Fourth Session, 41st Parliament

(2019) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Thursday, March 7, 2019

Morning Sitting

Issue No. 217

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Bill M206 — Residential Tenancy Amendment Act, 2019

A. Weaver

Bill 15 — Agricultural Land Commission Amendment Act, 2019

Hon. L. Popham

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

International Women’s Day and women’s empowerment

J. Isaacs

Farmworker safety and memorial

R. Chouhan

Cowboy Heritage Week

D. Barnett

International Women’s Day and gender equality

M. Dean

Women in leadership

S. Furstenau

Journée de la francophonie

N. Simons

Oral Questions

Surrey school district portable use

S. Cadieux

Hon. R. Fleming

M. Hunt

Child and youth poverty and access to menstrual products

A. Weaver

Hon. S. Simpson

Hon. R. Fleming

Potential school closings in Vancouver

M. Lee

Hon. R. Fleming

Hospital discharge practices in Fraser Health Authority

J. Martin

Hon. A. Dix

Funding for enforcement of animal breeder regulations

J. Thornthwaite

Hon. L. Popham

Forest industry tenures and licences

D. Barnett

Hon. D. Donaldson

Tabling Documents

Office of the Ombudsperson, special report, Committed to Change: Protecting

the Rights of Involuntary Patients Under the Mental Health

Act , March 2019

Reports from Committees

Legislative Assembly Management Committee, third report,

March 6, 2019

Hon. M. Farnworth

Motions Without Notice

Appointment of special investigator into misconduct allegations concerning Clerk and Sergeant-at-Arms

Hon. M. Farnworth

Orders of the Day

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 12 — Supply Act (No. 1), 2019

Hon. C. James

T. Redies

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Bill 12 — Supply Act (No. 1), 2019

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 2 — Protection of Public Participation Act (continued)

Hon. D. Eby

M. Lee

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Bill 2 — Protection of Public Participation Act

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Children and Family Development (continued)

L. Throness

Hon. K. Chen

THURSDAY, MARCH 7, 2019

The House met at 10:06 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

Mr. Speaker: Minister of Health.

Hon. A. Dix: Thank you very much, hon. Speaker, or I should say, M. le Président.

Aujourd’hui nous célébrons la Journée de la francophonie. B.C. Francophonie

Day, we’re celebrating today. We have important guests in the gallery:

Marie-Nicole Dubois, the vice-president of la Fédération des francophones de

la Colombie-Britannique; Maurice Guibord, president of the Société

historique francophone de la Colombie-Britannique; and Suzanne Jacob,

president of the Société de développement économique de la

Colombie-Britannique. They’ll be joining us today in celebrating B.C.

Francophonie Day.

Our theme today is “Honouring B.C. francophone history.” It will

happen today at noon in the Hall of Honour. Of course, everybody is

welcome.

J’invite tous et toutes les députés à se joindre à moi pour souhaiter

la bienvenue à tout le monde qui participe à ces événements

aujourd’hui.

[I invite all the members to join me in welcoming everyone who is

participating in these events today.]

[French text and translation provided by Hon. A.

Dix.]

Hon. K. Chen: I’m so honoured to have the opportunity to introduce two very special

guests who are in the gallery here today: Anne and Phillip Bailey, who are

from the constituency of Burnaby-Lougheed. They’re in town for the B.C.

Building Trades conference, because Phillip is a lifetime honorary member of

the Building Trades.

This morning I had the great opportunity to show them around the

Legislature. They were sharing stories of how they worked hard for the 1972

Dave Barrett campaign. Anne later on became the CA for Rosemary Brown, and

she was also a Burnaby school trustee for two terms.

I’m so honoured to have them here, and I really want to thank them for

always sharing the stories and their wisdom with me. I would like to ask all

the members in this House to make them feel really welcome.

[10:10 a.m.]

Mr. Speaker: Kelowna–Lake Country.

N. Letnick: Merci, M. le Président. Je veux aussi dire que c’est la Journée de la

francophonie, donner mes félicitations au ministre de la santé pour son

partie de cette journée ici avec nous. Vous êtes très bienvenus, et j’ai

hâte que tout le monde ici, tous les députés, vous souhaite la bienvenu à

midi. Merci beaucoup.

[Thank you, hon. Speaker. I would also like to say that today is

Francophonie Day, congratulate the Minister of Health on his French and also

thank all the people who have come to take

part in this day with us. You are

very welcome, and I look forward to everyone here, all the members,

welcoming you at noon. Thank you very much.]

Will everybody please help them feel very welcome.

[French text and translation provided by N.

Letnick.]

R. Chouhan: We have four staff from the Legislative Library with us today in the

gallery: Megan Laflin, Katey Stickle, Alieda Blandford and Wiebke Imsel.

These and all of the staff are always so keen to help us. I want to say

thank you for the wonderful support that they have provided to all members.

Please join me to give them a warm welcome.

J. Thornthwaite: I have some very special guests today. I’ve got quite a few grade 9

students from Argyle Secondary, which is in my riding in North Vancouver. I

would wish that the House would welcome the students and their teachers when

they arrive.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL M206 — RESIDENTIAL TENANCY

AMENDMENT ACT, 2019

A. Weaver presented a bill intituled Residential Tenancy Amendment

Act, 2019.

A. Weaver: I move a bill intituled Residential Tenancy Amendment Act, 2019,

of which notice has been given in my name on the order paper, be now

read a first time.

This bill amends the Residential Tenancy Act to provide tenants

with the ability to end their fixed-term lease if staying in their

rental unit is a threat to their safety or security. It broadens the

somewhat constraining family violence provisions introduced by the B.C.

Liberal government in 2015 and gives, for example, a tenant exposed to

sexualized violence by a roommate or a neighbour the right to break

their lease so they can move to a safer home.

A new term “occupant violence” is defined in the bill and makes it

explicit that the regulations listing which professionals and

practitioners are authorized to provide a confirmation statement about

family violence have the same powers in cases involving occupant

violence.

The written third-party verification can be provided by police,

listed medical practitioners, counsellors, First Nations support

workers, victim support workers, among others. Having regulations that

extend verification powers beyond law enforcement is vital, as not all

survivors will be able or willing to involve the police.

In cases of domestic violence, risk of injury or death can

actually increase if a violent partner learns their spouse has contacted

police or is planning on leaving. Having a range of professionals able

to vouch for victims will allow them to choose the safest option for

their situations.

The previous B.C. Liberal government did a superb job with the

development of these regulations. “Sexual abuse” is explicitly listed

under occupant violence. “Sexual abuse” is used rather than “sexual

assault” or “violence” because it aligns with and is already defined in

existing laws, such as the Adult Guardianship Act and because it is a

broader term that includes sexual assault and sexualized

violence.

By using the word “including” before the list of crimes covered by

occupant violence, the law is kept inclusive of a range of situations

that could fit the broader intent, rather than explicitly specifying

which situations would be covered.

No one should be forced to live in close proximity to their

perpetrator. This bill supports survivors.

Mr. Speaker: The question is first reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

A. Weaver: 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 M206, Residential Tenancy Amendment Act, 2019, 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 15 — AGRICULTURAL LAND

COMMISSION AMENDMENT ACT,

Hon. L. Popham presented a message from Her Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Agricultural Land Commission Amendment

Act, 2019.

Hon. L. Popham: I move that the bill be introduced and read for a first time

now.

I’m pleased to introduce Bill 15, the Agricultural Land Commission

Amendment Act, 2019. Bill 15 will strengthen the governance and

independence of the Agricultural Land Commission. This bill is the

second part of a two-phase legislative initiative to revitalize the

agricultural land reserve and the Agricultural Land Commission, one of

my mandate letter commitments.

This second suite of amendments we’ll introduce now focuses on the

Agricultural Land Commission. This bill will strengthen the independence

of the commission and improves the governance structure, enabling it to

better advance its important mandate to preserve farmland and encourage

farming and ranching in the agricultural land reserve.

[10:15 a.m.]

The amendments in this bill will do this through five key changes.

The first is to strengthen the independence of the commission by

replacing the current ALC governance model of an executive committee and

six regional panels with one commission, maintaining regional

representation by requiring membership from all six administrative

regions.

The second change will provide the chair of the commission with

more flexibility to organize its members into a decision-making panel on

applications by topic, technical expertise or administrative

region.

Thirdly, this bill creates new decision-making criteria that

prioritizes the protection and enhancement of the size, integrity and

continuity of the land base when the commission is considering

exercising any power or performing a duty under the Agricultural Land

Commission Act.

Fourthly, we’re adding more compliance and enforcement capacity

and tools, including a new offence for landowners who do not produce

records when the Agricultural Land Commission orders.

Finally, the new bill will require that exclusion applications be

submitted to the commission only by local governments, First Nations

governments or the province to encourage these types of applications to

be done as part of a thoughtful land use planning process in order to

further limit speculation on farmland and to protect the ALR.

Together these five changes will strengthen the govern­ance

and independence of the Agricultural Land Commission.

Mr. Speaker: The question is first reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

Hon. L. Popham: 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 15, Agricultural Land Commission Amendment Act, 2019,

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’S

EMPOWERMENT

J. Isaacs: March 8 is International Women’s Day, and the theme for this

year’s campaign, “Balance for better,” is one that certainly resonates

with me.

As an entrepreneur, politician, wife and mother, I am constantly

looking for the balance between these roles, and I know I’m not the only

woman who is challenged with navigating multiple roles, wearing many

different hats and attempting to find a healthy balance. It’s a

challenge to thrive professionally and personally, especially when faced

with daily trials and unexpected events that can sometimes make us feel

like the deck might be stacked against us.

That’s why this year’s theme of “Balance for better” is so

important. Women around the globe are making great strides to take their

rightful place in society. While there is still work to do, women are

empowering themselves to be the best that they can be, striving for that

balance that betters their lives.

I’m proud to recognize the achievements from the women who came

before us and their tireless campaign for equality — equal opportunity

for women, equal pay, equal representation and gender equality. British

Columbia was the fourth Canadian province to extend voting rights to

women, and in January 1918, Mary Ellen Smith became the first British

Columbian woman elected to the Legislative Assembly.

Today 34 of the 87 seats are occupied by women. These women are

great role models for young women who may one day want to enter public

office, and they have been an instrumental

part in making the

Legislature more inclusive.

Great progress has been made here in British Columbia, but it

takes genuine collaboration between men and women for true balance to be

achieved. I know my colleagues and the MLAs from both sides of the House

look forward to finding more ways to create balance here in the

Legislature and in everyday life.

FARMWORKER SAFETY AND MEMORIAL

R. Chouhan: Twelve years ago on March 7, three women farmworkers were killed

in a preventable accident on Highway 1 near Chilliwack.

Sarabjit Sidhu, Sukhwinder Punia and Amarjit Bal, along with 14

other farmworkers, were driven to work in an over-packed van. This van

had no proper seats, no seatbelts, and the tires were completely bald.

The driver didn’t even have the proper driver’s licence. Following this

terrible accident, the coroner’s inquest made 20 recommendations to

improve transportation of farmworkers. Unfortunately, some of those key

recommendations were ignored by the authorities.

[10:20 a.m.]

The victims’ families, the B.C. Federation of Labour, the

Progressive Intercultural Society and many other individuals raised

funds to create the Golden Tree Monument in the memory of the three

farmworkers. This beautiful 24-foot-high golden tree is installed at the

Abbotsford Public Library. Last Saturday over 100 people held the annual

candlelight vigil at this monument to remember these women and to raise

awareness about workplace safety on our farms. While we remember these

farmworkers, we hope all 20 recommendations are implemented to avoid any

more catastrophic accidents in the future.

Next time you are in Abbotsford, please visit this memorial to pay

your respects to these farmworkers and remember how hard these workers

work to put food on our tables.

COWBOY HERITAGE WEEK

D. Barnett: Cowboys and ranchers have a storied and significant history in

this province. I am honoured to rise in this House today to formally

acknowledge their legacy of hard work and the important contributions

they continue to make every day.

March 8 to 15 is B.C. Cowboy Heritage Week. This week marks an

opportunity to promote the preservation of cowboy heritage in B.C. and

recognize how cowboys and ranchers have adapted in the face of changing

economic times.

The B.C. Cowboy Heritage Society was established in 1996. This

non-profit society works tirelessly to provide young people in this

province with scholarships and to plan events that celebrate what it

means to be a cowboy in B.C.

On February 13, the 100 Mile House Cowboy Concert was

held.

From March 14 to 17, Kamloops will be hosting its 23rd annual

cowboy festival. The event is the biggest of its kind in Canada and one

of the best in North America. Festival-goers enjoy live entertainment

from musicians, poets, art, food and an incredible tradeshow, including

exhibitors such as Cariboo Saddlery and the B.C. Rodeo

Association.

The Kamloops Cowboy Festival will also feature three inductions to

the B.C. Cowboy Hall of Fame, including Gun Granberg Ranch, who will

receive the Century Ranch in 2019; Hilbert DeLeeuw and DeLeeuw Ranch;

and the Charlie Moon family.

The B.C. Cowboy Hall of Fame was started by the B.C. Cowboy

Heritage Society in 1998 with the intention of memorializing the stories

of incredible cowboys and their families across British

Columbia.

Although question period, at times, can feel like a rodeo, our

work in the House pales in comparison to the demanding and challenging

work of cowboys in British Columbia. Let’s all take a moment to thank

the ranching community for producing food for British Columbia families

and for taking care of the land we call home.

INTERNATIONAL WOMEN’S DAY

AND GENDER

EQUALITY

M. Dean: Tomorrow, on International Women’s Day, we celebrate all that

women have accomplished, and we stand together in the continued fight

for gender equality. Gender equality and representation are fundamental

values across our province, and it’s our responsibility to work every

day to advance gender equality in British Columbia.

In our province, we believe in lifting women up, because when

people can reach their full potential, our communities and our economy

are strengthened. Yet women in B.C. continue to face sexism and

gender-based violence and discrimination every day. That’s why we all

must take real, concrete steps to bring down the barriers that are

preventing us from reaching gender equality. From supporting a child

care system that gives parents the choice to return to school or work to

taking action to end gender-based violence, we can all work to make sure

everyone in our province is treated justly and has access to the same

opportunities.

[10:25 a.m.]

Around the globe and here at home, people are fighting to end

gender inequality, and we must listen to their voices, including the

voices of Indigenous peoples, immigrants, people of colour and people

living with disabilities, who are much more likely to experience

gender-based discrimination and violence.

International Women’s Day was started over 100 years ago, and

clearly, we have more work to do. While we may not be able to do it all

at once, we must keep moving forward. This International Women’s Day

let’s commit to providing better support for women and to working

together to build a stronger, fairer and more inclusive province. We can

all celebrate women’s achievements, raise awareness against injustice

and take action for equality.

WOMEN IN LEADERSHIP

S. Furstenau: It is great to hear all three parties in the House commemorate

International Women’s Day, which we will celebrate tomorrow. But I think

we also need to recognize the urgent need to continue to work together

for a better world — a world where rape is not used as a weapon of war

or power, a world where girls and young women are not excluded from

educational opportunities because they are menstruating or have children

of their own, a world where equal work receives equal pay.

We have made strides in seeing more women elected. Now it’s time

for the next significant step, which is to see far more women in

positions of leadership and to see a redefinition of leadership that

fits the 21st century.

For many leaders, being in power to do things differently will

mean embodying a style of leadership that is kinder, more inclusive and

more empathetic. But make no mistake. Kinder is not weaker. Indeed,

there is nothing more powerful.

I have seen the extraordinary strength of women who are rooted in

kindness — the strength to face down the biggest issues of our time; the

strength to stay at the table, focused on the task at hand; the strength

to listen and truly learn from people who have different perspectives.

The strength to persist through all of that, often while simultaneously

nurturing children and caring for elders, knowing you probably won’t get

the recognition or the pay that you deserve — that is true

leadership.

That level of strength is something I see every day in women, and

I’m deeply inspired and encouraged by it. As women, we must not accept

that it is enough to succeed in a man’s world. It’s time for us to

rewrite the rules. Our collective goal should be a transformation to a

world where everyone can truly thrive and meet their full potential.

Women can help take us there.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast.

JOURNÉE DE LA FRANCOPHONIE

N. Simons: Thank you, M. le Président. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m pleased to

announce the proclamation of March 20 as Journée de la francophonie en

Colombie-Britannique. The event will be celebrated at noon here today in

the Hall of Honour.

La Journée de la francophonie en Colombie-Britannique est une

occasion de célébrer les deux langues officielles du Canada. C’est ce

qui contribue à l’unité canadienne et permet d’assurer la force de notre

pays et de notre province.

[B.C. Francophonie Day is an opportunity to celebrate Canada’s two

official languages. It’s what contributes to Canadian unity and

guarantees the strength of our country and our province.]

Aujourd’hui la Colombie-Britannique honore la contribution des

francophones lesquels renforcent le tissu social, économique et culturel

de notre province. Les francophones de la Colombie-Britannique viennent

de toutes les régions du monde, et aujourd’hui nous célébrons également

la diversité de notre communauté francophone à travers la

province.

[Today British Columbia honours the contributions francophones

have made and are making to strengthen the social, economic and cultural

fabric of the province. Francophones in B.C. come from all around the

world, and today we also celebrate the diversity of our francophone

community around the province.]

The theme of this year’s B.C. Francophonie Day is “Honouring our

B.C. francophone history,” “célébrons notre patrimoine francophone en

Colombie-Britannique.” Last spring British Columbians were invited to

nominate francophone historic places in B.C. and share stories

associated with them as part of the provincial heritage recognition

program.

Several organizations play an active role in the research,

preservation and promotion of B.C. francophone history. Today we

celebrate the great contributions of francophones to the history and

development of British Columbia.

Gisèle Sampson will also be honoured today. She will receive a

commemorative plaque for her contribution to the preservation and

promotion of the francophone history of Victoria and of the

province.

Je vous invite donc à célébrer la Journée de la francophonie en

Colombie-Britannique avec tous les francophones et francophiles de la

province. Merci.

[I therefore invite you to celebrate B.C. Francophonie Day with

all the francophones and francophiles of the province. Thank

you.]

[French text and translation provided by N.

Simons.]

M. Dean: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

[10:30 a.m.]

Introductions by Members

M. Dean: I see that Greg Hind is in the gallery today. He works in a café just

across from my constituency office. It has just opened and employs people

with developmental disabilities. Would the House please make him very

welcome.

Oral Questions

SURREY SCHOOL DISTRICT PORTABLE USE

S. Cadieux: Two years ago the Premier came for a campaign photo-op in Surrey

and promised to eliminate portables. The Premier promised a total

removal of portables over the next four years. “We need to start

reducing them by half in the first two years.” He has not reduced them

by half. He has done the opposite and increased them.

To the Minister of Education, can he explain why the Premier and

he have broken their promises to families in Surrey?

Hon. R. Fleming: I appreciate the question, and I appreciate it coming from the

member who was recently at a very well-attended ground-breaking on a

brand-new school in her constituency.

Surrey has never had more construction projects simultaneously for

schools in its history as under our new government. Today at this time,

under construction or under development, there are 7,000 new seats for

Surrey students. That’s the equivalent of 300 portables. Those schools

are being completed now and in the near future. By 2021, there’ll be

7,000.

But you know what? We’re not content to stop there.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. R. Fleming: We have the largest school capital budget before the House today —

$2.7 billion. That’s good news for Surrey families. That will help us

accelerate construction even more and get rid of portables in Surrey and

other fast-growing districts right around British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Surrey South on a supplemental.

S. Cadieux: The Premier made the promise in 2017. Families in Surrey are

getting the opposite of what he promised. The Premier’s word and this

minister’s word mean absolutely nothing. The portables haven’t been cut;

there are more. You would think that the Premier and this government

would show a little humility or at least be a little bit embarrassed

about blatantly breaking the promise they made to families.

Will the Minister of Education stand up today on behalf of the

Premier and apologize to Surrey families for breaking their

promise?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. R. Fleming: Thank you to the member for the question. I think the other side

should take some credit for the mess that they created in Surrey. In

fact, they should take all of the credit. They should acknowledge their

record in Surrey — that they only built one new school in five

years.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. R. Fleming: One new school opened on their watch in five years, since 2014.

When we became government, to our shock and surprise, there was nothing

in the cupboard in terms of capital projects being planned and built in

Surrey — nothing.

Where there have been new portables brought into Surrey in the

last 18 months, they should take credit for that too. The reason

there’ve been new portables added to the portfolio in Surrey…. Number

one, they lost at the Supreme Court. Class sizes became smaller, and

portables were added. That’s their record for 12 years of fighting

teachers.

That government trashed and eliminated adult education programs.

We brought it back. We needed classrooms to train young adults in Surrey

to get a Dogwood certificate. That’s the other source requiring new

portables.

[10:35 a.m.]

So take the credit. You guys failed to build schools in Surrey.

We’re getting on with it. And guess who thinks that we’re doing a good

job. The Surrey Board of Trade, the school district of Surrey and the

new mayor of Surrey.

Mr. Speaker: I’m sorry for allowing that little bit longer than usual answer,

but I understand that we could only hear half of it over the noise.

That’s why I allowed the longer answer.

The member for Surrey South on a second supplemental.

S. Cadieux: I’ll correct the facts for the record. In fact, there were 14 new

and expanded schools alone in the ridings I held in the

last….

Surrey is a fast-growing city.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

S. Cadieux: Surrey is fast growing. The people of Surrey know that. The

reality is that the NDP excuses for a promise that they made in 2017 are

just excuses, pathetic excuses.

During the election, the Premier came to Surrey and made an

easy-to-understand promise to the voters, but he isn’t making good on

that promise. He hasn’t kept his word to the people of Surrey. It’s just

another on a long list of broken promises from this

government.

Everybody knows that the Premier has failed. Will he or this

Education Minister admit that he never intended to keep his

promise?

Hon. R. Fleming: As I said earlier, what would have made it a lot easier to start

getting rid of portables is if the previous government actually

transitioned something to us in terms of having construction started.

They didn’t even have planning. They had no funds attached to it. We had

to start from square one. As much as I would like to pop up a school in

18 months, it can’t be done anywhere in the world.

What we are doing in Surrey is accelerating and making it go as

fast as we possibly can. That’s why there are the projects under

development that there are today. That’s why there are 7,000 new seats

on their way by 2021, the equivalent of 300 portables.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. R. Fleming: I’m proud that our government is succeeding where they failed.

That’s not the government’s opinion. That’s the opinion of Laurie

Larsen, the school board chair, who says: “We’re finally on a roll with

school construction, and it’s great to see.” February 7,

The Surrey Board of Trade applauds the B.C. government on the

“continued Surrey school investment plan.”

Anita Huberman, chair of the Surrey Board of Trade….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you, Minister.

Hon. R. Fleming: Nobody in Surrey would listen to that side on how you build

schools quicker.

Mr. Speaker: Minister.

Hon. R. Fleming: But the business community in Surrey is….

Mr. Speaker: Minister, you’re….

M. Hunt: If the Premier hadn’t broken his promise, half of the portables in

Surrey would be gone today. Instead, this week the school board

announced that more portables are coming, and the Premier continues to

make excuses. This week his Education Minister was asked about the

Premier’s broken promise and declared: “Portables are

necessary.”

Why did the Premier break his promise to the parents of

Surrey?

Mr. Speaker: Minister of Education, I will give you an A-plus if you can make

it short.

Hon. R. Fleming: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I’ll make this short.

It’s great to see the member stand up and ask about Surrey schools

because his attendance at new openings and ground-breakings on Surrey

new schools has been 100 percent.

[10:40 a.m.]

I feel for that member and other members, though there are fewer

of them, from Surrey. Let’s be clear. I feel for those members. They’ve

waited an awful long time to see it finally happening in Surrey. It is

happening, and I look forward to seeing the member at future

announcements as well.

M. Hunt: It’s not always possible to adjust one’s

schedule when you get

less than one day’s notice of an announcement that the minister is

making.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

M. Hunt: Two years ago the Premier came to Surrey for a campaign photo op

and promised that he would eliminate portables in four years. In October

of 2017, less than two years ago, this minister doubled down on this

commitment. Now they say portables are necessary. The Premier can

pretend that he didn’t make the promise, but the families in Surrey

remember.

The question to the minister is: what is the new timeline to

eliminate portables as he promised?

Hon. R. Fleming: You know what the difference is between a pre-election

announcement and what happens after under our government and

theirs?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Hon. R. Fleming: We actually build the schools. That’s the difference.

I don’t even think that member would fondly recall the old days

under his government when nothing got done. I know he’s happy with the

record of our government, because he shows up every time we announce a

new school in Surrey.

I hope he’ll come to the next event that could be in his

constituency, and I hope he’ll vote for the largest school construction

budget we’ve ever seen in the history of British Columbia. It’s on the

floor of the House today.

The members opposite, if they want to accelerate school

construction in Surrey even more than what has already been done, should

vote for that budget.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

CHILD AND YOUTH POVERTY

AND ACCESS TO MENSTRUAL

PRODUCTS

A. Weaver: The 2018 child poverty report card found that one in five children

in British Columbia are currently growing up in poverty. That’s over

172,000 children, many of whom are in deep poverty, up to $13,000 below

the poverty line.

We also know that these children are very likely to be Indigenous,

immigrants or racialized minorities. These children often go to school

hungry. Their families are worried about basic necessities, such as

shelter and groceries.

Now, consider the approximately 86,000 impoverished children and

youth who require menstrual products on a monthly basis. Consider the

fact that most families under the poverty line are single mothers and

their children. For many individuals, managing menstruation can require

additional products of birth control.

How will the upcoming poverty reduction strategy ensure that all

children and youth have equal access to menstrual products?

Hon. S. Simpson: Thank you to the member for the question.

The cost and availability of menstrual products is a real issue,

especially for poor women who often face the choice of purchasing those

products or buying other essentials, including food. This should not be

the case.

We all expect, when we enter a public washroom, that toilet paper

is readily available and free. Why that isn’t the case for menstrual

products is a very good question — one, I suspect, that if men had a

menstrual cycle, we wouldn’t be asking today.

The member’s question is particularly timely today. The

Parliamentary Secretary for Gender Equity has kicked off the Period

Promise campaign here at the Legislature. People can support that

campaign through donations of products or cash at the Finance Minister’s

office until March 28, and those will go to a very good

purpose.

[10:45 a.m.]

More directly to the member’s inquiry, this is a societal

question. It requires societal change, and as it impacts women,

particularly poor women, it’s an affordability question. Affordability

is a cornerstone of the poverty reduction work in front of our

government, and we’re taking that work on.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Third Party on a supplemental.

A. Weaver: Thank you to the minister for the very thought­ful answer to

the question. My supplemental is this.

Last week the New Westminster school board announced that they

will be providing free menstrual products in all of their elementary,

middle and high schools beginning this September. This will not only

reduce costs faced by financially struggling families; it will improve

access to education for girls and non-binary folk who

menstruate.

We know that students, if they can’t manage their periods, will

remove themselves from extracurricular activities and even miss school.

Providing menstrual products gives all children equal access to

education. But this program places a financial cost on school districts

that are already strapped for funds and facing teacher

shortages.

My question is to the Minister of Education. All children deserve

equal access to education. What is his ministry doing to provide

menstrual products for students in British Columbia?

Hon. R. Fleming: I would thank the member for the question. It’s obviously a very

important issue for students across British Columbia. When students

can’t access menstrual products, it can often impede their ability to

participate in sports or extracurricular activities, or maybe they even

have to miss learning time by having to miss classes.

We see this initiative that New Westminster has undertaken as an

important part of promoting an overall student success agenda that the

government has in working with our school district partners. I want to

take this opportunity to commend the New West district for showing the

lead here. It’s a great initiative; there’s no question about

that.

It has also garnered some interest from school districts. I expect

to be meeting with our education partners about this particular issue,

the B.C. School Trustees Association among them. I would say in the

meantime that we do have some existing funding streams that can be

assessed to do what New Westminster has done, in other parts of the

province. The CommunityLINK fund is one of those that may be an area

where they can pay for menstrual products.

I want to say, too, on a personal note…. I thank the United Way

and, in my community, the Victoria Labour Council for the Period Promise

campaign. I was pleased to go out personally and make some donations

last week when they were doing fundraising. Those activities are ongoing

during this campaign. It’s very promising, and it has led to a very

productive discussion in the school district.

I think this is an issue that fits with our government’s overall

affordability agenda, and we’re happy to engage in that discussion with

school districts.

POTENTIAL SCHOOL CLOSINGS

VANCOUVER

M. Lee: The now Minister of Education has said: “School closures just rip

the guts out of neighbourhoods in Vancouver.” As a parent with children

who have benefited from attending local neighbourhood public schools in

Vancouver, I understand the anxiety of families, with 28 schools

currently on the chopping block. This includes Walter Moberly Elementary

School, located just over the Fraser Street boundary that I share with

the member for Vancouver-Fraserview.

My question is to the Minister of State for Trade. Moberly is in

his riding. What has he done to stop this school closure?

Hon. R. Fleming: I thank the member for the question. I think it’s his obligation,

and other members, to not present misinformation about school closures

in Vancouver. For the first time in 16 years, there is no pressure to

close schools in Vancouver.

We can all remember the herculean effort to shut down schools that

was pursued relentlessly, doggedly, year after year by the old

government on that side. The Vancouver school district stood up to that

government. School districts around British Columbia stood up to that

government on closures, for the reasons that our government supports

keeping those schools open.

That’s the discussion we’re having with the Vancouver school board

today. It’s entirely different. It’s how we can invest faster to build

as many safe seats in Vancouver, which has been neglected for far too

long under the previous government.

[10:50 a.m.]

The old government put an audit from KPMG and demanded that the

school district close 24 schools in order to balance the operating

budget of the school district. We have record levels of funding in the

Vancouver school district’s operating budget. We’ve invested nearly a

quarter-billion dollars in seismic projects that we’ve accelerated. It

is a sea change in the environment today than it was just a couple of

short years ago in Vancouver.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Vancouver-Langara on a supplemental.

M. Lee: This is a list of 28 schools in Vancouver across the district that

have been identified with the Vancouver school board. Parents across

Vancouver are fretting and concerned about the future of their schools.

This Minister of Education used to say: “These are decisions that

communities actually shouldn’t have to be facing. They’re abandoning

communities, abandoning neighbourhoods by taking schools right out of

the heart of those communities.” These are the words of the Minister of

Education.

Walter Moberly Elementary is just one of these Vancouver schools

that are important…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Member.

M. Lee: …to our community. Moberly serves as the gateway in the Vancouver

school district for South Asian, Filipino, Vietnamese and other

immigrant children and has been integral to the Sunset community in

South Vancouver.

Moberly is in the Vancouver-Fraserview riding of the Minister of

State for Trade. Will he stand up and tell us what he has done to

advocate to keep this school open?

Hon. R. Fleming: It’s really difficult to hear from that side of the House about

school closures. They closed 240 of them in communities right around

British Columbia. They did rip the guts out of communities in British

Columbia. Our record is vastly different. We’ve reopened schools they

closed. That’s what we’ve been doing.

Our agenda as a government has been to work as quickly as

possible, addressing the seismic backlog that that government left us.

That member knows that we’ve been working quickly to do it, because he

was at Hamber Secondary to receive an $80 million investment in fixing

that school. By the way, that’s the largest seismic project in B.C.

history, in that member’s riding.

I would urge the remaining B.C. Liberal MLAs that are in

Vancouver: stop scaring parents. Give them the facts. Listen to the

Vancouver school board’s elected leaders — you know, the ones that they

fired — who said that this isn’t about school closures. This is about

having a productive relationship with the province to keep investment

happening in Vancouver.

HOSPITAL DISCHARGE PRACTICES IN

FRASER HEALTH

AUTHORITY

J. Martin: Ken Popove, the mayor of Chilliwack, a great guy, has written to

Fraser Health raising serious concerns about the discharging of

significantly vulnerable patients. On multiple occasions over the last

several weeks, patients with serious physical and mental health concerns

were discharged from Surrey Memorial Hospital and sent by taxi to the

Chilliwack Salvation Army, a homeless shelter almost 80 kilometres

away.

You know, my mayor and my council, the social services, my

non-profits and the great people of Chilliwack do more than their share

of heavy lifting on the homeless front. In short, they punch above their

weight. How can this possibly be an acceptable practice?

[10:55 a.m.]

Hon. A. Dix: I’d be happy to meet with the mayor of Chilliwack and with the

hon. member to discuss any particular case that he’d like to raise and

to follow up on those circumstances. He knows that we have very

significantly increased our investment in health care in the last number

of years, but that doesn’t mean that in every case, things are perfect.

So I’m happy to meet with the hon. member and discuss the issues that he

raises.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Chilliwack on a supplemental.

J. Martin: I appreciate the offer. The mayor and myself will take the

minister up on that. However, I would like the minister to go on the

record in this House assuring me, my mayor, my council and everyone in

Chilliwack that this will never, ever happen again.

Hon. A. Dix: As we’ve said, we don’t discuss individual cases in the House,

although we do when permission is granted. We have those discussions,

and we certainly will be in the future.

I think the work done by health care workers in British Columbia,

by the people responsible for discharges, is some of the most important

work that we do. Often, for example, hospitals are over capacity because

of inadequate resources in the community — resources that we’re

aggressively building out across both social services and the health

care system.

I’m happy to meet with the mayor, happy to meet with the member.

We’ll discuss the circumstances of the case and take it from

there.

FUNDING FOR ENFORCEMENT OF

ANIMAL BREEDER

REGULATIONS

J. Thornthwaite: In 2017, my bill to stop puppy mills recommended an external

regulatory agency to enforce standards of care for animal welfare, but

this government has failed to provide the SPCA with the necessary funds

it needs to adequately enforce these new regulations. Puppy mills,

unregulated rescue centres and unethical breeders continue to operate

throughout the province.

Why hasn’t this government funded the SPCA, and when will the

Agriculture Minister provide them with the resources they need to have

proper enforcement?

Hon. L. Popham: I appreciate the question from the member. This is something that

I know she’s very passionate about. So am I. I’ve often said in this

chamber that when I became an MLA, my son, who was ten at the time, said

that the only thing he wanted me to do was to stop puppy mills. So we’re

coming from the same passion there.

This has been a few years’ worth of work that is now coming to

fruition. We have been having discussions with the BC SPCA. In fact,

just last week I was speaking with them at an animal welfare conference.

We wanted to make sure that we did the consultation. We are just landing

on how this will be administered. So those discussions with the BC SPCA

are happening currently.

I would be very happy to have the member come to my office. I can

give her an update when I find out for myself where exactly those

discussions are.

Mr. Speaker: The member for North Vancouver–Seymour on a

supplemental.

J. Thornthwaite: The problem is that those consultations have actually stalled, as

well as with the responsible breeders. So under the NDP, the creation of

a regulatory enforcement team has been put on hold because of a lack of

funding. Puppy mills and unscrupulous breeders continue to operate with

impunity because the legislation is not being enforced.

Again to the Minister of Agriculture, when will the SPCA get the

resources they need to protect these vulnerable

ani­mals?

Hon. L. Popham: I think that I have had conversations with the member before, and

she is very well aware that these discussions with the BC SPCA are

happening now. I can say that right now charges can be laid under the

Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act against anyone who causes suffering

or distress to an animal. That includes breeders.

I think the member and I can very much agree that a registration

system is the best way to handle breeders that are causing suffering.

We’re working on that right now. The consultation did not stall out. We

have been consulting with every type of breeder that there is in British

Columbia.

I can tell you that we’ve been receiving good feedback. People are

appreciative that we’ve gone the extra step and taken a little bit more

time to get this right. I expect that this will be wrapped up in the

next little while. I think that the member and I will be able to

celebrate that together.

[11:00 a.m.]

FOREST INDUSTRY TENURES AND LICENCES

D. Barnett: It’s no secret that the NDP hates fish farms and wants to shut

them down. Now this government is coming after forestry. The Premier’s

comments are absurd. And nobody knows what he means by his promise to

impose the same restrictions on forestry as on fish farms. Someone with

a community woodlot licence or a forest tenure can’t just move their

operation.

To the Minister of Forests, the Forests Minister had a chance

yesterday to commit to protecting these licences and tenures. Why didn’t

he?

Hon. D. Donaldson: I thank the member for giving me the opportunity to talk about an

incredible achievement of this government in the Broughton Archipelago,

with First Nations, with industry and with workers. What a key part of

that amazing agreement that we were able to forge, unlike the last

government…. A key feature of that was future opportunities for First

Nations in aquaculture.

Likewise, I just don’t understand how the opposite side is against

First Nations having opportunities in forestry in this

province.

[End of question period.]

Tabling Documents

Mr. Speaker: Members, I have the honour to table a report from the Office of the

Ombudsperson, Committed to Change: Protecting the Rights of Involuntary

Patients Under the Mental Health Act .

Reports from Committees

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

MANAGEMENT

COMMITTEE

Mr. Speaker: Secondly, I have the honour to table a report from the Legislative

Assembly Management Committee, to the reports. This includes the report

of the Speaker released on January 21, 2019; the written responses and

legal submissions from the Clerk and Sergeant-at-Arms received on

February 7, 2019; and the report on the written responses by the

Speaker, released on February 21, 2019.

Hon. M. Farnworth: By leave, I move that the report of the Legislative Assembly

Management Committee be adopted.

Leave granted.

Mr. Speaker: The question is that the report of the Legislative Assembly

Management Committee be adopted.

Motion approved.

Motions Without Notice

APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL INVESTIGATOR

INTO MISCONDUCT

ALLEGATIONS

CONCERNING CLERK AND SERGEANT-AT-ARMS

Hon. M. Farnworth: By leave, I move:

[

a) That the Right Honourable Beverley McLachlin, P.C., C.C.

be appointed as Special Investigator to conduct a confidential,

impartial and independent investigation into allegations concerning the

Clerk, Craig James, and the Sergeant-at-Arms, Gary Lenz, that were

raised by the Speaker in his Report to the Legislative Assembly

Management Committee (“the Committee”) and made public by the Committee

on January 21, 2019;

b) That the purpose of the investigation shall be a

confidential fact finding to determine whether either or both Mr. James

and Mr. Lenz, appointed to their office by resolution of the Legislative

Assembly pursuant to the Constitution Act , engaged in

misconduct in the course of their employment;

c) That the House Leaders, Hon. Mike Farnworth, MLA,

Government House Leader; Mary Polak, MLA, Official Opposition House

Leader; and Sonia Furstenau, MLA, Third Party House Leader (the “House

Leaders”) establish terms of reference for the conduct of the

investigation that provides for, among other things, a process that

ensures procedural fairness and natural justice;

d) That in conducting the investigation, the Special

Investigator shall review the following documents and any others the

House Leaders deem relevant to the investigation:

i. the report of the Speaker released on January 21,

2019, and exhibits;

ii. the related addendum to the report of the Speaker

distributed on February 4, 2019,

iii. the written responses from the Clerk and the

Sergeant-at-Arms received on February 7, 2019,

iv. the legal submissions from the Clerk and the

Sergeant-at-Arms received on February 7, 2019, and

v. the report on the written responses by the Speaker

released on February 21, 2019, and exhibits;

e) That the Special Investigator be granted the powers to

compel persons to meet with the Special Investigator and to compel

documents and other evidence, except those protected by solicitor-client

privilege, to be provided to the Special Investigator;

f) That the Special Investigator report on any findings and

conclusions to the House Leaders at the earliest opportunity, making one

or more interim reports as may be appropriate, and a final report no

later than May 3, 2019, and that the Government House Leader report to

the Legislative Assembly on the conclusions of the Special Investigator

at the earliest opportunity;

g) For greater certainty, it is recognized that deliberations

of the Legislative Assembly with respect to the appointments of the

Clerk and Sergeant-at-Arms fall within a sphere of activity that is in

the exclusive jurisdiction of the Legislative Assembly and that nothing

in this order shall be interpreted as limiting in any way the powers,

privileges, rights and immunities of the Legislative Assembly or its

Members.]

[11:05 a.m.]

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call Committee of the Whole, Bill 12, the Supply Act.

In

Section A, in the Douglas Fir Room, I call continued debate on the estimates

for the Ministry of Children and Family Development and, if they finish, then

the Ministry of Advanced Education, Skills and Training.

[11:10 a.m.]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 12 — SUPPLY ACT (N o . 1),

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 12; R.

Chouhan in the chair.

The committee met at 11:11 a.m.

section 1.

Hon. C. James: I’ll turn it over to the critic. This is, as people know, a very

straightforward bill that is, as usual, brought forward at this time to

be able to cover off supply while we continue the estimates that are

going on for each of the ministries. It’s an important part of our

system to be able to allow ministers to be able to talk about the

dollars in their budgets and to allow the opposition to be able to ask

their questions.

T. Redies: I must say it’s very nice to receive a bill that’s only two pages,

once in a while. So thank you, Minister. Again, this is a

straightforward bill. We just have a couple of questions just to clarify

a few things.

section 1, it indicates that the government is asking for about

$11.8 billion for this next quarter. The total expenditures in the

budget is around $58 billion. So can you speak to the difference in

terms of the amounts? Because if this is one quarter, it would suggest

expenditures of $48 billion.

Hon. C. James: The total that is included is the total operating votes, the

dollars included in that, so it would not include anything outside the

consolidated revenue fund. That would include Crown corporations, etc.,

which is probably the difference that the member is noticing.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

T. Redies: Again, a similar question. But before I actually ask about the

numbers, I just want to clarify. In terms of the capital spending that’s

being covered here, is it just for the taxpayer-supported capital

spending, or does it also include the Crowns?

Hon. C. James: It only includes ministry capital funds.

T. Redies: The government is requesting $372 million. I don’t have it right

in front of me, but I think the capital spending is about $6.3 billion.

Is this a timing issue, or are there any projects that are delayed right

now that we should be made aware of?

[11:15 a.m.]

Hon. C. James: This also includes

schedule D — I think that’s where the

difference is for the member — which is the disbursement for loans,

investments and other require­ments. It’s

schedule D, attached to

that. So that’s included there.

This piece really has to do with when payments go out. That’s

really the issue here — the timing of when payments go out. Again,

capital spending depends on when…. You see things coming in when you put

out a proposal, and you’re waiting for the dollars to come in. So

really, this is a timing issue as well around when the payments are

going to be due and ensuring we have the resources to be able to cover

that.

T. Redies: Just to clarify, the minister is not aware of any projects that

are unduly delayed at this point in time.

Hon. C. James: No.

Section 2 approved.

section 3.

T. Redies: Maybe just a little bit of colour for still a newbie MLA about

what this is particularly for. If the Finance Minister could just give

us a bit more context.

Hon. C. James: One of the examples would be fuel tax for transit. That would be

something that, again, is 100 percent that is collected and given to

other entities, as we’ve talked about in the Budget Measures

Implementation bill. That would be an example of this

section and where

it would apply.

Sections 3 and 4 approved.

Preamble approved.

Title approved.

Hon. C. James: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete

without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:17 a.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

[11:20 a.m.]

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 12 — SUPPLY ACT (N o . 1),

Bill 12, Supply Act (No. 1), 2019, reported complete without

amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. D. Eby: I call Committee of the Whole, Bill 2, Protection of Public

Participation Act.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 2 — PROTECTION OF PUBLIC

PARTICIPATION ACT

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 2; R. Chouhan

in the chair.

The committee met at 11:21 a.m.

section 4 (continued) .

Hon. D. Eby: Joining me are Russell Getz, legal counsel, and Darin Thompson,

legal counsel, assisting me today.

I notice we have some guests in the gallery. Just so that they

know what’s happening, we are in the Committee of the Whole stage of a

bill that’s in front of the House about protecting speech and ensuring

that journalists and activists and community members can speak out on

issues of importance without facing improper defamation lawsuits that

would cause them to stop speaking out. You’ll hear the member from the

other side asking questions of me about the bill, and you’ll hear me

responding, with the assistance of staff. I just want to welcome them

all to the House, from wherever they come.

Sections 4 and 5 approved.

section 6.

M. Lee: I just wanted to ask the Attorney General, in terms of the

considerations for where a court may otherwise order possible amendments

to the respondent’s pleadings, in what circumstances would the court

contemplate permitting the respondent to amend their

pleadings?

Hon. D. Eby: One of the features of these strategic lawsuits against public

participation, as they’ve been described by various academics and

others, is that they usually involve an imbalance of resources. One side

has a lot of money and access to lawyers; the other side, not so much.

So the other side gets taken to court around a defamation action, gets

wrapped up in this action, and there’s no decision on it for many years.

As a result, they end up apologizing or withdrawing a statement that

they believe to be true, and there’s a general chill on their ability to

speak out.

One of the functions of having access to those kinds of resources

is, potentially, if you get a decision from a court that says, “No, this

is one of these lawsuits.” The balance that we were talking about

yesterday between protecting the free-expression rights and protecting

the reputational rights of the two parties — it comes down in favour of

protecting the expression rights.

The plaintiff, the person who’s suing the journalist or activist

or community member, doesn’t get to amend their court documents to say:

“Oh, what I really wanted to argue was this.” Then you’re back at the

beginning of the application over and over again. That would frustrate

the intent of this bill, which is to stop the process at a very early

stage in order to assure people that if they speak out on a matter of

public interest and they do it fairly and within the confines of this

application and existing law, they’ll be able to stop an improper

lawsuit or a lawsuit that has a disproportionate impact on free

expression — stop it early.

If you don’t have this fail-safe clause in here that says that

unless the court gives you permission, you’re not allowed to amend your

pleadings, then you could be back into a cycle, again and again, of

amended pleadings and not get out of this process. It would frustrate

the intent of having a clear finish to the legal action at an early

stage, where that’s appropriate.

[11:25 a.m.]

M. Lee: I appreciate the response. I understand the nature of

section 6 as

the Attorney General just outlined. What I’m asking, though, is the

lead-in language, which is: “Unless the court orders

otherwise….”

Under what circumstances would the court otherwise

order?

Hon. D. Eby: There’s certainly no significance intended by the order of the

words — “orders otherwise” or “otherwise orders.” It’s meant to be a

standard type of clause that gives a court the authority to order

otherwise where fairness requires it.

M. Lee: That’s what I’m trying to get at. In what circumstances would

fairness require the court to otherwise order this?

Hon. D. Eby: Difficult to speculate in terms of the wide array of possible

reasons why the court might allow someone to amend their pleadings after

making a decision that the lawsuit should not go ahead because it has

this impact on free expression. One can imagine that, potentially, some

new facts came to light or that there was some additional information

that wasn’t previously available.

It’s hard to know exactly what it is. The court would essentially

have to engage in that kind of balancing exercise again in determining

whether the evidentiary burden required to convince the court that it

was necessary to reopen the pleadings outweighed the intent of this bill

and this process to have finality for the parties involved.

Section 6 approved.

section 7.

M. Lee: Just in terms of

section 7, there is the opportu­nity where

the court may order costs. I’m reading at 7(2): “…the respondent is not

entitled to costs on that application unless the court considers it

appropriate in the circumstances.” Under what circumstances would a

court consider it appropriate to order costs to the

respondent?

Hon. D. Eby: The intent of the subsection is to say to the court…. The

presumption is that the respondent, the person who is responding to the

application that says that this is a lawsuit that infringes on free

expression and that it should be truncated…. Even if the respondent is

successful in fending that off, the presumption is that they’re not

entitled to costs related to the application.

It’s a party-driven process. They came to court. They brought this

other person to court. Also, there’s a recognition within this bill, and

generally around these kinds of lawsuits, of an imbalance of resources

most typically in these kinds of lawsuits. In fact, typically, one of

the defining features of these lawsuits is that imbalance of resources

between the plaintiff and the defendant. So this recognizes that. It

gives the court the presumption, but it also gives the court the

opportunity…. Where the conduct of the parties is problematic and the

court wants to send a message, the court could still award costs in the

circumstances.

Again, this is one of those difficult situations, to speculate

about what level a court would find that they needed to send a message

to the parties by awarding costs against the applicant in a vacuum. But

it is something the courts do on a regular basis. What this

section does

is simply provide a presumption. If there is not some sort of flag that

the courts have identified that they want to send a message about the

behaviour of the parties, then the presumption is that the respondent is

not entitled to costs.

[11:30 a.m.]

M. Lee: I appreciate that in the absence of the actual, specific facts of

a particular case…. These new legislative proceedings, as set out in

this act, will be more fully tested, of course, against the facts of a

particular case.

Just so we understand the intention of the drafters of this

legislation here, if we go the other way, in terms of subsection 7(1),

it says that the “costs on a full indemnity basis” would be provided to

the applicant, in effect, “unless the court considers that assessment

inappropriate in the circumstances.”

Again, what would be the understanding or the expectation where a

court may find that that assessment of a full indemnity would be

inappropriate in the circumstances?

Hon. D. Eby: What we wanted to do with both of these provisions, subsections

7(1) and 7(2), was to give the court a presumption. The presumption is

that if someone is successful in this application, they get full costs

on an indemnity basis. Their presumption is that even if they’re not

successful, there’ll be no costs awarded against them.

But to give the court that discretion and as much leeway as the

court needs to essentially recognize that one party or the other was

particularly poorly behaved or didn’t conduct itself in a way that the

court wanted to sanction with costs…. The court could then say: “You

know what? I know that the presumption is this, but your conduct was

such that I need to take some kind of action to send a message to you.

That action is to refuse to give you full indemnity costs on your

application, or that action is to actually award costs against you. Even

though the presumption is in the law and the intent was that I not do

that, I need to do that in order to send you a message.” The intent of

both sections is the same.

We want to give that safety valve. We want to give that leeway to

the court to send that message to parties as required.

Section 7 approved.

section 8.

M. Lee: Just for the benefit of this committee review, I’d like to ask the

Attorney General…. Recognizing that, as we were discussing in the last

committee stage on this bill, Ontario has similar legislation in place

and has been through the courts in various cases to work with that

legislation, what have been the examples of the range of damages that

might be awarded in those Ontario cases in terms of the application of

similar pieces of legislation? What’s been the range or the quantum of

damages that might have typically been awarded, if any at

all?

Hon. D. Eby: The member will remember that B.C. used to have legislation like

this. In it, the motive of the plaintiff in bringing the lawsuit was a

significant component that you had to prove in order to get the case

dismissed. That was always very challenging. Although it was quite

leading edge at the time, it was later on understood that that wasn’t

the best way to protect against these kinds of abuses of the court

system.

In this bill, what’s been done is the bad faith or improper

purpose has been separated out. You don’t have to prove that in order to

get the action dismissed. But if you can prove it, if you can show that

the plaintiff knew that they were bringing this for an improper reason

or they were bringing it in some kind of bad faith, you can potentially

ask the court to award you damages.

[11:35 a.m.]

Now, there is not a restriction about the kinds of damages or the

types of damages that a particular applicant might make in the event

that they were successful in demonstrating bad faith or improper

purpose, but what the bill intends is that the court could recognize and

actually punish with damages awarded against the plaintiff if the action

in the proceeding was brought in bad faith or for an improper

purpose.

The member asked about jurisprudence that we’re aware of where bad

faith or improper purpose was, in fact, recognized by a court in

Ontario, because they’ve had some experience with this already. We’re

not aware of a case yet that has considered this particular section.

Likely it would be exceedingly rare, actually, that an applicant or a

defendant would be able to demonstrate bad faith or improper purpose,

because we’ve actually seen some history with these kinds of provisions,

and it is difficult to prove.

Where it shows up, we wanted a venue for people to be able to show

that they suffered some kind of damage or that the court could provide

some sort of damage to recognize the improper nature and the abuse of

the system that the plaintiff had engaged in by bringing an action in

bad faith or for an improper purpose.

Section 8 approved.

section 9.

M. Lee: Just one question on subsection 9(3): “An application for a

dismissal order under

section 4 must be heard as soon as practicable.”

Appreciating that that doesn’t preclude an injunction application from

being applied for under

section 5(2), what’s the expectation or any

consideration by the Attorney General of timing constraints? Obviously,

we have a situation where the courts continue to be quite overloaded in

many jurisdictions in this province. What would be his expectation as to

the range of time period that these sorts of applications for dismissal

orders would be heard under this act?

Hon. D. Eby: This is where we actually had an opportunity to learn from

Ontario. I understand that in Ontario’s act, they have a 60-day

timeline. One of the challenges that they’ve had is that they can’t hold

to that. What we wanted to avoid was having our registry staff in the

courts, or others, be deemed to be violating

an act because they’re not

ensuring that it comes within 60 days, or opening up the opportunity for

someone to say: “This whole thing should be dismissed because it didn’t

come forward within 60 days.” To avoid that, the phrase “as soon as

practicable” was used, rather than a fixed timeline.

Now, some registries in the province with counsel that have

available schedules will be able to hear, certainly, within the 60-day

timeline of Ontario, but it’s a big province, and there are some

registries that have very tight calendars. If you get a couple of busy

counsel, it’s hard to say when a matter would be heard. This is simply a

guideline where, if there is a dispute over setting something down or

some kind of an issue like that, counsel can point to this and say:

“Look, this needs to happen as soon as practicable.” That was the intent

of the law, because there is a cost to allowing this to stretch out and

out and out. That cost is in relation to free expression, and that is

the exact reason why the act was brought forward.

We wanted to preserve the intent of the Ontario act in keeping the

timelines tight, but we wanted to learn from the Ontario act, as well,

and not put our registry staff in a situation where they may be

scheduling something that’s essentially in breach of the act. So this is

what we hope is the happy medium around communicating that we want it to

come on quickly and providing the tools to ensure that it can come on

quickly, but also recognizing that this is a big province with a lot of

diverse registry capacities and also that counsel sometimes have

difficulty linking up calendars to get things heard in a certain amount

of time.

Sections 9 to 14 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. D. Eby: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete

without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:40 a.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

[11:45 a.m.]

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 2 — PROTECTION OF PUBLIC

PARTICIPATION

ACT

Bill 2, Protection of Public Participation Act, reported complete

without amendment, read a third time and passed unanimously on a division.

[See Votes and Proceedings .]

Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported progress, was

granted leave to sit again.

Hon. M. Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.

The House adjourned at 11:49 a.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE

DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

CHILDREN AND

FAMILY DEVELOPMENT

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); N. Simons in the

chair.

The committee met at 11:13 a.m.

On Vote 19: ministry operations, $2,064,727,000

(continued) .

The Chair: Good morning, Members. We are here in Committee A to discuss

the budget estimates for the Ministry of Children and Family

Development. Currently we’re on the subject of child care, with the

Minister of State for Child Care.

The member for Chilliwack-Kent has some questions.

L. Throness: Thanks again for coming, to all ministers and staff. I want to

begin by asking about a few top-line numbers. The government budgeted

$263 million to be spent on child care in this fiscal year, plus

supplementary estimates of $20 million.

[11:15 a.m.]

Can the minister tell me how close the government will come to its

budget in this fiscal year? How much of the $283 million will be spent

in this fiscal year?

Hon. K. Chen: We are forecasted to fully spend the budget.

L. Throness: I’m wondering if the government could share, so far, the average

annual cost per child of child care under the system that began last

year?

Hon. K. Chen: I’m not exactly sure what the member opposite is referring to. Is

it the cost per space or the child care cost? If the member can clarify

it. We don’t have that information, but we may be able to see what we

have that’s related to the information that the member is looking

for.

L. Throness: I’m just a bit vague in my question myself, because I’m not sure

how the government would want to calculate that. I’ll leave that to

another time. I’m sure that’ll be done.

The minister has to submit a report to cabinet on or before March

31 on all of the results of her labours over the past year. Would she

commit to making that report public so that she can be accountable for

results to all the parents, providers and taxpayers of B.C.?

Hon. K. Chen: I’ve already done my report to cabinet. In terms of the cabinet

document, it is cabinet privilege. But I’m more than happy to share the

reporting that I’ve done to cabinet and some of the content that we’ve

achieved in terms of what Childcare B.C. has achieved during the past

year for families in B.C.

As the member opposite would know, this is a historical investment

that we are supporting and providing to not just families to help them

with affordability but also to help with providers — to help them with

their operating costs and to support their operation by finding every

way possible to give them the tools that they need to maintain current

spaces.

Also, we are making sure we are supporting early childhood

educators. We do have over 34 initiatives. I think I can spend a whole

day just talking about the 34 initiatives. I know we’ll be diving into a

lot of details in terms of how our initiatives are working. Generally

speaking, we do have a child care plan that is about building the

foundation of a way better child care system that will be affordable,

quality and accessible for all B.C. families.

When we talk about affordability, we have three major initiatives.

The fee reduction initiative has helped to lower parent fees in B.C.

across the board. Close to 90 percent of providers are joining this

program. The fee reduction is up to $350 depending on the type and the

age of the child.

It has been a very successful initiative that many families are

benefiting from. Many families are sharing that they now, finally, have

a little bit more room in their budget to be able to help them to pay

for other high costs of living. It really helped them with their family

stress. It’s also good that more families are able to use child care

services when they need to.

[11:20 a.m.]

We also have the affordable child care benefit. That is bringing

less than $200-a-month, $10-a-day child care to many families,

especially families between the income of $60,000 and $80,000. We hear

amazing stories of how those families are…. More parents, especially

mothers, are able to return to work. They have more choices to balance

their professional career or educational needs with their child care

needs. We are also providing…. Through that affordable child care

benefit, many families are paying no cost or low cost for child care, if

they’re under the income of $45,000.

The third one is the popular prototype sites that we are piloting

and learning how we can, in the future, build universal child care and

how to work with a variety of providers — private, non-profit,

Indigenous, supported child development and family child care. It’s been

a fantastic pilot for us, and we’re also hearing a lot of impact on

families. The centres are really happy to work with us on those

pilots.

On quality. I know it takes a long time for us to go through, but

just overall — and that’s the content of my report, which the member

asked about — we are rolling out over a dozen initiatives to support

early childhood educators in the workforce, to look at ways for how we

can support their education, training and fair compensation.

We just rolled out the first wage enhancement earlier in January.

That has been a great success. A few million dollars have gone back to

early childhood educators’ pockets. They are the ones who are working

hard every single day, supporting young families. But they’ve been

struggling for years with low pay and a lack of supports. I think it’s

crucial and it’s time that we recognize their very important

contribution and find the tools that they need.

Of course, we’re working with providers, through operating funds,

through maintenance grants, to maintain current spaces. We are

accelerating the creation of child care spaces. I’m proud to say that

our new spaces fund has been going well.

We also have a lot of partnerships that we’re looking at with the

public sector, local government, Indigenous communities and school

districts to create child care spaces on public grounds that will become

part of community assets. At the same time, we are working with a

variety of different types of child care providers to continue to

accelerate that creation of spaces.

That being said, the current system does have a lot of challenges.

We are continuing to look for ways to learn from the sector, from

providers, from parents and to make sure that we can work together to

build a better system.

That was pretty much the content of my report in a short few

minutes. I’m sure we’ll be able to dig into a lot of the items that we

mentioned.

L. Throness: I would certainly expect that the minister will release a report,

which is based on that cabinet document, that will give some numbers,

some factual content, to her initiatives.

I want to talk about the new spaces fund for a moment. Last July

6, there was a press release that said: “The new spaces will be created

through a $221 million investment in the childcare B.C. new spaces fund,

which replaces the child care major capital funding program.” This

program is the minister’s main vehicle to create new spaces, but

announcements to date only total about 1,600 spaces.

What about the goal of 2,700 spaces that was announced?

[11:25 a.m.]

Hon. K. Chen: Currently for our new spaces funding, we have approved 1,600

spaces. There are around 20 applications that are being processed

actively, and that’s been under review. We still have other applications

that are in the pool. We’re pretty confident with our target and that we

can continue to look at those applications and see how we can fund more

new spaces.

For the member’s information, we also have the start-up funding,

with another 1,700 licensed spaces that have been approved through our

support. We also have funding through UBCM. We have funding — new spaces

that are being created by the Ministry of Education, Ministry of

Housing. Currently, even just with our start-up funding and our new

spaces fund, you will see that around 3,300 spaces have been created

through our initiatives.

Let’s remember we only started in about June and July last year.

It’s been a really significant achievement in a few months. We’re

excited about that as we continue to process those

applications.

L. Throness: I’m curious to know how much the government has spent on the new

child care spaces fund, because she had $221 million over three years.

That’s about $73 million per year. But through the press releases that

the government has issued so far, they’ve only announced about $7½

million to create those 1,600 spaces. Could the minister explain

that?

[11:30 a.m.]

Hon. K. Chen: To clarify, the $73 million is for three years. Currently we’ve

spent $11.7 million.

L. Throness: The minister said that she was going to spend her entire budget

this fiscal year. How is that possible if they’re only spending $11

million in the new child care spaces fund in this year, when she has

$221 million to spend?

The Chair: Does the minister want to provide clarification?

[11:35 a.m.]

Hon. K. Chen: I have to say we had to spend some time to figure out the number

that the member opposite was referring to and make sure we’re all on the

same page, talking about the same numbers and same programs.

Just to kind of make it clarified, we’re only talking about the

new spaces funding. For example, for this year, the budget is $27.6

million. As I mentioned, we spent $11.7 million. Because, for example,

some of our other programs, like the start-up funding…. This is a great

example that has actually been going really well and creating licensed

child care spaces.

We’re able to make sure that we work with our budget envelope to

support that need. For example, start-up funding was doubled. We were

able to reallocate some of our funds to our new spaces to make sure we

meet that demand. That’s why.

The goal is to create new spaces. We are happy to say that we are

in progress and accelerating the creation of spaces for child

care.

L. Throness: It mystifies me, because on July 6 of last year there was a press

release that said: “The new spaces will be created through a $221

million investment in the childcare B.C. new spaces fund.” I don’t know

how the $27.6 million figure came about, but I’ll leave that for another

time.

I want to try and nail down the promise of the government. I want

to quote from the government’s own child care budget from a year ago.

The conclusion to the Child Care B.C.: Caring for Kids, Lifting Up

Families document said this: “Families can look forward to

funding for more than 24,000 new child care spaces over the next three

years.” Yet in all of its public communications, the government uses the

figure 22,000. Why is it retreating from its promise? Why is it lowering

the bar?

Hon. K. Chen: I think the member opposite is pulling different numbers from

different documents and kind of comparing them in different ways. Just

to clarify specifically that question, the 24,000 includes 22,000, which

the member sees, from our provincial government. Our provincial

government is committed to our programs, that it will create up to

22,000 spaces in three years. Then we also have federal funding that

will help to create more spaces, and that comes to the total of 24,000

spaces.

L. Throness: The opposition will hold the government to that 24,000 figure, for

sure.

In this fiscal year, which ends in just a few weeks, in her

service plan, the minister set a target of 115,000 licensed funded

spaces. This would require 7,000 to 9,000 spaces in this fiscal

year.

I want to ask about this because in the service plan, it uses the

number 108,000 as the baseline. In the performance report of that same

time period, it uses the figure of 106,000, which would suggest that

instead of having a target of 7,000 spaces this year, it should have a

target of 9,000 incremental spaces.

Could the minister confirm what the target is for this year: 7,000

or 9,000 spaces?

[11:40 a.m.]

Hon. K. Chen: I know the member has the service plan, which says clearly that in

2018-19, we’re forecasting 115,000, and then in 2019-20, we’re targeting

121,000.

L. Throness: I will assume, then, that the target for this year is to create

7,000 to 9,000 spaces.

[The bells were rung.]

The Chair: We will report out and continue after we get back after

lunch.

Hon. K. Conroy: I move that the committee rise and report progress and ask leave

to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:42 a.m.

The Official Report of Debates ( Hansard ) and webcasts of

proceedings

are available on the Internet. Chamber debates are broadcast on

television.

Copyright © 2019: British Columbia

Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada