Orders of the Day

Private Members’ Statements

SCHOOL LIAISON OFFICERS

M. Lee: As the MLA for Vancouver-Langara and in my role as the official opposition shadow minister for the Attorney General, today I want to raise a matter that is not only of great concern to our communities but also indicative of the broader issue within our approach to public safety and youth engagement.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

In the wake of continued concerns about youth safety, gang recruitment and the general well-being of students within our educational system, the role and presence of school liaison officers has never been more critical. Recent developments across British Columbia, from Victoria to Vancouver, have indicated a troubling trend towards the reduction or outright removal of school liaison officers from our schools.

In Victoria, for example, the alarming increase in gang-related activities, as reported by Victoria police chief Del Manak, underscores a critical need for the proactive, preventative measures that school liaison officers provide. The arrest of a suspected gang member, targeting students for recruitment, starkly illustrates the vacuum left by the absence of these police officers.

We’re not only talking about teenagers on the cusp of graduating from high school or young adults or youth. We’re talking about children as young as 11 years old. It has been reported that most schools in the greater Victoria area have students involved in these gang-affiliated trafficking schemes, using students to sell drugs and vapes.

Victoria police arrested an alleged gang member just last month, who was accused of recruiting kids during a school day in several parking lots that were adjacent to schools,. Police chief Del Manak is calling on the Victoria school board to reinstate the school liaison police officer program, which, he says, helps steer youth away from joining gangs.

I would say, as indicated by the chair of the Victoria school board, that in the four months since the removal of school liaison officers in Victoria, the data shows that there has been an increase of crime involving youth, reported in the region, by 12 percent.

When we saw this in Vancouver with deputy chief Fiona Wilson, she indicated that there had been a continual decrease at schools since 2017, but that pattern had changed in 2022, when the schools were without school liaison officers, with calls overall increasing by 16 percent, violent crime increasing by 19 percent and assaults increasing by 27 percent. This correlation is undeniable. In Vancouver, we’ve seen the reinstatement of the school liaison officer program. In response to community concerns, they made adjustments.

I know that at my children’s elementary school, this was the first exposure, for my children and friends of their age, to a school liaison officer coming to present and teach about road safety. These were the first examples of the relationship that has built up with members of our police force in Vancouver. Developing those relations early on is an understanding and recognition of rules and laws and good citizenship.

We can also learn from the 50-year partnership between the Delta police department and Delta school district, which also stands as a testament to the invaluable role that school liaison officers play in our communities. We’ve seen through that program, where they serve 37 public and private independent schools, from elementary to secondary, that that work is rooted in education, prevention and building positive relationships with youth.

This proactive approach to community policing has contributed to making Delta one of the safest communities in the Lower Mainland. I know, from talking to members of the police force there in Delta, that they’ve been able to develop those relationships, including with members of the Tsawwassen First Nation.

[10:10 a.m.]

When a young person there had engaged in some graffiti-type activity at the local school, there was an early intervention. There was a teaching of responsibility and accountability. That early path correction led to a better path for that young individual.

We’ve seen that the decision by some school districts to cut school liaison officer programs has sparked significant community backlash, with rallies and public outcry calling for their reinstatement. Parents, educators and police officers have united in their support for the program, highlighting the positive impact school liaison officers have had in fostering safe school environments and deterring youth from engaging in harmful activities.

The evidence is clear. Where school liaison officers are present, schools benefit from decreased crime rates, early intervention for at-risk youth and a stronger, more positive relationship between students and law enforcement. Yet despite this, there exists a push, influenced by the anti-police sentiment in our province, to remove these vital resources from our schools.

This movement is not only grounded in the reality of our community’s needs, but rather in a broader, often more politicized discourse that fails to prioritize the safety and well-being of our students, our children. As we consider the future of youth and school environments, we must learn to question this and ask, despite the Premier’s stance on policing, highlighted by his past actions and publications that have really undervalued the importance of public safety and law enforcement in our province….

This harmful rhetoric around those serving on the front lines, those who risk their lives every day to keep us safe, coming from this government caucus in the past, has continued to fuel this dangerous anti-police mentality in British Columbia.

We know the Premier has a long history of criticizing law enforcement officials and making misleading statements about women and men in uniform. In fact, the Premier wrote the book on how to sue the police, criticized police activities at the 2010 Olympics, and his anti-police activism has drawn sharp rebuke from the head of the Vancouver Police Union. We know that members of the government caucus were at that rally, back in September 2023, where there was a speaker there that said: “Cops out of schools.”

It’s this kind of sentiment that we have to rise above in this legislative chamber. We need to recognize our shared duty to protect and nurture the potential within each young person in our school system. I call on this government to confirm their commitment to our students’ safety, their education and the path forward, and to reinstate school liaison officer programs across our province.

M. Babchuk: Thank you to the member opposite for giving me the opportunity to respond to this important topic.

No matter where you live in B.C., many of us share common hopes for ourselves, our kids and grandkids. We all want to see our kids grow up to be happy, healthy and with every opportunity available to them.

In a society where our children are constantly bombarded with outside influences, it’s imperative that we prioritize their safety and well-being. It’s a challenge that requires a multifaceted approach, one that collaborates between various stakeholders and implementation of targeted support systems.

Supports have to be in place to keep kids safe and away from gangs and crimes. This is not just a responsibility; it’s a moral obligation that we must uphold as a community. We cannot turn our attention away from harsh realities that many of our children face every day.

Every child deserves to grow up in a safe and nurturing environment free from the threats and pressures of crime. But how do we combat that pervasive threat? The answer lies in collaboration and proactive measures.

We expect school boards to work hand in hand with family, students and, often, the local police departments to create a protective shield around our children. It is through a united front that we can effectively provide our youth with the support they need to thrive.

As a former school trustee, I am keenly aware of how much care and knowledge is required to make a decision based on specific requirements of a school district. In my riding of North Island, school district 72 has a school liaison officer from our local RCMP that works directly with school services, student services, and is the key and direct contact for other provincial support initiatives like Safer Schools. That’s what works there.

It’s not our job as elected officials in this chamber to tell them that a system that’s working should be changed. In this model, our school districts can determine what resources in the schools and the strategies that RCMP and local police forces can implement when needed. My constituency is an example that just because a district doesn’t have a specific liaison in every school, it does not mean there is no help or communication from the RCMP or local police when needed.

[10:15 a.m.]

We have to remember that school trustees were also elected by their communities. It is their job to work closely with parents to meet the needs of children in their district. Collaboration is key in developing comprehensive strategies that can effectively deter crime, violence or gang activity and provide our children with the supports they need to make positive choices.

Like I mentioned, we must acknowledge that one size does not fit all in this circumstance. We know that supports look different in different communities, and we recognize that the needs and challenges of each community are unique. What works in one neighbourhood may not be applicable to another. Therefore, it’s crucial for our communities to tailor their approach to their specific needs, challenges and demographics. There is no single approach that works for all students, but rather a number of strategies that must be adapted to suit the unique circumstances of each locale.

That’s why it’s important for people to be making decisions locally. They have the best idea of what their specific community needs. Local stakeholders are the true experts on the ground. They possess invaluable insights into the dynamics of their neighbourhoods and are best positioned to identify the most effective interventions into the lives of students.

Empowering local decision-makers ensures that resources are allocated where they are most needed and that solutions are tailored to address the root causes of student engagement in crime and gang involvement. By empowering local communities to take ownership of these, we can ensure that resources are allocated where they are needed and that interventions are culturally sensitive and responsive to the diverse needs of our youth.

In conclusion, safeguarding our children requires a concerted effort from all sectors of society. It demands unwavering commitment, innovative thinking and the willingness to adapt to the ever-evolving landscape of youth. Let’s stand together to protect our children. Together, we can build a future where every child has the opportunity to thrive, free from crime and violence, surrounded by the resources and the supports that work for them.

M. Lee: With the comments from the member opposite, we certainly have an agreement that our protection and nurturing of our children in our school systems are first and foremost in this Monday morning statement exchange here.

But leadership does start from the top, and that starts with the Premier. It starts with members of this government caucus. As I said in my opening statement, I have deep concerns about the lack of respect that I see: the track record of our Premier in terms of disrespect for law enforcement, disrespect for the rule of law, disrespect for how our whole systems are structured here in our province to support all British Columbians.

As we talk about this one example of the school liaison officer program, there is accountability. There’s accountability up through those local school districts up to the Minister of Education here and ultimately up to the Premier of our province. We recognize in the dialogue this anti-police mentality that we’ve seen, this harmful rhetoric that we’ve seen time and time again, that in the face of this….

I have seen the Vancouver police department, for example, the leadership there, with their diversity and inclusivity initiatives, on the ground, the relationships that they’ve made with Deputy Chief Fiona Wilson, for example, the changes to the program.

I recognize what the member opposite has said. We need to ensure that we’re listening to the voices of parents and families in communities — absolutely. But those parents and voices in communities, including in Victoria and in Surrey, are very concerned about their young people, their children.

Children are being recruited by gang activity on school yards and facilities. That has to stop. We need to ensure that our children and young people are not misdirected and misguided, recruited to be tools of drug trafficking, vapes and the like. This is the safety that we need for our children, the relationship that is so important.

[10:20 a.m.]

We recognize the role that the men and women in our police law enforcement around our province do. We need to recognize and support that the anti-police sentiment, the “cops out of schools” rhetoric that held in the Vancouver Art Gallery, has to stop. We, as members of this Legislative Assembly, our Premier, members of the government, have to lead. They cannot be silent when we continue to hear these voices in our communities.

I understand everyone has a right to freedom of speech, but we have to hold our school districts, the roles that we have with law enforcement in our province, accountable and let them play the roles that they need to play, giving them the space and the support to do so.

M. Bernier: With the indulgence, I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

M. Bernier: Thank you, and I apologize for the interruption, but I’m also very honoured. I have a special guest in the Legislature today, hailing originally from Quebec.

We have Victor Lefebvre with us, who is now going to the University of Victoria, who is working as a Canadian rower and, if I understand correctly, is a very elite and promising athlete getting ready to compete to get onto the Canadian national rowing team. As he mentioned to me, no better place in Canada to be doing that, obviously, than right here in Victoria because of the opportunities we have.

Will the House please make Victor Lefebvre welcome here in Victoria and to the House.

Private Members’ Statements

SUPPORTING POST-SECONDARY
STUDENTS IN B.C.

R. Parmar: Welcome to Victor. His friend Steven MacAskill, who also goes to UVic and happens to be my CA, let me know that he was coming to the Legislature.

So welcome, Victor. I hope you enjoy your time here and, I hope, a great tour from the member opposite as well.

It’s a pleasure to be able to rise this morning and talk about the efforts of our government when it comes to supporting post-secondary students. We certainly recognize on this side of the House, and I think on all sides of the House, that these are real tough times for British Colum­bians and, especially, for our post-secondary sector and for our students.

I’m proud to be a part of a government that has taken a lot of steps since 2017 to tackle the challenges being faced by post-secondary students, whether it’s making post-secondary more affordable, accessible and relevant…. Because we know that the challenge before us is that we are going to have 75 percent of the one million job openings in B.C. over the next ten years. Ten years is going to go by quickly, and it’s so important that we, as a government, strengthen our post-secondary system.

It is one of our competitive advantages here in British Columbia. In a previous role, I often met with investors, and the number one thing we talked about was our talent, the people of British Columbia, being our competitive advantage.

So with one million job openings, 75 percent of them requiring some form of post-secondary education, it’s now more important than ever for us to be able to recognize that as a government and provide the investments needed to support that.

I also want to take an opportunity to be able to acknowledge and give my thanks to all of the colleges, the universities, the staff and the students, the student unions, all of the different parts that make up the post-secondary system.

In the last little bit as the MLA, I had the opportunity to work with University of Victoria, Camosun College, Justice Institute of B.C. and Royal Roads University. Now in my new role as the Parliamentary Secretary for International Credentials, I’m looking forward to hitting the road over the next number of months to be able to really do a lot of listening and learning from post-secondary students and staff about the challenges that are out there but also the opportunities that are before us here in British Columbia to, again, strengthen our post-secondary system.

I’m really proud to be a part of a government that has taken a number of steps to be able to address the challenges put forward by a number of bodies, including the B.C. Federation of Students, that have asked this government, since 2017, to step up and to make more investments in the post-secondary system.

One of the areas that I want to start in is student housing. We know that the previous government did not live up to its expectation when it came to building more student housing. In fact, it’s quite embarrassing. There were about 100 units of housing being built in 16 long years. But I’m proud of the efforts that our government has taken to build well over 8,000 student housing beds. That is, again, those that have already been built or are in the process of being built.

The Premier was just in New Westminster last week announcing investments at Douglas College in New Westminster. I was just at UVic over the weekend and got a chance to see the incredible new housing that opened up on campus — over 600 beds. We know that there needs to be more done. So that’s why we’ve made our commitments in the last number of budgets towards reaching that goal of 12,000 student housing beds.

[10:25 a.m.]

In Budget 2020, we also announced the B.C. access grant, as one of the ways to make post-secondary education and training more affordable and accessible. This was a substantive new investment in provincial needs-based post-secondary student grants, one of the largest in over 15 years.

These grants support a wide range of education and training at B.C.’s 25-plus post-secondary institutions. As of December 2023, more than 71,000 students have received over $129 million in funding since the new B.C. access grant was launched. Unlike most previous grants that had been introduced, the B.C. access grant supports those who need it most: low- and middle-income students, including students in programs under the two years and those studying part-time as well.

Another thing that our government did back in 2019 was remove interest on student loans. This was a big one for me, as I was just wrapping up my post-secondary experience at UVic. The government, in the last number of years, has saved students millions of dollars in interest payments since cutting interest on student loans in 2019. The government has also, at the same time, increased financial assistance available to students, whether they’re single students or students with dependents. Those are some of the actions we’ve taken.

We’ve also introduced a tuition limit policy. The limit policy had been in place since 2005 and had been extended to 2007 to include mandatory fees. We’ve capped it at 2 percent to recognize the challenges being faced by post-secondary students.

In April of 2019, our government also made the single-biggest investment in open educational resources and open textbooks of $3 million. And I know that the numbers that I have probably are a bit outdated, but there are over 330 textbooks that are now available and range from math to computer science, chemistry, business, skills and technical subjects such as foundational trades courses, health care, tourism, hospitality and adult basic education that are now free of cost.

I remember going to UVic my first year and going to the bookstore — that was after I already paid the tuition for the year — and leaving the bookstore, thinking, “Holy smokes, I may need to get a second job” to be able to pay for all those books that the poli-sci professors wanted me to read back then. So I know that that’s a big one for post-secondary students.

I also just want to touch briefly on another really important change that our government brought in, and that was the tuition waiver program. The vice-president of student experience at Camosun College shared: “Post-secondary education can be transformational for many students. Opening the door with the tuition waiver program and providing a range of wraparound supports for students during their time at Camosun will help students succeed and thrive.”

I just had an opportunity to be able to meet with the presidents of all of the colleges across British Columbia and am really pleased to share that just at Camosun College alone, which is located around my community and will be located in my community very soon when our new post-secondary campus opens up in the West Shore, over 231 students have accessed the program since its launch in 2017. Those are just a number of the steps that our government has taken. I’m looking forward to chatting more about them in the days and weeks ahead.

Deputy Speaker: Before I recognize the next member, I’m just going to remind members that member statements are to be non-partisan. I don’t like to limit debate, but I would like you to keep that in mind as you make your statements this morning.

C. Oakes: It truly is a pleasure to rise and speak about the importance of post-secondary education. We all know students are the future of our province, and we must continue to support them in every way we can.

In British Columbia today, we find ourselves at an impasse, where the future of our economy and the well-being of our communities are linked to our ability to utilize the potential of our young citizens. These individuals, filled with ambition and intellect, are eager to contribute to our province’s success, yet they face significant hurdles on their path to participating fully in our workforce as skilled labourers.

[10:30 a.m.]

The nature of this crisis is not about young people’s unwillingness to work or the lack of talent. It’s the barriers that they encounter that block their access to the necessary education and training that they need.

British Columbia’s world-class post-secondary institutions stand ready to build the next generation of skilled professionals. However, the conditions have to be right, and we are increasingly hearing from both domestic and international students who are concerned about being able to afford their education in British Columbia.

The cost-of-living crisis is having a major impact on young people who are struggling to both study full-time and work part-time to make ends meet. Students are barely able to keep up with B.C.’s record-high rental rates across this province as awful stories of students camping and living in vans on campus continue to be reported.

I want to set the record straight. I’ve heard members opposite continue the rhetoric about the lack of student housing built when we were in government. I want to clarify that over 9,000 units of student housing were built between 2001 and 2017. It nearly doubled, the amount of student housing in this province.

One only needs to go to Brock Commons, which I just recently did. This was the tallest mass timber building in the world at the time, with over 400 units across 18 storeys. I was proud to be a part of that.

For many, they see no future in British Columbia because they know barriers persist even after they’ve received advanced education. This cannot continue. Changes need to be made to make life more affordable and increase access to keep our future leaders here in British Columbia. We must ensure that the correct investments are in place so there are enough seats and instructors for anyone to attend at a feasible cost.

Currently when an individual is looking to complete a trade such as carpentry, it can take nearly as long as six years to become certified. This is far too long and not a timeline these young people deserve. Creating accessible advanced education is not merely an investment in nursing schools or technical training centres. It’s an investment in the very future of our province, ensuring a strong and diversified economy.

The stories of students struggling under the weight of rising costs and inflation are not just anecdotes. They are a loud call for change. Pursuing advanced education has become an extremely difficult endeavour for far too many, marked by financial strain and uncertainty about the future.

As we look to the future, I look for a province where every individual, regardless of their background, their financial circumstances or where they live, can access the training and education they need to succeed in this province.

Instead of that, we are now seeing young people in our province losing hope. B.C. colleges have experienced domestic enrolment declines over the last three years at more than twice the rate of international enrolment declines. It is crucial that government take steps so that British Columbians can establish their futures here in British Columbia.

I am confident in these young people. We just need to give them a chance.

R. Parmar: My thanks to the member for Cariboo North for her comments and for the work that she has certainly done in her community on this topic.

We are definitely going to disagree on student housing. I think it was just a few months ago that the Premier brought in some blocks and shared for the media and those paying attention what, really, the difference is when it comes to the building of student housing under our government and under the previous government. I’ll just leave it there. I’m particularly proud of the work that we’ve done.

I just want to comment on a number of the pieces that the member raised, in the two minutes and 20 seconds that I’ve got left — that is, where we were previously and where we are now.

[10:35 a.m.]

We certainly acknowledge that in 2017, we took a number of steps to be able to strengthen our post-secondary system after a period of time, under the previous government, where we saw tuition fees more than double. We saw funding for the sector slashed entirely, and we also saw the upfront student grant program eliminated. Again, that was the record of the previous government, one that we’ve tried to rectify in the last seven years that we’ve been sitting on this side of the House.

I will share with the member that I agree with her optimism around the sector, especially as someone who is a recent consumer of the post-secondary education system. There’s a lot going forward.

Again, I want to recognize the work that has been happening in the Ministry of Post-Secondary Education around the future-ready action plan and touch on a number of the investments that our government has made. I touched on it in the brief remarks that I had before I wrapped up.

We expanded the provincial tuition waiver program to all former youth in care, regardless of age, creating opportunities for approximately 50,000 people to pursue post-secondary education and skills training for free. That’s a big deal.

We supported future skills grant learners in over 11,300 seats for the fall 2023 semester, helping people access high-quality and relevant training opportunities. That included over 400 high-demand areas such as construction, technology and clean energy. We funded over 3,000 more technology spaces. I think we’re upwards of 7,000 to 8,000 new tech seats that we’ve added in our period since we formed government.

We put forward $101 million to support expanding post-secondary education training and labour market opportunities for Indigenous peoples. We provided Mitacs, a great company based here in British Columbia, with $50 million to support 10,000 paid internships in priority sectors.

I could go on and on. I’m proud of the record that our government has had on post-secondary education. I can’t wait for the more work that we can do in the sector in the years ahead.

CARBON TAX ON HEATING

M. Bernier: I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this Monday morning during this time, and especially talking about something that’s so front and centre right now in the province of British Columbia. That’s the fact that people are struggling. People are struggling right across the province, in every corner, with affordability, whether it’s the price of gas, the price of food, the price of housing. When we look right across the province right now, people are struggling.

Nothing is more apparent than, right now, what people are sharing with me in my region, which, I would argue, is for the entire province. It’s the little extra things which are actually quite large. That’s things like carbon tax and the effects that has on our home heating.

Now, as we know, the federal government, not that long ago — I guess it would be maybe six months; it was before the winter — talked about removing carbon tax off of home heating. This, on the surface, was something I was very excited for, until I found out that it was only going to affect half of the country. It was only going to affect the eastern provinces.

When we looked at that, we thought: “Okay, obviously we need to change that. It needs to be something that is going to be treated fairly for all the people in Canada.” So I was very proud of Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba. The Premiers and the governments in those provinces, of all political stripes…. It’s not a political commentary on that. Different Premiers stood up and said: “This isn’t fair. We need to be removing carbon tax off of home heating for everybody in Canada.” That was great to see — except, of course, here in British Columbia, where we heard crickets, and it was silent.

I can tell you, for people in a riding like mine, how frustrating that is. Last week it was almost minus 35 again in Dawson Creek. So contrary to what people were seeing…. I think I was even sharing some of those pictures. Up until mid-February, we didn’t have snow on the ground. It was quite nice. Unfortunately, we need more snow. We need the moisture, and I’m really worried about what we’re going to have for the agricultural sector this year.

[10:40 a.m.]

But when it’s minus 35, guess what. Those that are fortunate enough to be able to afford a house in the province of British Columbia right now, even though we have the most unaffordable housing in North America…. Those that are lucky enough don’t have an option in my region and, I’d say, in most of rural British Columbia but to have a natural gas furnace. This is not an option. It’s not a luxury. It’s a necessity that people have some way to heat their homes. Guess what that is. It’s a natural gas furnace.

In some places, even here on Vancouver Island for quite a while, we had oil. As a government, we were really promoting: “Get off of oil, and move to natural gas.” In fact, there were grants being given out by government. “Please convert to natural gas. Here’s a grant to do that.” But now we have not only the carbon tax…. April 1, we’re hearing it’s going to go up again. Government wants to raise it up to $165 a tonne.

When we talk about people right now who can’t afford groceries…. Or they’re having to choose between: “Do I pay my large natural gas bill that has a huge amount of carbon tax on it, or do I buy groceries?” The amount of people that call me and say: “You know what? I’m having to pick and choose every month what I’m doing….” But if we’re going to make life more affordable, look at those opportunities we have.

Now, I wish that we had followed suit, like the other provinces on the eastern seaboard after the federal announcement, right before the cold snap and winter started. We can imagine the hundreds and hundreds and, in some cases, thousands of dollars that would have been left in people’s pockets to help them. When more than half of British Columbians are only $200 away from being able to make their monthly bill payments, nothing would hit home more than something like removing carbon tax off of home heating, which is at the discretion of this government.

Look, we know that carbon tax is federally mandated, that we can’t remove it here in British Columbia completely. Otherwise, the federal government steps in. Contrary to what some people are saying about removing carbon tax completely, we know that can’t be done unless the federal government does. But there are aspects and portions of it that actually can, in British Columbia, be changed, and home heating carbon tax is one of them.

I think it’s paramount to remind people that these are not just the struggles of people in a home. I’ve got a bill that I shared here in the House last week where somebody who owned a small little mini-mall of six small businesses, for their bill last month, $3,000 was the carbon tax portion. So you want to talk about also not just homes, but look at the impacts it would have on small businesses that are struggling — $3,000 in carbon tax for two months.

These are opportunities that we have here in British Columbia that can be looked at when we look at, again, putting money back into people’s pockets. To my point that I made a few moments ago, this is not a luxury. This is a necessity. People do not have a choice but to turn their thermostat up and their furnace on in the province of British Columbia in most places.

I’ve heard from even people who live down in the Lower Mainland, here in North Vancouver. I had somebody mention to me that “it is cheaper and easier to turn on my natural gas fireplace than it is to use my electric heat, because it puts me into a two-tier system, and I can’t afford that.” Every opportunity to save a little bit of money. But this government wants to penalize people for using natural gas and for trying to stay warm in the wintertime.

I look forward to the comments from the other member on this topic.

K. Greene: I’d like to recognize the privilege that I have to respond here on the traditional territories of the lək̓ʷəŋən-speaking people, the Songhees and Esquimalt First Nations.

We all know that climate change is real and it’s happening right now. We’ve seen the devastating effects of extreme weather events like wildfires, floods, droughts and heat domes that have threatened our health, our safety and our livelihoods.

[10:45 a.m.]

We’ve also seen the rising costs of food, housing and energy, as global inflation and interest rates put pressure on our budgets.

We all want to do our part to reduce pollution and protect our environment for future generations, but we also need a government that helps us with the costs of living and supports our economic recovery from the pandemic.

That’s why our government has been working hard to deliver affordable housing, lower child care fees and ICBC rates, increase family benefits and reduce hydro bills. We’ve made sure that a family with two kids earning $100,000 pays less provincial taxes today than in 2016. I’m going to repeat that, because I think it has been missed a few times. A family with two kids earning $100,000 pays less provincial taxes today than in 2016.

We can’t afford to ignore the climate crisis, and that’s why we’ve maintained a price on pollution that’s fair, effective and puts money back in people’s pockets. Residents won’t be fooled by cheap slogans. Cancelling the price on pollution would cost people more, not less. It would hurt our economy, our environment and our future.

It’s a false dichotomy that we have to choose between the environment and the economy. We’re delivering on a plan that grows our clean economy and doesn’t leave anyone behind. We’re helping families with costs while fighting pollution and creating jobs across the province. Our plan invests in clean energy, transit, electric vehicles, green infrastructure and more, guided by CleanBC. Other folks sound like the last investors in Blockbuster, and they want to double down while wilfully ignoring Netflix.

The global economy is changing, and B.C. is now poised to take advantage of an unprecedented opportunity for creating economic benefit for all British Columbians, as well as addressing our society’s social and environmental priorities. While other political parties want to turn their backs on our bright future, we’re staying the course. Maybe they don’t understand that climate change is real and caused by human activity, maybe they don’t understand that global economic trends and opportunities are coming our way, or maybe they don’t understand that without a healthy planet, we can’t eat, we can’t work, and we can’t prosper.

We understand that the cost of inaction far outweighs the cost of action, by orders of magnitude that are nearly incomprehensible. The costs from fires, floods and drought are rising every year, as a result of climate change. We have to take action for our children and for our future, but we also need to make sure we’re not leaving anyone behind, and when our province benefits from growing our clean economy, we all benefit.

We’re tackling everyday costs to make sure that families have more in their pockets. An enhanced climate action credit means that most people get back more than they pay for climate action. We’re also reducing costs across the board by eliminating the MSP and cutting ICBC premiums, keeping hydro rates low, free contraception, and so much more.

The province is prioritizing investment in CleanBC projects to reduce pollution, drive clean tech innovation and jobs, and meet expanding global demand for low-carbon products in a net-zero future. This investment means good jobs for people across the province and supporting our homegrown innovation to be the solution of choice around the world.

Our province will not be stuck in the past. We’re growing our economy at the same time that we’re investing in our environment and our people. We’re delivering on a future that works for everyone, not just a select few, because we’re stronger together.

M. Bernier: I appreciate the member standing up and speaking. I didn’t hear the words “carbon tax” or “support” or “help for people” once in her rebuttal, but we’ll take the non-answer as actually the answer; that this government is not wanting to pursue supporting people.

Now, when I talk about what I was saying, this is not about one or the other. This is about actually trying to help people in the province of British Columbia. One of the things…. If we’re talking about trying to worry about climate change — I wasn’t going to go down this road — contrary to what some people think, in promoting liquefied natural gas out of the province of British Columbia and converting the opportunities where other countries are trying to build coal-fired power generation, they can divert from that to liquefied natural gas.

[10:50 a.m.]

When you have a province of British Columbia that has somewhere in the vicinity of 0.1 percent of global carbon emissions, the best thing we can be doing is actually helping other jurisdictions. I tell you right now: the air we breathe in British Columbia is not solely our air. It travels around the world. When other countries are building coal power plants, we breathe that air. If we want to make a difference, that’s a difference we can make.

But the reason why this topic of carbon tax is so important for, again, people who don’t have a choice is because this government and provincially and everybody is touting: “Let’s switch to electric. Let’s switch to heat pumps.” Heat pumps do not work as a sole source, outside of places like the Lower Mainland. This is a business I’ve done. I’ve worked in it for 25 years. You cannot use a heat pump if it gets down below minus 20-ish, which means you need an alternative heat source, which is usually natural gas.

What does this government do? They increased from 7 percent to 12 percent the taxation, if you want to have a fossil-fuel-burning appliance, penalizing the people who don’t have an option. In rural British Columbia, where it does get cold, as I said, minus 20, minus 30, minus 40, those furnaces are a necessity to not just stay warm, but to stay alive. To help people in an affordability crisis, this is an opportunity that we’re passing by.

Our agriculture sector, which delivers our food, is struggling right now because they have to use all these increased costs, like carbon tax, which is then having to be passed on or carried on into the grocery stores.

We have huge opportunities to help people with affordability. Removing carbon tax off home heating is a very simple one that could have been done before this winter season.

COST SAVINGS FOR SMALL BUSINESSES

M. Starchuk: Now, more than ever, with inflationary pressures on small business, we need to respond to the needs that they have.

Before I move over, and I’m hoping my voice can manage to get through this, I’d like to speak about what our government has been able to do for small business over the past few years.

When the pandemic hit British Columbia, our government was there for small business. I’m pretty sure there are stories in other ridings across the province. I’d like to highlight a few of the small business stories that were there in Surrey-Cloverdale, which I imagine will also apply to other areas across the province.

When the COVID business grants were announced, there was an opportunity for accountants to assist small businesses with their application process. I can tell you that the accountants that we had, that were trained, definitely made a difference for small businesses who were somewhat afraid of the bureaucratic nightmare of filling out applications. I know I’ve filled out a number of them, and it’s not a business that I’m comfortable with.

With these accountants in place, there was over $2 million provided to the small business owners in my riding. Some grants were as small as a few thousand dollars that were delivered to some of the taxi owners. There were also grants of tens of thousands of dollars to some restaurateurs who were attached to the tourism industry.

The grant that really got my eyebrows was a grant provided to the horse-racing industry. In my riding, there’s a harness racing track, and Fraser Downs, through this grant, was able to keep the industry afloat at a time when they were struggling the most.

This may not come across as significant to some, but the amount of jobs there that were affected was great. We’re talking about 120 direct jobs, and some of those jobs are not the most highly skilled jobs that we have out there. They’re wages that are being paid at sometimes a minimum rate. But those people were kept working during that time.

The ancillary jobs of other places that were around there, whether or not that was the local veterinarians, the local feed places, and the other transportation people that were there…. They were able to keep their season open at a time where owners were just simply shipping their horses down south, and so go the jobs.

[10:55 a.m.]

The COVID business grants were as significant to the small businesses and owners and employees as were the MSP eliminations in 2020. Now, in 2024, we see the employer health tax threshold change. This change comes from government hearing small businesses who are asking for assistance.

Last spring the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services listened to various business organizations who had asked for the threshold to be changed. The report on the Budget 2024 consultations recommended to the Finance Ministry to look at those thresholds for small businesses, to address the impacts related to rising wages and inflation.

Changes to the thresholds were identified, and a recommendation from the committee to look at the thresholds has led to the recent changes. The 2024-25 budget has addressed what we heard and what changes were made.

I think it’s important at this point…. There are members on the other side that sat on this committee. It’s important to say that out of the 375 presentations that were given to us, we heard it loud and clear, and government heard it loud and clear. The recommendations that were put forward were acted upon for those small businesses that were there. These changes are estimated to save businesses more than $100 million annually.

Now we are supporting the success of small and mid-sized businesses by increasing the threshold for the employer health tax. We’ve heard the calls from the business community to allow small and medium business to hire more before they have to pay the employer health tax. We’re doubling the exemption on the threshold from $500,000 to $1 million effective immediately. Businesses with payrolls between $1 million and $1.5 million will continue to partially be exempt and will pay less.

What does this mean? So 90 percent of businesses will now be exempt from the employer health tax, which is up from 85 percent under the current rules that were there. This additional 5 percent increase actually applies to over 9,000 businesses in B.C. As far as the other part of the exemption, where they’ve reduced their tax that they’re paying, that is 2 percent of all businesses that are out there. This equates to another 4,100 businesses that will see a reduced payroll tax bill.

B.C.’s EHT rate is at 1.95 percent. It’s tied to the lowest, and now meeting the same, exemption threshold as Ontario. Not-for-profit and charitable organizations will continue to benefit from higher exemption and the full rate threshold, as well as special rules for locations. We’re going to continue to support growing businesses while improving health care for all people in British Columbia.

I have an exercise in math. I do believe…. I’m going to speculate that the MLA for Cariboo-Chilcotin is going to respond. So at this point, I’ll let my voice have a rest. If he wants to sharpen his pencil for my math, I look forward to his comments.

L. Doerkson: I hope to, I guess, demonstrate my concern, really, around access to programs that have been announced. I want to demonstrate some of the pressure that I feel businesses are under today.

I think we can all agree that the small businesses of British Columbia obviously play a crucial role in our economy and, of course, our communities. However, make no mistake about it. The businesses are paying higher costs than ever.

This is a time of unprecedented challenges facing small business owners in British Columbia. Labour shortages and increased inflation are among many factors that have led to rapidly increasing costs of doing business in this province. We’re not far removed from a pandemic that brought years of economic hardship to small businesses in all industries across this province. The tourism sector was particularly hard hit as the world came to a halt.

[11:00 a.m.]

Many small businesses are still recovering from these challenging times yet are being forced to endure an endless blizzard of new taxes and costs just to keep their doors open.

However, the concern I hear most when speaking with business owners, particularly in Cariboo-Chilcotin, is the rise of crime that we are seeing across this province. This is a new challenge facing small business owners, as violent crime has increased 40 percent since 2016. The sudden increase in break-ins, broken windows and other property crimes is taking a toll on businesses in our cities and in our communities.

This rise in crime did not magically happen overnight. It is largely as a result of the prolific offenders that continue to be released time and time again, only to terrorize and victimize even more innocent people and businesses.

You can see the results in our downtown cores, with businesses forced to install fencing, shutters and other security measures just to deter theft and vandalism. In the cities, some employees are having to wear stab vests in fear of random assaults, and some shops, no longer able to insure, are even having to close their doors.

In Nanaimo, one business had their windows broken seven times in seven weeks. In Quesnel, 12 businesses have been the target of criminals in the last two months, some of them multiple times. In Williams Lake, businesses such as the Walk-Rite Shoes store have been the victim of repeat offenders not being held to account for looting businesses.

Last year a survey asked 500 Metro Vancouver, Fraser Valley, Kelowna, Kamloops, Prince George and Victoria businesses a simple question: how long can they continue to operate under the current levels of crime? Just under 50 percent of businesses responded with “two years or less.”

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

The cost of increased security systems, replacing windows and broken doors was the final nail in the coffin of affordability for many small businesses in British Columbia. Many have seen their dream of operating a small business fade away as crime costs run rampant. Restaurants and shops considered staples of their cities and towns have closed their doors, taking with them a small piece of the character of that community.

In response, business improvement associations across this province have started their own programs to support businesses affected by increasing vandalism and crime and have called on the province to do the same.

However, in a fashion that has become all too familiar for British Columbians, the program rolled out was too little, too late, with too much red tape. Three months in, the securing small business rebate program has distributed a mere $71,000 of $10½ million that was allotted. At this rate, only 3 percent of the funds will be distributed by the January 31 deadline, and it will take 37 years for the entire $10½ million to be given to small businesses.

It’s a devastating blow to the small business owners across this province forced to bear the cost of a broken criminal justice system. Businesses across the province facing constant theft, vandalism and social chaos now find themselves entangled in the bureaucratic red tape of a program that was supposed to provide relief.

Entrepreneurs in B.C. are starting to lose hope. It’s time to reduce costs, cut red tape and deliver the support that these businesses so dearly deserve.

M. Starchuk: Thank you to the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin. I will agree that small businesses do play a critical part in our economy across the province.

The part about math that I wanted to talk about started from a small business owner who had concerns over the raise to the minimum wage table that was out there. While we all agree that everyone deserves a fair wage for a day’s pay, for some small businesses…. The increase that was coming forward, that was based on the cost of living of 3.9 percent, was a little bit unnerving for this one small business owner. So he came in, and we realized that he had an annual payroll last year of over $800,000.

[11:05 a.m.]

In 2023, he paid just under $9,000 in EHT. With the increase in minimum wage, he was concerned about what was going to happen in 2024. That’s when we sat down and took a look at what was there with regards to his payroll coming up this year.

With his payroll now at $840,000 a year, and with the EHT threshold doubling, the business owner that I was speaking to directly realized that there was a cost savings of nearly $10,000 with the change in the threshold. In the words of this small business owner, this is a game-changer to them.

Shortly after the budget speech, I met with my chamber of commerce. I met with my BIA. To say that they were ecstatic over the threshold changes to the EHT would be an understatement. They felt that in excess of 90 percent of their members that they represent in that area, which are small business owners, will finally get the ability to move themselves forward.

I spoke to one small business owner that was sitting on the threshold of a $500,000 payroll. Now, knowing that the threshold had changed to $1 million, they knew that with the added cost of that tax now being gone, the burden would no longer be with business.

I think what I’ll leave with is that I am happy with what the government has done recently to put the money back into the pockets of small businesses, with changing the threshold of the EHT, and what it plans to do with other small businesses and allow them to grow to the size that they feel that they can comfortably get to.

Hon. J. Osborne: I ask that the House consider proceeding with Motion 19, standing in the name of the member for Prince George–Valemount.

Deputy Speaker: Members, unanimous consent of the House is required to proceed to Motion 19 without disturbing the priorities of the motions preceding it.

Leave granted.

Private Members’ Motions

MOTION 19 — WOMEN’S HEALTH CARE

S. Bond: Today I do move the following motion:

[Be it resolved that this House agrees that Government must do more to address the crisis in women’s health care.]

I’m very glad to have the opportunity this morning to rise and make some comments about the issue that impacts millions of British Columbians, an issue that is essential that we discuss yet is very often overlooked.

We know that the health care system in our province is failing women. There is gender inequality in health care, and there are wide gaps in research and treatment. Those gaps can mean major health issues.

While our entire health care system is failing British Columbians, it is also true that women are more likely to struggle to receive the care they need when they need it. There are countless examples across the province of how our system is failing women and gender-diverse people.

Right now, for example, at B.C. Women’s Hospital, the average wait time for the chronic pain and endometriosis program is currently nine to 12 months. Additionally, a doctor’s referral is required to enter the program, complicating matters for those who simply do not have access to a family doctor. Anyone knows that someone who has lived with endometriosis knows how long it takes to get a diagnosis, and that 12 months feels like an eternity when dealing with debilitating chronic pain.

On top of that, B.C. has the second-worst discrepancy in pay between doctors who perform reproductive and urologic procedures on female patients, at 61 percent. This is more than double the average pay gap.

We have regularly heard horrific stories that women have faced in our medical system. We’ve heard the story of Sonia, who lost three litres of blood in the hallway of Langley Memorial Hospital while waiting for treatment following a miscarriage. Of Allison, who was told to consider medically assisted death because she couldn’t get access to cancer treatment. And of Jane, who had a heart attack months after being told that her cardiac symptoms were probably just anxiety-related.

I want to focus for a moment on heart-related issues. Heart disease is the leading cause of death among Canadian women, killing seven times as many women as breast cancer.

[11:10 a.m.]

In 2019, 20 percent more women in Canada died of heart failure than men, and 32 percent more women died of stroke, yet two-thirds of participants in clinical trials on heart disease and stroke have been men. Misdiagnosis is a huge problem when it comes to heart-related issues with women, as they are much more likely to have symptoms dismissed or go unrecognized because they are so different than what presents in men.

To quote Heart and Stroke: “For women’s…health to improve, the health care system needs to catch up to the fact that women’s hearts are different, and ensure that new knowledge about women and heart disease is translated into better prevention, diagnosis and treatment.” After all, if we fail to study women, how can we possibly find optimal ways to treat or care for them?

Did you know that the most common symptoms of a heart attack in women include discomfort in the neck, jaw, shoulder, upper back or upper belly, shortness of breath, nausea and vomiting? It’s not what we’ve been taught to identify as the typical appearance of a heart attack. It’s why half of all women who experience heart attacks still have their symptoms go unrecognized, and they are less likely than men to receive treatments and medications in a timely way.

That is why it is so incredibly important to have women represented in studies and in clinical trials and why funding for research and education specifically on women’s heart health is so critical.

We have to improve access to family doctors, to specialists, to imaging and to treatment. We must invest in education and research that will ensure that women in British Columbia do not fall through the cracks. That is going to take exceptional leadership. Currently, this province is being failed by a government that is unwilling to take the lead.

Women deserve high-quality health care, and they deserve it when and where they need it. Unfortunately, the consequences are significant when that is not the case. I think there are very few British Columbians who would argue that they can get the health care when and where they need it today in our province. We can, and we absolutely must, do better for women in British Columbia.

K. Paddon: I’m happy to rise and speak to this important topic and thank the member for their comments.

I know that I hear from people all the time about the impactful actions and investments our government is making in health to work to address inequities in the system and to promote gender equity. I’m happy to canvass some of the most recent work.

I’m going to start with HPV. Our government has taken real action to eliminate cervical cancer in B.C. The human papillomavirus, or HPV, is a leading cause of cervical cancer, and early detection is crucial for treatment.

As of January 29, 2024, individuals from 25 to 69 with a cervix can access cervical cancer screenings at home by ordering a kit to self-screen for HPV. Cervical cancer primarily affects cisgender women as well as transgender men and many non-binary people. The screening, in making it more accessible for those who face barriers, moves it to a place where people can access it if they’re rural and, from what I’ve heard from people as well, also reduces trauma for people who have previously experienced it.

Now, 99 percent of cervical cancers are caused by high-risk HPV. This is why we’ve also recently announced that we’re expanding access to the HPV vaccine to males born in 2005, which will help reduce infection rates amongst people of all genders. The cervical cancer self-screening expansion program is just one of the ways we’re working to improve cancer prevention and treatment in B.C.

In 2023, we launched B.C.’s cancer care action plan, which outlines the key actions our government is taking to meaningfully reduce cancer rates and improve patient health outcomes over the next ten years. Breast cancer screening improvements are an important area of women’s health, which is why B.C.’s cancer care action plan includes a commitment to expand breast brachytherapy and interprovincial planning for proton therapy treatment.

Something I hear about at least weekly is our government’s action to provide free contraception and IUDs. British Columbia is the first jurisdiction in North America to provide universal, free contraceptives to all residents. This program is a significant step forward in women’s health and the health care of anyone who can become pregnant.

[11:15 a.m.]

There is so much more that I can describe, from coverage of in vitro fertilization to gender-affirming care, collaboration and action in maternal health and midwifery, and work specifically on Indigenous women’s health, but I don’t have time to canvass it all.

I will, however, touch on a huge threat to women’s health: gender-based violence. Gender-based violence is a prevailing issue in our province which can lead to a myriad of adverse health outcomes, including to physical, mental and sexual health. This is a public health issue. Our government has taken significant steps in meaningfully addressing gender-based violence through the Safe and Supported provincial gender-based-violence action plan. As part of the action plan, we’re investing more than $60 million each year for gender-based-violence supports and service.

It is critical that we continue to take action to address women’s health and support systems, access and participation. This motion, brought by the opposition, is an important topic that I hope we can debate frankly, because despite needs and ideas passionately expressed by members opposite, past actions have been drastically and damagingly contrary to the holistic health and well-being of women.

What kinds of actions am I talking about? When in government, the opposition removed the requirement for cabinet submissions to be evaluated under a gender lens. They scrapped pay equity legislation. They cut the B.C. NDP’s child care program. They eliminated the Women’s Equality Ministry. They cut legal aid by 40 percent and laid off victim services workers, the people who help sexual assault and domestic violence victims through torturous criminal trials. They eliminated the funding for B.C.’s 37 women’s centres.

A quote from Jack Thornburgh, chair of the Council of Canadians in 2003: “This government attacks women’s services and women’s health and thus also attacks children. None of us, even Liberals, voted for that.” I think it’s clear that our government understands that there is more work to be done.

I don’t just mean more work to clean up the damage that was done by the Leader of the Opposition and his party when they were in government, but more work to build on the significant actions we have already taken to continue to focus, as a government, to address women’s health. As part of that work, as I see it, we also have to stand up against harmful cuts and policy decisions and those who would repeat them, or worse, at the expense of women, if they were given the option.

C. Oakes: Today I rise to address a matter of profound significance: the crisis in women’s health and, particularly, how it impacts our seniors. The crisis demands the immediate action of this NDP government, and our B.C. United caucus is concerned by this government’s inability to deliver the services that people need. Health care should be equally accessed to all British Columbians. In reality, it’s not.

This NDP government’s failure to address inadequate seniors care, the shortage of family doctors and funding insufficiencies has burdened seniors in our province. While all British Columbians are experiencing a soaring cost of living, a crumbling health care system and an out-of-control housing crisis, the impact on our senior women is particularly significant.

Seniors are the backbone of our province, and they deserve respect. However, we continue to witness, under this government, seniors failing to be adequately cared for in accessing the services that they rely on. While all seniors are impacted by these crises, we know that women are disproportionately impacted.

In addition to these systemic challenges, senior women bear an additional weight of caregiving, resource insecurity and isolation, more than their male counterparts. Notably, almost a quarter of all seniors find themselves providing care to family members or friends with a long-term condition, and 40 percent of women are more likely than men to offer both paid and unpaid care to children or adults facing long-term conditions. My mom was one of these incredible women, and I saw the impact that it took on her health.

[11:20 a.m.]

As well, poverty rates among elderly women tend to be highest amongst women, especially widows, and it’s getting worse under this government. This burden is magnified in our rural areas, where senior women face even greater challenges due to the shortage of medical resources and access issues. Seventeen percent of rural seniors find themselves without access to a family doctor or nurse practitioner.

Additionally, the shortage of acute care beds is stark in rural regions, with 70 percent fewer beds per thousand people than their urban counterparts. Yes, I said 70 percent. This shortage not only leads to longer stays and alternative care, but also requires senior women in rural areas to travel extensively for necessary medical attention.

I’ve met with so many women who have loved ones in the hospital. The impacts it’s taking on them as they wait months upon months upon months to access necessary long-term-care beds…. This disproportionately impacts women in our rural communities.

Under this NDP government, seniors are simply being left behind. Programs like the Shelter Aid For Elderly Renters, or SAFER, are significantly underfunded and fail to meet the basic needs of people across this province.

Currently seniors living in Vancouver are spending over 60 percent of their income on rent, and many seniors are struggling to find affordable housing, even with a benefit from the SAFER program. Particularly alarming is the impact on single senior women who are disproportionately affected by SAFER’s shortcomings as they are more likely than men to have a lower income.

When senior women lack stable living conditions, grapple with limited incomes or struggle to afford necessary medications, their health is significantly impacted. Clearly, more needs to be done.

This government is failing our seniors. I plead with this government to please prioritize the health and well-being of senior women in this province.

B. Anderson: I am absolutely thrilled to be able to speak on the actions that our government is taking on supporting women and gender-diverse people, particularly in terms of health care.

As I was thinking about this topic, I thought I would come up with my top-ten list of favourite actions that we are taking. These are significant leadership actions, and I am delighted that the Minister of Health is here so we can celebrate the actions that he, our Premier and our government are collectively taking to support women.

Number one is free birth control. We are the first jurisdiction across North America to offer free birth control. We are also offering free IUD and cervical anaesthetic. The abortion pill is now free. We offer free home HPV cervical screening, and we are also expanding the HPV vaccine.

We are now going to be providing free IVF treatment. We are also improving maternal health. We are expanding midwifery in B.C. We are supporting gender-based violence. Number 10 is that we are the first jurisdiction in western Canada to offer gender-affirming surgery.

These are the top ten things that our government is doing.

When I look across Canada and I look to the south, I am very concerned that we could go backwards, especially when I look at the actions of the current leader of the opposition.

These are the top-ten actions that they took for women. First, they removed gender-based analysis from cabinet submissions. What does that mean? That means for every cabinet submission, you used to have to look through a gender lens to determine how this was going to impact women and diverse people. They didn’t think that was important, so they scrapped that. And that is every government decision. Thank goodness we now have that again.

[11:25 a.m.]

They scrapped pay equity legislation. Shame. They cut B.C. NDP’s child care program.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members. Members.

One member has the floor. You will have your opportunity to speak later in this debate.

Member for Nelson-Creston.

B. Anderson: They also cut legal aid by 40 percent. They also laid off victim services workers. Shame. They eliminated funding for women’s centres. They rolled back wages for the lowest-paid health care workers with a new HEU contract, saying that those workers were not valued as part of our health care teams.

They cut welfare for single mothers. They welcomed social conservatives. The leader of their party says they welcome social conservatives. Now, these are people that fundamentally do not support women.

My favourite action that the Leader of the Opposition took was actually pointing a finger gun at me during question period. That’s the type of leadership that this opposition…. You know, they’re hoping to become government. We can absolutely not let that happen.

Our government is taking action to support people, to support women and gender-diverse people across British Columbia. And we cannot go back. We cannot afford to go back. This is a human rights issue. This is a gender equity issue. This is a health issue.

Question of Privilege
(Reservation of Right)

R. Merrifield: I reserve my right to raise a question of privilege related to that speech there. I’m going to fact-check the entire thing and bring back the actual truth.

Debate Continued

E. Sturko: I’m not sure how any member of this government could stand up and celebrate when the head of obstetrics and gynecology at Surrey Memorial Hospital says that under this government, women are actually in danger. And I’ll get to those facts a little bit later.

Speaking of facts, I just find it very disappointing to see that the member for Nelson-Creston had very few facts in her actual speech this morning.

But I’m here to rise to speak to this motion and to speak to a very important issue in fertility treatment, and that’s in vitro fertilization, known as IVF. This government has finally decided to announce support for this critical treatment. The B.C. United caucus has been calling for funding for this critical program for two years. In fact, if you go to my Facebook, I got receipts. You’ll see one of my campaign videos from 2022. Unfortunately, like many NDP government announcements, it actually isn’t funded, and it’s not expected to be funded for at least a year.

This is an issue that I have personal experience with. In 2010, I was diagnosed with a fertility issue, and it was determined that the only option for my spouse and I to have a child was through IVF. I was 35. I began the treatment at the Pacific Centre for Reproductive Medicine here in Burnaby, B.C., and I was fortunate to be able to produce a significant number of healthy eggs. I was blessed to give birth to my first son in 2011.

In 2013, my spouse and I decided that we would try to have another baby, and we went through another round of IVF, this time at age 38. I produced less than half the eggs that I did just three years prior, and I asked my doctor what happened. He just told me, straight up: “You got older.”

The reality is of this women’s fertility issue that a biological clock is real. And the reality is that this government’s failure to fund IVF means that while our Premier is stuck in analysis paralysis, there are British Columbians who will age out of the program before it even begins. With every month that goes by, their dreams of giving birth to their own child diminishes.

Other provinces in Canada have been funding IVF for years. In fact, Quebec began its program in 2010. La belle province has studied age factors and other considerations and refined its legislation over the past 14 years. Ontario: funding IVF since 2015. So why is it that B.C. is always the outlier?

Why are the NDP content with letting people’s dreams of parenthood slip away? Clearly, this government doesn’t see this as a real, urgent priority. This is a procedure that’s already being done in B.C., and all it would take is this government to create a billing code to make it a reality today.

[11:30 a.m.]

Another sad reality is that for many women, they’re going to need more than one treatment to conceive, and that’s even if they can fund one treatment in the first place. As Carolynn Dubé, executive director of Fertility Matters Canada, says, IVF will “remain out of reach for many people under a provincial funding plan, because they still have to pay out of pocket before recouping expenses.”

I’m going to skip ahead here, because I just also want to mention that women are in danger in this province right now as a result of a lack of funding in health care. I’m talking about a promise to fund expansions to Surrey Memorial Hospital. This was a promise made multiple times by our current Health Minister, yet when we look at this year’s budget, there is no funding for the expansion at Surrey Memorial Hospital.

This comes after urgent outcry from doctors, including the head of gynecology and obstetrics from Surrey Memorial, talking about the fact that they’ve had to divert women and send them home because there’s no place to give them a room while they’re in labour — in fact, sending women home who are dilated further than they ever had sent them home in years past.

Let’s not forget the story of Harneesh Hothi who, in June 2023, was forced to give birth in her car because she was turned away. Can you imagine the terror of not knowing what will happen to you or your baby? Reflecting on the experience, she said: “This was a horrible experience. We were all in shock at the time. What will happen next? Is the baby going to be okay? Will I be okay?” No expectant mother should be forced to go through these conditions, and this government’s lack of care is having these types of repercussions.

It’s not just about a lack of staff. Women are bleeding to death and having to receive blood transfusions because they can’t receive gynecological surgeries due to a lack of suites. We need a government that will prioritize women’s health and seek to deliver better services so they don’t have to go through this broken health care system. A B.C. United government will listen to the voices of women, doctors and nurses, and deliver better access to medical care for women in our province.

A. Singh: The role of government is to be ever vigilant and to strive for better. So of course, we will always do more, and that’s exactly what this government has been doing since 2017.

Health is all-encompassing and does not stop at what a doctor deals with. Economic realities and social pressures also affect health. Our province continues to make impactful investments to health to address inequities in British Columbia’s health care system and society and to promote gender equity in society in general. That’s how you deal with health. Those are meaningful steps that we have taken and will continue to take.

Every single decision that this government makes is viewed and analyzed through a diversity and equity lens to ensure that we take care of everyone in the province and don’t leave behind people that have historically been left behind, including women.

That’s in stark contrast to what happened when the members opposite made those decisions. One of the first things they did was to remove the requirement for cabinet submissions to be evaluated under a gender lens. My friend spoke about it eloquently. This was implemented by the B.C. NDP government in the 1990s. What that did was just amplify and reinforce the discriminatory status quo that had existed, effectively marginalizing women.

They scrapped pay equity legislation. There was a whole bunch of kerfuffle over there. I’ll point them to the Human Rights Code Amendment Act of 2001. It’s there in black and white. Just think of where we would have been as a society had they not done that.

They cut B.C. NDP’s child care program.

We attend a lot of events and announcements as representatives. One of the most memorable ones that I was at was in Richmond at the Jewish Day School. It was a child care announcement. The Premier was there. The Prime Minister was there. A young engineer was there, and she spoke. She imparted how truly transforming the child care assistance that she was now able to get for her two children was for her and for her family. She was able to return to work and do what she was educated and trained for. You could literally feel the greater sense of empowerment she now had. Her mental health was better.

Again, I wonder where we would have been as a society were it not for the deep, regressive cuts that were made before. They literally — let me say this — eliminated the women’s equality ministry. What more can you say than that?

[11:35 a.m.]

Well, actually, you can say more than that. They were the architects of the largest layoff of women, mostly women of colour, in North America in one shot with their actions against the lowest-paid workers in health care. If you care about people’s health, you care about the people that work in health care. Our government reversed that.

The impact to families of that decision, to their mental and physical health, is unimaginable. Here in this House we have several of those people whose families suffered as a result of that decision.

I was a young lawyer, just starting out, in 1999. I took legal aid cases at that point. It was a pretty good system that had been set up in the last few years, starting in the early ’90s. In the next few years, I saw legal aid decimated and cut by 40 percent. Victim services workers, the people who help rape and domestic violence victims throughout criminal trials, were fired. They eliminated funding for B.C.’s 37 women’s centres — actions that hurt women’s mental and physical health.

There is so much more of what happened that was wrong, but I want to focus on some of what our government has done. My colleagues have spoken about it. Just last month, we announced funding for in vitro fertilization. No one should be denied the opportunity to have a child because of how much money they make, whom they love and whether they have a partner. However, many people in B.C. can’t conceive without this help. So we stepped in.

My friend opposite spoke about Quebec bringing this forward in 2010, and Ontario in 2015. I just kind of want to warn them that that side was in power during that time.

Anyways, British Columbia is the first jurisdiction in North America to provide universal, free contraception to all residents of British Columbia. This program is a significant step forward in women’s health care and health care of anyone who can become pregnant. All of this work was done closely with the Doctors of B.C. and B.C. Family Doctors, to determine the appropriate changes needed to contraceptive fees and to improve the fee-for-service compensation.

My friend also spoke about the HPV self-screening. It’s really revolutionary, allowing…. We all know that early screening for cancer is crucial.

I’m running out of time, but I did want to speak about child care — again, transformative.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.

T. Wat: All of us in this room should be able to recognize that our province is experiencing a health care crisis. We have a shortage of health care professionals. One in five British Columbians doesn’t have a family doctor, and our walk-in clinic wait times are the worst in the country.

This is not news to us, and this crisis continues to affect every single resident of B.C. We also know that the crisis does not affect everyone equally. Marginalized groups such as women, but also racialized people, Indigenous people and immigrants, often face additional barriers to accessing safe and culturally sensitive care. Women’s health must be viewed through an intersectional lens. While all women share similar challenges in accessing health care, our diverse backgrounds and experiences mean that we each face unique obstacles.

I would like to share a personal story to highlight the urgent need for culturally sensitive care in our province. My late husband and I, together with our seven-year-old daughter, emigrated from Hong Kong to B.C. in 1989. We were joined by my parents two years later. As they got older, they required additional care, as many seniors do. My parents had lived in Hong Kong for most of their lives. They did not speak English, and they were from a different culture and a different time.

When it became clear that they would need to be placed in a long-term-care home, the options were extremely limited. These care homes are hard enough to get into as it is, and there is only one long-term-care home in Chinatown that offers services for Chinese British Columbians in their first language and in line with their cultural norms, providing traditional Chinese meals. This is the only care home of its kind in all of the Lower Mainland.

[11:40 a.m.]

My parents were not able to get in until towards the end of their lives. Instead, I was forced to send them to a mainstream long-term-care home in New Westminster, where their condition gradually deteriorated, due to a lack of culturally sensitive care. Both my parents passed away during the pandemic, at the age of 98. While they had lived long, happy lives, I wonder if things would have been different if they had access to the culturally sensitive care they required.

My parents’ story illustrates the importance of language justice in health care, especially for immigrants and seniors. While most new immigrants in B.C. today speak English, it can still be difficult to convey complex medical issues in a non-native language.

Our health care system should serve all British Columbians, and B.C. is an incredibly diverse province. Twenty-nine percent of British Columbians are immigrants, and 17 percent do not speak English or French as their first language. When it comes to health care, miscommunication due to language barriers can be life-threatening.

In addition to language, things like social norms, family values, gender roles, diet, and cultural and spiritual beliefs and practices could all serve as barriers, highlighting the need for greater access to culturally safe care in our province. It is particularly important for women, who are already more likely to face barriers in the health care system.

Culturally sensitive health care is not just important for immigrants but for many marginalized groups, including racialized and Indigenous individuals and communities. Reports like In Plain Sight have exposed systemic racism that still exists within our health care system. Yet four years after the report’s release, this NDP government has not taken the necessary action to remedy this. Indigenous women specifically have some of the worst health outcomes out of any groups in B.C. This is absolutely unacceptable.

Health care is a human right, and we all should have the right to access this care in a way that is culturally sensitive. The diversity of our province and the people who live here must be accommodated and considered in our system. Right now, people, particularly women and gender-diverse British Columbians, are falling through the cracks. It’s time for this NDP government to step up to provide equitable health care for everyone in our province.

R. Leonard: I rise to speak to the motion put forward by the member for Prince George–Valemount and thank her for the opportunity to talk about how government investments can provide the best health care we can for British Columbia’s women and gender-diverse people.

I know that discoveries continue to give us new ways to help people live their best lives. I also know that our government continues to make important health investments to take advantage of providing the best care we can in a public health system. I know that that includes addressing inequities in British Columbia’s health care system to promote gender equity.

There’s a broader precursor to good health too. The social determinants of health are reflective of all that government could tackle to improve health. So what have we done? Well, we reintroduced a robust GBA+ — that’s gender-based analysis plus — back into government after a gender lens requirement for cabinet submissions was removed by the previous government. We’re ensuring every government initiative advances more equity for women and gender-diverse people, including in health measures.

Income reflects women’s and gender-diverse people’s health. We reintroduced and are advancing child care to become a core service that women and primary caregivers can rely on to be able to join the workforce and provide for their families. This is after a decade and a half of falling behind after the previous government’s cut of a growing, safe and affordable child care program.

Along with child care, minimum wage has been raised to be more reflective of making ends meet after the previous government did things like introducing a training wage lower than minimum wage. Imagine today’s new women workers having to accept a 25 percent wage lower than the minimum.

[11:45 a.m.]

Social vulnerability is another determinant of health. We have brought back sexual assault centres cut by the previous government. We’re supporting survivors of gender-based violence, which is so prevalent in B.C. Increased rates of depression, PTSD, brain injuries, sexually transmitted diseases, unwanted pregnancies and pregnancy complications, and, tragically, sometimes death…. These are all bad health outcomes that could be avoided or mitigated with proper supports, and that’s what we’re doing.

Let’s also look at some of the direct health initiatives our government has undertaken to improve the lives of women and gender-diverse people. Reproductive health is being supported with free access to contraception, an abortion drug that pre-empts surgery, gender-affirming surgery for trans people that’s closer to home, take-home HPV tests for cervical cancer screening and a single cycle of in vitro fertilization.

I’d like to share the words of Tasha. She wrote about how incredibly amazing she thinks the funded IVF announcement is. She went through the agony that is experienced by one in six Canadians and how IVF can overcome the debilitating circumstances of infertility.

She says: “The heartbreak and unpredictability of infertility can be all-consuming when you’re in the middle of it. But every single doctor’s appointment, invasive procedure and all the tears were worth it when I got to see my boys’ little faces and have the privilege of watching them grow up.”

Maternal health is an important priority for our government. Last year, capital investments began expansions to the Burnaby Hospital redevelopment and the expansion of Cariboo Memorial Hospital to respond to maternity and women’s health needs in those regions. We’re expanding the midwifery program with 70 percent more seats at UBC for new entrants and internationally trained midwives. When I had my kids, midwifery was illegal. Today, more and more choose a midwife, especially here in B.C.

In our cancer care strategy we’re taking meaningful actions to reduce cancer rates and increase health outcomes. We added $440 million in 2023, and Budget ’24 would add a further $270 million. One example is supporting timely breast cancer care while we build capacity at home — better than long wait times for treatment and greater risk of poor outcomes.

As always, there’s more to do, especially in health care. Speaking in this House previously, I have highlighted the contributions that women have made in this House, contributions that help change the lives of women.

It’s clear that the strength of 29 women on government side and also a majority of women in cabinet is showing how the voice of women has and will continue to be acted on.

K. Kirkpatrick: This motion is about women’s health. So why am I going to spend my entire time right now talking about child care or, to be more specific, the lack of child care or the child care desert in British Columbia created under this NDP government?

I’m deeply concerned about the state of women’s health, particularly the stress they endure due to adequate child care provisions. B.C. is far behind on its promise to create child care spaces, let alone $10 per day. What is worse is that this NDP government is not only not creating additional spaces. We are losing child care spaces in British Columbia with the biggest casualty being infant-to-toddler spaces.

We can listen to the sound clips from the NDP government over and over. The reality is that there are 10,000 less children in child care this year since the NDP have formed government.

The NDP’s inability to deliver on their signature election promise of $10 a day is evident. Less than 10 percent of the promised child care spaces are offered at that pledged $10-a-day rate. So of those lucky enough to even find child care, nine out of ten of those families are unfairly deprived of the affordable child care they were assured of in successive elections. This is another example of this government spending more and doing less.

Studies have shown that gender roles and expectations place additional burdens on women in accessing health care due to a lack of appropriate, available and affordable child care. A 2022 Kaiser survey found that 24 percent of women could not find time to go to the doctor, 23 percent could not take time off work and 14 percent of women missed or delayed their own health care because of a lack of child care.

[11:50 a.m.]

It places immense stress on women. Juggling work and child care without adequate support can lead to heightened levels of stress and anxiety, disrupted sleep patterns, irregular exercise routines and compromised nutrition. These factors contribute to physical health challenges, including chronic conditions.

Lack of affordable child care options force women to make career sacrifices such as reducing working hours or leaving the workforce altogether. Contrary to the NDP’s false claim that accessible child care has contributed to more than 100,000 women joining the workforce since 2017, the reality paints a starkly different picture. Under this NDP’s tenure, the labour force participation rate for women has dropped by 1.5 percent and the employment rate has fallen by 2 percent for women in British Columbia.

Now, these are not mere fluctuations. They signify a decline in women’s share of the workforce amidst a child care crisis. Here’s a quote from a February CBC story. “Each month Natasha Hartson pulls out her spreadsheet of licensed child-care facilities in Kamloops, B.C., where she and her family live, and starts calling around to see if she can get her daughter into one of them.” Can you imagine how stressful that is? There are many more women like Natasha out there.

Last fall, along with the MLA for Skeena, I met with a group of parents in Terrace to talk about the child care desert they are facing in more rural communities. A doctor and a paramedic, both moms, told us they had reduced shifts due to the inability to get child care. Most child care providers are women. It’s still the fact, so I don’t want to forget the impact that this has on child care providers and the women that work in child care centres.

This provincial government is unable to get the money out the door that is provided to them. Hundreds of millions of dollars from the federal government, yet they are unable to get proper funding out to these child care providers, causing stress, anxiety, women losing sleep because they don’t know if government is actually going to come through and pay the fees that they’re committed to pay.

Government is sitting on money they can’t seem to spend. We owe it to women and families to acknowledge the failures of the current child care system and demand meaningful action from this NDP government. Seven years after this NDP government promise, it continues to fail women in British Columbia and has fallen behind all other provinces in meeting its child care commitments, particularly now the wage grid.

It is a fact that the lack of appropriate and affordable child care has negative impacts on women’s health, and this government better do better.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

H. Sandhu: It is an honour to work with many amazing women in our government’s caucus who work hard to support our government’s work to invest in women’s health care. I’m glad that now the opposition is also talking about child care because, before, there was a disconnect understanding health and the contributing factors impacting health, the social determinants of health.

It’s music to my ears finally hearing about child care, when there is proof that in 2017 and 2020, when I ran provincially, both opposition candidates of the time, one at a CBC recorded interview, one during all-candidates debate, said child care is not even possible, when I was speaking for child care and our government’s plan. So it’s good that tides are shifting.

Our government continues to make impactful investments in health care in general and with a focus to address the inequities in B.C.’s health care system, as well as to promote gender equity.

As highlighted, spoken by many of my colleagues, I want to share some of the investments, as we’re also making investments. But I want to share one quote by a senior in my constituency, Lila. She sent me a reply to one of the emails I sent to help her. She said:

“Thank you. Well done for the accurate information. I was put on a wait-list with a primary care clinic, was given the name by IHA social worker, and I met with a nurse practitioner who is now my medical person. All this in December.

[11:55 a.m.]

“This thrill of a lifetime is giving my friend the same name. She called and got taken in right away!! I used a walk-in clinic for several years. I brought my records to my new doctor, who was delighted. It was stressful being renovicted, threatened, and with homelessness. God bless Leslie McCulloch. I am at $900, not $1,300.”

She talks about the senior housing second phase that we supported in Vernon-Monashee: “Bless the government that believes in people. I was finally able to get my teeth fixed. I support the NDP with much gratitude.” So these are the impacts of investments we make.

In 2023, we launched B.C.’s cancer care plan, which outlines the key actions of our government’s will to take meaningfully reduced cancer rates and improve patient health outcomes in the next ten years. We’re expanding on the initial $440 million investment, announced in 2023, through Budget 2024, and investing an additional $270 million in ensuring that patients get the health care and supports they need.

Many talked about the HPV cervical cancer screening program. Self-screening does remove many barriers and obstacles, such as cultural barriers, history of trauma, the need for transportation, child care, booking time off work and traditional testing. B.C. is now the first province or territory in Canada to offer a cervix self-screening option and one of the first provinces or territories to transition to HPV testing for cervical cancer screening.

Breast cancer screening improvements are an important area of women’s health, which is why B.C.’s cancer care plan includes a commitment to expand breast care, brachytherapy and interprovincial planning for proton therapy.

It’s reassuring to hear all members of this House talking about this. I still remember encouraging remarks from the member for West Vancouver–Capilano to our B.C. NDP government’s former Premier, during the 2022 UBCM in Whistler, after an event and during the introduction of the newly elected member from south Surrey. The member thanked the Premier’s investments and support for the B.C. Cancer Agency and said how grateful she was to get great care during her journey, which is also commendable.

We’ll talk about how, of course, we’re the first province to cover the contraceptives. We get so many positive messages. I want to share a message from Savannah, who is also very encouraged and sent me a message saying: “Thank you for being part of a progressive government where I am saving $373 for my birth control prescription.” She shared the slip of her prescription. So that’s the kind of work we’re doing.

Women’s health is more than just health. It includes mental health. It includes their well-being, keeping them safe from the violence and gender-based violence. That’s the work we need to do and will continue to do and will continue to make on the progress we’ve made so far. Thank you so much for giving me the opportunity.

R. Merrifield: In September of 2022, a friend received alarming news from her doctor. A test revealed abnormal cells necessitating an immediate biopsy. She called me because, contrary to the expected two-week wait, three months elapsed before the procedure, which ultimately confirmed cancer.

Initially informed of a minor emergency surgery that was to be scheduled within weeks, she then faced repeated postponements over five months. These delays disrupted her family life, leading to, ultimately, job loss. But worse yet, when the surgery finally occurred, it was significantly more invasive than it would have been had it been performed when it should have.

This is just one example of how poorly women with cancer are treated in B.C. Over the last seven years, it’s become painfully clear that the needs of British Columbian women, especially those battling cancer, have been ignored.

Despite promises, there was no mention of improving access to cancer specialists or oncology services in the 2024 budget, no funding for vital infrastructure like the Kamloops or Nanaimo cancer centres to get care closer to home, and a deafening silence on addressing the urgent need for expanded cancer care services.

[12:00 p.m.]

This negligence is not just disappointing; it’s dangerous. Our cancer care system was best-in-class ten years ago and number one in outcomes, but it has deteriorated to the point of becoming an international embarrassment under the NDP. And it’s worse for women.

Stories have emerged of women being directed to medically assisted death because they cannot access timely treatment and of women getting surgery for cancer but being put on wait-lists to get on the wait-list to see a gynecologic oncologist. Only 20 percent of cancer patients referred to an oncologist are seen within the recommended two weeks, compared to 75 percent in Ontario.

The mean wait time for a first consultation with an oncologist has increased to 43 days, which is a 43 percent increase. The wait time for cervical cancer screening results in B.C. is six months.

With only eight gynecologic oncologists, British Columbia has the fewest of these subspecialties of any province in Canada. Average wait times for gynecological cancer specialist access at Vancouver General Hospital reached 99 percent, out of range of the benchmark.

I’ll quote from the Globe and Mail. “From April to June, just 4.7 percent of patients with endometrial cancer on B.C.’s Mainland were able to have surgery within the target timeline of eight weeks from diagnosis. Only 3.9 percent of patients with grade 1 and 2 tumours were able to have surgery within the target time of six weeks from referral, while no patients with grade 3 tumours were able to have surgery within the target time of four weeks from referral.”

The Speaker: Noting the hour, Member.

R. Merrifield: Women taking seven months to get breast cancer diagnosis. Women choosing to travel to the U.S. for surgery because they won’t get treatment in time, but only if they can afford it. British Columbian women deserve better.

The Speaker: Noting the hour, Member.

R. Merrifield: It’s time for this government to step up to prioritize women’s health and to end this crisis once and for all, before anyone else dies.

Noting the hour, I will move to adjourn.

R. Merrifield moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. J. Osborne moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. this afternoon.

The House adjourned at 12:02 p.m.