Fifth Session, 42nd Parliament (2024)
OFFICIAL REPORT
OF DEBATES
(HANSARD)
Thursday, March 7, 2024
Morning Sitting
Issue No. 393
ISSN 1499-2175
The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.
The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.
CONTENTS
| Routine Business | |
| Orders of the Day | |
| Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room | |
| Proceedings in the Birch Room | |
THURSDAY, MARCH 7, 2024
The House met at 10:06 a.m.
[The Speaker in the chair.]
Routine Business
Prayers and reflections: S. Chandra Herbert.
Introductions by Members
A. Olsen: Today I’d like to introduce Beatrice Sharp. Beatrice is a grade 11 student from St. Michaels University School.
She’s passionate about the environment and politics. She’s a volunteer with Youth to Sea and the City of Victoria Youth Council, working on projects such as painting to raise awareness of ocean pollution and raising money for rest homes and homelessness. She’s competed internationally in public speaking and came third. She is currently planning a sustainability conference for high school students in the greater Victoria area.
Will the House please join me in welcoming Beatrice and making her feel very welcome here.
H. Sandhu: Today I have two introductions to make.
The first one is an introduction of Dr. Lesley Cormack. She is principal and deputy vice-chancellor at the UBC’s Okanagan campus in Kelowna, B.C. Professor Cormack joined UBC in 2020 from the University of Alberta, where she served as dean of the faculty of arts from 2010 until 2020. Previously, Professor Cormack was dean of arts and social science at Simon Fraser University from 2007 to 2010.
She earlier taught at the University of Alberta in the department of history and classics for 17 years. We’re very lucky to have her at the UBCO, and I’m thrilled to welcome Dr. Cormack here at the precinct. I was under the impression she was going to be in the gallery, but I’ll be meeting with her later.
Please join me to welcome and thank Dr. Cormack for everything she does. Thank you.
My second introduction today is one of my incredible constituency advocates, Lisa Fenyedi. She’s celebrating her second employment anniversary. I just want to give her a shout-out for all she’s done over the last couple of years to go above and beyond to serve the people of Vernon-Monashee and beyond, along with Kaitlyn and Charlene.
Would the House please join me to thank Lisa for everything she does and thank my entire team.
The Speaker: Member for North Coast.
J. Rice: Thank you, hon. Speaker. Soon you’ll be saying member for North Coast–Haida Gwaii, with our name change.
In reflection of my constituency of North Coast–Haida Gwaii, I wanted to just make an introduction, because it’s very difficult for people from Haida Gwaii to get here. I did want to just acknowledge them, because there are many eyes glued to the television today watching the riveting events in this chamber, with an introduction of a bill that will greatly impact their lives for the positive.
It has a lot of history that goes back to the 1980s, and it’s extremely significant to the people of Haida Gwaii.
I wanted to acknowledge them, because I know they’re all watching. They have been so patient, so patient, but we’re finally here.
Hello and háw’aa to my friends in Haida Gwaii.
Introduction and
First Reading of Bills
BILL 8 — ATHLII GWAII
LEGACY TRUST (WINDING UP)
ACT
Hon. B. Ralston presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Athlii Gwaii Legacy Trust (Winding Up) Act.
Hon. B. Ralston: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.
I am pleased to introduce Bill 8, the Athlii Gwaii Legacy Trust (Winding Up) Act. This bill gives the trustees of the Athlii Gwaii Legacy Trust the power to wind up said trust by transferring the trust property to their corporate trustee, the Gwaii Trust Society.
By permitting this transfer, the trust property can be used to fund a broader scope of initiatives on Haida Gwaii, including renewable energy, environmental restoration and economic development. Broadening the scope of eligible projects will support job creation on Haida Gwaii to the benefit of the nearly 5,000 residents of the archipelago.
I invite my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill.
The Speaker: Members, the question is first reading of the bill.
Motion approved.
Hon. B. Ralston: I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
Bill 8, Athlii Gwaii Legacy Trust (Winding Up) Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
BILL M205 — NORTH ISLAND-COAST
DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVE
TRUST
AMENDMENT ACT, 2024
A. Olsen presented a bill intituled North Island-Coast Development Initiative Trust Amendment Act, 2024.
A. Olsen: I move that a bill intituled the North Island-Coast Development Initiative Trust Amendment Act, 2024, of which notice has been given in my name on the order paper, be introduced and read a first time now.
Last fall, the Island Coastal Economic Trust requested that gendered language in their act be removed and replaced with neutral language. However, when the minister tabled their amendments in Bill 42, the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendments Act, to increase the investment cap of the trust, they failed to bring forward these changes in any of the acts for investment trusts in the province.
During debate, I drafted an amendment on the fly to change one instance of gendered language, and the amendment passed. The effort was to raise the question why the seemingly innocuous request was not in the amendments that were tabled, and it ended up being an unfortunate oversight.
The Minister of Jobs, Economic Development and Innovation indicated a willingness to make the needed amendments, ensuring more neutral language and inclusivity. During the debate, I was encouraged to table amendments correcting other instances. However, I did not have the drafting capacity at the time.
The minister committed to making additional corrections to engender greater neutrality during this spring 2024 legislative session. I am tabling this bill now to ensure that there is an opportunity to follow through on that commitment, should the amending legislation not be introduced.
This private member’s bill offers an opportunity to continue the work that we started last fall. It follows the request of our friends at the Island Coastal Economic Trust by removing all gendered language from the North Island-Coast Development Initiative Trust Act.
The government has been making such changes in other laws, and I hope the minister sees fit to debate this bill so that together we can finish the work we started last fall and ensure the act guiding the ICET is more inclusive.
The Speaker: The question is first reading of the bill.
Motion approved.
A. Olsen: I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading in the next sitting of the House after today.
Bill M205, North Island-Coast Development Initiative Trust Amendment Act, 2024, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
Statements
(Standing Order 25B)
INTERNATIONAL WOMEN’S DAY
AND WOMEN IN
POLITICS
K. Kirkpatrick: I’m actually a bit nervous this morning. I’d written something yesterday that I wanted to talk about today. I read through it again, and I just thought: “This doesn’t quite do it for what I want to talk about today.” I’m going to start by what I had originally written, and we’ll go from there.
A world free of bias, stereotypes and discrimination, a world that’s diverse, equitable and inclusive: that’s what we’re supposed to be talking about and aspiring to on March 8, International Women’s Day.
Then I started to read some of the other things here. “A poignant reminder of the ongoing pursuit of gender equity, this day acknowledges the achievements of women while highlighting the challenges they still face.”
We often get in here, and we google and look up what this particular day is that we’re supposed to be talking about. What is this day that we’re supposed to be celebrating? And we end up in here talking about inclusivity and equitable societies and principled stands. But we don’t always know what those mean, and we don’t always talk about that personal part of ourselves.
I was thinking maybe I would talk about women in politics. So I started looking up women in politics. There are a lot of interesting stories in terms of how Kim Campbell had sexist comments. She was characterized as unstable and unreliable because she was twice divorced. Now, if we use that judgment for male politicians, it wouldn’t quite…. There would be a lot of conversation.
Jacinda Ardern from New Zealand. There was criticism of: how can a Prime Minister have a baby while they’re in office? That doesn’t make any sense. But men….
Many of you, the men in this room, have become fathers while we’ve been here in the House. I don’t hear anybody reporting on that or tweeting out about that.
We’ve really got to think about how we need to stand behind women.
I didn’t even start yet, and it’s over.
Well, thank you very much, and have a good and real International Women’s Day.
URBAN LONELINESS AND
PROMOTION OF SOCIAL
INTERACTION
J. Routledge: According to the Surgeon General of the United States, we are living through a pandemic of loneliness and isolation. He called it as serious a health risk as smoking 17 cigarettes a day. Loneliness is not only bad for our health; it’s bad for our communities, because lonely people are less likely to engage in community activities.
After COVID, many of us may have lost the habit of smiling at a stranger, having a brief chat on the bus or in the line at the grocery store. When we don’t connect with strangers, we reduce our chance to feel useful and needed and to form tighter bonds. Feeling disconnected from others can lead to fear and suspicion and to behaviour that deepens our isolation.
The Vancouver Foundation has found that people who live densely in highrises are the loneliest. There are factors unique to highrises that can worsen isolation. Newer highrises confine you to your own floor. The culture of some highrises discourages residents from greeting each other on the elevator, and there might even be a rule against posting a notice that invites neighbours to go for walks together.
But urban loneliness is not inevitable. Many cities are ensuring that the design of future highrises promotes social interaction. Even today some highrise residents are being proactive. I know of one highrise in Burnaby North where a resident created a Facebook page. Five hundred of his neighbours have joined. In another, the strata council includes the position of recreation director. Others have community gardens, buying clubs, libraries where residents can trade books, workshops where they can teach each other skills.
It is an inevitable necessity that our cities will become denser and more vertical. But if we are proactive, highrises can become neighbourhoods where the most important supply in our emergency kit can be each other.
GURDEV SINGH GILL
M. Lee: I rise to pay tribute to Dr. Gurdev Singh Gill, who passed away on December 17, 2023, at the age of 92 in Chandigarh, Punjab, India.
He immigrated to Canada when he was 18 in 1947 and worked in a mill in Duncan. Dr. Gill was the first Canadian of Indian origin to practise medicine in Canada in 1956 and the first graduate from the UBC school of medicine.
Dr. Gill had a medical practice in New Westminster for 40 years. His medical office was known as a community hall, where Indo-Canadians came from across Metro Vancouver to seek his guidance on how to better integrate into Canadian society.
He gave 70 years of his life to community leadership, including serving as the president of the Vancouver Khalsa Diwan Society, the oldest Sikh organization in Canada, dating back to 1906. He served as the president of the original Sikh Gurdwara on West 2nd Avenue in Vancouver, originally built in 1908.
Dr. Gill played a major leadership role in the building of the Ross Street Gurdwara, serving as the first president in 1970, when it opened. He also played a major role in establishing the No. 5 Road temple in Richmond, the Gurdwara Nanak Niwas.
In the 1960s, he co-founded the East Indian Canadian Citizens Welfare Association to advocate for a fairer immigration policy, including family reunification. As the president of the Indo-Canadian Friendship Society, which he founded in 1974, he supported many improvement projects for 27 villages in the Punjab to provide better access to drinking water, wastewater treatment plants, sewage disposal systems, roads, solar street lighting, as well as computers in schools.
In 1990, Dr. Gill was the first Canadian of Indian origin to be honoured with the Order of B.C. in its inaugural year here in this Legislature.
Dr. Gill’s life of leadership and service is an example to all of us, and we express our gratitude for his legacy of community building. He will always be remembered for being such a beacon of hope and leadership for our province.
BENSON FLORES AND
FUNDRAISER FOR MEMORIAL
MARKER
M. Elmore: There is an unmarked grave at the Mountain View Cemetery in Vancouver-Kensington, the district I have represented since 2009 as an MLA. Therein lies Benjamin Flores, or simply, Benson Flores.
Benson Flores lived on Bowen Island, and he died without family on April 11, 1929. No one had probably visited his burial place until about a century afterwards, when community historian Joseph Lopez stood by his unmarked grave in 2021.
Through his research, Joseph Lopez established that Benson Flores was likely the earliest Filipino on record to have immigrated to and lived in Canada. He was an early settler of Bowen Island. While there were a number of seafarers from the Philippines among the diverse crews of European and American vessels trading in the Pacific Northwest since the 16th century, intermarrying with coastal First Nations tribes, Benson Flores is the first one documented on the census. He’s on the 1911 census.
There is a GoFundMe campaign led by Ted Alcuitas, the editor and publisher of PhilippineCanadianNews.com, who is producing a documentary film on Benson Flores and also fundraising to raise money for a memorial tombstone to be placed on his grave on the occasion of his birthday next month. I’ll be supporting the GoFundMe page.
I’ll ask all MLAs here, and the community right across British Columbia, to join in this effort for supporting the documentary film and to raise money for a tombstone to mark his place. The GoFundMe page is called Benson Flores, first Filipino in Canada.
I want to thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, and everyone in the Legislature for your support.
MENOPAUSE AND WOMEN’S HEALTH
S. Furstenau: To commemorate International Women’s Day, I’m keen to talk about a topic that just doesn’t seem to get enough attention in here: menopause.
Now, I really can’t understand why we don’t talk about all the exciting changes we go through as a result of the fluctuating levels of estrogen, progesterone and testosterone — yes, testosterone — through perimenopause and menopause. Hot flushes, night sweats, weight gain, mood swings, weakened muscles. It’s a freight train of new and wonderful experiences all showing up in our 40s and 50s, just when our careers, our children, our relationships and our aging parents all come together into a giant and teetering Jenga tower of demands on us.
I look back at the last ten years, and I really, deeply wish that I had been more prepared for perimenopause. Instead, it’s been like the worst toy of all, a jack-in-the-box, constantly springing out without warning with new and sometimes way-too-exciting developments.
Women’s health is woefully understudied. And yes, we get a month for men’s health in this building. Let’s remember that.
Women’s reproductive health is only just starting to get the attention it needs. Our uteruses, in which entire human beings grow, have been accused of wandering around our bodies, causing all manner of ailments.
We’ve come a long way from Dr. David Reuben’s 1969 take on menopause, when he wrote that women, “having outlived their ovaries…may have outlived their usefulness as human beings.”
We still have a long way to go. To get to where we need to be, women’s health needs to be a priority. It’s time to restore the provincial women’s health strategy and update the provincial health officers on women’s health and well-being.
I’ve even written a little poem about it.
To doctors, you’re a mystery.
It’s been that way
through history.
It’s in her head, insisted he.
Try not to
pout.
VERNON WINTER CARNIVAL
H. Sandhu: Recently, on a warm, sunny Saturday morning in February, I had the privilege and honour to participate in the 64th annual winter carnival parade with a very special guest, our Premier. It was such a joy to show our Premier and his staff this incredible carnival that celebrates community spirit and connection.
This was a milestone visit, as the Premier was the first Premier to join our community’s beloved winter carnival and festivities in 50 years. Our Premier was able to connect with so many locals along the parade route and at various events during the visit, including the Balloon Glow and breakfast event.
Vernon Winter Carnival, the largest of its kind in western Canada, hosted 138 events across the greater Vernon area and brought so much light to our communities during the darkest season. Behind the curtains of this magical event stands a dedicated Vernon Winter Carnival Society, a non-profit organization run by executive director Kris Fuller and a board of directors, including my constituency assistant Lisa Fenyedi.
Each year they host hundreds of events over a ten-day period at the beginning of February, and every year with a new theme. This year’s theme was games. Coming together as a community is more important than ever, and the Vernon Winter Carnival has been a beacon of light in these times, allowing the people of Vernon-Monashee to put aside their differences and come together in celebration.
I want to take the time to thank the hundreds of hard-working volunteers. Without their countless hours of planning, dedication and tireless efforts, this wouldn’t have been possible. To all the businesses and individuals who organized and hosted events, from the bottom of my heart, thank you.
To the Premier and his team: thank you so much for joining us and exploring what our community has to offer.
I would like to ask all members of this House to please join me to thank these amazing volunteers for all the efforts they put in to enrich the lives of their friends and neighbours during these wonderful ten days of carnival.
Oral Questions
GOVERNMENT ACTION ON ANTISEMITISM
AND RESPONSE TO
ISSUES
K. Falcon: Yesterday British Columbians heard the former Finance Minister confirm that there is systemic antisemitism in this NDP government and caucus. Her words were clear: “Antisemitism is the double standard that we have consistently shown.” The former Finance Minister provided multiple examples of antisemitism within the NDP cabinet, caucus and the NDP party.
Now, we’ve seen in the past when there were accusations of systemic racism against Indigenous people in the health care system that this government immediately ordered a full, independent inquiry.
Given that these are very serious accusations of systemic antisemitism in the NDP cabinet and caucus by a former Finance Minister, will the Premier today commit to calling a full and independent inquiry into these very serious allegations?
Hon. D. Eby: It’s a sad day for our caucus. Selina — pardon me, the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville — was such a critical voice in our caucus, her unique experiences as a Jewish woman in politics, the fact that she had relatives in Israel called up to serve in war.
Through her connections, through family and friends, she knew people had been killed, kidnapped. It brought to our team a vital voice representing a key community in our province that’s feeling under threat right now. They’re feeling under attack.
I think the key for me, as a leader, is to ask myself: “What could we have done to make sure that her voice stayed in our caucus?” I had a meeting with the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville just a few hours before she left our caucus. She didn’t raise these issues with me. She didn’t feel safe to do that. For me, it’s a chance to think about it: “Why is that the case? How do I make sure that my caucus colleagues feel safe?”
Now, it doesn’t take away…. I disagree with some of her characterizations of what happened, and I think we could’ve worked through them, had we had the opportunity. I’m going to take that opportunity. I’m going to continue the work that I’m doing, that our government is doing, to fight hate, to fight antisemitism in our province. I’m meeting with the rabbinical council tomorrow, leadership from CIJA, the federation, to make sure that we’re supporting the Jewish community, going forward, and fighting antisemitism.
It’s something this House has been united on and remains united on, and it’s in the heart of every single member of our caucus.
The Speaker: Leader of the Official Opposition, supplemental.
K. Falcon: Well, the problem is that the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville made it very clear that the ongoing empty words are never enough. It actually requires action from this Premier. Frankly, British Columbians are more likely to believe a Premier who stands on principle, as opposed to a Premier who is, effectively, just trying to do damage control.
The former Finance Minister says: “Almost 300 Jewish physicians signed a letter calling on UBC medical school to address antisemitism on campus…. Ted Rosenberg, a prominent physician, quit, citing a toxic work environment and antisemitism…. I heard nothing from any of you — not the Minister of Health…not the Premier, no one.” What the long-time senior member and former Finance Minister of this NDP government has confirmed is that there is systemic antisemitism, which requires more than just the empty words that we just heard from this Premier.
Again to the Premier, not empty words: will the Premier launch an independent investigation to root out the systemic antisemitism that has been confirmed to exist in his government and his caucus? Will he do that?
Hon. D. Eby: I agree with the member that actions are needed to support the Jewish community. We’ve taken those early actions. We’re ensuring mandatory Holocaust education for all British Columbia kids at school. The B.C. Prosecution Service has a new hate crimes protocol.
This is just the start of the work we need to do. That’s why I’m meeting with the community to identify further steps that we can take. The member rightly raises, with concern, the issue of UBC’s medical school. The member for Coquitlam-Maillardville was the minister responsible for Post-Secondary and Future Skills at the time.
She reached out to UBC, to the president’s office, and expressed the concern that everybody, I think, in this House — and, certainly, in our caucus — felt about those allegations being brought forward from a prominent instructor at the medical school — the antisemitism that he felt. She received commitments from UBC about what they were going to do.
I’m happy to bring back to this House an update on where they’re at on that work. Action is absolutely needed to ensure that the community feels safe. That’s the commitment of everybody on this side of this House and, I believe, everybody in this House.
The Speaker: Leader of the Official Opposition, second supplemental.
K. Falcon: Let’s be really clear here. We’re talking about an individual who, until 24 hours ago, was a member of this government and a former senior cabinet minister, as part of this government for the entire term that they’ve been in power. The systemic antisemitism that she discusses exists within this NDP cabinet and caucus. Sadly, that culture of antisemitism appears to have spread, indeed, into the public service.
One whistleblower says: “I was asked not to wear my Star of David necklace in a visible way in my team meetings, because it is a symbol of genocide. It is not. It is a sign of my identity. My manager is the one who told me this, so there is no point complaining. I need to find work outside of the public service.”
That, Premier, is systemic antisemitism.
My question of the Premier was a very straightforward and simple one. I’m not looking for words. I’m not looking for meetings that you’re about to have. I am asking you very succinctly. You did the right thing when you found out that there was systemic discrimination against Indigenous peoples in the health care system. You ordered a full independent inquiry.
We now have numerous examples of antisemitism within your own cabinet and caucus and party. Will you do the right thing and call for an independent inquiry today and give the public the confidence that you actually are doing something to ensure that you root out the systemic antisemitism in your own government?
The Speaker: All questions through the Chair, please.
Hon. D. Eby: I’m profoundly concerned about the set of facts the member has brought forward. I encourage him to encourage this person to bring forward their complaint. That’s not systemic antisemitism. That’s antisemitism, full stop. It is not acceptable in the public service; it is not acceptable in government. We have to fight hate every day.
There are two communities that are hurting very badly in our province right now. The Jewish community is frightened. We’re seeing a rise in antisemitism, broadly. They need an ally in government to support them with these things. That’s the commitment that every member of our caucus makes to that community, and that is the work that we’re going to continue to do with them.
The Muslim community is seeing rising Islamophobia. We have a number of members of the public service, of the Muslim faith, that feel angst, concern and fear about discrimination and racism as well. We’ve got to support those members of the public service too.
As a province, our strength is in working together. As a province, our strength is in being an anti-racist province that fights discrimination every day so that everybody is welcome here. That commitment remains. It is a priority for every member of my caucus and, I am sure, for every member of the other party’s caucus as well. British Columbians expect that from us, and we will deliver it for them.
M. Lee: I really would urge the Premier to take a step back and reflect on his answers to the Leader of the Official Opposition, just like he reflected this morning on his statement that he put out to blame the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville and to say that it’s her issue, her mistake. She was the single ally for the Jewish community in the fight against antisemitism in this government, in this executive council. Clearly, she was left to feel very alone in this caucus.
She has departed. She has spoken very clearly in her letter. The former Finance Minister has said very clearly: “As a government, we have not been standing up to antisemitism.” The Premier needs to reflect on that, and I know he knows, as we’ve raised it in question period, in April of 2023, and as I raised it in estimates with the Attorney General here.
The Premier, when he was Attorney General, gave a specific direction to refuse to adopt into law the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism. There is no specific action that the Attorney General could point to in my questioning of her before the former Finance Minister’s announcement of her departure from this government caucus. There’s no specific action that has been taken to implement the IHRA definition in this province.
The systemic antisemitism that we’re talking about is pervasive. In the way that the former Finance Minister describes in her letter, it sets out, very clearly, her concerns with individual members of this government, this government caucus.
The Speaker: Question, Member.
M. Lee: It starts from the top. This Premier cannot continue to shirk his responsibility.
The former Finance Minister reveals that public service officials have made antisemitic statements at the beginning of meetings, resulting in discomfort and fear, and that there has been no acknowledgment and no action in response to these concerns being raised.
The Speaker: The member has a question?
M. Lee: Will the Premier immediately reflect on where his government and his caucus is right now and call for an independent investigation into the systemic racism that pervades through his caucus and his government?
Hon. D. Eby: I worry that maybe I wasn’t clear enough.
I was really heartbroken to lose the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville as a caucus member. I sat down with her just hours before she issued this letter, specifically because I knew she was hurting.
It was incredibly hard for her to give up her cabinet position, to have to do the meetings and the work with the community. I know that was so hard for her. Obviously, I didn’t create the space where she was able to bring these concerns forward to me.
That’s not her fault. That’s my responsibility, to create that space for her to bring that forward.
I’ll reflect on what I need to do to make sure that happens, and I’ll make sure that what I know is the shared commitment of everybody in this place, to fight antisemitism — that that work continues, from our early actions around mandatory Holocaust education, around the prosecution service direction about their policy; and to build on that and to take direction and work in partnership with the community, starting with the long-scheduled meeting I have with the rabbis tomorrow, as well as with leading Jewish advocacy groups.
The community is hurting. They need their support. The member for Coquitlam-Maillardville is a key part of that community. She needs our support. Even if I disagree with the characterization of some of the things that she said, she deserved the opportunity to address those issues in our caucus, and I needed to create that space for her.
The Speaker: Vancouver-Langara, supplemental.
M. Lee: This is a very important discussion because that space clearly was not created. She had to take the step to resign from this caucus to speak independently. There is no space. She was being so much mistreated and shunned by this leader and her caucus members.
Silence is not the solution here. This is a failure, completely, in the Premier’s leadership of his government and this caucus. This is the reason why he needs to take a step back. He needs to reflect on the fact that there is a need for an independent investigation. If he wants to restore any semblance of trust and confidence in his government, he needs to do so.
As the opposition, we’ve heard from whistleblowers stating that the Public Service Agency has authorized and sanctioned Zoom backgrounds containing the phrase “from the river to the sea.” As we all know — as we all ought to know — this reference is an explicit call to wipe Israel off the map and murder all Jews by driving them into the sea. It is blatantly antisemitic, yet it was sanctioned by this government and this Premier. This is exactly the sort of antisemitism that the IHRA definition is meant to prevent.
Again, I call on the Premier to confirm that he will now adopt the IHRA definition of the law and take immediate action to implement that definition and, secondly, that he will call for an investigation into the systemic racism in his government and caucus.
Hon. N. Sharma: I just want to start by adding to the Premier’s comments earlier about how saddened we all are that the MLA for Coquitlam-Maillardville made the decision yesterday to resign. I think we all hear the pain and the hurt in her voice as a Jewish woman, although we may disagree with the characterization of some of the things that she said. I have deep respect for her.
The member opposite raises important points about how we all have to stand strong against antisemitism in this province. We all need to.
I hear the pain in her voice. I hear the pain in the Jewish community’s voice. I hear the pain in the Muslim community’s voice about the rise of hate that they’re experiencing.
We need to remember that we are in this together, as British Columbians. We’re in this together to fight hate. I am committed every day, along with this government, to do everything we can to fight hate in this province and the rise of antisemitism.\
We went at length yesterday, with the member opposite, through the steps that we are taking already to root systemic discrimination out of our government systems. It’s something that I am deeply committed to and will continue to do the work every day.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF
POWER TRANSMISSION
LINE
A. Olsen: There are very serious questions about leadership being asked here today, and I think that it’s important that we continue to question this government’s lack of leadership when it comes to climate action, specifically when it comes to the doublespeak around LNG and LNG proposals claiming net zero.
This government likes to pretend. We know that by powering LNG with electricity, they’re not going to create a better, safer world. But B.C. Hydro is already cutting corners when it comes to the transmission lines that are going to deliver the electricity to the promised LNG projects.
According to confidential documents by government, obtained by The Narwhal, B.C. Hydro plans to replace the necessary environmental assessment for the north coast transmission line with a “streamlined process.” Tara Marsden, spokesperson for the Gitanyow Hereditary Chiefs, said that a streamlined process is quite scary, especially if it lacks transparency, takes shortcuts and doesn’t allow voices to be heard.
My question is to the ministry of energy, mines and low carbon disinformation. What does the B.C. Hydro’s alternative streamlined process entail, and will the public have access to the process and the complete findings?
Hon. G. Heyman: First of all, I want to point out to the member, and I thank the member for the question, the number of steps that our government has taken to address the question of emissions from LNG facilities, which includes a variety of measures that have been put in place through an output-based pricing system, carbon taxes through the CleanBC program for industry, and working actively on bringing forward the regulatory cap on emissions from the oil and gas sector, which we committed to as part of the new energy action framework.
The member is referring to an internal memo of B.C. Hydro in which they were considering whether to make application to the government for an exemption under the Environmental Assessment Act from an environmental assessment process. They have not made that application. If they make that application, there is a process to consider it before it finally comes for decision-making.
During that process, it will be transparent that they have made the application. The basis of the application will be made transparent, should they make an application, which they have not done. The public will have the opportunity to review that fully and to make comment.
The Speaker: House Leader of the Third Party, supplemental.
A. Olsen: I remember, and maybe I can remind the minister, when the minister and his colleague, the Minister of Energy and Mines, were climate champions and not LNG propagandists.
You see, in my own territory, I’ve witnessed where the minister has not done an environmental assessment and instead created a process that doesn’t exist, called an “enhanced review process,” that doesn’t have any meat or anything. There’s no idea what that enhanced process looks like. So now we’ve got B.C. Hydro proposing a streamlined process. Pardon us for not having the confidence in this minister that we’re going to follow the laws that actually exist in this province and require environmental assessments.
B.C. Hydro worries that a delay from an environmental assessment will impact the ability to meet increased demand for electrification. And that increased demand is coming from the LNG projects that this government supports. B.C. Hydro hasn’t been able to build an $8 billion dam for less than $20 billion in Site C. Now they want to trample the public, Indigenous rights and the environment again. The proposed transmission line will affect property owners, farmland, waterways, at-risk species, all impediments to this fossil fuel industry.
What is it about Premiers from Point Grey and their obsession with LNG?
To the Minister of Energy, will the minister succumb again to the pressure of the fossil fuel lobby or demand an environmental assessment, as is the proper and lawful process in this province?
Hon. G. Heyman: It’s unfortunate that when we are dealing with questions of addressing permanent projects, as well as addressing the very serious climate targets and objectives this government has, the member of the Third Party resorts to rhetoric that is both inflammatory and inaccurate.
There is no proposal from B.C. Hydro to me, to the environmental assessment office or to our government for an exemption. Should that proposal come forward, it will be required to be considered under the act. It will be considered transparently.
We take environmental assessment seriously. When I receive applications such as the one the member referred to, which was to grant an environmental assessment when the project did not meet the tests laid out in the act, it received full consideration, transparent consideration. And as part of that consideration, an enhanced major mines permitting process was put into place.
The member may claim that nobody knows what it is, but that is simply not true. It was transparent, just as any application, should it come forward, will be considered with full opportunity for public input.
I will simply reiterate that B.C. Hydro may discuss whatever they want in corporate meetings, and memos may be released from freedom of information. That does not mean an application is in our hands.
RESPONSE TO ANTISEMITIC HATE CRIME
AND ROLE OF JUSTICE
SYSTEM
J. Rustad: Last month Tim Thielmann, the Conservative candidate for Victoria–Beacon Hill, who is a lawyer, drafted a 26-page legal brief on antisemitism and anti-Jewish hate which has occurred during recent demonstrations. Advance copies have been given to the Victoria police chief and to the NDP Attorney General.
Thielmann’s memo documented the ongoing violations of criminal laws by Victoria’s antisemitic extremists and the legal basis on which other blockades and hate speech had been successfully prosecuted. The letter from the MLA for Coquitlam-Maillardville singles out the NDP Attorney General for failing to reach out to the Jewish community to understand their fear amid rising antisemitism in society.
The question is to the Attorney General. Will you commit to appointing a special prosecutor to prosecute the crimes of anti-Jewish hate speech and the open incidents of hate occurring at antisemitic protests so that the Victoria police can confidently lay charges?
Hon. N. Sharma: I want to thank the member for the question.
Making sure that those people that commit hate crimes are held accountable is a very important part of the work that we’re doing as a government. There are steps that we are taking to make sure that happens.
Recently, the B.C. Crown prosecution service updated their hate crime policy to specifically make sure that there is a reference to the wilful promotion of antisemitism as one of the factors to consider when they press charges, because we take this very seriously.
I recently wrote a letter to Minister Virani specifically about changes that I am asking him to make that makes it clear that denial of the Holocaust is a hate crime and should be included in that, and to help us with the Criminal Code to make sure that we can enable law enforcement to go to courts and address hate crimes more effectively.
I can’t talk about specific cases in the House, but we have been pursuing hate crimes in this province, and prosecutions, and we’ll continue to do that work to make the system better.
The Speaker: Leader of the Fourth Party, supplemental.
J. Rustad: The people in British Columbia are not antisemitic, they aren’t Islamophobic, and they do not condone hate. They deserve, quite frankly, a Premier and a government that share these values and a Premier and a government that protect all Canadians in British Columbia.
What we have seen in Victoria from a religious leader is spreading of hate, spreading of things like how anybody who is not Muslim should be considered an enemy of Allah, and much worse.
In private meeting, the police have indicated that they are very reluctant to bring forward any charges, because they feel they are not supported. This is a pattern that we are seeing, unfortunately, in this province. It is a pattern that has been identified, clearly, in the caucus of this government. It’s a pattern, quite frankly, I think that the public certainly will be paying attention to, come the election of this year.
Once again to the Attorney General: what steps can you take…
The Speaker: Through the Chair, Member.
J. Rustad: …to make sure that the police feel that they will be supported in going after these hateful issues? What steps can you take to make sure that the Jewish community will feel safe and that this government will take these issues seriously and that we’ll see this brought to an end?
The Speaker: All questions through the Chair, Members.
Hon. N. Sharma: Yeah, I think every single member in this House can agree that we need to all stand together to combat the rise of antisemitism, Islamophobia and all forms of hate in this province. It’s something that we as a government are committed to doing, that I am personally committed to doing every day on this job.
That includes a cross-government approach, whether it’s working with our Solicitor General and his ministry, related to making sure police have the resources and training that they need to step up with enforcing hate crimes, whether it’s the work that I talked about just previously, about making sure that we have the tools in our criminal justice system to go after that — the update of the B.C. prosecution hate crime policy. This is an all-of-government approach.
I want to send a message to every community member out there, to every Jewish person in this province that feels scared, that feels the rise of antisemitism around them, that we are in your corner. We will do whatever it takes to get rid of hate in this province.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Shhh. Shhh, Members.
Hon. N. Sharma: They have my commitment, and they have the commitment of this government.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Members, please, it’s a very serious issue. Let’s not have cross-talk.
HEALTH CARE SERVICES IN PARKSVILLE
A. Walker: Twelve thousand people in Oceanside are on a wait-list for a family doctor. The lucky ones, they wait up to three years to get connected, but that list is growing longer and longer every day. It’s a wait-list made up primarily of seniors who have paid into the system their whole lives, and now that they need health care, they can’t get it.
I regularly meet with people who are trying to get cancer tests but can’t because they don’t have a doctor. I met with a woman recently who got a phone call from B.C. Cancer with her results. They said: “It’s serious, but I can’t share them with you because you don’t have a family doctor.” It took weeks for her to get those results, to find out that she had breast cancer that had metastasized. She had gone through this process more than 20 years before, and it’s a direct comparison to the system we have today versus the system before.
Working together with our local primary care network, the division of family practice and Island Health, we have identified a location for a primary care centre in Parksville. We have put together a plan. We have a business plan, but Island Health was recently told by the ministry that there is no capital funding available for new primary care centres in our community.
Now, I know the minister will point to the new physician master agreement, LFP, a new medical school, new spaces and 700 net new doctors. That’s fantastic news, but when my division tours new docs in my community and there is no team-based care for them to work in, these docs do not stay. And the system is getting much worse.
My question: is it true that the provincial budget that’s projecting a nearly $8 billion deficit has no funding for primary care in the city of Parksville, and is the minister suggesting that residents in my community start bottle drives and bake sales if they want to get primary care?
Hon. A. Dix: As the member will know, last year as a direct result of the work we’ve done with the Doctors of B.C., everywhere in B.C. added net new 708 family doctors in B.C. The place where there are the most family doctors is in Island Health on Vancouver Island. In fact, the member will know that we saw an increase of 179 doctors on Vancouver Island alone. That’s an increase in nine months of 24 percent.
He’ll also know that we’ve established in British Columbia primary care networks to support team-based care, and that there are 1,700 FTEs, meaning full-time jobs in that area, doctors and nurses and nurse practitioners and health sciences professionals and health care workers, to build out team-based care. There were none before. There are now 77 in place. There are 1,700 people working in that area.
In addition to that, in terms of young doctors on Vancouver Island in our new-to-practice contracts, 63, new-to-practice nurse practitioners, 68.
It’s by ensuring that there are more doctors in place and supporting those doctors with primary care networks that come from the community, including from Parksville-Qualicum, that we’re addressing these issues that are critical to ensure family practice in British Columbia.
I appreciate and thank you very much for the question.
[End of question period.]
Petitions
K. Greene: I rise today to present a petition on behalf of 334 of my constituents in opposition to the Tilbury LNG marine jetty project.
Orders of the Day
Hon. R. Kahlon: In the main chamber, I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 2, Employment Standards Amendment Act.
In the Douglas Fir Committee Room, I call Committee of Supply for Ministry of Citizens’ Services.
In the Birch Committee Room, I call Committee of Supply for Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure.
Committee of the Whole House
BILL 2 — EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS
AMENDMENT ACT,
2024
The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 2; J. Tegart in the chair.
The committee met at 11:05 a.m.
The Chair: We’ll call the committee to order. We are dealing with Bill 2, Employment Standards Amendment Act, 2024.
On clause 1.
G. Kyllo: With the pending changes to the legislation for the minimum wage rate in British Columbia, can the minister share with this House what consultation has been undertaken in contemplation, in the submission of this new piece of legislation?
Hon. H. Bains: Before I begin to answer the question, I’d like to introduce staff that is here to support us.
Trevor Hughes, on my left, is our Deputy Minister of Labour; Jake Ayres, assistant director of labour policy and legislation; and Lydia Zucconi, senior policy adviser, labour policy and legislation.
There was extensive consultation that took place in order to establish the minimum wage in British Columbia. When we formed the government in 2017, soon thereafter we appointed the Fair Wages Commission, a three-member panel representative of the unions and business, with an independent chair.
They went around the province. Many emails and written submissions…. Through their report, the learning was that showing us the pathway…. That was one of the questions that we asked them. Show us the pathway by speaking to, consulting with business, unions, workers, small businesses, experts and academics. Show us a pathway to at least $15 an hour. That’s what they did. By 2021, through their recommendations, the minimum wage in British Columbia went to $15.20.
To the member’s question of who they consulted and what consultation took place, I would say that during the course of their work regarding the future of B.C.’s minimum wage, the Fair Wages Commission held extensive consultations, as I just said, with individuals and organizations, including trade unions. And then who they consulted…. I think there is some information that I could share, but it’s also available on the Fair Wages Commission website or the report that was issued and made public.
They received 109 research briefs, or responses, to the questionnaire. So 53 emails against and 1,201 emails in favour of raising the minimum wage to $15. There are a number of areas that they went around. I could read them if the member wishes, but they went around the province. The idea was to consult as widely as possible.
One thing that became clear through their report, if the member had the opportunity to read it, is that…. What they heard from businesses, especially small businesses, is the certainty that there should be a gradual, predictable increase so that the businesses can plan and manage their budgets, going forward, of what their labour costs are going to be.
That’s what they recommended, and after we raised the minimum wage to $15 — actually, it was $15.20 — they recommended that the future increases should be linked to some solid indicator such as CPI. Everyone will know. The workers will know what their increase is going to be and that they are not going to be falling behind against the rise of inflation.
The businesses will also know, because in the beginning of every year, the published reports come from Stats Canada of what the average previous 12-month CPI was. So they will know months before the next minimum wage would be implemented, which is June 1.
It created certainty. It created, I think, assurance for the working people, the lowest-paid work in the province, so that they are not falling behind.
G. Kyllo: I’m certainly familiar with the work of the Fair Wages Commission. But my question to the minister: what specific consultation was undertaken with respect to the piece of legislation that we’re dealing with today? I don’t believe and I certainly haven’t seen that the Fair Wages Commission actually asked for this particular legislative change that’s before us.
Maybe the minister, in providing his remarks, can clearly just set out for British Columbians what the current process is in the province around the opportunity for government, through an order-in-council, to actually increase the minimum wage based on CPI index and how the current process differs from the legislation before us, and then again, more specifically, what consultation has been undertaken directly related to the legislation that is before this House today.
Hon. H. Bains: In the Fair Wages Commission, it was recommended that we need to establish a predictable indicator to guide future increases to the minimum wage, such as the CPI, or some other relationships, such as between the minimum wage and poverty level or average wage levels. This indicator should be used as a basis for change in conjunction with the consideration of other economic indicators.
So that’s what the recommendation was, and that’s what we are following, because we are following the recommendation of the Fair Wages Commission. Their mandate was to show us a pathway for how the minimum wage should be increased in this province. They showed us how to get to $15.20. We reached that in 2021.
Then, based on the recommendation, the direction given by the Fair Wages Commission, we’ve publicly been saying that the future increases to the minimum wage should be tied to the rate of inflation. That’s exactly what we did in the last two years, 2022, 2023. This year it will be the same.
The difference is now we are putting it in law so that we take it away and out of the hands of the politicians to make political decisions around this, because businesses don’t like it, and workers don’t like it. It creates an opportunity for the government to freeze minimum wages for a period of time, as we saw happen in early 2000s, and then give large increases over a short period of time. That’s not what businesses want. That’s not what the Fair Wages Commission heard and recommended, based on what they heard.
That’s what we’ve been saying — that we have committed to tie this to the rate of inflation. We’ve been using that formula, and now going forward it will be tied to the rate of inflation, and the increase will come automatically. It will be the law if it passes here in this House, of course.
G. Kyllo: I appreciate the additional information from the minister. However, as I asked in posing my last question, I certainly do not believe that it was the Fair Wage Commission that actually asked for this specific legislative change that is before us.
Again, if I can ask: what specific consultation was undertaken with respect to the legislation the minister has brought forward before this House?
Hon. H. Bains: Not only the government, the business community. I have a report here from the B.C. Chamber of Commerce, 2023-2024, Policies and Positions Manual. What are they saying? On the minimum wage, that the minimum wage should be tied to CPI. They went on to say: “We want the government to ensure that the minimum wage continues to only increase by CPI, with the government encouraging employers that can pay a living wage to do so.”
Then they went on to say: “That the provincial government: (1) introduce legislation to index future minimum wage increases to the consumer price index, CPI, unless CPI decreases below zero, that incorporate the following parameters: any minimum wage increases be tied to the CPI level indicated in the month before it is announced; any minimum wage increases need to be announced with at least six months lead time before it goes into effect, like the province of Ontario.”
I think we are following the Fair Wages Commission as is the recommendation by the B.C. Chamber of Commerce. They’re suggesting, go with what the Fair Wages Commission recommended, then they went on to say that we should bring legislation. They mention, and I clarified that in the House, that if inflation goes below zero, it will not reduce the minimum wage. it’ll remain the same in that year.
I think we’re guided by businesses. The Fair Wages Commission heard, through their consultation, the similar. That’s what they suggested, and that’s why we’re going forward.
G. Kyllo: Look, the Fair Wages Commission, and I believe this is what the minister had just shared, established that the CPI rate of change would be used as a basis for any future wage rates. It did not indicate or direct that it shall be specifically, exactly as the CPI. The government currently has flexibility within its mandate. It was not that the Fair Wages Commission asked specifically for this piece of legislation.
My question, again, to the minister. What consultation has been undertaken with British Columbians and the wide and broad business community with respect to the legislation that is before the House today? Has any direct consultation or outreach been undertaken?
The minister certainly has referenced a letter or a position policy that was presented by the B.C. chamber, but they are only one of many business organizations across B.C. They certainly do not speak for all.
Can the minister share with this House what level of engagement and consultation has been undertaken with the larger, broader business community and other British Columbians in establishing this legislation that’s before the House?
Hon. H. Bains: It has been a public commitment made by this government that we will not allow the lowest-paid workers in this province to fall further and further behind the cost of inflation, as was the case a number of years ago, which caused British Columbia to become one of the lowest minimum wages in the country.
Through the recommendations of the Fair Wages Commission, through consultation, listening to the businesses, workers, academics…. They gave us a pathway, showed us a pathway, to go to $15.20 an hour over four years. Then they said to tie it to something similar to CPI, some predictable indicator, and they mentioned CPI.
We committed, after the report was made public, that that’s where we will go. And not only have we committed; we’ve followed through with action. In the last two years, the minimum wage was increased by the rate of inflation of the previous year.
That’s what we’ve been saying. That’s what we’ve been hearing. The businesses, the workers and everyone knew that’s the direction we are going.
Now, the member could say that we, as a government, could continue on, on an ad hoc basis, through cabinet decisions, to increase by the rate of inflation. But then you are subjected to the political pressures of the day. Governments react to political pressures. It happens. It’s not just a theory; it happens all the time.
Again, from 2001 to 2010, the minimum wage in British Columbia was frozen. For almost ten years, the lowest-paid workers in this province went without any increase.
I think the Fair Wages Commission recommended that. The B.C. Chamber of Commerce agreed with that notion, going forward. There’s good science behind it, in my view, and that’s why they’re all agreeing to it. It just takes the uncertainty out of the system. Now everyone will know.
We’re not the only one. Other provinces — there are about seven, eight jurisdictions — have tied their increase to the minimum wage to the CPI in some form or shape. Here that’s exactly what we are doing: tying the minimum-wage increases to the rate of inflation. Businesses will know. Workers will know in early January or mid-January, when the Stats Canada numbers come out, come June 1, what the increase is going to be so they have time to adjust.
The businesses can have time to adjust their budgets, going forward, and plan their businesses accordingly. The workers will know that they will be rising with the rate of inflation, as far as the wages are concerned.
I want to say why minimum wage is important. It’s so that workers can stay in line with the rate of inflation. These are the workers who are our neighbours and our friends and who provide so much of our essential services out there for us. Then every cent they receive as an increase in minimum wage — every dollar, every cent…. Chances are that almost all of it will be invested in their own communities, in their own businesses, in their neighbourhood.
It does support the local businesses. At the same time, the lowest-paid workers are also kept with the rate of inflation. These are not the folks that could be in a position where they receive their increase and go spend it in Hawaii or out of the country someplace on vacations. These are the workers who will be spending every increase in their local businesses. So I think businesses will support and will help.
That’s why the chamber of commerce is recommending…. Let’s put some predictability and certainty into this so we take it out of the hands of politicians every year, not knowing…. Is it going to be CPI? Is it going to be CPI-plus? Is it going to be CPI-minus? That’s the uncertainty we’re trying to take out of this.
G. Kyllo: Look, what I am trying to attain from the minister is…. What consultation has been undertaken with respect to the legislation that is before us?
The minister has just referenced it. It seems apparent that maybe this piece of legislation is to avoid political pressures.
I know that there are different organizations, Living Wages for Families B.C., that continue to trumpet that the minimum-wage gap in B.C., between a living wage and the minimum wage, is $8 an hour. By effecting this change, government is largely losing the tool, the ability for government to respond with an increase that may be higher than CPI or lower than CPI.
It’s interesting that the minister has referenced not once but twice that political pressure and the potential avoidance of political pressure on decisions around the minimum-wage rate.
Now, I appreciate that the minister has referenced a policy position that was put forward by the B.C. chamber. He has referenced that a number of times.
I do hope that the minister would agree that the B.C. chamber is not the only voice for those representing business interests in B.C. There are also other organizations, like the living wage B.C. folks, that have a very different view, feeling that the current minimum wage, even at the rate that it is now, tying that to CPI, is still inadequate.
This is a very important piece of legislation where government is largely going to lose the flexibility of adjusting the CPI based on a whole range and suite of other societal pressures that are happening.
Can the minister share, with specificity, what consultation has been undertaken with any business organizations or with any larger groups around the province with respect to the legislation that’s before the House today?
Hon. H. Bains: The consultation was conducted through the Fair Wages Commission. This is what they heard. This is what they recommended.
Now, governments make decisions all the time. One business organization recommended we should bring the legislation. Of course, government is about choices, no doubt. You hear from different organizations who will tell you that the minimum wage is too low, even today. I hear that. Then you will hear from others that it is too high.
That’s where government comes in, and that’s why we did not, as the decisions were made previously, by the previous government…. We actually sent the Fair Wages Commission around the province, who consulted widely with businesses, small businesses, all of the most obvious — I think a lot of their organizations and the associations that the member mentioned, from the workers’ side, who were advocating higher minimum wage.
There is a call for a living wage in many quarters out there, and I think you need to look at the balance. That’s what we are doing — the balance based on consultation that the Fair Wages Commission took. To us, it makes sense, and that’s why we committed, when the report was made public, that we will tie future increases to the rate of inflation, and we did last year and the year before. This year, again, it’s going to happen, provided that this bill is passed here.
I think it’s the right thing to do. It provides certainty, predictability. That’s what businesses want, that’s what workers need, and that’s why this decision was made.
G. Kyllo: Lookit, the minister has referenced the work of the Fair Wages Commission. That was undertaken in 2018, five years ago, pre-pandemic, during a time and an era where, ten years prior to 2018, the rate of inflation or CPI was minimal — 1½, 2½ percent. But as we saw during COVID and post-COVID, significant inflation rates had a significant impact on businesses and on individuals living in British Columbia.
If the minister is somehow trying to state the case that there is no consultation required today, in 2024, solely relying on a report that was commissioned five years ago, prior to any significant increases in the inflation rate in Canada, and lying solely on a position policy that was presented by the B.C. chamber that only speaks for a small segment of businesses around the province, as far as the number of employees, I think that….
Can the minister share with this House any consultation that has been undertaken in the last four or six months, specifically in relation to the legislation that is before the House today?
Hon. H. Bains: The fair wages report came out in 2018, but it shows us a pathway for the future four years, and it took us to 2021. These are very smart people. They knew that inflation goes up and down every year. They recommended that in the future, after 2021, which was two or three years ago, the increases should be tied to something like CPI. So it’s not five years ago. Their recommendation was to affect 2021.
And we did that. That’s not that it was just a report, and it was ignored. We did that. The 2022 increase was according to the rate of inflation in the previous year, and 2023 was the same, and this year it will be the same.
By the way, we as government, based on the recommendations by the Fair Wages Commission, made it an election platform and promise during the 2020 provincial general election. That was a campaign commitment as well. It was widely debated that we would make minimum-wage increases to tie with the rate of inflation.
So the commitment was there, guided by the Fair Wages Commission. At least there is one business association, which is very large, representing a lot of members, that recommended we go that route.
I think we have debated this to quite a length, and I’m prepared to continue to ask along this way, but that’s the consultation, guided by consultation and our public commitment and our 2020 election promise. That’s why we’re going in the direction we’re going.
G. Kyllo: It’s disappointing that government has not undertaken any direct consultation with respect to the legislation that is before the House today. The report was commissioned and reported out in 2018, in a period when inflation rates were in the 1 and 2 percentage range, far different than what we have actually experienced here in B.C. and in Canada. Only just this last year, B.C. had an inflation rate that was far higher than the rest of Canada.
It is disappointing that on a piece of legislation that will largely, as the minister has indicated, provide an opportunity for government to avoid political pressure, which will tie the rate of increase for the minimum wage specifically to only CPI, without the opportunity to take other considerations into effect….
Maybe I can also ask the minister: was there any engagement at all with First Nations communities with respect to limiting the future increase of the minimum-wage rate in British Columbia to nothing higher or lower than the CPI?
Hon. H. Bains: I think I see the notion behind the questioning here somehow that if the inflation rate is higher, to a certain level, somehow that the lowest-paid worker should not receive the wage increase based on that rate of inflation. That’s not acceptable. We should not leave the lowest-paid workers to fend for themselves.
Of course businesses suffer when the rate of inflation is high. There are other ways to support businesses, but it should not be at the expense of the lowest-paid workers in this province. Society is always judged by how we treat our most vulnerable and the weak. We cannot leave them behind.
You know who these workers are? About 62 percent of them are women. Most of them, I would say, many of them, are new to the country. They’re trying to establish themselves here. This is their first experience for this new country. They will be helping us build our economy going forward. We cannot just ignore them.
I think this is a fair approach, guided by the consultation by Fair Wages Commission. Again, listening to many businesses, when I said B.C. Chamber of Commerce, they are made up of 100 chambers of commerce in British Columbia. One hundred. Over 36,000 businesses are members. So there’s a large, I think, voice on behalf of the many business members of our society.
The question that the member asked about the First Nation consultation. Yes, in August 2023, the ministry reached out to the First Nations Leadership Council as well as the Métis Nation B.C. and Alliance of B.C. Modern Treaty Nations to advise them of the legislation under consideration and invite any feedback or input. To date, no input has been received.
G. Kyllo: Look, I think the minister is maybe mischaracterizing my inquiry. The question that I’m raising is that government, by moving forward with this legislation, will lose the flexibility of either increasing the minimum wage rate at a rate that’s higher than CPI or lower.
It’s not that my line of inquiry is specifically about the concern that the rate of CPI is too high and that should not be provided or afforded to minimum wage workers in the province. To the contrary, the minister…. Through the work of the Fair Wage Commission, there were significant increases over a five-year period where the minimum wage rate was increased at a rate higher than the CPI index.
In the absence of any direct consultation with the business community or broader British Columbians, can the minister share with this House how many individuals in the province of B.C. are currently earning or paid the minimum wage?
Hon. H. Bains: There are about 131,000 workers earning a minimum wage in British Columbia in 2023.
G. Kyllo: So 131,000 workers.
Is the minister able to share how many of those workers that are currently being paid the minimum wage earn additional stipend, whether that be in the form of tips or commissions over and above the minimum wage?
Hon. H. Bains: The member should know. I gave the numbers of how many are earning minimum wage in British Columbia. Tips are not part of the wages. Tips are on top of it, and they should not be considered in wages.
I know the member may have been part of that government at one time — I think he was; I could be wrong — when the liquor servers, for example, were paid less than minimum wage because the argument was: “Well, they are paid tips.”
That’s not the way we should be treating those workers. Eighty-two percent of them are women. I call it, and others call it, discriminatory treatment of those workers. So tips are protected on top of their wages.
The wages are the one that we are talking about here. The minimum wage, tied to the rate of inflation, will be $17.40 come June 1: a general minimum wage increase based on the rate of inflation of 2023.
G. Kyllo: I appreciate the response from the minister. Look, we are talking about the lowest-paid workers in the province. I think that when British Columbians look to the minimum wage rate, they are also giving consideration to additional tips or commissions that are made on top of that.
I’ve got four amazing daughters. When they were going through college and university, they all worked in the services sector. My girls would come home, and their tips were far in excess of their wages. I spoke to a server the other night, here in Victoria, that’s making $100,000 a year between her minimum wage and her tips.
I don’t think that British Columbians are looking necessarily at the minimum wage as reflective just of an individual that’s potentially making $100,000 a year. So I think it’s an important distinction.
Can the minister share with this House, of the 131,000 minimum wage earners in the province of B.C., what percentage of those minimum wage workers also earn, in addition to that minimum wage, some other form of stipend, be that a tip or a commission, in addition to that base minimum wage rate?
Hon. H. Bains: Because tips are not written in the law, it’s voluntary. No one will know whether someone is getting a tip or not. Only the worker will know, and those who gave tips will know. It’s hard to keep track of that. How many of them? It could be all of them, could be some of them, could be some percentage of them.
There’s no record of knowing if a worker goes to the same workplace that they will get tipped today as they did yesterday. It’s not guaranteed.
So it’s hard to tell the numbers, but this is what we have — that 131,000 workers are paid minimum wage in this province. If they get tips, which is helpful…. That’s the way the system is right now.
Noting the hour, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:50 a.m.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
Committee of the Whole (Section B), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Committee of Supply (Section C), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. R. Kahlon moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1 p.m. today.
The House adjourned at 11:51 a.m.
PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM
Committee of Supply
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
CITIZENS’
SERVICES
(continued)
The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); H. Yao in the chair.
The committee met at 11:08 a.m.
The Chair: Good morning, Members. I call Committee of Supply, Section A, to order. We are meeting today to continue consideration of the budget estimates of the Ministry of Citizens’ Services.
On Vote 19: ministry operations, $705,277,000 (continued).
R. Merrifield: Yesterday, as the minister and I were canvassing the OIPC report that was done on freedom-of-information access, one of the comments made by the minister was the reduction, on the timeliness, from 180 days to 31 days in Health, let’s say. He had indicated that timeliness had gone from 78 percent to 84 percent.
I went back last night and went through all the different reports, etc., and I’m having a hard time finding any of that information. The latest documentation, from October 5, 2023 — we’re talking a mere six months ago — actually has the average processing time still at 85 days. Could the minister provide me with all of the data that he is using to suggest that timeliness now is no longer an issue?
Hon. G. Chow: Thank you for the question. We had a good session yesterday, but to start off today, before I answer that specific question, I want to reiterate some key points in the responses I made yesterday regarding FOI and access to information and provide some greater clarity to the member and for the record.
This government is committed to openness and transparency and to improving access to information. There are five important ways we’re demonstrating this commitment. The first, in the 2022-23 fiscal year, this government published the highest number of proactive disclosures ever — 4,500. These records include summaries of briefing notes, calendars, contracts and many more records of interest to the public. These are 4,500 disclosures of records that no longer need to be requested under FOI. They include 15 categories of mandatory, proactive, disclosure directives for records that were frequently requested under FOI.
Last week, I issued two new mandatory, proactive, disclosure directives for monthly summaries of briefing notes provided to deputy ministers and also monthly summaries of briefing notes provided to ministers of state. This brings the total number of mandatory, proactive, disclosure directives from 15 to 17. In the past five years, this government has proactively published 19,000 disclosures under these mandatory directives. Proactively disclosing information to the public, without the need to make an FOI request, is a crucial way to improve access to information, transparency and accountability, and it’s good for democracy.
The second point is my ministry has committed over $7.7 million to modernize and improve freedom-of-information services across government. In the pilot of the new system, the ministry provided records seven days faster and achieved an on-time response rate of 90 percent. By improving tools and streamlining the FOI system, we are providing more timely responses to FOI requests and a more transparent and easier-to-use process.
The third point: we have added 20 additional staff to address the backlog of requests that accumulated over the years that government was focused on the COVID-19 pandemic and other states of emergency. We have reduced the backlog by 38 percent overall. This included reducing the backlog, for the Ministry of Children and Family Development, that are personal requests and reducing the backlog of non-personal or general requests. For example, in 2022-2023, we reduced the Ministry of Health’s backlog from 231 to 31 requests.
The fourth point: even while addressing the backlog for both personal and general requests, we have improved our on-time response rate for this fiscal year from 79 percent in ’22-23 to 84 percent this year.
The fifth and last point is that with respect to the culture of transparency and accountability that the member was asking about, the FOI system is administered by a high-performing, dedicated group of public servants who are committed to openness and accountability. They processed over 2½ million pages of information last year. They respond to and publish over 10,000 FOI responses and proactive disclosures a year. Their work is overseen by a cross-government deputy ministers committee which receives regular reports on FOI performance and jointly implements strategy to address these issues.
I appreciate the member’s comment. Contrary to what she was saying, I would like to thank them for their ongoing commitment to improving access to information services for the people of British Columbia. Finally, with respect to the applicant fee, while my ministry will continue to monitor its impact on access to information, it does not appear to be a barrier to making an FOI request.
Members of the public, media and other applicants continue to make large numbers of FOI requests. The only significant reductions in FOI requests are a reduction in FOI requests for information that’s now proactively disclosed — the 17 categories that I mentioned — and a reduction in requests being sent to multiple or even all ministries. That is a reduction.
Ministry requests declined from 2,223 in the year 2020-21 to 470 in ’22-23. This suggests that applicants are making more targeted requests to specific ministries, rather than blanket submissions, through the FOI process. That, I think, is a key point. This reduction in cross-government requests has freed up resources to focus on the backlog of requests and allowed us to put more resources into proactive disclosures. Through proactive disclosure, we’re increasing the amount of information that’s made available to the public, on an ongoing basis, without an FOI request. We are not charging for personal information requests.
To the question of the member, the data that the OIPC report is based on is the information that we provided to the OIPC. We’ll be publishing the annual report in the Leg. before this summer. The rate for timeliness for the year ’23-24 is 84 percent. Of course, we are open to giving the members a technical briefing, if the members so desire.
In conclusion, the 84 percent on-time rate for this fiscal is a great improvement. Again, this will be published in the 2023-2024 annual report, which we will put out before the summer.
R. Merrifield: Thanks to the minister for the speech.
I’m going to ask some very targeted questions, and then I’ll get to my next kind of fulsome one. With the minister very proud of all the proactive disclosures, why do you not disclose bill committee-stage binders?
Hon. G. Chow: In answering the member’s question, Section 12 of the act, the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act…. There is a mandatory exception under this act, and this protects the cabinet confidence and binders for committee stage because that often contains confidential information. So I said we have increased the proactive disclosure to 17 categories, including briefing notes to deputy ministers and the minister of state as well. I hope this answers the member’s question.
R. Merrifield: I will ask the minister again just to supply the data. I don’t need a technical briefing at this point. I just want the data. I’m very content to read it and see for myself the impressive progress since October, when the last report was published, until now, has been done.
Please, if I could have that over the lunch hour, because clearly, the minister has it, so it could be easily supplied. So I’ll ask for that again. Would the minister please supply me with the information and the data set that he is using to brag about all of the success that the FOIs have had?
Hon. G. Chow: As I said, we certainly want to bring the members up to speed on the data aspect. The data that the member is requesting runs into thousands and thousands of pages, and as I said, we’ll be publishing the annual report this summer, so you will see the data when that report comes through.
The Chair: Through the Chair, please.
Hon. G. Chow: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
R. Merrifield: Well, that was a very unsatisfactory answer. I don’t need thousands and thousands. A summary page would suffice. And clearly, if you’ve aggregated the data to give me a number like 84 percent, clearly the data has already been aggregated, which would be sufficient for my purposes and to celebrate alongside the minister just how well they’ve done since October in really tightening up the FOI timeliness.
I’m going to further respond to the minister’s opening speech by talking about the decrease and how the fee is not seemingly having an effect. That actually was already disproven by the Privacy Commissioner, and I’ll quote from his report on page 22:
“It is evident that the decline of requests can be attributed mainly to three applicant types: political parties, media and individual applicants. In preparing our initial review of the impact of the application fee in Investigation Report 23-01, several applicants told us that the levy did and would continue to dissuade them from making general requests. The further decrease in the volume of general requests to close in this report supports this.”
I won’t read all of it, but I’ll jump halfway through: “While expanded categories,” and I’m going to give the minister credit, “for the proactive disclosure may have had an impact, it is likely the fee further contributed to this decline. Additionally, we observed in Investigation Report 23-01 that in the initial six months following the introduction of the application fee, individuals seeking records increased. We now see that in doing a full-year assessment, individual requests in 2022-23 actually fell approximately 10 percent, compared to applications made prior to the imposition of the fee.”
This is where I will agree with the minister that FOI is absolutely critical, with timely responses and thorough responses. It is critical to how our democratic system is established.
Further, I’ll quote from the report again: “Media and opposition political parties play a vital role in our democratic system of government. This report on timeliness confirms the decline in their requests since the application fee was introduced, and it is therefore a continuing matter of concern.”
I will also direct the minister to the table in the report that talks about who is most affected by the lack of timeliness. The table is actually called: “Unlawfully delayed responses by applicant type.”
Is it the business community? No. Is it the Indigenous community? That could be argued, but we don’t have enough data sets to trend. Is it individuals? Yes, they’re up by 100 percent. How about interest groups? No, it’s kind of 30 percent. Law firms, zero. Wow, that’s quite remarkable, especially considering that for media, it’s up by 100 percent; other governments, up by 400 percent; public bodies, up by 100 percent; political parties, a 560 percent increase in the unlawfully delayed responses. This is actually drawn attention to.
My question to the minister: why is government, across ministries, choosing to respond to political parties, when asked for information, the least?
Hon. G. Chow: In answer to the member’s question, as I said, we have improved the timeliness by improving it now, from 75 percent to 84 percent. What that means is that requests are being answered within the 30 days specified by the act.
As I said before, we listen to individuals, as well as political parties, when it comes to how to handle the requests. That’s why we have instituted the proactive disclosures, now into 17 categories. A lot of requests were made about ministers’ and MLAs’ calendars.
Also, as I said, we’re now expanding the category by two — just recently, when I became the minister. So now you could actually have the notes that are sent to the deputy ministers and also the ministers of state.
As for the reduction in the requests, as you know, it was due to one or two applicants who constituted over three-quarters of the requests that came to us. Now, after the institution of the fee, we are directing these individuals to be more targeted when they make their requests. As a result, that kind of request to multiple ministries has decreased from more than three-quarters to less than a quarter of the requests that we have to handle.
What we did, of course, is we also devoted a lot of resources to dealing with backlogs. The backlogs affect the timeliness figure that we were talking about, because until you close the file, that remains. I know that in the past — before — the former, previous government were not dealing with the backlogs. If you don’t deal with the backlogs, you could claim that’s a request that came in. You’d have done it on time.
I think we are putting a priority on the requests. We don’t differentiate whether these are from political parties, from individuals or personal. Personal information — you do not have to pay the $10 fee. So I think we are continuing to make sure this process works for everyone.
R. Merrifield: In 2012-2013, there were 10,000 requests for FOI that were received and closed. That number held pretty much steady until the change in government in 2017. Yes, it went up. It also went back down.
Let’s take a year where things were like same, same. We’ve got 2012 and 2021 that are almost bang on the number. In fact, in 2021, it’s a little bit less than what the FOI requests were in 2012. Let’s go and test the minister’s theory out as to whether or not it was because of an overload of requests.
Well, the average business days it took for government to respond in 2012 was 26. The average numbers of days for government to respond in 2021-22 was actually three times higher, at 65. This is not about the number of requests. This is about a government that specifically chose not to prioritize getting back to people and to entities. This is about a government that allowed the situation to get so out of control that our Privacy Commissioner felt compelled to write a report that was pretty damning.
I’m going to ask the minister: does the minister actually believe that 20 additional people and $7½ million was required to deal with exactly the same number of requests as came in, in 2012?
Hon. G. Chow: Regarding the member’s question about comparing 2012 to 2021, before 2015, we didn’t keep track of the number of pages that we had to deal with when a request was being made. Now we are talking about 2½ million pages. Back in 2015, we were only dealing with less than one million pages, 900,000 to be exact. So there’s actually an increase of 2½ times in terms of volume.
Also, the previous government didn’t want to deal with the backlog, because they were just looking at what came in, and their figure was based on that current year, whereas we dealt with the backlog, in order to serve everyone. I think we are not prioritizing the requests like the previous government, because if you don’t deal with the backlog, then you’re putting these people in a long wait.
I think we are doing as well as we can. Like the member said, we increased the resources. We increased the members devoting their time to the Ministry of Children and Family, who got many, many requests. And we have increased the number of proactive disclosures to 17, so people no longer need to actually make that kind of request. That information is available. Again, we are increasing our timeliness from 79 percent to 84 percent.
R. Merrifield: Just a point. Question 1(a): could the minister clarify? He’s used 78 percent, but now he’s using 79 percent as a starting point. Just for my own mind, that would be great.
But for point 1(b), the minister’s answer just doesn’t hold water. I am actually dealing with average to average — in 2012, the average day. So that would actually have the backlog already asserted.
The minister told me yesterday that it’s because of the backlog that the days are getting so high and that just by dealing with the backlog, now suddenly and miraculously, it’s down to 31 days. I would love to see that, because this was systemic. This was over 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022. Every single year that this government has been in power, that number has gone up, not down.
Again, I’m going to say that the answer and the response just don’t hold water. The number of pages? Well, the number of bureaucrats. We’ve already been through that. How many more can you add? I guess you get more pages to deal with, but the number of requests are still the same. The number of actual files that have to be dealt with are equal.
I’m going to draw the attention of the minister to just another statistic. I’m having a hard time figuring this one out. On the minister’s own report, on page 12, from September…. I guess it was October 5 when it was delivered, so I’m really excited that this year’s is going to be summer. I’m going to hold you to that one, Minister. This one was delivered….
The Chair: Through the Chair, please.
R. Merrifield: Oh, sorry. Thank you for the reminder, Chair.
October 5, 2023. In there, there’s a chart that actually shows how many are received and how many are closed, of the FOI requests, both personal and general. Obviously, the personal ones are the ones that are going to MCFD, that volume that we’ve been speaking of, around the 4,000 or 4,500 number. Then the general requests received are everyone else, which is that list that I had made note of, everyone from lawyers or individuals or political parties or media.
For the total number of personal received and closed, there’s only a delta of about 363. The total number of general received and closed…. It’s actually 1,055 more closed than received. Yet we have a backlog that had accumulated to such an extent over the course of…. The minister gave examples of why that backlog had occurred, whether it was COVID or the exorbitant amount of MCFD personal requests.
My question to the minister is just simply this. If we’re opening and closing the same number almost every single year and, in fact, more than previous, how are we accumulating such a backlog?
The Chair: Minister, noting the hour, may I ask you to respond to the question after the break?
I ask the minister to move the motion.
Hon. G. Chow: I move that the committee rise and report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:45 a.m.
PROCEEDINGS IN THE
BIRCH ROOM
Committee of Supply
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
TRANSPORTATION AND
INFRASTRUCTURE
The House in Committee of Supply (Section C); M. Dykeman in the chair.
The committee met at 11:08 a.m.
The Chair: Good morning, Members. I call the Committee of Supply for Section C to order. We are meeting today to consider the budget estimates of the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure.
I now recognize the minister to move the vote.
On Vote 45: ministry operations, $1,135,439,000.
The Chair: Minister, do you have any opening remarks to get us started?
Hon. R. Fleming: I do, and I’ll try to be brief. I just want to highlight some new features of Budget 2024 for the audience following along at home today and maybe set the context for Budget 2024 and the work that ministry senior executives and the team did in preparing that budget, and the work that we did at a cabinet level to refine some of the things that are in today’s budget.
The context really is around some very exhausting, difficult years that we’ve had in British Columbia and in other parts of the world. Obviously, we went through a global pandemic together that led to a number of challenges. Our ministry, I think, came out of that quite well, in part because we made the decision not to defer or cancel major capital projects but to continue moving forward using the scientific advice of public health to establish safe construction practices and keep moving throughout those years where health restrictions were in place.
Maybe uniquely, we’re certainly not the only jurisdiction but very much hit by devastating floods that severed many of our major highways, cut our railway connections to the rest of the country for a period of time. That was additionally important for the province’s economy, to restore that as quickly as possible.
At that time, British Columbia and Canada and the rest of the world were seeing a 40-year record high in the inflation rate, and we experienced firsthand the compounding effect of not just a globally and nationally disrupted supply chain but from the west of the country to the east.
Despite all these challenges, though, we did maintain our commitment to provide a durable, modern and efficient transportation infrastructure program that will carry our province into the future in Budget 2024. We’re continuing the momentum in this budget around transit-oriented development to support affordable housing, safe and reliable roads and infrastructure investments in public transit, active transportation networks, working on both the labour challenges, price and vessel investments necessary for reliable ferry services as well as supports for the efficient movement of goods and services.
Twenty years ago this province had a population of just over four million people. Today that number is closer to 5.5 million and rising. A lot of it is concentrated in the Lower Mainland, but parts of the Interior and on Vancouver Island are seeing significant growth as well. With that growth come both challenges but some opportunities for job creation and economic development.
To make the most of these opportunities, it’s critical for transportation infrastructure to keep pace with growth. In fact, it’s important to get ahead of growth and stop chasing it and start shaping it. Many of our projects are designed to do specifically that, through well-planned, efficient transportation networks that are essential to ensure that the communities of the future are livable, affordable, accessible and connected and as environmentally sensitive as possible.
To this budget, a record $13.5 billion of investment over the next three years, $2 billion more than what we were debating last year. Our funding partners will contribute an additional $1.73 billion, as well, in that time, making the total investment of $15.3 billion in roads, transit, active transportation networks and ferries, both on the coast and inland ferries.
It’s an extraordinary, unprecedented investment. It shows our commitment to building the transportation links needed to move vital goods around our province and in and out of our province quickly and efficiently to our largest trading partners.
Let me speak specifically a little bit about transit because this budget provides the resources to expand the SkyTrain network by 27 percent through two projects, the Surrey-Langley SkyTrain and the Broadway subway project. We’ll break ground later this year on the Surrey-Langley SkyTrain after completing some of the pre-works that are happening right now.
The project to extend SkyTrain to Langley will transform the transportation experience for people in Metro Vancouver, especially for those who live, work, study and play south of the Fraser River. This is the first SkyTrain investment south of the Fraser in almost 30 years, and it unlocks a lot of opportunities around transit-oriented communities.
There are a number of ministries in government that play a role in promoting transit-oriented development. And I’m very proud that ours is one of them and that the funds committed in Budget 2023 continue in this budget to enable us to buy property that will make affordable housing opportunities around not just the eight stations in the Surrey-Langley SkyTrain, but throughout the network.
The other project, I think, is a perfect example of how transportation investment can spur forward economic development. And that is the Broadway subway project. It’s ongoing. Tunnel boring is happening beneath the feet of Vancouverites today. This will provide fast, frequent, and convenient SkyTrain service to what is already B.C.’s second-largest job centre. A cluster of world-class health care services are there and an emerging innovation and research hub. And now we’ll have growing residential communities because of that expansion.
Let me go to the rest of the province that’s served by B.C. Transit and very briefly touch upon some of the things we’re proud of and that this budget speaks to. First of all, B.C. Transit was the first transit agency in North America to recover 100 percent of its pre-pandemic ridership level, something British Columbians can be very proud of. It’s a remarkable milestone.
We’re also proud that since 2017, with B.C. Transit we have increased base operating funding by more than 49 percent, which ensures that transit levels have been able to expand services in communities across the province.
Children 12 and under free, a fare-free program, is now in its third year with this budget — a huge success there in terms of the overall millions of boardings that have been promoted by that program.
We’ve been able to fund negotiated wage increases for the people who deliver transit services every day. We’ve increased B.C. Transit’s capital spending by $248 million and operating funding by $28 million. This will support an increase of 358,000 operating hours through this budget.
I’m going to move just briefly to highways. There’s significant pace and scale in this budget around our investment in a world-class highway network to keep goods and services moving — $7 billion in Budget 2024 invested on highways, side roads, rest areas all the way from the Fraser Valley to the Cariboo region to the Alberta border.
The Fraser Valley corridor alone is $2.2 billion in urgent work that’s needed to widen that highway through the Fraser Valley to improve the overall performance of Highway 1, Canada’s national highway but an important regional highway for the fast-growing Fraser Valley area.
In the Interior, there’s $575 million in investments that are sustained to keep expanding the highway and the safety and performance of Highway 1 to the Alberta border. We finished the Kicking Horse phase 4 project. We debated that last year at budget estimates, and we can talk about it as it nears completion. I was able to see this engineering marvel just a few months ago, with members of the opposition present too, and I think we all shared how impressed we are with that piece of engineering.
So $1.5 billion being invested into the Cariboo recovery, and I’m sure we’ll hear from the critics, colleagues from the Cariboo, with some specific inquiries about that, but it’s a lot of money to repair a lot of damage that came from the 2020 and 2021 floods.
There’s $516 million here, another record, on highway resurfacing and upgrades, which is good to keep the road condition of B.C.’s highways in good condition. There’s also an additional $437 million in rehabilitating, replacing or seismically upgrading structures, and there’s some money, as well, for safety rest areas throughout the system, which will support the trucking industry, who we’ve listened to, to have better sanitary facilities, encourage drivers to take breaks to be rested and make our roads safer for everyone.
The last thing I want to speak to is climate resiliency, because we’ve talked about that, and undoubtedly, the opposition will want to ask us a little bit about the recovery from the atmospheric river of November 2021. The ministry now has a climate adaptation program — $383 million there to resource projects. Last year we funded 59 resiliency projects. There have been over 100 funded since the program began in 2022. There will be more in the coming year. And that is a new and unique program that demonstrates the “build back better” engineering principles that B.C. pioneered and that many jurisdictions are now looking to us to replicate in their provinces.
That’s the sum total. I’ve skipped through $13.5 billion rather quickly, I hope, and I will now hear from the opposition on their questions.
The Chair: Thank you, Minister.
I now recognize the member for Surrey–White Rock.
Would you like to make any opening remarks?
T. Halford: No. I thank the minister for the overview. I welcome his staff, and I think it’ll be an informative, at least for me, number of hours over the next few days. But I want to get right into it.
I’m going to start with something I’ve talked a lot about. I know the minister has done a lot of media on it. I think we’re both equally as frustrated. And that’s overpass strikes. We’ve had 34, in terms of my counting, since 2021. The minister and I have both spoken in terms of the lack of penalties that are able to be enforced, whether they’re escalating.
In the overpass strikes that we’ve seen since 2019, can the minister indicate how many of those strikes happened without having an oversize permit?
Hon. R. Fleming: I will commit to getting him a number. I don’t have that on hand. I’m sure he has additional questions about the issue itself and some of the penalties and some of the things that we’re trying to do and the education we’re doing in the industry.
I will say this too. It has become a national discussion. A few weeks ago we had the Council of Ministers for Transportation meeting from all provinces and territories with our federal counterpart, Minister Rodriguez.
British Columbia put this on the agenda — to make some of the first steps on a renewed discussion of having a national safety certificate that can prevent companies that are substantially the same escaping penalties that, say, the province of British Columbia would levy and operating out of a neighbouring jurisdiction. This is something that my colleagues in Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec had all identified as a similar problem there. They’ve had overpasses struck, extensive damage and otherwise reckless, unsafe behaviour by some of their licence carriers.
The fact of the matter is that Canada, as a country of 38 million people, finds itself with a safety certificate system that I am comfortable saying is outdated. Which is not to say we should move to the American model, full stop, but it does mean there needs to be a better cross-provincial enforcement regime in place. We’ve put that on the national agenda now. Transport Canada is going to coordinate what that may look like and get provincial input. We’re delighted that they’ve taken this issue seriously.
It’s clear it’s not just a B.C. problem. There is interest from governments across the country, regardless of their political orientation. It’s an issue of safety that all governments share, and we need to advance some ideas and some enforcement tools that will be effective in that regard.
T. Halford: What is the average wait time to get an oversize permit?
Hon. R. Fleming: I will make the same commitment to get an answer to that. If the member has a series of questions that he wishes to read into the record, that are data oriented, I can produce that for him.
T. Halford: We’ve had over 30 strikes in the last few years. I’m not sure how the ministry or the minister didn’t think that we were going to come in with questions.
Interjection.
T. Halford: What’s that? I never said that.
Interjection.
T. Halford: Okay. Well, that’s what you heard. It’s not what I said.
The Chair: Okay, through the Chair.
T. Halford: Through the Chair, we’ve had a number of overpass strikes. I’m asking on overpasses. Clearly does not have information that should be pretty accessible in terms of how many were actually struck. How many overpasses were struck? Did they have permits? What was the wait time for those permits?
If the minister doesn’t have that information, we can move on to another line of questioning. It’s as simple as: why has this minister not tabled legislation that would give them the power to increase the fines related to these overpass strikes?
Hon. R. Fleming: To the member’s previous questions, there have been 35 strikes of our infrastructure since 2021. Twenty of them did not have permits. The average wait time for an overheight permit is less than one hour. That’s the average in the system, so it’s not about time. It’s not about backlog of permits. It is about poor driving behaviour from a very small fraction of the industry.
There are about three million truck movements a month in B.C. You put 35 infrastructure strikes over the past three years in context. That means that the vast majority of the driving workforce in B.C. operate with skill, with due care and within the conditions of their licence that they’re sworn to uphold, which is to move things safely through our highways.
Since we started to track data, because this wasn’t done before, we have now determined that there are some patterns. There are a couple of firms and some repeat drivers who are the bad apples in the industry, who are the .0001 percent, and I’m not exaggerating mathematically, that are involved in overpass strikes.
We have sought to have a very surgical approach to taking people like this off the roads to make highways safer. One of the strongest tools that we’ve introduced recently is the ability to suspend the entire fleet in a carrier’s operation while they’re under investigation after an incident like this happens. I’m sure the member can appreciate the value of that as an economic penalty and deterrent and the message that that has sent out to industry.
Interestingly, the Trucking Association and other trucking organizations support government’s efforts to crack down on overpass strikes. They’re caught in the same congestion and delays and inconvenience and also the reputational embarrassment that is caused by a very small group of drivers.
We’ve increased fines, but not to an amount that I think is adequate. We are looking at options to do even more in that regard. There are limits to what kind of fines can be issued roadside, and we are looking at new tools that could be pursued through a court system that would be dramatically higher. We will, of course, advise the opposition on how we intend to do that when we’ve got that ready for introduction.
The other thing that is related, I think, is around excessive speeding, which is a problem with road safety, maybe not always in those 35 incidents of overpass crashes. But a contributing factor is excess speed. As of April this year, next month, the requirement for speed limiter technology, which is in the cab of virtually every truck that is on the road in B.C. today, will be required to be operative and restrict speed to 105 kilometres for commercial vehicles in British Columbia.
The other regulatory change we made recently, and this does speak to a couple of crashes that happened that were rather high profile, was to dump-style vehicles and the requirement to have a functioning, operating in-cab warning device any time the dump box is in a raised position.
These are some of the initiatives that we’ve taken. Also, as I said in my previous answer, chasing down companies that are so-called chameleon companies that may operate unsafely in B.C., have their licence entirely taken away, which we have done recently, then go to operate in a different province and still find their vehicle, sometimes with the same company name, on our roads in British Columbia.
T. Halford: I think the minister has been quoted many times. I know that I have, in terms of the restraints that the minister has or the ministry has on penalties, financial penalties, through legislation. We’ve been through…. These overpass strikes have been happening over three, four years now. We’ve had multiple sessions. The minister has not tabled legislation, so again, I’ll ask….
The Chair: Member, sorry to interrupt. I just want to remind you that on page 308 of parliamentary procedure, the necessity for legislation cannot be discussed in Committee of Supply. Thank you.
T. Halford: Okay, the minister was answering it before, so….
The Chair: So a reminder to all in the chamber.
T. Halford: Okay, thank you for that, Madam Chair.
I’ll just put on record that it is concerning that the minister has made comments a significant amount of times, and I’ve made similar comments, that there’s a lack of legislation that would give the minister further enforcement tools to increase fines. We haven’t seen that yet. I think part of the frustration from the public is why this government hasn’t made it a priority.
I believe we’ll probably be wrapping up around 11:45.
The Chair: As per the standing orders, we will be wrapping up at 11:45.
T. Halford: Okay, so what I’m going to do now then is, if I can, give the remaining time to my colleague here to ask a couple quick questions, and then I guess we’ll reconvene after lunch.
N. Letnick: Thank you to my colleague for allowing me this time. I appreciate it.
You may have answered this question already, but could the minister please identify what the capital budget for his ministry is over the next three years in total?
Hon. R. Fleming: For the member, it’s $13.5 billion over the next three years.
N. Letnick: Thank you for that.
Out of the $13.5 billion over the next three years, could the minister please outline what specific capital improvements are going to be done in the Central Okanagan, specifically from Kelowna to Lake Country?
Hon. R. Fleming: I’ve got some numbers on recent investments and current planned investments for not the entire region but for two constituencies: his own, Kelowna–Lake Country, and Kelowna West. And I’m sure the member for Kelowna West will be taking part in these proceedings a little later.
There are a couple of things that I want to highlight for the member. I know he’s participated in and is quite involved and informed of the Central Okanagan integrated transportation plan that is going on. It’s a fairly big project in terms of the advanced engineering planning and expenses on that.
There are a number of components that are ongoing right now.
Highway 97 strategic corridor review, which is, of course, in Kelowna.
The Clement Avenue extension, which we’re funding the study of in Kelowna.
The Commonwealth Road intersection improvements, which is Kelowna–Lake Country.
Highway 97 couplet removal in West Kelowna.
Highway 97, Boucherie and Westlake interchanges undergoing advanced engineering study.
Highway 97 Trepanier intersection signalization, which is, of course, a little closer to Peachland, and that’s a $28.3 million expenditure.
Then, of course, in the constituencies of Kelowna West and Lake Country, since we’ve formed government and including the forecast for the current year, there’s about $40 million in Kelowna West that has been invested and about $58 million in Lake Country.
There will be more. I don’t have the out-years for this budget, because when it comes to things like road maintenance and improvement, those second and third years get determined based on projects that have, in some cases, been engineered and that are under study right now. There will be future investments that are connected to the information that we’re gathering.
N. Letnick: Thank you to the minister for that.
Fifteen years ago, when I was first elected as an MLA, I was asked by then Premier Campbell what would be my first road priority, and I said a passing lane up Walker Hill on Highway 33. That was built almost immediately. We then had the new highway between Winfield and Oyama, in Lake Country. I think it was around $88 million. That was built.
Highway 97 six-laning, improving the intersection at Sexsmith — that was a partnership with the federal government thanks to Ron Cannan, who was our MP at the time. Again, that was built.
All these things kept getting built until this government took over. The NDP government took over, and then all the money left the Okanagan, left my district.
Quite frankly, I was here with the minister last year, and we had the same conversation. The minister last year said: “Well, you know, we have a three-year budget. Maybe next year.”
And actually, to quote the minister from last year, he said: “Each and every year there’s a new budget opportunity to talk about projects that get updated every year.” Well, all I heard from the minister is more study, more plans, and nothing really has changed, other than, of course, that the amount of money has gone from $11.5 billion to $13.5 billion.
Again, more money for transportation and again, Kelowna–Lake Country has been left off the list. I don’t know whether it’s something personal. The minister maybe doesn’t like me. But the people of Kelowna–Lake Country have waited long enough — long enough for this NDP government to finally do something concrete with the highways.
We’re having people dying trying to cross from one side of a six-lane highway to the other side when they shouldn’t be. There should be medians there. We’ve been studying that to death.
Actually, last year the staff told them we have to study more. We have to work with the businesses. That was a year ago. What’s happening to it? We need some kind of great separation between the west side and the east side of Lake Country so we can join the community together. Nothing is happening on that. The people at Crystal Waters are taking their lives in their hands trying to get access to the highway. Again, nothing is happening on that.
Look, we all know I’m not running again, but these people deserve better. They deserve better from this government. I just hope that should this government be re-elected again, they treat them far better than they have over the last seven years. Should they not, well, I hope that the other government does better.
Quite frankly, it is astonishing that all these projects are happening all across the province, and this particular part of the province has been left in the dust. I just, quite honestly, am astonished and gobsmacked that the $13.5 billion…. The minister couldn’t do any better than he did last year in answering this question.
Hon. R. Fleming: I didn’t quite hear a question there, but let me infer what the question might have been.
Of the $13.5 billion, I’ve outlined some of the priority areas. We have $1.5 billion being invested in the Cariboo. Who represents those constituencies? This government? The $1.5 billion into the Cariboo is for roads that were destroyed and roads that need to be improved. Would he like to take money out of the Cariboo for his constituency? I’ll leave him to answer that question.
We have the restoration program on the Coquihalla and other damaged highways from the atmospheric rivers. Those are obviously a priority. Every person in British Columbia…. The price of their groceries, the parts they need for their business, the supply chain demands that that be the number one priority. Every project that we undertake in our 47,000-kilometre road network in the province of British Columbia needs to be supported by a business case that is informed by a detailed engineering study.
I’ve listened to this member. I appreciate his passion on road safety in his region. I know there is growth there. I’ve talked to elected officials and put planning dollars in place for their new and emerging priorities. Clement Avenue is one of them that is very important to Kelowna, and that work needs to be done to support an investment plan.
I’m sorry it doesn’t align with his schedule of when he intends to leave the Legislative Assembly. But it is the important, proper step that every region, every part of British Columbia adheres to in the same manner to get a project approved that then goes forward with the capital dollars. That’s where we’re at in this cycle.
The Chair: Member. Then we’ll be adjourning for lunch.
N. Letnick: Thank you to the minister for the answer, and I understand the minister has a larger province to deal with. I was minister for four years as well, and I understand competing priorities.
What I’m saying here is that even in light of competing priorities, $13.5 billion — for sure, there must have been some opportunity in the Central Okanagan to put something concrete in there. I guess concrete is the right word — concrete, asphalt, something to improve what’s happening in the Central Okanagan.
As the minister knows, and he has alluded to it here, we have a big, growing part of the province. The economy of our province is so important. A big part of that is the Central Okanagan and driving the economy forward, because it’s only through economic growth that we can be able to afford to pay for all these things.
I’m saying that the lack of investment in the last seven years is hindering that kind of growth. We need the investment right back in the central Okanagan so people can travel safer from the bridge to the other side of Lake Country, and we can also reconnect our communities.
Again, I’m going to go on and on.
With that, again, thank you, hon. Chair, for the opportunity. Thank you to my colleague for giving me some time, and again, I hope the minister can see through this $13.5 billion and allocate some of that for some real projects on the ground over the next fiscal year.
Hon. R. Fleming: Well, I would say that the member should look holistically at it as well. I mean, our government is working with B.C. Transit, making substantial investments in Kelowna, and more to come, to prepare for the future. We have one of the best active transportation networks for a community of that size anywhere in B.C.
The city of Kelowna has learned how to be successful through our grant programs. We look to do even more through this budget. Those are adjudicated, and grants will be received, but there are funds in this budget to make sure that Kelowna benefits, and they have a track record of doing so.
The priority in Kelowna, like many parts of the province, has been to build aggressively on housing. We’re working through different ministries on creating that kind of infrastructure. I know post-secondary, and learning expansion on UBC Okanagan has been important. Those are investments that the government is making as well. So there’s lots there, which is good, and we can revisit that later on. We’ve got lots of time, I believe, for estimates to come.
For now, hon. Chair, I move that the committee rise and report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:45 a.m.