, for instance, but for sure trees and those types of things that might be lost in an operation that may rely on those trees for a source of income.
With respect to liability, I’m sure that we’re all clear now, at this point in British Columbia, that if you leave a campfire going, you’re liable. If you’re caught doing something that ends in the loss of private property, obviously you’re liable.
I wonder, in the event of something like that, whether it be person-caused or whether it be an act of God or mother nature or whoever, is there any funding for those types of things, like trees? Fence lines can be insured. There is some insurance for crop insurance, but it covers the current crop, and beyond that, you’re really on your own.
In some cases, the loss of these types of items can be a couple of years. So funding, typically through the Ag Ministry, would end after the first year, and then that rancher is left to kind of go it on their own. I’m curious about those types of items — trees, feed, those types of items that are not insurable. I’m wondering if the ministry will have any kind of coverage for that.
Hon. B. Ma: I want to start by acknowledging what the member is saying in terms of the impact to not only peoples’ homes as a result of disaster, but also how it impacts their lives and also their livelihoods as well. I believe that that’s what the member was referring to — the impact that different disasters can have on a person’s livelihood, their businesses, their farms, their ranches, and so forth.
The DFA program is restricted to providing support for uninsurable losses. It does not provide support for wildfire losses. That being said, I understand that there are cases where such support may be appropriate for government to provide, even in the case of insurable losses. They’re not provided through the DFA program.
However, I believe it would be a valuable question to canvass the Ministry of Agriculture on because I know that they do some work around this.
L. Doerkson: I understand what the DFA program does, and I understand what the Ag ministry provides with respect to AgriStability and a number of other programs.
My question was more trying to focus on what this ministry, being newly formed, may be contemplating with respect to those types of losses. We heard about uninsurable loss as being covered through DFA. I can appreciate what that program does.
I’m wondering if there has been anything else contemplated by this ministry with respect to those uninsurable losses outside of the DFA program.
Hon. B. Ma: Outside of the DFA program, EMCR does not have any other programs to provide support for private losses. That being said, we are intending to review the DFA program in the year ahead to make sure that the program is successfully delivering on what it’s supposed to deliver on.
L. Doerkson: I think my colleague from Abbotsford is going to give me the hook. So I’d like to just wrap up with one final question and a couple of comments. I know that DFA has been…. Frankly, it’s been pretty frustrating.
We have submitted two claims through DFA, with the help of the ministry, and we couldn’t make them work. These were in situations of landslides in the Dog Creek area of Williams Lake. I can certainly say the name of at least one family that has completely lost their home, which is the Kuttnicks. I spoke about that family in the chamber before. Just to note that program…. I think we would all be supportive of any change to make it more successful for residents that find themselves in that situation.
The question I want to ask is…. I want to note that, of course, what we talked about with Lytton is significant. But when you see the devastation at a place like the Cunningham’s ranch in the South Cariboo…. I think they endured probably about 70,000 or 75,000 hectares burned during the Flat Lake fire. When you see the devastation there, it truly is heartbreaking.
It’s not just a loss of our forests; it’s a loss of their forests as well. Certainly, the devastation that happens to their ranch for the years following, right? Waiting for range to grow again, waiting for trees to provide shelter, which are years away, and then, of course, dangerous trees that are left. Now, there are some funds for cleaning some of that up, and there are those types of things. Again, I think we need a more fulsome funding model that will help in these situations for extended periods of time.
The reason that I am so focused on this is that myself and the Cunninghams have gone through a process with B.C. Wildfire that has been, frankly, frustrating, and I think probably on both sides.
My question is…. We’ve noted earlier today that we have had opportunities where people on the landscape are exposed to somebody leaving a campfire or throwing out a cigarette. When B.C. Wildfire uses fire to fight fire, and that fire goes wrong in a controlled burn setting, where that blows off of Crown land onto private property, there’s no real mechanism to protect the people that suffered that loss. Again, the loss is massive. I mean, when you look at 20 or 30 hectares of trees that are burned because B.C. Wildfire attempted to use a controlled burn — to see that loss on private property is staggering.
The distinction, from my understanding, for any kind of coverage from B.C. Wildfire is if it was lit on private land, and it caused damage, then there would be coverage. But literally outside of a fence line, if you lit a controlled burn on Crown land and that burn burned in an opposite direction and consumed a house, forest, feed, etc., there is no coverage for that. So again, those are, arguably, uninsurable products. Certainly the house would be covered.
I guess my question is: is there any conversation between this ministry and B.C. Wildfire to come to some sort of resolve for people that really have so much at stake? Not to belabour the point. There are many people now on the landscape — because of other reasons — that can’t get insurance. They can’t insure their home. They can’t afford the insurance. Those are two separate situations, but surely you can appreciate the fear when you’re sitting in your living room and you see B.C. Wildfire lighting a controlled burn.
Don’t for a second, Chair, think that I’m suggesting they shouldn’t be. They’re experts, I know, but when it goes wrong and somebody pays that ultimate price of losing either, potentially, part of their ranch or, potentially, all of it — their home, their animals, their feed — there is so much at stake that it’s just unbelievable.
Like I say, in the Cunninghams’ situation, it has been extremely frustrating. I’m grateful for the funds that they’ve received, but this is a serious issue on our landscape. While everyone else appears to be liable for their mistakes, I think there needs to be a liability on the part of B.C. Wildfire.
Again, I stress, I’m not suggesting…. They can’t control winds and everything else that plays there. I really am asking if there’s anything being contemplated between this ministry and B.C. Wildfire, to help residents that may be in harm’s way.
Hon. B. Ma: What the member has described sounds very, very concerning. The impacts, frankly, sound absolutely horrible. It is quite a detailed operational example that I would encourage the member to raise during the estimates debate with the Ministry of Forests. That being said, we’ve heard the member here, at EMCR. Please allow us to take that back so that we can discuss this with our colleagues and understand better what happened.
B. Banman: I’m just going to sum up what my colleagues have, basically, said. The minister said herself that what we’re talking about is people. We’re talking about people’s lives. We’re talking about their livelihood.
For those that have not been through a fire…. My family personally went through a fire where we not only lost the business, but it was a moving and storage business. We were in the middle of building a house at the time. We lost all our personal effects because they were stored at it as well. I know what it feels like to lose virtually everything. Now, in my case, we were living in a trailer as we were building the house. We didn’t actually lose our house. But we lost all the effects.
When government says things like, “We’ve got your back,” and then we find out that…. Well, wait a minute. The funding really is for infrastructure. The funding is really going towards this. The funding really doesn’t insure personal assets. We’re setting up false expectations to those that we say we have their backs, because that does not sound like you’ve got anybody’s back in the reality of it. So we need to be careful with what we say and what we imply to people.
That’s been my experience with my farmers and the people who live out in the Sumas flats that lived through the floods. They have similar concerns and similar frustrations, and that’s putting it mildly. One on one, and we have a totally different conversation.
As we go through this, I just want to remind not only the minister, but through to staff, that this is people’s personal lives that we’re talking about. You’re dealing with them when they’re at their absolute lowest, when they have lost everything. You heard my colleague who broke down in tears because she’s had those people in front of her.
With that, I’d like to go on to a higher level. I’m sure the minister will be happy to hear that. Emergency management and readiness spending in this budget increased, according to the transitionary binder, from $31.6 million to $50.8 million, which is an increase of 60 percent.
Can the minister please explain why this budget increased what I would consider, and many would consider, a drastic amount of 60 percent?
Hon. B. Ma: I think that the member’s question around the increase in the budget really speaks to the value that government is placing in the importance of being prepared to support communities through disasters. We know that extreme weather events are going to be occurring more frequently, with more intensity, with greater duration. The impacts to communities will be very, very real. It is no longer sufficient for governments to be prepared only to react and respond to emergencies.
We also need to have the resources, the capacity, to support communities in preparing for emergencies, to support communities in mitigating for the impacts of disasters before they happen, as well as providing support in the recovery stage of communities as well.
A significant amount of the ministry’s staffing during an emergency is temporary staffing covered through emergency appropriation. However, it is clear that there is a need for greater levels of foundational capacity year-round, even when there isn’t an active emergency happening, because there’s work to do. We need to be able to support communities to prepare for the next potential disaster. We need to be able to do the policy work that helps support communities in mitigating that work and the recovery work as well.
A lot of the recovery work that we’re supporting communities through right now is new for not only those communities but for the province as a whole, because the level of devastation is at a much greater level. The rebuilds are more complex. The challenges are very real. So what you see in terms of the increased base budget funding for the ministry reflects our commitment to provide communities with that support. I’m happy to speak to some of the increases, if the member would like.
For instance, some of the increases are as a result of increased budget for disaster mitigation and preparation. That’s in addition to the one-time $180 million that we provided to CEPF. There is now some funding provided in the base budget for supporting some of that work as well.
The funding will also provide for about 60 additional permanent FTEs. That’s approximately 32 net-new FTEs, because some of those FTEs already exist within the ministry but were funded through statutory appropriations. We would like to build that foundational year-round capacity to provide greater — what is that word where you carry knowledge over, through…? It’s like where you’re able to actually build up capacity and knowledge and keep it so that we don’t lose it every time we turn over staff. We want to be able to build up that foundation as well.
These 60 permanent positions will help provide a greater level of service to communities, First Nations, including a focus on proactive preparation and increased permanent foundational capacity for the disaster financial assistance program so that we can work to modernize the program and improve it; expand support for disaster risk reduction with dedicated staffing that will develop and deliver more mitigation programs, more preparedness capacity-building funding programs and also fund staffing support to deliver one of my mandate commitments, which is to produce a disaster climate risk and resilience assessment; and also lead cross-ministry coordination for our government’s work to enhance B.C.’s resiliency by providing guidance to all ministries and enhance public access to information on existing risks and initiatives underway to improve resilience.
I realize that last sentence probably didn’t make sense, because I started reading, and I probably didn’t put a stop in the right place. But the point is that the additional permanent positions help support those additional mandate items.
B. Banman: The reason I asked the question is because there’s been an increase in the budget of $44.5 million from when it was underneath the Ministry of Solicitor General. That’s a significant increase. The minister has actually explained some of the reasons why that is. What I’m hearing is that much of that is going towards increasing the staff around there. We can get into those sort of things. But as she’s explaining, it’s to increase that. But of that $44 million, would the minister care to explain, of this additional funding, what about that $44 million will be allocated in this fiscal year?
Hon. B. Ma: The increase from last fiscal year to this fiscal year is $21.688 million. It reflects the increased scope and mandate that I had spoken about earlier, as well as some incremental increases that were approved through the 2022-23 budget process.
B. Banman: Thanks to the minister for the answer. The ministry is responsible, as we’ve learned, for at least the administration of the disaster financial assistance, emergency support services and mitigation funding programs. Can the minister outline what share of this year’s budget of the $5.8 million to…. Of those things, can she allocate which it is, or break it down for us to see what it’s allocated to in those areas, please?
Hon. B. Ma: We just had to do a little bit of number crunching to see if we could split it up the way that the member has asked about it. To provide greater accuracy, I think we’ll provide you with the numbers in the breakdown that we have, and perhaps we can talk about it further if the member wishes.
Foundational capacity, about $5.8 million. Foundational capacity is that really base staff level. It includes funding for additional staff for DFA, ESS, and so forth. For this fiscal year, there is an additional $5 million for disaster mitigation. This takes into account the fact that we were able to top up the community emergency preparedness fund with UBCM with the $180 million, but this additional $5 million is within EMCR’s budget. We have about $2.845 million for the disaster risk assessment work, $1.28 million for disaster resiliency work and $1.6 million to support the legislation modernization for this fiscal year.
B. Banman: Thank you to the minister for breaking that down.
In the transition binder, disaster mitigation was funded at $6.94 million for each year, but also, there was a document that was prepared in August 15 of ’22. It states that the disaster mitigation program has funded 1,200 projects totalling over $285.7 million in provincial funds, but a document approximately a month later states only 50 projects totalling $93 million, which is confusing to say the least.
Does the ministry know how much it has spent on disaster mitigation since 2016, to try and explain those two drastically different numbers?
Hon. B. Ma: EMCR supports disaster mitigation projects through a number of different streams. We have funding through our base budget. There are also one-time funding grants that are sometimes provided to community. We also have a partnership with the federal government, programs like the investing in Canada infrastructure program. We provide cost share on the ARDM program and green ARDM, those sorts of things.
Then we also have the CEPF that is administered through UBCM. In total, there have been approximately 1,500 projects funded for a total of $310 million. Of that, $112 million comes from the CEPF program, through which about 1,300 projects have been funded.
Maybe the member will, if I’ve got any math wrong…. I didn’t write down all the numbers that the member had said but happy to receive further questions.
B. Banman: I think that helps clear it up a little bit.
I think it’s worth noting…. In the binder, it’s been noted that for mitigation or prevention…. Let’s talk in English so that the folks at home know what we’re talking about that. For every dollar invested in prevention or mitigation, there is a savings, right here in the book, of $7 to $10 that can be saved in post-disaster recovery costs.
That was one of the complaints and one of the things that’s been addressed. There are complications with the Nooksack. But it was one of the complications that people have said: “Look, the diking system let go because, in part, where the waters backed up, it found the weak section of the dike.”
There were really two flooding events in the Sumas flats. One was the part that comes in on the western portion, and then the waters backed up in the canal. There was some damage that was done in the western portion. But the eastern portion of the lake bed, the old lake bed, Sumas flats…. When the dike let go, there was a 20-foot wall of water at approximately dusk on Tuesday night that went roaring across, and that did probably as much damage, if not more so, because there was no chance to really…. When the waters are slowly coming in, you have time to do stuff. But when you have a 20-foot wall of water, you don’t have time.
Some of the most devastating stories that we heard — in particular, when it had to do with dairy farms — were due, in fact, to that 20-foot wall of water. Investing ahead of time, I think we can agree, is advantageous because it saves us money in the long run.
On the capital side, the Emergency Program Act is expected to have spent $436 million between ’22 and ’23. Yet this year’s budget only estimates $36.4 million. Now, this is for the Emergency Program Act. It’s only estimated at $36.4 million. The question we would have, then, is: based on previous events, does the minister really believe that we’re not going to have any adverse events and emergencies?
It doesn’t seem that we have put enough money aside, based on history. The minister is expecting either that there won’t be any natural disasters this fiscal year, or this budget is stating there won’t be financial assistance to be able to face those emergencies that we’re likely to have. If there is no limit on the financial aid facing emergencies and disasters, then why does the ministry actually not estimate an amount closer to previous years’ actual costs or average it out?
Each of the next three years in this budget has only allocated $36 million in each year. So either we’re going to spend a ton of money on mitigation in the next couple of years to avoid this, which I don’t see, or has this ministry drastically underestimated the emergency response and what’s going to be required?
Hon. B. Ma: Let me first be very clear that EMCR and government will spend what it takes to support people and communities in the event of an emergency. We know that people need help, and we are anticipating that emergencies related to extreme climate events, as a result of climate change, will increase in frequency, duration, so forth.
We have a number of ways to draw on financial resources to help support communities. One is through the budget line item that the member has referred to, the other is through contingencies, and the third avenue is through the statutory vote for costs that are above and beyond what has been allowed for in the vote.
What the member can see in the budget is that the Emergency Program Act line item was substantially increased in the previous budget as a result of expected costs due to the atmospheric river events.
The reality is that it is extremely difficult to anticipate and validate costs for an emergency that has not happened yet. That’s why we have those multiple tools to draw on financial resources, being the contingencies line item, and then if necessary, the statutory authority to draw more resources to support people and communities in the event of an emergency.
B. Banman: As a suggestion…. I’ll relate it to the snow removal budget that Abbotsford used to have. Not every year did we get snow. Other years we got nailed with it, and we had a contingency fund. I would suggest that a contingency fund be put in there somewhere so that people know that the money is…. Yes, we’re thinking about it, and it’s there. And if not, hey, that’s a blessed year, right?
I’m going to move on. The minister had mentioned earlier that we are talking about overhauling the Emergency Program Act. I’d like the minister to expand upon that, as to what goals the ministry has to expand upon, change, update or modernize that.
The one part that is in here of note, and it comes from a major corporate issue note, has to do with the powers of the Premier. It would appear that the role of the Premier during an emergency has been changed. The government has announced plans to repeal and replace the EPA with modernized legislation, and there is no express statutory role for the Premier, rather than…. The minister responsible for the legislation holds the statutory powers to declare a provincial emergency, evacuations, etc., and/or the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council also holds statutory powers.
In layman’s terms, it appears as if the Premier now is basically going to be the spokesperson. Therefore, dare I say, there’s no statutory right, and it becomes more of a photo op, really, than anything else. Can the minister please explain why the Premier’s role was changed? Does the Premier still have the power to declare a state of emergency? What other goals would the minister like to see changed in the time that we have left?
Hon. B. Ma: Thank you so much for the question, Member.
I’m going to start with the member’s recommendation on ensuring that there’s a contingency line item in the budget. There is a contingency line item specific to climate and emergency response. If the member looks at the budget and fiscal plan, it can be found on page 30, along with the other line items referencing prudence in the budget and fiscal plan, a significant amount of prudence in the fiscal plan.
There’s the $1.5 billion for general contingencies, $300 million for CleanBC, $1 billion for pandemic recovery contingencies. This is just for this fiscal year. There’s half a billion for climate and emergency response contingencies, $2.2 billion for shared recovery mandate contingencies and $700 million for forecast allowance. So it is in there directly as well.
In terms of the questions around the Emergency Program Act modernization, the intention of the modernized legislation is to support B.C. in implementing the UN Sendai framework for disaster risk reduction. Compared to the current Emergency Program Act, which is very reactive and response-focused, the new legislation seeks to better position B.C. to address climate change, in being more proactive. All four pillars of emergency management will be addressed in the legislation. That means preparation, mitigation, response and recovery.
There is an intention to ensure that First Nations are equal partners in emergency management as well. That work is ongoing. We’re optimistic about tabling that, and look forward to the debate in the House around there.
To the member’s specific question around the powers of the Premier, there have not been any changes to the powers of the Premier in the Emergency Program Act, nor are there any contemplated for the modernized Emergency Program Act.
I move that committee rise, report resolution and completion of the estimates of the Ministry of Children and Family Development, report progress on the Ministry of Emergency Management and Climate Readiness, and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 6:18 p.m.