Third Session, 41st Parliament

(2018) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Thursday, April 26, 2018

Morning Sitting

Issue No. 126

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 30 — Cannabis Control and Licensing Act

Bill 31 — Cannabis Distribution Act

Bill 17 — Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 2018

Hon. M. Farnworth

Bill 29 — Voluntary Blood Donations Act

Hon. A. Dix

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Sexual exploitation of children and youth

J. Thornthwaite

Emergency preparedness and inclusion of vulnerable persons

A. Kang

Spelling bee champion Hannah May Ramis

E. Foster

Day of Mourning for workers

J. Routledge

Clements Centre Society

S. Furstenau

Creative Industries Week

S. Chandra Herbert

Oral Questions

Referendum on electoral reform

M. Lee

Hon. D. Eby

J. Martin

Government oversight of aquaculture and transition to closed-containment systems

A. Olsen

Hon. L. Popham

Child care fee reduction initiative

L. Throness

Hon. K. Chen

J. Isaacs

S. Bond

Impact of employer health tax on child care facilities

M. Stilwell

Hon. C. James

Petitions

L. Throness

Tabling Documents

Crown Proceeding Act, report, fiscal year ended March 31, 2017

Orders of the Day

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 21 — Class Proceedings Amendment Act, 2018

Hon. D. Eby

M. Lee

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Bill 21 — Class Proceedings Amendment Act, 2018

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Social Development and Poverty Reduction (continued)

P. Milobar

Hon. S. Simpson

M. Hunt

THURSDAY, APRIL 26, 2018

The House met at 10:04 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

[10:05 a.m.]

Introductions by Members

Hon. A. Dix: I wish to introduce in the gallery today Curtis Brandell, who is the

president of the B.C. Hemophilia Society; Tomiko Spicer, who is Curtis’s

partner; and Zachary Spicer, who is Tomiko and Curtis’s son.

I also would like to note members of the Taylor and Puusa families who

are here and who have, in the past, courageously shared their family story

to underscore the importance of a strong voluntary donor–based blood and

plasma system. I want to introduce Johnna Puusa and Booey Puusa, who are

here with us today, as well as Adam Lynes-Ford, from the B.C. Health

Coalition.

Hon. S. Robinson: I’d like to welcome two special guests who are here with us in the

gallery. My brother is here. He’s here because his daughter, Maya Rae,

entertained us last night. My brother is Erle Dardick. He is raising three

fabulous children. He’s the owner of MonkeyMedia Software, which specializes

in software development for restaurant takeout, delivery and catering

services here in British Columbia.

His daughter, Maya Rae, is a fabulous entertainer that we had

yesterday at the Creative B.C. event. Maya released her debut album,

Sapphire Birds , just last year, with support from Creative B.C.

Next month she will be appearing in Toronto at the Jazz Bistro for Canadian

Music Week. You can also see her here in Victoria, June 23, at the Victoria

Jazz Festival. If you missed her there and you want to go to Edmonton, you

can see her at the Edmonton Jazz Festival on June 28. Or you can wait till

June 30, and you can catch her at the Vancouver Jazz Festival.

Would the House please make them welcome.

S. Cadieux: On an early Sunday morning last October, hardy, caring souls gathered

for the Pumpkin Run in support of the Peace Arch Hospital Foundation. The

member for Surrey–White Rock, the member for Surrey-Cloverdale and I had a

booth there, and we offered a prize of a visit to Victoria for the very

fancily costumed runners to enter.

Today I’m happy to introduce our guests joining us for lunch today,

Colleen Bloudell and Micayla Bobsien. I may have gotten the pronunciations

of those names wrong, because I can only do the first ones for sure, but I’m

sure they’ll correct me at lunch. Would everyone please make them

welcome.

J. Thornthwaite: I have a couple of guests today, groups of guests. Firstly, I’d like

to introduce Cathy Peters and Randine Hardy. They’re advocates for

anti–child trafficking, and I’ll be speaking about them a little bit

later.

Also, I see my friends from the film industry up there —Allan and

Cynde Harmon, from Really Real Films. I see Jackson Davies there, from CapU,

and George Paterson. Thank you very much for joining us. I know others from

the industry will be introduced later.

Hon. R. Fleming: There are a few guests I’m very pleased to introduce today in the

gallery, beginning with Dr. Peter Froese, who is the executive director of

the Federation of Independent School Associations in British Columbia. I

know that members on all sides of the House have worked with Peter over a

number of years. He enjoys broad respect amongst the education partners

across British Columbia in both the public education system and the

independent school system. It’s very fitting that he’s here with us today. I

think all members can join me and others in wishing him a very happy

retirement, after eight years of service in his position.

With him is Mr. Chisholm, who is the principal of St. Ann’s Academy in

Kamloops. He is the incoming executive director of FISA BC. He’ll have big

shoes to fill, and we know that he’s capable of that. Mrs. Dhanani, who is

the assistant executive director of FISA BC, is also with this

delegation.

I would ask all members of the House to make these three individuals

most welcome here today.

[10:10 a.m.]

Hon. C. James: I know all members in this House know that it’s really our staff who

keep this place running and keep us going. I am incredibly fortunate to have

a number of amazing staff in my office here and in my constituency

office.

The parents of one of my staff — visiting today from the greater

Toronto area, Emile and Jeanette Gillezeau — are meeting today. They’re here

in the gallery. They’re here to visit their son Rob, who is a senior

ministerial assistant in my office.

I’ve said thank you to them for sharing Rob and doing such a good job

raising him, because I am incredibly fortunate. They’re also here because

they are awaiting the arrival of their new grandchild in another few weeks.

So they are becoming grandparents as well.

I’d ask the House to make them very welcome for their visit here to

Victoria.

E. Ross: Today in the House, we have my biggest critic with us, joining us

today. It just so happens she’s also my partner, my friend, my wife. We’ve

been inseparable for 33 years. If it wasn’t for her, I wouldn’t be here. I

wouldn’t be here if it wasn’t for her. Please would the House make welcome

Tracey Ross, my wife.

Hon. H. Bains: I have two sets of introductions.

First, Mike and Janis McDonald, very long-term friends. Mike, a labour

activist, was the president of my Surrey-Newton constituency for a number of

years. And Janis — what can you say about Janis McDonald? Again, a very good

friend. This is an individual who, since I got elected in 2005, came into my

office for the entire day as a volunteer, until they moved from Surrey a

couple years ago.

I really want to say thank you to both Mike and Janis for helping me

out and helping all of the others in the constituency and other places.

Please help me to give them a warm, warm welcome.

The second set of introductions that I have is — I’m not sure whether

they have made it into the gallery yet — 40 students from Tamanawis

Secondary, led by their teacher Lindsay Hutchison and a few parents. Please

help me give them a warm welcome as well.

Hon. G. Chow: I’m pleased to introduce the managing director of British Columbia’s

trade and investment representative office in Hong Kong, Mr. Derrick Lee,

who is in the House today. As you know, B.C.’s network of international

trade and investment offices works tirelessly to introduce B.C. exporters to

new markets and to attract job-creating investment into the B.C.

economy.

Mr. Lee is a fellow certified management accountant and brings over 20

years of experience working with governments and businesses from Canada,

Hong Kong and the United States. Most recently he worked as president of the

secretariat at the Canadian Chamber of Commerce in Hong Kong. He also has

worked with Invest Hong Kong and as a trade and investment specialist for

the state of California.

As you know, B.C. and Hong Kong have long-standing cultural and

economic ties. Hong Kong already represents a tremendous export market for

B.C. companies, particularly in the agrifood sector, as well as being an

important source of investment.

Derrick is here in B.C. for two weeks, meeting many B.C. companies and

industry groups with an interest in advancing economic ties with Hong Kong.

He’ll be meeting with a range of B.C. government ministry officials today in

Victoria as well. Please join me in welcoming Mr. Derrick Lee to

Victoria.

M. Bernier: It’s not often I actually get the opportunity to introduce someone in

this House from my riding, being one of the most furthest ridings away. But

I have a great introduction to do today of some constituents — most

importantly, to acknowledge Ms. Teri Hanen, who is down here with her

husband, Mark.

Teri yesterday was one of the recipients of the B.C. Community

Achievement Award handed out by our new Lieutenant-Governor. It’s a real

honour to have her and her husband, Mark, joining the House today. Could we

please all make them welcome and congratulate Teri.

[10:15 a.m.]

M. Stilwell: I can’t see her because I think she’s up over where the press gallery

is today, but Joan Miller is the film commissioner for Vancouver Island

North Film Commission. She is a force to be reckoned with. She truly is a

voice for Vancouver Island and building the film industry and helping

communities see the tourism opportunities that can be created.

It’s been my pleasure to work with her over the past several years. We

actually brought in a film studio right in Parksville. So things are

happening in Parksville. I know many people think it’s a retirement mecca,

but there are exciting things happening. Many thanks go to Joan for allowing

it to come to our community.

Hon. C. Trevena: I would like, also, to welcome Joan Miller, who is, as the member for

Parksville-Qualicum mentioned, the film commissioner for the north Island.

She’s a true advocate for all things north Island and all things Vancouver

Island as well as all things film for B.C. She’s here with the creative

industries delegation, obviously.

She has done remarkable work in promoting B.C. and, particularly, the

Island as a place where films can be made, where films should be made,

working on studios in Parksville, working on studios in Campbell River,

which is her home base. I think anybody who knows Joan knows her passion,

her dedication, her love for the industry and her love for making sure that

B.C. continues to be a creative force in the economy.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Saanich North and the Islands.

A. Olsen: I do have an introduction, Mr. Speaker. Thank you for that.

I would like to welcome and introduce Adam Lynes-Ford from the

beautiful island of Saltspring. Adam is here with the B.C. Health Coalition

today and was one of the first meetings that I had after being elected to

office, on my very first day, over on Saltspring — an eye-opening

experience, to say the least.

Adam is the co-chair for the Catherine White Holman Wellness Centre

for low-barrier services to trans and gender-diverse people and also the

former national director for the Canadian Youth Climate Coalition. Could the

House please make Adam feel welcome.

A. Kang: It is not often that I get to introduce some of my friends who are

here with us in this House today: the Downton Singers. They are a versatile

group of singers. They sing a range of music from renaissance madrigals to

contemporary choral music. What is so special about this group of people is

they are a happy and boisterous group of 65 and over — there are only two

that under 65 — and very young.

I would like to, also, especially recognize the conductor, Peggy Hua,

who is a good friend of mine and has been with me through thick and thin. I

would like to recognize Peggy Hua, Carol Downton, Anne-Marie Etsell,

Margaret MacPhee, Shirley Scratchley, Gord Harding and Jim Burge. I would

like all my friends here to make them feel very welcome today.

T. Shypitka: Today in the House, I’ve got three guests all the way from Tanzania.

My Tanzanian guests are in Victoria this week and in Cranbrook next week to

showcase the collaboration between the Mwanza Regional Vocational Training

and Service Centre and the College of the Rockies, which they have

undertaken, on removing barriers to women entering and succeeding in

male-dominated trades and training programs.

This week, on Monday, they’re going to be in Victoria. Representatives

from Tanzania and the College of the Rockies will address the annual

Conference of Colleges and Institutes of Canada. They will then travel to

Cranbrook to discuss ongoing ways that the college and the institutions in

Tanzania can learn from each other to promote gender equality in trades

training.

My guests are accompanied by Chelsea Ruiter, the international

projects officer of the College of the Rockies. Will the House please

welcome John Kengese, the principal, Mwanza Regional Vocational Training and

Service Centre; Thereza Makinda, the gender equality coordinator at Mwanza

Regional Vocational Training and Service Centre; and Hildegardis Bitegara,

the Vocational and Education Training Authority regional

coordinator.

R. Singh: I want to wish a very dear friend, the member for Burnaby–Deer Lake, a

very, very happy birthday. Would the House join me in wishing her the very

best for the year ahead.

J. Sturdy: Today it’s my pleasure to introduce to the House a favourite

constituent of mine up in the gallery. Shirley Henry is here this morning. I

had the pleasure of witnessing Shirley receive a B.C. Community Achievement

Award yesterday at Government House. She was one of 28 very, very deserving

British Columbians who received this award, all of whom…. I think everyone

in this House shares in honouring their contributions to the community and

the province.

[10:20 a.m.]

I have here in front of me Shirley’s resumé, which is several pages,

single spaced, so I won’t go into it — but a couple a highlights, if I

might. She was born in Chilliwack, taught school in 100 Mile. She later

moved to Pemberton, where she spent 19 years on council, including 15 years

as mayor, including during the big flood of 1984. She’s been involved in

every single part of Pemberton’s community life — agriculture, recreation,

airport, Community Futures, economic development, Aviation Council, tourism,

health boards, Volunteer of the Year, Golden Jubilee Medal recipient,

Freedom of the Village — and almost single-handedly has driven tourism into

an unstoppable force in Pemberton. She is certainly, by no means,

finished.

She’s here today with her husband, George, her daughter Michelle and

grandson Alex. I hope that the House will join me in making her feel very

welcome.

Hon. L. Popham: I think all of us can agree that when we sit in here for a week, it

seems pretty long, and it’s a bit of a slog. But this week in particular, it

felt more entertaining and more creative. That’s because the creative

industry representatives are here to help make that happen. We appreciate

them so much. I’m going to be introducing a few people. As well, my

colleagues will follow up.

We have Peter Leitch, the president of North Shore Studios; Liz

Shorten, managing vice-president, operations and member services for

Canadian Media Producers Association; Phil Klapwyck, business representative

from IATSE Local 891; Bill Guidera, SVP government affairs for 21st Century

Fox; Wendy Noss, president of the Motion Picture Association of Canada; and

Heidi Waechtler, executive director, Association of Book Publishers of

British Columbia.

Welcome to the chamber.

R. Chouhan: I have two sets of introductions to make. First, in addition to my

colleague from Burnaby–Deer Lake, I also would like to introduce four

members of Downton Singers. They are Dave Scougal, Ruth McKenzie, Gudrun

Howard and Diane Griffith. They’ve been entertaining the community for 22

years. This is the second generation of the singers that are joining us

today.

My second set of introductions. It gives me great pleasure to

introduce 38 grade 11 students from Byrne Creek, one of the best schools in

British Columbia. They are led by the best teacher, Mr. Greg Neumann. Please

join me in making them very, very welcome.

S. Furstenau: I’m delighted to introduce Adele Therias, who’s spending the day here

at the Legislature with me. She’s a fourth-year geography student at UBC and

a grandchild to Merelyn and Maurice Lobe, who are two wonderful community

members in Shawinigan Lake.

I’m delighted to have Adele spend the day here, and I look forward to

her meeting with the member for North Coast to share Adele’s experience of

winning the Resilient CommUnity Design Challenge in Atlanta, Georgia, where

she contributed to an engineers for sustainability project to look at how to

best survive after earthquakes. Adele hopes to work on urban design, with an

eye for planning for the challenges that we will be facing with climate

change.

I’d like to also welcome Ms. Johnna Puusa, from Cowichan Valley, who

is here with her husband and children. Johnna and her mother, Darlene

Taylor, are champions for a safe public blood system. Please make them all

feel welcome.

N. Simons: I’d like to join my colleague, the Minister of Agriculture, in

welcoming guests from MPPIA. It’s my honour to introduce George Paterson,

Dawn Williamson, Jennifer Buchanan and my favourite actor and the donor of

this beautiful Beachcombers pin, Jackson Davies. I’d like the House

to please welcome them all.

Hon. H. Bains: The students from Tamanawis Secondary that I introduced earlier just

made it into the gallery, led by their teacher Lindsay Hutchison. Please,

now let’s give them a warm, warm welcome.

B. D’Eith: I also would like to talk about the number of people here from the

creative industries. I was very lucky to have worked in the creative

industries for 28 years. I have a lot of friends here, so bear with

me.

[10:25 a.m.]

I’d like to welcome Ruth Linka, associate publisher at Orca Book

Publishers; David Shepheard from Vancouver Film Commission and Vancouver

Economic Commission; Richard Olafson, a co-editor and publisher of

Pacific Rim Review of Books ; and Carol Sokoloff from

Pacific Rim Review of Books .

I also wanted to have a special welcome to someone who really,

normally, is in a galaxy far, far away and is in the precinct today, R2-D2.

It’s a very great and honourable guest we have.

I also wanted to say thank you and to welcome to the precinct Liz

Shorten from the CMPA; Scott Johnson, the president of Music B.C.; Lynn Ross

from the city of Vancouver; and Leslie Wootton and Peter Leitch from

MPPIA.

Please make them all feel very welcome.

S. Chandra Herbert: While with Creative Industries Week, I want to welcome a few other

folks. Jacqueline Dupuis, the executive director of the Vancouver

International Film Festival, makes a huge difference in Vancouver, with our

cultural vibrancy; Allan and Cynde Harmon, friends of a number of us, with

Really Real Films; Dusty Kelly with the musicians union; and Andrew

Wooldridge from Orca Book Publishers.

Just for Andrew, I want to say thank you for publishing Alligator,

Bear, Crab and Beach Baby and Holi Colors .

They’re the favourite books around my house right now, and they chew good

too.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL 30 — CANNABIS CONTROL AND

LICENSING

ACT

Hon. M. Farnworth presented a message from Her Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Cannabis Control and Licensing

Act.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time

now.

I’m pleased to introduce Bill 30, the Cannabis Control and

Licensing Act. This bill establishes the provincial regulatory regime

for the possession, sale, supply and production of non-medical cannabis

in B.C.

It establishes a licensing scheme for private cannabis retailers

as well as training and registration requirements for cannabis workers.

It establishes a minimum age of 19, and it sets restrictions on the

possession, public use and cultivation of cannabis by adults. Further,

the bill establishes a comprehensive compliance and enforcement regime

for both licensed cannabis retailers and illegal sellers.

This bill represents a balanced response to the federal

government’s decision to legalize non-medical cannabis. It reflects the

feedback we have received from stakeholders, Indigenous and local

governments and tens of thousands of British Columbians.

It reflects our government’s goals of prioritizing the health and

safety of British Columbians, protecting children and youth, reducing

crime in the illegal market and supporting economic development

opportunities in our province.

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

Motion approved.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting after today.

Bill 30, Cannabis Control and Licensing 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 31 — CANNABIS DISTRIBUTION ACT

Hon. M. Farnworth presented a message from Her Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Cannabis Distribution Act.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time

now.

I’m pleased to introduce Bill 31, the Cannabis Distribution Act.

Working together with Bill 30, the Cannabis Control and Licensing Act,

the Cannabis Distribution Act establishes a public wholesale

distribution regime for non-medical cannabis in British

Columbia.

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

Motion approved.

Hon. M. Farnworth: 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 31, Cannabis Distribution 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.

[10:30 a.m.]

BILL 17 — MOTOR VEHICLE

AMENDMENT ACT,

Hon. M. Farnworth presented a message from Her Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Motor Vehicle Amendment Act,

Hon. M. Farnworth: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time

now.

I’m pleased to introduce Bill 17, the Motor Vehicle Amendment Act,

2018. This bill proposes amendments to the Motor Vehicle Act that will

make B.C. roads safer by enhancing the provincial administrative

framework for drugs and driving. One significant change in this bill

would restrict new drivers, those in the graduated licensing program,

from operating a motor vehicle with any THC in their system. Another

important change will establish a new 90-day administrative driving

prohibition for drivers who operate a motor vehicle while affected by a

drug or a combination of a drug and alcohol.

These amendments represent a first phase of changes to detect and

deter drug-affected driving in this province. But make no mistake. While

further changes will surely come before this House in the near future as

research evolves and new technologies become available, the laws to

address drugs and driving in B.C. and the country are getting a lot

tougher. This bill provides a strong foundation to deter drug-affected

driving and increase safety on B.C. roads — a foundation that we believe

strikes the right balance between public safety and administrative

fairness.

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

Motion approved.

Hon. M. Farnworth: 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 17, Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 2018, 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 29 — VOLUNTARY BLOOD

DONATIONS

ACT

Hon. A. Dix presented a message from Her Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Voluntary Blood Donations

Act.

Hon. A. Dix: I move that the Voluntary Blood Donations Act be introduced and

read for a first time now.

Mr. Speaker: Do you have a statement, Minister?

Hon. A. Dix: I have a short statement, hon. Speaker.

Our voluntary blood donation system is an integral resource that

saves lives, thanks to people who graciously donate. We are taking

action to prevent private, paid collection of blood and plasma and to

make sure that the donations of British Columbians give benefit to

people in Canada. There are no private, paid plasma collection clinics

operating in B.C., and this legislation is meant to prevent such

operations from being established.

I wish to acknowledge the work of my colleague the Minister of

Mental Health and Addictions, the member for New Westminster, who played

a key role in advocating for this legislation for many years.

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

Motion approved.

Hon. A. Dix: 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 29, Voluntary Blood Donations 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.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

SEXUAL EXPLOITATION OF

CHILDREN AND

YOUTH

J. Thornthwaite: Cathy Peters is on a mission. She’s trying to protect children

from being sexually exploited in British Columbia. “British Columbia?”

you say. “That only happens over there, someplace over there.” But no,

Mr. Speaker. It’s happening here, right in British Columbia, under our

noses, in our parks, our movie theatres, our malls and our

schools.

There have been only 118 convictions of human sex trafficking in

Canada, and the only charge in British Columbia was Reza Moazami, in

2015. He provided pets as leverage. Most of his victims were minors,

addicted and homeless. Others used designer handbags, money, fast cars

and a luxurious lifestyle.

Hannah Metcalfe, with ACCESS Youth, states: “Every trafficked

person has an addiction issue. Youth with addictions are often involved

in the sex trade.” Sister Nancy Brown from Covenant House Vancouver

helps 1,300 youth annually, of whom 33 percent are sexually

exploited.

The problem is worsening. The target age used to be 16; now it’s

13. How many MLAs in this House have a 13-year-old child or grandchild?

Thirteen years old…. How can parents help their children from being

lured away by a trafficker?

[10:35 a.m.]

Treat your children the way you want their future spouses to treat

them. Help them distinguish between real love and empty promises or

gifts. Talk to your child about sexual abuse. Let them talk. Have an

open ear, and encourage them to be honest. Share a code word or phrase

to alert you that they need help. Talk to your child about sex

trafficking. Traffickers might be their schoolmates; pimps often start

necessarily their friends.

Child sexual trafficking is real in British Columbia, and we need

to be aware and act now. Support Cathy in her mission for a task force.

Our children depend on it.

EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS AND

INCLUSION OF VULNERABLE

PERSONS

A. Kang: It was a dark and stormy night. Things were as usual at home. Mom

and Dad were watching a movie on the big sofa. My little brother, who

has autism, was playing Minecraft in his room, and grandma was doing her

nightly tai chi routine. Suddenly, we heard a low rumbling sound that

crescendoed into a bang. It was an earthquake.

Panic seized the breath from me. I knew we would be okay, because

we had practised earthquake drills at least twice a year, ever since I

was five. “Drop, cover and hold on. Wait for the shaking to stop. Count

to 60 seconds. Check my entire body for injuries. Grab my emergency

backpack and head outside to our meeting place. Okay, I can do

this.”

From a distance, I heard grandma calling for help from her room.

Little brother with autism was screaming with fright. When we practised

the drill, we were all in the same room. Mom held little brother’s hand.

The lights were on, and no one was screaming or hurt. “What do I do

now?”

Today I would like to start an important conversation about the

importance of making sure that our loved ones, especially those who are

vulnerable, are also prepared in the event of an emergency. Having a

disability means that a person likely needs to consider preparedness

actions above and beyond the basics. I encourage families and friends to

consider one’s ability to communicate. Surroundings may change and look

unfamiliar. One’s service animal, such as a guide dog, may be hurt or

frightened, or its health may be impacted by the confusion or

distress.

Practise advocating for yourself in how to quickly explain to

people the best way to safely guide or move you or your equipment.

Identify an alternate mobility queue, and practise alternate routes in

advance of the disaster. Be sure to communicate with your seniors and

those with disabilities about how they are feeling, in the event of an

emergency, and plan accordingly. For more information, please look up

PreparedBC.

SPELLING BEE CHAMPION

HANNAH MAY

RAMIS

E. Foster: Mr. Speaker, “deplorable” is not usually a happy word. But for

Lumby student Hannah May Ramis, it just might be her new favourite word.

Hannah correctly spelled “deplorable” to win the 2018 Spelling Bee of

Canada’s provincial championships in the junior division.

She competed against 38 other students from across the province.

Hannah now advances to the national Spelling Bee of Canada in Toronto on

May 6. “I’m really happy to have won, because it’s my first spelling

bee,” said Hannah, who is in grade 5 and home-schooled through the

ASCEND Online program.

After four rounds and about 140 words, seven students were left

standing and headed into the tie-breakers. The first tie-breaker word

was “chronometer.” Three kids misspelled the word, but Hannah

successfully spelled it and went on to the next turn. She was followed

by Jacob Menke of Campbell River Christian School, who correctly spelled

“oxygen.”

The rest of the spellers misspelled their words, so Hannah and

Menke were declared the top two finalists. It was an intense several

rounds. Jacob and Hannah vied for the championship title, unable to

correctly spell words such as “famulus” and “bipartite.” Go figure.

Finally, after Menke misspelled “scullion,” Hannah had to spell the same

word and then another word to be declared champion. She successfully

spelled “scullion” and also spelled “deplorable,” to capture the

title.

Not only does she get to go to the national finals in Toronto.

Hannah also collected $500 and a big trophy for the provincial title. I

spoke to Hannah’s mom and asked her what she did for practice. She

spells a hundred words a day. Any words that she misspells are put on a

sticky note and set all over the house, so she’s reminded and learns to

respell them.

I would ask the House to please congratulate Hannah and wish her

good luck in the national championships in Toronto.

[10:40 a.m.]

DAY OF MOURNING FOR WORKERS

J. Routledge: Two days from now, on Saturday, April 28, many of us in this House

will be attending ceremonies in our communities, ceremonies to remember

the 196 British Columbians who died last year as a result of workplace

injury or disease. We will also be thinking about the many more workers

who were injured or became ill because of their work. It’s something

that we do every year on this day because April 28 is the National Day

of Mourning. It is the one day every year we come together to recommit

ourselves to safe, healthy and violence-free workplaces.

Today, during this last sitting of this House before April 28, I

ask us to reflect on our role as legislators, our role in ensuring that

the rules are in place to prevent workplace accidents and disease; our

role in ensuring that those rules are understood and embraced in all

workplaces; our role in ensuring that workers and their families are

adequately and expeditiously compensated when they face life-altering

circumstances due to workplace accident, incident or disease; our role

in ensuring that employers who put the health and safety of their

employees at risk either willfully or by neglect are held

accountable.

This year the National Day of Mourning draws particular attention

to violence and harassment in the workplace and its impact on the

well-being of workers. Let’s remember all those who have lost their

lives and been injured or become ill because of their work. Let’s honour

the families and co-workers who are left behind and who must care for

their family members who are seriously injured or sick. Let’s recommit

to doing everything we can to make B.C. workplaces healthier and

safer.

Today and on Saturday, we will mourn for the dead, but let’s also

fight for the living.

CLEMENTS CENTRE SOCIETY

S. Furstenau: In 1957, parents in British Columbia took a stand. They could no

longer accept sending their special needs children to large institutions

where they risked suffering abuse and neglect.

Five parents in the Cowichan Valley took their children’s

treatment into their own hands and formed the Clements Centre for child

development. At the Clements Centre, children could remain close to

their parents while receiving the care and support that they need.

Clements now serves over 845 children and adults with development delays

or special needs. Joey is one of them.

When Joey did not hit the same developmental milestones as his

older sister, Joey’s parents became concerned and were referred to the

Clements Centre. With the support they found at the centre, Joey’s

parents were able to navigate the process of having Joey diagnosed with

an intellectual disability, which enabled him to receive the services he

needed. When Joey turned 19, the services that had been available to him

no longer were. Parents in the Cowichan worked together again to develop

their own program for those who have aged out of the Ministry of

Children and Family Development support system.

Today working with Community Living B.C., Clements provides young

adults like Joey with the life skills they need to thrive. Young adults

can take workshops like healthy cooking and effective communication, all

of which allow them to move closer to independent living.

Joey’s story highlights the important work that organizations like

Clements are undertaking as well as the immense need for both community

and government support in ensuring that no one with an intellectual

disability is unable to access the help they need to live a happy and

healthy life.

CREATIVE INDUSTRIES WEEK

S. Chandra Herbert: “Over and over, one must ask oneself the question: ‘What do I want

to express? What is the thought behind the saying? What is my ideal?

What is my objective?’” What? Why? Why? What?

So asked Emily Carr, and indeed, so did I when preparing today’s

statement on Creative Industries Week and my love of the arts. What?

Why? Why? What? For art is hard to speak about, and sometimes, when you

do, you can cut off its life and try to jam it into a little box to

explain it.

A little box is statistics sometimes. But then I hear the

economists scream passionately: “Those boxes matter. Statistics matter.”

I hear my friends in the film, book publishing, music, digital

entertainment fields — and indeed, the Jobs Minister — agree. Look at

the jobs.

They’re right. Over 100,000 British Columbians work in our

creative industries, generating over $5.23 billion for B.C.’s economy. I

worked in theatre, dance and film before joining this place, and I grew

up in a family of artists. I must tell you that those jobs mattered very

much for my parents, my brother and I as they put the food on the

table.

[10:45 a.m.]

Then I, too, hear the artists scream — or sing or dance or paint

or write or film or animate — that it’s about dreams. It’s about living

a better life. It’s about understanding. It’s about living in the

question. Art is about who we are. It’s about community. They, too, are

right.

As a longtime advocate for the arts and the creative economy, I’ve

made peace with both sides. You can’t do one without the other. Art and

creativity can’t be put in place unless you have food, unless you have

housing, as well, and unless you have life to live.

I’m thankful that I live in a province with a government and, most

importantly, a people that celebrate arts and the creative industries.

I’m thankful the B.C. Arts Council was created and now has more money to

invest in B.C.’s artists. I’m thankful Creative B.C. was founded and now

can work with more money to invest in those creative industries so they,

too, can grow and continue to blossom in every one of our

communities.

Most of all, I am thankful for the artists, for the dreamers, for

the bold. Happy Creative Industries Week.

Oral Questions

REFERENDUM ON ELECTORAL REFORM

M. Lee: Yesterday the Premier said British Columbians now won’t even get

to see the ballot question until this fall. Clearly, he didn’t mean it

when he promised a fair and open referendum.

To the Deputy Premier, how can the government possibly justify

withholding the question until days before the vote?

Hon. D. Eby: The process we’ve set out is clear. We engaged tens of thousands

of British Columbians. There’ll be a report available for all members to

see, including the ballot question. It’ll go to cabinet for approval. I

expect that this will all be done well before the fall.

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

M. Lee: Yesterday the Premier clearly indicated it would be the fall. This

government cannot hide behind a process of surveys — surveys on surveys.

British Columbians, to have a fair and open referendum, need to know

what the question is. Time is running out.

British Columbians need to know what question is going to be asked

for this referendum, but yesterday the Premier said: “I suggest that

there may well be criticisms if there’s too much information…. I’m

comfortable with the Attorney General managing the process.” The Premier

should be truly embarrassed by these comments. He has abandoned any

principles he once had for this referendum in exchange for a

stage-managed process.

Again to the Deputy Premier, how can the government defend

withholding the ballot question until the fall?

Hon. D. Eby: Well, it’s simply not accurate information. The responsibility for

this is in my office, and I’m telling the member — through you, hon.

Speaker — that we will have the report out with recommendations to

cabinet well in advance of the fall.

I’m also going to take a bit of exception with his suggestion that

somehow we were hiding things from British Columbians. Now, 88,547

British Columbians actually filled out a questionnaire on this. We sent

a mailer to every single house in the province. I mean, I’m not sure the

basis for that allegation, but it’s a pretty open hiding, if that were

the case.

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

supplemental.

M. Lee: I’m not sure how British Columbians can be asked to determine how

they’re going to vote to change an electoral reform process in our

province without knowing what the question is that’s going to be asked.

They need to have the time to digest that, to be informed about

it.

On April 10, 2017, the Premier said: “The federal amending formula

is similar to the kind of formula we need for a plebiscite on changing

how we elect people in British Columbia.” The Premier is not a man of

his word. He also promised a thoughtful process with an all-party

committee, a consultation on thresholds and a fair and independent

process.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, we shall hear the question. Thank

you.

M. Lee: Again to the Deputy Premier, why has this government broken its

promises to British Columbians in respect to the referendum?

Hon. D. Eby: We went out to British Columbians — we sent a mailer to literally

every house in the province — and we said: “Tell us what you think the

rules should be for this process, what the question should be, what

values you have in terms of the systems that we should put

forward.”

[10:50 a.m.]

In fact, the members, through their second reading speeches,

indicated clearly that they wanted those speeches to be considered as

part of that process. In fact, they will be.

There certainly is a process underway where there will be a report

prepared based on those submissions. I’ve already committed to the

member from Prince George that we’ll make the raw data of that process

available to the members as part of that.

You know, in terms of basing a process on what British Columbians

want and what their values are, I think we’re well-grounded in ensuring

that this is going to be a fair process. That was what I was asked to

put in place — a fair question or questions and a fair process. That’s

what I will put in place, certainly, with our partners, Elections

B.C.

Ultimately, it’ll be British Columbians who vote. They will show

up, and they will vote. That is how the decision will be made, and I

can’t think of a better way to make decisions.

J. Martin: According to the Premier, British Columbians aren’t really

interested in becoming informed about PR, and they can wait until 28

days before the vote to find out what they need to know. Here’s the

problem. This directly contradicts the advice of experts, who told the

Premier not to rush this process.

These actions aren’t new. We learned just this week that NDP

political staff overruled recommendations from academics and imposed a

gag order preventing them speaking to the media. What was the point of

engaging experts if he and his political staff are simply going to

overrule them?

Hon. D. Eby: The member’s theory is that we put forward a survey that was

biased — right? — and that there was political interference that way.

Let me read to you a

section from this media outlet, the Tyee ,

which….

Interjections.

Hon. D. Eby: Yeah, that’s right, because they’re very hard on the government

all the time.

“Electoral Reform Consultation Missing Key Options, Says

Advocate.” “The B.C. government’s public consultation on changing the

electoral system includes systems nobody is advocating for and has left

out two of the best options for the province, says the president of the

advocacy group Fair Voting B.C. ‘It’s fair to say that Fair Voting B.C.

is a little disappointed in the particular selection of systems they put

forward.’” One of the biggest PR organizations in the province is also

unhappy with the survey.

Now, I would like everybody to be happy with the survey, everybody

to think that we did our best. Both sides are unhappy with the

questionnaire, but it will provide government with the information that

we need to set the rules and the question and the terms of the

referendum, which will be a fair process.

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

J. Martin: Well, I thank the Attorney General for that. But to be clear, the

Premier has made it abundantly obvious that he doesn’t want British

Columbians to have this information in a timely manner, and he doesn’t

want people talking about it over the summer.

It’s barbecue season. What more would you want to do than talk

about PR? People are engaged. They are interested in this type of

stuff.

On this side of the House, we disagree with the Premier. We think

that British Columbians want, and have a right, to know. Can someone

explain why the Premier is afraid of British Columbians having this

information in a timely manner and discussing it in the weeks and months

to come?

Hon. D. Eby: I see no reason why I won’t be able to get out the report with the

recommendations to cabinet in advance of barbecue season, as the member

says. I know the member is a big fan of barbecue season.

Interjections.

Hon. D. Eby: That’s not a joke. He really is. He’s actually quite famous for

it, as I understand.

The theory that this questionnaire is biased against

first-past-the-post…. I received correspondence from an advocate for

proportional representation, who wrote to me:

“Pointing out the disadvantages of proportional systems, while

remaining relatively mum on the problems with first-past-the-post,

displays a blatant and unconscionable bias. This is simply unacceptable

from the office of the Attorney General. Although a great many people no

doubt have already read these descriptions, I would expect that

corrections be made immediately to demonstrate that these biases —

biases against proportional representation — were accidental oversights,

rather than deliberate manipulations of voter opinions.”

I’m hearing it from both sides — that the questionnaire is

biased against them.

Now, honestly, I would prefer that both sides say: “This was a

wonderful questionnaire.” They’re not, but they’re agreeing that it’s

biased against them, which is a reasonable second position, in my

opinion.

[10:55 a.m.]

GOVERNMENT OVERSIGHT OF

AQUACULTURE AND TRANSITION

TO CLOSED-CONTAINMENT SYSTEMS

can properly manage natural resources on your coast.” Yet we had some

insight earlier this week of the appalling job done by the federal

Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

Canada’s Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable

Development released a new report about how the DFO has been managing

the salmon farming industry. Her determination: the federal government

has not adequately managed the risks associated with salmon farming,

putting wild salmon at risk. I quote from the report: “We concluded that

Fisheries and Oceans Canada did not adequately manage the risks

associated with salmon aquaculture consistent with its mandate to

protect wild fish.”

In a CBC radio interview, the host pressed Julie Gelfand for

examples of how the DFO is not doing its job. She responded: “There are

so many. It’s really quite disturbing.” Then she went into great

detail.

Our government must stop deferring to the DFO. They cannot be

trusted with their responsibility for the open-net aquaculture industry.

To the Minister of Agriculture, when is she going to announce the

transition plan for getting open-net pens off our coast?

Hon. L. Popham: Thank you for the question. It’s obviously a very, very important

topic. It’s something that our government is very concerned about, and

we’re doing everything we can at this point to move this file forward in

a positive way.

One of the things that we’re committed to is helping the

aquaculture industry transition to closed containment where possible. We

know that on Vancouver Island, there’s a land-based closed-containment

operation that’s doing its best. We have been talking with tech

companies — one on Vancouver Island, again, that’s looking at closed

containment, ocean-based. We also recently met with a Norwegian company

that’s looking at the same technology.

Around the world, we’re seeing technologies develop that will help

assist us in either having closed containment in ocean or on land, and

we’re very supportive to get the aquaculture industry there where

possible.

I think that the member must also understand that the federal

government holds most of the cards on this file. We’re doing everything

that we can from our position, but the federal government has to meet us

at the table.

Mr. Speaker: Saanich North and the Islands on a supplemental.

A. Olsen: There’s no question that the federal government, the Department of

Fisheries and Oceans, holds a lot of cards when it comes to open-net-pen

fish farms. On land, though, British Columbia owns a lot more of the

responsibility than, perhaps, has been accepted.

We have an incredible opportunity in front of us and must address

the significant threat to our wild salmon by embracing innovation and

new technology. As was pointed out, there are several prospects — large

scale, land-based aquaculture not only here in British Columbia but

around North America.

In Washington state, Governor Jay Inslee has signed legislation to

phase out marine farming of Atlantic salmon and other non-native species

by 2022. On the east coast of North America, we see significant

investments taking place into land-based aquaculture. Atlantic Canada is

taking decisive steps. We need to be a leader in this transition. We

have B.C. companies that have the technology to make this economically

viable and help support a transition to bring stable jobs to numerous

communities on our coast.

My question is, again, to the Minister of Agriculture. We need a

plan. We cannot be late-to-the-game laggards. When are we going to see a

plan on how we’re transitioning this industry onto land?

Hon. L. Popham: Thanks, again, for the question. Of course this is an important

topic. Our government has stated numerous times that we are committed to

helping industry transition. There’s technology that’s developing

constantly around the world to help other countries get to this as

well.

I just want to reiterate that you have to look at the whole

picture when we’re talking about the health of wild salmon. Our

government is absolutely committed to protecting the health. We have to

work with the federal government on that respect.

There absolutely is a place for closed containment in this

equation, but we need to look at the whole picture. There are a lot of

things that are affecting the health of our wild salmon, and the issue

cannot be fully addressed without full engagement and leadership from

the federal government.

[11:00 a.m.]

CHILD CARE FEE REDUCTION INITIATIVE

L. Throness: There are 2,850 child care providers in B.C. eligible for the

government’s child care program, but parents will only get fee

reductions they’ve been promised if their providers sign on to the

government’s deal. You’d think that every provider would opt in

immediately if their parents could get a benefit, but two months after

the budget, 60 percent of providers have refused to opt in. There’s only

one way to describe that. That’s policy failure.

To the Minister of State for Child Care, how is she going to fix

this mess for providers and for families?

Hon. K. Chen: For many years, parents in B.C. have been struggling with the high

cost of child care. The child care cost has gone up almost 35 percent in

almost every region of the province during the past ten years. It can be

as high as a family’s rent payment, mortgage payment or even a family’s

paycheque. That is why our government is putting together a

comprehensive strategy to make sure we address the child care crisis and

to support families.

For the first month in, we already have over 2,000 facilities that

are submitting, joining our government’s program and opting into our

fee-reduction initiative. Among the 2,000 facilities, that represents

about 33,000 child care spaces. So for the first month in, we’re going

to have tens of thousands of children benefiting from this

plan.

We will, of course, have to continue to work with providers and

professionals in the sector to make sure we continue to work hand in

hand together to build a better child care system. Life was getting so

unaffordable under the previous B.C. Liberal government. Our government

is committed to making life better and child care more affordable for

B.C. families.

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

L. Throness: Why am I not surprised that we don’t get a solution from this

minister? We only get rhetoric. I’ll tell the minister why they’re not

opting in. It’s because the government is coercing daycare providers to

sign a contract that takes effective control of their business. The

government is breaking its promise of fee reductions to parents because

of its desire to micromanage providers.

My question. When will the government stop trying to control child

care providers so that parents can get the fee reductions promised by

the government?

Hon. K. Chen: For the first time ever, our government is stepping up to make

child care more affordable in B.C. This is a very comprehensive plan. I

hope the member opposite has looked into our child care B.C. plan, which

has many strategies to make child care more affordable, high quality and

more accessible.

Under affordability measures, we have two measures. This is the

first measure. The fee reduction is for providers to work with our

government hand in hand to address child care affordability. Among the

50,000 spaces that are eligible under this program, already providers

representing 33,000 spaces are opted into this program. If we look at

the numbers, a good majority of children and families in B.C., for the

first time ever in licensed child care, will be benefiting from this

initiative.

We have more work to do. It is an option for providers to join our

program, and this is just a start. Many providers will continue to

return their contracts in May, in June and in the coming months. They

can join in this program anytime so more B.C. families will

benefit.

J. Isaacs: I have an email from Julia, who has written to voice her concerns

with how this government has implemented its child care program. Julia

writes: “I thought this was going to be a sure thing, as I trusted our

government. Well, I just received a letter from our daycare provider

that they will not be opting in as they are worried about what will

become regulated. I am so upset. I’m crying as I write this.”

What advice does the minister have for parents like

Julia?

[11:05 a.m.]

Hon. K. Chen: We do understand that families have been struggling with the high

cost of child care and not being able to access child care spaces for

many years. Unfortunately, that all happened under the previous B.C.

Liberal government’s watch.

That is why, for the first time ever, we need a comprehensive

strategy. We need many, many actions to address child care

is one of the two programs we’re introducing to make child care more

affordable.

Later this year we’ll also introduce a new child care benefit,

which is a different benefit. It’s income-tested, and it will benefit up

to 86,000 families in B.C. in the coming three years. So there’s more to

come.

I just want to clarify, again, that this fee reduction initiative

is an option for providers to work with us. When providers join in our

plan, they will also get an increase to their operating fund, which will

be increased again in year 2 and year 3. This plan is benefiting

parents, providers and professionals in the sector.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Coquitlam–Burke Mountain on a

supplemental.

J. Isaacs: I find it a bit troubling that the members opposite find it quite

funny, when families are really concerned and stressed over family care.

It’s not a funny issue. It’s a very serious issue.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, we shall hear the question.

J. Isaacs: Julia goes on to write: “We had to wait on a wait-list to get into

this daycare. Trying to switch to a daycare that has opted in would be

difficult, as we would be put on another long wait-list. Besides, my

daughter is thriving at her current daycare, and we don’t want to switch

her.”

When will the minister fix this so parents like Julia get what

they were promised?

Hon. K. Chen: We do understand that families have been struggling for years and

years. That is why our government needs a comprehensive strategy in

order to tackle the child care crisis. That is why one of our first

initiatives is to make child care more affordable.

Let me clarify. No one is getting less than the current status in

the chaos that was left by the B.C. Liberals. The fee reduction is an

option for providers to join. They’ll get an increase to their operating

fund, which will be increased again in year 2 and year 3. Families will

be benefiting from this program.

Let me provide information, feedback that I got from a private

provider from Nanaimo. This provider has opted in to our plan. She says:

“I care about my families, and I’m thinking about one of the young

families I serve as a good example of those who this really benefits.

They are young parents in their early 20s. The mom is going back to

school. She wants to get a degree. They are exactly the type of family

this initiative is going to help. That really matters to me.”

Many families have shared with me that this is the first time ever

they don’t have to live paycheque to paycheque in order to pay for their

child care costs.

S. Bond: British Columbians were expecting a $10-a-day daycare program.

Well, we know that didn’t happen — another broken promise. Instead, what

they got was a botched rollout that caused an enormous amount of stress

and anxiety for child care providers and the families they

serve.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, may we hear the question?

S. Bond: These are not my words. These are words that child care providers

are using.

One provider writes: “There is mayhem and panic amongst child care

providers as we all….”

Interjections.

S. Bond: The members can groan all they want. These are child care

providers across British Columbia that they are choosing to be

disrespectful to.

Let me continue the quote. “There is mayhem and panic amongst

child care providers as we all struggle to understand how this will

affect us now and in the future.”

When will the Minister of State for Child Care listen to the

concerns of those child care providers and end the mayhem she has

created?

[11:10 a.m.]

Hon. K. Chen: Ever since we became government, we have been engaging with

thousands and thousands of providers, professionals, academics and

parents who have shared with us their child care needs. Many providers

have also shared with us during the past years that they wanted to make

child care more affordable. They are working hard. They’re passionate

about the work they do, and they also want to provide the best services

possible. But when the cost was going up and life was getting so

unaffordable under the previous B.C. Liberal government’s watch, they

had no other way to address their cost pressure other than putting it on

parent fees, unfortunately.

This is why, for the first time ever, our government is stepping

in to make sure that we are working together with providers and

professionals in the sector to make child care more affordable, and we

are committed to do that work. I have personally engaged in phone

conferences, in-person meetings and on line to communicate with

providers. Among our staff, we’ve communicated with thousands of

providers during the past few weeks, and we will continue to do that in

the coming months and years to make sure we build a better system for

B.C. families.

Let me give you a quick message that I got from a private provider

from Courtenay. This is what she says:

“As a for-profit child care provider, I will be opting in to the fee

reduction program. After listening to the webinar link, gaining a deeper

understanding of the child care system in B.C. in the call that CCOF,

the child care operating fund program, has hosted, it answered a lot of

questions. The frequently asked questions also helped me to understand

specific changes for my centre. Any questions that I had that were

specific to my centre, I was able to call in, and they were addressed.

This will be helpful to families.”

Mr. Speaker: The member for Prince George–Valemount on a

supplemental.

S. Bond: Even though this minister has extended her deadline, 60 percent of

providers — there’s a number — have refused to opt in to this scheme.

Despite these numbers and the issues her botched rollout has caused, the

minister said this week: “I think things are going great.” But yesterday

the Premier said: “It has not been without glitches.”

Well, this goes way beyond glitches. It’s negatively impacting

child care providers and parents across the province. When will the

minister at least stand in this House and acknowledge that many

providers and many parents in this province disagree with her view that

things are going great? Just when will she fix her mess?

Hon. K. Chen: For the first time ever, it is surprising to hear the member

opposite and members who are so interested in making child care better

in B.C. They had so many years. If they had done something to address

the child care needs in B.C., we would not be in this current situation,

and that is why our government is committed to making things better for

B.C. families.

I don’t know where the member opposite got her numbers from, but

among the 50,000 spaces that are eligible under this fee reduction

program, 33,000 spaces…. The providers have been applying to opt in to

our fee reduction initiative, which means that a good majority of

families in B.C. will be benefiting from this program.

IMPACT OF EMPLOYER HEALTH TAX

ON CHILD CARE

FACILITIES

M. Stilwell: Just for the record, we get the numbers from estimates.

This week the Minister of State for Child Care confirmed that 100

child care providers across B.C. will be subject to the new NDP employer

health tax. Wind and Tide is a child care operator providing care for

approximately 900 children. The new NDP employer health tax will cost

this provider $76,000 a year. These are providers with employees

operating within tight margins. Just because you have a large payroll

doesn’t mean you have large profits.

Can the Minister of State for Child Care explain to this operator

and the 99 others how they are supposed to pay this new NDP tax? Does

she think they should raise rates?

[11:15 a.m.]

Hon. C. James: I find it a little tough to listen to the other side pretend they

care about child care when they ignored the pressures for 16 years in

this Legislature.

We saw families who have struggled to be able to find child care

spaces, to be able to find affordability, to be able to find quality.

Now, when we talk about eliminating medical service premiums…. Again, I

guess I shouldn’t find it surprising that the other side, who doubled

MSP, would argue against getting rid of medical service

premiums.

As the member knows, as I will be happy to talk about again, small

employers are entirely exempt, including the vast majority of child care

providers. We are speaking with the providers who will be impacted,

addressing those questions as they come forward.

We will continue to make sure that we are providing quality health

care and quality child care in British Columbia for families.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Parksville-Qualicum on a supplemental.

M. Stilwell: We are talking about thousands of children and thousands of

families that are served by these providers — the exact people that the

NDP promised to help. Yet the Minister of State for Child Care confirmed

during estimates that child care providers will be able to pass on at

least part of the employer health tax to parents through increasing

fees.

Parents will end up paying millions of dollars in extra daycare

fees every year, thanks to this NDP government.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

M. Stilwell: Will the minister exempt parents and child care providers from the

new employer health tax?

Hon. C. James: Well, families in British Columbia — since we have come into

government, less than a year — are going to save $1,800 a year with the

elimination of medical service premiums. Individuals are going to save

$900 a year with the elimination of medical service premiums. Families

are going to save with our affordable, quality child care program that

we are introducing as well. That’s in less than a year that we are

providing affordability to families. I don’t know what the other side

doesn’t like about making sure that families are better off in British

Columbia.

[End of question period.]

Petitions

L. Throness: I’d like to present a petition. Mr. Speaker, 1,560 residents of the

Harrison Hot Springs area got together and in one week put together a

petition in opposition to an application for an aggregate mine at 3628 Hot

Springs Road. They cite blasting and crushing noise, dust, road safety,

environment and impact on the tourist economy as reasons for their strong

opposition to a gravel pit.

Tabling Documents

Hon. D. Eby: I have the honour to present the Crown Proceeding Act report for the

fiscal year ended March 31, 2017.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call committee stage on Bill 21, Class Proceedings

Amendment Act. In Committee A, I call continued debate on the estimates of the

Ministry of Social Development and Poverty Reduction.

[11:20 a.m.]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 21 — CLASS PROCEEDINGS

AMENDMENT ACT,

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 21; R.

Chouhan in the chair.

The committee met at 11:21 a.m.

section 1.

Hon. D. Eby: I’m joined by Kelly Farish, our solicitor, and Andrea Buzbuzian,

who is assisting as well from the Ministry of Attorney General. I look

forward to the member’s questions.

M. Lee: I just wanted to further some of the discussion we were having at

second reading on this bill. I understand and appreciate that the

multi-jurisdictional class proceeding definition mirrors what the

Uniform Law Conference of Canada’s definition would be for a recommended

act and that, of course, other provinces have adopted similar

legislation to this bill.

I just would like the views of the Attorney General in terms of

what level of success other provinces have had in reducing the problem

of duplicative class actions.

Hon. D. Eby: The two provinces that have legislation that is most similar to

what is being proposed here to the House are Alberta and Saskatchewan.

There are other provinces that have the opt-out provision that’s

included here. But in terms of the model legislation from the Uniform

Law Conference, Alberta and Saskatchewan are the two

jurisdictions.

It’s key for the member and others in the House to know that the

Uniform Law Conference is a group of drafters and policy experts from

the provinces and territories who get together. They look at the

existing case law, they look at the experience of courts in class

actions, and they put together these provisions and recommend them to

jurisdictions to ensure consistency across jurisdictions.

This facilitates a couple of things. One is the ability of counsel

from other provinces to understand what’s happening in British Columbia

and vice versa. In addition, it allows judges, including at the

appellate level, to look across and find consistency in judgments that

go up to appeal. We’re hopeful that this will actually build on the

consistency that’s been built in Alberta and Saskatchewan, with B.C.

coming on board, and that other provinces will bring their legislation

in line and that the benefits will accrue in that way.

In terms of the specific experiences of Alberta and Saskatchewan,

staff have not done a detailed analysis of the outcomes of the

introduction of this legislation. Instead, we were reliant on the work

of the Uniform Law Conference in their consultations and recommendations

around ensuring consistency and the benefits that would flow from that

to both B.C. and other jurisdictions that picked this up.

[11:25 a.m.]

M. Lee: Thank you for that response. I just wanted to ask at this juncture

in regards to other jurisdictions that might have been considered —

other jurisdictions like Switzerland or Germany that are national

jurisdictions, but they have their own subjurisdictions, similar to

Canada, where this sort of duplicative class action may

arise.

Were there any other jurisdictions outside of Canada considered as

well, respective to the drafting of this bill?

Hon. D. Eby: It may well be that the Uniform Law Conference might have looked

at international comparators and best practices. I can advise the member

that the impetus for this — the driving force and the information that

we relied on — was the Uniform Law Conference of Canada, which put

forward these recommendations for Canadian common-law jurisdictions

around class actions case law that already exists, decisions by judges

and experience across Canada in the best practices of provinces in

relation to class actions to ensure consistency across the

country.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

M. Lee: In terms of the operative provision within this bill of,

obviously, enlarging the class…. I mentioned this in my second reading

comments as well. Does the Attorney General believe that enlarging how a

class action may proceed, may commence and how it may be…? Will it lead

to additional and, further, more litigation in this

jurisdiction?

Hon. D. Eby: In terms of

section 2 and most of this, it’s related to ensuring

consistency with other jurisdictions and providing courts with the

ability to ensure that we are not duplicating processes that might be in

place in other provinces. There is a provision in the bill that may

increase the number of actions that take place in British Columbia,

potentially. We don’t know. That is around the opt-in versus opt-out

model.

In the opt-in model, someone from another province that might be a

member of a class has to actually choose to participate in the class.

This bill proposes to shift British Columbia to what’s called an opt-out

model, which is where someone is presumptively included to be in the

class unless they ask to be removed.

This change definitely will have an impact on the number of

members of a particular class action that goes forward, the number of

plaintiffs in the class action, without any doubt. That is what it is

intended to do, actually, to ensure that nobody is left out of a class

action that should be included. But it may have the inadvertent effect

of having British Columbia be a preferred location for counsel to file

class actions because we have this standardized legislation, like

Alberta and Saskatchewan have now, and we have the opt-out provision

that automatically includes a greater class of plaintiffs. It’s

speculative, but it’s certainly possible.

[11:30 a.m.]

We try to get a sense of the number of class actions that go

forward in B.C., and it’s difficult to collect accurate statistics on

that. Currently we do know that the vast majority of class actions

settle. They don’t go to trial. Estimates are somewhere in the range of

20, but I would advise the member to take that number with a great deal

of caution, because, as I say, statistics have been challenging to come

by around the number of class actions filed in B.C.

currently.

We’re talking about a small subset of the actions that take place.

They are very high-profile sometimes, because they might involve

consumer products. There have been class actions related to residential

schools, for example. They’re newsworthy events. They appear to be quite

large and high-volume undertakings. In reality, this is a small subset

of the litigation that takes place in British Columbia. The vast

majority, unfortunately, relates to ICBC.

M. Lee: Thank you to the Attorney General for that response as well. It’s

interesting, just to comment on the venue of choice. You could see, for

example, with some of the additional claims that might be used, even in

a Securities Act class action proceeding, that there may be, as the

Attorney General suggests, a shifting of that venue to this

province.

I just wanted to ask, as well…. In terms of the notice of

application for certification, that requires a class member knowing of

such proceeding. At what stage would that potential class member become

aware of such a proceeding?

Hon. D. Eby: There’s a sort of bigger-picture piece about someone who might not

be the representative plaintiff, who might just have a claim, and then

there’s a different process around the representative plaintiff. That’s

the person who is bringing forward the claim with the lawyer, who

exemplifies the class — the one person who stands in for the class. For

someone who, let’s say, bought a defective consumer product, and they

live in Saskatchewan, how would they get notice? How would they hear

about the class action?

Well, these are often newsworthy events. People frequently hear

about them through the news. As part of the certification process, the

judge will canvass with counsel about how notification should be given.

Sometimes people might see advertisements in the newspaper or in media

to potential members of a class. If it’s a defined group — for example,

bank account holders — the names and addresses are all known by the

person or organization that is being sued. The court could order that

something be mailed to all of these people.

Each class action is very different, so the judge’s instructions

vary about how the class should be provided notice. It’s part of the

certification process, which means that in most cases, people will

receive notice after the certification takes place if they’re one of the

class members.

Section 2(2)(

b) relates to notification to the

representative plaintiff for any multi-jurisdictional class proceeding

that’s been commenced somewhere else.

It may be that if it’s a consumer product that is sold across

Canada, for example, there may be a class action started in Ontario,

there might be a class action started in Manitoba and one in B.C. The

notice of the application for the certification has to be provided to

the representative plaintiff. This is the individual who, with their

lawyer, has started the class action on behalf of the entire class.

They’ve gone to the court registry. They’ve filed their address and

notification information.

[11:35 a.m.]

It’s up to the lawyer who is filing the class action in B.C. to go

to the registry, get the address of the representative plaintiff’s

lawyer and send notice — “Hey, we’re going to go to court, and we’re

going to ask for certification of that class action on this date” — so

that they can all come from across Canada, or they can hire counsel in

British Columbia who will appear in court and say: “No, you shouldn’t

certify in B.C. because we’ve already got this class action in Ontario.

It’s well along. Everybody is included.”

That’s part of what this legislation is intended to do: to reduce

the multiplicity of actions across Canada and to provide notice to

everybody that there is something going ahead in B.C. And if you have a

concern about that, you should show up and provide reasons to the court

why it shouldn’t be certified in B.C.

It allows the court to say, “No, B.C. is not the right place,” or

to say: “Yes, it should go ahead in B.C., and maybe the Ontario action

shouldn’t go ahead.” That is what this notice provision in sub 2(2) is

about.

M. Lee: Based on that specific provision, on sub 2(2)(b), is there, then,

some standard of adequate notice?

Hon. D. Eby: There are a couple of questions that are contained in the member’s

question that I’ll try to answer.

The first is: how would you even know about a class action that

might be taking place in another province in order to be able to give

notice to them? In a class action, it’s quite often the case that the

defendant of the class action will know about where they’re being sued

somewhere else because they’ve been given notice of that class action,

and they can provide that information to counsel and to the

court.

The Canadian Bar Association has also made efforts to establish a

class action registry with the intent of providing class action counsel

with a list of class actions in Canada so they can look through and find

class actions that match up where notice should be given.

In terms of how the notice is given, if a class action has been

identified where someone needs to be given notice, typically that can be

effected simply by sending notice to the lawyer for the class that’s

listed in the registry. If the person is having difficulty providing

notice in the usual way, they can apply to the court for directions

about how to provide notice or what would be appropriate to provide

notice to the class members in another jurisdiction. That’s something

that’s available to them.

M. Lee: Just on the national registry, if the Attorney General can make a

further comment about what his sense is in terms of how well that’s

functioning and how it will be helpful in this regard.

Hon. D. Eby: I thank my staff for the helpful information here.

The Canadian Bar Association issued a draft in October of 2017

titled Canadian Judicial Protocol for the Management of

Multijurisdictional Class Actions and the Provision of Class Action

Notice . This is squarely within the area that the member is

asking questions about. What happens with these protocols is they go out

for draft, for consultation. There is discussion across Canada with the

various law societies and the Canadian Bar Association members in the

various provincial organizations.

[11:40 a.m.]

They provide feedback. The document evolves to a final document,

which can be part of the work of the Uniform Law Conference in providing

recommendations to government, and it can form the basis of legislative

change provincially, court rules or practice by lawyers

generally.

That document is underway, and I recommend it to the member. In

particular, it talks about that plaintiff’s counsel would be obliged to

post the pleadings of their action in the class action database that the

Canadian Bar Association has established. So it is an evolving process

currently.

I note, as well, that the Uniform Law Conference, in their

directions around this type of legislation…. It talks about how

important it is that there be this type of Canadian class proceedings

registry in order to provide a searchable database of class proceedings

for the purposes of providing notice to avoid duplication and

confusion.

Because we are the third province to adopt this type of model

class action legislation, we’re early in the game. The Canadian Bar

Association has established this class action registry, and the

discussions are happening nationally around how most appropriately to

make it mandatory for counsel, nationally, to register their class

actions in the database. Right now it’s voluntary. So it doesn’t work as

well as it would if it was required to register as part of a plaintiff

counsel’s obligations in filing a class action.

As we move along, part of the submissions and the requests, I’m

sure, of judges will be that the counsel make efforts to register in the

national registry as well. It’s an evolving process, and we’re early in

the game in terms of following this national model for class

actions.

Section 2 approved.

section 3.

M. Lee: On this section, I just would like the Attorney General to comment

on…. When a plaintiff in a class proceeding receives notice under

section 2(2)(b), what is the period of time in

which that individual needs to apply to make submissions to the court,

considering the certification of the other class proceeding?

Hon. D. Eby: I understand the member’s question to be: when a representative

plaintiff in another province receives notice, how much time do they

have to indicate that they have an interest in making submissions and

that they’d like to be in front of the court?

As a practical matter, typically, a lawyer who received a notice

like this would immediately send a response to counsel and say: “We have

an interest in this, and we have an intention of appearing.” They would

work together to set dates for the certification hearing that worked for

both counsel.

If it were the case that counsel in British Columbia provided

notice to the other lawyer and then went ahead and scheduled a

certification hearing, the court almost certainly would ask: “Has notice

been provided to other classes, other representative plaintiffs?”

Counsel would advise the court that notice had been given and that

they’d received a response that they wanted to participate.

If counsel in another province found out that something had been

set down for a certification hearing without their participation in

setting the dates, they could certainly come to the court in British

Columbia and say that that was unfair or sharp practice — to not allow

them to participate, to set artificially short deadlines and so on. The

court would certainly allow them opportunity here.

What this does is this confirms the right, the option, of

representative plaintiffs, through their counsel in other provinces, to

make submissions. So a counsel could simply show up with this

section

and say, “We have the ability to make submissions here. It was set down

for a date that doesn’t work for us, and we need the opportunity to

provide submissions,” in the unlikely event that counsel in British

Columbia were not working cooperatively with other lawyers or providing

them with adequate notice of the class.

Section 3 approved.

section 4.

[11:45 a.m.]

M. Lee: In respect of the objectives that are set out in (4)(a)…. Just if

the Attorney General can comment on these objectives and whether they’re

placed in the act in any order of priority or any particular guidance

that might be provided as to how these objectives should be weighed by

the court.

Hon. D. Eby: The legislation doesn’t set out that any one of these factors or

objectives be weighted more heavily than any other one. It’s the role of

the judge to go through each of the objectives and the factors against

the facts that are presented to them and make the determination about

what is most appropriate in achieving the objectives and the factors, in

balancing those and weighting those, as part of the judicial exercise of

discretion.

Section 4 approved.

section 5.

M. Lee: Just in respect of this section…. Thank you to the Attorney

General for the previous response. On a similar basis, are there any

particular factors or other guidance that courts should be considering

in considering orders in multi-jurisdictional certifications?

Hon. D. Eby: The objectives and the weighting and balancing of various factors

is the same as my previous answer. This is an exercise that’s engaged in

by a judge in considering all the facts that have been presented by

counsel or by counsel for representative plaintiffs from other

jurisdictions in multi-jurisdictional certification hearings.

Sections 5 to 9 inclusive approved.

section 10.

M. Lee: On this

section of the bill…. To the extent that there were any

differences with how other provinces incorporated transitional

provisions, are there any different approaches as to how this bill

contemplates the transition versus any of the other provinces, namely

Saskatchewan and Alberta?

[11:50 a.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: Saskatchewan applied no transition rules, which was consistent

with the Uniform Law Conference model legislation. That’s obviously

different from ours, because we are providing transitional

provisions.

Alberta is also different, but they did provide transitional

guidance for the court and for lawyers. In particular, they said that if

you have a proceeding that is the subject of an application for

certification on the coming into force of their new law, then you’re

under the old rules. In our consultations with counsel, they found that

not to be especially clear. “Where a proceeding is subject of an

application for certification” was not as clear as it could

be.

In an effort to provide greater clarity on transition about which

class actions have the old rules, around opt out or opt in, and which

ones have the new rules, around opt out, the B.C. statute says that if

you have commenced your proceeding — in other words, you’ve filed a

notice of claim — then you’re under the old rules, which are the opt-in

rules. But if you haven’t yet commenced your proceeding in the court,

then you’ll be under the new rules, which are the opt-out

rules.

It’s a technical area, but there are very clear and distinct

differences between Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia’s

approach. I think we benefit from going third in the list and learning

from their experience.

Sections 10 and 11 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. D. Eby: I’ve been corrected by staff. I misspoke in terms of B.C.’s

provision. If your proceeding has commenced but certification is

happening at a later date, you can still have the new rules apply. It’s

only if certification has already taken place in British Columbia that

the old rules apply.

Staff are nodding at that. I apologize to the member for the

confusing information on that technical section, and I thank the Chair

for his patience with that.

With that, I move completion without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:54 a.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

[11:55 a.m.]

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 21 — CLASS PROCEEDINGS

AMENDMENT ACT,

Bill 21, Class Proceedings Amendment Act, 2018, reported complete

without amendment, read a third time and passed.

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

granted leave to sit again.

Hon. D. Eby: Noting the hour, I move the House do now adjourn.

Hon. D. Eby moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 11:56 a.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE

DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF SOCIAL

DEVELOPMENT AND POVERTY REDUCTION

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); S. Chandra Herbert in

the chair.

The committee met at 11:24 a.m.

On Vote 40: ministry operations, $3,363,727,000

(continued) .

P. Milobar: Thank you for the opportunity, to the minister, to ask the

question.

[11:25 a.m.]

In my riding in Kamloops, we have a very passionate self-advocate

around the disabilities act for British Columbians. He’s very passionate

around it. He feels it will help to eliminate discrimination against

persons with disabilities and around racism and certainly increase

employment opportunities for persons with disabilities.

I’m wondering if the minister could update us on the status of the

act or an incoming act for persons with disabilities within British

Columbia.

Hon. S. Simpson: Thanks to the member for the question. As we had an opportunity to

discuss yesterday, we know that the federal government will be

introducing access and inclusion legislation. It’s anticipated to come

very shortly. We’ve been told, on numerous occasions, that it will be

introduced this spring. We’ve been told it’s extremely complex

legislation that will largely cover federal government

initiatives.

The commitment that we have made…. We’ve made it to the disability

community, and we’ve also had these conversations and started to open

these conversations with the business community, through the presidents

group, and with local government. It’s that we will, once we see that

federal legislation, begin to bring together those important stakeholder

groups — including business, the disability community and local

government — and start to look at a provincial piece of legislation that

will be complementary to what the federal government does.

As soon as we understand what they’re doing — what kinds of

carrots and sticks they’re putting in place, what kinds of requirements

they will be making through their act — we’ll be moving forward to

prepare legislation that engages all of those communities as we move

forward.

M. Hunt: Going back to where we left off yesterday on the poverty reduction

plan…. We were starting to work through that. We’ll start with a simple

one. I believe I heard you say yesterday — but just confirming it — that

we’re still on target for the report, on what we heard, to come out in

June.

The Chair: Members are reminded to come through the Chair.

M. Hunt: Oh, my apologies.

Hon. S. Simpson: Yes, it’s our intention. We hope that we’ll release that report by

the end of June.

M. Hunt: I usually try to go through the Chair to start with. So then I

don’t…. My apologies for that.

Again, through the Chair, how much money has been spent

facilitating the consultations so far?

Hon. S. Simpson: Total expenditures have been $1,040,674.

M. Hunt: Now, when Alberta did their consultations on implementing the

Alberta poverty reduction plan, the government consulted with 85

communities — obviously, in Alberta. Why did the government choose 27

communities and work on 27 public meetings? Or 28, I’m sorry.

Hon. S. Simpson: It’s our understanding that in Alberta, those 85 sessions were

what we would have called small group meetings — in communities around

Alberta. To put that into the context of what we did in British

Columbia, again, we had the 28 facilitated meetings in communities

across the province.

[11:30 a.m.]

We had seven consultations by the Métis Nation; 27 consultations

headed up by the Aboriginal friendship centres; 100 small group

gatherings across the province; as well as everything that came in on

the website, which we can go into if the member would like; and also, a

number of small group discussions in First Nations communities, villages

and reserves, done in cooperation and consultation with the First

Nations Leadership Council.

M. Hunt: Then would it be reasonable to assume that of those 100 small

group meetings, there were, in fact, public consultations of some form

on the Gulf Islands and up in Haida Gwaii?

Hon. S. Simpson: I have here the list of the 100 communities where these small

group sessions were at. I’d be happy to make that available to the

member if he’d like the list of the 100 small group consultations that

were made. Going through the list, there were not small group

discussions directly in either of those communities that the member

referenced.

The way we went about this was that this was all by request coming

back to us. We went through the UBCM. They had an appointee to the

poverty reduction forum, Murry Krause, from Prince George. He went back

through the UBCM as their representative. They distributed it out to

local councils and communities across the province to get them to make

contacts and connections.

SPARC, the Social Planning and Research Council, which facilitated

the 28 major consultations, also went out through their networks to make

contacts in communities with organizations and groups that have an

interest in these issues, to see whether they had an interest in

conducting those kinds of small group sessions.

All of the responses that we got back from people who wanted to

take up that offer and that initiative, we facilitated. As I said, I’d

be happy to make the list of the 100 sessions available to the member if

he’d like.

M. Hunt: I’d appreciate that.

Lastly, on the poverty reduction plan, the federal government is

currently undertaking their own work on their own poverty reduction

strategy. The question to the minister is: has the minister spoken to

the federal government about combining what they’ve learned with what we

have learned in our consultation process?

Hon. S. Simpson: Yes, there have been conversations at the level of officials back

and forth, and I’ve spoken directly on a couple of occasions with

Minister Duclos around this. We’ve talked about this. We’ve also had

conversations with our provincial counterparts through a

federal-provincial-territorial discussion.

We hope to have more discussion around poverty reduction in regard

to what the federal initiative is, which we anticipate seeing by the

fall. They’ve told us they’ll be releasing their plan by the fall. But

we’re hoping to be able to have more consultation around

that.

[11:35 a.m.]

The federal government and ourselves have talked about how we

cooperate. The challenge to that at the moment is that we don’t know

what’s in their plan yet. Ours is still evolving. Theirs still continues

to evolve a bit as well. There are definitely conversations going on and

looking for places where the plans will be complementary moving

forward.

M. Hunt: If I look at what the minister has talked about on the disability

side of things, it seems as though there the minister is taking the

position of: “We’ll see what the federal government does first. Then we

will work at working with that, coordinating with it” — however we wish

to use the words, but working together — “and then we will come up

with….”

Whereas on the poverty reduction, it seems to be sort of the

reverse. It seems as though the minister has committed that it will be

definitely dealing with it in the fall, with legislation, yet the

federal won’t have done theirs.

I’m just wondering. Would that make a difference in his timeline —

that, in fact, it might be a consideration to delay provincial

legislation to wait till we hear what the federal government is

planning?

Hon. S. Simpson: I think the distinction that I would make for the member is that

the federal government is not doing legislation. They’re putting a plan

in place. We will be bringing in the legislation that will entrench the

obligations of government around a poverty reduction strategy, set

targets and timelines, and frame the accountability, transparency,

reporting and some of the engagement. That will be followed by the

plan.

We certainly will be talking to the federal government about the

content of their plan, which I anticipate that…. I’m hoping we might get

a chance to see it before it’s released. We don’t have that commitment

from the federal government yet. We are talking to them about getting a

chance to see maybe an embargoed copy of that. But that commitment has

not been made yet. It will inform the work on the plan as that moves

forward, in terms of this specific content of the plan.

M. Hunt: The intent of the legislation is to create a plan rather than the

legislation actually being the plan. Have I got that correct?

Hon. S. Simpson: Yes.

M. Hunt: Shifting now over to the basic income pilot. We had a discussion

on that earlier in the previous estimates. Earlier in March, the

minister stated: “It’s not a pilot in the sense of taking people and

putting them on basic income. It’s analytics.”

Can the minister clarify what he means by “analytics” and what

kind of action the public should expect to see around the basic

income?

Hon. S. Simpson: The distinction here, a pilot…. Probably the best example of that

is what’s going on currently in Ontario. The Ontario government is

engaged in a three-year pilot. They’re spending $150 million over the

next three years, about $50 million a year, in which they’re taking a

couple of thousand people and putting them on a basic income, a form of

basic income. They have a control group.

They’re going with ongoing surveys and analysis of this over the

period of that time based on a number of key indicators to determine

what the impact of that initiative is and the impact on people in a

whole range of areas — whether it’s around employment, health care,

education, a variety of things. I’m sure the member has looked at some

of the information from Ontario around what they’re doing.

What we’re doing is something quite different. The commitment —

and it was in the previous budget — was $4 million over two years, a

commitment for this initiative that we’re taking on. Essentially, what

we’re doing is looking at it from both a poverty reduction lens and also

the impacts of technological change on jobs and what automation is

likely to do with jobs.

[11:40 a.m.]

The intention here is to bring together a group of experts, a

panel of experts who will take a deep dive into, first of all, the issue

of basic income and come back with some recommendations about the

appropriateness of basic income as a model and take a deep dive into our

income support initiatives and into these questions around the impacts

of technological change in robotics and come back and report back to me,

hopefully with recommendations as to how we in British Columbia might

best be able to use the lens of a basic income and the principles of a

basic income to effect change that would be positive.

I also am feeling pretty confident, from our conversations with

Ontario, among officials, that we’ll be able to access the information

that Ontario is learning from their initiatives. So we will have the

benefit of some of that analysis of these couple of thousand

individuals, families who are affected by actually getting the

resources, and understand how they were impacted by that based on the

criteria that Ontario is using.

We will have this analysis which is very British

Columbia–specific, looking at the range of income supports, how people

are affected here and the impacts and benefits and potentially whether

there are challenges, as well, of this kind of a model or lens being

applied to income support moving forward.

M. Hunt: I want to come back to the lens piece in just a moment.

First, I’d like to ask this. There were commitments that were

made, in the election and then after the election, when this government

first took over, starting with the confidence and supply agreement that

was signed with the Green Party. The first point under the fourth

heading — and I don’t expect you to remember all the legalities of that

— says: “One aspect of the poverty reduction strategy is to design and

implement a basic income pilot.” Then it goes on, and it says: “This

pilot should be funded in the first provincial budget tabled by the B.C.

New Democratic government.”

A basic income pilot project was not once mentioned, obviously, in

the 2017 or ’18 budgets. As you’ve indicated, you’re dealing with the

analytics. Can the minister provide an answer as to why the basic income

pilot does not appear in the budget despite it being in the confidence

and supply agreement?

Hon. S. Simpson: The initiative was funded in this budget. The $4 million is in the

budget and was approved in the budget, or will be approved when we

finalize this budget. So in fact, we did fund it. In terms of the shift

to what we are discussing, this initiative now, we’ll see what the

recommendations of this work are. The adjustment of that or the

interpretation of what a pilot engaged and what it is that we’re doing

was a matter that…. When we started to look at that closely and what the

best option was here and had a consultation with members of the Green

caucus, they are very interested in this initiative, and we have a

concurrence that this is a good approach to take, and we both agree that

it will fulfil the obligations of that agreement.

M. Hunt: This word “lens” — you used it just a moment ago, and we’ve used

it here. I’d just like to describe here where it says…. The minister’s

accountability statement says that the minister will “conduct a review

of the existing income support systems through a basic income lens.” The

third point under the first outcome also uses the same language of

“basic income lens.” Can the minister clarify what he means by “a basic

income lens”?

[11:45 a.m.]

Hon. S. Simpson: What we’re going to do here and what the lens is…. The lens will,

to some degree, be defined, in terms of the content of the lens, based

on the broad principles of basic income, guaranteed income, that people

who are expert in that field talk about all the time.

The key for us is going to be — the people we’re going to ask to

do this work for us — to define that lens more deeply and then to look

at how it would affect the range of income support programs we have in

terms of how it affects eligibility, how it affects the complexity of

those plans. One of the things about basic income that people embrace is

trying to simplify income and how income comes to people. So we’re going

to ask to understand that better.

We will ask that panel, rather than setting the lens ourselves, to

look at the models that are out there — we know there are no operating

plans right now anywhere — look at the academic work that’s been done,

set that lens, define it for us and then apply it to income support

programs in British Columbia, see what that looks like and then come

back with recommendations to us about the merits of that application and

whether it is positive or not for a review of income support programs

that the member and I talked about before.

I’ll leave it at that. I think he’s got a short

question.

M. Hunt: Noting the hour, a really quick one. Well, I expect it’ll be a

quick one. Parallel to this minister’s study on basic income, the

Ministry of Labour will be studying the viability of a living wage in

the province as part of its third report on the increase in minimum

wage.

Will the study of a living wage be understood within the context

of the possible implementation of a basic income? And how are these two

ministries working together to understand the implications of both the

increased wage and the basic income?

The Chair: Noting the hour, if it’s a long question, we can address it

later.

M. Hunt: He might be able to give a short answer.

The Chair: And he may.

Hon. S. Simpson: I’m not totally sure what the time frame is for the Fair Wages

Commission to report out on its work on the living wage. I look forward

to seeing that when they do report out. I’m just not certain of their

timetable for reporting out. But we’re going to be asking the panel that

does the work for us to look across British Columbia in terms of both

what is in place and what is under consideration.

If we receive that information, we will feed all of that

information into the panel for them to consider in their conversation

around this, as will the Ministry of Finance. I know it will be

providing detailed information related to a whole range of things. We’re

going to try to give that panel as much information as we possibly can

so they can provide as complete and comprehensive a set of

recommendations back to us as possible.

With that, I move that the committee rise and report progress and

ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:49 a.m.

The Official Report of Debates ( Hansard ) and webcasts of

proceedings

are available on the Internet. Chamber debates are broadcast on

television.

Copyright © 2018: British Columbia

Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada